Dear Tomaso

Thank you for your reply. I have read my own post and it seems that there are some sentences missing in the argument about special relativity. I am rewriting it so you understand better what I mean.

The value of the speed of light in vacuum was conventionally defined by the Bureau Intertanational des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) as V_r=299 972 458 m/s. But this value...

view entire post

Dear Tomaso

Thank you for your reply. I have read my own post and it seems that there are some sentences missing in the argument about special relativity. I am rewriting it so you understand better what I mean.

The value of the speed of light in vacuum was conventionally defined by the Bureau Intertanational des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) as V_r=299 972 458 m/s. But this value was taken as a convention, this does not imply that the actual (or measured) speed of light possesses that exact value but the actual value is around V_r with a speed uncertainty within the interval 0< a V_r and/or V_i > V_r. Now we ask: are we violating the second postulate of relativity? Is the parameter c really equal to V_r? Why not c was taken to be equal to V_n or V_i? Recall that for SR to make physical sense, the parameter c must be higher than the speed of the inertial frame v, so that the Lorentz transformations do not render complex numbers. In this sense the selection c=V_r >v is partially justified, but we could have conventionally defined c=299 792 460 m/s and the physics would not be affected at all since the theory by itself only demands a constant with units of speed with any value but different than v [Ellis, G.F.R., Uzan, J.P.: Am. J. Phys. 73, 240 (2005)]. But why did SR borrow (not borrow, steal) the value from another theory (electrodynamics)? Why is not SR capable of determining the value of its own constants? The theory then, with no relation to a measurement, cannot determine the value of c by itself. These arguments also apply for any other theory, see for instance the case in general relativity [Narlikar, J.V., Padmanbhan, T.: The Schwarzschild Solution: Some conceptual Difficulties. Found. Phys. 18, 659 (1988)].

This being said, I totally agree with your two points of your last post. And indeed I am talking about this:

You: But perhaps you are addressing the problem of whether a theory is autonomously capable of justifying/determining the value of its constants?

Certainly as you say the TOE should be able to do without any constant. But I believe that if this were the case, that is, if a theory were able to determine the values of its constants and parameters, the theory would likely become independent of experience (measurements) as Max Tegmark argues. Tegmark, M. Found. Phys. 38, 101 (2008), and Tegmark, M., Annal. Phys. 270, 1-51 (1998).

Israel

view post as summary

In fact, as many you confound a little the computing with the reality but it's well.Very good knowledge of maths computings.We thank you for that.Indeed the coomputing is not always a known matter for all.After all it's an application of physics.



An ultimate mathematical theory of physics you say......I say, the physics before, the maths after.The algorythms invented by humans...

view entire post

In fact, as many you confound a little the computing with the reality but it's well.Very good knowledge of maths computings.We thank you for that.Indeed the coomputing is not always a known matter for all.After all it's an application of physics.



An ultimate mathematical theory of physics you say......I say, the physics before, the maths after.The algorythms invented by humans shall be always far of the ultim universal algorythm......of course The Universe, this sphere, God if you prefer doesn't play at dices at my knowledges.

An important point is this one, can you create mass, lifes and consciousness, ?...evidently,never, the logic never says that.

But in your line of reasoning, it's interesting your tools for a computing of evolution. But the mass must be analyzed rationally.

The rotations of the entanglement are rpoprotionals with the mass and its rules of evolution and complexification....quantum spheres(finite number, decrease of volume)...HCNO...CH4NH3H2OHCN _COOH......AMINO ACIDS....ADN ARN .....EVOLUTION....LIFES ......PLANETS...STARS.......BH.......UNIVERSAL SPHERE.

fOR A CONCRETE REALISM THE MASS MUST BE WELL INSERTED IN THE ALGORYTHM AND ITS SERIES.....ALL CAN BE CALCULATED IN AN EVOLUTIVE POINT OF VUE.....when the mass polarises light....

Regards

Steve

view post as summary

and Solomonoff will say ...waww AIXI is possible .....but a string is divisible and a sphere no.hihihi I love this platform.

Of course a string in computing is different.But but confusions hihihi

Now I insist , for a correct turing universal machine, the real fractal of the main central sphere with its pure number is essential....if not it's a wind.

Second , never a machine...

view entire post

and Solomonoff will say ...waww AIXI is possible .....but a string is divisible and a sphere no.hihihi I love this platform.

Of course a string in computing is different.But but confusions hihihi

Now I insist , for a correct turing universal machine, the real fractal of the main central sphere with its pure number is essential....if not it's a wind.

Second , never a machine will be intelligent because never we shall reproduce the first code at the Planck scale if you prefer.

