CATEGORY:
Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011)
[back]
TOPIC:
The Discreet Charm of the Discrete by Paul Halpern
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Paul Halpern wrote on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 14:26 GMT
Essay AbstractIn this essay I argue that the large discrepancy between the calculated vacuum energy density of the universe and the amount corresponding to the observed acceleration of spatial expansion places a lower limit on the wavelengths of elementary fields. I demonstrate how the lowest wavelength, highest-energy fields, which I call holons, could form the basis for a digital system akin to a structurally dynamic cellular automaton. I show how such a system could model the growth of form, and offer an increasing topological entropy corresponding to the forward arrow of time. I examine the points of commonality between the holon hypothesis and the holographic principle, but argue that the two are independent, as the former does not necessitate reference to a boundary. Finally, I comment on the development of interferometry tests for the graininess of space that could also point to a fundamental minimum wavelength.
Author BioPaul Halpern is a theoretical physicist specializing in general relativity, complex systems, and the history of physics. He is Professor of Physics at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia. In 1996, he was a Fulbright Scholar researching evolutionary algorithms at the Humboldt University of Berlin. In 2002, he received a Guggenheim Fellowship to study the history of higher dimensional theories. Halpern has published twelve books, along with more than thirty research articles and forty scholarly presentations. In recognition of his science writing he was the recipient of an Athenaeum Literary Award.
Download Essay PDF File
Alexander Lamb wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 22:55 GMT
Hi Professor Halpern,
It was a pleasure to read your essay, and thank you for bringing structurally dynamic cellular automata to my attention. My research is in the domain of such models and this was a particular variant of which I was not aware.
Out of curiosity, do you see synchronous update of the sort employed in cellular automata to be central to the success of such a model, or do you think something more like Langton's Ant would suffice if operating over the right structure?
(If you're interested in algorithms of this sort, I would draw your attention to my own essay, which outlines several, which I've used for modeling both particle phenomena and the generation of spacetime geometry.)
Alex
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 04:21 GMT
Hi Alex,
Thanks for your kind comments. Glad to see that you are interested in structurally dynamic cellular automata. I will certainly have a look at your essay -- sounds very interesting! In answer to your question, one of the advantages of cellular automata is their flexibility, so synchronous updates would not be essential to the model's success. CA that display highly complex structures, resembling universal Turing machines, such as Langton's Ant or a glider gun, represent promising steps forward in trying to link discrete models with the dynamics of nature.
Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 10:37 GMT
Dear Professor Paul Halpern,
Holoarchy of Holon is a good philosophy to elucidate a Hierarchical clustering in, Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter universe model.
Thanking you.
With Best Wishes,
Jayakar Johnson Joseph
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 04:23 GMT
Dear Jayakar,
I appreciate your kind comment! Many thanks!
-Paul
Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 12:14 GMT
Hello professor Halpern, I was lost by the complexity of your essay but wondered whether the
Archimedes screw is a structurally dynamic cellular automata?
Alan
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 04:30 GMT
Hi Alan,
The Archimedes screw is a mechanical device with repetitive motion. Structurally dynamic cellular automata are mathematical, not physical constructs. However it might be interesting to use the latter to try and model the former.
Best regards,
Paul
Joachim J. Wlodarz wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 13:41 GMT
Hi Paul,
I like the holon idea and your essay, holons are something like my "particles made by their properties" in my
essay, so maybe the ideas there are not so strange as it appears to be (and I have to read something more about holons and related stuff :-)
But, in my opinion, holons assumed to be "... a photon (or other fundamental field) of highest energy and lowest wavelength" should be highly "reactive", and a Universe filled up with such particles, permeating everybody and anything, would be an extremely dangerous place. A holon particle stream would be by definition far more destructive than cosmic gamma-ray bursts.
What comes me to mind as a resolution to this problem is an idea of "holon confinement", e.g. in a string ? AFAIK, string confinement of quarks was proposed in the literature sometime ago.
Best regards,
-Joachim.
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 05:25 GMT
Hi Joachim,
Glad that you like the holon idea. Interesting point you raise. My intention, however is to suggest these as limiting particle states, meaning that the universe today would be filled with particles spanning a wide range of frequencies (and energies). The spectrum of frequencies would be consistent with the current frigid temperature of space. However, instead of an unlimited range of frequencies, holon states would constitute an upper bound. This would cap the vacuum energy density at a value consistent with the amount needed for the observed acceleration of spatial expansion.
Best regards,
Paul
Dan J. Bruiger wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 23:19 GMT
Dear Paul,
I find your proposal intriguing and intelligent. The analogy you draw, between the ‘ultraviolet catastrophe’ and the discrepancy between theoretical and observed values of the cosmological constant, seems apt. In that context, however, I would point out that Planck’s “solution” (to the former) was purely a mathematical device—the beginning, not the end, of many unresolved issues.
I also liked your “mailbox” metaphor. It might prove helpful in clarifying the nature of ‘information’, which seems to be a glibly misused concept these days. In a number of submitted essays, there is reference to information being ‘stored’ or ‘encoded’, when the author simply means that there is continuity within reality itself, and from one description of reality to another, (at another time, for instance). While organisms explicitly need to model their environment, encoding it in some representation, there is no reason to assume that physical reality in general does this. The information is encoded by physicists, not necessarily by the world they study.
Thanks and best wishes,
Dan
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 05:50 GMT
Dear Dan,
Thanks for your thoughtful remarks! Yes you are absolutely correct that Planck meant his resolution of the blackbody radiation "ultraviolet catastrophe" as a mathematical device, rather than as a physical quantum. It was Einstein who brilliantly suggested in his theory of the photoelectric effect that the quantum is a physical notion. Glad you like the mailbox metaphor! Interesting what you write about the distinction between encoding information and maintaining continuity within reality.
Many best wishes,
Paul
Member Dean Rickles replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 16:14 GMT
Hi both,
As part-historian of physics, I feel I have to clear up a myth contained in here. Planck did not introduce the quantum of action (initially written as an epsilon, to be taken to zero) to resolve a problem in the UV part of the spectrum (the bad behaviour predicted by the Rayleigh-Jeans law), but rather with the Wien law, in the infrared part of the spectrum. It was Wien's law that he sought to recover with his own formula for the blackbody energy. It really ought to be called the "infrared catastrophe". The historical evidence points to the fact that Planck was not aware of Rayleigh's analysis when he proposed his idea - Rayleigh's proposal came in June, and Planck's in the October of 1900 - there was no correspondence and no publication at this stage). Also, quite interestingly, the name "ultraviolet catastrophe" wasn't coined until 1911, by Paul Ehrenfest.
