Israel,

That is a very well thought out and absorbingly written essay. I am pretty much in full agreement, with one minor caveat about the nature of space. I think you bounce up against this, with the idea that space is necessarily infinite, but by arguing it hasn't any physical properties and must not exist outside of reference to the matter filling it, you overlook the consequences of...

view entire post

Israel,

That is a very well thought out and absorbingly written essay. I am pretty much in full agreement, with one minor caveat about the nature of space. I think you bounce up against this, with the idea that space is necessarily infinite, but by arguing it hasn't any physical properties and must not exist outside of reference to the matter filling it, you overlook the consequences of nothing, ie. the properties of zero.

If space is nothing, it cannot be bound and thus is infinite, but it also, lacking physical properties, cannot be bent, curved, expanded, contracted, etc. This means that it is fundamentally flat. It is perfect equilibrium. All mass and energy, to the extent they are composed of opposing elements, are disequilibrium to this equilibrium. The fluctuations of the vacuum. So space is not only infinite, it is the absolute.

As for time, while I fully agree with your view, I think there is one point that is largely overlooked about the nature of time. Since I've made this argument many times on the FQXi blogs and was it the subject of my entry in the first FQXi contest, I'm posting this from one of those discussions: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/813

The present doesn't move from past to future. The changing configuration of the present turns the future into the past. We don't travel the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. Time is an effect of activity, not the fundamental basis for it.

Because time is an effect of motion, there cannot be a dimensionless point in time without actually freezing the motion creating time, thus a particle cannot be isolated from its activity, whether it's an electron or a car. A dimensionless point in time would be like taking a picture with the shutter speed set at zero.

Understanding time as going from past events to future makes sense if we examine these events in the past tense, but if we consider an event as it is occurring, it quickly recedes into the past, as succeeding events replace it and are then replaced to recede into the past as well.

We view past events as cause of future ones, but total input into any event cannot be determined prior to its occurrence. It is this sum potential which is cause and the events which actually occur that are effect. Thus future is cause and past is effect.

The concept of free will is meaningless in terms of the present moving from past to future, because we only exist at the moment of the present and cannot change the past, or affect the future. On the other hand, with time as an effect of motion, our input is integral to our circumstance. We affect our circumstance, as it affects us.

As an effect of motion, time is similar to temperature, being the sequence of changing configuration, as temperature is the level of activity. If similar clocks record different rates of change in different circumstances, it is due to the level of activity being increased or decreased and thus speeded up or slowed down. Not that these clocks travel different time vectors.

We don't travel into that probabilistic future of multiworlds. It is the actual collapsing of probabilities which is time. Future is cause. Past is effect.

view post as summary

show all replies (3 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Israel,

An elegantly and beautifully written essay. I agree with almost everything that you say.

In item 15, you offer as one possibility, the idea that "M spontaneously came into being at total rest, and spontaneously started to move." I think your preferred argument is that motion has always existed, and will never end. In my theory, if the original 'substance' is the...

view entire post

Dear Israel,

An elegantly and beautifully written essay. I agree with almost everything that you say.

In item 15, you offer as one possibility, the idea that "M spontaneously came into being at total rest, and spontaneously started to move." I think your preferred argument is that motion has always existed, and will never end. In my theory, if the original 'substance' is the gravitational field, it's appearance at total rest would never allow it to do anything but collapse more tightly into itself. Therefore the assumption is that it 'hit the ground running'. The negative potential of gravity was counterbalanced by the positive kinetic energy of the 'explosion', allowing the possibility of a 'free lunch' universe that required no 'surplus' energy be created out of 'nothing'.

Recently fqxi'er Ray Munroe made me aware of Nottales 'scale invariance' which is equivalent to 'motion invariance', which in some ways eliminates 'time' until symmetry breaks. I have addressed this in my essay, which I hope you will find time to read. I think I have dealt with issues you are concerned with-- http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/799

As for item 16, especially option (2), I think that you might enjoy reading my previous essay in the 'Ultimate Limits of Physics' contest-- http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/561

Finally, item 17 states that if the whole universe is made up of one single entity, there are no arguments to propose dark energy and dark matter. I think I have a counter argument to that in my current essay.

I look forward to any response you might have.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

1. Point N° 7: “time still flows because time is the intrinsic motion and change of the universe, motion or change can never stop”.

It is great that motion never stops because it could stop if decided upon. Time is relative to space; thus your description of time is a description of relative or spatial time. There is also reference time, which can exist independently of space, but that time...

view entire post

1. Point N° 7: “time still flows because time is the intrinsic motion and change of the universe, motion or change can never stop”.

It is great that motion never stops because it could stop if decided upon. Time is relative to space; thus your description of time is a description of relative or spatial time. There is also reference time, which can exist independently of space, but that time would be irrelevant for a particular space if the particular space was out of existence and therefore could no longer give clues to measure its time.

2. Point N° 7: “And a ruler is a material object we use to compare and delimit a particular length, without M, space would be meaningless too, for there would be nothing to relate the sizes. For such reason space itself should be a material continuum even if there were no ponderable objects to refer”.

Space could exist without M, but such space would be irrelevant from within the void because space serves to locate matter. Matter here is first of all a set of points. Points precede lengths. Points can be singular, referential. You seem to behave in an affine space (with length-like concepts) as if you were in a purely vector space (not relying on reference points).

3. Point N° 10: “In a similar way to the points of a circumference in which any arbitrarily chosen point can be the beginning of the circumference, in the same way occurs with the universe, the beginning or end is mere convention to delimit two major events”.

The lesson in this illustration of a circumference seems to be that the universe has no beginning. I disagree.

A circumference is a derived notion, the underlying notions being the reference point and any relative point. Thus, the circumference is a set of points emerging from a reference point. The beginning of the circumference is the center. Thus, the lesson of your illustration is that the Beginning can give way to new entities of which He is not direct part.

4. N° 12: “It follows that the universe must be infinite in extension”. Here you say the universe is infinite. I agree because if our thinking allows us to perceive infinity, there could also be One with the ability to materialize what we merely aspire to reach. Power precedes intelligence.

5. N° 13: “From the previous reflections it follows that there is only one universe.” There could be a spiritual universe next to a physical universe with no obvious link between the two universes.

It is possible for a given entity to switch states without motion. Geometric conformations of molecules show the same molecule in different states. We cannot obtain one conformation from another conformation through motion. Such molecular states just happen to be. Therefore entities could switch states from one reality to the other without necessarily moving.

view post as summary

Dear Pierre

Time is relative to space; thus your description of time is a description of relative or spatial time. There is also reference time, which can exist independently of space.

Forgive me but it is not clear to me what you mean by "time is relative to space" and what you mean by "reference time" Could you please rewrite or extend your comments.

2. Point N° 7: “And a...

view entire post

Dear Pierre

Time is relative to space; thus your description of time is a description of relative or spatial time. There is also reference time, which can exist independently of space.

Forgive me but it is not clear to me what you mean by "time is relative to space" and what you mean by "reference time" Could you please rewrite or extend your comments.

2. Point N° 7: “And a ruler is a material object we use to compare and delimit a particular length, without M, space would be meaningless too, for there would be nothing to relate the sizes. For such reason space itself should be a material continuum even if there were no ponderable objects to refer”.

Space could exist without M, but such space would be irrelevant from within the void because space serves to locate matter. Matter here is first of all a set of points. Points precede lengths. Points can be singular, referential. You seem to behave in an affine space (with length-like concepts) as if you were in a purely vector space (not relying on reference points).

Well, from my view space is made up of matter, therefore matter serves to locate matter. My view of space is as a material continuum which follows the laws of fluid mechanics. And I think that points do not precede length. A length is not constituted of points, but of infinitesimal lengths. This is so because a point is adimensional, that is, its length is zero. Therefore something that has a length cannot be constituted of things that do not have length.

3. Point N° 10: “In a similar way to the points of a circumference in which any arbitrarily chosen point can be the beginning of the circumference, in the same way occurs with the universe, the beginning or end is mere convention to delimit two major events”.

The lesson in this illustration of a circumference seems to be that the universe has no beginning. I disagree.

A circumference is a derived notion, the underlying notions being the reference point and any relative point. Thus, the circumference is a set of points emerging from a reference point. The beginning of the circumference is the center. Thus, the lesson of your illustration is that the Beginning can give way to new entities of which He is not direct part.

The use of a circumference was just to try to express an analogy so the reader understand my ideas. Please do not take it literally. Sometimes it is hard to express what one feels and thinks because we all humans have different educational and social backgrounds and levels of sensations. For instance, 30 celcius degrees may be for you hot but for others not.

The main idea here is that what I did suggests that the universe has no beginning of time. If you do not agree with this I would be grateful if you let me know your arguments.

4. N° 12: “It follows that the universe must be infinite in extension”. Here you say the universe is infinite. I agree because if our thinking allows us to perceive infinity, there could also be One with the ability to materialize what we merely aspire to reach. Power precedes intelligence.

Well in fact, I have followed the principle of induction to conclude that the universe must be infinite, but since, so far, I cannot prove it, I leave it as a fundamental problem to be solved. I think that it is more important to understand what we mean by "infinite".

5. N° 13: “From the previous reflections it follows that there is only one universe.” There could be a spiritual universe next to a physical universe with no obvious link between the two universes.

In paragraph 13, I also said in parenthesis "or of whatever nature" this includes a spiritual universe. If a spiritual universe exists it must either interact or have some influence with the physical one, otherwise it would be meaningless for humans; and like the mathematical universe, it is just invented by my being. So, if one considers that a spiritual universe exists it must be part of the physical universe or viceversa, therefore there is only one universe, possibly made of two parts the physical and the spiritual. When you say "with no obvious link" you may be saying that the interaction is not simple and direct, that under certain requirements one can have access to the spiritual universe.

It is possible for a given entity to switch states without motion. Geometric conformations of molecules show the same molecule in different states. We cannot obtain one conformation from another conformation through motion. Such molecular states just happen to be. Therefore entities could switch states from one reality to the other without necessarily moving.

Yes, you are right if you conceive motion as an act of changing position of an object as time goes by. But in this case I am referring to the wider concept of movement or motion, i.e., as the act of changing, no matter if what changes is position or a state, or whatever.

Good luck in the contest

Israel

view post as summary

Dear Israel,

I enjoyed reading your essay, which shows that profound reasonings can be made without being prisoner of a particular mathematical representation of the Universe. I am interested myself in this aspect, and I developed a mathematical structure that can be used to say general things without being tied to a particular theory. Anyway, my essay is about something else.

