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

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

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

Contests Home

Previous Contests

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

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

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Previous Contests

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**funny jokes**: *on* 3/27/18 at 2:39am UTC, wrote color switch game

**basudeba**: *on* 3/20/11 at 6:15am UTC, wrote Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria – suggestions for...

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 3/8/11 at 17:38pm UTC, wrote Willard I see local and non local as purely relative! In fact I've just...

**Willard Mittelman**: *on* 3/8/11 at 17:12pm UTC, wrote Hi Peter, Thanks for your kind remarks. Personally, I'm not very...

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 3/7/11 at 10:08am UTC, wrote Willard Just re-reading the essays that gelled with me. I still appreciate...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 2/20/11 at 16:50pm UTC, wrote amen dear gentlemen , so politness hihiihi irriting this belgian. But...

**Jonathan Dickau**: *on* 2/18/11 at 21:42pm UTC, wrote Hello Willard, Good to see you in this contest. I look forward to reading...

**Willard Mittelman**: *on* 2/16/11 at 18:51pm UTC, wrote Hello Walter, I may have misunderstood the meaning of "non-specialist."...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Steve Agnew**: "There are some questions that do not seem to have answers in the classical..."
*in* Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

**Steve Agnew**: "Yes, there are two very different narratives. The classical narrative works..."
*in* Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

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

**Steve Dufourny**: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..."
*in* The Demon in the Machine...

**Steve Agnew**: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..."
*in* The Demon in the Machine...

**Steve Dufourny**: "Joe,so lol you speak to God or it has send you this information lol ?..."
*in* First Things First: The...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**First Things First: The Physics of Causality**

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

**Can Time Be Saved From Physics?**

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

**Thermo-Demonics**

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

**Gravity's Residue**

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

**Could Mind Forge the Universe?**

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

FQXi FORUM

October 14, 2019

CATEGORY:
Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011)
[back]

TOPIC: Fluctuation and Superposition of Digital and Analog Aspects of Spacetime by Willard Mittelman [refresh]

TOPIC: Fluctuation and Superposition of Digital and Analog Aspects of Spacetime by Willard Mittelman [refresh]

Motivated by the problem of obtaining a plausible account of dark energy, we describe the microstructure of spacetime as continually fluctuating between discreteness and a generally continuous state, with dark energy taking the form of a quantum potential of spacetime that emerges from this process of fluctuation. In addition, we consider the problem of explaining the initial conditions of our universe, which leads us to entertain the idea that spacetime itself is a superposition of both discrete and continuous metrics.

Graduated from Michigan State University and received a PhD in philosophy from the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill). Since 1999 has lived in Athens, Georgia, working for the University of Georgia.

Willard

I enjoyed your essay, and agreed with almost all the content, particularly your preferred frame, and;

"Specifically, we can view this preferred frame as a “gravitational aether”."

You have to sidestep constancy of 'c' (CSL) but I hope I can help your theory with the model my own essay (20-20 vision - a Model of Discretion) which allows the 3rd frame by means of a quantum mechanism for CSL in SR.

I'd be interested in your views.

Best of luck

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed your essay, and agreed with almost all the content, particularly your preferred frame, and;

"Specifically, we can view this preferred frame as a “gravitational aether”."

You have to sidestep constancy of 'c' (CSL) but I hope I can help your theory with the model my own essay (20-20 vision - a Model of Discretion) which allows the 3rd frame by means of a quantum mechanism for CSL in SR.

I'd be interested in your views.

Best of luck

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your helpful comment; I like the idea that your theory can ensure peaceful co-existence between CSL and a preferred frame (see also the comment I've attached to your own paper).

Good luck with your work,

Willard

Thanks for your helpful comment; I like the idea that your theory can ensure peaceful co-existence between CSL and a preferred frame (see also the comment I've attached to your own paper).

Good luck with your work,

Willard

Thanks for your support Willard.

I'm also now quite convinced the model finally fully unifies SR and QM, which Roger Penrose described as the 'Holy Grail' of physics. Unfortunately I'm also quite convinced that most are so indoctrinated with the current paradigm they'll be unable to recognise the way out into the light.

There do however seem to be a slowly growing number who can think like we do, are unhappy with the rut we're in and are willing to follow Bragg's advice. (There are at least 2 more here). Soon the lunatic asylums may be too small for us all to be consigned there as crackpots. But I'm at a loss how to speed up the process, which may still fail, (and with it humanity?) I just hope for the day my thesis is criticised for being 'self evident'! Walter Babin believes we currently lack anyone with the intellect and 'authority' to take a firm stance. I agree it would help. Any ideas or help you can give would be welcome.

In the meantime I hope I can rely on a good ('community') rating from you, as it may at least get the judges to take it seriously. Yours certainly deserves similar.

Best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I'm also now quite convinced the model finally fully unifies SR and QM, which Roger Penrose described as the 'Holy Grail' of physics. Unfortunately I'm also quite convinced that most are so indoctrinated with the current paradigm they'll be unable to recognise the way out into the light.

