show all replies (3 not shown)

hide replies

Jonathan,

I have to say we have some very similar ideas, but yours are more professionally presented, so how did I get an 8 rating in the public voting and you get a 2? Life ain't fair.

Most of these essays tie my brain up in knots, so it is nice to read one which does present a coherent overview and not tightly wound around a particular observation.

You do make a few...

view entire post

Jonathan,

I have to say we have some very similar ideas, but yours are more professionally presented, so how did I get an 8 rating in the public voting and you get a 2? Life ain't fair.

Most of these essays tie my brain up in knots, so it is nice to read one which does present a coherent overview and not tightly wound around a particular observation.

You do make a few observations to which I might offer some additional thoughts.

For one thing, the problem with the dialectic view of fundamental dichotomies is the idea there exists a coherent synthesis, somewhere in the middle and this overlooks the extent to which opposing views are themselves wholistic opposites. Consider taking pictures of a car. The view from the right and left side are subjectively whole, while a picture of the interior wouldn't be a synthesis of those opposing views. Same with top down, vs bottom up considerations. There is no happy medium. The perspective from the bottom can be all the way to the top, as the view from the top can be all the way to the bottom and yet they are entirely different views of the same reality.

Now consider your point about everything being energy. This is true, but energy expands! What is the balance? Mass contracts. Energy is analog, while mass is digital. Consider light. It expands out as a field effect, waves, if you prefer, but when we measure it in relation to a physical detector, it has collapsed to a definable unit, a photon.

You might say energy is bottom up, radiating out as energy. While mass is top down, collapsing as digital units. So all of reality can be viewed from both directions: All expanding out versus gravity collapsing everything to point. This gets to cosmology and the fact we view the entire universe as expanding, yet this expansion is balanced by gravity as observably flat space, but we still have this model of expansion. To use an analogy, it would be like looking across a Merry-go-round and seeing that while the near and far sides go in opposite directions and seem balanced in their actions, since the near side appears larger to us, there must be greater motion in the direction it is going. I think we will eventually discard the entire Big Bang cosmology and view the universe as a correlation between expanding energy and collapsing mass. There are a number of essays which touch on this in various ways, Constantinos Ragazas, , Israel Perez, as well as some comments and footnotes from Dan Benedict come to mind. Mine attacks it directly, but this is a bit of a Hail Mary, as there is a small probability cosmologists will discover galaxies older then the presumed age of the universe, by the time this contest is finished. The current record holder is 13.2 billion lightyears away and it takes quite a bit of imagination to think a galaxy large enough to be seen at that distance could have coalesced out of the Inflationary field in 500 million years. Given that Inflation presumably expanded space to the degree it appears flat, than any gravitational sources would have to be equally stretched out, since gravity is half the equation of balance between expansion and contraction. Since it takes 225 million years for our galaxy to make one rotation, this would be like saying the time between the invention of the wheel and the production of the Model T is equivalent to driving around NYC 2 and a half times.

As for time, I've been making an argument somewhat similar to the idea that while the right brain exists in the now, the left brain registers the digital function of past, present future.

While there is only the physical present, the activity within it is constantly changing form, as it flows around and thus the process of time is the future becoming the past, as opposed to the present moving from past to future. This is actually the more fundamental process, even if the serial events are the basis of our rational thought processes. Much like we perceive the sun moving across the sky from east to west, the fundamental process is of the earth rotating west to east.

The point here is that time is an effect of motion, not the basis for it and as such it is similar to temperature. One is the scalar level of activity, while the other is the serial change caused by that activity. As such they reflect the two sides of the brain. The rational side is a clock, as it measures cause and effect, while the emotional, intuitive side is a thermostat that registers and reacts to scalar levels of energy and quantities of information carried by that energy.

In the top down, vs bottom up view, there are various juxtapositions going on here. Energy does go from past to future, as it leaves old forms and radiates into new forms. Thus it is bottom up, much as life and politics, etc. are constantly shedding old orders and organisms and moving on to new life and subsequent forms. Meanwhile the forms move from future to past, as they coalesce out of energy and continue to accumulate more, until reaching a peak and radiating it away again. Whether it is an individual life being born, growing up and then old and dying, or a day dawning, warming up as the sun passes over head, then cooling down and fading away, as the sun moves on to the next day.

The point here is that everything is ultimately composed of energy and so it is the constant. That which is present. Any perceptible change is the configurations and they go future to past. Even though we view past events as cause for future ones, this is based on examination of prior events. The physical reality is that total input into any event cannot be known prior to its occurrence, since input does travel from opposite directions at the speed of light. Thus total cause for any event is in the future, until it occurs, then the effect, the event, recedes into the past.

Since time is an effect of motion, there cannot be a dimensionless point in time, as that would freeze the motion creating the effect of time. Basically like taking a picture with the shutter speed set at zero. Without that concept of a dimensionless point in time, any object, whether subatomic particle or automobile, cannot be logically separated from its context, as it has no absolute position.