Best,
Dean
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 18:36 GMT
Dean,
Thanks for your comments. I would be indeed be interested in reading such evidence about when Planck became aware of Rayleigh's work. Yes it is interesting that the term "ultraviolet catastrophe" was coined by Ehrenfest, even though the concept was introduced beforehand.
Best regards,
Paul
Dean replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 04:13 GMT
Dear Paul,
Planck's own Nobel lecture is a good place to see the infrared issues that drove him to the idea of discreteness: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1918/pl
anck-lecture.html. Still a very nice read, I think.
Best,
Dean
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 08:47 GMT
Dear Professor Halpern,
Your essay provides much food for thought. I would like to know how in the scenario of a holon falling into a black hole this idea can be reconciled with the GR prediction that the holon becomes gravitationally blueshifted.
Thank you,
Armin
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 03:24 GMT
Dear Armin,
Thanks for your kind comment! That is a fascinating question. It is unclear if GR applies in its classical form down to such minuscule length scales. According to the standard line of reasoning, because of the proximity to the Planck scale, one would need to replace classical GR with quantum gravity. Alternatively, let us consider the discrete approach, with fields emerging from an evolving network of connections similar to structurally dynamic cellular automata. In that case gravitational blueshifts or redshifts would represent the impact of regions with different topologies upon the size (wavelength) of structures within the network. The holon size would remain the lower limit of such distortions, similar to a single stone representing the minimal structure in the game Go.
Author Paul Halpern replied on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 01:40 GMT
Thanks again.
Best regards,
Paul
James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 00:02 GMT
Paul,
Incisive argument for holons that led me with the weight of your argument in each direction you took including your holon thrust.
I haven't heard many looks into a dark energy explanation that work.
Quite persuasive and scholarly.
Jim Hoover
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 01:40 GMT
Dear Jim,
I appreciate your comments. Thanks so much! I'm glad you found the essay persuasive.
Best regards,
Paul
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 02:30 GMT
Only this Essay and my comment reminding about Holometer
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 19:17 GMT
Dear Yuri,
Thanks for your comment and the link to your interesting essay!
Best wishes,
Paul
Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 12:26 GMT
Hi dear Prof.Halpern,
Congratulations, the evolution is so important.....quantum spheres.....H....CNO..Hydrospheroids about 3.4billions......CH4 H20 HCN H2C2 NH3....time evolution rotating spinning proprotions.........UNICELLS....differenciation......plurice
lls.....sponges ..mmedusas.......humans................UNIVERSAL SPHERE.
The encoding is rational simply.
Best Regards and good luck
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern wrote on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 18:03 GMT
Dear Steve,
Thanks for the kind comments and for pointing me to your theory of spinning spheres!
Best regards,
Paul
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 09:38 GMT
Dear Paul,
You are welcome.I liked your essay, it's rational, we need that.
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 02:11 GMT
Dear Paul Halpern
I thoroughly enjoyed your essay, that started with a reference to the much-maligned Lord Kelvin. He also conjectured that the ether is made up of 'knots' which may well describe holons or twistors or the lattice nodes of my own theory. I have tried to show in my in my earlier 2005
Beautiful Universe paper on which my present fqxi paper is based that if these universal building blocks have dielectric properties and angular momentum, their precise mutual interactions may well account for matter, space, radiation and dark matter. Dark energy will be the natural result of the mutual electrostatic repulsion of these nodes, probably self-assembled in an FCC crystal-like configeration. I also proposed experiments to test the graininess of the vacuum. In a fqxi discussion here with Tommaso Bolognesi I proposed a variation of my experiment in which two parrallel standing waves in vacuum may exhibit moire patterns with a phase much larger than the wavelength of the original universal node (or holon - I like the word and will check Koestler's book) length. I would greatly appreciate your reading my papers and hearing your expert reaction.
With best wishes.
Vladimir Tamari
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 23:27 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Thanks for your insightful comments. I'll certainly take a look at your papers -- sounds intriguing!
Best wishes,
Paul
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 14:32 GMT
For me you are the two best, you merit to win.
Best Regards to both of you.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Constantin Leshan wrote on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 22:21 GMT
Dear Paul Halpern,
''Hogan and Chou discover, through their holometer experiment, evidence that light's motion follows discrete steps''.
Because of Heisenberg uncertainty the position of photon is uncertain, so you'll never see evidence that light's motion follows discrete steps.
Since you are interested in discrete spacetime, please
look here. The hole model of discontinuous spacetime can explain gravitation, inertia and most of the quantum phenomena. How about vacuum holes in your model?(Don't forget to vote(:
Regards
Constantin
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 00:59 GMT
Dear Constantin,
Interesting point, however I think they are hoping to see these subtle path differences (reflected in the transverse components) through highly precise interferometry. Trying to measure the exact position and momentum of a photon simultaneously (along the same axis) would be ruled out by the uncertainty principle, but that is not the case here.
I look forward to reading your essay. Sounds interesting. Thanks for the link!
Best wishes,
Paul
Anonymous wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 22:17 GMT
Dear Professor Halpern,
Let me start by saying that I enjoyed the mix of the historical with modern conjectural views toward physics displayed by your essay. One question. Have you considered the possible role of The Extended Theories of Gravity in which the cosmos possesses an intrinsic curvature as an alternative to the Standard Model with respect to the many open cosmological questions we now face? I would point you toward Christian Corda's excellent essay as well as own. In my own simple approach, I show that the cosmos must have an intrinsic curvature for a very elementary reason. As for the observations that lead to the DE hypothesis, they have to rate as the most exciting discovery since Hubble.
Have a great day,
Dan
report post as inappropriate
Dan T Benedict replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 22:18 GMT
Sorry, that last anon. post was mine.
Dan
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 02:49 GMT
Dear Dan,
Glad that you enjoyed my essay. Thanks for pointing me to your essay and Christian Corda's. Looking forward to reading both!
All the best,
Paul
Cristi Stoica wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 07:08 GMT
Dear Paul,
I enjoyed reading your essay and I like how you use the idea of lowest wavelength fields to discuss discrete aspects of the physical law. Congratulations for the very well-written essay and the profound exploration of the implications of the idea of holons.
Best regards,
Cristi
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 13:35 GMT
Dear Cristi,
Thanks so much! That is very kind of you.
Best regards,
Paul
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 16:20 GMT
Dear Paul Halpern,
Twenty years ago, when I heard for the first time of CA, they were used almost like FEM by those who model plasma, heat conduction and the like. Since then I did not get aware of reported convincing benefits. Your essay makes understandable to me chains of more or less speculative hope for foundational insight that might be confirmed in the very far future.
Let me frankly admit that I am ready to accept the big bang as an exiting hypothesis but not yet as proven for good. What about the attribute foundational, I prefer to judge it as did you from experience over centuries. I appreciate that you avoided technicalities that would perhaps anyway not be convincing.