There do however seem to be a slowly growing number who can think like we do, are unhappy with the rut we're in and are willing to follow Bragg's advice. (There are at least 2 more here). Soon the lunatic asylums may be too small for us all to be consigned there as crackpots. But I'm at a loss how to speed up the process, which may still fail, (and with it humanity?) I just hope for the day my thesis is criticised for being 'self evident'! Walter Babin believes we currently lack anyone with the intellect and 'authority' to take a firm stance. I agree it would help. Any ideas or help you can give would be welcome.

In the meantime I hope I can rely on a good ('community') rating from you, as it may at least get the judges to take it seriously. Yours certainly deserves similar.

Best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Willard Mittelman,

Thanks for your comment on Peter Jackson's page. You further stimulated my interest in Peter's CSL remarks to me.

I don't claim to understand every detail of your paper, but what little I do understand makes me wonder whether you are looking for discrete length and time elements [the 'causet elements'], and particularly elements that explain "the initial co-existence of high temperature with very low entropy."

My preference is to believe in only one discrete 'element', the action, h, and to allow continuity everywhere else (no minimum length or time) subject to my generalized quantum principle: (dm/dt)(dx)**2 = h.

If you view the single "origin element" as a perfect fluid with continuity, I believe that the high temp-low entropy problem is solved as explained in my essay. The outward radial velocity [temp] at least equals the gravitational potential at the singularity [the zero total energy (free lunch) universe], and the 'shape' of the solution to the Master equation provides low entropy. Only the action is discrete.

I don't know if this makes any sense in your FS framework, but I offer it for what it's worth. It may or may not be consistent with what you're proposing. As a side note, my universe begins with perfect symmetry [again, probably requiring complete continuity] and I don't believe a Big Crunch will ever reproduce the original perfect symmetry, so I don't think we'll see another Big Bang.

Good luck and thanks again,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your comment on Peter Jackson's page. You further stimulated my interest in Peter's CSL remarks to me.

I don't claim to understand every detail of your paper, but what little I do understand makes me wonder whether you are looking for discrete length and time elements [the 'causet elements'], and particularly elements that explain "the initial co-existence of high temperature with very low entropy."

My preference is to believe in only one discrete 'element', the action, h, and to allow continuity everywhere else (no minimum length or time) subject to my generalized quantum principle: (dm/dt)(dx)**2 = h.

If you view the single "origin element" as a perfect fluid with continuity, I believe that the high temp-low entropy problem is solved as explained in my essay. The outward radial velocity [temp] at least equals the gravitational potential at the singularity [the zero total energy (free lunch) universe], and the 'shape' of the solution to the Master equation provides low entropy. Only the action is discrete.

I don't know if this makes any sense in your FS framework, but I offer it for what it's worth. It may or may not be consistent with what you're proposing. As a side note, my universe begins with perfect symmetry [again, probably requiring complete continuity] and I don't believe a Big Crunch will ever reproduce the original perfect symmetry, so I don't think we'll see another Big Bang.

Good luck and thanks again,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Hello Edwin,

Thanks for your comments. My interest in the idea of spacetime discreteness is actually motivated by the idea's relevance to the issue of black hole entropy, as well as by its applicability to the problem of dark energy. The existence of such motivation doesn't prove that spacetime is discrete, of course, since (e.g.) there are other possible ways of explaining dark energy; but I believe it does at least indicate that spacetime discreteness is an idea worth exploring. At the same time, it is important to explore other approaches as well, such as your own highly interesting theory.

A plurality of approaches is also warranted with respectt to the problem of the universe's initial conditions. I actually agree with you that continuity is important in connection with this problem. I'm not sure, though, how the shape of the solution to your Master equation guarantees initial low entropy; any explanation or clarification of this point would be much appreciated.

Good luck with your ongoing theoretical endeavors,

Willard

Thanks for your comments. My interest in the idea of spacetime discreteness is actually motivated by the idea's relevance to the issue of black hole entropy, as well as by its applicability to the problem of dark energy. The existence of such motivation doesn't prove that spacetime is discrete, of course, since (e.g.) there are other possible ways of explaining dark energy; but I believe it does at least indicate that spacetime discreteness is an idea worth exploring. At the same time, it is important to explore other approaches as well, such as your own highly interesting theory.

A plurality of approaches is also warranted with respectt to the problem of the universe's initial conditions. I actually agree with you that continuity is important in connection with this problem. I'm not sure, though, how the shape of the solution to your Master equation guarantees initial low entropy; any explanation or clarification of this point would be much appreciated.

Good luck with your ongoing theoretical endeavors,

Willard

Willard,

Thanks for the comment on Peter's page. I'm still absorbing that, but I wanted to respond to your last question.

Also, at some point I'd like to discuss black hole entropy and holography with you.

But the immediate issue is to resolve the 'low entropy' problem of a high energy big bang. Recall that my Master equation del (dot) phi = phi (dot) phi has solution phi = 1/r where phi is a radial vector. Since phi is quickly found to be gravity G, with energy proportional to G*G and mass proportional to energy,E=mc**2, then the G-field distribution and hence the G-field energy, and hence the G-field mass is distributed as 1/r, that is the mass is inversely proportional to distance (squared) from the 'origin'.

If we are dealing with a continuous field (as opposed to a smallest finite element of space) then we can obtain as large a mass as we want, since 1/r comes as close as we want to a singularity. We can thus see that the lion's share of the mass is effectively 'at' the origin; r=0.

