Search FQXi


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

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

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

basudeba: on 3/13/11 at 7:41am UTC, wrote Dear Sir, We have replied to one query of Mr. Yergar. We think you may be...

Russ Otter: on 3/12/11 at 16:21pm UTC, wrote Dear Basudeba, I will be brief for a change! "THANK YOU"... I take your...

basudeba: on 3/12/11 at 15:15pm UTC, wrote Dear Sir, Friendship arises between person who share a common purpose in...

Russ Otter: on 3/11/11 at 22:04pm UTC, wrote Dear Basudeba, Thank you once again for keeping me on my toes… Your...

basudeba: on 3/11/11 at 11:17am UTC, wrote Dear Sir, We stand by our comments mathematically and not philosophically...

Russ Otter: on 3/10/11 at 2:52am UTC, wrote Dear Peter, Thank you for your interest in my essay. I clearly enjoy the...

Peter Jackson: on 3/9/11 at 13:26pm UTC, wrote Rus I enjoyed your essay, thank you. and agree you have identified a...

Russ Otter: on 3/9/11 at 8:23am UTC, wrote Dear Basudeba, I am absolutist when it comes to a “Twain that shall...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "Thanks for sharing Georgina,it is nice.Friendly" in Alternative Models of...

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

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

Lorraine Ford: "With the “A.I. Feynman” software, Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Georgina Woodward: "Coin toss co-state potentials: With the measurement protocol decided, in..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "If we correlate with the consciousness, can we consider that all is..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
October 23, 2019

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: Subtext: Is Reality Digital or Analog? (Our Universe, Science and Potentials in Review) by Russ W Otter [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Russ W Otter wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 15:05 GMT
Essay Abstract

A review of our current physics regarding, the subject of "Is Our Universe Reality Digital or Analog". Hightlghts, finite, and Infinite Deifferences, Thermodynamics, Energy, Continuous Motion versus Perpetual Motion, coupled with science outside the conventional box of current mathmatics. As well as highlighting the importance of science and math as our essential journey toward truth... Offers new paradigms for physics research to help better unify knowledge.

Author Bio

I have alway been interested in Quantum Physics. I spent 30 years in Telecommunications on a tecnical and management level, both as a programmer and researcher of new processes and technical products. I also began working on some ideas about "Natural Energy Development" and developed a patent to hopefully help fund the monies necessary to continue my need for my physic's research someday, along with improving safety by way of my new patent: www.noahi.com . I have also authored a non-fiction book "Swimming in Cosmic Soup."

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 12:06 GMT
Hello Russ and thanks for your essay. I appreciate you considering "science outside the conventional box of current mathmatics" and so have an idea which I'd like to share with you. Put simply, it's a physical model for the graviton, which has both wave and particle qualities. See a dynamic represntation given here. What do you think to this modest proposal? Best wishes. Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Russ Otter replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 00:21 GMT
Hello Alan,

Thank you for your comments... Much appreciated. As to your diagram, congratulations on the Motion based CAD: It is simplicity in action. And if you reversed the flow direction of the particle, it would be similar to my concepts of continuous energy, using a liner upward motion, with a non-liner gravity based downward motion.

Regarding the concept of it being a possible, and still hypothetical graviton. I cannot fully comment with any depth, simply based on the graphic. But I consider the notion of combining particle and wave physics into the concept you have graphically portrayed, very viable, as it does actually compliment my concepts of motion and energy, as I have described in the first paragraph. If we are on the same page and train of thought. The potential graviton would then portend well for such a motion. Which, again complements my ideas about continuous motion.

You may have read this article, but if not, look at the fqxi.org site for the article "The Myth of Gravity", which presupposes no such particle as a graviton. It may be of interest as well.

Still I think you and I maybe on similar tracks when it comes to motion and energy. Gravity being one of the most under-utilized, as it is naturally abundant and generated without destruction of matter.

I hope my thoughts may help, and once again I thank you for your thoughts and your own interest in such pursuits of the Universes yet unknown knowledge.

