CATEGORY:
Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011)
[back]
TOPIC:
The Analog-In, Digital-Out Universe by Edwin Eugene Klingman
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Dec. 29, 2010 @ 16:01 GMT
Essay AbstractIs 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 BioEdwin 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.
James
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!
Regards,
Robert
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!
Regards,
Robert
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.
James
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,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Dec. 30, 2010 @ 17:38 GMT
James,
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.
Eckard,
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.
Thanks,
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
Lawrence B Crowell replied on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 15:50 GMT
Darth,
The gravito-magnetic field in the GEM theory is not the same as the frame dragging or Lense-Thirring effect in general relativity. This is a very different idea about an intertwining between gravity and electromagnetism.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 15, 2011 @ 03:05 GMT
Darth and Lawrence,
I am probably responsible for some of the confusion. If Lawrence is interpreting my version of the gravito-electro-magnetic field to be the same as Sweetser's GEM, then I have mislead him. I show Sweetser's diagrams because I believe they are relevant to understanding significant aspects of 'metric' vs 'potential' approaches to physics. I do NOT accept all of his approach to GEM. Part of the confusion is that I have been using the abbreviation 'GEM' for years before knowing about Sweetser, and neither he nor I have a monopoly on this term. It often refers to Maxwell's original invention, based on symmetry, of the gravito-electro-magnetic equations analogous to his electro-magnetic field equations. I don't know a way around this confusion. I often refer to the 'Gene Man' theory, which is more specific, but also more self-referential.
My field equations (see my essay) are neither Maxwell's nor Sweetser's.
I regret the confusion.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
hide replies
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
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 your grand unified theory, full or partial, that clearly idenfies its basic premises.
2) Your version of the cosmology of our universe and
3) Macro and quantum gravity from the perspective of your grand unified theory.
I hope to represent in the ebook the various versions of and perspectives on grand unified theory. If you know someone whose perspective on the subject is different from yours please let me know.
Please send your abstract by e-mail by February 15, 2011.
Cordially,
E. E. Escultura
Research Professor
GVP - V. Laksmikantham Institute for Advanced Studies
GVP College of Engineering, JNT University
Madurawada, Visakhapatnam. AP, India"
James
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 4, 2011 @ 05:30 GMT
James,
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
Edwin
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; http://wbabin.net/weuro/jackson.pdf
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
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 5, 2011 @ 22:17 GMT
Peter,
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
Peter,
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 E, B, and G, and was simpatico with my first essay (in the Fundamental Limits contest).
Yours is a good question about my objection to magnetic derivation of black hole 'jets'. I don't really 'object' but there are several aspects to my thinking. First, as I understand it, many of the jets are many light years long--indicative of astonishingly strong fields. Second, I'm unaware of mechanisms that would lead to huge charge buildups in black holes. It would seem that, as elsewhere, the presence of a plasma in the neighborhood would tend, over time, to neutralize any such phenomenon, diminishing any consequent magnetic fields. And finally, the requirement for generation of an immensely powerful C-field, that is a massive rotating object, seems to be met by a black hole, de facto. So I just think that gravito-magnetic fields are more likely than electro-magnetic fields as the explanation for such jets. (I could be wrong.)
I am less sure what your 'central massive issue' is (why the field was first banished). I will read the link you gave me. As you note, it's hard to get it all in 9 pages.
As for curvature without 'matter', I think the distinction is between the 'mass equivalence' of field energy (of the primordial gravitational field (singularity or not)) versus 'particulate matter' such as baryons. My assumption is that, at the big bang, if only the gravity field exists, it's self-energy is sufficient. Apparently Calabi thought so too, and Yau 'proved' that such could exist. Of course this is a 'lift yourself by your own bootstraps'-type of situation, but almost any creation of the universe from nothing is a bootstrap situation.
You make the point that photons are not conserved. Although second quantized quantum theory was to handle the non-conservation of particles, and Einstein's boson statistics create photons, still I had not given much thought to the non-conservation of photons (which of course is not to say the non-conservation of energy and momentum). Interesting.
Finally, I am less and less inclined to grant 'virtual' particles reality. With 'point particles' and 10**120 more vacuum energy, virtual particles may have made sense. With spatially extended particles and 10**120 less available energy, I wonder. QCD has assumed, for example, a 'sea of strange quarks' in protons, etc, and this has *not* been found, much to QCDer's surprise. If you study the issue, "virtual particles" are the ideal 'fudge factor' and a case could be made that it is just this fudge factor that accounts for the (until recently) amazing accuracy of QED. The recent 4% discrepancy of QED in the case of muonic hydrogen is not reassuring. There are other issues with 'virtual' that are too long for a comment. Once one has charged mass, it is "easy" to get photons. It is much harder, in my opinion, to get mass from nothing, and this applies to 'virtual' mass as well.
After reading your linked article, I may have more comments. Thanks for your stimulating comments.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
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
Edwin
Thanks. You'll be interested in this proof that light can attract itself; http://discovermagazine.com/2010/jan-feb/083
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
Edwin
Thanks. You'll be interested in this proof that light can attract itself; http://discovermagazine.com/2010/jan-feb/083
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 'black hole object). The jets are light years wide and hundreds long, at centre stream new ejections do c wrt the last.
BIG ISSUE; It is; The reason the 'ether' field was banished was to allow the SR solution to constancy of em wave propagation speed (CSL) with respect to all receivers. Only when we find/accept a quantum friendly version of this allowing CSL can we have a unified field back and let physics progress.
BOOT STRAPS I'm not a fan of unreal solutions, but this is an aside. I'm sure we'll find the answers once we can start moving down the road again!
VIRTUAL PHOTONS I'm referring to the ones previously called 'photoelectrons' in accelerators. They are real, but only appear with motion (as the 'plasma' cloud or halo around all mass from a single electron (upwards including galaxies!)). When we collide the 'parent' mass we find the DO have p(=mv). Is it really just a co-incidence that 'gravitational mass' increases with motion?, i.e. directly proportional to these particles which condense around the basic mass (they evaporate again when the mass slows down).
JOINED-UP PHYSICS To join it ALL up; Light refracts through such 'plasmas proportional to gravitational mass', in a gentle curve, subject to density (which is subject to inertial mass). Does the gentle curve related to G remind you of anything? As I said, you may need to try taking 3 paces backwards and looking upwards to take in the whole thing in overview as a simple unified whole.
I tried to get most into my essay, but it needs a universe to fit in. Do let me know how you get on.
Peter
view post as summary
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
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 in my essay, illustrate that any momentum, p=mv, gives rise to a circulating C-field, just as any charge current, qv, induces a circulating B-field, while on page 3 my equation 9 shows that dp/dt = d(circulation)/dt. Therefore 'stored energy' in the C-field generates a Lenz-law-like effect that explains conservation of linear momentum of free particles. Now consider the diagram for a massive particle. If we apply a force, F, the momentum p will change, F=dp/dt. In the diagram a larger momentum means a longer 'arrow' or vector, p, which, according to the above, would be accompanied by a greater C-field circulation (drawn as a bigger red circle around the mass.)
If one tries to 'stop' the higher momentum particle, the larger stored energy in the C-field will, Lenz-law again, 'kick harder', giving the appearance of a larger mass. A special relativistic analysis of this would be interesting.
A similar momentum argument would apply to the photon, in addition to any attendant frequency changes involved.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 11:10 GMT
Edwin
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?
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 8, 2011 @ 01:59 GMT
Peter,
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 ..."
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/virtual.html: "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
Edwin
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
Edwin
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 photons are NOT conserved. (and look up Polarisation Mode Dispersal). It also happens to explain why surface charge is greater at sharper corners!
PHOTOELECTRONS At CERN they've called the photoelectrons for decades, but some bright young things started calling them 'virtual' electrons a few years ago. You need to look at LHC physics not the word. The first 2 links below may help. The others actually refer to similar things at the other end of the scale. ESA have also just reported the Earth & Venus bow shocks are largely planetary frame NOT solar wind frame shocks. I hope you can see the connection.
http://conf-ecloud02.web.cern.ch/conf-ecloud02/ta
lks/harkay-ecloud02.pdf
http://conf-ecloud02.web.cern.ch/conf
ecloud02/papers/allpdf/wang.pdf 3Dsim.
http://iopscience.iop.org/154357/580/2/L137/fulltext
http://a
rxiv.org/pdf/physics/0703101 http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1023164
Peter
view post as summary
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
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 ...CNO....CH4NH3H2OHCN.......AMINO ACIDS....TIME ....ADN .....UNI CELLS ....P¨LURI CELLS...........SPONGES....MEDUSAS....HUMANS......UNIVERSAL SPHERE.Hope you see my little resume, if you want I can show you all my chlassments about mass and evolution and spherization.Never I have seen a conscious robot in my classments of animals, vegetals and minerals.Sorry but really nono the little robot of Ulysse 31 really doesn't exist.I search you know but really even in my prays , I don't see it.
But I doubt his age is about 14 or 15 billions years ....the consciousness is a result of evolution ....LIKE THE INTELLIGENCE.........impossible.
Steve founder of the Theory of Spherization without job and without companies at sillicon valley.hihihihi
A conscious robot and a quantum consciousness ahahah no but let's be serious please, it's that which is searched at nasa.
Well NASA if you want me I have concrete inventions and models, a sphere of composting for example or a biological computer and even quantum computer with spinning spheres. hihihi oh lalalal the van,itious belgian, oh alalalalal.
Well build a robot yes, consciousness never.I love the film terminator but please let's be serious, you live in California or What Dr Klingman.
Viva el spherization and DOBN4T FORGET Vanity of vanity all is vanity after all .sad reality ....you see God, father, they fear to use the word sphere now.
Well .........CONSCIOUS UNIVERSAL SPHERE....THAT IS THE REALITY.
Now I go take my meds and I will come soon dear thinkers, you search what in fact , some special fields....it's well that.congratulations.The fields are logics like our walls and our limits of evolution and knowledges.
But one thing very important is this one.You must respect the laws of light and its constant....thus of cours you search in the bad road peter about the limit of c.
Regards
Steve
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 8, 2011 @ 21:16 GMT
Steve,
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
Hello,
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
Steve
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 ....build....cosmological 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.
Regards
Steve
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
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 11, 2011 @ 10:28 GMT
Very relevant !
The Gibbs Theorem is important for the distribution of energy and informations.
The conditions for specific series appear also like relevant.
That permits to see the different steps as ideal gas.
We see indeed the changement of entropy due to the number.
The volumes always take a road of distribution.
Do you know the result of Bridgman for the paradox.
IN THE LIMIT.....IDENTICAL GAS.....DISCONTINUITY AS A FUNCTION ....ENTROPY STEPS.
If the real limits of entangled spheres and their pure number aren't inserted for an universal correlation with universal entropy....the difficulties are more important at my humble opinion for the distribution of informations inside a closed system.
The pression, the temperature, the volume are essential for all series of analyze.In all case these steps with limits permit to have some equilibriums for a stability as the memmory.
On the other side, the volumes shall permit to polarize and to evolve in an vision of complementarity also in a digital rule including our consciousness analogic.
That seems possible for a kind of automation.
Relevant your ideas , you see indeed the whole,it's essential in fact the generality.That permits the best inventions,rationals.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
basudeba replied on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 06:47 GMT
Dear Sir,
We have the following comment on the above post.
The framework in which the 'robot' is processing measurement data is a mechanical process and not a conscious process. Since the robot is limited by energy/volume constraints and design constraints (g.i.g.o.), it will not be able to perform conscious functions. The reason lies in the nature of infinity and its difference from a very big number. A robot functions within a very big number, whereas consciousness is in the realm of the infinity as explained below.
Number is the property of all substances by which we distinguish between similars. If there are no similars, we designate it as one. Infinity is like one - without similars - but with the exception that whereas the dimensions of one are fully perceptible, the dimensions of infinity are not fully perceptible. The robot can compute, which means it can do mathematics with bigger and bigger numbers, but not infinity, because even the designers of the computer have not perceived infinity.
When we think of any conscious action, one similarity that distinguishes it from other actions is that while the application of forces and their effects vary in each case, the contents of the "conscious" part is always similar. We might have knowledge about different objects, but the "knowledge" part is always similar. Since it has infinite varieties, it is one of its kind, but infinite in its spread. Secondly, like all infinite objects like time and space, it does not interact with others, but exists by itself, while all objected are covered by it in different proportions. For example, measurement is a mechanical process, but the perception of the result of measurement is a conscious process. The result of measurement is always a number, which is time invariant as explained in our essay. Since the perception of the result of measurement does not change or interact with the time evolution of the system, it fits the above description. A robot may continue to measure higher and higher numbers, but reaching infinity is impossible theoretically and practically.
Yet, we derive digital big and small numbers from the analog infinite description. Hence, we can still know the conscious process. In fact, we derive all mechanical processes from conscious processes. But the mechanism is different.
Regards,
basudeba.
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 03:49 GMT
Dear basudeba,
I tried to make clear to Steve above that, as you say: "The framework in which the 'robot' is processing measurement data is a mechanical process and not a conscious process."
That is why I said the following: 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)."
For a brief presentation of my view of consciousness, please review my previous essay, in the 'Ultimite Limits' contest. It is found at
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/561
and is titled: "Fundamental Physics of Consciousness" by Edwin Eugene Klingman
You may find that you agree with me. I regret that my answer to Steve did not clear up the misunderstanding.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
sTEVE dUFOURNY replied on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 10:58 GMT
dear Edwin, it's not you who tries to make understanding.
You try you try, no But I dream, don't be too much exited by your first language, if it was in french, of course all that will be different.In fact I show you the real road for the encoding of informations.
That's why I inserted Gibbs.
Don't be too much exited by your C field, don't take seriously your extrapolations.
The consciousness is a result of evolution, correlated with an increase of mass and a complexifications of interactions implying an intelligent cosnsciousness.
The consciousness is not there to be studied but must be into practice.
It's only simple like that.
Since many months I try to show you the real road of our foundamentals but you don't take seriously the real revolutions in sciences.
If you want find a C field.....think about the entanglement from the main central sphere......their volumes....their rotations....their mas....AND THEIR SENSE FOR A POLARITY MASS LIGHT.....GRAVITO MAGBNETISM CAN ONLY BE UNDERSTOOD IF THIS SENSE IS INSERTED.2 MAIN SENSES OF ROTATIONS 1 FOR LINEARITY ?THE OTHER FOR THE GRAVITATIONAL STABILITY
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 23:37 GMT
Dear Steve,
I definitely do not believe that "The consciousness is a result of evolution, correlated with an increase of mass and a complexifications of interactions implying an intelligent cosnsciousness."
Consciousness, defined as awareness and free will cannot 'evolve', regardless of any consensus to the contrary. Intelligence, defined as consciousness plus logic can evolve, as the logic is based on physical 'circuitry' of one form or another.
But my previous essay, and all of the accompanying arguments are in the last essay contest, and I don't wish to re-fight those battles in this thread.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Ray B Munroe replied on Jan. 25, 2011 @ 15:25 GMT
Dear Ed, Basudeba and Steve,
Have you been following the discussions on this blog site?
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/820
Have Fun!
Dr. Cosmic Ray
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 26, 2011 @ 15:17 GMT
Hi all,
Dear Dr Cosmic Ray, indeed it's relevant this "820 topic thread".
until soon thus for the nice war SPHERE VS MULISPHERES OR IF YOU PREFER THE NICE WAR SPHERES VS STRINGS........Let's have fun.
Dear Ed,
each person has his own point of vue, the logic as the torch of all things.
We have our walls and they are so far of us.
Best to both of you.
Steve the humble arrogant.hihih I take my meds ok hihih
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
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 impertinence if our comments appear to be so.
We agree that: “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”.
It is ultimately one analog field that transforms itself to a locally digital format by a deterministic mechanism. This makes for two types of fields. The mechanism is nothing but simple inertia (provided we interpret it properly). But there is a difference between our understanding and description of fields. Since we describe the primordial field as deterministic, we describe everything in terms of cause and effect. We have already shown in our essay the nature of uncertainty to show that it is not contradictory to causality, but a logical outcome of our measurement system. Since the primordial field is deterministic, all quantum effects have macro equivalents. We accept entanglement in both systems, but the effects of both are different. As you know Sir, the effect of entanglement is known to fade off after some distance – may be a few kilometers.
We broadly agree (in essence, but not on the process) that: “An appropriately isolated object system, measured by an appropriate number generator, produces a measurement space upon which clustering transformations can be performed—by either neural or silicon networks—to create a feature space that can be represented1 in either continuous or discrete formalisms”.
Also we agree that: “Thus analog or digital reality questions can’t be answered mathematically—the answer must be found in a physical universe. The simplest possible universe would consist of one primordial field”. However, we hold that physics is mathematical in specified ways only.
You say: “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”. If only a primordial field exists initially, then any law of physics must derive from the field itself”. We agree with you partially. While we accept that: “Physics should never accept anything “outside time and space”, we do not accept the generally accepted concept of God. But if someone describes the single source of creation as God, we have no quarrels with such description. We accept: “a mathematical universe, a multiverse, laws of physics”, because they are nothing but the mechanism through which the analog field becomes digitized. We do not accept the modern concept of extra large or compact 10 spatial dimensions. But we describe 10 unique projections of the three spatial dimensions. We have discussed it elaborately in our book.
We note with interest: “Finally the LHC has surprised physicists / cosmologists that the early universe was a ‘perfect fluid’, not an ‘explosion of gases’ that is the basis of all current theories”. This has been our theory all along.
But we disagree with your comments that: “Our Master equation describes a perfect fluid, a G-C-field yielding the most complete explanation of our universe for all known particles and cosmological phenomena—that is compatible with SU(n), Yang-Mills, Calabi-Yau, 3D space and time, and local realism”. This is because we do not accept anything that could not be derived from fundamental principles. Though the G-C-field is a gravito-magnetic field, our description of gravity is different from your description.
For example, we have derived gravity from fundamental principles as a composite force (of seven) that works similarly on macro and macro objects, though the results are apparent differently. For the macro effect, we can derive it from the electromagnetic force. For the micro effect, we can derive the electromagnetic force from it. With this theory, we can explain the Pioneer Anomaly, the Voyager deflection beyond the orbit of Saturn and the Fly-by anomalies. We had predicted the failure of Chandrayan 1 on 23rd May, three months before it actually failed. For us gravity is a composite force that stabilizes. Only this way we can explain the fixed ratio of the gravitational mass mg and the inertial mass, mi.
You have admitted that 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. In the force equation, the masses that are used are the gravitational masses, mg. The acceleration, derived from Newton’s second law, is proportional to the inertial mass, mi, which describes a different property of a body: how it reacts to a force to acquire its acceleration. Now, it is found experimentally that all bodies have the same ratio mg/mi. This only proves what we have derived theoretically long ego.
Lot of talk is going on regarding the Sterile neutrinos. This is a part of our theory, from which we have theoretically derived not only the value of pi (22/7) and the fine structure constant (7/960 at zero energy level, and 7/900 at 80 GeV level), but also the charge of protons (+10/11) and neutrons (-1/11) in electron units (-1). Atoms interact: hence cannot be charge neutral. The excess negative charge is not revealed as it flows inwards (towards the nucleus), but is revealed in nuclear explosions. In all these, we have used simple mathematics that can be easily verified.
Once again thanks and regards,
Yours sincerely,
basudeba
view post as summary
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.
Regards,
basudeba.
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).
Regards,
basudeba.
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
nikman,
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
nikman,
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 the Photons" and was impressed by the clarity of his presentation. In particular, he presents an appendix (A) that translates the argument to more familiar terms. One advantage of this is that assumptions that we perhaps unknowingly carry in the QM world are not so easy to carry into the translation.
As a result, his 'user-friendly' explanation argued using 'macro' examples as I described above. I do *not* believe that the character of the examples in any way affects the logic, and I believe that Zeilinger indicates this to be so. Bell's logic is Bell's logic, and the quantum measurements violate it, causing people to look for the 'hole in the logic'. I believe that the hole in the quantum logic is assuming that the properties, (which I believe to be real) change en route to the detector. If they do, then the inequality will be violated by the measurements without in any way leading to the conclusions that are normally drawn from such violations. This has nothing to do with 'macroworld' tests. It applies to *all* such Bell tests, as far as I can see.
I mentioned that neutrino's change, not to claim that the same occurs for photon's, but simply to point out that only a decade or so ago, neutrino's were not assumed to change, and then they were found to change (or at least that's the current interpretation.)