But if you told me that all of the gaseous energy in a large cube was effectively concentrated 'at' one of the corners of the cube, then I would say that this was very low entropy, since the high entropy distribution would be evenly distributed over the entire volume of the cube. So, in similar fashion, the location of all of the energy/mass of the G-field at the origin or singularity r=0, is a low entropy solution, whereas all of the GR-inspired FLRW 'dust' models are homogeneously distributed over the entire volume of the universe and hence are high entropy solutions. This is why Roger Penrose also tries to engineer a Big Crunch that will somehow lead to a following low entropy big bang.

I hope this is clearer now. You might read the relevant part of my essay again, with the above in mind.

I'm going to think some more on the comments you and Peter left me on his page. I have some ideas and interesting results, but I'm still somewhat confused.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for the comment on Peter's page. I'm still absorbing that, but I wanted to respond to your last question.

Also, at some point I'd like to discuss black hole entropy and holography with you.

But the immediate issue is to resolve the 'low entropy' problem of a high energy big bang. Recall that my Master equation del (dot) phi = phi (dot) phi has solution phi = 1/r where phi is a radial vector. Since phi is quickly found to be gravity G, with energy proportional to G*G and mass proportional to energy,E=mc**2, then the G-field distribution and hence the G-field energy, and hence the G-field mass is distributed as 1/r, that is the mass is inversely proportional to distance (squared) from the 'origin'.

If we are dealing with a continuous field (as opposed to a smallest finite element of space) then we can obtain as large a mass as we want, since 1/r comes as close as we want to a singularity. We can thus see that the lion's share of the mass is effectively 'at' the origin; r=0.

But if you told me that all of the gaseous energy in a large cube was effectively concentrated 'at' one of the corners of the cube, then I would say that this was very low entropy, since the high entropy distribution would be evenly distributed over the entire volume of the cube. So, in similar fashion, the location of all of the energy/mass of the G-field at the origin or singularity r=0, is a low entropy solution, whereas all of the GR-inspired FLRW 'dust' models are homogeneously distributed over the entire volume of the universe and hence are high entropy solutions. This is why Roger Penrose also tries to engineer a Big Crunch that will somehow lead to a following low entropy big bang.

I hope this is clearer now. You might read the relevant part of my essay again, with the above in mind.

I'm going to think some more on the comments you and Peter left me on his page. I have some ideas and interesting results, but I'm still somewhat confused.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Willard, You've lost me on both points. Specifying one 'size' in my cube example doesn't determine entropy, with no other data specified, and Penrose is talking baryons which I suspect are evenly distributed inside black holes, while the G-field distribution in a perfect fluid is quite different. But since I haven't done in calculations on the entropy, I can't say. I still believe that the only quantum is Planck's constant and the perfect fluid is a continuum. I'll try to compute the entropy, but it's not at the top of my list of todo's.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Hi Edwin,

Penrose is not talking specifically about baryons, and in fact the particular nature of the matter or mass here is irrelevant; the key question is simply whether or not gravitational effects are prominent - if they are, then clumping of matter is associated with high entropy (see pp. 706-7, as well as p. 728, of Penrose). Presumably, in your model, gravitational effects are indeed prominent at the origin r=0, since it seems from what you say that the G-field approaches a singularity there. Hence, I'm not sure how you get a low-entropy initial state for the universe. You could perhaps claim that the universe-"cube" is initially very large and has low entropy everywhere except in the vicinity of r=0, in which case the entropy density at least might be low (as it is in Steinhardt & Turok's ekpyrotic model); hence my question about the size of the cube. Judging from your reply, though, you don't seem to be making a specific claim about the size of the cube; and in any case, it's unclear that the overall entropy density can be made sufficiently low here, given the high entropy near r=0.

Best Wishes,

Willard

Penrose is not talking specifically about baryons, and in fact the particular nature of the matter or mass here is irrelevant; the key question is simply whether or not gravitational effects are prominent - if they are, then clumping of matter is associated with high entropy (see pp. 706-7, as well as p. 728, of Penrose). Presumably, in your model, gravitational effects are indeed prominent at the origin r=0, since it seems from what you say that the G-field approaches a singularity there. Hence, I'm not sure how you get a low-entropy initial state for the universe. You could perhaps claim that the universe-"cube" is initially very large and has low entropy everywhere except in the vicinity of r=0, in which case the entropy density at least might be low (as it is in Steinhardt & Turok's ekpyrotic model); hence my question about the size of the cube. Judging from your reply, though, you don't seem to be making a specific claim about the size of the cube; and in any case, it's unclear that the overall entropy density can be made sufficiently low here, given the high entropy near r=0.

Best Wishes,

Willard

Edwin,

I just want to add that it's perfectly okay if you want to leave the question of entropy aside and focus on other aspects of your theory; it's just that your earlier remarks about entropy piqued my curiosity and led me to ask for further details. If there are other things on your "to-do list" that have higher priority, that's fine; we don't need to keep going back and forth about entropy.

Good Luck,

Willard

I just want to add that it's perfectly okay if you want to leave the question of entropy aside and focus on other aspects of your theory; it's just that your earlier remarks about entropy piqued my curiosity and led me to ask for further details. If there are other things on your "to-do list" that have higher priority, that's fine; we don't need to keep going back and forth about entropy.