Best...

view entire post

Dear Israel,

I enjoyed reading your essay, which shows that profound reasonings can be made without being prisoner of a particular mathematical representation of the Universe. I am interested myself in this aspect, and I developed a mathematical structure that can be used to say general things without being tied to a particular theory. Anyway, my essay is about something else.

Best wishes,

Cristi

view post as summary

show all replies (4 not shown)

hide replies

“Time is relative to space; thus your description of time is a description of relative or spatial time. There is also reference time, which can exist independently of space.

Forgive me but it is not clear to me what you mean by "time is relative to space" and what you mean by "reference time" Could you please rewrite or extend your comments.”

It is commonly agreed: c = d/t or c t...

view entire post

“Time is relative to space; thus your description of time is a description of relative or spatial time. There is also reference time, which can exist independently of space.

Forgive me but it is not clear to me what you mean by "time is relative to space" and what you mean by "reference time" Could you please rewrite or extend your comments.”

It is commonly agreed: c = d/t or c t = d

Where d is relative to location (space), c is assumed constant and t is time. Therefore, there is a relationship between time and a given measure of space. If matter M is observed moving in a 3-dimension space, then there is variation of d (length-or-space-related variable) therefore variation of time t (since the speed c is assumed constant). If we force ourselves within a 1-dimension space to observe matter M, time viewed from the 1-dimension space could be immobile if we assume the movement happens within a 2-dimension hyperplane (in the 1-dimension space, we have: d = 0) and c is constant. Therefore, time in 3-dimension space is reference time because it can flow even when time in 1-dimension space does not flow.

view post as summary

“Time is relative to space; thus your description of time is a description of relative or spatial time. There is also reference time, which can exist independently of space.

Forgive me but it is not clear to me what you mean by "time is relative to space" and what you mean by "reference time" Could you please rewrite or extend your comments.”

It is commonly agreed: c = d/t or c t...

view entire post

“Time is relative to space; thus your description of time is a description of relative or spatial time. There is also reference time, which can exist independently of space.

Forgive me but it is not clear to me what you mean by "time is relative to space" and what you mean by "reference time" Could you please rewrite or extend your comments.”

It is commonly agreed: c = d/t or c t = d

Where d is relative to location (space), c is assumed constant and t is time. Therefore, there is a relationship between time and a given measure of space. If matter M is observed moving in a 3-dimension space, then there is variation of d (length-or-space-related variable) therefore variation of time t (since the speed c is assumed constant). If we force ourselves within a 1-dimension space to observe matter M, time viewed from the 1-dimension space could be immobile if we assume the movement happens within a 2-dimension hyperplane (in the 1-dimension space, we have: d = 0) and c is constant. Therefore, time in 3-dimension space is reference time because it can flow even when time in 1-dimension space does not flow.

view post as summary

Point N° 10

“The main idea here is that what I did suggests that the universe has no beginning of time. If you do not agree with this I would be grateful if you let me know your arguments.”

Concerning the time when the universe began, I will quote a well circulated publication showing the universe was once a singularity.

If there strong indication about this, I can say the...

view entire post

Point N° 10

“The main idea here is that what I did suggests that the universe has no beginning of time. If you do not agree with this I would be grateful if you let me know your arguments.”

Concerning the time when the universe began, I will quote a well circulated publication showing the universe was once a singularity.

If there strong indication about this, I can say the universe started at that time it was a singularity. The circular reasoning saying “what happened before the singularity?” is not relevant. If you were asked about your birth date and you insisted upon knowing your complete genealogy in order to recognize the date given by your mother, such reasoning would be circular, exaggerated. In the same way a very small universe was the Genesis of significant developments.



------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------

“Evidence Pointing to a Beginning

All the individual stars you see are in the Milky Way galaxy. Until the 1920’s, that seemed to be the only galaxy. You probably know, though, that observations with larger telescopes have since proved otherwise. Our universe contains at least 50,000,000,000 galaxies. We do not mean 50 billion stars—but at least 50 billion galaxies, each with billions of stars like our sun. Yet it was not the staggering quantity of huge galaxies that shook scientific beliefs in the 1920’s. It was that they are all in motion.

Astronomers discovered a remarkable fact: When galactic light was passed through a prism, the light waves were seen to be stretched, indicating motion away from us at great speed. The more distant a galaxy, the faster it appeared to be receding. That points to an expanding universe!

Even if we are neither professional astronomers nor amateurs, we can see that an expanding universe would have profound implications about our past—and perhaps our personal future too. Something must have started the process—a force powerful enough to overcome the immense gravity of the entire universe. You have good reason to ask, ‘What could be the source of such dynamic energy?’

Although most scientists trace the universe back to a very small, dense beginning (a singularity), we cannot avoid this key issue: “If at some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We have to face the problem of a Beginning.”—Sir Bernard Lovell.

This implies more than just a source of vast energy. Foresight and intelligence are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very finely tuned. “If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster,” said Lovell, “then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no life.”

------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------

view post as summary

Dear Israel

I am impressed and inspired by your excellent essay, which may be no surprise as I found it almost the precise philosophical equivalent of my own, rather more mundane and down to earth offering.

I agree with almost all, though may now be able to add an interesting 1.3 to your Universe derivation options. Actually this has similarities to the 'big crunch', and it is that...

view entire post

Dear Israel

I am impressed and inspired by your excellent essay, which may be no surprise as I found it almost the precise philosophical equivalent of my own, rather more mundane and down to earth offering.

I agree with almost all, though may now be able to add an interesting 1.3 to your Universe derivation options. Actually this has similarities to the 'big crunch', and it is that it is effectively recycled. I can expand if you wish but it's part of the below;

Your reference to Hau & Quiang was very helpful as I'd failed to find and cite their work, which is very remiss as you'll see if you can find time to read my essay (2020 vision).

I belive it meets your a-f requirements. What I hope I can also do however is provide the key to proving your postulate, and the one matter you did not fully square up to - the constancy of 'c' irrespective of the motion of the observer, which is why AE had to 'stipulate' no 'M field' for SR.

This allows both reality and locality, providing a quantum mechanism for SR, similarly to Hau, and also Stokes so long ago. I suspect you may be one of the few who may understand the discrete field model proposed. (which also leads to the recycled universe).

I feel far less alone now. I'd very much appreciate your views.

Many thanks,

Peter Jackson

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Israel,

Since my essay is available, I hope you will understand why the question of SR vs. Ritz is of rather marginal interest to me. I consider just one argument of Ritz still valid: Future does not act back on the past.

I agree with you. The word vacuum must not be interpreted as just nothing. Guericke demonstrated the pressure of air, not an absolutely empty space....

view entire post

Dear Israel,

Since my essay is available, I hope you will understand why the question of SR vs. Ritz is of rather marginal interest to me. I consider just one argument of Ritz still valid: Future does not act back on the past.

I agree with you. The word vacuum must not be interpreted as just nothing. Guericke demonstrated the pressure of air, not an absolutely empty space. Nonetheless, I would be cautious equating field and aether. While the latter is thought to be a medium, electric or magnetic fields can be superimposed. They can even be taken away.

What about TEM and longitudinal em waves, the latter do not propagate faster.

Anyway, I expect you taking issue concerning my admittedly rather indirect support for uncommon ideas.

Regards,

Eckard

view post as summary

show all replies (3 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Dr. Perez,

Thanks again for visiting my essay "Steps Resulting From Digital Reality" (subtitled "Science Out Of The Straitjacket: Rethinking General

Relativity, E=mc2 … and String Theory"). Just as Oskar Klein prepared a quantum version of Theodor Kaluza's 5-dimensional spacetime in 1926 and Leonard Susskind wrote a string-theory version of Gerard 't Hooft's holographic...

view entire post

Dear Dr. Perez,

Thanks again for visiting my essay "Steps Resulting From Digital Reality" (subtitled "Science Out Of The Straitjacket: Rethinking General

Relativity, E=mc2 … and String Theory"). Just as Oskar Klein prepared a quantum version of Theodor Kaluza's 5-dimensional spacetime in 1926 and Leonard Susskind wrote a string-theory version of Gerard 't Hooft's holographic principle in 1995, I had a dream that I was writing a quantum or string-theory version of your essay in 2011. Well, that may not be the case, but it prompted me to get out of bed and type a few of the points on which our essays agree and disagree.

First, we both believe "... some of the most fundamental problems in modern physics might turn out to be fictitious." I'd say dark energy and the multiverse are the most prominent examples. Maybe you'd like to hear my thoughts on these. Before I go any further, I should acknowledge your materialistic view of the universe and warn you that the next paragraph disagrees with this view -

DARK ENERGY - Page 180 of “The Grand Design” says “Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative.” Since there was no gravitation in our universe prior to the Big Bang (we didn’t even have a universe), this sentence can be combined with the “backward causality” (effects influencing causes) promoted by Yakir Aharonov, John Cramer and others to explain that gravity’s negative energy gives us no reason to think that bodies could not appear anywhere and everywhere – as Professors Hawking and Mlodinow put it “Bodies such as stars or black holes* cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can.” Maybe it’s only playing with words, but I’d regard gravity as repulsive instead of attractive (its energy would then be positive like matter’s and the universe could be more than a vast collection of the countless photons, electrons and other quantum particles within it; it could, as #8 (in my essay) proposes, be a unified whole that has particles and waves built into its union of digital 1’s and 0’s (or its union of qubits – quantum binary digits). And the article “Gravitation” by Robert F. Paton in World Book Encyclopedia 1967 agrees that gravity is repulsive – “Einstein says that bodies do not attract each other at a distance. Objects that fall to the earth, for example, are not ‘pulled’ by the earth. The curvature of space time around the earth forces the objects to take the direction on toward the earth. The objects are pushed toward the earth by the gravitational field rather than pulled by the earth.” Repelling gravity would cause the universe to expand – as astronomer Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) confirmed in 1929 – and adding repelling gravity by continual "creation" (actually, recycling) of matter via the small amount from a preceding universe which is used to initiate expansion of its successor (or by dreaming and our brains using negative energy and antiparticles in them to do work effortlessly and to accomplish feats that would be thought of as miracles while we’re awake) would cause it to expand at an accelerated rate – this acceleration was discovered in 1998 by observations carried out by the High-z Supernova Search Team and the Supernova Cosmology Project, has been confirmed several times and is claimed to be caused by mysterious “dark energy”.