I believe that it is far more feasible that photons, when operated by complex apparatus such as polarizers and beam splitters, can reasonably be expected to be affected. If this is so, then violation of Bell's inequality will prove nothing about local realism and non-locality. And it is far less radical (and I mean FAR) to assume that photons interacting with crystals and molecules undergo a change of state, than to believe that real properties don't exist until measured, and then, upon measurement, somehow (and I mean *somehow*, since we have no idea how) immediately (ie, via 'no media') cause properties **anywhere else in the universe** to come into existence. I know physicists love 'spooky' and 'weird' but this is (imho) borderline insane (given a reasonable alternative interpretation).
If real particles (and that is what my theory produces) have real properties (I believe they do) and these properties are subject to conservation laws (I believe they are) then there is simply no mystery involved. The particles are 'born' with real properties, traverse space (with accompanying 'pilot wave') conserving these properties, and when one is found out, the other is immediately known. And that is exactly what we see *unless* we do different things to the particles en route (the quantum equivalent of 'dye your hair').
Where is the fault in this argument?
As for your last questions, you are more knowledgeable than me.
Thanks for your comment. I believe this is one of the most important questions facing physics, and certainly applies to my theory and Brian Whitworth's VR conjecture. We can't both be right. I would be happy to continue this based on logic, but I have little to contribute (at this time) on the specific experimental tests that you refer to. Unless they are based on some significant variation of Bell's logic, then I would expect the above arguments to apply.
Ray,
Thanks for visiting my thread. I very much want to answer your question. I have been stimulated (by Peter Jackson's 20-20 essay) to look much more closely at the C-field interaction with electromagnetic fields, and am quite pleased with what I am finding. I hope to answer you soon.
Best to you all,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
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
Ray,
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
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 16, 2011 @ 02:56 GMT
Lawrence,
Most of your statements mean nothing to me because I am unfamilar with the terms you use.For example,
"equivalency with the [partial]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." simply does not ring my bell.
However when you say "So the qubits on a black hole (or AdS) are identified with the spectrum of elementary particles" this does make some sense to me, but only as follows:
There are currently only a finite number of particle classes known. Therefore it seems obvious to me that there will exist finite mathematical 'objects' that can be put into one to one correspondence with the particles [identified with the spectrum of elementary particles]. And since the particles can, with appropriate energies, be transformed into each other, I would also assume it obvious that some mathematical objects could match this transformation. I attach no meaning to this other than to appreciate that math is effectively infinite, while our universe, at least the part subject to physics experiments, seems to be finite. There is no necessary causative connection between the mathematical objects and the "spectrum of elementary particles".
Now, perhaps you can also explain the masses of the particles. That would be impressive. As far as I know, no one is doing this.
But let's get even simpler. rather than predicting particle masses, simply predict 'mass order'. For example, explain why the up quark is more massive than the electron, and why the down quark is more massive than the up quark. Again, as far as I know, no one can do this, with the exception of my theory, which explains this quite handily.
So do these qubits explain stuff, or just produce a vehicle that can be mapped into stuff? I have my opinions on qubits, but they are not well enough formed to present in comment form yet.
Thanks for the perspective,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Lawrence B Crowell replied on Jan. 16, 2011 @ 17:38 GMT
I wrote a sketch of why one can’t frame internal and external symmetries in a naïve way on my essay
blog site . The reasoning for this is the basis for supersymmetry, which by Haag, Lopuszanski and Sohnius was found to be the exception. Supersymemtry in a sense is a cohomology, and there is a cocyle condition which permits unification of internal and external symmetries and overcomes the inconsistencies which result from a naïve approach.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 16, 2011 @ 22:48 GMT
The elementary particle spectrum is from this strange equivalency between the spacetime isometries of the AdS and the conformal symmetries on its boundary which are a conformal field theory. The work of Duff, which by extension is carried on by Phil Gibbs, is an equivalency between 3 and 4 qubit entanglements and black hole types. I carry this further to the AdS spacetime. So the qubits (so far Duff et al have worked up to 4-qubits with 8 charges (4 electric plus 4 magnetic) are particle states which define certain black hole configurations. So we might think of the black hole horizon as some configuration of holographic strings, such that the spectrum they contain defines the type of black hole. To be more realistic we need to go to the 8-qubit situation, which is some self-dual system on the 4-bit structure. In that way we can go from the SO(8) to the SO(16) and then we are starting to talk about more realistic physics, in particular SO(10)xSO(16) as a SUSY correspondence with the 26 dimensional boson string and so forth.
The mass spectrum is of course an outstanding issue. At the core of this is the whole problem of the “mass-gap,” which is an outstanding $1million prize at Claymath. Zamalodchikov gave an interesting insight into this with the c = 1/2 conformal theory with a mass spectrum of particles which corresponds to the 8 of the E_8 group. The onset of the Higgs mechanism which determines particle masses at low energy is the end of the conformal renormalization group (RG) flow. So in some ways which is not entirely understood the Higgs mechanism is tied into the structure of field theory on the black hole with a mass spectrum at the IR end of the RG flow which has some correspondence to the physics at the UV end of the flow.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 16, 2011 @ 23:13 GMT
Dear Ed,
My upcoming essay helps address the role of Supersymmetry in a TOE. I tried to keep my essay a simplified overview of previous works that ties into the Continuous vs. Discrete Paradox, so I didn't specifically address how (IMHO) SUSY satisfies the Coleman-Mandula theorem. But the references are there, if you want to chase down prior papers (some of which you've read).
Zamalodchikov's (and Coldea et al's) works demonstrated the importance of the Golden Ratio in E8, but this special number is also important to any group with a 5-fold "pentality" symmetry, such as the Icosahedron, H4, SU(11), etc...
A "gravitational triality" might also explain the relative masses of 1st vs. 2nd vs. 3rd generarion fermions.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 17, 2011 @ 02:29 GMT
Ray,
The C-field theory (aka GEM, aka Gene Man theory) does explain the mass ordering of the three generations, as well as the mass ordering of electron, up, and down quarks.
I look forward to your essay, and let me also thank you again for making me aware of Nottale's scale relativity, which solved a problem that Florin had pointed out.
Lawrence,
It's hard to keep up with you, but I appreciate your explanations. I'm focused on the interaction of the gravito-magnetic field with the electro-magnetic fields at the moment, but I hope to pursue SUSY in some other comments.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Steve Dufoçurny replied on Jan. 17, 2011 @ 10:52 GMT
The C-field theory (aka GEM, aka Gene Man theory) does explain the mass ordering of the three generations, as well as the mass ordering of electron, up, and down quarks.???
That needs explainations.....for the standard model.
where is your field in my fractal of the main central sphere, the biggest volume.....
Steve
ps don't take seriously your lines of reasoning,we need rationalism !!!
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 17, 2011 @ 12:32 GMT
I like laugh of course.
ps .....gravitation 0.5 lambda 0.5 thus maximum volume of the universal sphere....begining of contraction!!!
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 17, 2011 @ 14:39 GMT
The golden ratio enters in because the icosian roots have that length ratio between long and short roots. The icosian is a root representation for SU(11) ~ SO(16). The SO(16) is in a sense half E_8xE_8 ~ SO(32). How this fits into holography with SU(4N), for 4N SUSY generators, is an interesting question.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 17, 2011 @ 15:09 GMT
Dear Steve,
IMHO, Physics cannot be "complete". In the case of "Gene-man" theory, it could help explain the experimental observation of only 3 generations (the CKM and PMNS matrices describe the relative behavior of 3 generations, but do not explain why there are only 3 generations). Perhaps you are satisfied with the experimental observation of only 3 generations (there are only 3 light-weight - less than half of the Z mass - neutrinos based on the Z decay width, and we haven't yet found any heavier leptons or quarks), but I expect a theoretical symmetry to demand this observation.
You seem critical of every creative idea that is not completely equivalent to your own creative ideas.
I think that you should submit an essay. Your spheres are discrete entities, but are their spins, masses, and radii discrete or continuous variables? I have not seen enough of your theory to understand it. And if your spheres are "fractals", then they get into that strange "quasi-realm" between continuous and discrete.
IMHO, your theory is similar to a Kissing Spheres or CDT theory. As such, your ideas may be distantly related to Lisi's Gosset lattice ideas (but obviously different, and uniquely "Steve"-ish). In my essay's conclusion, I claim that such ideas (as Kissing Spheres) are "half correct". Strings are the other half of the problem...
Have Fun & Be Nice!
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 18, 2011 @ 11:29 GMT
sorry Ray but you don't understand really the whole and I lost my time.
You know Ray the human nature and its vanity is not my road.
You confound the creativity and the foundamentals.
You need probably like many here a recognizing but be sure, it's not with your ideas, you shall have this recognizing.
Make what you want Ray after all it's not my problem.
Use strings, extyradimensions, spheres....you can even have my theory also you know with your friends.I have other things to do that these stupidities.
Here I read some relevant ideas but be sure it's not yours or them of Lawrence or Lisi or Th....no I read for example this thread from Lev or Edwin or John, And Stefan,and Moulay....frankly it's the only persons I read because they are universals and they understand the whole.
Well I repeat quantum spheres(finite number, fractazl of the main volume)....rotations spin.and orb.proportional with mass.......cosmological spheres(probably the same number)....UNIVERSAL SPHERE(UNIQUE OF COURSE THIS UNIVERSAL SPHERE LIKE ITS CENTER)
How can I speak with people who likes strings and extradimensions and multiverses.and you say me that you have faith and that you are a christian , let me laugh Ray, a multiverses but let's be serious please and what after that it doesn't exist an universal entity with the number 1 and that the 0 multiplicate by 1 gives 0 no but I dream !!!
Are you sure we speak about physics or pseudo physics.
ps I am nice and always transparent and always frank.
But I dislike the strategy of business.I see quickly when a road is chaotic, we see indeed in the whole the details.I analyze, I extrapolate, and finally I answer.It's simple no Ray.
Cheers
Steve
Don't be too much frustrated and jaleous because a young belgian has found.you know it's not always USA which finds.I can understand that my theory of spherization is revolutionarry and has a big big potential but please it's bizare the human nature.
vanity+money=chaos
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 18, 2011 @ 11:47 GMT
For the 4 intereactions........fractal of sphere ...finite number, volumes of spheres....rotations implying mass polarity , the volumes of entangled spheres more the sense of rot......show the road for the real unification of 4 interactions....think about the two main senses/center.......thus a gravitational stability and a linear light....the fractalization of light is made by coded gravity.....
Eureka with humility.......all is composed by spheres, all are on spheres, all turns on this sphere, all turns around the spheres , all that inside a beautiful sphere in optimization and all turns around a central sphere, the biggest spherical volume after the universal maximum volume of the universal sphere..........0.5 gravitation(0.3) 0.5 lambda(0.7)....0.5/0.5 =maximum volume of the universal sphere, begining of contraction, end of expansion!!!
It was logic, it's logic, it will be logic.The sphere is foundamental and has so many properties.Fortunally that this exists in fact , the spheres and their volumes and their rotations spinals and orbitals(numerous if we consider the number of spheres between BH and the center of our universe.)That's why my new equation between all spheres can be optimized ...mv1v2????V
mass, speed of rot.spinal,speed of rot.orbital 1,and we continue with the others orbitals rotations towards the central sphere.V volume of the sphere.
This equation implies a constant between all physical spheres,quantics or cosmologics.
Cheers
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 11:03 GMT
Hi all,
Sorry dear Edwin for your thread.
Dr Dr Cosmic Ray,
Hope you see the uniqueness of our Universal sphere, really hope you understand this essential evidence.
It's so important this uniqueness.
You see, I hope, the fractal of sphere ....
ps you are skilling but you don't analyze foundamentally the generality.
Sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
John Merryman wrote on Jan. 15, 2011 @ 11:32 GMT
Edwin,
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.
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/802
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
Edwin,
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 replied on Jan. 17, 2011 @ 02:16 GMT
John,
If the C-field is as strong as I think it is, it could be involved in galaxy formation and speed things up. And in fact, I've seen reports that most spiral galaxies seem to be aligned with the 'axis of evil', which would be another indicator for the C-field, but I'm not sure that that report held up, so I'm not counting on it.
Not only can I not really imagine infinite and everlasting space-time, but I find it unaesthetic, so I hope you're wrong, but it's interesting reading your reasoning.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
John Merryman replied on Jan. 17, 2011 @ 03:08 GMT
Edwin,
One way or another, we are just scratching the surface.
Infinity seems difficult to avoid, because any boundary invariably raises the question of what is beyond it. So I tend toward horizons as boundaries. We need limitation in order to have definition.
Absolute would be equally 'unaesthetic,' because both tend toward utterly flatline neutral. Absolute, because it is inherently so and infinity because all detail is scaled away. Neither can be measured because they defy the concept of measurement.
Then again maybe the axis of evil is a line of polarity and our universe is one bit part....
I will make one prediction though; By 2020, the idea that the universe is only 13.7 billion years old will be nothing more than an embarrassing memory, as the shadows of ever more distant galaxy clusters are detected in the background radiation.
Possibly to the point that this background radiation is considered to consist of energy from ever more distant galaxies that has been completely redshifted off any part of the wave spectrum that would allow us to pinpoint, ie. see its source. That these waves have been so shifted, they appear flat black.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 12:54 GMT
Ray,
always a mixing with some names of pseudos extrapolations.
Conclusion You need to restudy your foundamentals and you need to buy an other t shirt ahahaha.
Are you really conscient of what you say in fact ??? I doubt.Like many You speak and that's all.You proof in fact your errors in live.
The most impressing is that some doctors are so vanitious, that's implies that they continue in their road and in fact they don't continue to learn the foundamentals.In fact it's just a play for recognizing.
It's the reason why probably they speak always about the same stupidities.
A real open minded accepts the foundamentals and rationalities, it's only simple like thaty, when a people is right, I accept.It's the real soul , the real mind of a real searcher of truth.
Diract large number??? Can you inert it where you want for the study of the real number of entanglement, I doubt, and even for the calculation of the infinite spaces, thus like I said, totally withut sense.
Spheres entanglerment and lattices(FCC,...)???? where uis the real fractal and the latticers between spheres if the number is finite,and the volumes increase towards the center ,and the number decreases towards this center.Futhermore the expansion contraction must be inserted in the two senses, quantic and cosmolog.
qbits of strings????? you confound really the computing and the reality,the duality is logic and the system is finite.The oscillations are correlated with spinning spheres an their volumes.The sense of rotations spin. and orb. are essential.
Extradimensions E x....???? a pure joke ....I have an idea, you must rethought your interpretation of the - the 0 and the infinity.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 23:00 GMT
Ray,
I agree that information seems to be playing a large role in these essays. I'm not opposed to that, but as I've stated numerous times, I don't really believe that any one 'understands' information, other than in a superficial, mathematical fashion. There are far too many attempts to treat information (or a 'bit' of information) as a particle, which I take to be wholly misplaced. Information is not a particle and a bit of information is not a particle. Information may not even be physical, in the way normally meant, unless 'physical' incorporates consciousness in some manner as indicated in my previous essay. The fact that information relates to the physical world, but also to learning, intelligence, and wisdom, let alone both computation and communications bandwidth, tells me that information is a very complex thing to understand. Reductionists may believe that 'wisdom' is an abstraction, but I doubt that you do.
There are treatments of information as relating to the area of a black hole that, in addition to treating info as particles, are not even necessary. I believe that I have derived the exact same results (ie equations) without even introducing the concept of information. More on this later. In some ways I hope that a future fqxi contest may focus on 'holographic' physics, as I have much to say on this topic. I also believe that 'entanglement' is a major source of confusion, as I've indicated in other remarks.
Ray, I don't have strong opinions on the 'big numbers'. My theory starts with Newton's gravitational constant (set to one) and then demands Planck's constant, and then a maximum speed of light, which leads to charge and the fine structure constant, and then a new constant kappa (~ 10**31). That's about it. As I mentioned, I can explain relative mass order of all charged particles, but I cannot derive the actual mass spectrum (yet).
I can see how a lattice-based approach may need more numbers, including large numbers, but I haven't needed them and don't have opinions. Physics theories clearly need numbers, but also need to avoid 'numerology'. I'll try to pay more attention to these issues.
Finally, I tend to agree with your statements about Cristi's essay, but read his answers to me. I think he explains his position very well.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
hide replies
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.
Regards,
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
**** 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 charges. Sure - your approach has already been observed in Electromagnetism, and it is a reasonable expectation for Gravitation, but that has not yet been observed."
I simply must answer this, as loudly as possible. It is one thing to challenge my theory. It is quite another to challenge the existence of the C-field, which was first proposed by Maxwell, then treated by Heaviside, Lorentz and Einstein, among others.
First, mine is not a symmetry between 'electric-like and magnetic-like charges'.
It is based on translating Maxwell's equation (first done by Maxwell) from an electric-charge-based set of equations to a mass-based set of almost identical equations. It also derives from the weak field approximation of General Relativity. The analogy is as follows:
.
....(Charge)-------(radial field)-------(current)---------(circulating field)
....electric.......Electric(E)field....charge x velocity....electro-magnetic(B)field
....mass..........Gravit
y(G)field....mass x velocity.....gravito-magnetic(C)field
.
To make it simple: the gravito-magnetic field *has* been observed.
Two days after I submitted my essay I received the 3 Dec 2010 issue of Physical Review Letters 105, 231103 ("...on Non-Newtonian Gravity") which 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.
Darth Sidious scolded me (above) for saying that the gravito-magnetic field is not well known: "I regret, but you makes confusion on this point. Actually, gravito-magnetic effects are well known within General Relativity, i.e. the C-field...is indeed a part of General Relativity, see for example the recent review published in Astrophys. Space Sci. 331:351-395, 2011." [Thank you Darth.]
Probably the best detection of the C-field is the experiment performed by Martin Tajmar, with, I believe, some confirmation from experiments in Japan and New Zealand. A good paper is one where he notes the results 10**31 orders of magnitude higher than expected:
Martin Tajmar, et al, http://lanl.arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0603/0603033.pdf 'Experimental Detection of the Gravitomagnetic London Moment'. [ His measurements stand, his interpretation of the London moment has changed.]
So I don't think it's accurate to say that the C-field hasn't been observed. It's been observed on earth, and in space, and is implicated in the 'flyby' anomalies, (see Grumiller, 'Model for Gravity at Large Distances', PRL 105, 211303, 19 Nov 2010.) Grumiller provides numbers needed for quantitative analysis and he reports the scale of observed anomalous accelerations which are compatible with my calculations.
And there is, for most of us, little doubt that the "gravito-magnetic charges" exist. The gravito-magnetic charge is simply 'mass' (which I believe exists whether or not a Higgs is found) and the analogy to "charge current, qv" is simply "mass current, mv", also known as momentum.
I invite everyone to read my essay again. As we all know, complex things cannot be digested in one reading. I try to read every essay that I am interested in two or three times. And each time I learn something new, often in conjunction with the comments that have transpired.
A look at some of the above references may help those still not convinced.
I was very surprised by the statement that mass (the gravitomagnetic 'charge') does not exist.
The fact that I am the only person who has applied the Yang-Mills non-linearity of the C-field to particle physics has nothing to do with the existence of the field. It has more to do with habits of thinking that are based in linearity and the (always surprising) effects that derive from non-linear interactions.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
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 LightThose 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.
Ray,
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
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.
Ray,
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, as I repeat, ad nauseam, is capable of producing all known particles, sans Higgs and sans SUSY. It is capable of explaining the weak force interactions between particles and also of explaining quark confinement and asymptotic symmetry and three generations. It also explains the mass-ordering of all charged particles. No other theory does that. It explains why the 6-quarks in deuterium don't collapse to a 'spherical' distribution. In fact, it explains a dozen or so anomalies that are simply not explained by QCD.
Ray, if this is true, then there is no need for 'QCD color'. The C-field flux tube supplies the 'gluons' that hold the quarks together, and provide the jet dynamics. By the way, you do realize that 'QCD color' has never been seen, don't you. It's an article of faith in the community. In 1929 Rutherford suggested that the strong force was 'magnetic' in nature, but it was too soon. When, about 5 years later Yukawa proposed a radial force and the 'pion', the 'muon' showed up instead, but everyone mistook it for the pion. Anyway, 70 years or so later, and 40 years after QCD, we still can't calculate QCD problems or explain generations, and most of what goes on at LHC seems to be running Monte Carlo codes (PYTHIA and others). The Lattice-QCD models look pretty absurd to me, and Frank Wilczek says that Yukawa doesn't work at hard core distances. And nothing predicted by anyone has been found for decades.
So, faithful QCD-physikers keep on keepin' on, but some day it may become clear that this is getting nowhere. (By the way my model predicted the 'perfect fluids' that have shown up at RHIC and LHC, while QCD predicted a 'quark gas'.)