Good Luck,

Willard

Willard, thanks for the additional remarks. One of us is missing something, probably me. I'll read the other pages in Penrose and think about it some more. Entropy is not the main point of my theory, and I may be incorrect there. At the moment a much higher to-do is the topic you and I and Peter were discussing. I hope to offer a new idea there in the next few days, unless I'm fooling myself.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Willard,

I had a glance to your essay and I listed it for a better read. For the present I would stay to your conclusions that are in accordance to the concept of my essay.

"In conclusion, then, spacetime – and, ipso facto, reality itself – has a fundamentally dual nature marked by (i) a superposition of discrete and continuous metrics, and hence of the digital and the analog, and (ii) microstructural fluctuations between digital states and near-analog states. In addition, the “analog component” of the above superposition manifests as a continuum viscous stress tensor, which adds a further analog aspect to reality.":

It is evidence that discreetness can be seen only when we examine the virtual part of our reality (e.g. electron as wave, light as waver). In real part "near-analog" states are seen (Fig. 6 in my essay). However, Is there any evidence that this part is really analogue and not near-analogue?

I always wonder how you can do physics without figures. As a chemist, I have great difficulty in following mathematical formulations. Contrary, I am sure I can grasp any complex theory that has the plain reality (geometry or spirit) as base.

best regards,

narsep (ioannis hadjidakis)

report post as inappropriate

I had a glance to your essay and I listed it for a better read. For the present I would stay to your conclusions that are in accordance to the concept of my essay.

"In conclusion, then, spacetime – and, ipso facto, reality itself – has a fundamentally dual nature marked by (i) a superposition of discrete and continuous metrics, and hence of the digital and the analog, and (ii) microstructural fluctuations between digital states and near-analog states. In addition, the “analog component” of the above superposition manifests as a continuum viscous stress tensor, which adds a further analog aspect to reality.":

It is evidence that discreetness can be seen only when we examine the virtual part of our reality (e.g. electron as wave, light as waver). In real part "near-analog" states are seen (Fig. 6 in my essay). However, Is there any evidence that this part is really analogue and not near-analogue?

I always wonder how you can do physics without figures. As a chemist, I have great difficulty in following mathematical formulations. Contrary, I am sure I can grasp any complex theory that has the plain reality (geometry or spirit) as base.

best regards,

narsep (ioannis hadjidakis)

report post as inappropriate

Hello Ioannis,

Thanks for your comments and question. By a "near-analog" state, I mean a global state of the microstructure of spacetime, such that this microstructure is analog "almost everywhere." The fact that it is not totally analog reflects the fact that the cancellation of the random fluctuations of N spacetime elements (where N is approximately equal to the four-volume V of the universe, and hence is a very large number) is not total or exact - specifically, there is always (by the Law of Large Numbers, and the random character of the relevant fluctuations) an uncanceled remnant of approximately square-root-of-N-many elements, a remnant that is very small in comparison with N. The presence of these elements entails that the spacetime microstructure is characterized by a certain discontinuity, and hence a certain (small) deviation from a totally or purely analog state. From my standpoint, the existence of this deviation, and hence the fact that we are dealing with a state that is (only) "near-analog," is crucial to explaining the phenomenon of dark energy. Hence, if one accepts my theoretical perspective on dark energy, the very existence of dark energy represents evidence that spacetime is never totally analog but only "comes close" to being completely analog. Of course, if one opts for a different account of dark energy altogether, then it is possible that one could find evidence that spacetime is really analog; but from my standpoint, at least, this possibility is not available.

One motivation for my account of dark energy, an account which is broadly similar to (and in fact, is inspired by) the treatment of dark energy in causal set theory, is the existence of an analogy between dark energy (or the "cosmological constant") and the surface tension of fluid membranes: this analogy is discussed in R. Katti et al., "The Universe in a Soap Film" [arXiv:0904.1057]. Perhaps, with your background in chemistry, you will find this analogy to be interesting. (Or perhaps not.) In any case, best wishes to you,

Willard

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your comments and question. By a "near-analog" state, I mean a global state of the microstructure of spacetime, such that this microstructure is analog "almost everywhere." The fact that it is not totally analog reflects the fact that the cancellation of the random fluctuations of N spacetime elements (where N is approximately equal to the four-volume V of the universe, and hence is a very large number) is not total or exact - specifically, there is always (by the Law of Large Numbers, and the random character of the relevant fluctuations) an uncanceled remnant of approximately square-root-of-N-many elements, a remnant that is very small in comparison with N. The presence of these elements entails that the spacetime microstructure is characterized by a certain discontinuity, and hence a certain (small) deviation from a totally or purely analog state. From my standpoint, the existence of this deviation, and hence the fact that we are dealing with a state that is (only) "near-analog," is crucial to explaining the phenomenon of dark energy. Hence, if one accepts my theoretical perspective on dark energy, the very existence of dark energy represents evidence that spacetime is never totally analog but only "comes close" to being completely analog. Of course, if one opts for a different account of dark energy altogether, then it is possible that one could find evidence that spacetime is really analog; but from my standpoint, at least, this possibility is not available.