Regarding "our brains using negative energy and antiparticles", I'm reminded of Professor Roger Penrose's ideas on microtubules and the quantum functioning of the brain. However, my own ideas are inspired by the previous page of "The Grand Design". On p. 179 of “The Grand Design” by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow (Bantam Press, 2010) it’s stated

“One requirement any law of nature must satisfy is that it dictates that the energy of an isolated body surrounded by empty space is positive …”

and “… if the energy of an isolated body were negative … there would be no reason that bodies could not appear anywhere and everywhere.”

The only problem with those sentences, in an “everything is everywhere and everywhen” universe, is the word isolated. There can be no such thing as isolated in our cosmic-quantum unification. Does this mean you and I (plus all things in time and space) are a union of both positive and negative energy, able to display both separateness/solidity (isolation) as well as the potential to appear anywhere and everywhere? Page 179 also says “(the positive energy of a body) means that one has to do work to assemble the body.” Does this mean the positive component of the Cosmic-Quantum Union refers to an actual computer performing work by sending out the binary digits of 1 and 0 (in hyperspace) while its negative component refers to the universe being like a dream, and to binary digits that are transmitted by “telekinetic independence from technology” (see the end of #9 in my essay). In 1928 English physicist Paul Dirac (1902-84) proposed that all negative energy states are already occupied by (then) hypothetical antiparticles (particles of antimatter) – “Workings of the Universe”, a book in the series “Voyage Through The Universe”, by Time-Life Books 1992. This has ramifications for the subatomic particles called mesons which bind protons and neutrons together to form the atomic nucleus, in much the same way that gluons are said to bind together quarks which are said to be the constituents of protons and neutrons. Mesons are always composed of a quark-antiquark pair i.e. of a positive energy-negative energy pair. So when we’re dreaming and our brains are using negative energy, they’re not merely using a much lower degree of positive energy to do work but the antiparticles in them are receiving greater expression, allowing us to do work literally effortlessly and to accomplish feats, like appearing "anywhere and everywhere", that would be thought of as miracles while we’re awake.

Writing these views is not intended to merely transfer my essay to this page, because THEY ARE NOT PART OF MY ESSAY. I had intended to include them but as you point out "Unfortunately, the size of the essay is limited". For example, I do agree with you entirely that the universe is infinite and eternal. However, I don't need to go into long explanations here since my reasons for believing this can be found within my essay.

Also, you tell me that "Time travel is not possible ..." My essay goes into a lot of detail explaining how to travel into both the future and the past. Neither future nor past can be altered (a blow to our belief that we have the free will to shape the future) and my explanation of travel to the past requires re-interpretation of the concepts of "multiverse" and "parallel universes". It also requires the ability to travel billions of light years INSTANTLY. This sounds like pure fantasy, but I outline an approach based on electrical engineering, General Relativity, and Miguel Alcubierre's 1994 proposal of "warp drive" that makes it logically possible (personally, I think it's not only inevitable but our descendents are doing it right now ... that's how a person thinks when he or she is totally believes non-materialism and cosmic-quantum unification are "done deals".

Good luck with your essay,

Rodney

view post as summary

Hi to both of you,

Dear Rodney,

Are you serious??? The relativity never says that it's possible to travel in time.The concept of space time is a concept of evolution, relativistic.

The only thing you can, is the check of the internal duration of your motion system,we can thus go in theory in the future but we can't return at home.Thus why??? Furthermore the technology is so...

view entire post

Hi to both of you,

Dear Rodney,

Are you serious??? The relativity never says that it's possible to travel in time.The concept of space time is a concept of evolution, relativistic.

The only thing you can, is the check of the internal duration of your motion system,we can thus go in theory in the future but we can't return at home.Thus why??? Furthermore the technology is so not possible and useless.

The past can be seen only by interpretations of our datas and analyzes,we see our past in the stars, there also it's just a problem of human evolution, we are indeed young at the universal scale.

I understand your confusions just in seeing your methods.You use too much theories without real phsyical senses.The multiverses, the strings,the reversibilities of time.....all that is false and implies, thus in your line of reasoning, many confusions as this time travel.The rationality is the sister of our foundamentals. Our constants are our constants!!!

Best Regards and good luck for the contest.

Steve

view post as summary

Dear Israel and Steve,

First, what I understand by time. Space and time only exist in our experience. They are emergent properties, like wetness and mind. We experience wetness because it emerges from the building blocks of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms which make up water. We experience mind because it emerges from the building blocks of neurons composing the brain. And we experience...

view entire post

Dear Israel and Steve,

First, what I understand by time. Space and time only exist in our experience. They are emergent properties, like wetness and mind. We experience wetness because it emerges from the building blocks of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms which make up water. We experience mind because it emerges from the building blocks of neurons composing the brain. And we experience space-time since it emerges from the building blocks making up the universe. These units are a combination of electromagnetic pulses (forming a cosmic computer which includes randomness and thus the potential to escape rigid preprogramming, and have a small degree of free will) as well as a cosmic hologram (this combination unifies general relativity with quantum physics). Every physical and nonphysical part of the universal hologram would be a receptor for the downloading of data from the cosmic computer which not only exists in the hyperspace of the large-scale universe but also in the hyperspace of each subatomic particle. (In other words, the holographic universe or spacetime we know is a screen for invisibly displaying data from the 5th-dimensional computer).

Steve, it might be helpful to visualise time as a CD or video tape. The entire disc or tape obviously exists all the time. But our physical senses can only perceive a tiny part of the sound and the sights. I believe space and time are infinite, so it might be more accurate to visualise time as that huge number - in this case, of CDs or tapes - which some versions of string theory propose (at a minimum, 10 exponent 500). My essay tells you how to travel to the future, how to return home, and how to travel into our past. I believe relativity suggests the possibility of time travel - but even if it doesn't, we can go far beyond it (and far beyond today's very limited technology).

Now back to your reasons why time travel is not possible, Israel.

First, "one should have to explain the grandfather paradox."

The solution to the grandfather paradox is - instantly directing matter, energy and forces anywhere in the universe at any point in the past, present or future; the hyperspatial computer would be a spaceless and timeless basic reality from which space-time would emerge (since the universe is a unification possessing zero separation; every bit of the matter, energy and force directed by the hyperspace computer would feed back into the computer and be simultaneously directing IT, ensuring that history and the future could never be changed and the "grandfather paradox" is no problem after all).

"If time were a line we would have observed travelers from the future."

I can't say I know the answer to this one, but I can think of 3 possibilities - 1) maybe they have used synthetic biology to develop ghostly, non-physical bodies.

2) it's possible that every person we see is ultimately from the future, though they'd be totally unaware of it. They'd be unconscious of their true place in this eternal universe since their job is to contribute, in whatever way they can, to development of the fantastic future awaiting everyone. They'd be less inclined to build the future if they had awareness of it already existing.

3) maybe they are dark tourists who resemble dark matter by remaining invisible yet are capable of exerting gravitational, or other, influence. My essay suggests the universe is a Mobius loop and is contained in, or unified with, each of its particles (relying on physical senses or 21st-century scientific instruments would make this statement ridiculous). Then each fermion and boson would also be composed of the 3 spatial dimensions, the 4th dimension of time, and the 5th dimension of hyperspace. Detectors like the Large Hadron Collider would be unable to "see" the time and hyperspace components of particles, erroneously assuming particles are what physics calls strings. But just as dark matter could be ordinary matter whose 3 space dimensions are invisible to us, dark tourists from the future might have discovered a way for only their 4th and 5th dimensions to enter the world we perceive (similar to a 3D circle appearing to be a dot when it first enters the 2D world of Flatland - the examination of dimensions in the 1884 book by Edwin Abbott).

view post as summary

Hi again,

I had a lot of trouble writing down an answer to what I understand by time. I think I might be able to do better than I did yesterday. So here's the last third of something I spent today writing.

My essay suggests the universe is a Mobius loop and is contained in, or unified with, each of its particles (relying on physical senses or 21st-century scientific instruments would...

view entire post

Hi again,

I had a lot of trouble writing down an answer to what I understand by time. I think I might be able to do better than I did yesterday. So here's the last third of something I spent today writing.

My essay suggests the universe is a Mobius loop and is contained in, or unified with, each of its particles (relying on physical senses or 21st-century scientific instruments would make this statement ridiculous). Then each fermion and boson would also be composed of the 3 spatial dimensions, the 4th dimension of time, and the 5th dimension of hyperspace. Detectors like the Large Hadron Collider would be unable to "see" the time and hyperspace components of particles but could only see the small (maybe 5%) 3 spatial dimensions (the time and hyperspace components would be what we call dark matter), erroneously assuming particles are those tiny fractions of a Mobius loop that physics calls strings. We can visualise the Mobius loop as composed of a hyperspace computer which generates information on how things change from one undetectably tiny fraction of a second to the next (we call this time, and it's comparable to the frames in a movie) and transmits the data (transmits dark energy?) to the insignificant portion of length, width and depth that makes up subatomic particles ... and the universe.

Preceding the Big Bang (which created this local section of the infinite, eternal universe ... or if you prefer, this subuniverse of the megauniverse) there would have been no space, matter or time in this subuniverse and all would have been hyperspace. No transmissions of dark energy (creating time and space/matter) would have occurred - therefore the dark-energy content of the universe would have been zero, increasing to the present 72% as more and more matter was created. How is matter created? Perhaps as cosmologist Alan Guth once suggested -

"You might even be able to start a new universe using energy equivalent to just a few pounds of matter. Provided you could find some way to compress it to a density of about 10^75 (10 exponent 75) grams per cubic centimeter, and provided you could trigger the thing ..."

At the time the Cosmic Microwave Background was emitted (less than a million years after the big bang), results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe say the dark-energy content of the universe was negligible. Space/matter has been increasing since the big bang so transmissions from hyperspace (dark energy) which create them are increasing while the volume of the Mobius loop occupied by time/hyperspace (dark matter) has been shrinking as a result - according to the WMAP satellite, from 63% when the CMB was emitted to 23% today.

Regarding travel beyond our start and into the past ... it can’t be denied that these paragraphs imply the possibility of humans from the distant future time-travelling to the distant past and using electronics to create this particular subuniverse's computer-generated Big Bang. An accomplishment such as this would be the supreme example of “backward causality” (effects influencing causes) promoted by Yakir Aharonov, John Cramer and others. However, realising that we live in a cosmic-quantum unification with zero-separation and recalling Isaac Newton’s inverse-square law and what it says about the force between two particles being infinite (does infinite mean 10 ^ 500? - see previous post) if the distance of separation goes to zero means there's still room for God (as Creator) because God would be a pantheistic union of the megauniverse's material and mental parts, forming a union with humans in a cosmic unification.

view post as summary

Dear Sir,

We congratulate you for the brilliant essay. We fully agree that “Coherence in the physical interpretation” is very important “when we try to decode the mathematical language.”