Thanks, Russ

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 11:38 GMT
Thanks for the tip about the fqxi.org article Russ, I'll take a look. I appreciate your recognition of the helical screw simplicity, the graphic of which I hyperlinked from Wikipedia incidentally. I think we on similar trains of thought and wish you well in the competition. Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Russ Otter wrote on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 02:55 GMT
A philosophical, but also factual premise for myself, as an addendum to Alan Lowey’s previous post:

Physical and Material Facts, based on both knowledge and thought both of an intuitive nature, along with scientific discovery, (emotions included, whether negative or positive) will forge our hopeful futures, as we learn we are more connected and similar that separate.

All things are married. Connection is universal. The here and now, the present and the past, the finite and the infinite all connect. There is no escape from the marriage of these entities. Some are instinctive and some are shot-gun forced. But in the end, we are all one (albeit separate), but since we are of our own “integrities” (individualities), in personality or physical matter, we are married in one form or another, even whether finite or infinite.

Therefore we are binary, but unified, separate, but connected. There is no escape from this fundamental assumption, or mathematical delineation.

Wave or Particle, is a marriage of fact. Understanding and belief is often a leap of faith. And with maturity, we all grow in both fact and faith… So we are all united. A lesson, no legislature will find social cures for, or impose on the masses of individual sentient beings. They may try, and call it Socialism or Capitalism, or some “ism”, but in truth we live within a hybrid of “systems”, if you actually review the facts. And still we fumble and fail to unite, or cure.

But technology (or Science) will bridge our dilemma of division, along with the “Golden Rule” - as we find answers that unify us, such as universal energy, which in turn will make common our abilities to communicate. This alone will solve many a social, and poverty problems, that separate us so from so many of our ill-willed natures and selfishness’s today.



Science is our Holy-Grail. History is baring this out… Honesty within ourselves and new discoveries will be our greatest hope for improving the Human Race. But to depend on answers from Kings, Potentates, or even Elected Leaders will fail, next to the hope that Science I believe will provide. If we do not kill ourselves first, by way of selfish philosophies, bent on our invented and mis-represented global host of “Us and Them” Theologies…

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 11:41 GMT
Yes, I share your concerns about the role of science in providing a safer route to human co-operation around the world. A t.o.e is essential in steering us away from oil and gas imo. That's the next big step hopefully. It will change world politics forever. Peace be with you Russ. Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Russ Otter replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 17:44 GMT
Alan,

In brief: Thank you deeply for your insightful comments about the role of science, as you and I are on the same page there! Along with you other comment about the other article, coupled with your well wishes...

All the best to you... and to this human race in the world between cultures and science... We all hope science pulls it off, and we short-circuit the enormous destructive power of individuals via today's technologies, as well as much of the unnecessary suffering of the very many...

Science is closing in everyday and every moment,

Russ

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 03:15 GMT
I suspect that your perceptions of time and space being immutable will be borne out (once again) in time. With regard to "curved space" and "time running slow" I agree that these are findings based solely upon experience (aka appearances). These too will likely be found in time to be metaphors for perceptions of reality. With respect to perpetual energy, to the best of my (limited) knowledge, the only evidence of such a phenomenon is the very strong suspicion that energy, like time and space discussed above, is infinite but not immutable. Our difficulties with this idea arise from a hide-and-seek faculty in energy evidenced by its propensities to change its state and form. You also score highly with your expression of "Universe, with a capital 'U' ". What else can "Uni" truly mean? But, yes again, you do "digress".

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Russ Otter wrote on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 04:23 GMT
Hello Anonymous,

First, Thank you for the reply, and Yes I concur! I do digress, however it is all important and as I commented in a further posting, as I believe we (existence per se') are all connected, and all related. But I cannot oppose your assessment of digression. I simply hope that you might consider it encourages continued thought. As far as Energy: Given that Gravity, Electrostatics, and Magnetism, which occur naturally, not by any manner of matter destruction, hold enormous promise. I believe they offer the mathematical potential to leverage far beyond our current exploitation. I have held these ideas in mind sense I was a child, but admit some ideas have evaporated with my ageing, yet some have come along as I ponder this subject further. But I still hold to the intuitive logic they continue to rattle around in my less that admitted highly knowledgeable and less than perfect grey matter... I will acknowledge that even with the natural energies I speak of, as you state, they do and can change form, such a polarities changing on our planet, but even given those catastrophic periods in nature I offer you much thanks for your soundly considered potential objections, and respectful thoughts. Many Thanks Again, Russ