Most appealing to me was your question for upper and lower frequencies of in particular electromagnetic waves. You will certainly not need reading my essay in order to understand that discrete frequencies correspond via cosine transform with continuous functions of temporal or spatial distance and nice versa. Cosine transform differs from Fourier transform in that performing it twice yields the original function. In other words, it is its own inverse.
Not just in CA the notion neighbor plays a role. Hausdorff topology does also consider a neighbor each to the left and to the right. I found out that this is based on a non-Euclidean notion of number and at odds with a lot. For instance, it is to be blame for trouble at zero, for the unwillingness to accept R+ as sufficient in case of non negative spatial or temporal distance, and even with the usual unilateral attribution of the increment dx to the direction of x.
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 22:14 GMT
Dear Eckard,
Glad you found my essay understandable. Yes, CA offer a great deal of flexibility in modelling a wide range of physical systems. Interesting about Hausdorff topology and the role of neighbors.
I look forward to reading your essay.
Best regards,
Paul
Anonymous wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 16:35 GMT
Hi Paul,
interesting essay!
You write:
'One measuring of entropy in network theory is the growth of complexity in link structure.'
Are you referring to a specific definition of entropy for networks? Any pointers? Would this be something like the log of the number of graph automorphisms?
You also write:
'Given the promise of simple, discrete algorithms, it is interesting to consider a dynamic digital model of fundamental interactions based on holon states. Because holons would have the minimal wavelength of all fields, they might be thought of as 'cells' in a dynamic grid. It is possible that simple digital rules, akin to SDCA algorithms, could transform both the values (quantum states, such as polarization) and linkage of sites. This would render this stratum geometrically dynamic, offering a digital basis for distortions in spacetime'.
I am interested in SDCA type of models, where interconnection patterns evolve, although I claim that having a dynamic interconnection pattern should suffice for building everything, without need of an additional layer of labels, or cell states. The interconnection pattern could indeed code for local states. In the planar case, for example, one has polygonal faces, each with its size, and this generalizes to simplices in higher dimensions. Depending on whether or not these 'atoms' have and preserve their own identity, one can conceive two different types of field/particle (I see analogies with fermion vs. boson behaviour here).
Did you run computer experiments in which both the background cell structure and the additional layer of state information you place on top of it give rise, separately, to the emergence of solitons or other patterns?
Thanks and good luck!
Tommaso
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 22:13 GMT
Dear Tommaso,
Thanks for your kind comments and detailed message!
In terms of a type of 'topological entropy' measuring network complexity, a quantity related to the Hausdorff dimension (and defined in the SDCA papers listed in the references of my essay) serves as an effective measure. The ratio of next-nearest neighbors to nearest neighbors tends to rise as the system becomes more complex. The parameter you mentioned, 'log of the number of graph automorphisms,' would be another measure.
We did indeed run experiments looking for a type of 'topological soliton' that could potentially represent particle states.
Your ideas sound very interesting. It would certainly be an important achievement to find evidence of 'fermion'- and 'boson'-like states developing from pure networks.
Best wishes,
Paul
Author Paul Halpern wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 17:03 GMT
Dear Eckard,
Glad you found my essay understandable. Yes, CA offer a great deal of flexibility in modelling a wide range of physical systems. Interesting about Hausdorff topology and the role of neighbors.
I look forward to reading your essay.
Best regards,
Paul
Irvon Clear wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 19:08 GMT
Paul,
From my perspective you have successfully moved a "holon" from the list of zeroes (could exist but don't exist) to the list of ones (exists). Also from the list of fuzziness to the list of clarity. Now, I am interested in more movement from zero to one. If I pointed to some point in space with my finger...would a holon exist at the end of my point? If not, what would increase the possibility of a holon being there? Expansion of the space pointed to...and what about expansion of the time allowed for observation at the intitial point at the end of my finger? Would expansion of space searched and time observed increase my chances of locating a holon? Why is the possibility increasing with a change in either condition? Or, is there actually only holons everywhere which make my questions mute?
Irvon
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 22:01 GMT
Hi Irvon,
Glad my essay clarified things! The holons would represent the maximum energy fields, and therefore could not be directly detected at present. They would manifest themselves only through their indirect consequences (such as placing an upper limit on the vacuum energy density).
Best wishes,
Paul
Irvon Clear replied on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 13:54 GMT
Paul,
So, are we willing to attach the fuzziness of nothingness to create meaningfulness in the sensory world (sensed objects, forces and relationships that we actually can point to and even get close enough to touch)?
Here I would suggest what I think is an appropriate poem:
V
I don't know which came first
After the chicken
And sex
And the egg
And the empty can of soup
There's no need for
An opinion
Based on observed facts
Not in this day of
Revealing ignorance
What's left for modern man
Isn't even a bone
There's just the opportunity
To scavenge
To catch a glimpse of
A suggestive piece of evidence
An imprint exists
Where it once was
Substance
And now
Even
Ideas are Art
--------------------------
Paul, you have created a great piece of art!
Respectfully,
Irvon Clear
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 20:04 GMT
Irvon,
Thanks for sharing the poem!
Best wishes,
Paul
T H Ray wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 14:05 GMT
Paul,
I was looking forward to your entry in this contest, and I was not disappointed. You are so very expert at drawing a picture of abstract models in sensuous terms. I especially appreciate your comparison of an office tower to the possibility of a finite field theory (in itself a concept to launch a thousand dissertations). I was reminded of Jorge Luis Borges's short story, "The Library of Babel."
Interesting, informative and original. Just excellent.
Good luck in the contest, and I hope you get a chance to visit my essay, which shares in common with yours an emphasis on information theory.
All best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 20:16 GMT
Dear Tom,
Thanks so much for your kind comments! Glad you enjoyed it. Borges's "The Library of Babel" is one of my favorite stories. Looking forward to reading your essay!
All the best,
Paul
Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 10:30 GMT
Dear Paul,
Thank you for your very kind remarks on my essay. I had also read your essay, some days ago, and very much appreciated your holon idea.
With my best wishes,
Tejinder
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 11:57 GMT
Dear Tejinder,
Many thanks! I am glad that you appreciated the idea.
Best wishes,
Paul
Arjen Dijksman wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 10:59 GMT
Dear Paul,
I liked very much the historical part of your essay, which is much more developed than mine. Also, I liked the analogy of the information contained in an envelope and the size of the characters.
On the other hand, a minimal wavelength seems to me counternatural as this would mean an upper limit of the wavenumber. Intuitively both ends (linear and inverse linear) are unbound.
Best wishes for this contest.
Arjen
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 12:00 GMT
Dear Arjen,
Glad that you like the historical part of my essay! Thanks for sharing your thoughts about a minimal wavelength.
