Dear Sir,

You begin with the premise that relativity deals with analog and quantum theory deals with digital descriptions of the Universe. In our essay, we begin with the premise that there is no consistency between the various interpretations of quantum theory and that there is no unanimity about what constitutes reality. Each branch of quantum theory comes with its own interpretations,...

view entire post

Dear Sir,

You begin with the premise that relativity deals with analog and quantum theory deals with digital descriptions of the Universe. In our essay, we begin with the premise that there is no consistency between the various interpretations of quantum theory and that there is no unanimity about what constitutes reality. Each branch of quantum theory comes with its own interpretations, which sometimes contradict the other interpretations. Thus, when you talk about quantum theory, you must specify which interpretation you are referring to. Elsewhere in this contest, we have elaborately discussed relativity in our posts to show that it is a wrong description of facts and that Einstein’s mathematics is wrong. In one of the posts under Mr. Castel’s essay, we have quoted verbatim from Einstein’s 30-06-1905 paper and refuted it beyond doubt. Having said this, we examine your essay:

The simplest answer to Zeno’s paradox is that velocity is related to the mass of the body that is moving, the energy used (force applied) to move it and the total density of and the totality of the energy operating on the field. These are all mobile units against the back drop of the field that is static with reference to these. Middle of the distance is related to the frame of reference, which is relatively static with reference to the other mobile aspects. Thus, it is like comparing position and momentum. They do not commute. Hence there is no paradox, which is borne out of experience. While the middle of the distance is gradually reduced, the velocity is not reduced by the same proportion.

While Descartes analyzed the problem correctly, his conclusion was not as correct. Once a force is applied in a certain direction, it disturbs the medium. The elasticity of the medium (which we call the inertia of restoration, as it is generated after the application of a force and its magnitude is equal to the force – till the applied force overcomes it - but in the opposite direction), generates the opposite force. The effect of these forces appears as stress and strain. This is one of the factors responsible for motion. The other factor is related to density, which is related to the strength of local confinement. Confinement is not related to quarks only, but it has a macro equivalent that confines every particle. The only difference between these is that while at micro level, this property leads two particles to create of a third product as in a compound, in the macro world they couple like a mixture. Thus, it is comparatively easier to isolate and separate them. Descartes was right that “an active cause is required that must be in direct contact with the body in motion and that cause should not be in motion itself”. After the application of initial force (active cause), the force ceases to operate and the body moves on inertia. We have explained all motion and evolution of all forces and particles based only on inertia without bringing in God. Regarding nature of time and the views of Leibnitz, kindly read our essay and the posts below the essays of Mr. Biermans, Mr. Perez and Mr. Castel.

In our essay we had given a different interpretation about Uncertainty relation and Superposition of states. We do not use any hypothesis that cannot be derived from fundamental principles. In our post below the essays of Mr. Castel, Mr. Perez and Mr. Klingman we have discussed about entanglement and its macro equivalent. Locality is the extent of confinement. It may or may not be physical. What is often overlooked is the fact that the so-called entanglement of photons does not extend infinitely, but collapses maximum within a few kilometers. The movement of light in different media shows that its velocity is not constant. Since density of space is the least from other observable localities, the velocity of light is greatest in observable space. Since space is not homogeneous, it is not a constant in space either.

Kindly do not consider this post as the denunciation of your thoughts or our bravado. We are deeply pained by how the scientific community is making merry at public expenses in chasing mirages in the name of scientific research, while technologists are toiling without the benefit of theory guiding them. Thus, we are flooded with many comforts of life that slowly poison the whole world and leading it towards disaster. Thus, kindly excuse us if our post appears to hurt your sentiments.

Regards,

basudeba

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Efthimios

I read the response to Lieu's paper you cited above. Again the assumption is that quantum foam is a reality. This idea is speculative and is based on Born's probability interpretation. In my Beautiful Universe paper on which my present fqxi paper is based I have suggested that on the contrary nature may be precisely local, causal and deterministic at the minutest scale - and...

view entire post

Dear Efthimios

I read the response to Lieu's paper you cited above. Again the assumption is that quantum foam is a reality. This idea is speculative and is based on Born's probability interpretation. In my Beautiful Universe paper on which my present fqxi paper is based I have suggested that on the contrary nature may be precisely local, causal and deterministic at the minutest scale - and still produce quantum effects including probability. I also suggested that the Planck scale itself may be a fiction or much too tiny: G is determined by macroscopic experiments. It may well be that at the granular, ether (or whatever you call it) scale, its value is quite different.

Concerning your question "If spacetime is granular, then what is there between the grains?"I would say it may be impossible to determine the physical nature of the granularity or any other hidden large dimensions the granules may reside in. We are talking about the stuff that makes stuff so we cannot project (what is the inverse of 'project'?) or macroscopic notions onto the granules of the universe. It will be sufficient to presume they have certain qualities (i.e. in my theory the lattice nodes have angular momentum, density, polarity, etc}.

You said " disproving the granularity of space is equivalent to preserving the autonomy of the world. In my opinion, it is now too late for that." Can you please explain that interesting statement? thanks.

Dear Ray et al,

Concerning Zeno's paradox of divisibility and motion - in an ordered universal lattice where motion occurs by momentum transfer from node to node (as in my theory) , such questions will have obvious answers and will no longer pose any logical difficulties. There may be a message spelled out with the ether granules: "reductionism stops here!".

Dear Anonymous

The story of Feynman telling the story of the philosopher (who contemplated the reality of food and the light from it) is typical of his cavalier attitude to foundational questions. Feynman seems - perhaps wisely as far as his great work was concerned - to have adopted a pragmatic stance to unanswered quantum puzzles, using ad-hoc solutions and mathematical formulations even if they were not derived from more basic concepts. By the way a simple phrase like "just reflections of light?" was the foundational question of the 10th century answered for all time by the father of the scientific method, Al-Hassan Ibn Al-Haytham (Hazen) by his meticulous experiments with the camera obscura and their logical analysis in his book Kitab Al-Manazir. Before him it was believed (after Aristotle, I think) that we see because the eye projects visual rays onto an object. Hazen's book, translated from Arabic into Latin influenced the Renaissance and modern science. Moral of the story: foundational questions have to be answered eventually and not swept under the carpet, Feynman-style!!

Good luck to us all! Vladimir

view post as summary