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Russell Jurgensen wrote on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 19:54 GMT
Dear Russ,

I found your essay fascinating because the logic up through discussing thermodynamics closely matches my thinking. I especially am interested in exploring the reason for the laws of thermodynamics as opposed to letting those laws rule whatever theory is developed. As you suggest, what if the underlying reality produces thermodynamics? Then letting thermodynamics rule would totally block us from finding the actual reality.

I don't go as far as your suggestion that there is the possibility of finding an imbalance of forces allowing excess energy to be collected. In my exploration into the reason behind thermodynamics, there suddenly is not a concept of energy. It becomes a system of potentials and accelerations driven by a single master potential. Energy seems to be a macro effect based on what is happening inside photons, electrons, and protons. You are absolutely right, however, that the more we understand it the better we can provide energy efficient solutions which in itself would benefit humanity.

I highly encourage you in your exploration into the reasons behind thermodynamics because you are right on in looking there for the solution.

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Russ Otter replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 23:07 GMT
Dear Russell,

I am delighted with your response, and thank you for the considerate words. This is a difficult subject, and your insight is likewise obvious and again appreciated. You get very high marks for sifting out the pearls I tried to convey.

One of those pearls, of which you believe, an impossible or difficult hurdle: Is the expansion of energy from energy, not matter. I agree with thermodynamics on many levels, it is hard not to. But if I had to find an analogy I would say Thermodynamics was solely designed with Euclidian Geometry. And the world is not Flat. Therefore Thermodynamics cannot and will not allow for answers to everything. However the “energy” that I speak of generating is manifest by way of energy itself.

Thermodynamics is locked into Matter equals Energy, or visa versa.

The means I am suggesting uses matter as its architecture, such as a Teflon tube and a Glass Ball, among other augmented elements, but also in conjunction with gravity. These natural forces: Electrostatics, Magnetism, and Gravity, built using all of the 3 dimensions along with space, can in fact (I believe), augment and regenerate itself, save parts wearing out.

This would generate heat and the outcome of that is energy, without M=E or visa versa. Hence thermodynamics is by-passed for the most part. It even aligns in part with your concept of the macro-effect from the micro-world of protons or particles, etc. Those protons and electrons if based as an energy source are not solely based on the confines of thermodynamics (possibly).

Related to my ideas for energy is more of an intuitive design, than a mathematical one. But sentient “intuition” understands that a “Ball will fall down a Hill.” As I mentioned I do not have the mathematical background, short of the normal masses, to define this is the terms of scientific language (Mathematics.)

But I am working on it… And I thank you once again for your encouragement.

Most Sincerely,

Russ Otter

PS… I also just read your Essay. You and I my friend are on the same track. Deep Congratulations for doing the detailed work you have accomplished primarily in the world of particle physics. Quite impressive… If you ever would like to work on that horrible idea of mine “Continuous Motion”… Let’s do it. Again, all the best, Russ

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Russell Jurgensen replied on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 23:09 GMT
Dear Russ,

Thanks so much for your encouragement and note on my essay. Yes, people need to follow intuition and be honest to themselves.

You have a very interesting idea and I hope you will have a chance to define it further with math and units. If the idea is digital in nature, a structured sequence of rules could lead to units of measurement. I find such a process helps improve the idea and allows others to help.

Thanks for your essay. It is great to explore similar concepts!

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 22:08 GMT
Digital or Analog notwithstanding, we simply we are not able to know all truth. Therefore we are binary and separate, hence digital for all conscious (or finite) purposes. Beyond our finite consciousness the subject on an infinite plane is open for endless review…

Russ,

The above shows great insight. It is a difficult topic to fathom but you make a great stab.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Russ Otter replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 23:09 GMT
Dear Jim,

What a thoughtful and great reply! I simply appreciate and am heartened that somebody, gets me! Your insight into this subject matter is obviously more than substantial, so I deeply appreciate your comments.