Best wishes,
Paul
Sreenath B N wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 17:13 GMT
Dear Paul Halpern,
Thanks for your opinion.When I saw the heading of the essay contest 'Is it possible to reconcile digital and analog nature of reality' the idea of connecting it to Advaitha dawned on me.Because Advaitha in a literal sense means Non-dualism.If it is possible for us to reconcile both forms of reality,then it must be done only on the concept of Non-dualism (that is Advaitha).Combining digital with analog, in physics means combining QM with GR,leads to QG which is non-dual to both.
Today itself I will go thro' your article and express my opinion.
Good luck and best regards.
Sreenath B N.
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 18:22 GMT
Dear Sreenath B N.
Great to hear from you. Yes your idea of connecting the notion of digital/analogue with the concept of Advaitha, or non-dualism, is fascinating.
Hope you enjoy my essay.
Best regards,
Paul
Sreenath B N wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 04:42 GMT
Dear Paul Halpern,
In your intriguing essay,you have argued for the existence of a fundamental particle called,Holon.It is really good if such a particle exists as all of our knowledge of elementary particles can based on it.But you have not mentioned holon's mass and wave-length.I hope you will soon do it as it gives limits to our understanding of the physics.
Anyway your essay is enjoyable.
Best regards and good luck.
Sreenath B N.
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 14:49 GMT
Dear Sreenath B N.
Glad you enjoyed my essay. Thanks so much for your remarks. An excellent question about the value of the wavelength and mass (or, more precisely, energy) of the holon. Those values would be determined by a field theoretic calculation of the vacuum energy density that included an ultraviolet (high energy) cutoff, and a comparison of that vacuum energy density value to that needed to explain the observed acceleration of the cosmological expansion. In other words, the wavelength cutoff would be adjusted to match the observations. I expect that the wavelength would have a value close to the order of the Planck length (approximately 1.6 x 10
-35 m) and that the cutoff frequency would consequently be somewhat less than 1.8 x 10
43 Hz. The energy would be that cutoff frequency value multiplied by Planck's constant h . Clearly, under the current low temperature conditions of the universe, such a massive state would be highly unstable. However, its existence would offer field theory a natural maximum energy cutoff.
Best wishes,
Paul
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 20:01 GMT
Paul
I've just re-read your essay carefully. As a non 'professional physicist' I appreciated your knowledge and the latest detail of some current ideas.
I also fully understand the logic of the holon, May this perhaps be somewhat apparent in Cherenkov radiation? and do you consider there may also be any 'lowest' energy for a discrete particle?
I've been studying; .. "the overwhelming discrepancy between the calculated and observed values of the cosmological.." {'constant' I assume}, and the many other discrepancies, anomalies and paradoxes, and appear to have found a logical model which removes them all. This provides a resolution to the 'dark energy enigma' and evaporates the 'murky clouds', where indeed it derives 'exciting times' as you predict. I do hope you'll be able to read my essay. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803
It is difficult to see beyond the murky clouds using current understandings, so you'd have to temporarily step back from those, use pure logic and focus on improving conceptual dynamic visualisation skills.
You may also wish to see the strings, in which much added explanation lies, and you may see that immediate conceptual understanding has now improved significantly to around 1 in 4 professional physicists and others. It also explains the issues, proofs and gives links. It is simply a fine tuning of SR with a Quantum Mechanism, removing all issues in SR and beyond. (see also the identification of the errors, the logic, and the many thought Gedankens).
I'd be extremely grateful for your thoughts if you have time to read it.
Best of luck in the competition.
Peter Jackson
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 21:27 GMT
Dear Peter,
Thanks for your kind remarks. Cherenkov radiation applies to energetic charged particles, so if there were an effect it would only be very indirect. The theoretical lowest energy of photons would depend on the size of the universe (with a theoretical lower limit of zero for an infinite universe). In practice, because of thermal fluctuations and the Third Law's prohibition against reaching absolute zero, this lowest energy would never be realized.
Looking forward to your essay.
Best wishes,
Paul
Joel Mayer wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 14:33 GMT
Dear Professor Halpern- I have downloaded, studied, and copied your essay: THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE DISCREET, to my folder of seminal manuscripts. It appears to me that you are very much the heir apparent to Abraham Pais.
You may find my paper: IS REALITY DIGITAL OR ANALOG? somewhat outside of mainstream thinking. I confess that my work, is of a decidedely different 'style' from your work. But the justification for my approach is not that I am right and you or any formally trained physicist is wrong. The virtue of my paper is that my methods allow for a completely mechanical explanation of the process of cell duplication. Coming to point on the subject of how it is that cancer cells duplicate faster than healthy cells. I'm going to make a thorough study of your books and papers. I'm hoping you can find the time to glance at: NEOPLASIA MATHEMATICS.
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 16:21 GMT
Dear Joel,
Thanks so much for your kind words!
I am greatly humbled by your comments, as Abraham Pais is one of my personal heroes, and was a dear friend of my research advisor, Max Dresden. Pais was a brilliant historian of physics, whose books I have very much enjoyed. So, he is a role model for anyone interested in the history of 20th century physics (the history of physics prize is named in his honor).
I appreciate that you are aspiring to a different goal in your work, and that your focus is on cell duplication. I will take a look at your work NEOPLASIA MATHEMATICS. One of the exciting aspects of this contest is encountering a wide range of ideas about science.
Best wishes,
Paul
Donatello Dolce wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 22:31 GMT
Dear Paul,
your essay seems very interesting even at a first superficial scanning. It is extremely important to know how the ideas constituting the foundations of modern physics come from.
Best wish,
Donatello
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 22:36 GMT
Dear Donatello,
Thanks so much! Glad you find it interesting. Yes, I agree that is important to place new ideas in the context of the foundations of modern physics.
Best wishes,
Paul
John Merryman wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 03:23 GMT
Paul,
As you were kind to read and comment favorably on my essay, I feel compelled to respond. Which is difficult, as I am of the dualistic camp and you present a very detailed argument for a discrete model, along with a comprehensive historical foundation for it.
That said, I still think you are missing part of the picture. I don't have the attention to detail required to fully...
view entire post
Paul,
As you were kind to read and comment favorably on my essay, I feel compelled to respond. Which is difficult, as I am of the dualistic camp and you present a very detailed argument for a discrete model, along with a comprehensive historical foundation for it.
That said, I still think you are missing part of the picture. I don't have the attention to detail required to fully question the body of your essay, but think of it as a pyramid: If you want to make it higher, you can't just add more blocks on the top, you need to start with adding blocks to the foundation and make that bigger first. So I will try to offer a few foundational blocks to expand the parameters of the issue.