And, in addition, the initial reason (Pauli exclusion) for even proposing color is easily met by the anti-symmetric wave function for the C-field proton and neutron, under exchange of quarks, AND, my proton-proton collisions predict the same 'string-like' formula that Veneziano found in 1970 that Nambu and others used to initially propose string theory.
What does this mean? It means that IF my theory were correct, it meets Rutherford's proposal, while satisfying every problem that brought QCD and string theory into existence.
And what would that mean? It would mean that the 'extra particles' you expect for a new field are already here. You just have to subtract the 'old fields' of QCD and electro-weak. And I've already shown that the strengths work out. So you aren't counting your particles right in this case, you're double counting.
Also, note that the "reason" that the Calabi-Yau manifold has 11 (or so) dimensions, is that [and I quote] "they can't get the QCD and Weak forces into only 4-space-time dimensions." But ALL Calabi-Yau manifolds can be factored into a torus plus higher dimensions, and my model for particles is the torus. Don't need the higher dimensions.
So the justification for 11-dimension just disappears. Evaporates. Vanishes. Poof!
But Wait! It's those silly 'string windings' on the higher dimensional Calabi-Yau that give rise to the 10^500 vacua, and are the basis of the silly multi-verse.
So if my theory is correct, ALL that crap goes away. Think about it.
And if your theories are correct, I'm sure the Higgs and SUSY will be showing up "real soon now".
I guess we'll have to wait and see, won't we.
It's a fun game. But please do me a favor. Look over the above comments a few times and try to grasp what I'm saying, because I have to keep making these points again and again, as if they are dismissed without being read. They are important points, Ray, and the facts are on my side. The faith is on the QCD'ers side. I can explain the 4% anomaly for muonic-hydrogen, QED can't.
This is significant, but those who even admit that it's a problem deny that it's serious. When a theory that claims dozen place accuracy is reduced to 1 place accuracy in the simplest possible atom, it's a problem!
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 29, 2011 @ 12:24 GMT
hihihi poof .....POOF!
Steve
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 http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=28869&st=60
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
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 justified, and since no one knows WHY the universe came into being, I simply assume it existed as one field. The Master equation is perfectly symmetrical and motion invariant, but the formal time derivative makes sense only if a new constant (Planck's constant) appears. The perfect radial symmetry remains until a 'quantum fluctuation' [my second assumption] occurs in an 'off-radial' direction, unlocking the energy of the C-field--which had been suppressed by the perfect symmetry-- and initiating inflation.
We now have the full gravitational field with radial and circulatory aspects.
The fact that both directly interact with mass and both have energy, hence equivalent mass, and the interaction is non-linear (Yang-Mills), means that a C-field vortex will establish a 'solenoidal' C-field dipole, which strengthens the vortex, which strengthens the dipole, which strengthens the vortex, with the process ending in an infinitely dense point. UNLESS THERE IS A LIMITING CONDITION. I next assume that a limiting condition exists [otherwise the universe would be nothing but one [or more?] infinitely dense points, which doesn't seem to be the case. The condition I impose is a 'limit to the curvature of the C-field. That is, the C-field vortex has a 'minimum radius' that prevents collapse to an infinitely dense point.
But where does that lead? Picture a spinning skater who pulls her arms in. How fast can she spin if she can pull her arms into zero radius? Got that? Is there an answer? On the way to 'zero radius' can her fingertips reach the speed of light? We are not 'boosting' her in any way that requires infinite energy, we're just conserving angular momentum.
Since there is nothing stopping the non-linear vortex-dipole-vortex-dipole--- feedback process, in which the energy-mass of the vortex wall serves as a 'mass current' (momentum) that induces a solenoidal C-field dipole, then the radius of the vortex keeps shrinking and the velocity of the vortex wall continues to speedup to conserve angular momentum. Where does this end? Will the vortex wall reach the speed of light? If it does, then how is it connected to the rest of the world, since, if there was an electromagnetic field, we could not 'look at' the the vortex, because, moving faster than the speed of light, it would have 'moved on'. And, unable to see a 'mark' on the particle, all particles are identical.
Now, if we work out the equations, this radius is basically the Compton wavelength, and I make my next assumption, which is that at this point, electric charge comes into existence. It's probably my weakest assumption in my whole theory, but, I now have mass, charge, gravity and electro-magnetics.
And obviously the charge that is on the vortex 'wall' will resist shrinking to an infinitely dense point through self-repulsion. So now a true limiting force exists to prevent infinitely dense points of C-field energy.
If one takes the simple equation of the mass of the vortex wall being forced into a smaller orbit, and sets it equal to the self-repulsive force of the electron, then one would hope to find the equilibrium where the inward C-field force and the outward electric force are equal and the particle is stable. And when this equation is worked out, the fine structure constant (1/137) falls out! I put the exclamation sign because I don't believe that there exists another theory that can calculate the fine structure constant.
By the way, the v=c radius is the Compton wavelength of the particle, but the radius where the charge repulsion equals the inward force is about 10^-18 meters which agrees with the best measurements. So the electromagnetic field can see only to the v=c radius, but collision data can see all the way down to the 'real' radius. I find that nice.
So now we have a Z-boson (the C-field vortex) that produces a charged particle and, if charge is conserved, then the remaining vortex (outside of the Compton wavelength radius) has acquired a charge, and become a W-boson, ready to produce an 'anti-particle'.
There's more, but I'll stop here.
The question arose, where are these derivations? Having left both academia and the government years ago to run my companies, I am not in the loop, and my submissions to Phys Rev Lett were immediately rejected with "don't darken our door again". So, I had the choice of 'start with inconsequential journals and work my way up' (which at my age is not appealing) or simply put this into books and hope someone reads them. Although I have presented the above in several factual books, the most complete presentation is in "The Chromodynamics War", which has the format of a scifi novel, in the hope that graduate physics students, upon reading a scifi novel that explained things better than their QCD textbooks might be induced to look further. Then fqxi came along and gave me another outlet.
Each book has worked out more details and corrected earlier typos and mistakes, but the most complete treatment of particle physics is "The Chromodynamics War". A version that drops the scifi narrative and simply presents this in straight form is in process, to be titled, "Physics of the Chromodynamics War".
Sorry this can't all fit into 9 pages, but it just can't.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
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
Jason,
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
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 04:13 GMT
Jason,
I really enjoy your insights. Keep 'em coming.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 05:40 GMT
Thank you Edwin. Anything I can do to help.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 20:32 GMT
Hi Edwin,
If a whole shift photon is too much to contemplated, what if we try a rapid pulsing between two frequencies, ABABABABABAB, such that the pulse rate is one picoherts, and the two frequencies are red laser (400THz) and violet laser (700THz). Can we expect the two frequencies to run together if the Delta x of each color's photon overlaps?
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Dan T Benedict wrote on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 03:22 GMT
Edwin,
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
hereDan
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.
Dan
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 05:08 GMT
Dan,
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
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 04:10 GMT
Dan,
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/47/11/025
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? peter.jackson53@ymail.com
I really must find one your books!
Any harmonious oscillations there?
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 05:17 GMT
Peter,
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
Edwin
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; cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/37860
Peter
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
Peter,
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
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 qualitatively explains many otherwise unexplained anomalies in today's physics, so I have no problem accepting Christian's results, which make sense to me.
I say this knowing it will have no effect upon mathematician's approach, but simply to remind everyone tracking this conversation that it's not the only approach that a physicist can take. Assume for a moment that QM is incomplete, as Einstein said, and as Florin seems to state: "So I guess Einstein was right after all about incompleteness. If I am right in the paragraph above, he was right in the letter but not in the spirit."
This being the case, why should quantum mechanics be the be-all and end-all of the problem? If it is incomplete, it is incomplete, and it's century of successes are not to be discounted, but neither are they to be the only parameter by which we judge reality. And a quarter century of 'entanglement' if Bell's inequality is truly incorrect, led to much non-sense, based upon the false interpretation of measurement statistics leading to the conclusion that local realism did not exist.
There are consequences to approaches. Unquestioning acceptance of Bell's inequality has had (if Joy is correct) disastrous consequences. I dare say that these came from the side that respects mathematics above and beyond all physical reasoning. The 'social reality' discussed prevents any theory of local realism from being taken seriously by those committed to the non-locality that is the basis of the 'entanglement industry', an industry in which contracts, experiments, papers, publications, and professional status weigh heavily upon 'accepted' version of reality. [God bless fqxi.]
The known 120 orders of magnitude decrease in QED's vacuum energy and the apparent 31 orders of magnitude increase in the strength of gravito-magnetism combine to present physicists with 151 order of magnitude relative change between these energies and potential explanatory power. But have all of the QED calculations since 1947 been recalculated with a realistic vacuum energy? No. Old ideas of virtual particles, despite failure to find the expected 'sea of strange quarks' in the proton, despite the surprise of the 'perfect fluid' at RHIC and LHC when a 'quark gas' was expected, are well entrenched, and no one is being discomforted by the mere physical facts. QED cannot even come within 4 percent of the proton radius, for muonic hydrogen. And QCD has problems getting this close.
"Real anomalies, we don't need no stinkin' real anomalies." Instead, those who happily accept the non-real, non-local as "reality" have gone off into Multi-verses, extra dimensions, holographic extensions, qubits-as-virtual processors, and other fantastic but not-measurable and non-predictive physics. That 151 orders of relative change could actually mean a simplification of physics is not even resisted. It's ignored. No one, apparently, wants physics to be simpler. That a gravito-magnetic-based 'pilot wave' induced by every particle with momentum could actually be meaningful is ignored.
I'm not complaining. Planck said a century ago that "...theories are never abandoned until their proponents are all dead...science advances funeral by funeral." If true, we're in big trouble, since there are too many physicist proponents to all die off, and they are training their replacements.
And Joy might find some joy in Einstein's statement: "I enjoy it that colleagues occupy themselves at all with the theory, although for the time being with the purpose of killing it..."
The mathematical battles are extremely important, but physics is still based on reality, and, it is my hope and belief that these 151 orders of magnitude changes imply a simpler, and more intuitive reality, one that I try to outline in my essay.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
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
Jason,
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
Jason,
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
Edwin,
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
Jason,
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,
Robert
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!
Robert
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
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 12:00 GMT
Indeed he is very scholar and gentlemen.But we can say a critic I think,we aren't here to take gloves when we speak to people.A gentlemen or a scholar is not always right.
I have given 8, because I know him and his essay merit a good rate, simply.We aren't here to be not transparent or false in the rates, the logic is essential, the rest is vain.In general I read the essay, I give ...5 points for the methods and ...5ppoints for the ideas.
Here 3 and 5.Ray also I given 8,5 et 3...and this and that.When I am not ok with an idea, for example or if I have some irriting discussions with a person, it's not a reason to give a bad rate due to that.That has a name, that, the sincere logic for a correct judgement.
On that regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
T H Ray wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 16:45 GMT
Edwin,
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.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 19:27 GMT
Tom,
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
Tom,
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
Edwin,
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.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 21:59 GMT
Tom,
I'm afraid that I agree that we have too many differences to overcome. I was hoping that you would understand that my model makes physical sense, and if you found one or two mathematical points to choke on, that you might even help me to make them satisfactory from your viewpoint.
But I didn't expect it.
There is no question that, if you can't even consider local realism as possible, you can't understand my model. And you're wrong. I don't have to live with non-locality. It is a schizophrenic conception of reality.
On another thread you said: "When Einstein called a theory "incomplete" he meant _mathematically_ incomplete. The special and general theory of relativity are mathematically complete theories because they start with first principles (invariance of light speed, Minkowski spacetime) and proceed to closed form judgments on physical results. Einstein had a love for mathematical beauty, elegance, symmetry. The mathematics of quantum mechanics in contrast is "ugly" as Einstein said -- indeed, even today it's a dog's breakfast. The reason is mostly historical. QM does not start with first principles; theorists were forced to explain the results of 2-slit experiment (Young)rather than predicting them in a mathematically complete theory from first principles. So it's still incomplete in that respect. However, the standard model of particle physics is highly successful and complete in reconciling physical results with the mathematics."
I have nothing against "mathematically complete" theories, but unless they work for the observable universe, without strings, many worlds, multiverses, extra dimensions, or other 'other worldly' crutches, then I have no use for them. What actually exists is the analog of the five blind men grabbing on to different parts of an elephant. Each is correct in his description, possibly elegantly so, and even 'complete', but each is pathetically missing the whole reality.
I certainly agree with your characterization of QM, but I don't agree that the Standard Model is highly successful. If it were then SUSY would not be required, 11-dimensional manifolds would not be taken seriously, the Higgs would show up, and QCD would achieve better than 4 or 5 percent accuracy. As best I can determine, QCD today consists in running Monte Carlo programs like PYTHIA, to filter LHC collision data, and updating "branching ratios as necessary". I have other complaints about the standard model, but I doubt they would impress you.
So thanks for reading the first page of my essay. I certainly did not enter this contest thinking that I would convince the true believers.
Good luck with your essay.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 12:38 GMT
I'm not your adversary, Edwin.
It might surprise you that I support classical determinism. I'm just not willing to throw quantum mechanics out the window to get it. If that makes me a true believer, at least I have the data to justify it.
Of course it's true that I (like Einstein) prefer a mathematically complete model, one that makes closed judgments on phenomena from a couple of simple principles. You want the same, do you not? All physics reduced to a locally realistic model from a single field (C field), by broken symmetry. That's what the Higgs field in the extended standard model wants to do, too -- with a distinct difference. Time conservation. I follow your argument that time dilation would conserve time in your model -- except that your t = 0 and there's nothing to conserve, which makes the model non-dynamic, and non-kinetic. As I have tried with no success to explain to Jason, time dilation in general relativity is an observer effect, not an independent physical quality. It seems to me if you want to take that direction, you have to model your mathematics in the complex Hilbert space, where you can have imaginary time entangled with space, but of course that probably contradicts your program of local realism.
I'm only emphasizing what I disagree with, because I think those points are show-stoppers to a locally realistic theory. I could be wrong, yet remain unconvinced. I do, however, heartily agree with your conclusion that "physical reality depends on continuous fields (and) informed reality depends on the existence of thresholds, or universal constants." If reality is only information, though, one can get classical determinism from a quantum mechanical model (see 't Hooft).
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 20:53 GMT
Tom,
I appreciate your above comment. I do not view you as an adversary. I view you as one who has worked so hard to understand physics that he has a rather complete view of reality in terms of preferred structures in his mind that encompass most of what he knows in these structures. I view Lawrence the same way. I simply think that your perspective and mine are essentially orthogonal in so many respects that we do not project the others understanding into our own understanding. Neither of us have the whole truth, but we don't even speak the same language to a large extent.
Once I understood Fourier series, all other decompositions seemed to me to be simply a way to simplify things. I attach no physical significance or importance to Hilbert space. Ray has said that you and I are about the same age, so the fact that I was raised at the tail end of the Bourbaki school may also have afflicted you. I fought hard to overcome this mathematical bias and be a physicist, despite the implied inferiority of that position.
I see it as a preference for physicality and intuition on my part with mathematics viewed as utilitarian, while it seems to me that you and Lawrence see mathematics as the most relevant 'reality' with physics viewed as a check on mathematics. There is no value judgment here, just an attempt to understand why we seem to be unable to connect or reconcile our ideas.
My original hope was that you would be of some help to me in the sense of smoothing any rough edges that you found too abrasive. But that would require you to adopt my view, and that seems to be too much work. I understand this. I certainly cannot adopt Lawrence's view. I don't have the facility with all of the symmetry groups and other creatures that inhabit his jungle.
There is no need that we all agree. For example, I don't believe that reality is only information, and have scattered a number of comments around this contest contesting the physical reality of information.
Finally, you may recall that I insist that my physics also address consciousness as I have experienced it over many decades, whereas others have expressed that consciousness is important, but must be put aside for now in favor of more immediate physics (and then proceed to extra dimensions and multi-verses, but that's another story.)
Anyway Tom, I thank you for playing the game, and consider you a friend, not an adversary.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 09:50 GMT
Tom,
I do not know if you got further than the opening quote of my essay. Further on I discuss time. It has always been the problem child. To overcome the grandfather and twins paradox and to have causality and understand the arrow of time at the foundational level(or Object reality) everything that currently exists, (which is not the same as everything that can be seen in space time),...
view entire post
Tom,
I do not know if you got further than the opening quote of my essay. Further on I discuss time. It has always been the problem child. To overcome the grandfather and twins paradox and to have causality and understand the arrow of time at the foundational level(or Object reality) everything that currently exists, (which is not the same as everything that can be seen in space time), must exist -at the same singular time-. That is unitemporal time. Objects are not distributed in time at this foundational level only in space. There is no spread across time, no space-time fabric.
However there is still passage of time becuse everything is chnaging spatial position, that is energy or change. The change in sequence of Object universal spatial position allows earlier and later to be considered, which means the change is not now just spatial but change in time. It is not the same thing as the time dimension although both are called time. The temporal distribution comes in when transmission of data such as EM has to be incorporated into the received or image reality.So space time is emergent. This relates to Newton's absolute time and space which you referred to here.
So it is not true that a universe imagined without time dimension is static. It is actually the space-time universe without the uni-temporal foundation that is static and unchanging. To reconcile a quantum probability type model with space time, time has to be understood and put into the model correctly. Passage of time emergent from spatial change in a uni-temporal foundational reality and the time dimension is emergent from transmission delay of data from which the observed and experienced higher level image reality universe is fabricated.
The whole of space-time itself is a reality interface product, an observer effect if you like. The whole universe is an image of reality not the currently existing Object universe. No reality interface, organic or organic no space-time. This is where decoherence of the mathematical superposition of eigenstates comes in. At detection the unique data that allows formation of the image reality is selected.Only when the image reality is formed is it real.
Any field observed in space time has thus to be a temporally distorted version of a foundation unobserved field. It is not what is seen that is real because that is merely a representation derived from the data. Really real is the foundational reality and its topology is spatially distributed only and should not directly fit with the distorted space-time.
Without both the foundational reality and the space-time reality the model is incomplete and that leads to the unanswered questions, mysteriousness and paradox. Only by sorting out the understanding of time, as described, can the two models be united and non realism be overcome. Real donkeys need realism or they would starve due to the mathematicians magic of incomplete information. Also see Julian Barbour's essay in this contest.
"Men Who stare at goats" film 2009 directed by Grant Heslov."Invisibility? Yeah. That was level 3"--"Like ...actual invisibility" -"Well, yeah that was the goal. Eventually, we adapted it to just finding a way of not being seen. But when you understand the linkage between observation and reality, ...then you dance with invisibility."
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
Karl,
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
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, every particle in the Universe is ever moving with respect to something or the other. Measurement is conducted at a designated instant called “here-now” and the result of that measurement is used at subsequent times, when the particle no longer retains those characteristics, but has temporally evolved. Thus, only its state at the said instant can be known with certainty. It’s true state before and after measurement, which is not a single state, but an ever changing state, cannot be known. This unknown state, which is a composite of all possible states, is known as the superposition of states.
When two objects retain their original relationship after being physically separated, such relationship is called entanglement. Suppose someone while traveling forgot to take one of the pair of socks. The individual sock of the pair is complementary to the other. They cannot be used in isolation. If someone asks, ‘which of the pairs has gone with the traveler’, the answer will be unknown till someone at either end finds out by physical verification. This is a macro example of entanglement. Before the verification (measurement) was done; which one went out was not known. It could have been either one (superposition of all states). After measurement the answer is conclusively known (wave function collapses). There is no need to unnecessarily sensationalize it. The quantum entanglement can be easily explained if we examine the nature of confinement and the measure the distance up to which entanglement shows up (generally, it is not infinite, but lasts up to a maximum of a few kilo meters only).
Not only quarks, but also all particles are confined. LHC has surprised physicists / cosmologists that the early universe was a ‘perfect fluid’ and not an ‘explosion of gases’ that is the basis of all current theories. Particles are nothing but confined fluids; that is described as the primordial field. The mechanism by which this fluid is confined will be discussed separately (using simple verifiable models and without Higg’s mechanism). Just like only the atoms (molecules) and their combinations exhibit definite chemical properties, only quarks are the first particles to exhibit this property of confinement. Hence if we try to break their confinement, the applied energy leads to formation of other quarks not due to uncertainty principle, but due to simple mechanism of inertia of motion and inertia of restoration (elasticity). Even within the confinement, the up quarks change to down quarks and vice versa. This property is exhibited by all particles. For every micro particle there are macro equivalents. For example, Jupiter is the macro equivalent of proton.
Confinement requires a central stable point around which the mass (confined field) accumulates and the external limit of the confinement which gives rise to the stabilized orbits. There is space between these two positions. This gives a three fold structure. Since inside the particle, it is all fluid or locally confined fluid (sub-systems), it is unstable. If some force is applied to move a smaller portion of the fluid, it generates an equal force in the opposite direction. This is exhibited as the charge of the particle. Where this force interacts with other forces, it may become non-linear. Otherwise, it behaves linearly. The linear behavior is known as quantum entanglement. Electrons and photons are special cases of this confined fluid.