Cheers always - and Thank You for taking the time to respond,

Russ

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Russ Otter wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 23:04 GMT
Dear Russell,

I am delighted with your response, and thank you for the considerate words. This is a difficult subject, and your insight is likewise obvious and again appreciated. You get very high marks for sifting out the pearls I tried to convey.



One of those pearls, of which you believe, an impossible or difficult hurdle: Is the expansion of energy from energy, not matter. I agree with thermodynamics on many levels, it is hard not to. But if I had to find an analogy I would say Thermodynamics was solely designed with Euclidian Geometry. And the world is not Flat. Therefore Thermodynamics cannot and will not allow for answers to everything. However the “energy” that I speak of generating is manifest by way of energy itself.



Thermodynamics is locked into Matter equals Energy, or visa versa.

The means I am suggesting uses matter as its architecture, such as a Teflon tube and a Glass Ball, among other augmented elements, but also in conjunction with gravity. These natural forces: Electrostatics, Magnetism, and Gravity, built using all of the 3 dimensions along with space, can in fact (I believe), augment and regenerate itself, save parts wearing out.

This would generate heat and the outcome of that is energy, without M=E or visa versa. Hence thermodynamics is by-passed for the most part. It even aligns in part with your concept of the macro-effect from the micro-world of protons or particles, etc. Those protons and electrons if based as an energy source are not solely based on the confines of thermodynamics (possibly).

Related to my ideas for energy is more of an intuitive design, than a mathematical one. But sentient “intuition” understands that a “Ball will fall down a Hill.” As I mentioned I do not have the mathematical background, short of the normal masses, to define this is the terms of scientific language (Mathematics.)

But I am working on it… And I thank you once again for your encouragement.

Most Sincerely,

Russ Otter

PS… I also just read your Essay. You and I my friend are on the same track. Deep Congratulations for doing the detailed work you have accomplished primarily in the world of particle physics. Quite impressive… If you ever would like to work on that horrible idea of mine “Continuous Motion”… Let’s do it. Again, all the best, Russ

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 16:09 GMT
Dear Sir,

We have gone through your Essay.

You have correctly asserted that “always define your mathematics and philosophical notions of Space and Time, in conjunction with all of the natural forces we are ruled by, based on their quantum roots.” You are also right that “Space and Time are immutable.” However, we differ from your views on infinity, which we have dealt with...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Russ Otter replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 03:16 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

My congratulations to you and your colleagues, by both way of your review of my essay, and to your own out of the box sense of intuitive logic, coupled with your science to push the envelope of knowledge.

Your reply is both a personal edification and a challenge for me to explain, myself with the due respect you and your colleagues most certainly...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba wrote on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 04:40 GMT
Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for your response. You are unnecessarily being highly differential. Like you, we are neither a scientists nor a mathematician - not even an academician. We have only some amateur interest in science among other subjects.

We find more similarities than differences in our views. Only we stretch some areas much more, which appears different at first...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Russ Otter replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 21:32 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

I have enjoyed your communications… And you sir as well are very respectfully differential. And –Yes, Language is a fickle road, we are confined within, and it unnecessarily leads us astray, when in fact we are often on the same journey, in the same space…

A couple of points I would like to make, related to words (language), by which we could handcuff ourselves for days, such as “scalar”, “containment”, and so forth.

You thoughtfully debunk or content an agreement that “scalar” is not a part of entanglement. Well if we are speaking about classical relative distances then it is scalar, but if we are proposing a unification of all matter, devoid of relative distances (as the classical world behaves), at all times ( save perhaps - or in this case of entangled particles), then no it is not scalar. * My point was to identify it as a classical relative distance and point out that it “behaved” without a scalar component, i.e., it was behaving locally.

If I understand you position, you are suggesting that you have an answer to this dilemma which would seem to bridge the larger questions of “infinity” into an understandable format or concept. If so, then congratulations, as I do not fault the ability to understand, but I will question the ability to answer such things as the “Alpha” (Beginning). It is not attainable. Nor could any computer the size of the galaxy, not exhaust itself in futility, with such a question.