If I may offer a basic philosophic observation, I think the traditional concept of dualism as the dialectic of thesis, antithesis and synthesis is flawed. The thesis and antithesis balance each other, but if you combine them, they cancel out. There is no synthesis. Yes, there are two sides to the coin, but you can only see one at a time. I think we in the west have this monolithic view that there is some Godlike, bird's eye view and if we keep at it, eventually we will find this TOE. The problem is that an objective perspective is an oxymoron. If we combine all perspective, we have no perspective.
What you have done is to present a fairly wholistic argument for discrete reality. So my challenge isn't to say it's wrong, but to expand the foundation in order to present an argument for why there is an analog connectivity which balances the discrete structure. The problem is that we cannot view them simultaneously.
I realize this is probably not good form, but I would like to post a somewhat long comment I made to Thomas Mcfarlane, who presented a more philosophic argument for discrete reality. Then I would like to build on a few ideas which occurred to me while reading your essay:
"You make a good argument for why reality can only be understood in terms of its discrete relationships, but it's wrong. With your last paragraph, it's clear you understand your point has its limits, but relegate the wholistic view to mystery. It isn't mysterious at all. It's overlooked because it's so basic. Math says that if you add two things together, they equal two. Well, if that's the case, you haven't actually added them together. Necessarily actually adding things together means you have one of something larger. In basic terms, it's like adding two piles of sand together and having one larger pile, but in reality it's more like components combining to create a larger whole. Whether physics, or biology, we like to take things apart to see how they work, but the fact is that they work together. Much like all the parts of your body add up to a larger whole, or all the components of an atom add up to an atom, not to mention all the various levels between, above and below the atom and the person.
This dichotomy is basic to the difference between eastern and western philosophy. In that we in the west tend to focus on objects and view their actions as emergent. While in the east, there is the contextual view and the particulars within the context are as much a part of the larger whole as your nose is part of you.
One aspect of this that I raise quite frequently and was the subject of my entry in the Nature of Time contest, is that we are looking at time backward. The basis of our rationality and from that, language, culture, history, etc, is the concept of time as the present moving from past to future. So it is natural to include this into our physical theories of how reality functions, but the fact is that it is the changing configuration of what is, the present, which turns the future into the past. We don't travel the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. It is not that we move from a decided past into a probabilistic future, but that the continuous collapse of probabilities which turns the future into the past. Time is an effect of motion, not the basis for it.
In fact, in eastern cultures, the past is considered to be in front of the observer and the future behind, because both the past and what is seen are known, while what is behind one and the future cannot be seen. Physically we do understand what is in front of us and can be seen is of past events, be they across the room, or across the universe, but we consider ourselves to be moving through our environment, rather than part of it, so we think of ourselves moving from past situations to future ones, as a function of our own spatial action. The irony is that this creates a deterministic view of time, since we only exist at the moment of the present and cannot change the past, or affect the future. On the other hand, when we understand ourselves as fully integrated into our own context, then our actions are part of the process creating these situations and we affect our context, as it affects us.
You do conclude your essay with a nod toward Complexity Theory, with its dichotomy of order and chaos, but I think this relationship can better be described as a dichotomy of information and energy. Energy manifests information, while information defines energy. The information is the top down view of the details, while the energy is bottom up process. They are like two sides of the same coin, such that there cannot be one without the other. They are still opposites though, as energy is fundamentally dynamic, while information is necessarily static.
Think in terms of how you perceive the distinctions you use to define your view of reality: Necessarily you must move from one to the next, otherwise it is that frozen featureless void. So there are the distinctions and there is your movement from one to the next. That is time. Remember the clock has two features; the hands and the face. We think of the hands as moving clockwise, but from the context of the hands, it is the face which moves counterclockwise. The hands represent the present, as it moves from one unit of time to the next.
As I pointed out though, it is the energy of the present which forms and dissolves these units of time. The future becoming the past.
So it is the wholistic present which is creating these discrete units which come into being, grow as long as they absorb more energy then they lose, eventually to lose all energy and fade into the past.
One way to think of this is as a factory: The products go from initiation to completion, but the production line faces the other direction, consuming raw material and expelling finished product.
The mind functions in a similar fashion, as it consumes masses of information, turns it into discrete thoughts, which are then replaced by the next. The brain is physically real, thus it exists in the present. Thoughts coalesce out of the future and fade into the past."
Paul,
Some have argued the point about information and energy, as information implies consciousness, so make that form and energy.
Another way to consider this relationship is light vs. mass. Light/radiation expands out, while mass gravitationally contracts. These are the two primary features of our universe; The great swirling vortices of galaxies, pulling mass in and radiating energy back out across billions of lightyears.
Just suppose, as I suggested in my essay, that what we detect as expansion, the redshift of distant galaxies, is actually an effect of the expansion of light. So just as gravity causes space to contract, light effectively causes it to expand. Now rather than thinking of this in terms of those macroscopic features, consider it as happening on the microscopic scales as well. The result would be a constant tension across all of space and it would only be due to purturbations which create these larger galactic features, as variations create areas of collapse, yet there remains constant mixing all up and down the scales, leading to the complex interactions or energy constantly pushing out and form making an equal effort to stabilize and then contract, due to loss of the dynamically unstable energy. Consider how it creates the processes of punctuated equilibria that motivate and define all activities on this planet, from the geologic to the political.
Now consider it in the terms I laid out for Tom, that you can't have one without the other, that they are like two sides of the same coin. You can't have formless energy, or platonic forms without energy to manifest them. Consider it in terms of your own essay, as you try to give form to light. When we don't measure light, it has no form, but measuring it gives it the form we measure.
An interesting way to consider this is how form and energy play out in society. There are many aspects, institutions and disciplines primarily interested in form; Academics, teachers, scientists, writers, news media, etc. Then consider those aspects of society which are more concerned with energy and other forms of power; Businessmen, bankers, resources providers, from miners and oil companies to farmers, politicians, though they might be on the line. Think how they relate on some levels, yet have totally different views, much like the point about thesis and antitheis not having a coherant synthesis. Yet existing in some larger cycle, as those with the power start to stagnate and those with the information dismantle the monuments to power.
While this is long and rambling, somewhere in your essay, I keep getting this subconscious impulse that it can be inverted and used to explain gravity, as the structure you define takes on its own momentum...
I know this was a very long post, but hopefully not completely confusing.
John
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 13:24 GMT
Dear John,
Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed response to my essay. The primary focus of my work was to try to suggest a solution to the vacuum energy problem by setting a minimal wavelength, and to examine the implications of having a discrete set of smallest-wavelength building block particles on the most fundamental level (i.e. at the high-energy limit).
However, I do appreciate your point about energy and form. One of the beautiful aspects of this essay contest is the opportunity for each of us to consider different ways of viewing reality, and various aspects of how the natural world fits together. I fully recognize that the origin of consciousness and the modes by which humans interact with the natural world are profound mysteries. Clearly, even if a discrete system could offer one level of description, there are aspects to our experience that require something more. For example, a chemical, physical or mathematical analysis of the components of the Mona Lisa would clearly not reveal why that painting is so captivating--especially since that image could be duplicated through other materials. So I applaud your interest in tackling not only the fundamental aspects of the smallest realm, but also how nature and our perception of it connect. Hope that makes sense! Thanks again for your detailed comments!