One motivation for my account of dark energy, an account which is broadly similar to (and in fact, is inspired by) the treatment of dark energy in causal set theory, is the existence of an analogy between dark energy (or the "cosmological constant") and the surface tension of fluid membranes: this analogy is discussed in R. Katti et al., "The Universe in a Soap Film" [arXiv:0904.1057]. Perhaps, with your background in chemistry, you will find this analogy to be interesting. (Or perhaps not.) In any case, best wishes to you,

Willard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Willard Mittelman,

Since your admittedly impressive work is based on causal set theory, I cannot expect you to welcome my rather contrary essay. Please do not reject my arguments without an attempt to reveal possible flaws in my reasoning.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Since your admittedly impressive work is based on causal set theory, I cannot expect you to welcome my rather contrary essay. Please do not reject my arguments without an attempt to reveal possible flaws in my reasoning.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Willard,

I hope you recall the issues we spoke of with respect to Peter Jackson's essay. I've finally posted a brief pdf that I believe relates to these issues (while being based on the ideas in my essay.) I would hope you find time to read it through a few times and then I'd be very interested in your comments.

GEM and the Constant Speed of Light

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

I hope you recall the issues we spoke of with respect to Peter Jackson's essay. I've finally posted a brief pdf that I believe relates to these issues (while being based on the ideas in my essay.) I would hope you find time to read it through a few times and then I'd be very interested in your comments.

GEM and the Constant Speed of Light

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Hi Edwin,

Thanks for the opportunity to read your new and interesting paper. Here are a few brief initial comments and questions; I apologize in advance if I've misunderstood your ideas. Also, please take these remarks as providing simply an opportunity for providing additional information and/or clarification.

1.) I'm not sure why, on p. 2, you say "if we ignore gravity..."; since you're dealing with a GRAVITO-magnetic field, it's unclear how gravity can legitimately be ignored here.

2.) Also on p. 2, you write the equations describing the C-field and its circulation using merely approximate equality (wavy lines for the "equals" sign); on the following pages, however (and once on p. 2), you switch to exact equality, but without any explanation or justification for doing so. This is an important issue, since if the equations here are not exact, it is possible for the value of c to undergo some variation, which of course you don't want.

3.) Again on p. 2, you give an equation in which the C-field's circulation is equal to 2p, but elsewhere you use "p" for this circulation; so, there seems to be a discrepancy here that needs clearing up.

I don't know if this is helpful or not; if not, I'm sorry.

Best Wishes,

Willard Mittelman

Thanks for the opportunity to read your new and interesting paper. Here are a few brief initial comments and questions; I apologize in advance if I've misunderstood your ideas. Also, please take these remarks as providing simply an opportunity for providing additional information and/or clarification.

1.) I'm not sure why, on p. 2, you say "if we ignore gravity..."; since you're dealing with a GRAVITO-magnetic field, it's unclear how gravity can legitimately be ignored here.

2.) Also on p. 2, you write the equations describing the C-field and its circulation using merely approximate equality (wavy lines for the "equals" sign); on the following pages, however (and once on p. 2), you switch to exact equality, but without any explanation or justification for doing so. This is an important issue, since if the equations here are not exact, it is possible for the value of c to undergo some variation, which of course you don't want.

3.) Again on p. 2, you give an equation in which the C-field's circulation is equal to 2p, but elsewhere you use "p" for this circulation; so, there seems to be a discrepancy here that needs clearing up.

I don't know if this is helpful or not; if not, I'm sorry.

Best Wishes,

Willard Mittelman

Willard,

Thanks for the comments. I have to remember that things that are clear to me must be made clear for others. In GEM (gravito-electro-magnetic) theory, the G-field is the radial analog of the E-field in electro-magnetics, and the C-field is analogous to the magnetic field. And in the same way that in electro-magnetics the circulation of B is dependent on the time rate of change dE/dt, the circulation of the C-field depends on 'mass current' (momentum) and upon dG/dt.

So when I say "ignore gravity" what I meant to say was "assume the gravito-electric field G is not changing". If gravity does change we get red-shift or blue-shift, which I wish to ignore here.

That is what the wavy line ~ represented, as well as suppressing the constants in the equation.

The equation in which I show "2p" is a vector identity, that is meant to show that if C is defined strictly as an angular momentum term r cross p, then the equation is trivially satisfied. Since the C-field has units angular frequency, and other constants play into the equation to make all terms reduce to the same units, the '2p' was meant to be suggestive that C will probably look a lot like angular momentum. I realize that that is confusing, and will probably simply delete that rather than explain it.

I will probably do a little cleanup based on your feedback. I hope the above answers your questions and you can proceed to see if it makes sense to you. I'm pretty happy with it, needless to say. And if you had not put your two cents in, I'm not sure I would have gotten so deeply into Peter's paper.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for the comments. I have to remember that things that are clear to me must be made clear for others. In GEM (gravito-electro-magnetic) theory, the G-field is the radial analog of the E-field in electro-magnetics, and the C-field is analogous to the magnetic field. And in the same way that in electro-magnetics the circulation of B is dependent on the time rate of change dE/dt, the circulation of the C-field depends on 'mass current' (momentum) and upon dG/dt.

So when I say "ignore gravity" what I meant to say was "assume the gravito-electric field G is not changing". If gravity does change we get red-shift or blue-shift, which I wish to ignore here.

That is what the wavy line ~ represented, as well as suppressing the constants in the equation.