That conundrum of the unknown, gives us our existence, as how else could it be otherwise. This is a puzzle which suggests we are all the same, and yet all different, all within the same space and time. A puzzle in which my mind literally bleeds!

Additionally, you mentioned “containment.” I would suggest that containment is a multiple meaning word. One for the “finite” Classical Relative world, and one within “Infinity”. We are contained within infinity, but that form of containment, has no center-point, that would hence not make infinity a proper definition. [Infinity is boundless and extend-less, thus no center-point]. It is incumbent that it makes no sense to a finite understanding, but it is a confinement (of its own right) all the same. And we are in it. And center-pointless.] Finite terminologies constrict us, when defining any infinity, save making us crazy trying to do it, or burning out a galaxy sized computer.

I get a sound sense I believe where you are headed, and I will be the first to acknowledge its value to help solve some fundamental unknowns, but respectfully, I can never envision it solving the largest of questions: That of: When we began, or when we end. Both of which are questions that are actually oxymoron’s.



Look forward to hopefully seeing your paper someday in the future! Thank you again for your most thoughtful replies…

Cheers, Russ

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba wrote on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 23:15 GMT
Dear Sir,

You are absolutely right on your fundamental question: 'When we began, or when we end'. In absolute terms, there is no answer to this question. But then, our essay offers a partial solution to this conundrum. We are concerned about the 'present' that affect us. For us, this 'present' stretches in cycles - each cycle with a beginning and an end. These are evident in all aspects of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Russ Otter replied on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 02:36 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

We are largely in agreement, based on this last reply. Infinity is not definable, and actually not important, relative to the moment in which we exist and cycle through time and no doubt time and time again, in some form or another.

So I defer to you and your premise. However Not all students are under the guise of a constrained training. NOTE: You probably know that as well. Even more so today, given the openness of thought that is growing, as the physicists, or rather the titans of the past have provided some foundations, they are not without exceptions or complete alteration, as new students move forward with the promise of open and truer knowledge and thought.

I fully agree that many of the past shoulders of knowledge are of limited value, given limited knowledge at the time of a past long gone by.

Therefore “invented knowledge” is largely the history of our past, and the superstition’s you spoke of that go along with that subjective knowledge; we do still base much of our current truths upon. Errantly in some cases, but not all cases, I would venture to safely assume.

The ship we both sail is headed toward the same destination…

Thanks again for your illuminating thoughts… And again every good wish toward your final summation in the near future.

Thanks very much once again, Russ

PS... When you publish, I hope you might include me in a notice: russotter@verizon.net

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 14:37 GMT
Thank you Sir,

We will definitely remember.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba wrote on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 04:47 GMT
Dear Sir,

We had posted a comment below the Essay of Mr. Armin Nikkhah Shirazi. We think you will be interested in it. Hence we are posting a copy here.

The validity of a physical statement rests with its correspondence to reality. We do not see how this condition could be satisfied in the description of Mr. Armin Nikkhah Shirazi's area-time.

He has correctly described the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Russ Otter replied on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 22:16 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

You sir, are going to blow my head up! This is indeed on a mathematical level heady stuff, but on a practical or intuitive, as practical or intuitive can be given our implicit set of existences (ontology, and physical reality) or finite and the infinite, we are again - a twain that shall not meet.

Simply ask the test question: “When is “Alpha”? No answer is pending.

The essay by “Shirazi” is obviously brilliant, and attempts to do what we all should do, and that is find the hidden links between ontology and physical reality. But even in his conclusion, he makes no claim of doing any such thing. He only suggests this may be a starting point.

One particular issue is the concept of area-time or area without volume. How is that actually accomplished? As a 2 dimensional world still has volume. Some of the assumptions are based on some things we know, but also on “unknowns, but it perhaps, simply needs to be worded differently to be even more succinct.

Many of “Shirazi’s” assumptions or logical assumptions, are still assumptions. I enjoyed his essay and his firm work as it challenged, in my mind, “Special Relativity” and many of the heretofore assumptions we hold as sacrosanct, and may have miles to go before they are fully baked… Within our modern day physics, as you know, our current guidelines we key off of several errant premises, to our loss.