You ask “What experimental evidences support the existence of ten dimensions?” “What powerful epistemological reasons do we have to believe in extra dimensions?” We hold that incorporation of...

view entire post

Dear Sir,

We congratulate you for the brilliant essay. We fully agree that “Coherence in the physical interpretation” is very important “when we try to decode the mathematical language.”

You ask “What experimental evidences support the existence of ten dimensions?” “What powerful epistemological reasons do we have to believe in extra dimensions?” We hold that incorporation of dimensions is not just a mere mathematical artifice. But the term dimension has been misused and interpreted wrongly that leads to the present problem. 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 relating it to the external fixed coordinates, 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 object. Based on the positive and negative 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) that also remain invariant under mutual transformation. These are the ten dimensions and not the so-called mathematical structures. These are described in detail in our book “Vaidic Theory of Numbers”.

You discuss the statement that “thought is the result of the evolution of the universe and under this premise physical theories are created”. We hold that mind functions mechanically and thought is the inertia of mind. Just like inertia takes over after an action and at the similar velocity in a field that gets modified after interaction with other forces, thought starts after an impulse acts on our organs of sensory perception and drawing from our memory field similar previous experiences moves in the same subject that get modified after interaction with other impulses. You come to a conclusion that “there are limits to knowledge”, with which we fully agree. Yet, we hold that theory of everything is possible. In fact, we have such a theory.

We agree that “a field is some kind of M in certain state”. We also agree that one of the properties of M is mass. But we do not agree that “mass is a source of gravitation and, at the same time, is some kind of energy”. We hold the opposite view that gravitation is a composite force that has two functions: structure formation and displacement. We derive electromagnetic field from gravitational force at the micro level and derive gravitational field from the electromagnetic force at the macro level.

We do not agree that space and time are physical entities. We hold that these are mental constructs based on alternative symbolism. Both are related to sequence. Space describes the interval between (or sequence of arrangement of) objects. Time does so for events, i.e., changes in the states of objects. Since intervals are not physical entities by themselves and are not describable by themselves, they are described using the objects as their boundary conditions.

We agree that “that something cannot be created out of nothingness”. We also agree that “the universe is, exists, has always been and will exist indefinitely and infinitely”, but we disagree that “the universe will never become into nothingness”. The term “nothingness” relates to not only its existence, but also its knowability and describability. While the first factor is eternal, the last two are not. To that extent, the universe may become “temporally nothing”. We advise you to go through our essay on the subject.

We agree that the whole universe made up of one single entity and there are no arguments to propose dark matter or dark energy, as they are defined at present. Yet, they exist in some other form. We have a detailed model on the creation of the universe and evolution of various forces and fields. We will soon publish those.

basudeba

view post as summary

show all replies (9 not shown)

hide replies

I know I can't submit another essay. I don't plan to - these are just some comments that came to mind after thinking about my essay. They don't seem very relevant to the topic "Is Reality Digital or Analog?" but writing them has given even more satisfaction than writing the essay, and I'm in the mood to share them with the whole world. So if you've got time to read them...

view entire post

I know I can't submit another essay. I don't plan to - these are just some comments that came to mind after thinking about my essay. They don't seem very relevant to the topic "Is Reality Digital or Analog?" but writing them has given even more satisfaction than writing the essay, and I'm in the mood to share them with the whole world. So if you've got time to read them ...

---------------------------------------------------------
----------------

I fully realise that my essay doesn’t sound like science at all. I can appreciate that many readers think it belongs to science fiction and fantasy. It does have saving graces though. I’m amazed at how well it fits in with the discoveries of the Microwave Anisotropy Probe and with string theory, culminating in the LHC’s experimentally verified strings and my prediction of antistrings. Having said that, I must say this – it’s very strange that the scientific world is so obsessed with mathematics (admittedly, my essay did dabble with it when offering a version of E=mc2 to suit the digital world - but I kept it very simple ... so simple it might be regarded as wrong). Math seems to be regarded as infallible, even though it leads to mistakes. The (partial) mistake I have in mind is string theory. I don't deny that there certainly is value in the theory, and in maths, but logic reveals shortcomings. Let me explain, after first writing a short section describing an unconventional approach to unveiling unification and offering an alternative to the Higgs boson that relies on gravitational waves.

ALTERNATIVE TO HIGGS BOSON

An important step might be to think of "... the grand design of the universe, a single theory that explains everything" (words used by Stephen Hawking on the American version of Amazon, when promoting his latest book “The Grand Design” – coauthored with Leonard Mlodinow, Bantam Books, 2010) in a different way than physicists who are presently working on science's holy grail of unification. The universe’s underlying electronic foundation* (which makes our cosmos into a partially-complete unification, similar to 2 objects which appear billions of years or billions of light-years apart on a huge computer screen actually being unified by the strings of ones and zeros making up the computer code which is all in one small place) would make our cosmos into physics’ holy grail of a complete unification if it enabled not only elimination of all distances in space and time, but also elimination of distance between (and including) the different sides of objects and particles. This last point requires the universe to not merely be a vast collection of the countless photons, electrons and other quantum particles within it; but to be a unified whole that has “particles” and “waves” built into its union of digital 1’s and 0’s (or its union of qubits – quantum binary digits). If we use the example of CGH (computer generated holography, these "particles" and "waves" could be elements produced by the interaction of electromagnetic and presently undiscovered gravitational waves, producing what we know as mass and forming what we know as space-time. Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves, and measurements on the Hulse-Taylor binary-star system resulted in Russell Hulse and Joe Taylor being awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1993 for their work, which was the first indirect evidence for gravitational waves. The feedback of the past and future universes into the unified cosmos's electronic foundation would ensure that both past and future could not be altered. Our brains and minds are part of this unification too - which must mean extrasensory perception and telekinetic independence from technology are possible, despite modern science's objections to these phenomena which appear to be based on non-unification.

* For more information on the universe's proposed electronic foundation, please see my article and postings at

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/814

STRINGS ARE ONLY PART OF MATTER'S BASIS

Space and time only exist in our experience. They are emergent properties, like wetness and mind. We experience wetness because it emerges from the building blocks of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms which make up water. We experience mind because it emerges from the building blocks of neurons composing the brain. And we experience space-time since it emerges from the building blocks making up the universe. These units are a combination of electromagnetic pulses (forming a cosmic computer which includes randomness and thus the potential to escape rigid preprogramming, and have a small degree of free will) as well as a cosmic hologram (this is produced by the interaction of electromagnetic plus gravitational waves and combination of the holographic aspect with the electronic aspect unifies general relativity with quantum physics). Every physical and nonphysical part of the universal hologram would be a receptor for the downloading of data from the cosmic computer which not only exists in the hyperspace of the large-scale universe but also in the hyperspace of each subatomic particle. (In other words, the holographic universe or spacetime we know is a screen for displaying data from the 5th-dimensional computer.)

It might be helpful to visualise time as the playing of a CD or video tape. The entire disc or tape obviously exists all the time. But our physical senses can only perceive a tiny part of the sound and the sights at any fraction of a second. I believe space and time are infinite, so it might be more accurate to visualise time as that HUGE number - in this case, of CDs or tapes - which some versions of string theory propose (10 exponent 500). My essay tells you exactly how to travel to the future, how to return home, and how to travel into our past. Neither future nor past can be altered (a blow to our belief that we have the free will to shape the future) and my explanation of travel to the past requires re-interpretation of the concepts of "multiverse" and "parallel universes". It also requires the ability to travel billions of light years INSTANTLY - no doubt many readers will instantly dismiss the essay because their preconceptions "know" this simply isn't possible. It indeed sounds like pure fantasy, but I outline an approach based on electrical engineering, General Relativity, and Miguel Alcubierre's 1994 proposal of "warp drive" that makes it logically possible.

My essay explains why the universe is a Mobius loop and how it is contained in, or unified with, each of its particles (relying on physical senses or 21st-century scientific instruments would make this statement ridiculous). Then each fermion and boson would also be composed of the 3 spatial dimensions, the 4th dimension of time, and the 5th dimension of hyperspace. Detectors like the Large Hadron Collider would be unable to "see" the time and hyperspace components of particles but could only see the small (maybe 5% of the whole) 3 spatial dimensions (the time component would be what we call dark matter), erroneously assuming particles are those small fractions of a Mobius loop that physics calls strings. "Dark matter" would exert a gravitational influence because time, being part of a curved Mobius loop (whether of quantum or cosmic scale), would push objects together in the same way Einstein's curved space-time pushes objects together. We can speak of the HST now - no, not the Hubble Space Telescope but Hyperspatial SpaceTime. We can visualise the Mobius loop as composed of a hyperspace computer which generates information on how things change from one presently undetectably tiny fraction of a second to the next (we call this time, and it's comparable to the frames in a movie) and transmits the data (transmits dark energy) to the insignificant portion of length, width and depth that makes up subatomic particles ... and the universe.

Preceding the Big Bang (which created this local section of the infinite, eternal universe ... or if you prefer, this subuniverse of the megauniverse) there would have been no space, matter or time in this subuniverse. No transmissions of dark energy (creating time and space/matter) would have occurred - therefore the dark-energy content of the universe would have been zero, increasing to the present 72% as more and more matter was created. How is matter created? Perhaps as cosmologist Alan Guth once suggested -

"You might even be able to start a new universe using energy equivalent to just a few pounds of matter. Provided you could find some way to compress it to a density of about 10^75 (10 exponent 75) grams per cubic centimeter, and provided you could trigger the thing ..."