All the best,
Paul
joseph markell replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 14:46 GMT
Hello Paul:
After reading your appropriate comments on my essay (obviously you at least perused it) and your bio, what else could I do when I'm deviating in a totally different direction than the majority... but give you a ten?
Good luck,
joseph markell
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 15:14 GMT
Dear Joe,
My pleasure to comment on your essay. Many thanks!
All the best,
Paul
John Merryman replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 16:27 GMT
Paul,
I'm sorry if I left the impression this is a matter of conscious perception. The fact is that if those discrete units didn't exist in some larger connective context, they wouldn't be discrete, they would be singular.
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 22:04 GMT
John,
OK thanks for your clarification.
I was referring to the line in your essay:
"If everything was truly separate, there would be no basis for interaction and perception."
Best wishes,
Paul
John Merryman replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 00:32 GMT
Paul,
One point which comes to mind, as to whether there is a minimal wave length is something which has occurred to me about Planck units of measure: It seems to me that a Planck unit is the limits of meaurement, not an exact unit, because defining it as a distinct unit would require defining its parameters, which would mean dealing on a scale much smaller than the Planck scale. In the sense that there cannot be a dimensionless point, because anything multiplied by zero would be zero, so if it truly had no dimension, it wouldn't exist.
So it would seem even those distinctions between smallest waves would be somewhat blurred and thus joined. ?
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 00:53 GMT
John,
Thanks for your comment.
While the minimal wavelength would manifest itself indirectly by setting an upper limit to the vacuum energy density, it could well be the case that its proximity to the Planck length would preclude its direct measurement.
Best regards,
Paul
John Merryman replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 02:16 GMT
Paul,
There are many theoretical benefits to a minimum wave length, but does the existence of one support the idea of a fundamentally discrete nature? Waves are not separable entities, but units of measure. They all exist as fluctuations of the same medium. What is even the point of separation of one from the next, the peak, or the valley? Obviously we measure the peaks, but they would actually make the more precise point of division. I go into this in my essay: Comparing Apples to Inches. Canstantinos Ragazas does as well.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 02:36 GMT
Paul,
Actually the basic concept runs through many of these essays. Edwin Klingman for one and if I recall, it's the premise of Julian Barbour's "Bit from It.'
As I said, it's a bit of a dichotomy. We can only perceive the characteristics of distinctions, but there has to be some basic unity in order to function. Is it possible that you are as subject toconceptual bias as any other person?
I'm not intending on being argumentative, but I feel there is something of a deep intellectual bias towards atomism, due to the fact that distinction and judgement is the basis of rationality and exploring this would require going back to the very roots of rational analysis, not just examining ever finer levels of detail and then trying to peer through the fuzziness obscuring it to deeper levels of detail. Maybe that fuzziness is trying to tell us something.
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 03:02 GMT
John,
It could very well be that the limits of our perceptions are cloaking the true reality. However, given that science is based on the collected input of our senses and instruments (such as telescopes, particle colliders and the like) we are in some ways restricted to base our models on such perceptions, unless the evidence indicates otherwise. That said, quantum mechanics certainly does harbor much "fuzziness," which suggests a foamlike quality of the universe on its tiniest scale (and at the nascent moments of the Big Bang). Nevertheless such quantum froth, though jumbled and turbulent, could still possess a minimal distance between wave peaks.
Best regards,
Paul
John Merryman replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 15:56 GMT
Paul,
I suppose it wouldn't be a wave, if there was no distance between peaks. Frankly I have no problem with it, as I do feel the singularity based Big Bang theory is a misinterpretation of data and has required some rather far fetched patches to repair, but I go into that in my essay. I think we can explain the effect of both expansion and gravitational contraction as effects of that quantum foam, but that the foundational state is the vacuum, not the point.. This is starting to get a bit off topic though. I would have to say that a singularity based cosmology would have to presume an analog universe, since it would emerge from that singular entity.
Time will tell on this, though. So far, they have found galaxies as old as 13.2 billion lightyears out and it takes quite a bit of physical calisthenics to figure out how something that large could have formed in 500 million years, but I find it is a waste of time to argue, so I'm waiting until they find something 500 million lightyears further out.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 15:59 GMT
PS, Congratulations on making the finalists.
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 15:59 GMT
Thanks so much John! I've enjoyed our dialogue!
All the best,
Paul
hide replies
Author Paul Halpern wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 02:32 GMT
John,
Interesting point; however I wouldn't characterize a photon as a "fluctuation of a medium," given that it can travel through the vacuum. Therefore if it has a smallest wavelength, that would represent a kind of minimal unit or discreteness, since there would be no such entity that is more compact. Thanks for your thoughtful questions and comments!
Best regards,
Paul
John Merryman replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 02:44 GMT
Paul,
One of my muses on the subject of waves vs. particles, is Carver Mead, one of the godfathers of the computer revolution. This from an old interview, when his book on problemw ith physics came out:
http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/People/CarverMe
ad.htm
So early on you knew that electrons were real.
The electrons were real, the voltages were real, the...
view entire post
Paul,
One of my muses on the subject of waves vs. particles, is Carver Mead, one of the godfathers of the computer revolution. This from an old interview, when his book on problemw ith physics came out:
http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/People/CarverMe
ad.htm
So early on you knew that electrons were real.
The electrons were real, the voltages were real, the phase of the sine-wave was real, the current was real. These were real things. They were just as real as the water going down through the pipes. You listen to the technology, and you know that these things are totally real, and totally intuitive.
But they're also waves, right? Then what are they waving in?
It's interesting, isn't it? That has hung people up ever since the time of Clerk Maxwell, and it's the missing piece of intuition that we need to develop in young people. The electron isn't the disturbance of something else. It is its own thing. The electron is the thing that's wiggling, and the wave is the electron. It is its own medium. You don't need something for it to be in, because if you did it would be buffeted about and all messed up. So the only pure way to have a wave is for it to be its own medium. The electron isn't something that has a fixed physical shape. Waves propagate outwards, and they can be large or small. That's what waves do.
So how big is an electron?
It expands to fit the container it's in. That may be a positive charge that's attracting it--a hydrogen atom--or the walls of a conductor. A piece of wire is a container for electrons. They simply fill out the piece of wire. That's what all waves do. If you try to gather them into a smaller space, the energy level goes up. That's what these Copenhagen guys call the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. But there's nothing uncertain about it. It's just a property of waves. Confine them, and you have more wavelengths in a given space, and that means a higher frequency and higher energy. But a quantum wave also tends to go to the state of lowest energy, so it will expand as long as you let it. You can make an electron that's ten feet across, there's no problem with that. It's its own medium, right? And it gets to be less and less dense as you let it expand. People regularly do experiments with neutrons that are a foot across.
