Willard,

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

The primordial field, in my theory, is gravity. It satisfies the Calabi conjecture and, as I understand it, deSitter space, where gravity extends over (defines?) all space, and is generated by its own self energy. This bootstrap is mathematically justified, and since no one knows WHY the...

view entire post

Willard,

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

The primordial field, in my theory, is gravity. It satisfies the Calabi conjecture and, as I understand it, deSitter space, where gravity extends over (defines?) all space, and is generated by its own self energy. This bootstrap is mathematically justified, and since no one knows WHY the universe came into being, I simply assume it existed as one field. The Master equation is perfectly symmetrical and motion invariant, but the formal time derivative makes sense only if a new constant (Planck's constant) appears. Thus the perfect radial symmetry remains until a 'quantum fluctuation' [my second assumption] occurs in an 'off-radial' direction, unlocking the energy of the C-field, which had been suppressed by the perfect symmetry.

We now have the full gravitational field with radial and circulatory aspects.

The fact that both directly interact with mass and both have energy, hence equivalent mass, and the interaction is non-linear, means that a C-field vortex will establish a 'solenoidal' C-field dipole, which strengthens the vortex, which strengthens the dipole, which strengthens the vortex, with the process ending in an infinitely dense point. UNLESS THERE IS A LIMITING CONDITION. I next assume that a limiting condition exists [otherwise the universe would be nothing but one [or more?] infinitely dense points, which doesn't seem to be the case. The condition I impose is a 'limit to the curvature of the C-field. That is, the C-field vortex has a 'minimum radius' that prevents collapse to an infinitely dense point.

But where does that lead? Picture a spinning skater who pulls her arms in. How fast can she spin if she can pull her arms into zero radius? Got that? Is there an answer? On the way to 'zero radius' can her fingertips reach the speed of light? We are not 'boosting' her in any way that requires infinite energy, we're just conserving angular momentum.

Since there is nothing stopping the non-linear vortex-dipole-vortex-dipole--- feedback process, in which the energy-mass of the vortex wall serves as a 'mass current' (momentum) that induces a solenoidal C-field dipole, then the radius of the vortex keeps shrinking and the velocity of the vortex wall continues to speedup to conserve angular momentum. Where does this end? Will the vortex wall reach the speed of light? If it does, then how is it connected to the rest of the world, since, if there was an electromagnetic field, we could not 'look at' the the vortex, because, moving faster than the speed of light, it would have 'moved on'.

I hope you're still with me.

Now, if you work out the equations, it turns out that this radius is basically the Compton wavelength, and I make my next assumption, which is that at this point, electric charge comes into existence. It's probably my weakest assumption in my whole theory, but, I now have mass, charge, gravity and electro-magnetics.

And obviously the charge that is on the vortex 'wall' will resist the shrinking to an infinitely dense point through self-repulsion. So now a true limiting force exists to prevent infinitely dense points of C-field energy.

If one takes the simple equation of the mass of the vortex wall being forced into a smaller orbit, and sets it equal to the self-repulsive force of the electron, then one would hope to find the equilibrium where the inward C-field force and the outward electric force are equal and the particle is stable. And when this equation is worked out, the fine structure constant (1/137) falls out! I put the exclamation sign because I don't believe that there exists another theory that can calculate the fine structure constant.

By the way, the v=c radius is the Compton wavelength of the particle, but the radius where the charge repulsion equals the inward force is about 10^-18 meters which agrees with the best measurements. So the electromagnetic field can see only to the v=c radius, but collision data can see all the way down to the 'real' radius. I find that nice.

So now we have a Z-boson (the C-field vortex) that produces a charged particle and, if charge is conserved, then the remaining vortex (outside of the Compton wavelength radius) has acquired a charge, and become a W-boson, ready to produce an 'anti-particle'.

There's more, but I'll stop here to let you put the picture together in your own mind.

By the way, having left both academia and the government years ago to run my companies, I am not in the loop, and my submissions to Phys Rev Lett were immediately rejected with "don't darken our door again". So, I had the choice of 'start with inconsequential journals and work my way up' (which at my age is not appealing) or simply put this into books and hope someone reads them. Although I have presented the above in several factual books, the most complete presentation is in "The Chromodynamics War", which has the format of a scifi novel, in the hope that graduate physics students, upon reading a scifi novel that explained things better than their QCD textbooks might be induced to look further. Then fqxi came along and gave me another outlet.

Each book has worked out more details and corrected earlier typos and mistakes, but the most complete treatment of particle physics is "The Chromodynamics War". A version that drops the scifi narrative and simply presents this in straight form is in process, to be titled, "Physics of the Chromodynamics War".

Willard, sorry this can't all fit into 9 pages, but it just can't. I do appreciate your interest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

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

Sir,

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

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

view entire post

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

Sir,

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

“We are a non-professional and non-academic entrant to the Essay contest “Is Reality Digital or Analog”. Our Essay under the same name was published on 29-12-2010. We were associated with Academic Administration as a part of our profession before retirement. From our experience, we were concerned about the problems and directions of current science. One example is the extended run and up-gradation given to LHC, (which was set up to finally prove that Standard Model and SUSY were wrong), even when Tevatron is closing down. Thus, after retirement, we were more focused on foundational works addressing, in one of its many facets, our understanding of the deep or “ultimate” nature of reality.