At the time the Cosmic Microwave Background was emitted (less than a million years after the big bang), results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe say the dark-energy content of the universe was negligible. Space/matter has been increasing since the big bang so transmissions from hyperspace computer (dark energy) which create them are increasing while the volume of the Mobius loop occupied by time/hyperspace (dark matter) has been shrinking as a result - according to the WMAP satellite, from 63% when the CMB was emitted to 23% today. Why isn't dark energy increasing at the same rate dark matter is decreasing? It must be because, as stated earlier, both time and hyperspace exert a gravitational influence, thereby mimicking space and matter to a degree. This mimicry causes the dark matter between the start of the CMB and the present to decrease by only about 40% while dark energy increases in the same period by about 70%. If we were dealing with a simple and ordinary loop, this similarity would cause dark matter and dark energy to be more or less equal and if there was any difference in their amount of decrease/increase, it would be in the same direction. But we’re talking about Mobius loops which are like strips of paper that have been twisted 180 degrees before the ends are joined. This causes their variation to go in different directions (one increases, the other decreases) and the amount of variation is quite significant (+72%, -40%). My guess is that the real-life twist occurs in the temporal segment of the loop, enabling a traveller in time to go in different directions i.e. into the future or into the past. To replenish dark matter in billions of years, we merely have to extend Guth's proposal by using the knowledge of that time to create more matter.

A real-life Mobius is by no means a featureless loop, however. If, contrary to our impressions, the universe is unified with each particle it’s composed of; the WMAP satellite’s findings must apply to the quantum world. The figures 72%, 23% and 5% would not only describe the present universe’s content of dark energy, dark matter and ordinary matter but also any particle’s content of space or ordinary matter (5%), time or dark matter (23% - time is considered to be dark matter here because dark matter is regarded as ordinary matter invisible to us since it’s present in another region of the dimension we call time, just as most of a sphere is in another dimension and consequently appears as a dot when first entering Edwin Abbott’s 1884 exploration of other dimensions called “Flatland”), and hyperspace (72%: the transmissions from the hyperspace computer create space and matter, cause expansion of space on cosmic scales where there are no forces to overcome the expansion as there is in matter, and are known as dark energy – creating more matter causes that matter’s repelling gravity to bring about accelerating expansion).

Look at a picture of a Mobius (thanks to the repeating scales of fractal geometry, the apparently empty interior and exterior of the Mobius universe would actually be the same as the visible loop). Imagine the space/ordinary matter to be situated immediately counterclockwise (perhaps on the bottom of the loop) to the hyperspace segment and the time/dark matter portion to be immediately counterclockwise to the space/ordinary matter (time/dark matter would, moving clockwise, be next to the hyperspace segment).

The hyperspace transmissions flow directly into space/matter (all motion - “flow” and “transmissions” – are actually comparable to individual frames in a movie but are spoken of in everyday terms of motion for convenience, like saying the sun rises and sets) and are responsible for the large and unimpeded 72% increase, since the CMB was emitted, of dark energy. This flow rate of 72% also enters the time/dark matter section adjacent to hyperspace … but the loop’s twist seems to be in the time section. If we were to cut the loop lengthwise with scissors, previously varying the number of half-twists results in things such as two rings linked together or a knotted ring. So we get barriers to motion and blockages. Returning to the normal loop and twist, matters are less drastic and motion is merely slowed, resulting in a 23% flow rate.

If we lived in a non-unified universe of materialism, this is how things would remain (dark matter would have increased so today’s content would be a low 23%). On p. 179 of “The Grand Design” by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow (Bantam Press, 2010) it’s stated “One requirement any law of nature must satisfy is that it dictates that the energy of an isolated body surrounded by empty space is positive …”

The only problem with that sentence, in an “everything is everywhere and everywhen” universe, is the word isolated. There can be no such thing as isolated in our cosmic-quantum unification. Page 179 also says “… if the energy of an isolated body were negative … there would be no reason that bodies could not appear anywhere and everywhere.” Does this mean you and I (plus all things in time and space) are a union of both positive and negative energy, able to display both separateness/solidity (isolation) as well as the potential to appear anywhere and everywhere? Dark matter, not being entirely positive, would be anywhere and everywhere as well as having decreased so today’s content would be a low 23% (which is what WMAP says is the case).

If everything is a union of positive and negative energy, every matter particle and force-carrying particle would be too. And the strings the Large Hadron Collider might detect (being the parts of particles’ Mobius loops it could see since those parts would be space/ordinary matter) might come in both positive and negative varieties. In 1928 English physicist Paul Dirac (1902-84) proposed that all negative energy states are already occupied by (then hypothetical) antiparticles (particles of antimatter). Building on this results in proposal of strings and antistrings.

My essay tells you how to travel into the future, how to return home, and how to take a trip into our past. Regarding travel beyond our start and into the past ... it can’t be denied that these paragraphs imply the possibility of humans from the distant future time-travelling to the distant past and using electronics to create this particular subuniverse's computer-generated Big Bang. An accomplishment such as this would be the supreme example of “backward causality” (effects influencing causes) promoted by Yakir Aharonov, John Cramer and others. However, realising that we live in a cosmic-quantum unification with zero-separation and recalling Isaac Newton’s inverse-square law and what it says about the force between two particles being infinite (does infinite mean 10 ^ 500, the HUGE number of universes proposed by some versions of string theory?) if the distance of separation goes to zero means there's still room for God (another bit of scientifically objectionable science fiction?) because God would be a pantheistic union of the megauniverse's material and mental parts, forming a union with humans in a cosmic unification.



--------------------------------------------------------

view post as summary

Dear Sir,

We cannot understand why scientists have to resort to weirdness to explain physical phenomena. Confinement and Entanglement are not quantum phenomena alone, but they have macro examples also. Superposition of states arises out of the mechanism of measurement, which has been sensationalized by imputing imaginary characteristics to it.

As we have explained in our essay,...

view entire post

Dear Sir,

We cannot understand why scientists have to resort to weirdness to explain physical phenomena. Confinement and Entanglement are not quantum phenomena alone, but they have macro examples also. Superposition of states arises out of the mechanism of measurement, which has been sensationalized by imputing imaginary characteristics to it.

As we have explained in our essay, every particle in the Universe is ever moving with respect to something or the other. Measurement is conducted at a designated instant called “here-now” and the result of that measurement is used at subsequent times, when the particle no longer retains those characteristics, but has temporally evolved. Thus, only its state at the said instant can be known with certainty. It’s true state before and after measurement, which is not a single state, but an ever changing state, cannot be known. This unknown state, which is a composite of all possible states, is known as the superposition of states.

When two objects retain their original relationship after being physically separated, such relationship is called entanglement. Suppose someone while traveling forgot to take one of the pair of socks. The individual sock of the pair is complementary to the other. They cannot be used in isolation. If someone asks, ‘which of the pairs has gone with the traveler’, the answer will be unknown till someone at either end finds out by physical verification. This is a macro example of entanglement. Before the verification (measurement) was done; which one went out was not known. It could have been either one (superposition of all states). After measurement the answer is conclusively known (wave function collapses). There is no need to unnecessarily sensationalize it. The quantum entanglement can be easily explained if we examine the nature of confinement and the measure the distance up to which entanglement shows up (generally, it is not infinite, but lasts up to a maximum of a few kilo meters only).

Not only quarks, but also all particles are confined. LHC has surprised physicists / cosmologists that the early universe was a ‘perfect fluid’ and not an ‘explosion of gases’ that is the basis of all current theories. Particles are nothing but confined fluids; that is described as the primordial field. The mechanism by which this fluid is confined will be discussed separately (using simple verifiable models and without Higg’s mechanism). Just like only the atoms (molecules) and their combinations exhibit definite chemical properties, only quarks are the first particles to exhibit this property of confinement. Hence if we try to break their confinement, the applied energy leads to formation of other quarks not due to uncertainty principle, but due to simple mechanism of inertia of motion and inertia of restoration (elasticity). Even within the confinement, the up quarks change to down quarks and vice versa. This property is exhibited by all particles. For every micro particle there are macro equivalents. For example, Jupiter is the macro equivalent of proton.

Confinement requires a central stable point around which the mass (confined field) accumulates and the external limit of the confinement which gives rise to the stabilized orbits. There is space between these two positions. This gives a three fold structure. Since inside the particle, it is all fluid or locally confined fluid (sub-systems), it is unstable. If some force is applied to move a smaller portion of the fluid, it generates an equal force in the opposite direction. This is exhibited as the charge of the particle. Where this force interacts with other forces, it may become non-linear. Otherwise, it behaves linearly. The linear behavior is known as quantum entanglement. Electrons and photons are special cases of this confined fluid.

Regarding Relativity, we have proved in other posts that it is a wrong description of facts and that Einstein’s mathematics is wrong. Since it is very lengthy, we are not reproducing it here. Those interested may read our post below the essay of Mr. Castel and Mr. Granet.

Regards,

basudeba

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

In a previous post on this page I said "I hope Israel will forgive us for taking over his page sometimes. To which he replied, "It's OK, you can post anything you wish, no problem." Thanks, Israel - so here I go again.

------------------------------------------------------------
------------

I have more conclusions derived from my essay, this time regarding General Relativity's...

view entire post

In a previous post on this page I said "I hope Israel will forgive us for taking over his page sometimes. To which he replied, "It's OK, you can post anything you wish, no problem." Thanks, Israel - so here I go again.

------------------------------------------------------------
------------

I have more conclusions derived from my essay, this time regarding General Relativity's mass increase and Lorentz contraction and time dilation. To make things more easily readable (if anybody ever reads this), I'll post most of my conclusions (including today's and those posted on my own page yesterday) in one essay instead of referring readers to different places.

-----------------------------------------------------
-------------------------

I fully realise that my entry in FOXY's 2011 essay contest (I have trouble remembering the initials FQXi so I call this website FOXY) doesn’t sound like science at all. I can appreciate that many readers think it belongs to science fiction and fantasy. It does have saving graces though. I’m amazed at how well it fits in with the discoveries of the Microwave Anisotropy Probe and with string theory, culminating in the LHC’s experimentally verified strings and my prediction of negative-energy antistrings. Having said that, I must say this – it’s very strange that the scientific world is so obsessed with mathematics (admittedly, my essay did dabble with it when offering a version of E=mc2 to suit the digital world - but I kept it very simple ... so simple it might be regarded as wrong). Math seems to be regarded as infallible, even though it leads to mistakes. The (partial) mistake I have in mind is string theory. I don't deny that there certainly is value in the theory, and in maths, but logic reveals shortcomings. Let me explain, after first writing a short section describing an unconventional approach to unveiling unification and offering an alternative to the Higgs boson that relies on gravitational waves.