This goes a long way towards solving many quantum issues. If time is an effect of collapsing future probabilities into past circumstances, not a fundamental dimension or flow from past to future, there is no need for multiworlds to explain the relationship between deterministic principles and fundamental probabilities.

I don't know how resistant those judging this contest will be to ideas which question current models, but if enough of us "start protesting," maybe they might take notice.

view post as summary

Dear Sir,

We congratulate you for the brilliant analysis.

You say: “This generalized statement of the principle of least action is also an explanation for conservation laws, as such.” While we agree with the principle of least action and conservation laws, we do not admit that they are related as cause and effect. The principle of least action is related to linearity of behavior...

view entire post

Dear Sir,

We congratulate you for the brilliant analysis.

You say: “This generalized statement of the principle of least action is also an explanation for conservation laws, as such.” While we agree with the principle of least action and conservation laws, we do not admit that they are related as cause and effect. The principle of least action is related to linearity of behavior of forces. Unless a force is confined, it will not lead to non-linear behavior. Thus, linearity is the natural way. Conservation, on the other hand, is the general principle, whether the forces are linear or non-linear. Because nothing ever is truly created or destroyed – everything is only transformed.

Your exposition of George Cann’s views is correct. But we have a different explanation for the said phenomenon. True analog and digital descriptions are related to infinite and finite dimensions. Where the dimensions are not fully perceptible, it is analog. Where the dimensions are fully perceptible, it is digital. But mostly analog is used in cases where the dimensions are very big. Space and time are analog, but we use specific segments of it (like bucketful of sea water) for our purpose. This is digitization of the analog. So in all cases, digital is a segment of analog.

Some may question the above view pointing out to the wave-particle dispute. For them we point out to the latest findings of LHC: the early universe was a ‘perfect fluid’, not an ‘explosion of gases’ that is the basis of all current theories. We posit that this fluid formed the primary field. Particles are subsequent generations of this field through confinement. We are not discussing the nature or mechanism of this confinement here. However, this proves our theory that digital is a segment of the analog.

If we find some problem with the digital, we can always expand the segment. It will still be digital (though you seem to call it analog). However, bigger it is a larger segment; it will be difficult to precisely control it. It may also appear to interact with other forces changing its behavior, which you describe as “not quite as stable, nor as predictable in their action”.

The Double-slit experiment can be easily described in the context of the above description of field and particle. If particles are locally confined fields, then you cannot eliminate fields from the scene. The picture that emerges is when you direct the photon (particle) through a slit; it goes in the specified direction. Thus, the two slits create two bands. The detection device notes this direction of the photon or electron movement through a particular slit. Thus, the result remains same. However, if there is no such compulsion and the particles are free to move through the wave at their own pace, they will generate interference pattern. There is no mystery here.

What you call “free energy – as radiation” is really the density fluctuation in the local field due to interaction with particles in it.

We agree with your views that “quantum mechanics is not about very small entities.” “Something large enough to be a macroscopic observable object can still be entirely quantum mechanical.” The basic difference between macroscopic observable objects and quantum objects is that, while in the case of quantum objects, two particles join to form a third particle of completely different nature, the constituents of the macroscopic observable objects retain their individual characteristic even while remaining coupled. Thus, different quarks join to form protons and neutrons that exhibit different characteristics. But the individual atoms in most products retain their characteristics. Water, which shows both characteristics, belongs to a different class. While it shows different characteristics from hydrogen and oxygen, unlike quarks, it shows the linearity in addition of mass.

The results of the interferometer experiment are also not weird. Mathematically, we know that the area of a rectangle and a parallelogram on the same base and the same height is equal. Since area implies two dimensional fields, we have to use second order terms. If the length is a units and breadth is b units, then the area will be a + b squared units, which is a^2 + b^2 + 2ab. This can be geometrically proved. But when the rectangle is shifted to make it a parallelogram, the projection of b along y axis is reduced. Thus, we have to bring in an additional factor of cos θ to bring parity. This shows that b in a rectangle and b in a parallelogram over the same base are different, even though distance-wise both have the same value. In the interferometer experiment, this difference becomes dominant, because traveling time for the waves after the deflection in both ways are different. There is no mystery in this case. The difference in relative path lengths causes the different patterns.

We agree that perception is nothing but the result of measurement, which is a comparison between similars. However, we do not agree with the concepts of either Relativity or Quantum gravity. We have a different explanation for the phenomena. However, we agree with you that “the right-brain perceives reality as unified, connected, and fluid, rather than being made of distinct, disconnected, and solid entities.” We will look forward to your theory. We will also be publishing our theory soon.

Regards,

basudeba.

view post as summary

show all replies (6 not shown)

hide replies