Specifically we were concerned about the blind acceptance of the so-called “established theories” due to the rush for immediate and easy recognition even on the face of contradictions raising questions on the very theories. One example is the questions being raised on the current theories of gravitation after the discovery of Pioneer anomaly. While most students know about MOND, they are not aware of the Pioneer anomaly. Most of the finalists of this contest have either not addressed or insufficiently addressed this question. We hold that gravity is a composite force that stabilizes. This way we can not only explain the Pioneer anomaly and the deflection of the Voyager space-craft, but also the Fly-by anomalies.

Similarly, we were concerned about the blind acceptance of some concepts, such as inertial mass increase, gravitational waves, Higg’s boson, strings, extra-dimensions, etc. Some of these are either non-existent or wrongly explained. For example, we have given a different explanation for ten spatial dimensions. Similarly, we have explained the charge interactions differently from the Coulomb’s law. We have defined time, space, number and infinity etc., differently and derived all out formulae from fundamental principles. There are much more, which we had discussed under various threads under different Essays. We are the only entrant who defined “reality” and all other technical terms precisely and strictly used this definition throughout our discussion.

Though our essay was on foundational concepts and we derived everything from fundamental principles, it was basically alternative physics. Moreover, we are not known in scientific circles because we did not publish our work earlier. Hence it is surprising that even we got a community rating of 3.0 and (12 ratings) and Public Rating of 2.5 (2 ratings). We have no complaints in this regard. However, we have serious reservations about the manner in which the finalists were chosen.

A set of thirty-five finalists (the “Finalists”) have been chosen based on the essays with the top Community ratings that have each received at least ten ratings. The FQXi Members and approved Contest entrants rate the essays as “Community evaluators”. Since many of the FQXi Members are also approved Contest entrants, this effectively makes the contestant as the judge for selection of the finalists. This process not only goes against the foundational goals of the Contest, but also leaves itself open for manipulation.

Most contestants are followers of what they call as “mainstream physics”. Thus, they will not be open to encourage revolutionary new ideas because it goes against their personal beliefs either fully (like our essay) or partially (like many other essays that did not find place in the final list. One example is Ms Georgina Parry. There are many more.) The prime reason for such behavior is cultural bias and basic selfish instinct of human beings. Thus, truly foundational essays will be left out of the final list.

In support of the above, we give a few examples. While there are some really deserving contestants like Mr. Julian Barbour, who really deserve placement in the final listing, the same cannot be said for many others. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists, says that whether reality is digital or analog “refers, at least implicitly, to the ‘ultimate’ nature of reality, the fundamental layer.” He admits that “I do not know what this could mean, nor I am at ease with thinking in these terms.” Then how could he discuss the issue scientifically? Science is not about beliefs or suppositions. His entire essay exhibits his beliefs and suppositions that are far from scientific descriptions. He admits it when he talks about “speculative scenario”. Yet, his essay has been rated as number one by the Community.

The correspondence between us and Mr. Efthimios Harokopos under his Essay and our comments under the various top ranking finalists show the same pattern. One example is Mr. Paul Halpern. We have raised some fundamental questions under the essay of Mr. Hector Zenil. If the answers to these questions are given, most of the finalists will be rejected. If the idea is to find out the answers to these questions, then also most of the finalists will be rejected.

The public that read and rated the essays are not just laymen, but intelligent persons following the developments of science. Their views cannot be ignored lightly. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 35th place in public rating. Mr, Tejinder Singth, who is 7th among the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 25th place in public rating. If public rating is so erroneous, it should be abolished.

Secondly, the author and interested readers (including FQXi Members, other contest entrants, and the general public) are invited to discuss and comment on the essay. Here personal relationship and lobbying plays an important role. An analysis of the correspondence between various contestants will show that there was hectic lobbying for mutual rating. For example: Eckard Blumschein (Finalist Sl. No. 15) had written on Mar. 15, 2011 to Mr. Ian Durham (Finalist Sl. No. 3) “Since you did not yet answered my question you give me an excuse for not yet voting for you.” There are many such examples of open lobbying. One of the first entrants visited most contestants and lobbied for reading his essay. Thus, not only he has received the highest number of posts under his Essay, but has emerged as one of top contenders.

The above statement gets further strengthened if we look at the voting pattern. More than 100 essays were submitted between Feb.1-15. Of these 21 out of 35 are the finalists. Of these the essays of 14 contestants were published in 5 days between Feb. 14-18. Is it a mere coincidence? For some contestants, maximum rating took place on the last day. For example, on the last date alone, Mr. Paul Halpern rose from 14th place to 5th place, Mr. Donatello Dolce rose from 35th place to 14th place, and Mr. Christian Stoica came into the top 35. All these cannot be coincidental.

Thirdly, no person is allowed to submit more than one essay to the Contest, regardless if he or she is entering individually or as part of a collaborative essay. Yet, we suspect that some have indulged in such activities. For example, we commented below the essay of one contestant on March 4. We got a reply from the next contestant the same day. The correspondence continued. The original contender has not replied to us. In fact he has only replied twice in 20 posts. This is surprising.

In view of the above, we request you to kindly review your judging process and forward all essays to an independent screening committee (to which no contestant or their relatives will be empanelled), who will reject the essays that are not up to the mark and select the other essays without any strict restriction on numbers to the final judges panel. This will eliminate the problems and possibilities discussed by us. This will also have the benefit of a two tier independent evaluation.

Our sole motive for writing this letter is to improve the quality of competition. Hence it should be viewed from the same light”.

Regards,

Basudeba.

view post as summary