ALTERNATIVE TO HIGGS BOSON

An important step might be to think of "... the grand design of the universe, a single theory that explains everything" (words used by Stephen Hawking on the American version of Amazon, when promoting his latest book “The Grand Design” – coauthored with Leonard Mlodinow, Bantam Books, 2010) in a different way than physicists who are presently working on science's holy grail of unification. The universe’s underlying electronic foundation* (which makes our cosmos into a partially-complete unification, similar to 2 objects which appear billions of years or billions of light-years apart on a huge computer screen actually being unified by the strings of ones and zeros making up the computer code which is all in one small place) would make our cosmos into physics’ holy grail of a complete unification if it enabled not only elimination of all distances in space and time, but also elimination of distance between (and including) the different sides of objects and particles. This last point requires the universe to not merely be a vast collection of the countless photons, electrons and other quantum particles within it; but to be a unified whole that has “particles” and “waves” built into its union of digital 1’s and 0’s (or its union of qubits – quantum binary digits). If we use the example of CGH (computer generated holography, these "particles" and "waves" could be elements produced by the interaction of electromagnetic and presently undiscovered gravitational waves, producing what we know as mass and forming what we know as space-time. Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves, and measurements on the Hulse-Taylor binary-star system resulted in Russell Hulse and Joe Taylor being awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1993 for their work, which was the first indirect evidence for gravitational waves. The feedback of the past and future universes into the unified cosmos's electronic foundation would ensure that both past and future could not be altered. Our brains and minds are part of this unification too - which must mean extrasensory perception and telekinetic independence from technology are possible, despite modern science's objections which appear to be based on non-unification.

* For more information on the universe's proposed electronic foundation, please see my article and postings at

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/814

STRINGS ARE ONLY PART OF MATTER'S BASIS

Space and time only exist in our experience. They are emergent properties, like wetness and mind. We experience wetness because it emerges from the building blocks of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms which make up water. We experience mind because it emerges from the building blocks of neurons composing the brain. And we experience space-time since it emerges from the building blocks making up the universe. These units are a combination of electromagnetic pulses (forming a cosmic computer which includes randomness and thus the potential to escape rigid preprogramming, and have a small degree of free will) as well as a cosmic hologram (this is produced by the interaction of electromagnetic plus gravitational waves and combination of the holographic aspect with the electronic aspect unifies general relativity with quantum physics). Every physical and nonphysical part of the universal hologram would be a receptor for the downloading of data from the cosmic computer which not only exists in the hyperspace of the large-scale universe but also in the hyperspace of each subatomic particle. (In other words, the holographic universe or spacetime we know is a screen for displaying data from the 5th-dimensional computer.)

It might be helpful to visualise time as the playing of a CD or video tape. The entire disc or tape obviously exists all the time. But our physical senses can only perceive a tiny part of the sound and the sights at any fraction of a second. I believe space and time are infinite, so it might be more accurate to visualise time as that HUGE number - in this case, of CDs or tapes - which some versions of string theory propose (10 exponent 500). My essay tells you exactly how to travel to the future, how to return home, and how to travel into our past. Neither future nor past can be altered (a blow to our belief that we have the free will to shape the future) and my explanation of travel to the past requires re-interpretation of the concepts of "multiverse" and "parallel universes". It also requires the ability to travel billions of light years INSTANTLY - no doubt many readers will instantly dismiss the essay because their preconceptions "know" this simply isn't possible. It indeed sounds like pure fantasy, but I outline an approach based on electrical engineering, General Relativity, and Miguel Alcubierre's 1994 proposal of "warp drive" that makes it logically possible.

My essay explains why the universe is a Mobius loop and how it is contained in, or unified with, each of its particles (relying on physical senses or 21st-century scientific instruments would make this statement ridiculous). Then each fermion and boson would also be composed of the 3 spatial dimensions, the 4th dimension of time, and the 5th dimension of hyperspace. Detectors like the Large Hadron Collider would be unable to "see" the time and hyperspace components of particles but could only see the small (maybe 5% of the whole) 3 spatial dimensions (the time component would be what we call dark matter), erroneously assuming particles are those small fractions of a Mobius loop that physics calls strings. "Dark matter" would exert a gravitational influence because time, being part of a curved Mobius loop (whether of quantum or cosmic scale), would push objects together in the same way Einstein's curved space-time pushes objects together. We can speak of the HST now - no, not the Hubble Space Telescope but Hyperspatial SpaceTime. We can visualise the Mobius loop as composed of a hyperspace computer which generates information on how things change from one presently undetectably tiny fraction of a second to the next (we call this time, and it's comparable to the frames in a movie) and transmits the data (transmits dark energy) to the insignificant portion of length, width and depth that makes up subatomic particles ... and the universe.

Preceding the Big Bang (which created this local section of the infinite, eternal universe ... or if you prefer, this subuniverse of the megauniverse) there would have been no space, matter or time in this subuniverse. No transmissions of dark energy (creating time and space/matter) would have occurred - therefore the dark-energy content of the universe would have been zero, increasing to the present 72% as more and more matter was created. How is matter created? Perhaps as cosmologist Alan Guth once suggested -

"You might even be able to start a new universe using energy equivalent to just a few pounds of matter. Provided you could find some way to compress it to a density of about 10^75 (10 exponent 75) grams per cubic centimeter, and provided you could trigger the thing ..."

At the time the Cosmic Microwave Background was emitted (less than a million years after the big bang), results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe say the dark-energy content of the universe was negligible. Space/matter has been increasing since the big bang so transmissions from hyperspace computer (dark energy) which create them are increasing while the volume of the Mobius loop occupied by time/hyperspace (dark matter) has been shrinking as a result - according to the WMAP satellite, from 63% when the CMB was emitted to 23% today. Why isn't dark energy increasing at the same rate dark matter is decreasing? It must be because, as stated earlier, both time and hyperspace exert a gravitational influence, thereby mimicking space and matter to a degree. This mimicry causes the dark matter between the start of the CMB and the present to decrease by only about 40% while dark energy increases in the same period by about 70%. If we were dealing with a simple and ordinary loop, this similarity would cause dark matter and dark energy to be more or less equal and if there was any difference in their amount of decrease/increase, it would be in the same direction. But we’re talking about Mobius loops which are like strips of paper that have been twisted 180 degrees before the ends are joined. This causes their variation to go in different directions (one increases, the other decreases) and the amount of variation is quite significant (+72%, -40%). My guess is that the real-life twist occurs in the temporal segment of the loop, enabling a traveller in time to go in different directions i.e. into the future or into the past. To replenish dark matter in billions of years, we merely have to extend Guth's proposal by using the knowledge of that time to create more matter (or by creating more hyperspace which creates more space and more time).

A real-life Mobius is by no means a featureless loop, however. If, contrary to our impressions, the universe is unified with each particle it’s composed of; the WMAP satellite’s findings must apply to the quantum world. The figures 72%, 23% and 5% would not only describe the present universe’s content of dark energy, dark matter and ordinary matter but also any particle’s content of space or ordinary matter (5%), time or dark matter (23% - time is considered to be dark matter here because dark matter is regarded as ordinary matter invisible to us since it’s present in another region of the dimension we call time, just as most of a sphere is in another dimension and consequently appears as a dot when first entering Edwin Abbott’s 1884 exploration of other dimensions called “Flatland”), and hyperspace (72%: the transmissions from the hyperspace computer create space and matter, cause expansion of space on cosmic scales where there are no forces to overcome the expansion as there is in matter, and are known as dark energy – creating more matter causes that matter’s repelling gravity to bring about accelerating expansion).

Look at a picture of a Mobius (thanks to the repeating scales of fractal geometry, the apparently empty interior and exterior of the Mobius universe would actually be the same as the visible loop). Imagine the space/ordinary matter to be situated immediately counterclockwise (perhaps on the bottom of the loop) to the hyperspace segment and the time/dark matter portion to be immediately counterclockwise to the space/ordinary matter (time/dark matter would, moving clockwise, be next to the hyperspace segment).

The hyperspace transmissions flow directly into space/matter (all motion - “flow” and “transmissions” – are actually comparable to individual frames in a movie but are spoken of in everyday terms of motion for convenience, like saying the sun rises and sets) and are responsible for the large and unimpeded 72% increase, since the CMB was emitted, of dark energy. This flow rate of 72% also enters the time/dark matter section adjacent to hyperspace … but the loop’s twist seems to be in the time section. If we were to cut the loop lengthwise with scissors, previously varying the number of half-twists results in things such as two rings linked together or a knotted ring. So we get barriers to motion and blockages. Returning to the normal loop and twist, matters are less drastic and motion is merely slowed, resulting in a 23% flow rate into the space/ordinary matter section.

If we lived in a non-unified universe of materialism, this is how things would remain (dark matter would have increased so today’s content would be a low 23%). On p. 179 of “The Grand Design” by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow (Bantam Press, 2010) it’s stated

“One requirement any law of nature must satisfy is that it dictates that the energy of an isolated body surrounded by empty space is positive …”

The only problem with that sentence, in an “everything is everywhere and everywhen” universe, is the word isolated. There can be no such thing as isolated in our cosmic-quantum unification. Page 179 also says “… if the energy of an isolated body were negative … there would be no reason that bodies could not appear anywhere and everywhere.” Does this mean you and I (plus all things in time and space) are a union of both positive and negative energy, able to display both separateness/solidity (isolation) as well as the potential to appear anywhere and everywhere? Dark matter, not being entirely positive, would be anywhere and everywhere as well as having decreased so today’s content would be a low 23% (which is what WMAP says is the case).

Acceleration (due to either approaching an appreciable fraction of light’s velocity or experiencing massive gravitation, such as from a black hole) mimics the universe’s expansion, no doubt because matter and space are both made of “space-time bits” i.e. they’re both produced by the binary digits emanating from the hyperspace computer. There would inevitably be mass increase as some of the “dark energy” expanding the universe naturally becomes, according to mass-energy equivalence, particles of matter. More precisely, the increase in dark energy as our subuniverse expands (due to increased transmissions from hyperspace “creating” more space and time) is responsible for the extra particles. There would also be relative length (and volume) contraction since each particle would occupy a smaller proportion of our subuniverse’s length/volume as expansion continues (and accelerates). We’ve seen that spacetime can be twisted into a Mobius strip - picturing spacetime as a length of paper in somebody’s hands, it’d be twisted by applying forces in opposite directions viz. by turning one hand away from the body while simultaneously turning the other hand towards the body. In truth, twisting space-time would be a movie-like “special effect” accomplished by the hyperspatial computer. Though there would be an initial increase in time (as noted earlier in this paragraph), this would only be obvious in the so-called “dark matter” portion of the Mobius. The previous paragraph points out that if we lived in a non-unified universe of materialism, increase of time would be the norm but the twist – affecting all parts of a unified universe - means dark matter (time) decreases by the time it reaches the 5% of the Mobius that is the materialism our physical senses perceive (this “decrease of time” may also be termed “time dilation”).