Regarding Relativity, we have proved in other posts that it is a wrong description of facts and that Einstein’s mathematics is wrong. Since it is very lengthy, we are not reproducing it here. Those interested may read our post below the essay of Mr. Castel and Mr. Granet.
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
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.
Regards,
basudeba.
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
Alan,
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
Jason,
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
Jason,
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
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 20:44 GMT
Jason,
I watched a you-tube of Tajmar explaining his experimental results to an audience. After discussing the ring laser gyro measurement of the C-field he asked:
"What can cause a frequency shift of photons."
Right down your alley.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Anonymous replied on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 03:49 GMT
Hi Edwin,
I guess a ring laser gyroscope "would" be able to detect rotation of the ring. I think that fiber optics are effectively mirrors on the inside (along the bore of the fiber optic cable; in addition, there is glass or some kind of material with index of refraction n>1. I think it's cool that the rotating ring would almost act like mirrors that are moving towards/away from...
view entire post
Hi Edwin,
I guess a ring laser gyroscope "would" be able to detect rotation of the ring. I think that fiber optics are effectively mirrors on the inside (along the bore of the fiber optic cable; in addition, there is glass or some kind of material with index of refraction n>1. I think it's cool that the rotating ring would almost act like mirrors that are moving towards/away from photons that bounce of the walls of the fiber optic cable. The fact that the "moving mirror effect" doesn't produce redshift or blue-shift is amazing AND something I'll need to think about.
I've got a question for you. At the momentum of the Big Bang, why didn't the gravity associated with all that energy cause the Big Bang to become a gigantic black hole? Unless you have a better answer, consider this answer. Gravitational potential has a slow reaction time. Space-time needs time to curve space-time in response to an excitation. In other words, at the moment of the Big Bang, gravity (space-time curvature) had not yet reached the equilibrium. Gravitational potential has a 1/r dependence. But how can a curvature travel all the way out to an infinite distance r inside of a nanosecond? It can't. In effect, gravity was still putting on its boot when the Big Bang explosion was riding off at light speed.
Remember that gravitational potential can only propagate at the speed of light. Photons move at the speed of light, and were laughing at gravity which couldn't get its act together quickly enough to produce a black hole. Gravitational potential is NOT instantaneous. However, it's expected to induce a proper gravity field instantaneously. Poor gravity; expectations exceed capability.
Why do I belabor this point? Because it means that the Einstein equations can't keep up with a rapid enough change in energy. If true, then the Einstein equations are no longer carved in stone. The Einstein equations are mortal and they can be defeated. Space-time will try to conserve energy. But if it's response time is too slow, then energy conservation can be violated. Eventually, gravity will catch up and plug up the leakage of energy; in doing so, space-time will curve to compensate for the additional energy (after it's gotten its boots on). Space-time curvature has to clean up the mess by achieving the proper gravity. Gravity complains and mutters with irritation that it has to go out to r = infinity to achieve a balance between energy and gravity. Gravity calls energy (photons) irresponsible and inconsiderate of consequences.
What's my point? Gravity is obligated to uphold the Einstein equations. I'm tempted to call it a mandate of God, but that would be a distraction. Control systems describe how a system will try to dampen out an excitation. What is gravity's control system in order to re-achieve the Einstein Equations? I don't know either, but I think we should look for poles and zeroes of gravitational space-time. In electronics (and control systems), the system has a transfer function of the form,
H(s) = \frac{K(s-z_1)}{(s-p_1)}
I'm willing to bet that the shift photon is such a pole. I think its frequency will be the repetition rate of the shift photon.
If I'm right, then we just jumped ahead 500 years technologically.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 06:42 GMT
Jason,
Yes, and the most interesting thing to me is that a static ring laser gyro detects the circulating C-field (the rotational aspect of gravity.)
Your next question is tricky. If we agree on a Free Lunch Universe, then the outward kinetic energy of motion must equal the inward potential energy of gravitational attraction. I never understood how the universe was supposed to inflate much faster than the speed of light, but I think that falls within the 'scale invariance' discussed in my essay. As Ray Munroe made me aware, Nottale shows that 'scale invariance' is the same as 'motion invariance'. As I conceive of this the 'shape' of the potential is preserved whatever the scale, so that a rapidly expanding universe that is independent of scale is also independent of motion and hence the speed of light. This seems to be what you are talking about: "gravity was still putting on its boot when the Big Bang explosion was riding off at light speed."
It's difficult to grasp these special conditions intuitively, but they seem to be implied by the Free Lunch assumption, and my Master equation is definitely scale invariant.
I understand control theory and transfer functions, but not all systems try to damp out excitations. I don't quite see how the shift photon does this.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 09:30 GMT
Hi Edwin,
I'm just not getting the scale invariance idea.
This is a little frustrating for me, but I figured out the Big Bang/gravity potential thing. In the first few minutes of the Big Bang, the energy density is homogeneous, therefore, the negative gravitational potential is negative and and flat (no gravity fields yet). The effects of gravity are irrelevant because there is no slope. However, the poor SOB on the outside of the Big Bang who didn't see it coming, he suddenly gets (1) severely irradiated with energy and (2) falls into a precipitously steep gravitational slope at the outer edge of the Big bang; suddenly that poor SOB is part of universe universe now. As the universe expands, the energy density gets less and less. The gravitational potential also gets less and less. The gravitational potential remains flat until matter forms and starts to clump. Eventually, the negative flat gravitational potential energy inside of the universe gets less and less negative until it equalizes with the space-time that was already here. So, in a way, the Big Bang created a whole new universe, but it quickly became part of the old universe that was already here. The Big Bang didn't become a black hole because the gravity well was flat, not sloping inwards; well, the slope was vertical with the old universe; equilibrium had not been reached. At one point, maybe in the first pico-second, the energy density was high enough to be a black hole. FTL phenomena is permitted inside of black holes.
This is really frustrating for me because I want to explain how the Einstein equations can only respond at the speed of light. Unfortunately, the Big Bang has to hide this fact by maintaining constant density.
So just imagine that a giant neutron star just pops up from out of nowhere. It doesn't explode at the speed of light because it has a constant diameter. However, its gravity field expands outward at the speed of light. As the gravity field expands outward, there will be longitudinal gravitational ripples in space-time. These ripples get damped out very quickly.
Yes, I know this has never happened before. It's a thought experiment. Yes, I understand that the neutron star would probably explode anyway because of the gravity waves. How about a gigantic ball of Pb (lead)? Along the radii of the giant sphere made out of lead (Pb), the gravity waves would radiate outwards as attraction and repulsion. Time would slow down and than speed up again. There would be spherical wave-fronts of attraction and then repulsion. You could model these gravity waves with a sinusoid...
g(t) = g_0 cos (\omega t)
Shift photons have a constant potential energy slope; yes, it's repeating, but at a high repetition rate, it looks like a constant gravity field in one direction.
Work with me...
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 20:28 GMT
Jason,
Look at the first figure on page two and again at the figure on page 7. The red curve is the (2D graph of) the G-field potential. Note that it has a 1/r distribution. What this means is that the energy density is NOT homogeneous, but peaks at the r=0 (singularity?) and decreases as one moves away from this.
Since you state that "In the first few minutes of the Big Bang, the energy density is homogeneous," then any conclusions that you draw from this will not apply to my theory, but, as seen on page 7, will apply to the FLRW solutions to Einstein's General Relativity 'dust' equations that do assume homogeneity.
I don't know how to explain 'scale invariance' other than that if one multiplies the solution by a scale factor, it is still a solution of the same field equation. This is worked out in my appendix C. The Nottale references (thank you Ray) are in my list of references.
You also say: "This is really frustrating for me because I want to explain how the Einstein equations can only respond at the speed of light. Unfortunately, the Big Bang has to hide this fact by maintaining constant density. "
Again, there is no 'constant density' in my model.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 02:49 GMT
Hi Edwin,
After the inflationary epoch, quarks and gluons start to form; that throws a monkey wrench into the model. Quarks and gluons make up protons and neutrons (which are matter), which can't keep up with light. So gravity is an issue now.
I'm trying to understand what you mean by low entropy. Since it might be the case that hadrons can't keep up with photons, then hadrons fall behind. If the explosion is outwards (like a grenade), then the gravity and light lead ahead of the particles (outwards), and a gravity field can develop.
However, if there is no center because the Big Bang is a 4D space-time hypersphere (subtle sarcastic use of the word hypersphere), then the gravity field and photons are moving faster, but are not leaving particles behind. It's like bringing 50 obnoxious ADHD kids to a nursing home and locking the doors. The kids move really fast, the old people move really slow, but the kids never move away from the old people because the doors are locked. If the Big Bang is such a 4D hypersphere, then the energy density IS the same everywhere in space.
Your figure on page 2 suggests geodesics that I can't even imagine. Yet I think you are suggesting that there is no geodesic caused by the expansion of space-time. In your paper, you said, "Yet most field-energy-mass of our G field is near the singularity, thereby achieving the required minimal entropy:"
It sounds like we both prefer the grenade effect where the center (r=0), is somewhere rather than everywhere (for those who like hyper-spheres).
There are quite a few points of discussion. I don't know if there was a pre-existing universe or a gravity discontinuity moving out at the speed of light from the Big Bang center. It's a thought experiment worth considering. What I'm after is whether or not gravity/space-time has a resonant frequency and a transfer function that I can use to overcome gravity. Call me crazy, but I'm looking for an H(s) that is the quotient of the output divided by the input. The input is a sinusoidally changing frequency (like FM radio with a sinusoid input). The output is a gravitational disturbance. Obviously, this resonant frequency is not 88 to 108 MHz or we would have noticed. Tunable lasers look more hopeful, but 5000 repetitions per second is apparently not fast enough.
By the way, the frequency is
f= \frac{d \theta}{dt}
So what should I call df/dt? Chi?
\chi = \frac{df}{dt}
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 03:55 GMT
Jason,
Willard has made me want to recheck my statements about entropy, and I have not yet had a chance to do so. But regardless of this you are correct in your statement that "hadrons can't keep up with photons, then hadrons fall behind".
You say: "If the explosion is outwards (like a grenade), then the gravity and light lead ahead of the particles (outwards), and a gravity field...
view entire post
Jason,
Willard has made me want to recheck my statements about entropy, and I have not yet had a chance to do so. But regardless of this you are correct in your statement that "hadrons can't keep up with photons, then hadrons fall behind".
You say: "If the explosion is outwards (like a grenade), then the gravity and light lead ahead of the particles (outwards), and a gravity field can develop." But the gravity field is already developed. Gravity is the one and only primordial entity in my model. The rotational aspect of gravity (the C-field) appears only after symmetry is broken, then neutrinos appear, then neutrinos interact with the boson/vortices and produce electrons and quarks. These particles bring charge into the picture and then photons appear. It may not be the order that you want things to happen, but it's what my model predicts. At that point we have every particle that is known today, as well as forces that explain the current phenomena and the exceptions/anomalies to other theories.
You then say: "then the gravity field and photons are moving faster, but are not leaving particles behind." But I would expect the gravity and photons to leave the particles behind (although the neutrinos will be moving almost light speed.)
As for "Your figure on page 2 suggests geodesics that I can't even imagine. Yet I think you are suggesting that there is no geodesic caused by the expansion of space-time. In your paper, you said, "Yet most field-energy-mass of our G field is near the singularity, thereby achieving the required minimal entropy:"
This is a 2D representation of the gravitational field strength before symmetry breaks. Think of it as very highly stressed space in which almost all of the gravitational field strength (and hence equivalent mass) is at or near the origin, r~0. I interpreted this to imply low entropy, but I need to study that statement.
"It sounds like we both prefer the grenade effect where the center (r=0), is somewhere rather than everywhere (for those who like hyper-spheres)." Yes, I definitely have a 'center', not a hypersphere.
As for "There are quite a few points of discussion. I don't know if there was a pre-existing universe or a gravity discontinuity moving out at the speed of light from the Big Bang center. It's a thought experiment worth considering." I'm not really sure that it's a thought experiment worth considering. Many men that were smarter than you and I have discussed what came before the universe, and no one has answered the question. Certainly the bouncing universes I see today make no sense. They only push the problem back before the first bounce. John Merryman's (and others) eternal universe is no easier for me to understand, and does not produce the various ingredients that my model produces ( or if it does, he doesn't tell us how.)
"What I'm after is whether or not gravity/space-time has a resonant frequency and a transfer function that I can use to overcome gravity. Call me crazy, but I'm looking for an H(s) that is the quotient of the output divided by the input. " I don't think you're crazy. You're one of the most imaginative guys around. And all ideas sound crazy initially, at least to those who believe in the current consensus. Yet there really does seem to be a physical reality (though some here think there's only math or virtual reality) and at some point our theories and new ideas must match the reality. I think your question about the resonant frequency of space is a wonderful question, but I suspect that, since the big bang provided the 'mother-of-all-impulses' that the system would already have been driven into resonance, and we should at least see some remnant of that behavior, assuming that it damped out due to inflation (or something).
I like the way you hold on to your idea like a bulldog. That's the only way to reach the end. Of course the end is likely to be a disappointment, but you never know until you get there.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 05:51 GMT
Hi Edwin,
I wrote a story on
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/647
It's about the planet Maldek that built a Big Bang bomb energy weapon and, well, you can just read the story. I describe how the bomb was made.
The oscillating universe (expanding/contracting) just sounds too contrived to me. A pre-existing universe with a very rare Big Bang event seems more natural. Did God cause the Big Bang, was it a natural phenomena or the ultimate weapon? It's left to everyone's imagination and preference. But the idea solves the conservation of energy dilemma.
"The rotational aspect of gravity (the C-field) appears only after symmetry is broken, then neutrinos appear, then neutrinos interact with the boson/vortices and produce electrons and quarks. These particles bring charge into the picture and then photons appear. "
I want to applaud you for taking a stand on C-field gravity physics. Making specific predictions exposes a theory to attack; only the correct theory survives. All the rest of us get to experience the anguish of seeing our prized and beloved theory die. Lots of theorists hide their ideas in 10 dimension string theory space because they can't endure the pain. In a way, it's like robot wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Wars_%28TV_series%29
The trick to building a good theory is to use as few parts as possible; and work with the parts of the theory that survived the last battle.
And if C-field theory survives and photon theory dies, I will cry first, and then quickly adopt C-field theory. I just want to be right going into the next battle.
I'm taking a closer look at Frequency Modulation as a solution to a gravity field Transfer function. My instincts tell me that the fastest repetition rate possible is the answer. When I can write down the transfer function, input and output, I'll post it.
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 04:28 GMT
Jason,
I just want to acknowledge and thank you for this comment:
"I want to applaud you for taking a stand on C-field gravity physics. Making specific predictions exposes a theory to attack; only the correct theory survives. All the rest of us get to experience the anguish of seeing our prized and beloved theory die. Lots of theorists hide their ideas in 10 dimension string theory space because they can't endure the pain."
That was a very kind thing to say. And it is also admirable of you to state:
"And if C-field theory survives and photon theory dies, I will cry first, and then quickly adopt C-field theory. I just want to be right going into the next battle.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
hide replies
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
Niklaus,
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
Jason,
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
Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 01:16 GMT
Dear Edwin,
At this time I don't know the mathematical description of the gravity waves that are suspected to cause gravity to exist. However, I do stick to my guns that they are quasi-existent wave-functions.
Consider any and every physical object in the universe; anything from a space-ship to a car, a person, dog, flee, etc... It is a fact that whatever object you can think of, that objects lies within space-time, and it is subject to the gravity at that location. Now, the gravity in and around that object is some gravitational potential energy. How is that gravitational potential energy determined? That gravitational potential energy is a form of information, and information travels at the speed of light from all points in space. Gravity information comes to us from nearby mountains, the earth, the sun, other planets, nearby stars, etc. Nobody can argue that this information cannot arrive at whatever physical object you've considered.
We would probably agree that gravity does not manifest strings, wires cables or ropes that maintain a continuous physical connection to you, I and every physical object. Yet the gravitational potential energy seems to find you and I very reliably. I would argue that every object is interconnected with gravitational wave-functions which transmit gravitational potential energy from where ever they came from.
In the case of a shift photon generator, I am suggesting that the simple act of broadcasting gravitational potential energy back into all of the gravitational interconnections, that this will change the intensity of the gravitational potential energy along these wavefunctions.
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 21:31 GMT
Jason,
In my previous fqxi essay on what's ultimately possible in physics, I began by rejecting abstract theories in favor of 'fields' that I could directly and immediately sense, [eliminating strings, extra dimensions, extra universes, dark energy and matter, etc.]. These boiled down to gravity and consciousness. After showing how these could be used as a basis of physics that produced all known particles and explained many other facts and mysteries, I ended by saying that we would never understand gravity or consciousness. I still feel that way, so I don't really expect to understand gravity. It's the 'basic assumption' or starting point for my physics.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
hide replies
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
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 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.
Tajmar's explaination of a mass increase in Niobium Cooper-pairs is interesting. Superconductivity has also been implied to be the bridge between electromagnetism and gravitation by Chiao's and Podkletnov's research teams. You mention a kappa ~ 10^31, but Chiao says that a gravitational wave should have an effect of 42 orders in magnitude. I agree with Chiao because this is of order Dirac's Large Number ~ 10^41, which is one of my scale numbers (please see Equation 15 of my book for the relationship between electromagnetic and gravitational couplings). Now we can explain the Cosmological constant of Lambda ~ 10^(-123) ~ (10^41)^(-3) by the fact that we have three spatial dimensions (you said "If scale invariant is motion invariant, time has no obvious meaning"). I think that your inverse square-roots (~10^61) and inverse fourth-roots (~10^31) of Lambda should be replaced by inverse cube-roots (~10^41 - Dirac's Large Number) or by new modeling.
By the way, this variance in Niobium Cooper-pairs is fairly small. A change in the application of Statistical Mechanics may make-up this difference. Please contrast my Prespacetime Journal volume 1 issue 9 paper with Chapter 4 of my book.
You said that the "curvature of space is limited". I agree. At some energy level, we will promote matter-anti-matter pairs out of the Dirac Sea, and this may have a lattice-like "pinching off of Spacetime" effect. I propose that the core of a static black hole may be surrounded by a Buckyball (a nearly spherical lattice that has lattice bonds to resist it from being deflated by the gravitational near-singularity) consisting of the very fabric of Spacetime. The curvature of the Buckyball initiates Spacetime curvature. There is a smooth homotopy between a pair of nested Buckyballs and a lattice-like torus (donut), and this application may be appropriate for rotating Black Holes. In fact, normal Carbon fullerenes (such as the Buckyball) may have superconductor characteristics. Is the Black Hole core a Superconductor? If so, then a rotating superconducting GEM torus would produce a powerful dynamo. That would tie your ideas, my ideas, and Tajmar's, Chiao's and Podkletnov's ideas together...
I still disagree about 4 fundamental particles, but your field approach is interesting...
Have Fun!
Dr. Cosmic Ray
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 04:58 GMT
Ray,
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
Ray,
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 replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 18:51 GMT
Ray,
You say that: "The paradox is that particles (discrete CDT-like kissing-spheres) can behave like waves (continuous string theory), and waves can behave like particles."
If you look again at the figure for the electron and the photon on page 6 in my essay, you will see that the particle is a real particle, and it is always accompanied by a C-field circulation that, in motion, is a circularly polarized wave. No paradox at all.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
hide replies
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 04:24 GMT
Ray,
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,
Steve
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.....
Friendly
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 23:21 GMT
Steve,
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 together....it'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
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 12:01 GMT
as says Rousseau the man borns good and it is the society which corrupts him unfortunally but the essence is the good , the well ....it's the sister of hopes...and the brother of the compassion love.
You c field is thus relevant considering the main central spherical volume.
Have you seen the ideas of Dr Corda, what do you think about the first wave.
Best Regards
Thanks for this sincerity,it's essential.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 12:20 GMT
if you want I know very well the biology and the mineralogy.I am transparent.If you want superimppose....indeed the binar code are humans and the biology is more than that.The 2d is also a human application if we consider our semi conductors.But if we go more far and if we insert the rotating spherical volumes wawww the polarity of evolution with its sortings and synchro are relevant.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
Edwin,
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
Edwin,
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?
Regards,
Tom
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
Edwin,
Thanks for your response to the questions. That helps clarify your ideas.
Good luck to you as well!
Regards,
Tom
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.
James
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 00:44 GMT
James,
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
James,
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
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 have rightly clubbed them into one group. We call this group existence.