As I still argue that E = E(*), and that Schr¨odinger’s cat analogy is flawed as it uses a classical sized cat, with a precept, based on quantum mechanics. The two (Macro/Micro) do not to my knowledge play well together, and when we do that we are often led astray. So “Stray Cat” find a good home someday in reality – I hope. But stay out of the formula for which you are named.

Again, I do not see any conclusive or even the suggestion of a conclusion which would tie our two paradigms of the infinite and the finite together.

But the effort is highly noteworthy to me. The possibility of zero volume is a philosophical fact, but not a mathematical one. Zero volume portends of a singularity, and that is not even an assumption we can prove. Whereby zero volume is as possibly a duality of all volume at the same moment, as well - within the infinite.

Again, I think his paper is exceedingly well done, and opens up new challenges to pursue, but as for “Ontology and Quantum Wave Collapse” bridging our knowledge to encompass the infinite. NO. By definition, the infinite will defy all finite explanation. If it does ever so-called lend itself to a definition, then – it is no longer infinite.

Thanks again for your thoughts,

Russ

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 19:40 GMT
Dear Russ,

Wisdom is more important than imagination is more important than knowledge for all the we know is just an imagination chosen wisely.

Please read Theory of everything at your convenience posted by me in this contest.

Who am I? I am virtual reality, I is absolute truth.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Russ Otter replied on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 23:29 GMT
Dear Sridattadev (Anonymous),

Much thanks for your request of me to read your Essay… It is of a soothing nature, albeit a paradox as all things in ultimate truth are. That is what existence is and is not. That is why we have a finite and infinite set of paradigms, that keep us in balance. (If balance is the right word, given the horror, and hardship, the finite world continues to engage so greatly in.)

However, if one transcends to the infinite, one gives up ego, knowledge, joy, love, and pain all at the same time. Infinity is an undefined reality, as it must be. To live in the finite is to engage in a world of choices and opposites, unlike infinity. That is why I have said, the two will never meet.

In less than scientific terms: Everything is Nothing – And Nothing is Everything. That is the reality that science will never answer, nor any mathematical proof. It is I believe both your digital and analog analysis combined…

I agree with your many observations, that are actually paradoxes. As that is the ultimate truth in life.

However, life is of a “finite” existence for you and I, and all who live, so from there you are correct we are wise to seek wisdom, and to know that imagination is greater than knowledge.

But I do hope that in time, Knowledge, will improve and world suffering will begin to reduce itself by way of new technologies to provide better care for the harmed in this world.

All the very best to you, as you seem to be a gentle soul – with much love,

Russ

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

sridattadev replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 15:44 GMT
Dear Russ,

Thank you for your kind words and understanding. I hope and dream that humanity gets wiser and uses its imagination for greater good of all beings on this planet going forward. But looking at things as they are now, I fear it could be other way around and humanity will lead towards total destruction of fragile life on this planet. As you said I am just another soul who has experienced life and made some observations and expressed them as several many great people before. With this knowledge at hand I wish to do my part before departing from here to encourage as many as possible to start loving and caring for life as a whole.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Russ Otter replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 16:32 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,

Wonderfully said... My hopes are with you and your disposition.

With kindness always,

Russ

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Russ Otter wrote on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 22:12 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

You sir, are going to blow my head up! This is indeed on a mathematical level heady stuff, but on a practical or intuitive, as practical or intuitive can be given our implicit set of existences (ontology, and physical reality) or finite and the infinite, we are again - a twain that shall not meet.



Simply ask the test question: “When is “Alpha”? No answer is pending.

The essay by “Shirazi” is obviously brilliant, and attempts to do what we all should do, and that is find the hidden links between ontology and physical reality. But even in his conclusion, he makes no claim of doing any such thing. He only suggests this may be a starting point.

One particular issue is the concept of area-time or area without volume. How is that actually accomplished? As a 2 dimensional world still has volume. Some of the assumptions are based on some things we know, but also on “unknowns, but it perhaps, simply needs to be worded differently to be even more succinct.