If everything is a union of positive and negative energy, every matter particle and force-carrying particle would be too. And the strings the Large Hadron Collider might detect (being the parts of particles’ Mobius loops it could see since those parts would be space/ordinary matter) might come in both positive and negative varieties. In 1928 English physicist Paul Dirac (1902-84) proposed that all negative energy states are already occupied by (then hypothetical) antiparticles (particles of antimatter). Building on this results in proposal of strings and antistrings – mathematics has positive and negative quantities, and computers (whether in hyperspace or not) generate maths, causing reality to be both positive and negative; and unconventional cosmologist Max Tegmark is correct when he says mathematical formulas create reality. So when matter and antimatter meet, the positive and negative quantities form zero and neutralise (destroy) each other; and the positive/negative components of everything must avoid direct contact – this separation can either be in space or in time because all things are able to display both separateness/solidity (isolation in space) as well as the potential to appear anywhere and everywhere (in time as well as space). Pauli’s exclusion principle – which was discovered in 1925 and says 2 matter particles cannot have both the same position and the same velocity – does not apply to separation of matter/antimatter since it only applies in an objective, non-unified universe … though programming in the “cosmic computer” does include it as applicable to the reality we perceive since that appears objective to us; and presents separation and solidity to our physical senses and their extensions, scientific instruments.

Building on Mobius loops and negative energy also explains why electrons don’t spiral into the nucleus of the atom when orbiting it like planets around a star would, according to the theories of Newton and Maxwell, cause the electrons to continuously emit electromagnetic radiation and this loss of energy would result in their crashing into the nucleus. As we’ve noted, fractal geometry tells us that what is outside or inside a Mobius loop is the same as the loop itself. So we can visualise an atom as a Mobius loop (the outside could be the universe and the inside could be a subatomic particle – with those two being One because of unification). We can imagine a 72% flow rate into the “dark matter” part of the atomic Mobius becoming not merely a 23% flow into the ordinary matter but, as discussed above, becoming a negative 23% flow. That is, energy is of course radiated - even from those special orbits or stationary states which Danish physicist Niels Bohr (1885-1962) said radiation would not be continuously emitted and wouldn’t contribute to an electron-nucleus collision. But it isn’t energy as we know it. There is no positive radiation emitted – the energy is “less than nothing” i.e. negative - according to the previous paragraph, mathematics has positive and negative quantities, and computers (whether in hyperspace or not) generate maths. Therefore, Bohr was correct to introduce the quantum into the atom and to “quantise” electron orbits – the “quantum jump” or “quantum leap” in which an electron’s transition between orbits or energy levels occurs instantaneously without occupying the space between orbits is also explicable by computers in hyperspace generating mathematics and making electrons disappear from one orbit and instantly reappear in another orbit. Since E=mc2 means energy must contain particles and negative energy must contain antiparticles (e.g. electromagnetic energy is composed of photons), anti-photons are emitted from the electrons which are consequently not radiating energy and do not spiral into the nucleus. In his 1988 book “A Brief History of Time”, Stephen Hawking says on p. 68 that “In the case of the force-carrying particles (like the photon), the antiparticles are the same as the particles themselves.” Thus, the “photons” which are emitted during the quantum leaps of electrons from higher to lower energy levels could actually be antiphotons. (thanks to “QUANTUM: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate About the Nature of Reality” by Manjit Kumar – Icon Books, 2008)

My essay tells you how to travel into the future, how to return home, and how to take a trip into our past. Regarding travel beyond our start and into the past ... it can’t be denied that these paragraphs imply the possibility of humans from the distant future time-travelling to the distant past and using electronics to create this particular subuniverse's computer-generated Big Bang. An accomplishment such as this would be the supreme example of “backward causality” (effects influencing causes) promoted by Yakir Aharonov, John Cramer and others. However, realising that we live in a cosmic-quantum unification with zero-separation and recalling Isaac Newton’s inverse-square law and what it says about the force between two particles being infinite (does infinite mean 10 ^ 500, the HUGE number of universes proposed by some versions of string theory?) if the distance of separation goes to zero means there's still room for God (another bit of scientifically objectionable science fiction?) because God would be a pantheistic union of the megauniverse's material and mental parts, forming a union with humans in a cosmic unification.

view post as summary

I found a few inconsistencies and unclear sentences which I corrected this afternoon. I know submissions to FOXY (FQXi) have closed - and anyway, I can only make one - but my curiosity about nature's workings is still alive and well. This article addresses Einstein's Relativities (GR + SR), Bohr's Atomic Model, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Negative Energy And Modern String Theory/Unification In The...

view entire post

I found a few inconsistencies and unclear sentences which I corrected this afternoon. I know submissions to FOXY (FQXi) have closed - and anyway, I can only make one - but my curiosity about nature's workings is still alive and well. This article addresses Einstein's Relativities (GR + SR), Bohr's Atomic Model, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Negative Energy And Modern String Theory/Unification In The Light Of The Concept of an Electronic and Holographic Universe Shaped Like A Mobius Loop. It has its beginnings in cellular automata (in mathematics and computer science, collections of cells on a grid that evolve through a number of discrete time steps according to a set of rules based on the states of neighbouring cells) and grew into a belief that the universe (electromagnetism, gravitation, space-time and, as we’ll see, 5th dimensional hyperspace) has a digital (electronic) foundation. I’m amazed at how well it fits in with the discoveries of the Microwave Anisotropy Probe and with string theory, culminating in the LHC’s possible verification of strings. It begins with a short section describing an unconventional approach to unveiling unification and offering an alternative to the Higgs boson that relies on gravitational waves.

ALTERNATIVE TO HIGGS BOSON

An important step might be to think of "... the grand design of the universe, a single theory that explains everything" (words used by Stephen Hawking on the American version of Amazon, when promoting his latest book “The Grand Design” – coauthored with Leonard Mlodinow, Bantam Books, 2010) in a different way than physicists who are presently working on science's holy grail of unification. The universe’s underlying electronic foundation (which makes our cosmos into a partially-complete unification, similar to 2 objects which appear billions of years or billions of light-years apart on a huge computer screen actually being unified by the strings of ones and zeros making up the computer code which is all in one small place) would make our cosmos into physics’ holy grail of a complete unification if it enabled not only elimination of all distances in space and time, but also elimination of distance between (and including) the different sides of objects and particles. This last point requires the universe to not merely be a vast collection of the countless photons, electrons and other quantum particles within it; but to be a unified whole that has “particles” and “waves” built into its union of digital 1’s and 0’s (or its union of qubits – quantum binary digits). If we use the example of CGH (computer generated holography, these "particles" and "waves" could be elements produced by the interaction of electromagnetic and presently undiscovered gravitational waves, producing what we know as mass and forming what we know as space-time. Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves, and measurements on the Hulse-Taylor binary-star system resulted in Russell Hulse and Joe Taylor being awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1993 for their work, which was the first indirect evidence for gravitational waves. The feedback of the past and future universes into the unified cosmos's electronic foundation would ensure that both past and future could not be altered. Our brains and minds are part of this unification too - which must mean extrasensory perception and telekinetic independence from technology are possible, despite modern science's objections which appear to be based on non-unification.

STRINGS ARE ONLY PART OF MATTER'S BASIS

Space and time only exist in our experience. They are emergent properties, like wetness and mind. We experience wetness because it emerges from the building blocks of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms which make up water. We experience mind because it emerges from the building blocks of neurons composing the brain. And we experience space-time since it emerges from the building blocks making up the universe. These units are a combination of electromagnetic pulses (forming a cosmic computer which includes randomness and thus the potential to escape rigid preprogramming, and have a small degree of free will) as well as a cosmic hologram (this is produced by the interaction of electromagnetic plus gravitational waves and combination of the holographic aspect with the electronic aspect unifies general relativity with quantum physics). Every physical and nonphysical part of the universal hologram would be a receptor for the downloading of data from the cosmic computer which not only exists in the hyperspace of the large-scale universe but also in the hyperspace of each subatomic particle. (In other words, the holographic universe or spacetime we know is a screen for displaying data from the 5th-dimensional computer.)

It might be helpful to visualise time as the playing of a CD or video tape. The entire disc or tape obviously exists all the time. But our physical senses can only perceive a tiny part of the sound and the sights at any fraction of a second. I believe space and time are infinite, so it might be more accurate to visualise time as that HUGE number - in this case, of CDs or tapes - which some versions of string theory propose (10 exponent 500). My essay tells you exactly how to travel to the future, how to return home, and how to travel into our past. Neither future nor past can be altered (a blow to our belief that we have the free will to shape the future) and my explanation of travel to the past requires re-interpretation of the concepts of "multiverse" and "parallel universes". It also requires the ability to travel billions of light years INSTANTLY - no doubt many readers will instantly dismiss the essay because their preconceptions "know" this simply isn't possible. It indeed sounds like pure fantasy, but I outline an approach based on electrical engineering, General Relativity, and Miguel Alcubierre's 1994 proposal of "warp drive" that makes it logically possible.

My essay explains why the universe is a Mobius loop and how it is contained in, or unified with, each of its particles (relying on physical senses or 21st-century scientific instruments would make this statement ridiculous). Then each fermion and boson would also be composed of the 3 spatial dimensions, the 4th dimension of time, and the 5th dimension of hyperspace. Detectors like the Large Hadron Collider would be unable to "see" the time and hyperspace components of particles but could only see the small (maybe 5% of the whole) 3 spatial dimensions (the time component would be what we call dark matter), erroneously assuming particles are those small fractions of a Mobius loop that physics calls strings. "Dark matter" would exert a gravitational influence because time, being part of a curved Mobius loop (whether of quantum or cosmic scale), would push objects together in the same way Einstein's curved space-time pushes objects together. We can speak of the HST now - no, not the Hubble Space Telescope but Hyperspatial SpaceTime. We can visualise the Mobius loop as composed of a hyperspace computer which generates information on how things change from one presently undetectably tiny fraction of a second to the next (we call this time, and it's comparable to the frames in a movie) and transmits the data (transmits dark energy) to the insignificant portion of length, width and depth that makes up subatomic particles ... and the universe.