You say: “Where and when an image appears to exist is dependent upon the observer reference frame and is not intrinsic to the object itself.” We agree and only add that the external environment introduces an element of uncertainty due to its effect on perception by the observer. We have discussed this aspect elaborately in our essay. From this we infer that uncertainty is not a law of Nature. It is a result of natural laws relating to observation that reveal a kind of granularity at certain levels of existence that is related to causality.
You say: “The description of reality is affected by the methods of investigation used, the pre-existing concepts applied and mathematical modeling employed.” Unless the perception (results of measurement) is described in communicable language, (or self realized) it does not make any sense. Hence, we call these as describability.
You say: “If a description requires acceptance of paradox, unreality of all things, quasi reality or supernatural agents or realms, yet is a description that fits with observation, it must be incomplete if not incorrect or non science”. This shows that there is a limit on our ability to “know”. Hence, we call these as knowability. We combine these aspects and define reality that satisfies these criteria.
You say: “The mathematical space-time model is a construct giving a mathematical representation that fits well with observations of Image reality but is not a complete model of reality.” We have shown in our essay that Nature is mathematical only in specified ways. Regarding space, time, space-time and arrow of time, we have discussed briefly in our essay and in our comments under the threads of Mr. Biermans, Mr. Castel, etc. We have written a book in which we have discussed on this subject in detail.
We agree that: “Image reality is a means of amalgamating information that arrives together, rather than that which was generated together.” But we do not agree with your description that it does not require a conscious observer. In fact we call the agency that amalgamates the information as the conscious observer. You say that this information can be amalgamated by a mechanical detector. But then the resultant information is in a superposition of all possible states, because the so-called wave function collapse can occur only after it is measured (perceived) by a conscious observer. Thus, ultimately, we have to admit the conscious observer.
You say: “The data contained in the image is not from contemporaneous origin so the image is not temporally homogeneous.” We agree and have discussed it at various places. The data (result of measurement) is the description of the state at a designated instant. We do not agree that “present is a composite formed from data, experienced simultaneously”. We posit that all systems are dynamical systems. Present is a designated instant in analog time that depicts the temporally evolved state of a dynamical system at that designated instant. Thus, we cannot agree that: “The Image reality becomes a manifestation when the simulation is formed from the available data. It does not exist prior to that process.” It certainly existed prior to that process, though in a different state. Further this proves the existence of the conscious observer. Otherwise, your statement that it will “…becomes a manifestation” becomes meaningless.
When you differentiate between “current time” and “Uni-temporal, or Objective, Now”, you are leaving out the definition of time from the above description. Both space and time are related to sequence. Time is the ordering of the interval between events just like space is the ordering of the interval between objects. Both are indirectly perceptible through events and objects only. We take a segment of this interval, which is fairly repetitive and easily intelligible, and call it the unit. We compare this unit with the interval between objects and events and call these as space and time. Since space and time are indirectly perceptible, they are described through alternative symbolism by describing the objects or events associated with these. We can choose a segment from any or all event sequences without interfering with the laws of physics. When we restrict our description to a single sequence, it is “current time”. When we widen our choice to encompass the whole universe, we call it simultaneity or “Uni-temporal, or Objective, Now”.
You say: “Change or potential for change can be regarded as energy.” What you are describing here is the effect of energy, which you are confusing with energy proper, which is the cause. We agree that “Energy is never destroyed. So change is continual and inevitable.” But what is energy? We hold the homogeneous primordial field as the back ground structure of creation. By a mechanism which we are not discussing here, instability in the medium leads to a chain of events giving rise to “time”, as we know it. This created inertia of motion, which was opposed by the inertia of restoration (elasticity) of the medium. This interaction, according to the same mechanism led to the density variation. This also leads to local confinement, which became the particles. Generation of particles led to further density variation. The inertia of restoration then pushed the particles around, which is seen as the effect of energy on those particles. This effect is experienced at two levels: proximity or intra-particle and distance or inter-particle. Depending upon the proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance-proximity and distance-distance variables, the effects are experienced as strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and radioactive disintegration forces. Gravity is a composite force that stabilizes: the orbits of planets and stars and the orbital of atoms. Since stabilization depends on density distribution, gravity is related to mass. Since density of intervals between objects is relatively less, in a closed system like Earth-Moon or Sun-planets, the density of the medium appears homogeneous. Hence, gravity is related to distance. The inter-relationship appears as the gravitational constant. Thus, you are right that: “Energy is never destroyed. So change is continual and inevitable.”
Your description of air traffic control hints at a few fundamental principle. If you accept space as the ordering of the interval between objects, then position becomes a function of (or relative to) the ordering you choose. But this description can be meaningful only between the two objects that are joined by the interval. Thus, they belong to a specific frame of reference. If we want to relate their relationship with that of another object, then the other object must be within the same frame of reference or the frame of reference (interval) must be enlarged to bring the other object within it. This is what Einstein describes in his 30-06-1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies":
1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.
2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
Here clock at C is the privileged frame of reference. Yet, he tells the opposite by denying any privileged frame of reference. Further, his description of the length measurement is faulty. Here we quote from his paper and offer our views.
Einstein: Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, and imagine its length to be ascertained by the following two operations:-
(a) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest.
(b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with §1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated “the length of the rod”.
In accordance with the principle of relativity the length to be discovered by the operation (a) - we will call it the length of the rod in the moving system - must be equal to the length l of the stationary rod.
The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call “the length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system”. This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find that it differs from l.
Our comments: The method described at (b) is impossible to measure by the principles described by Einstein himself. Elsewhere he has described two frames: one fixed and one moving along it. First the length of the moving rod is measured in the stationary system against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then the length is measured at a different epoch in a similar way in units of velocity of light. We can do this only in two ways, out of which one is the same as (a). Alternatively, we take a photograph of the rod against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then measure its length in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:
• If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.
• If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the camera and the picture we get will be distorted due to the Doppler shift of different points of the rod. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).
Here we are reminded of an anecdote related to Sir Arthur Eddington. Once he directed two of his students to measure the wave-length of light precisely. Both students returned with different results – one resembling the accepted value and the other different. Upon enquiry, the student replied that he had also come up with the same result as the other, but since everything including the Earth and the scale on it is moving, he applied length contraction to the scale treating Betelgeuse as a reference point. This changed the result. Eddington told him to follow the operation as at (a) above and recalculate the wave-length of light again without any reference to Betelgeuse. After sometime, both the students returned to tell that the wave-length of light is infinite. To a surprised Eddington they explained that since the scale is moving with light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require an infinite number of scales to measure the wave-length of light.
Some scientists try to overcome this difficulty by pointing out that length contraction occurs only in the direction of travel. If we hold the rod in a transverse direction to the direction of travel, then there will be no length contraction for the rod. But we fail to understand how the length can be measured by holding it in a transverse direction to the direction of travel. If the light path is also transverse to the direction of motion, then the terms c+v and c-v vanish from the equation making the entire theory redundant. If the observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod while moving with it, he will not find any difference what-so-ever. Thus, the views of Einstein are contrary to observation. Regarding the other points raised in your essay, we have discussed many in our essay. We will be happy to offer further clarification.
Regards,
basudeba.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 04:26 GMT
basudeba,
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
Edwin,
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?
Chris
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 00:55 GMT
Chris,
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.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 21:21 GMT
Constantinos,
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
Edwin,
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
Edwin,
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 of energy' approach, although you seem to view it as strictly mathematical, I view it as a real threshold below which no transitions occur.”
Though you are right that most all of my results can be thought of as purely mathematical with physical adaptations, 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. Being fundamental, it seems logical that it should be undefinable by any more fundamental concepts.
But this quantity 'eta' can be characterized by what is more familiar to us -- like energy and momentum. Something like describing a 'point' by its properties that 'two straight lines intersect at one point', etc. And so it is with 'eta'. It is both 'accumulation of energy' as well as 'action'. That is, it is the 'time-integral of energy' but also the 'space-integral of momentum'. Interestingly, this formulation (as I present briefly in my
essay ) may perhaps combine both Hamiltonian mechanics and Lagrangian mechanics. At least it feels so in my non-physicist intuition on this. And Planck's constant h is just such a quantity 'eta'. But whereas h is constant, the quantity 'eta' is a variable. It may be possible that when 'eta' is given to be a specific function of 'space and time', than we may be able to get more physics out of this – including the C-field you use. This may get us all the physics that I leave out in my
essay (including gravity and charge and mass).
Furthermore, Edwin, the only condition that I apply in my
essay that can be considered an 'imposition by physics', is the idea of 'equilibrium' that is needed to make the unmanifested 'accumulation of energy' manifested! This is the same as what you say about needing h, this being the minimum accumulation of energy that can be manifested. This condition of 'equilibrium' makes the 'quantity eta' real. In fact I view it as 'filling physical space'. I also argue in my
essay that 'eta' is the 'wavefunction'! Giving this rather curious concept physical reality that currently it lacks! I think we are in more agreement than either of us may realize!
You may be interested to know that Hayrani Oz, Prof. of Aerospace Engineering at Ohio State University, and coauthor with me of a chapter in a book on Thermodynamics out this July, has been using similar ideas very successfully for many years in his work and teaching. The quantity 'eta' (time integral of energy) he calls 'enerxaction'. If you wish I can put you in touch with him. Engineers and PhD students I find are much more accepting of this approach than established professional physicists.
Thank you for your good wishes for the contest! But the only motivation that compelled me to enter this contest is the exposure that this gives to my ideas and the possibility that these may be considered by the 'panel of experts' – if my
essay ever gets to that final round.
Constantinos
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 02:37 GMT
Constantinos,
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
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 one of your comments in the thread how very few assumption are required to produce the observed physics with this model.That has to be important. It is a very striking comparison with Verlinde's list. (Not sure he'd be happy about that.) Why have a highly complex explanation when a simpler one explains the evidence just as well? Perhaps because having constructed a mathematical monstrosity it is hard to walk away from it and start on a new fresh path.I consider you a brave pioneer. I appreciate that it is not easy for qualified and highly experienced physicist to walk against the tide.
You also point out that physics should not be attributed to causes outside of space and time. We have both argued for this in our own way. A very, very important point in my opinion.I can see a real split between those that want metaphysical explanations and those that want realism.The discussion of the map not being the territory is also important. I liked the list of particles that are mathematically shown to exist but have not been "seen". The quote by Godwin was good too. I had not heard it before but it is well said.
I also think it was good to answer a selection of questions posed by FQXi. It shows you are keeping it real and foundational and relevant. I have not seen that done elsewhere but there are now more essays than I can possibly read.
Though you do explain the C-field in the essay , your explanation of the c-field given to Constantinos is helpful. Edwin I can't comment on the mathematics. You know more than me and since there has been no negative feedback on the mathematics itself only the theoretical reasons for using it I assume it is well done. I agree that the bosons are most likely not particles as such but manifestations of what is occurring in the (very possibly continuous) medium or as you like to think field.I like the way you have made a neutino. It is neat but like Constantinos I will have to sit on the fence and say just because it is neat and simple it is not necessarily so...but it could be.
I think because you are talking about a single field as cause and I am talking about a single medium, we are referring to the same thing. So this is another overlap in our thinking.In space-time "received reality" as you say, fields are experienced but in foundational reality it will not be just the effect but the cause that is present. In space-time a medium is not necessary as fields can be used instead and as the medium is inert and undetectable it does not form a part of that space-time reality...but there has to be a reason for the field.
Constantinos asks about the magnetic field.I have thought it might be the alignment of many electrons that causes the magnetic effect. Perhaps it is the orientation of electron spin in a magnet or travel along a wire that is able to set up a disturbance (of a medium) experienced as a field which is then able to disturb materials containing free electrons with same or different spin. Perhaps that is naive, but there does currently seem to be a lack of scientific explanation. We just have no way of seeing what is there.
It is clearly written,enjoyable for both specialists and non specialists, and the diagrams are a nice addition.I really hope you get lots of interested and open minded readers. You have clearly said a lot of things that need saying and will hopefully be influential in the development of a new realism in physics.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 22:40 GMT
Georgina,
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
Edwin,
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!
Chris
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 02:08 GMT
Chris,
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.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 11:52 GMT
Edwin
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.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 21:34 GMT
Peter,
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
Peter,
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, based on math that has been inherently 'incomplete' since Godel.
As Jason pointed out above, one can theorize in 'other worldly realms' (Multiverses, extra dimensions, branes, etc.) with no fear of being falsified. For those who enjoy this game, it can last for a very long time, but it may, in the end, damage science both economically and sociologically, since predictions are few and falsifiablility is missing, and non-local mysticism differs little from religion. In contrast, my theory has predicted no Higgs and no new particles for five years now. All that is necessary to falsify it is to find any of the dozen conjectured particles: axions, SUSY, Higgs, dilatons, inflatons, anyons, instantons, WIMPs , sphalerons, dark matter, etc.
If Joy Christian is correct, non-locality is nonsense, and even if he's wrong, there are other reasons to doubt current interpretations. So thanks for the boost.
The other focus, as indicated in my essay, should be on anomalies that we know to exist. Rather than go deeper and deeper into other dimensions and worlds, one should address the places where current theory breaks down. For example, as noted on Ian Durham's thread, QED has significant problems. For years it's been "the most accurate theory", with about 9 place accuracy. But this was based largely on the calculation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, using the fine structure constant, and then the fine structure constant was updated according to the latest value of the magnetic moment. Any wonder that 60 years of such circular tuning achieved 9 place accuracy?
The "virtual particles" used in Feynman diagrams provide the best 'fudge factor' one can imagine. They're not measurable, and can be adjusted to make calculations match other measurements. Even 120 orders of magnitude change in vacuum energy (the source of these particles) has no effect! For some classes of problems this has worked well. The Lamb shift of hydrogen yields 5 or 6 place accuracy. But when one "changes" hydrogen, QED suffers badly. Replace the proton by a positron, and QED has only 3 place accuracy. If the electron is replaced by a muon, then QED drops to about one place accuracy--roughly the same as QCD has had for fifty years! So our vaunted 'Quantum Dynamics' can't stray far from 'preferred' areas of application without severe problems.
My theory at least qualitatively explains these [and other] anomalies, and it seems that a number of essays here provide some support for my theory, and vice versa. And I do propose physics experiments to address the analog/digital question.
I hope you're correct that "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." Thanks to fqxi for supporting this enterprise.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
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)?
Regards,
Phil
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).
Sincerely,
Stefan
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
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 physics.
As you may recall, my previous essay,
Fundamental Physics of Consciousness proposed that any primordial field "interacting" with itself could be described as "self-aware" [instead of being described as merely 'acting at a distance due to Newton's equation]. But this self-awareness, with the perfect symmetry of the field was only a 'global self-awareness' or 'identity'. When, for whatever reason [see the above comment to Phil] this symmetry broke, then 'local self-awareness' appeared in the field and 'self and other' entered the picture. There are many simplistic spiritual interpretations of this, and, against my better judgment, I will quote Alan Watts
explanation for children: "God also likes to play hide-and seek, but because there is nothing outside God, he has no one but himself to play with. But he gets over this difficulty by pretending he is not himself. This is his way of hiding from himself. he pretends that he is you and I and all the people in the world, all the animals, all the plants, all the rocks, and all the stars. In this way he has strange and wonderful adventures, some of which are terrible and frightening. But these are just like bad dreams, for when he wakes up they will disappear."
"Now when God plays hide and pretends that he is you and I, he does it so well that it takes him a long time to remember where and how he hid himself. But that's the whole fun of it--just what he wanted to do. He doesn't want to find himself too quickly, for that would spoil the game."
As I said, I hesitate to bring 'spirituality' into fqxi, and I am not selling the above interpretation, just pointing out that my physics is not entirely incompatible with a simplistic view. Every spiritual teaching must be presented in a form that is understandable to children. Unfortunately, many reject the childish version and never reach adult spirituality, and that is, in my opinion, why Templeton funded fqxi in the first place.
I hope this, admittedly over-simple, "spiritual explanation" of why 'symmetry broke' from an initially 'global' entity to a myriad 'local' entities seems to be consistent with the physics I have described, but THIS EXPLANATION IS NOT PART OF MY ESSAY. It is presented only in response to your question.
Thanks for thinking seriously about my theory, Stefan.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
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,
Sincerely
Stefan
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 Pete
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
Edwin
Sorry, the link I put in my message doesn't seem to work.
Here is the address: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/893
Good luck
Pete
report post as inappropriate
re castel wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 16:26 GMT
Eugene,
I just read Paul N Butler's essay at
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/849. This may be good reading for you, too.
Rafael
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
Edwin,
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
John,
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
Edwin,
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
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 06:28 GMT
John,
You state: "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."
I'm sorry but this just makes no sense to me. My essay describes a universe based on one thing and one thing alone, and shows how that thing can evolve into today's world as we know it. You seem to want to start with 'space occupied by random particles' and them 'pass some kind of wave through them'. Where did the particles come from? Where did the wave come from? I simply prefer that things make sense from the start, not that pieces are grabbed out of thin air and put together for purpose of argument.
You further state: "Presumably the wave and particles define some amount of information. When they interact, it produces a further emergent level of information."
I don't agree with this. As I said above, "Information is descriptive in nature and depends upon context." I do not see what is gained by saying that "the waves and particles define some amount of information."
And as for, "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."
John, it adds up for me. I'd suggest you read my essay again, but you seem to prefer to simply rail against the big bang. It works well in my theory, and I don't see that you have a replacement theory that evolves into today's world. And as I mentioned when we last discussed this [Jan. 15, 2011 @ 11:32 GMT] "...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 I don't get overly concerned about "a recently discovered galaxy cluster at 12.6 billion light years", [or the latest one at 13.2]."
I also explained then that if the C-field is involved in galaxy formation it would speed things up. So the timing that's bothering you doesn't bother me, first because I don't trust all cosmological data and second because it doesn't take the C-field into account.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
hide replies
John Merryman wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 02:57 GMT
Edwin,
" 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
John,
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
Edwin,
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
John,
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
John,
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 behavior produces our world, it is beyond me why anyone would seriously consider (and I do believe they're serious!) an otherworldly 'digital computer' plus associated algorithms.
Part of the problem, as I see it is that the so-called 'violation' of Bell's inequality, which has caused many to give up any belief in local realism, has so confused people that they now think that instead of physical reality being real, somehow information is real, and this has only been worsened by a completely unnecessary treatment of 'information' as the surface area of a black hole. I say unnecessary because the exact same area relation can be derived using only the concept of energy and never bringing the concept of information into the picture.
Because of this confusion, which has produced not a thing besides more confusion, [well, it may have produced a few grant dollars] I am adamantly opposed to all attempts to muddy the water with ideas that information is 'physical'. It is descriptive and contextual and requires interpretation.
The confusion of descriptive information, of meaning only to certain observers, with substantial reality that exists for all observers, leads to problems. In another thread it was suggested that "Watch out for the bus!" has real physical consequences and so this information should be considered 'real'. But if you only speak Chinese, "Watch out for the bus" means nothing. Yet the energy of the moving bus is real in all cases. Information has reality only with respect to an observer and interpreter. To deny the substantial reality one should stand in front of the bus and argue this point.
Similarly, DNA has encoded 'information' only because there is a biological cell to "interpret" this information. Otherwise, DNA is just a long string of four bases strung together. If the cell and the protein-building interpretative machinery did not exist, DNA would have no meaning, and there would be no reason to speak of DNA 'information', only DNA structure. There are certainly crystals and amorphous materials that provide such variegated structure and have no meaningful interpretation as 'information'.
Because we can, as humans, provide context, and therefore interpretation, we can create, store, retrieve, transmit, receive, communicate, transform and otherwise make good use of information. We're capable, as conscious beings, of abstracting physical behaviors in such a way that coded 'laws' can be derived that effectively generate an infinite amount of information, in the same way that the relation y=x^2 generates an infinite amount of information. I have developed the theory of such 'evolution of theories' in
The Automatic Theory of Physics.
But do the 'laws' exist 'out there' governing what's happening 'in here' or are we simply part of a self-evolving, self-interacting 'substance' (for lack of a better word) that behaves according to Marcel's "law of non-contradiction". If the latter, then we have a unitary universe, complete in itself, and capable of eventually 'observing itself'. Otherwise, we have a dualistic universe where we have not only to figure out what 'reality' is, but where and how the 'laws' came to be. It's an easy choice for me.
I hope these remarks clarify why I am so fussy about the proper use of the term information. I reject all claims that physical reality arises or emerges from some underlying 'information'.
You ask, "What is information derived from, if not interaction and motion? Spins, polarities, etc."