The equation in which I show "2p" is a vector identity, that is meant to show that if C is defined strictly as an angular momentum term r cross p, then the equation is trivially satisfied. Since the C-field has units angular frequency, and other constants play into the equation to make all terms reduce to the same units, the '2p' was meant to be suggestive that C will probably look a lot like angular momentum. I realize that that is confusing, and will probably simply delete that rather than explain it.

I will probably do a little cleanup based on your feedback. I hope the above answers your questions and you can proceed to see if it makes sense to you. I'm pretty happy with it, needless to say. And if you had not put your two cents in, I'm not sure I would have gotten so deeply into Peter's paper.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Hi Edwin,

Thanks for your helpful remarks; they do help clear things up. At this point, I'll try asking a question; it's possible that this question reflects additional misunderstandings on my part - if so, maybe you can clear things up further with new comments. At any rate, my question is prompted by your remark, at the bottom of p. 5 of your new paper, that the key equation you obtain "couples the electromagnetic field and the gravito-magnetic, or C-field". To me, this suggests that, in addition to the C- and G-fields, there also exists the familiar electromagnetic (EM) field of existing physical theory. My question, then, is this: given the EM field's existence, what theoretical or experimental motivation is there for positing additional electromagnetic fields in the form of your C- and G-fields? Or are you claiming that the EM field is itself derived from the G-field and your master equation? If the latter is the case, then it would be good to have the derivation worked out explicitly, and in detail. (It's important in this connection to avoid simply assuming that the known properties of the EM field apply to the G-field as well, since this just raises the question of why the G-field is needed over and above the EM field.) So far, I haven't been able to find such a derivation in your writings; if you have presented the derivation somewhere, and I missed it, then I apologize.

Best Wishes,

Willard

Thanks for your helpful remarks; they do help clear things up. At this point, I'll try asking a question; it's possible that this question reflects additional misunderstandings on my part - if so, maybe you can clear things up further with new comments. At any rate, my question is prompted by your remark, at the bottom of p. 5 of your new paper, that the key equation you obtain "couples the electromagnetic field and the gravito-magnetic, or C-field". To me, this suggests that, in addition to the C- and G-fields, there also exists the familiar electromagnetic (EM) field of existing physical theory. My question, then, is this: given the EM field's existence, what theoretical or experimental motivation is there for positing additional electromagnetic fields in the form of your C- and G-fields? Or are you claiming that the EM field is itself derived from the G-field and your master equation? If the latter is the case, then it would be good to have the derivation worked out explicitly, and in detail. (It's important in this connection to avoid simply assuming that the known properties of the EM field apply to the G-field as well, since this just raises the question of why the G-field is needed over and above the EM field.) So far, I haven't been able to find such a derivation in your writings; if you have presented the derivation somewhere, and I missed it, then I apologize.

Best Wishes,

Willard

Willard,

I really appreciate your efforts to understand my theory, and I'll try to answer.

The primordial field, in my theory, is gravity. It satisfies the Calabi conjecture and, as I understand it, 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...

view entire post

I really appreciate your efforts to understand my theory, and I'll try to answer.

The primordial field, in my theory, is gravity. It satisfies the Calabi conjecture and, as I understand it, 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...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Willard,

Upon re-reading your last post, I want to be sure that I answered your question completely.

The 'gravity', G, that i mention is the one you are familiar with, from Newton to Einstein to Hawking.

The electro-magnetic fields, E and B, you 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 it keeps 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

report post as inappropriate

Upon re-reading your last post, I want to be sure that I answered your question completely.

The 'gravity', G, that i mention is the one you are familiar with, from Newton to Einstein to Hawking.

The electro-magnetic fields, E and B, you 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 it keeps 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

report post as inappropriate

Hi Edwin,

Thanks very much for both of your posts; I think I'm beginning to get a handle on your ideas now! The second post was especially helpful in getting me to understand the motivation for the C-field. I don't have any more comments or questions at present; I do plan to read some of your other papers and books, though. I don't know how you feel about viXra.org, but I think it would be worthwhile to have your writings archived there. In any case, good luck with your continued efforts!

Best Wishes,

Willard

Thanks very much for both of your posts; I think I'm beginning to get a handle on your ideas now! The second post was especially helpful in getting me to understand the motivation for the C-field. I don't have any more comments or questions at present; I do plan to read some of your other papers and books, though. I don't know how you feel about viXra.org, but I think it would be worthwhile to have your writings archived there. In any case, good luck with your continued efforts!

Best Wishes,

Willard

Willard, thanks for the effort you have put into my theory and for any that you intend to do. I only recently became aware of viXra, and will look into it. I appreciate your suggestion, and your comments, and hope we have occasion to continue this conversation at a time of your choosing.

Good luck in the contest, and thanks again.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Good luck in the contest, and thanks again.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Edwin

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

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

Willard

Sorry about the above for Edwin -I was re-appreciating your paper, then catching up with posts, and forgot it wasn't Edwin's string.

I've also just caught up with Joy Christian blog on her disproof of Bells inequity, and mentioned your essay as well as mine and Edwins. You may like to see it and her papers if you haven't yet.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Sorry about the above for Edwin -I was re-appreciating your paper, then catching up with posts, and forgot it wasn't Edwin's string.