Many of “Shirazi’s” assumptions or logical assumptions, are still assumptions. I enjoyed his essay and his firm work as it challenged, in my mind, “Special Relativity” and many of the heretofore assumptions we hold as sacrosanct, and may have miles to go before they are fully baked… Within our modern day physics, as you know, our current guidelines we key off of several errant premises, to our loss.



As I still argue that E = E(*), and that Schr¨odinger’s cat analogy is flawed as it uses a classical sized cat, with a precept, based on quantum mechanics. The two (Macro/Micro) do not to my knowledge play well together, and when we do that we are often led astray. So “Stray Cat” find a good home someday in reality – I hope. But stay out of the formula for which you are named.

Again, I do not see any conclusive or even the suggestion of a conclusion which would tie our two paradigms of the infinite and the finite together.

But the effort is highly noteworthy to me. The possibility of zero volume is a philosophical fact, but not a mathematical one. Zero volume portends of a singularity, and that is not even an assumption we can prove. Whereby zero volume is as possibly a duality of all volume at the same moment, as well - within the infinite.



Again, I think his paper is exceedingly well done, and opens up new challenges to pursue, but as for “Ontology and Quantum Wave Collapse” bridging our knowledge to encompass the infinite. NO. By definition, the infinite will defy all finite explanation. If it does ever so-called lend itself to a definition, then – it is no longer infinite.

Thanks again for your thoughts,

Russ

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 01:20 GMT
Dear Sir,

We are amused to read your "we are again - a twain that shall not meet" comment. We have a different view on this issue.

We think we are looking at and describing the same thing from different angles. The only difference is the approach. You are taking a person and describing his ancestors by going backwards. We have taken the ancestor and moving towards the same person through successive generations. Thus, while we could see lot of relatives, you are focused only on one line.

As we have told earlier, we do not treat the micro and the macro worlds differently. An article that appeared in the October 2005 issue of the Notices of the American Mathematical Society also proves us right when it shows that the theory of dynamical systems used to plan the trajectories of spacecrafts and the theory of transition states in chemical reactions share the same set of mathematics. We explain all quantum phenomenon with its macro equivalents. Since you leave aside the 'relatives' and focus only on the 'ancestry', you miss our point. But ultimately, we both reach the same destination.

One example is your statement: "As a 2 dimensional world still has volume." Looking at it in isolation, we would contradict it as two dimension represents area and not volume, which is a feature of three dimensional objects. The notation for area contains second order descriptions, whereas the description of volume contains third order descriptions. But if you are looking at the two dimensional picture of or looking at one surface of a three dimensional object, then obviously you are not wrong.

Similarly, you do not mix conscious actions with mechanical actions. We think both follow the same mechanical process for the action part. Only at causality, both differ, though there is no difference in the effect part, which is deterministic.

So, the twain shall meet at some point of time.

Regards,

basudeba.

P.S. We extend the same "heady" mathematical stuff further to theoretically derive the value of the fine structure constant alpha at the so-called zero energy level and 80 GeV level. Our values for these are 7/960 (1/137) and 7/900 (1/128) respectively.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Russ Otter replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 08:23 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

I am absolutist when it comes to a “Twain that shall never meet”, until someone explains how the “Finite” and “Infinite” are of the same disciplines.

They are not, from everything I know in my deepest of intuition, or from the deepest of mathematical principles.

However, they may meet by way of philosophical beliefs or faith, however beyond that...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 11:17 GMT
Dear Sir,

We stand by our comments mathematically and not philosophically provided your mathematics is natural and not manipulative. You say: “Infinity” is “Infinity” and the “Finite” is the “Finite.” We also say the same thing. Infinity is not a big number. At many places we have explained the scientifically proper definition of infinity and said that no mathematics is possible using infinity. However, different infinities like time and space co-exist. Mathematics is for finite sets only.

You say: “a linear line still has volume, anyway you slice it.” But what is a linear line? It is the distance between two points. Two points on what? Obviously on some object that has mass, which means it has volume. Thus your description of slicing the line actually means slicing the object on which the line has been drawn, as the line has no separate identity of its own. Thus, your statement does not contradict ours.