A ten-foot electron! Amazing
It could be a mile. The electrons in my superconducting magnet are that long.
A mile-long electron! That alters our picture of the world--most people's minds think about atoms as tiny solar systems.
Right, that's what I was brought up on-this little grain of something. Now it's true that if you take a proton and you put it together with an electron, you get something that we call a hydrogen atom. But what that is, in fact, is a self-consistent solution of the two waves interacting with each other. They want to be close together because one's positive and the other is negative, and when they get closer that makes the energy lower. But if they get too close they wiggle too much and that makes the energy higher. So there's a place where they are just right, and that's what determines the size of the hydrogen atom. And that optimum is a self-consistent solution of the Schrodinger equation.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 03:11 GMT
John,
Thanks for sharing the remarks by Carver Mead. Yes it is amazing to think of fundamental waves stretching out to such large scales. Quantum physics certainly has many baffling aspects!
Best regards,
Paul
basudeba wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 05:52 GMT
Dear Sir,
Special Relativity is not only conceptually, but also mathematically wrong. This is what Einstein describes in his 30-06-1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies":
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...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
Special Relativity is not only conceptually, but also mathematically wrong. This is what Einstein describes in his 30-06-1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies":
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.
Our comments: Here clock at A 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.
His “mathematics” using the equation for the sphere is all wrong. For example, he has used equations x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2 = 0 and ξ^2 + η^2 + ζ^2 – c^2 τ^2 = 0 to describe two spheres that the observers see of the evolution of the same light pulse. Apart from the fact that the above equation of the sphere is mathematically wrong (it describes a sphere with the center at origin, whose z-axis is zero, i.e., not a sphere, but a circle), it also shows how the same treats time differently. Since general equation of sphere is supposed to be x^2+y^2+z^2+Dx+Ey+Fz+G = 0, both the equations can at best describe two spheres with origin at (0,0,0) and the points (x,y,z) and (ξ, η, ζ ) on the circumference of the respective spheres. Since the second person is moving away from the origin, the second equation is not applicable in his case. Assuming he sees the same sphere, he should know its origin (because he has already seen it, otherwise he will not know that it is the same light pulse. In the later case there is no way to correlate both pulses) and its present location. In other words, he will measure the same radius as the other person, implying: c^2t^2 = c^2 τ^2 or t = τ.
Again, if x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2 = x’^2+y’^2+z’^2-c^2 τ ^2, t ≠ τ.
This creates a contradiction, which invalidates his mathematics.
The data relating to receding galaxies are insignificant in cosmic scales. It is evident only in larger scales of galactic clusters and super clusters only. It is not evident in lesser scales. Just like the planets in the solar system while orbiting the Sun sometimes appear to recede from each others while their satellites remain unaffected, the receding galaxy phenomenon can be explained by a revolving Universe. It must be remembered that spin is a universal characteristic of all closed systems.
In various threads we have shown that gravity is not a single force that attracts, but a composite force that stabilizes and that it belongs to a different class that could not be coupled with other forces of Nature. The so-called gravitational constant is only a constant of proportionality whose value depends upon the masses of the bodies, the distances between them and the density of the medium that contains both. Thus, every time we measure its value precisely, we come up with different results. Similarly, the cosmological constant is only a constant of proportionality.
The Kaluza-Klein compactification and other “theories” relating to extra-dimensions are only figments of imagination. The term dimension is applied to solids that have fixed spread in a given direction based on their internal arrangement independent of external factors. For perception of the spread of the object, the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the object must interact with that of our eyes. Since electric and magnetic fields move perpendicular to each other and both are perpendicular to the direction of motion, we can perceive the spread only in these three directions. Measuring the spread is essentially measuring the space occupied by it. This measurement can be done only with reference to some external frame of reference. For the above reason, we use axes that are perpendicular to each other and term these as x-y-z coordinates (length-breadth-height). These are not absolute terms, but are related to the order of placement of the object in the coordinate system of the field in which the object is placed. Thus, they remain invariant under mutual transformation. If we rotate the object so that x-axis changes to y-axis or z-axis, there is no effect on the structure (spread) of the object. Based on the positive and negative (spreading out and contracting in) directions from the origin, these describe six unique positions (x,0,0), (-x,0,0), (0,y,0), (0,-y,0), (0,0,z), (0,0,-z), that remain invariant under mutual transformation. Besides these, there are four more unique positions, namely (x, y), (-x, y), (-x, -y) and (x, -y) where x = y for any value of x and y, which also remain invariant under mutual transformation. These are the ten dimensions and not the so-called mathematical structures.
Randall-Sundrum “braneworld” hypothesis in which the observable universe is housed within a three-dimensional membrane, or brane, that is itself floating in a warped, higher-dimensional anti-de Sitter space, called the bulk is only figments of imagination without any tangible proof to support these views. The same is true for holons. Data from LHC has proved super-symmetric and brane-world models are wrong.
It is high time scientists come out of the mania of chasing a mirage and start re-writing a new physics based on the data available at present. We have an alternate model derived from fundamental principles by which we can explain the “creation event” to evolution of forces to structure formation and evolution.
Regards,
basudeba.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 19:00 GMT
I respectfully disagree with your characterization of special relativity, as it has proven to be one of the most successful theories in modern physics and has been verified again and again.
Best regards,
Paul
basudeba replied on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 23:08 GMT
Sir,
Newton's law was also "one of the most successful theories in modern physics and has been verified again and again". Then should we continue with it alone? If not, your reply is not justified. It is not science, but superstition. We expect you to be a scientist and not superstitious.
We may be wrong. But as a scientist you must prove it wrong. Simple denial is no science. Kindly prove where we are wrong.
Incidentally, we are not alone in finding fault with SR. A growing number of scientists the world over are supporting our views. In fact a large number of participants in this competition have accepted our views. You will find it at various threads.
Hence kindly explain which part of our view is wrong and how? Otherwise, kindly accept our views in true scientific spirit.
Regards,
basudeba.
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 22:36 GMT
Dear Basudeba,
Clearly SR has limitations (it cannot adequately handle gravitation and accelerating systems), as Einstein recognized, and which motivated him to develop GR. However, the basic predictions of SR such as time dilation, relativistic mass increase, and so forth, have been verified in numerous high energy experiments.
Best regards,
Paul
basudeba replied on Mar. 24, 2011 @ 05:55 GMT
Dear Sir,
We asked a specific question: "kindly explain which part of our view is wrong and how?" It is still unanswered. If we are correct, then your description is wrong. Hence kindly reply to our query specifically.