I've also just caught up with Joy Christian blog on her disproof of Bells inequity, and mentioned your essay as well as mine and Edwins. You may like to see it and her papers if you haven't yet.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Willard,

You may have noted my comments that others should check out Joy Christian's new work here.

This work is relevant to my essay, which is based on a theory of local realism that goes against the grain of the 50 year old 'non-local', 'non-real' entanglement interpretations. These interpretations have flowed from so-called 'violations' of Bell's inequality, which, if Christian is correct, are based on Bell's faulty calculation of 2 instead of the correctly calculated 2*sqrt(2).

As a consequence of Bell's result, 'local realism' fell into disfavor. On another thread Florin remarked that something "has the smell of local realism", even though I pointed out many current quotes from Phys Rev Lett that clearly stated that these issues had not been proved beyond a doubt [for reasons that may no longer be relevant.] As a further consequence, any theory, such as mine, that *is* based on local realism starts off with three strikes against it. For this reason, I am happy that Christian has shown Bell's calculations to be in error, thereby rescuing local realism from near death.

I have placed some further comments summarizing Christian's results on my page, and don't wish to clutter up your page with such.

I hope that, in judging my essay, you take these new results on realism into account, as they are extremely significant, if correct. I look forward to any comments you might have.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

You may have noted my comments that others should check out Joy Christian's new work here.

This work is relevant to my essay, which is based on a theory of local realism that goes against the grain of the 50 year old 'non-local', 'non-real' entanglement interpretations. These interpretations have flowed from so-called 'violations' of Bell's inequality, which, if Christian is correct, are based on Bell's faulty calculation of 2 instead of the correctly calculated 2*sqrt(2).

As a consequence of Bell's result, 'local realism' fell into disfavor. On another thread Florin remarked that something "has the smell of local realism", even though I pointed out many current quotes from Phys Rev Lett that clearly stated that these issues had not been proved beyond a doubt [for reasons that may no longer be relevant.] As a further consequence, any theory, such as mine, that *is* based on local realism starts off with three strikes against it. For this reason, I am happy that Christian has shown Bell's calculations to be in error, thereby rescuing local realism from near death.

I have placed some further comments summarizing Christian's results on my page, and don't wish to clutter up your page with such.

I hope that, in judging my essay, you take these new results on realism into account, as they are extremely significant, if correct. I look forward to any comments you might have.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Willard,

Maybe this is just a bad luck. I chose some essays at random (looking for an interestig title). You know, there is probably more than 100. The first one was quite easy to get (with some help from the Internet). The next impossible. Yours is the third and it is also too hard to understand and evaluate. Too much equations and professional jargon. For example:

“The expression for the quantum potential is obtained by substituting the Madelung representation of ψ into the Schrodinger equation, a substitution that yields two equations, one of which is the Quantum Hamilton-Jacobi Equation (QHJE); writing “R” for √ρ, the quantum potential is given by the term “[(-ħ2/2m)(ΔR/R)]” occurring in the QHJE, which has the following form [7, 8]:

∂S/∂t + (∇S)2/2m + V – [(ħ2/2m)(ΔR/R)] = 0."

I am not a professional physicist. I am only Scientific American reader for years. According to FXQi: the essays shall be accessible to a diverse, well-educated but non-specialist audience, aiming in the range between the level of Scientific American and a review article in Science or Nature.

Anyway I wish you good luck!

Walter John

report post as inappropriate

Maybe this is just a bad luck. I chose some essays at random (looking for an interestig title). You know, there is probably more than 100. The first one was quite easy to get (with some help from the Internet). The next impossible. Yours is the third and it is also too hard to understand and evaluate. Too much equations and professional jargon. For example:

“The expression for the quantum potential is obtained by substituting the Madelung representation of ψ into the Schrodinger equation, a substitution that yields two equations, one of which is the Quantum Hamilton-Jacobi Equation (QHJE); writing “R” for √ρ, the quantum potential is given by the term “[(-ħ2/2m)(ΔR/R)]” occurring in the QHJE, which has the following form [7, 8]:

∂S/∂t + (∇S)2/2m + V – [(ħ2/2m)(ΔR/R)] = 0."

I am not a professional physicist. I am only Scientific American reader for years. According to FXQi: the essays shall be accessible to a diverse, well-educated but non-specialist audience, aiming in the range between the level of Scientific American and a review article in Science or Nature.

Anyway I wish you good luck!

Walter John

report post as inappropriate

Hello Walter,

I may have misunderstood the meaning of "non-specialist." The equation that you reference involves basic calculus concepts and elementary quantum theory. As such, one doesn't need to be a professional physicist to understand it. It may be, nonetheless, that my essay is unsuitable for non-specialists; unfortuantely, I'm just not sure how to define what constitutes a "non-specialist" here. Granted, I could have added more explanatory remarks, but it's difficult to know just how much to add, and I didn't want to make the paper too long. At any rate, I wish someone from FQXi had said something when the essay was originally submitted; I could have either tried to rewrite it or simply withdrawn it altogether. I would rather have had the essay rejected as unsuitable than have it cause problems and frustrations for readers.