Preceding the Big Bang (which created this local section of the infinite, eternal universe ... or if you prefer, this subuniverse of the megauniverse) there would have been no space, matter or time in this subuniverse. No transmissions of dark energy (creating time and space/matter) would have occurred - therefore the dark-energy content of the universe would have been zero, increasing to the present 72% as more and more matter was created. How is matter created? Perhaps as cosmologist Alan Guth once suggested -

"You might even be able to start a new universe using energy equivalent to just a few pounds of matter. Provided you could find some way to compress it to a density of about 10^75 (10 exponent 75) grams per cubic centimeter, and provided you could trigger the thing ..."

At the time the Cosmic Microwave Background was emitted (less than a million years after the big bang), results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe say the dark-energy content of the universe was negligible. Space/matter has been increasing since the big bang so transmissions from the hyperspace computer (dark energy) which create them are increasing. Time is also created by hyperspace and is thus also increasing but (see the next 3 paragraphs) the amount of time being transmitted to our material 5% of the universe is decreasing - according to the WMAP satellite, dark matter has reduced from 63% when the CMB was emitted to 23% today. Why isn't dark energy increasing at the same rate dark matter is decreasing? It must be because, as stated earlier, both time and hyperspace exert a gravitational influence, thereby mimicking space and matter to a degree. This mimicry causes the dark matter between the start of the CMB and the present to decrease by only about 40% while dark energy increases in the same period by about 70%. If we were dealing with a simple and ordinary loop, this similarity would cause dark matter and dark energy to be more or less equal and if there was any difference in their amount of decrease/increase, it would be in the same direction. But we’re talking about Mobius loops which are like strips of paper that have been twisted 180 degrees before the ends are joined. This causes their variation to go in different directions (one increases, the other decreases) and the amount of variation is quite significant (+72%, -40%). My guess is that the real-life twist occurs in the temporal segment of the loop, enabling a traveller in time to go in different directions i.e. into the future or into the past. To replenish dark matter in billions of years, we merely have to extend Guth's proposal by using the knowledge of that future time to create more hyperspace (with its associated extra space, extra matter and extra time).

A real-life Mobius is by no means a featureless loop, however. If, contrary to our impressions, the universe is unified with each particle it’s composed of; the WMAP satellite’s findings must apply to the quantum world. The figures 72%, 23% and 5% would not only describe the present universe’s content of dark energy, dark matter and ordinary matter but also any particle’s content of space or ordinary matter (5%), time or dark matter (23% - time is considered to be dark matter here because dark matter is regarded as ordinary matter invisible to us since it’s present in another region of the dimension we call time, just as most of a sphere is in another dimension and consequently appears as a dot when first entering Edwin Abbott’s 1884 exploration of other dimensions called “Flatland”), and hyperspace (72%: the transmissions from the hyperspace computer create space and matter, cause expansion of space on cosmic scales where there are no forces to overcome the expansion as there is in matter, and are known as dark energy – creating more matter causes that matter’s repelling gravity to bring about accelerating expansion).

Look at a picture of a Mobius (thanks to the repeating scales of fractal geometry, the apparently empty interior and exterior of the Mobius universe would actually be the same as the visible loop). Imagine the space/ordinary matter to be situated immediately counterclockwise (perhaps on the bottom of the loop) to the hyperspace segment and the time/dark matter portion to be immediately counterclockwise to the space/ordinary matter (time/dark matter would, moving clockwise, be next to the hyperspace segment).

The hyperspace transmissions flow directly into space/matter (all motion - “flow” and “transmissions” – are actually comparable to individual frames in a movie but are spoken of in everyday terms of motion for convenience, like saying the sun rises and sets) and are responsible for the large and unimpeded 72% increase, since the CMB was emitted, of dark energy. This flow rate of 72% also enters the time/dark matter section adjacent to hyperspace … but the loop’s twist seems to be in the time section. If we were to cut the loop lengthwise with scissors, previously varying the number of half-twists results in things such as two rings linked together or a knotted ring. So we get barriers to motion and blockages. Returning to the normal loop and twist, matters are less drastic and motion is merely slowed, resulting in a 23% flow rate into the space/ordinary matter section.

If we lived in a non-unified universe of materialism, this is how things would remain (dark matter would have increased so today’s content would be a low 23%). On p. 179 of “The Grand Design” by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow (Bantam Press, 2010) it’s stated

“One requirement any law of nature must satisfy is that it dictates that the energy of an isolated body surrounded by empty space is positive …”

The only problem with that sentence, in an “everything is everywhere and everywhen” universe, is the word isolated. There can be no such thing as isolated in our cosmic-quantum unification. Page 179 also says “… if the energy of an isolated body were negative … there would be no reason that bodies could not appear anywhere and everywhere.” Does this mean you and I (plus all things in time and space) are a union of both positive and negative energy, able to display both separateness/solidity (isolation) as well as the potential to appear anywhere and everywhere? Dark matter, not being entirely positive, would be anywhere and everywhere as well as having decreased so today’s content would be a low 23% (which is what WMAP says is the case).

Acceleration (due to either approaching an appreciable fraction of light’s velocity or experiencing massive gravitation, such as from a black hole) mimics the universe’s expansion, no doubt because matter and space are both made of “space-time bits” i.e. they’re both produced by the binary digits emanating from the hyperspace computer. There would inevitably be mass increase as some of the “dark energy” expanding the universe naturally becomes, according to mass-energy equivalence, particles of matter. More precisely, the increase in dark energy as our subuniverse expands (due to increased transmissions from hyperspace “creating” more space and time) is responsible for the extra particles. There would also be relative length (and volume) contraction since each particle would occupy a smaller proportion of our subuniverse’s length/volume as expansion continues (and accelerates). We’ve seen that spacetime can be twisted into a Mobius strip - picturing spacetime as a length of paper in somebody’s hands, it’d be twisted by applying forces in opposite directions viz. by turning one hand away from the body while simultaneously turning the other hand towards the body. In truth, twisting space-time would be a movie-like “special effect” accomplished by the hyperspatial computer. Though there would be an initial increase in time (as noted earlier in this paragraph), this would only be obvious in the so-called “dark matter” portion of the Mobius. The previous paragraph points out that if we lived in a non-unified universe of materialism, increase of time would be the norm but the twist – affecting all parts of a unified universe - means dark matter (time) decreases by the time it reaches the 5% of the Mobius that is the materialism our physical senses perceive (this “decrease of time” may also be termed “time dilation”).

If everything is a union of positive and negative energy, every matter particle and force-carrying particle would be too. And the strings the Large Hadron Collider might detect (being the parts of particles’ Mobius loops it could see since those parts would be space/ordinary matter) might come in both positive and negative varieties. In 1928 English physicist Paul Dirac (1902-84) proposed that all negative energy states are already occupied by (then hypothetical) antiparticles (particles of antimatter). Building on this results in proposal of strings and antistrings – mathematics has positive and negative quantities, and computers (whether in hyperspace or not) generate maths, causing reality to be both positive and negative; and unconventional cosmologist Max Tegmark is correct when he says mathematical formulas create reality. So when matter and antimatter meet, the positive and negative quantities form zero and neutralise (destroy) each other; and the positive/negative components of everything must avoid direct contact – this separation can either be in space or in time because all things are able to display both separateness/solidity (isolation in space) as well as the potential to appear anywhere and everywhere (in time as well as space). Pauli’s exclusion principle – which was discovered in 1925 and says 2 matter particles cannot have both the same position and the same velocity – does not apply to separation of matter/antimatter since it only applies in an objective, non-unified universe … though programming in the “cosmic computer” does include it as applicable to the reality we perceive since that appears objective to us; and presents separation and solidity to our physical senses and their extensions, scientific instruments.

Building on Mobius loops and negative energy also explains why electrons don’t spiral into the nucleus of the atom when orbiting it like planets around a star would, according to the theories of Newton and Maxwell, cause the electrons to continuously emit electromagnetic radiation and this loss of energy would result in their crashing into the nucleus. As we’ve noted, fractal geometry tells us that what is outside or inside a Mobius loop is the same as the loop itself. So we can visualise an atom as a Mobius loop (the outside could be the universe and the inside could be a subatomic particle – with those two being One because of unification). We can imagine a 72% flow rate into the “dark matter” part of the atomic Mobius becoming not merely a 23% flow into the ordinary matter but becoming a negative 23% flow (the variation in different directions caused by the twist need not be an increase and decrease of positive energy but may be the radiation of negative and positive energy). That is, energy is of course radiated – into atoms and from those special orbits or stationary states which Danish physicist Niels Bohr (1885-1962) said radiation would not be continuously emitted, and wouldn’t contribute to an electron-nucleus collision. But it isn’t energy as we know it. There is no exclusively positive radiation emitted – the energy is predominantly “less than nothing” i.e. negative - according to the previous paragraph, mathematics has positive and negative quantities, and computers (whether in hyperspace or not) generate maths. Therefore, Bohr was correct to introduce the quantum into the atom and to “quantise” electron orbits – the “quantum jump” or “quantum leap” in which an electron’s transition between orbits or energy levels occurs instantaneously without occupying the space between orbits is also explicable by computers in hyperspace generating mathematics and making electrons disappear from one orbit and instantly reappear in another orbit. Since E=mc2 means energy must contain particles and negative energy must contain antiparticles (e.g. electromagnetic energy is composed of photons), anti-photons are emitted from the electrons which are consequently not radiating energy and do not spiral into the nucleus. In his 1988 book “A Brief History of Time”, Stephen Hawking says on p. 68 that “In the case of the force-carrying particles (like the photon), the antiparticles are the same as the particles themselves.” Thus, the “photons” which are emitted during the quantum leaps of electrons from higher to lower energy levels could actually be antiphotons. (thanks to “QUANTUM: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate About the Nature of Reality” by Manjit Kumar – Icon Books, 2008 for inspiring these thoughts)

My essay "Humans and their Universes" tells you how to travel into the future, how to return home, and how to take a trip into our past. Regarding travel beyond our start and into the past ... it can’t be denied that these paragraphs imply the possibility of humans from the distant future time-travelling to the distant past and using electronics to create this particular subuniverse's computer-generated Big Bang. An accomplishment such as this would be the supreme example of “backward causality” (effects influencing causes) promoted by Yakir Aharonov, John Cramer and others. However, realising that we live in a cosmic-quantum unification with zero-separation and recalling Isaac Newton’s inverse-square law and what it says about the force between two particles being infinite (does infinite mean 10 ^ 500, the HUGE number of universes proposed by some versions of string theory?) if the distance of separation goes to zero means there's still room for God (another bit of scientifically objectionable science fiction?) because God would be a pantheistic union of the megauniverse's material and mental parts, forming a union with humans in a cosmic unification.

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