You say: “a linear line is actually three dimensional, depending on your measuring requirements (point of reference.) A two-dimensional design to some observer is actually a three-dimensional design to another observer. It all depends on the size you are viewing.” The moment you talk of size, you imply distances, areas and volumes respectively of one, two and three dimensional objects. Since these dimensions are not exclusive, but the lesser dimension is contained in the higher dimension, a three dimensional object can have distance and area also. To this extent you do not contradict us. These are proven facts. But can you show the volume of the distance between two points on two adjacent hill tops?

We have shown that left hand side of any equation (physical theory or chemical reaction) denotes free-will as we are free to choose the parameters. But the right hand side is deterministic, as once all the parameters are chosen, they behave according to fixed rules. Surely you will not dispute that an equation is not mathematics but un-scientific philosophy. The result of the equation is certainly “measurable or within the purview of a proof”. Thus the twain meet.

It is easy to explain something to someone who is ignorant. It is impossible to explain something to someone who has limited knowledge and a closed mind. But it is intellectually stimulating to convince a seeker of truth with an open mind about the validity or truth content of a theory. We are confident that THE TWAIN WILL MEET.

We have posted something below the Essay of Mr. B.N. SREENATH. This is relating to why gravity cannot be integrated with other fundamental forces of Nature and the mechanism of particle formation. You may like to see it.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 13:26 GMT
Rus

I enjoyed your essay, thank you. and agree you have identified a number of vary salient points and truisms seemingly lost to current physics. I then noticed that, like me, you're not a physicist, which helps explain that! I too have always loved Cosmology, and really wonder sometimes how on earth (pun?) cosmology can be 'taught'. As a non physicist it deserves a high score. I particularly agreed with your comment;

"The current notion of SpaceTime is highly likely askew.. I would suggest that All things are quantized: Remember even a straight line or circles are arguably a combination of bits. So whether gravity, as well as space and time are quantized at a sub-atomic micro-level, and or a macro-level, or perhaps morph in the process, or not: Please remember that Natural Forces are created equal at a base level, even as Space and Time are constants within both infinity and a finite existence."

I also hope you'll read mine, which develops this to the ultimate extent and derives a falsifiable model producing both SR and GR with a quantum mechanism. But I'm surrounded by professional physicists and struggling so if you like mine please do return the compliment. If you want to understand the model read carefully and be prepared to stretch your conceptual dynamic visualisation skill. You may also enjoy reading the thought experiments in the string if necessary.

Thanks, and best of luck

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Russ Otter replied on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 02:52 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you for your interest in my essay. I clearly enjoy the fact that you, like myself are not a physicist. However, my friend, (if I can be so familiar), you have demonstrated a highly evolved understanding of both physics as well as a depth of mathematics. Congratulation’s…

Your essay is detailed and should be acknowledged as such for its technical prowess from a beginning to an end with the technical capabilities afforded the very few in this world.

Your comment: “ Separate disciplines are imposed by man yet all nature must be connected.” Is a profound perspective for those who grasp the open ended nature of your work. And you do attempt to be open-ended in some of your conclusions or suppositions. That is all to the good. From my perspective. It opens doors to all of us to pursue.

I too as you know, question the historical shoulders, we have built ourselves upon. And your understanding of “dielectric” science, interests me a great deal, as you may have noted that I do believe in “Natural Energies” (Electrostatics, Magnetism, and Gravity) as a means to develop via both linear and non-linear structures virtually continuous motion. Albeit you mention that M=E, I still maintain that Natural E = E(*) regressing to M :As M=E is true, it is not exclusive, given dimensional and natural forces in combination with 2 dimensional leverage. Hence 1 = 2, then regresses to 0, then repeats itself again and again…

If you ever what to pursue this please contact me at: russotter@verizon.net

Again, Your Essay as many others I have read - is detailed and brilliant. I am sure you enjoy your mastery of the greatest field of knowledge: Physics…

All the best to you - Most Sincerely, And Thank you for Sharing…

Russ

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.