With Sincere Apologies,

Willard Mittelman

I may have misunderstood the meaning of "non-specialist." The equation that you reference involves basic calculus concepts and elementary quantum theory. As such, one doesn't need to be a professional physicist to understand it. It may be, nonetheless, that my essay is unsuitable for non-specialists; unfortuantely, I'm just not sure how to define what constitutes a "non-specialist" here. Granted, I could have added more explanatory remarks, but it's difficult to know just how much to add, and I didn't want to make the paper too long. At any rate, I wish someone from FQXi had said something when the essay was originally submitted; I could have either tried to rewrite it or simply withdrawn it altogether. I would rather have had the essay rejected as unsuitable than have it cause problems and frustrations for readers.

With Sincere Apologies,

Willard Mittelman

Hello Willard,

Good to see you in this contest. I look forward to reading your essay. I got my submission in at the last minute, but it is here now. I daresay that mine is less technical, and therefore better suited to the non-specialist reader, but I have generally found reading your papers fun. So I wish you the best of luck!

Regards,

Jonathan J. Dickau

report post as inappropriate

Good to see you in this contest. I look forward to reading your essay. I got my submission in at the last minute, but it is here now. I daresay that mine is less technical, and therefore better suited to the non-specialist reader, but I have generally found reading your papers fun. So I wish you the best of luck!

Regards,

Jonathan J. Dickau

report post as inappropriate

amen dear gentlemen , so politness hihiihi irriting this belgian.

But don't kill me dear friends, I am nice you know never I have crushed an insect, and you , perhaps during the night with moskitoes after all.Thus you aren't real universalists, hihihihi LOL

report post as inappropriate

But don't kill me dear friends, I am nice you know never I have crushed an insect, and you , perhaps during the night with moskitoes after all.Thus you aren't real universalists, hihihihi LOL

report post as inappropriate

Willard

Just re-reading the essays that gelled with me. I still appreciate yours and can't imagine why your community score is not better, I'm posting the top score I think it's worth now. (I hope you may also score mine if you haven't yet). I also hope you may agree your viewpoint is consistent with mine and the similarly based concept for which Edwin is currently carrying the flag, and Constantinos Regaza has done some excellent consistent maths work on.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Just re-reading the essays that gelled with me. I still appreciate yours and can't imagine why your community score is not better, I'm posting the top score I think it's worth now. (I hope you may also score mine if you haven't yet). I also hope you may agree your viewpoint is consistent with mine and the similarly based concept for which Edwin is currently carrying the flag, and Constantinos Regaza has done some excellent consistent maths work on.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your kind remarks. Personally, I'm not very concerned about the community score; the important thing is to have been able to communicate fruitfully with at least a few individuals, such as you and Edwin. (For what it's worth, though, I did rate both your and Edwin's papers some time ago and gave them very high marks.) At any rate, I apologize for not posting very much; unfortunately, I've been preoccupied lately with a lot of mundane matters. I do agree that our viewpoints are fundamentally consistent. One possible sticking point, as I said to Edwin awhile ago, is that I am inclined toward a Machian/nonlocal view of the universe, of the sort that has been advanced in a number of papers by Merab Gogberashvili. However, there is an interesting article (on arXiv) by Khoury and Parikh, entitled "Mach's Holographic Principle," that makes the case that nonlocal and local accounts of reality (in particular, of gravity) are in fact basically compatible. So, I don't actually see a serious tension between our different viewpoints.

Thanks also, by the way, for the reference to Constantinos Ragazas; his papers look interesting!

Best Wishes,

Willard

Thanks for your kind remarks. Personally, I'm not very concerned about the community score; the important thing is to have been able to communicate fruitfully with at least a few individuals, such as you and Edwin. (For what it's worth, though, I did rate both your and Edwin's papers some time ago and gave them very high marks.) At any rate, I apologize for not posting very much; unfortunately, I've been preoccupied lately with a lot of mundane matters. I do agree that our viewpoints are fundamentally consistent. One possible sticking point, as I said to Edwin awhile ago, is that I am inclined toward a Machian/nonlocal view of the universe, of the sort that has been advanced in a number of papers by Merab Gogberashvili. However, there is an interesting article (on arXiv) by Khoury and Parikh, entitled "Mach's Holographic Principle," that makes the case that nonlocal and local accounts of reality (in particular, of gravity) are in fact basically compatible. So, I don't actually see a serious tension between our different viewpoints.

Thanks also, by the way, for the reference to Constantinos Ragazas; his papers look interesting!

Best Wishes,

Willard

Willard

I see local and non local as purely relative! In fact I've just derived that there are multiple universes in both the time ans space dimensions!! If you have a mo check this out; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

Or if you want to escape the mundane look at Tommy Gilbertson's!

Very best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I see local and non local as purely relative! In fact I've just derived that there are multiple universes in both the time ans space dimensions!! If you have a mo check this out; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

Or if you want to escape the mundane look at Tommy Gilbertson's!

Very best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria – suggestions for improvement.

Sir,

We had filed a complaint to FQXi and Scienticfic American regarding Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria and giving some suggestions for improvement. Acopy of our letter is enclosed for your kind information.

“We are a non-professional and non-academic entrant to the Essay...

view entire post

Sir,

We had filed a complaint to FQXi and Scienticfic American regarding Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria and giving some suggestions for improvement. Acopy of our letter is enclosed for your kind information.

“We are a non-professional and non-academic entrant to the Essay...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.