The answer is that extremely complex contexts are created by experimenters, and are arranged to capture physical events. These captured events are then interpreted in the context of appropriate theories, and at this point it is valid to speak of information, since these events can answer 'yes/no' questions which is basically what information does. But without the physically real complex context of the experimental apparatus, and the theoretical interpretative 'apparatus', there is no inherent physical 'information' that has the slightest reality associated with 'spins' and 'polarities'.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
John Merryman replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 11:11 GMT
Edwin,
I've confused the issue by conflating the terms "information and "structure." I fully agree with you and understand the lack of patience for the "It from Bit" argument, but I think it has started to exhaust itself anyway, so my interest lays in where the subject goes from here. In that regard, I do think the dichotomy of energy/physical existence vs. structure is a significant factor. I don't really think the argument for information as some platonic realm is physically relevant, but as a function of how our minds process concepts of structure, the function of memes is an integral factor.
This basically goes back to my point about two directions of time; The energy is constantly changing shape, as there is nothing without motion and nothing exists forever with motion, So while the conserved energy goes from previous forms to succeeding ones, the forms coalesce and eventually dissolve.
Frequently form does persist, but in the process creates pressure against its more static elements, so the effect is of punctuated equilibria, such as is happening throughout the political world and will eventually break into the physics category. Then new forms emerge and solidify.
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 17:54 GMT
John,
It's always pleasing to come to basic agreement, as we do in your paragraph one. And, as for "dichotomy of energy/physical existence vs. structure is a significant factor", I recommend Patricio Valdes-Marin's essay on
Force and Structure. I liked it and think you might also.
I also agree with your second paragraph, and am happy to say that my theory explains physically just exactly how the "the conserved energy goes from previous forms to succeeding ones, the forms coalesce and eventually dissolve."
And I like your last paragraph, particularly "punctuated equilibria, such as is happening throughout the political world and will eventually break into the physics category." Interestingly, that is where "information" comes into play!
Thanks for pursuing a resolution of our original misunderstanding. It often takes quite a while before two people can bring their own vocabularies into sync enough to resolve things.
Respectfully,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
John Merryman replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 20:17 GMT
Edwin,
We can still "interact" over the issue of inflationary cosmology.
From an interesting article pointed out to me by Dan Benedict, listed in his footnotes:
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2007/9/modern-co
smology-science-or-folktale
"In the 1930s, Richard Tolman proposed such a test, really good data for which are only now becoming available. Tolman calculated that the surface brightness (the apparent brightness per unit area) of receding galaxies should fall off in a particularly dramatic way with redshift—indeed, so dramatically that those of us building the first cameras for the Hubble Space Telescope in the 1980s were told by cosmologists not to worry about distant galaxies, because we simply wouldn't see them. Imagine our surprise therefore when every deep Hubble image turned out to have hundreds of apparently distant galaxies scattered all over it (as seen in the first image in this piece). Contemporary cosmologists mutter about "galaxy evolution," but the omens do not necessarily look good for the Tolman test of Expansion at high redshift.
In its original form, an expanding Einstein model had an attractive, economic elegance. Alas, it has since run into serious difficulties, which have been cured only by sticking on some ugly bandages: inflation to cover horizon and flatness problems; overwhelming amounts of dark matter to provide internal structure; and dark energy, whatever that might be, to explain the seemingly recent acceleration. A skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit inconvenient new observations."
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 21:33 GMT
John,
Unlike the issue of 'information', we are less likely to agree on this one. As I have told you before, my focus is more on particles, as the particle data are more believable. Cosmological data is always [or at least 'often'] changing by a factor or 2 or 3, and therefore I refuse to anchor my interpretation of reality to any contemporary value that seems problematical.
At present I believe that mine is the only theory that 1) predicts all of the known particles, and 2) predicts that none of the other postulated particles, including Higgs and SUSY, exist. A few more years of LHC operation will probably prove me wrong [by finding particles] or suggest I am right [by failing to find particles]. [And it is not just LHC that is looking for other particles. Other experiments during the last decade have also failed to find these postulated particles.]
But, it is absolutely necessary in my model to have a 'big bang' or at least an equivalent source of localized energy to initially create the particles. I do not see such a source in an infinite 'flat' universe. Also, my model explains inflation, which is mostly a postulate in other models.
While it is also true that I cannot imagine a 'finite' universe, neither can I imagine an 'infinite' universe, and I am strongly guided by my physical intuition (I am a physicist, not a mathematician) so I am relatively 'unguided' with respect to this aspect of cosmology. I am not necessarily a believer in the absolute relevance of General Relativity, which clearly is useful for the consideration of black holes, but may or may not be relevant to the universe as a whole.
So for these (and other) reasons, I am sticking with the 'big bang' as a model for the evolution of our known universe. Any problems with 'cosmology' may be real, they may be incorrect data, or they may be incorrect interpretation of the data, or something else. I await the LHC particle data as more meaningful.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 21:38 GMT
John, I forgot to mention that my model has an explanation for dark matter and dark energy, so the last paragraph, "Alas, it has since run into serious difficulties, which have been cured only by sticking on some ugly bandages: inflation to cover horizon and flatness problems; overwhelming amounts of dark matter to provide internal structure; and dark energy, whatever that might be, to explain the seemingly recent acceleration." does not pose serious difficulties to me. I agree that it does impose difficulties to those who ignore the C-field.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
John Merryman replied on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 01:19 GMT
Edwin,
What would a Big Bang event produce that would not be produced in the intensity of energy being shot out the poles of galaxies?
Does your theory explain how very large galaxies can form in 500 million years and possibly significantly less, should they discover any older sources than the current record? (big sky out there)
As for dark energy and dark matter, if redshift is an optical effect, as this mention of distant galaxies still having significant surface brightness suggests, then dark energy isn't even necessary. As for dark matter, the plasma universe theorists make some very valid points. Other than that, if the energy in space isn't neutral and does cause some degree of expansion, in an infinite universe, with not room for overall expansion, the result would be increased external pressure on the gravitational collapse of galaxies, thus the additional spin of the outer bands would be due to pressure, not attraction.
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 02:57 GMT
John,
You ask, "What would a Big Bang event produce that would not be produced in the intensity of energy being shot out the poles of galaxies?"
The problem is that you don't have galaxies without particles. To use a term that you are surely familiar with, you are putting the cart before the horse.
I don't know what you assume for your infinite eternal universe, but my theory assumes that we start with one thing and only one thing and end up with everything that we have today, and that includes neutrinos, electrons, quarks, and bosons, and the relevant forces that apply to these to produce our world.
To get these particles (in the quantities we see) I need lots of energy, and the big bang provides that energy and the C-field provides the inflation as well.
I simply do not see where particles come from in your flat universe.
And the C-field vortices that appear when symmetry breaks should not only produce particles, but scaled, they should accelerate galaxy formation. I have not worked out any numbers so I cannot tell you they would do so in 500 million years, but I have already told you that I don't give particular credence to ANY cosmological numbers, including the 500 M-years.
I have not spent that much time thinking about red-shift and surface brightness so I can't respond well to these points, except to reiterate that any model must produce the particles first, then the galaxies, not the other way around.
Realize that my model is philosophical in the sense that I insist that the universe began as only one 'thing' 'substance' or 'field'. Others may simply decide to include everything from day one and then worry about how galaxies form, but that is unacceptable to me.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
John Merryman replied on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 20:11 GMT
Edwin,
I do look at it from a different perspective. for me, the starting point is the here and now, from which I try to pull whatever threads seem loose, in order to see where they might lead.
From this perspective, the concept of particles are one side of a particular dichotomy. Modern physics originates in a western, object oriented view of reality, in which the nouns, defined objects, concepts, distinguishable events, etc. are viewed as fundamental and their actions as emergent. Thus we try to do such things as distinguish a particle from its context, yet find it blurry, no matter how precisely it is examined.
Reality is viewed as scales of these entities, from microcosmic particles to a macrocosmic singular universe. Yet we keep expanding these entities out to ever larger contexts, such as this singular universe existing in a panorama of multiverses.
When you even consider the ideas of "beginning/end," they are functions of the individual entity. The larger ecosystem/context in which any entity exists is constantly creating and consuming these particular defined forms.
This goes back to my observation about time. Think of it in terms of a factory; the product goes from start to finish, but the process goes the other way, consuming raw materiel and expelling discrete finished product. Our minds are like idea factories, as they consume raw information and produce coherent(or semi-coherent) thoughts, which are then pushed aside or consumed by the next thought, depending on the degree of mental interruption.
I think if we really start to peel away our biases, how much would it change our views on the nature of reality and the physical process we understand? Is symmetry really a function of opposites that would cancel each other out, or are they balanced sides of larger processes, which fundamentally co-exist?
I don't view galaxies as objects, but as processes of structural consolidation, eventually to the degree of collapse, radiating away energy as they do. Is gravity really a fundamental force, or is it an emergent effect of complex combinations of electro-magnetic attraction and repulsion, such that while attraction is prevalent, it is modified by degrees of repulsion? While I'm speculating here, the evolution of knowledge suggests we have created a more complex conceptual construct and progress will be made when the various loose ends get tied together, without resort to many of the superfluous additions. Much like a heliocentric cosmology proved far simpler and more efficient than a geocentric one. The switch did not come about because of increasing conceptual complexity, but because that most of basic assumptions was understood to be mistaken. After eons of watching the sun, moon and stars move across the sky, it was realized that it was not so much the evidence that needed explaining, but that the larger context which was not understood.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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.
Regards
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.
Sincerely
Constantin
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
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 that my equation agrees identically with Nature.
You then remark that "You wrote: "How is time affected by quantization? So a quantum gravitational gradient implies time dilation". [and] 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."
But as I have pointed out elsewhere, and as I mention in my essay Nottale has remarked, "it's remarkable that the Heisenberg relations are universal and independent of any particular measurement process". What I am saying here is that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is true for both relativistic and non-relativistic physics, perhaps the only relation about which this can be said. So I disagree with your comment.
Then you state: "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."
This implies that you believe 'space-time' is a physically real "thing". I do not believe that, [or at least I'm not sure that it is the case.] If one has fields, then one has 'space', by definition, and, as I show in my essay, after the initial perfect symmetry breaks, then one can assign a meaning to local time. So I disagree with this comment as well.
Then you state: "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 do not know why you do not consider infinite curvature to represent a 'limit', but I have elsewhere modified this statement to de-emphasize 'limit'.
Finally, you state: "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."
I am sorry that you do not see any sense in my essay. It makes sense to me. I do thank you for reading closely and for giving me the benefit of your observations. If you can find the textbooks that you claim have my theory and my equations, I believe that you will find that I have written the textbooks.
Sincerely,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
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 artist...ie 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.
Pete
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
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 thread) my friend Ray Munroe argued against my Fly-by results. I responded there and do so here as well:
Dear Ray,
You state the following:
"And if you use the electron rest mass of 9.11x10^(-31) kg as your "dipstick", then your energy increase is 4x10^(-51), which is a reasonable coupling factor (~10^-10 because Earth's gravitational field is relatively weak) times the inverse of Dirac's Large Number of 10^-41, and is in no way related to the inverse of Klingman's large number of 10^-61 (which would require an unreasonably large non-linear coupling factor of 10^10 in Earth's weak gravitational field).
Sorry, Ed - I like you, but I think you missed the mark with 10^61. Rather than (10^61)^(-2) ~ 10^(-123), it should be (10^41)^(-3) ~ 10^(-123). I think that this correction eliminates some of your declared agreement with experimental data, but it does not destroy your fundamental GEM-like idea."
Well Ray, I like you too, and you're right, it doesn't destroy my GEM idea, but it is significant. Over four years ago I worked out the FLRW equations of Einstein's relativity including the energy density of the C-field and showed that the C-field appears exactly in the same place and manner as Einstein's cosmological constant. Since I had already shown that the C-field produces the "dark energy-like" inflationary effects and that it would produce the correct behavior for half dozen mysteries currently summarized under the rubric 'fly-by' mysteries, ranging from Pioneer data to planetary orbits to the 'flat rotation curves' of stars and galaxies. I published these explanations in "The Gene Man Theory" and derived the FLRW equation in "Gene Man's World" and filed the relevant copies with the Copyright office to be sure that my explanation (the first, other than MOND) was recorded and dated.
But I did not have the actual numbers until about one week before I submitted my essay, when on Nov 19 Grumiller published his results in Phys Rev Letters. Although I had essentially finished my essay, I rewrote it in order to be able to include half a page on this important data (page 8 in my essay.)
This is some of the most important supporting data for my theory, so I cannot let you trash it without response.
Ray, Maxwell taught us that the energy of a field is proportional to the square of the field amplitude. So when I am given a value for the energy of the field, I compute the amplitude by taking the square root, NOT the CUBE ROOT. This then gives me the value that is used for the accelerations, and I find EXACTLY the correct value and range of values, based on my GEM equations. That is significant. You complain that this is a large value for the earth's gravity, and my whole point, based on Tajmar's data and my calculations is that the C-field is much stronger than Maxwell and Einstein believed based on simple symmetry considerations. That's an argument for me, not against me.
Now because you have some numerological ideas, based on Dirac's large numbers (which I'm sure was simply speculation, since I don't believe Dirac actually practiced numerology) you claim that I should be taking the cube root to obtain the number you want instead of the actual number that I do get that is physically well reasoned and matches ALL of the 'fly-by' data. You are simply mistaken, and have no physics on your side, only numerology.
The next time you feel compelled to attack one of my major results that agrees with reality, please do so on this thread so I can respond appropriately.
Your friend,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
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
Ray,
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
Ray,
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
Eugene,
I have something for you at the scene of the crime. :)
I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look-see.
Rafael
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
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 ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE EXISTS.
Now, if that is true, and if my goal is do 'derive physics', then I would like to find some relevant equation, since that is the way physics is 'done'. And, in particular, I would hope to find some 'operator equation' [for the same reason]. But if there is nothing else at all, then the only possible meaning of 'operation' on the field is 'interaction' with the field, and the only possible interaction is 'self-interaction', since nothing but 'self' exists. This can FORMALLY be written as: OPR op Phi = Phi op Phi, which becomes my Master equation. OPR and Phi are UNDEFINED, with the exception that Phi is the 'primordial field'.
But physics requires 'data' and 'facts' and Maxwell and Einstein taught that fields have energy and energy has mass, and with these I can make simple conjectures and see what happens. What happens is that I can almost immediately derive the FORM of Newton's equation from my Master equation.
This SUGGESTS that OPR is the 'directional derivative' or 'tangent vector' and that Phi is the gravity field, G. So we try that interpretation. With these interpretations I can now SOLVE the Master equation (NOT Newton's equation) and I find perfect radial symmetry AND scale invariance.
So how do we 'evolve' from a perfectly radially symmetric field that is 'motion invariant' (implied by 'scale invariance')?
We need to break symmetry. Somewhere else in these comments, last week, I agreed with another author that "why there was a big bang" is the same type of question as "why did symmetry break?", that is, there's no point in going there.
Yes, I agree with you that "it's not logical". But you seem to think that a field that begins as "infinite in time and space" IS logical. I don't think logic has much to do with how our universe came to be. But, once it's here, I do pretty much believe in Marcel's "Principle of logical non-contradiction". That is, I don't think the physical universe sustains contradictions.
Now you might say that, in that case, either choice is equal, and you would probably be logically correct. But in favor of my model is the fact that the C-field (existing after symmetry breaks) explains inflation, and, even more important, the C-field provides (given the energies of the big bang) a mechanism that produces left-handed massive neutrinos, electrons, up and down quarks, their anti-particles, the W, Z, and gamma bosons,and NO HIGGS. In other words ALL of the known particles, including three generations.
If you can derive all of this from your (infinite in time and space) field, and explain current anomalies of physics, then I would be very interested in how you do it, otherwise I don't think you have the complete solution that is required to explain today's world.
It may feel 'logical and rational' to you, but it's got to account for everything physical before it's sufficient.
You say: "I thought it was enough to answer the question regarding what realities are discrete and what realities are continuous. I thought it was enough to explain a unification of relativistic mechanics and quantum mechanics..."
The fqxi contest does ask for 'analog vs digital' essays, and there are plenty, but if you want to supplant all other theories (as you seem to want to do) then you have to provide more.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
re castel replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 11:08 GMT
Eugene,
I may have a good answer if you take a look at it again at the scene.
Rafael
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.
Edwin,
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
Jim,
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
Edwin,
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.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 17:01 GMT
Tom,
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
Edwin,
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?
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 18:19 GMT
Tom,
I'll accept inverse.
I don't agree completely with your second paragraph, but let's leave it there.
And I think Einstein phrased it poorly, but he did get the point across. My basic premise is Marcel's "Principle of Non-contradiction", which, as I mean it, implies that the physical universe does not sustain logical contradictions. As to whether this means God had no choice, I'm not sure.
I'll put some more thought into your final paragraph. It's worth it.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
hide replies
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
Alan,
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
Edwin,
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,
Alan
report post as inappropriate
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 19:40 GMT
This is my attitude to supersymmetry
http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0022
This is my Essay
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 20:20 GMT
Yuri,
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
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 scales (I know that when I get into scales, that this is represented by something like a Mandelbrot or Cantor Set, and implies a Multiverse that we shouldn't be able to directly observe, but could be responsible for the Cosmological Constant if it becomes necessary to describe this in terms of "leakage" from a scale of greater complexergy). Now we need a scale operation (such as Lucas numbers) or matrix operation (like the definition of reciprocal lattices) to unite these fundamental & fundamentally different type of phenomena.
If SUSY exists, then it is definitely a broken symmetry (we don't see scalar selectrons with a mass of 511 KeV).
I think that SUSY is the clear answer for several reasons:
1) Particles behave like fermions, fields behave like bosons (after second quantization), and SUSY relates these so that we may unite them in a single TOE.
2) SUSY is a beautiful theory that solves the Hierarchy problem of the Standard Model (SM) - Why is the Weak mass scale (Z mass ~ 100 GeV) stable against radiative corrections from the GUT/ TOE mass scale (Planck mass ~ 10^19 GeV)? If SUSY is not true, then this is a significant "fudge" that would otherwise destroy the Standard Model. Ironically, I suspect that most of the SUSY opponents are SM proponents, and don't realize that SUSY is critical to the radiative-correction-stability of the SM.
3) String theory predicts SUSY. I am a String Theory proponent, but am concerned about the falsifiability of a theory that has 10^500 possible ground state solutions... Is it a Theory of Everything, a Theory of Anything, or a Theory of Nothing [practical yet]?
4) Hyper-SUSY is my extension of SUSY to incorporate the 5 expected fundmental spins (0, 1/2, 1, 3/2 and 2) h-bar, and expected scales.
If the Weak scale is the ONLY scale that exists (other than the Planck scale), then the Higgs and SUSY should exist at the Weak scale. Degree of fine-tuning goes as ratio-squared. If the Z mass is ~ 100 GeV, then SUSY masses of ~ TeV require fine-tuning of ~1 part in 100, SUSY masses of ~ 10 TeV would require fine-tuning of ~1 part in 10,000, and the Hierarchy problem becomes a significant problem again...
If we have multiple scales (as Notalle and I expect), then we have a Planck Scale, a Weak scale, and at least two more scales. Now it isn't clear that SUSY must live at the Weak scale - other possibilities exist. I'm not happy throwing out an idea that may be difficult to prove or falsify (Although Section 6.1 of my book points to a Cosmic Ray anamoly from ~100 TeV to ~10,000 TeV that may indicate a new scale), but that is where I currently stand with this idea.
Have Fun!
Dr. Cosmic Ray
p.s. - Ed and Peter might want to read B N Sreenath's essay. Sreenath tries to build an equation for Quantum Gravity - in similar fashion to Ed's Master Equation. Sreenath's description of equivalence is similar to Peter's (acceleration comes in discrete energy packets - each of these packets would represent a different inertial frame and a different bus in Peter's essay and analogies - if I understand them correctly...).
Have Fun!
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 01:20 GMT
Ray,
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
Ray,
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 writing up. I came to this result 5 years ago, but thought it 'too far out' to include in my books. Yet after reading Yau's recent book, "The Shape of Inner Space", I realized I was right all along, and am finishing up the material I left out earlier, as well as adding to it.
As for reciprocal lattices, they obviously are useful for condensed matter physics. I don't see the need beyond that. I reject the Multi-verse and believe the C-field supplies the Cosmological Constant, as it is the only 'real' thing that I know of that supports inflation.
We both agree SUSY, if it exists, (it doesn't) is not an exact symmetry.
As for "Particles behave like fermions, fields behave like bosons (after second quantization), and SUSY relates these so that we may unite them in a single TOE", The first is factually true (behavior) but SUSY is completely unnecessary in my opinion, and in my model. And we've discussed second quantization before, with regard to phonons. It's a mathematical tool, not a physical reality.