The time dilation report with the atomic clock experiment was fudged and there is proof for this since the original records are still available in the Archives. The Eddington's expedition report was also fudged and sometime ago it was a much debated topic. The other experimental results can be explained differently. Relativistic mass increase is based on the concept of inertial mass increase, which has never been verified. Thus, it is still a postulate. Thus, you are relying only on wrong notions.
Please do not take it as our arrogance. We are discussing foundational questions. Hence our foundations must be strong. Hence kindly prove us wrong or discard your wrong notions.
Regards,
basudeba.
report post as inappropriate
TH Ray replied on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 20:37 GMT
Paul,
No fair salting the discussion with facts.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 13:16 GMT
hide replies
Anonymous wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 20:00 GMT
Dear Paul,
I just wanted to personally thank you for making a concerted effort to read and respond to many of the essays. Many of the authors with similar credentials to yours, didn't seem to make much of an effort. I is always nice to get positive feedback from someone such as yourself. I realize that everyone is busy and have other obligations, that makes your efforts all the more commendable. I didn't realize, until becoming an author, myself, how exhausting a process it is to evaluate the myriad of different ideas contained in the essays. This is an obligation I took seriously regardless of the bio of the author. It is obvious that you considered it seriously also. Congratulations, on making it to the judging, but after reading your essay, I considered it a foregone conclusion.
Have a great day,
Dan
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 16:06 GMT
Dear Dan,
My pleasure! One of the great things about the internet (when it works well) is the ability to share ideas on forums such as these in a friendly, civil way. I enjoyed reading the many essays, and learned much in the process. Yes I did need to set aside time for reading and thinking about so many different essays, and am now catching up a bit. I appreciate very much your kind remarks!
Best wishes,
Paul
Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 14:44 GMT
Dear Paul,
Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top ten placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the top front runners 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?
Best wishes,
Alan
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 18:58 GMT
Hi Alan,
I'm wondering if you mean your helical model as a analogy for a kind of field theory describing the graviton but also incorporating electromagnetism. If so, it would be interesting to see the field equations.
Best wishes,
Paul
Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 13:14 GMT
Hi Paul,
My idea of a field is a pattern of flux density of gravitons. I don't think in terms of a 'fabric' of spacetime at all incidentally. I have the mental picture of p.i.e.s (particles in empty space). The forces of the electric field are due to the mechanical dynamics and internal structure of the proton. The arrangement of protons throughout a larger crystal structure lattice can lead to a field formation of stronger graviton flux density helical pattern. The arrangement of neutrons as well can lead to the magnetic field flux pattern at a larger scale. The equations are to be had, but a visual representation is my ultimate goal.
Kind regards,
Alan
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 19:58 GMT
Hi Alan,
Thanks for the clarification. It would be interesting to see if your theory matches all the verified predictions of general relativity, such as the procession of Mercury, bending of starlight, gravitational lensing of quasars, Lense-Thirring effect and so forth.
Kind regards,
Paul
Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 13:41 GMT
Hi Paul,
Yes, the idea needs a fuller expansion but I'm confident it can explain them all away. As to the orginal quandry of Mercury's orbit, this can be explained by the 'inclination hypothesis' i.e. that gravity is stronger towards the plane of rotation of a celestial body. I'm working on it at this moment.
Kind regards,
Alan
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Sreenath B N wrote on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 10:45 GMT
Dear Paul,
Congrats for standing fifth on the list.If you have done that it is bacause of the simplicity and originality with which your essay appealed to the participants.
Thanking you once again
Sreenath.
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 15:57 GMT
Thanks Sreenath!
With all best wishes,
Paul
Albert wrote on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 11:41 GMT
Hello,
I was surprised I didn't see a reference to the work of Y. JACK NG in your paper:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0403/0403057v1.pdfRegard
less, the idea of photons "moving" in steps is peculiar, to say the least. I personally think it is naive. Dr. Baez says:
"If the rest mass of the photon were non-zero, the theory of quantum electrodynamics would be "in trouble" primarily through loss of gauge invariance, which would make it non-renormalisable; also, charge conservation would no longer be absolutely guaranteed, as it is if photons have zero rest mass."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNucle
ar/photon_mass.htmlIf the photon has no mass then it can only move continuously. If it turns out that it has a very small, finite mass, then the universe would need virtually infinite energy to accelerate and stop all the photon so that they move in steps, unless this energy comes from somewhere else, in which case your model breaks down.
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern wrote on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 13:09 GMT
Albert,
Thanks for the reference and comments. Deviations from the expected behavior of photons would occur only at the very highest energy scales, well beyond what has been directly observed. I don't think we can rule out, as of yet, the possibility of holographic noise. I'm excited about Hogan's holometer experiment and looking forward to the results.
Best regards,
Paul
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 30, 2011 @ 12:11 GMT
Gentlemens
I wonder why you did not notice or do not want to notice the radical view that an independent investigator.Remember this name: name,Friedwardt Winterberg
http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm
http://
bourabai.narod.ru/winter/clouds.htm
Yuri Danoyan
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 30, 2011 @ 16:02 GMT
Yuri,
I've heard Dr. Winterberg speak at conferences. He was a student of Heisenberg.
Thanks,
Paul
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 18:37 GMT
New Measurement of the Earth’s Absolute Velocity with the Help
of the “Coupled Shutters” Experiment
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-
05.PDF
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Apr. 5, 2011 @ 01:17 GMT
Yuri,
Thanks for the link to the article.
Best regards,
Paul
Peter Lynds wrote on Apr. 25, 2011 @ 19:17 GMT
Great essay Paul. Well done and very best of luck.
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Halpern replied on Apr. 27, 2011 @ 23:05 GMT
Thanks so much, Peter! I appreciate your comments!
All the best,
Paul
Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 6, 2011 @ 08:43 GMT
Paul
Sincerest commiserations at your undeserved apparent omission from the final placings. A travesty for a fundamental physics site, as some far less important 'stock' opinion is elevated above some excellent original work and conceptual thinking (and also my own of course!) with seemingly no respect given to the community view and ratings by anonymous judges.
I didn't check to see if you did comment on mine, if you didn't read it I hope you might, except it's now being left behind by exciting progress. I do feel there is commonality to be explored.
Don't be disparaged. Best wishes for the future.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 6, 2011 @ 17:34 GMT
Peter,
Best wishes for the future too! I wish you and all the participants all the best. Best of luck with all of your endeavours!
-Paul
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on May. 20, 2020 @ 10:12 GMT
Thanks for sharing this. Here they have chosen the topic of the discreet charm of the discrete and I don't know how effective for writing essays.They have briefly given about the author and also provided the download essay PDF file. Hope it will be helpful
read more
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.