You say, "SUSY is a beautiful theory", [in the eye of the beholder] which the Nature article says inspires 'religious belief' [very prevalent these days in physics of the unseen], but as I explain above, it was designed as a patch or fix to cancel unwanted anomalies, and LHC has shown that it does not exist in the mass range necessary to make this work. So even if it SUSY does exist at higher masses, it won't do what it was designed to do. I don't see this as beautiful.
You say further that "If SUSY is not true, then this is a significant "fudge" that would otherwise destroy the Standard Model." My theory already destroys the Standard Model, so that is a given for me. No problem there.
You say: String theory predicts SUSY. I am a String Theory proponent, but am concerned about the falsifiability of a theory that has 10^500 possible ground state solutions...". But Ray, I reject String Theory as a misinterpretation of the C-field model of the proton, leading to forty years of effort, producing nothing, predicting nothing, explaining nothing, and confusing many. I could write an essay on the failure of strings, but not in the space of a comment.
You say: "Hyper-SUSY is my extension of SUSY." Will it work if SUSY disappears?
You say: "If we have multiple scales (as Notalle and I expect), then we have a Planck Scale, a Weak scale, and at least two more scales." I don't believe we have multiple scales, although I am indebted to you and Nottale for the realization that 'scale invariance' implies 'motion invariance'. And the "Hierarchy problem" is not a problem, to me, but a 'solution' that prevents the universe from scrunching down to a point.
Ray, I do not doubt that, if my model were ever accepted, you would find a way to map it into a symmetry, a mathematical umbrella to unify the 4 particles and 4 fields, possibly the E8~H4xH4*, that you suggested. You might balance the degrees-of-freedom for 4 particles (times 3 generations) with 4 fields (times 3 spatial dimensions). I will be happy to see that, if it should occur (as will you, in all likelihood.) But I'm pretty sure it will not require any more particles, any strings, any more universes, or any more dimensions, nor will it be based on a 'computer-in-the-sky'. It will be based on the four fields (in four dimensions) giving rise to all known particles, and nothing else.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
T H Ray replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 12:20 GMT
Edwin,
Supersymmetry was never a "patch" or a fix." A prediction, not an assumption.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 13:27 GMT
Hi Ed,
Obviously we could disagree for the rest of the essay contest period, and I don't see the point.
IMHO, SUSY is a more perfect symmetry than the SM, and you haven't fully descrbed your symmetry (I'm only guessing that it is an H4xH4*). To Tom's point, SUSY is predicted by String Theory and fixes a significant problem in the SM (the Hierarchy problem) - but the prediction supercedes the "fudge" (the theory is more fundamental than the apparent "epicycle").
I know that your theory is different from the SM, and your origin of mass is different, so your ideas might not be plagued with the identical problems that plague the SM. How do you explain the origin of mass? How do you explain the radiative stability of the Weak Scale (W and Z masses)?
If my multiple scales exist, then SUSY may not be Weak-scale, and may be harder to pin down. The people who oppose SUSY either think that the SM is perfect without it (bad assumption) or have other odd-ball ideas that may or may not work out, and certainly aren't any more beautiful than SUSY. Occam's Razor is a balance between Simplicity (I often equate Simplicity and Beauty) and Necessity (a theory needs to explain as many details as possible - does your theory explain Weak-scale stability or is that another epicycle?).
Have Fun!
Dr. Cosmic Ray
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 20:43 GMT
Ray,
I agree about disagreeing. I think this last round started with the Nature article that says SUSY doesn't appear to be there, which was 'new'. You keep trying to fit my theory into your framework, and it simply does not fit. I don't think in terms of symmetry, as I've explained elsewhere. The H4xH4* was your suggestion, and I'm just going along with it. In my view symmetry was the best tool for interpreting scattering data, and is useful in molecular and condensed matter physics, but is emergent, not causal.
Whatever the genesis of SUSY, it doesn't appear to be there or to solve the problem it was believed to solve. That's just an apparent fact. Denial won't make it go away. And I am not a member of the religion of strings, as I've explained several times how these arose as a misinterpretation of C-field-based proton-proton scattering data.
I've answered the questions in your third paragraph elsewhere on these threads several times and it's in my 'Chromodynamics War' book that you have.
I have been thinking about your 'scales', and I'd like to 'walk back' one of my comments. I said above that "I don't believe we have multiple scales,..." but I'm not sure that is true. I don't know enough about your scales (yes, I've read your paper on them) but I have recently seen an aspect of the C-field that may best be described as 'scales'. I'm putting more thought into this, because I don't know how to represent it mathematically, or describe it well verbally, although I can depict it graphically (it's topological in nature). So maybe you're right on the existence of two scales, (although I draw the line at the Multi-verse).
Looks like we're moving into the final phase. It's been stimulating, and I've enjoyed our back-and-forth.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
hide replies
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.
IF THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT, THEN LIGHT IS A WAVE.
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!
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 20:06 GMT
Constantinos,
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?”and,
“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,
Constantinos
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
Edwin,
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 http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/902
I re-read your essay with mounting interest and frustration with my limited fluency in math. I...
view entire post
Edwin,
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 http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/902
I re-read your essay with mounting interest and frustration with my limited fluency in math. I dealt with vector calculus a bit in my years as a graduate student in economics, but it was at the level of “math for social sciences.” I hope nevertheless, despite my lack of technical expertise, to be able to make a few comments that you may find stimulating.
First, Full Disclosure: I come to the discussion from a worldview heavily influenced by my Catholic background and some intense personal experiences which convince me that in addition to there being something “out there,” there is also something “over there.” I believe, in a nutshell, that the universe is not indifferent to our being here, that it responds to us, and that, in a real sense, it is here for us. On the other hand, I do not believe in supernatural intervention in the course of events in this world. In my view, phenomena are strictly of this world. I do not reject the power of prayer to influence events, but I believe this power, such as it may be, works through natural causes that are part of the structure of physical reality.
Regarding the local vs. non-local nature of reality:
I first came across this issue in the mid-1980s, just several years after the Aspect experiments in Paris had convinced most physicists that the Bell inequality does not hold, and that reality, contrary to the EPR position, must therefore be non-local. At the time I had been reading [or reading about] David Bohm with great fascination, not being aware, of course, where the intellectual fault lines separating the major issues and combatants lay.
What interested me in the idea that physical reality could be non-local is the need I felt, absent
supernatural intervention or revelation, for the universe to connect agents with the consequences of
their actions as a means of generating knowledge, self consciousness, and ultimately, empathy and a sense of moral responsibility. To me it seems that the possibility of moral action, something readily observable in our world, even in its negation, requires that the consequences of an act would have to be present in some sense immediately—much like the elements in a geometric structure are present all at once. Einstein’s General Theory would offer an example of such a structure, where individual events separated in our view by vast stretches of space and time are connected immediately in the eternal present of four-dimensional space-time. It seems to me that if consequences are not somehow implicit in conscious acts there is no basis for moral responsibility and no need for consciousness, and, as that great myth of creation put it, no need for or even the possibility of the knowledge of good and evil. But if the future is, in principle, unknowable, as I argue it must be if the universe is to accommodate free will, the very geometric structure that somehow does away with past and future and places all events in a kind of frozen simultaneity would also have to be dynamic, that is, it would also have to permit reality to evolve forever out of the changing potential that is our experience of the present. To become conscious we would have to be able to experience and actively participate in our becoming, rather than just being. We would have to be able to change as a result of experiencing the consequences of our actions.
The behavior of time seems to hint that these seemingly contradictory requirements—the instantaneousness of events in a geometric structure and the evolution of that structure, with effect following cause—may be accommodated in the physical universe. Effects—consequences—propagate in the physical universe at the maximum speed permitted by special relativity, betraying reality’s dynamic nature, rooted in a kind of locality, which is needed to ensure causality, etc. Yet, from the perspective of the force-carrying particles that that project effects over long distances—the photons for example, and the presumed carrier of the gravitational force, the graviton—the time needed to travel any distance between emission and absorption, between cause and effect, is zero. Therefore, from the perspective of the parts of the presumed mechanism that connects cause with effect, there is, as Newton observed, spooky instantaneous action at a distance. Despite Einstein’s best efforts, both special and general theories of reality seem to leave the door open to the Zen-like possibility that physical reality is both local and non-local, perhaps as the need or circumstance requires.
In addition to these hand-waving and rather intuitive arguments for non-locality, there also seems to be a hint in the mathematics of classical physics that reality is non-local, at least from my limited layman’s understanding of the calculus of variations. How, for example, does the electromagnetic field calculate the path of a bolt of lightning to ensure that the electrons flow along the path of least resistance? Don’t both ends of the integral have to be known for the calculation to be done? The consequence—the path chosen—has to be known in some sense before it can be identified as the path of least action. Or did I miss something here?
Incidentally, the day I followed up your first comment on my essay I found that link to the blog with Jay Christian, which I followed for some time. You probably understand now that possible problems with Bell’s proof do not have much impact on my experientially-motivated intuition that reality is in some sense non-local.
Regarding how consciousness couples with matter, individuals as foci of consciousness, and related topics:
I really like the idea of a C-field and your assertion that consciousness is fundamental. I also believe that consciousness is fundamental, and that by taking this position we are rushing in where angels—but not Teilhard de Chardin—fear to tread. I must admit that I don’t yet quite get how the C-field emerges or is generated from the gravitational field in your analysis, but this personal blind spot is not that significant to me, given all the other things about mathematical physics I cannot follow. For my own consumption for many years I have thought of “will” as a real physical force, analogous to gravity in many respects, which operates on events at the micro or quantum level. The force of one’s will would be a function of one’s level of consciousness, much like gravity is proportional to mass/energy, but, unlike gravity, it would be possible to shield events and systems from this force, turning it on and off, as it were, by acts of will. We are, I suspect, a long way from being able to specify this force mathematically, but some kind of dimensional analysis should be possible. There are, after all, a lot of observations and reasonable conjectures we could make about this hypothetical physical force that are closer to phenomena than the speculations of M-Theory with all its mathematical wizardry.
Perhaps you noticed in my essay that I speculated that in a world with free will there could be no such thing as a completely random event. Instead of looking for hidden variables, perhaps Einstein and Bohm should have been looking for a hidden force, except that the force of our wills is not very well hidden. We project it into the world all the time, and the world responds. I am convinced that the world attends upon us, waiting to reconfigure itself as best it can to the shaping force of our wills, subject to the constraints placed by other wills and the potential residing in the present.
In addition to believing that consciousness is fundamental I also believe that individuals, which I refer to as foci of consciousness in my essay, are fundamental in the sense that they, unlike previous candidates for fundamental particles, cannot be sub-divided or analyzed into constituent parts. There is no such thing as half an individual, nor does anyone seem to have an idea of what the constituent parts of an individual, as distinct from an individual’s body, might be. You can have essentially the same relationship with half a loaf of bread or half an apple that you can have with the whole loaf or the entire fruit, but you cannot even find half and individual, or even half a dog. We might seem to be playing with words here, but words are close to experienced reality in a way that math cannot be. Math, moreover, in its present state of development, seems peculiarly ill-suited for dealing with the individuality, particularly when the subject is an individual that has achieved a level of consciousness that we recognize as personhood. The relation “is equal to,” for example, is totally useless except in the trivial sense that a person may be considered equal to his or her self. But it is precisely at the level of a person, by our hypothesis, where we would expect to find the most obvious evidence for of the force of will.
Identifying individuals, particularly individuals that have developed self-consciousness, as the origin of the force of will, much as massive bodies may be thought of as the origin of the force of gravity, would be one of the ‘dimensions’ or characteristics of will that theoreticians would work with in attempting to specify it in such a way that experimentalist could begin designing ways to measure it.
Note that the number of individuals may be hypothesized to be a conserved quantity, at least locally or in a closed system. For example, according to official casualty figures, when the Titanic left Queenstown, Ireland on April 11, 1912, it carried 2,224 individuals among its passengers and crew. When it sank on April 14, 711 of these individuals were rescued and taken to New York by the Carpathia, leaving 1,513 individuals unaccounted for. These missing individuals constitute a prima facie case for the violation of the presumed conservation law. But what if we stay with our hypothesized law for the sake of argument, to see where it leads?
I am reminded of the way Pauli used conservation laws to predict the existence of an elusive, difficult to detect particle that he posited would carry off the momentum missing in certain interactions involving other fundamental particles. Electric charge was conserved, so, he reasoned, the hypothetical particle would have to be electrically neutral. Mass also seemed to be conserved within the limits of experimental delectability, so the elusive particle would have to have no rest mass, like the photon, or would be very light. Note that if Pauli had questioned the law of conservation of momentum he would not have been able to predict the existence of the neutrino. Similarly, theorists who do not accept the law of local conservation of individuals, at least as a working hypothesis, cannot predict the existence of—much less describe--the elusive particle that carries off an individual at the moment of death, often referred to as the soul.
It is easy to see my Catholic heritage seeping in here. But it’s also easy to see why hard scientific evidence for the existence or non-existence of the soul is so difficult to find: The theoreticians have given the experimentalist almost nothing to work with.
For about 30 years now I have experienced a personal phenomenon that could easily be written off by skeptics as “mere coincidences.” But it is not so easy to be skeptical of one’s own experiences—or even necessarily the best course of action—when these experiences are common occurrences, when they fit into well-defined patterns, and when they have an important emotional component. I am in the early stage of writing a book in which I develop these ideas, my worldview. This gestating book would benefit greatly from critical comments by physicists, mathematicians and other scientists, which is the reason I decided to enter the fqxi contest—to make contact with people like you who might be willing to comment. I have given my slowly emerging book the tentative title: Our Different World: Exploring the Moral Foundation of Physical Reality. The title is a play on the idea that most scientists consider the world indifferent to our being here. I touch upon this topic in my essay when I note that the very indifference of all but one of the laws of physics to our presence is what makes them available for our use. We could not work with tools that have an agenda!
I hope to begin posting drafts of chapters for comment this spring, and hope that you will stick with me, as your time and schedule permits. I will also post a copy of this reply as a comment on your essay.
Thanks again for taking the time to read and comment on my essay, and for your welcome reply to my response to your comment.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 19:58 GMT
John,
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.
Peter
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
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 02:48 GMT
If reading others essays, and responding by pointing out both overlapping points of theory and also specific differences and answering relevant questions is a PR campaign, I am guilty. And if anonymous sniping rather than intellectual argument is the issue, you are guilty.
hide replies
Juan Enrique Ramos Beraud wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 14:42 GMT
Edwin:
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
Juan
(to everyone: the offer is still in place)
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 15:45 GMT
Juan,
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
Edwin,
You don't need my rating but you have it.
Regards,
Jim
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 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
Wilhelmus
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
Edwin,
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
Edwin,
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 as: God, a mathematical universe, a multiverse, laws of physics, more than 4 dimensions.”
If physics was to accept this philosophy, anyone using the imaginary "i" (in BOTH math and physics) would be condemned of blasphemy (and some were!)– get your pitchforks and shotguns – for no one should even think such thoughts! The fact of the matter is that by letting X -> Z (real -> real + imaginary) has allowed both math and science to flourish – even Feynman had to throw a bit of the imaginary “i” into the mix to get everything to work out. Schrodinger, Pauli and Dirac, etc, nurtured this idea. Knowing how this “i” works as a component of the 4-vector (metric) cries out “dimensional.” Why would you confine yourself to 4 dimensions when you so readily gave up 3 dimensions for four?
In my essay, hidden in Figure #1 is hidden much more detailed information that was not stated. Your scaled function G resembles the images of Figure #1 in my essay. You have labeled a scaled G but do not say “physically” why it is being scaled? The scale invariance/motion invariance argument doesn’t really give me a picture of what’s happening. Figure #1 is clear as to why the past space of attainable information is being scaled through multiple light reflections – purely geometrical reasons. If Figure#1 was to allow: a) mirrors to attain a curvature (changes the linear scaling for images storing information in the image trail) and b): allow Albert to attain an instantaneous velocity moving quickly in the direction of the front or back mirror (Lorentz – one cause of microwave anisotropy), and c): other changes to mirrors being off parallel, etc, I believe we can then account for your “curvature that creates mass” along with many other characteristics you attribute to your theory, all being represented by the geometric optics associated with the changing local image area density where localized images form on the curved mirror surfaces … information slices being written with the degrees of freedom being offered by Albert’s reflective surface geometry (recall these images contain a “localized through reflection” net relativistic energy – the mass).
The view “inside the box” of Figure#1 would look to be a voodoo of images from curved bordering mirrors with different Lorentz induced conditions placed on the front and back images (clock phase & scaling changes – a kind of split Jacobian space) forming locally concentrated/not so concentrated image/area trails on the mirror surfaces representing particles …. The view outside the box simply attempts to explain information per unit area @ some periodic proper time ….. all being related to the geometry of Albert’s reflective bordered space (includes distance between mirrors, radius of curvature of each mirror (curvature was not shown in Figure#1), Albert’s relative velocity toward a Mirror, etc … all again, geometrical measures.
Taking Figure#1 a step further, I believe that by looking deep into the information stored in our reflective past (cosmic past – the “i” dimension) we trek the geometrical path that lays the basis for the Kiode geometric relation, implying, that if we look real hard (using smaller wavelengths) … we see the Muon (space of a Wick rotation). In the same fashion as the electron embedded image space, the Muon image surface space continues the information trail back in time. Go further into the Muon information space and your back to the Taon surface. Each of these electron siblings would appear orthogonal to the surface of the electron, implying that we will only see the Muon and Taon on edge (like looking at the edge of the Mirror – you do not see the embedded information until ones vision approaches the surface normal, therefore, we must step “out of the box” again to reveal what information the Muon’s reflective mirror surface has stored …. etc. String theory may build these “out of the box” views of information as different dimensions, but, could it be that what these dimensions represent are just the pseudoscalar of the representative cosmic space at some given proper time in our cosmic past?
What information can we gather when we get all the way back to revealing all the information stored within the reflective degrees of freedom from the Electron to the Muon to the Taun? Well, this is where T-Duality says that that the sum of the information from these images hold the same information as those images stored on the Cosmic mirror in my Figure#2 as they must, after all, these Mirrors were “one” entity at the very beginning of time, and, maintained ALL information in the form of reflected images from this time to the present.
If you were to explain Jill’s consciousness during her stroke as being “out of body looking on” …. could it have been that the mirror curvature appropriated by her minds Hilbert states provided a newly focused co-ordinate to place her consciousness (a locally centralized information trail) that drifted out of her body. This would imply that at least one of our brains functions is to maintain a Hilbert curvature such that we can focus reflected information to within our bodies limits … we die … we lose this curvature and thus observe the entire image trail with a sudden Hilbert space defocus (Jill’s infinite la-la land).
Best Regards,
Tony
view post as summary
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
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 developed in this contest, I would have included 'digital-computers-in-the-sky' (or in some other dimension).
You then say that this would have precluded imaginary numbers. But imaginary numbers are a two dimensional concept, and it is 'representational reality' that is at question, not physical reality. Having explained (briefly in my essay, at length in referenced work) why I 'allow' mathematics (as evolved inside our physical universe) then I am comfortable with the use of infinite Hilbert spaces and 'imaginary' numbers if their use facilitates representation and/or 'solution' of physical problems, which they clearly do.
On the other hand, I do reject belief that imaginary number is physical; it is simply a shorthand for 'orthogonal'. And I do reject that an 'infinite series of wave-functions' is physical. It is simply a way to decompose complex shapes, which are mathematically intractable, into sine waves.
So I disagree that 'no one should ever think such thoughts' even though the consequence in reality is often a period of confusion, as is the case today with 'qubits'.
Your next potential problem is that the 'scaled function G' is not explained 'physically', and doesn't give a picture of what's happening. This is a fair complaint. It's really hard to see what's happening. An earlier criticism of my theory was that it had no time dependence, although this accusation was leveled against the derived Newton equation and not my Master equation. When Ray Munroe made me aware of Nottale and scale invariance I saw that my Master equation (not Newton's equation) is scale invariant, and Nottale shows, motion invariant. This is mathematically easy to show, but initially physically confusing. What it means to me is that the physical universe, as long as it is validly described by the Master equation is scale invariant, and this means that even if the scale is changing, the Master equation is still the proper description. It is only when symmetry breaks, 'releasing' the hitherto suppressed C-field, that the equations evolve. I believe this is a physical explanation, not just mathematical, but it may take some mental effort before this becomes clear.
You next attempt to map my theory into your theory, or vice versa, in terms of equating 'curvature that creates mass' (Calabi's phrase) with 'curvature of the mirrors'. My theory is complex, and so is yours, and you have spent more time on this equivalence than have I, so you may be correct, but it is not clear to me at this moment, as I do not understand what the 'mirrors' represent in my model, and I am not a believer in a 'holographic' universe. This is to me a (mis-)application of Cauchy's integral formula which relates the value at any point on a surface to the integral around a closed contour surrounding the point. But that is valid for conservative potentials, and does not, in my opinion, extend into the non-linear regions implied by Yang-Mills. This is not to deny that reflections play a huge role in the physical universe, and are often appropriately modeled by a 'box'.
When you 'step outside the box' and see muons implied, you have lost me. You clearly seem to have a picture in mind that ties it together, but I don't yet have the picture.
Now I will go out on a limb and conjecture that you are working not so much in four dimensional reflections but in a Hilbert space of reflections, and this might be mathematically fruitful. I am still confused about the physical meaning of the mirrors.
Finally, although Jill's experience is the essence of reality, and is key to understanding consciousness in the universe, any reasonable discussion of this is beyond a comment. I have written another essay,
several books, and many comments on this aspect of reality, and the gist of these is that topology is far more basic to conscious awareness of global connectivity, and metric distance is merely a 'utilitarian overlay' which is necessary for local intelligent 'operation' in the universe.
I feel somewhat disappointed that I am not able to respond as well to your comment as I would like to, but the effort required to map your theory of the universe into my theory of the universe exceeds my immediate resources. I sincerely thank you for the serious effort that you have expended on understanding my theory and congratulate you on an original and interesting theory with two truly excellent pictures or diagrams that support your explanation. The entire purpose of fqxi, in my opinion, is to provide a forum for such ideas. For any who have not yet read Tony's essay, I recommend it.
Best wishes,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 16:54 GMT
Edwin
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.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Irvon Clear wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 20:13 GMT
Edwin,
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.
Irvon
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
Edwin
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!.
Peter
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
Edwin,
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.
Chris
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
Edwin,
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?”and,
“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!
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde 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.
Best,
Emmanuel
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
Alan,
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
Edwin,
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,
Alan
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...
Best,
Emmanuel
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 17:49 GMT
Emmanuel,
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 http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.2826. 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).
Emmanuel
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
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 spectra and absorption spectra. Both the emitter and the observer are in the same bigger frame of reference linking both and separated by the field. You will admit that the scattering in the medium causes the difference.
You say: “direct light hitting the eye is also scattered.” In our theory, different forces co-exist. Thus, it is not scattering, but comparison like when we measure (compare) the length of a rod by a scale. The scale is not scattered by the rod. When you say “it can be apparent when we move”, you are falling into the trap laid by Einstein. We have discussed it elaborately earlier by giving the example of Eddington.
You have not defined dark matter or dark energy precisely. The phenomena cited by you as proof is indirect and not direct. We can explain those phenomena differently. You also admit this possibility indirectly when you say: “The plasma does the precise job our imaginary 'dark matter' does, and in the same places!”
You say: “The references again show that curved space time exactly matches the effects of diffraction (gentle refraction delays and path curvature) via scattering in plasma.” We have given our interpretation of “curved space-time”, which is different from GR and it can also explain the effects of diffraction equally correctly.
You say: “The separate terms plasma-sphere and ionosphere are really misnomers”. But you admit their difference when you say: “they are a graded whole, proton rich low down and electron rich higher up.” The grading is not smooth, but shows the same distribution like the arrangement of protons and electrons in an atom. Since protons and electrons are placed differently in nucleus and orbits, the plasma-sphere and ionosphere have to be treated as different. We divide the electric and magnetic fields into four types each based on their gradient. That, along with the interaction with the Solar wind will explain the rest of your comments.
Now we will explain 'velocity of the field', which also will explain the constancy of ‘c’. We have already explained that the basic nature of the field is equilibrium. The basic nature of forces is displacement. This gives rise to two different types of inertia: inertia of motion due to forces and inertia of restoration (elasticity) due to the field. This leads to both these inertia acting against a point of equilibrium to create locally confined structures. These structures, which are nothing but confined field is called “rayi”. Both the inertias further act on “rayi”. In such a scenario, the combined effect leads to repeated confinement around the point of equilibrium. The confined structures in which inertia of restoration dominates, is called particle (moorty). In the opposite case, it is called “amrita”. This can be considered as your DFM.
The confinement could be strong, weak or loose, which leads to the formation of solids, fluids (including gases) and plasma. We call these ‘dhruva”, “dhartra” and “dharuna” respectively. Where the inertia of motion dominates, it appears as heat. Depending upon the nature of the particles, the propagation of heat is also classified into three categories. In solids, plasma and fluids, these are done by conduction, radiation and convection. We call these as “nirbhuja”, “pratrirnna” and “ubhayamantarena” respectively. The third category gives rise to the electric field. Thus, electric behaves like a hot fluid.
Till now we were discussing about the confinement of “rayi” (where inertia of restoration dominates). In the opposite case, where inertia of motion dominates, “rayi” gives rise to three corresponding forces of cold confinement. These can explain the effects of the so-called “dark matter and dark energy”. Magnetism belongs to this category. Thus, magnetism is a cold confining force. Since both these are different states of “rayi”, electricity and magnetism are two sides of the same coin.
Till now we were discussing “rayi”, which is a part of the primordial field dominated by inertia of restoration. The other part is dominated by inertia of motion, which we call “praana”. The effect of this is felt by other bodies. Hence this gives rise to force. Depending on their effects on different bodies, these forces are classified into different groups discussed earlier. While strong, weak, electromagnetic and radioactive disintegration forces belong to this category associated with inertia of motion and heat, gravitational interaction is associated with inertia of restoration and cold. Thus, they cannot be united.
After a part of the primordial field is confined within “rayi”, inertia of restoration in the field becomes weak and inertia of motion dominates. Thus, the field generates waves that expand rapidly in all directions. You call this big bang. The effects of “rayi” and “praana” in the primordial medium create the bow shock effect. This leads to reduced velocity of the wave, which ultimately stabilizes, cutting off a vast volume which we call universe. Since there is no reason to believe that it happens only in our locality, we believe in multiverses, which are similar universes and not as described by MWI.
After the bow shock comes to rest, the forces of inertia of motion and inertia of restoration cancel each other leading both to a superposition of states. We call this “maayaa”. But the equilibrium is momentary, since the balance between “rayi” and “praana” within the confinement of “maayaa” has not been equated, the next moment inertia of restoration dominates and there is massive contraction. You call this inflation. We call this force “dhaaraa”. This creates further interaction, which leads to structure formation. We call this “jaayaa”. Outside the structures, the inertia of restoration still dominates. You call it the cosmic microwave back ground radiation. We call it “aapah”. Thus, the universe can be picturised as an ocean containing many islands. The galaxies can be imagined to float in an “ocean” called “saraswaan”, the stars can be imagined to float in an “ocean” called “nabhaswaan”, and the Earth like planets can be imagined to float in an “ocean” called “samudra arnava”.
Just like the Earth orbits the Sun and spins around its own axis due to the combined effects of the Sun’s movement and that of the inter-stellar medium that move in different directions on the one hand, the different magnetic fields on the other hand (in a broader scale, these are the effects of “rayi and praana” and “dhaaraa and jaayaa”), the Universe as a whole also moves within the confines of “maayaa”. This appears as the receding galaxies, just like the planets sometimes appear to move away from each other. This movement of the Universal field is constant for all structures. This is what you describe as “space has inertia and angular momentum.”
It is well known that objects are perceived only during transition. The transition can be of two types: the object can move or the field containing the object can move while the object is stationary (both together are also possible, but they fall into these two groups). In the case of electromagnetic field in space, it is the field that moves at a constant velocity. You also admit it when you say: “ALL matter in motion is in motion with respect to a LOCAL background. Light entering the galaxy is Doppler shifted by the Halo to the galaxies 'c', again at the heliopause to the Sun's 'c', and at the Ionosphere to the Earths 'c', and on ad infinitum.” The only difference is that you presume the particle is moving at ‘c’ with respect to the back ground, which you take as at rest. We take the opposite view of the background with us moving at ‘c’. Like we do not experience the motion of the Earth, but think the Sun and the stars are orbiting it, we do not experience the motion of the back ground since we are also moving with it. But the effects in both cases are the same.
Regarding the 3 frames, you are on the right track. Here we quote from one of our posts under the Essay of Mr. Rafael Emmanuel Castel, where we had commented elaborately about Einstein’s 1905 paper.
Einstein: We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:
3. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.
4. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of “simultaneous”, or “synchronous”, and of “time”. The “time” of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock.
Our comments: Einstein sets out in the introductory part of his paper: “…the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate…”. The “Principle of Relativity” is restricted to comparison of the motion of one frame of reference relative to another. Introduction of a third frame of reference collapses the equations as it no longer remains relativistic. The clock at B has been taken as a privileged frame of reference for comparison of other frames of reference. If privileged frames of reference are acceptable for time measurement, then the same should be applicable for space measurement also, which invalidates the rest of the paper.
Simultaneity refers to occurrence of more than one action sequences, e.g.; events, which measure equal units in two similar action sequence measuring devices, e.g.; clocks, starting from a common reference point, e.g.; an epoch. It is the opposite of successive events. Synchronisation refers to the readings of more than one clock (or interval between event from an epoch), which do not require “clock correction”, i.e.; when such readings are compared with a common or identical repetitive action sequence or action sequence measuring devices, their readings match. It is not the opposite of successive events, but can also be simultaneous – for example, two clocks synchronised with each other will give similar readings simultaneously. If one of the clocks give 24 hour reading while the other gives 12 hour reading, then half of the time they will give readings that are synchronized and simultaneous, while half of the time they will not be so. Yet, the results can be made to synchronize by deducting 12 hours from any reading beyond it in the clock giving 24 hours reading. Here the clocks will be synchronized through out, but give simultaneous readings alternatively in succession or otherwise.
In the definition of simultaneity given by Einstein, the two clocks situated at two distant points in the same frame of reference (whether the frame of reference is inertial or not is not relevant as both the clocks and points P and P’ are fixed in the frame) are said to be synchronous, if their readings of the identical events in both clocks match. This only refers to the accuracy of mechanical functioning of the clocks and uniformity of the time unit used in both the clocks. This definition is nothing but telling the obvious in a complicated and confusing manner. Since the two clocks are synchronised, they should record equal time in both the frames of reference over equal interval.
We have also shown that if we follow the logic of Einstein, then we will land in a problem like the Russell’s paradox of set theory. In one there cannot be many, implying, there cannot be a set of one element or a set of one element is superfluous. There cannot be many without one meaning there cannot be many elements, if there is no set - they would be individual members unrelated to each other as is a necessary condition of a set. Thus, in the ultimate analysis, a collection of objects is either a set with its elements or individual objects, which are not the elements of a set.
Let us examine set theory and consider the property p(x) : x x, which means the defining property p(x) of any element x is such that it does not belong to x. Nothing appears unusual about such a property. Many sets have this property. A library [p(x)] is a collection of books. But a book is not a library (x x). Now, suppose this property defines the set R = {x : x x}. It must be possible to determine if RR or RR. However if RR, then the defining properties of R implies that RR, which contradicts the supposition that RR. Similarly, the supposition RR confers on R the right to be an element of R, again leading to a contradiction. The only possible conclusion is that, the property “x x” cannot define a set. This idea is also known as the Axiom of Separation in Zermelo-Frankel set theory, which postulates that; “Objects can only be composed of other objects” or “Objects shall not contain themselves”.
In order to avoid this paradox, it has to be ensured that a set is not a member of itself. It is convenient to choose a “largest” set in any given context called the universal set and confine the study to the elements of such universal set only. This set may vary in different contexts, but in a given set up, the universal set should be so specified that no occasion arises ever to digress from it. Otherwise, there is every danger of colliding with paradoxes such as the Russell paradox, which says that “S is the set of all sets which do not have themselves as a member. Is S a member of itself?” Or as it is put in the everyday language: “A man of Serville is shaved by the Barber of Serville id and only if the man does not shave himself?” Such is the problem in Special theory of Relativity.
Thus, “when we have to connect in time series of events occurring at different places, or - what comes to the same thing - to evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote from the watch”, we must refer to a common reference point for time measurement, which means that we have to apply “clock corrections” to individual clocks with reference to a common clock at the time of measurement which will make the readings of all clocks identical. (Einstein has also done it, when he defines synchronization in the para below). This implies that to accurately measure time by some clocks, we must depend upon a preferred clock, whose time has to be fixed with reference to the earlier set of clocks whose time is to be accurately measured. Alternatively, we will land with a set of unrelated events like the cawing of a crow and falling of a ripe date palm simultaneously. A stationery clock and a clock in a moving frame do not experience similar forces acting on them. If the forces acting on them affect the material of the clock, the readings of the clocks cannot be treated as time measurement. Because, in that case, we will land with different time units not related to a repetitive natural event - in other words, they are like individual elements not the members of a set. Hence, the readings cannot be compared to see whether they match or differ. The readings of such clocks can be compared only after applying clock correction to the moving clock. This clock correction has nothing to do with time dilation, but only to the mechanical malfunction of the clock.
There is nothing like empty space. Space, and the universe, is not empty, but full of the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation from the Big-Bang. In addition to this, space would also seem to be full of a lot of other wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation from low radio frequency to gamma rays. This can be shown by the fact that we are able to observe this radiation across the gaps between galaxies and even across the “voids” that have been identified. Since the universe is regarded as being homogeneous in all directions, it follows that any point in space will have radiation passing through it from every direction, bearing in mind Olber’s paradox about infinite quantities etc. The “rips” in space-time that Feynman and others have written about are not currently a scientifically defined phenomenon. They are just a hypothetical concept - something that has not been observed or known to exist. Thus, “light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him through empty space” would be affected by these radiations and get distorted.
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
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.
Sincerely
Sreenath.
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
Florin,
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
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 being calculated for optical fibers for the first time.
A nice geometrical explanation for ESD can be found here: http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/9/7/237/fulltext and a larger exposition on entangelment in general is found in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Geometry-Quantum-States-Introduction-E
ntanglement/dp/0521814510
I don't think there is any foundational mistery here. There are mathematical methods to test the presence of entangelment, and under some circumstances, entangelment vanishes even though cohererence does not. The sudden death is only apparent though as there are unitary operations (local operations which can be applied on the systems) which can revive it just as sudenly. Al long as cohererence is not lost, entangelment "death" is only apparent.
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 22:11 GMT
Dear Florin,
Thanks for looking at the 'ESD' paper and thanks for the ESD references. Can you explain very simply what you mean by "already know that contextual HV theories are bypassing all no-go theorems".
You say, "I don't think there is any foundational mistery here. There are mathematical methods to test the presence of entangelment, and under some circumstances, entangelment vanishes even though cohererence does not. The sudden death is only apparent though as there are unitary operations (local operations which can be applied on the systems) which can revive it just as sudenly. Al long as cohererence is not lost, entangelment "death" is only apparent."
The PRL paper states that "decoherence that takes place when the entangled quantum systems interact with the environment" and "optical birefringence is a major polarization decoherence mechanism." Further "In the simplest case in which PMD is present only in one of the fibers...[there is] unconditional violation of Bell's inequality."
This is **exactly** what I claimed in my essay, but was challenged by several and supported by none!
It complicates the issue to consider special cases and the fact that 'additional unitary operations' may succeed in re-entangling the system. You may not consider it 'fundamental' but when the 'knowledgeable physicists' challenge my claim that "photons can change en route" and I produce recent Phys Rev Letter proof that they do, and that this "unconditionally" violates Bell's inequality [my claim!] and Zeilinger's logic, I consider it significant.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 01:52 GMT
Dear Edwin,
Please see this: http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/lostcauses.html#I
Citing from there, a contextual theory means the following:
Suppose Alice and Bob measure either 2 compatible observables: X and Y or 2 compatible observables X and Z. Moreover, Y and Z are complemetary: one can measure either one, but not both. The question is how to treat observable X: contextual or non-contextual. Non-contextual means that the X in both settings (XY and XZ) is described by the same thory. Contextual means that the X in XY and XZ is described by two different theories. Non-contextual hidden variable theories obey Bell's inequality and they are rulled out by experiments. Contextual hidden variable theories do not obey Bell's inequality and they are not rulled out by experiments. However, contextual models do not have an "objective reality" property as they change depending on the measurement contex. Yes, the Moon may be there even when we do not see it, but in contextual theories, the Moon is made of cheese if I look at it through sunglases, and is made of rocks when I observe it through a telescope. It is not the same object. It is "contextual".
About "changing on route", this is not what ESD is about. Indeed, the photon does not change, it only interacts with its environment. And entanglement is still there only hidden because it can be restored (by a unitary operation). A unitary operation is not unlike a rotation of a physical object. Take a piece of paper. From straight up it is a rectangle. Rotate it 90 degrees on the direction of viewing and (if the paper is straight) you see only a line segment. You may call it a "Sudden Death of the Area", but the area is still there. Rotate it some more and it will "come back". Conceptually this is the same with ESD, only that there you work in a complex space, and you have a unitary transformation, instead of an orthogonal one. This is precisely what paper about the geometry of ESD was trying to explain.
view post as summary
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.
Second...
view entire post
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.
Second it requires that you believe that the photon doesn't change en route. But, despite your claim, the polarization of the photon *does* change according to the PRL article and my essay. The fact that you can re-rotate the photon to re-entangle it is obvious and means nothing unless you accept non-reality, which you do and I do not. It's only a problem from your perspective.
Third, since I am not proposing a classical hidden variable solution, I really don't care about the proofs that hidden variables don't exist. My C-field approach has not even been looked at seriously, it sure as hell hasn't been disproved. And an endless stream of insistent quotes that 'other things' have been disproved is of no relevance. So if it makes you feel better to call it a 'lost cause', then do so, but my approach is not a lost cause. It hasn't even been found, let alone lost. And your preconceptions about hidden variables have no bearing. I am somewhat at fault here as I have probably loosely compared my approach to 'hidden variables' but I normally try to distinguish it from 'classical' hidden variable approaches.
Right after the above quote is this relevant quote: "This conclusion should not be taken to mean that entangled states are fully understood;" That is good to keep in mind.
I do appreciate your looking at the paper and responding to my original comment, but since your remarks are always addressed to things you believe in and to analysis of non-C-field-based interpretations, then they are not relevant to my arguments. And I have reread the PRL paper enough times to repeat that they are talking about the same 'en route change' that I am talking about. Interaction with the environment is exactly what I am talking about. It changes the measurement statistics and violates Bell's inequality without in any way implying non-locality or non-reality. Re-entangling the photon is not the issue, whether you call it "restoring the entanglement" or not. The issue is the measurements and Bell's inequality "before" you re-entangle (or "restore the entanglement"). What it appears that you have forgotten is that if the 'violations' are because of changes en route, then the deductions made from these violations are invalid, and the problem disappears. "Restoring entanglement" is NOT the issue, and can only be considered to be the issue if you accept that properties are not locally real. I don't.
You come at this problem with certain assumptions and beliefs. I come it at from a different perspective with different assumptions and beliefs (specifically, C-field based assumptions.)
Next, I very much thank you for responding to my question about "contextual hidden variables". That is not far from what I thought it meant, and you have provided the simple explanation I asked for.
You say: "Non-contextual hidden variable theories obey Bell's inequality and they are ruled out by experiments. Contextual hidden variable theories do not obey Bell's inequality and they are not ruled out by experiments. However, contextual models do not have an "objective reality" property as they change depending on the measurement context. Yes, the Moon may be there even when we do not see it, but in contextual theories, the Moon is made of cheese if I look at it through sunglasses, and is made of rocks when I observe it through a telescope. It is not the same object. It is "contextual"."
You use the example that "the moon is green cheese through sunglasses, but rocks through a telescope."
My C-field approach would be phrased as follows: "The muon-particle is a particle when viewed through apparatus A and a wave when viewed through apparatus B." [Where A and B are NOT Alice and Bob.]
If this is a valid phrasing, then my theory is a contextual variable theory, and therefore is not ruled out by Bell's inequality. But it *does* have an objective reality, in contradiction to your above statement.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 12:02 GMT
Edwin
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).
Florin
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?; http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803 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
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 13:18 GMT
Edwin,
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.
Alan
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 19:01 GMT
Alan,
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.
Best,
Alan
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 16:40 GMT
Edwin,
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
Alan
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 19:59 GMT
Alan,
Yes, "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."
It's not just the early days. In 1998 the 'vacuum energy', which is probably the most important factor in QED, was found to be wrong by 120 orders of magnitude (that's a one followed by 120 zeroes). And last year, the QED calculation of the proton radius based on muonic hydrogen (hydrogen with muon replacing electron) is off by four percent!
So QED has real problems.
Edwin Eugene Klingman