The system must be quantified really with rotating spheres.and furthermore it must have an evolutive spherical topology.

The algorytrhms are reals , universals or humans.......and the universal probability makes the rest no.....

If I understand well, you invent codes, some algorythms and series for some applications.

The Universe is totally different.I understand thus why some persons invent time machine and multiverses, or others irônic sciences.

We understand thus why it's important to compute universally.It's even intriguing these codes invented by humans.

The conjectures must repect the sphere and its distribution.If not it's just a superimposing of logical series where some limits can be analyzed and sorted.But in a serie of polarity of evolution if the numbers are respected....that it's relevant.

The Universe is a sphere and our particles also....our computing must repect that, if not never we shall find where we are inside this beautiful universal sphere at this moment.The evolution is a specific serie with its intrinsic codes,.....the computing is an invention, human with a very young age.....but it's wonderful, but never the artificial intelligence is possible,only by our hands and brains.the automatic serie of intelligence and encoding is not possible for a computer, even if the Blue gene and Cray system or jaguar fuse and have children in 10000 years, they will be always machines, terminator also no...hihihih arrogance and humility , universality and computing.....hihihi they are crazy these scientists.

Cheers ....vanity of vanities, all is vanity .....

Steve

view post as summary

Hi Hector,

great to see you are here too. I hope indeed that you will bring more water (or, rather, bits) to the mill of the algorithmic universe conjecture! And thanks for the comments.

If I understand correctly, your work provides some estimate of how likely it is that the world we experience (through the statistical analysis of real data sets) be the output of some computation....

view entire post

Hi Hector,

great to see you are here too. I hope indeed that you will bring more water (or, rather, bits) to the mill of the algorithmic universe conjecture! And thanks for the comments.

If I understand correctly, your work provides some estimate of how likely it is that the world we experience (through the statistical analysis of real data sets) be the output of some computation. You write that most empirical data seem to carry an algorithmic signal.

As you may guess, I put the highest expectations on deterministic (algorithmic) chaos, and I believe that whenever a natural phenomenon can be explained in terms of it, then recourse to pure randomness (where every bit has to be paid) should be avoided, for reasons of 'economy'.

But if deterministic chaos could completely replace genuine randomness, in ALL cases and for ALL purposes, including the support of our universe, then we would have a problem: how could we tell the difference between a deterministic and a 'genuinely' random universe?

If I understand correctly (I have not read your papers yet, but the stack is thicker every day here!), you do find some way to differentiate between the two cases. In fact, in the last figure of my essay I show that deterministic chaos has something more to offer than genuine randomness: it induces the emergence of a phenomenon that I call 'causet compartmentation', which appears as a fundamental prerequisite for the occurrence of anything interesting at all in discrete spacetime -- and this cannot happen in a truly random spacetime.

So, perhaps we agree on the fact that deterministic white noise is whiter, or, at least, more 'brilliant' than pure white noise!

Maybe you have a quick comment on this?

view post as summary

Dear James Putnam,

your post triggers a number of reactions, probably (and unfortunately) more than I can put in a post here.

The first general point I need to clarify is that, in an attempt to be concise in writing the essay, I adopted a style, especially in the opening that you quote, which may indeed sound more 'assertive' than that of a stardard scientific paper. On the other...

view entire post

Dear James Putnam,

your post triggers a number of reactions, probably (and unfortunately) more than I can put in a post here.

The first general point I need to clarify is that, in an attempt to be concise in writing the essay, I adopted a style, especially in the opening that you quote, which may indeed sound more 'assertive' than that of a stardard scientific paper. On the other hand, I believe that a bit of 'assertiveness' may be helpful for stimulating discussions, in a context such as the FQXi forum.

And in the sequel of the essay, in particular in Section 3 - 'Experimental validation', I do put my views in the right perspective.

I did not feel like using more space just for supporting the validity of the idea of working with discrete models such as causal sets, in light of the aboundance of solid papers that share that view as a very reasonable working hypothesis, to say the least.

You ask: By which means does a discrete spacetime grow?

Rideout and Sorkin [Phys. Rev. D 61, 024002, 2000] discuss classical dynamics for causal set growth, using *probabilistic* techniques.

Out of the several ways I have explored (by simulations) for obtaining causal sets by *deterministic algorithms*, the one that I personally consider most attractive consists in letting a 'stateless ant' walk on a trivalent graph G while applying, step by step, one out of two possible graph rewrite rules (known also in Loop Quantum Gravity, and used by Smolin, Markopoulou & friends). G can be equated to a growing space, while spacetime corresponds to the causal set of the computation being performed on it (the relevant references are [1-5], [8], [14] and [17]).

One of the two graph rewrite rules introduces a new node in G, so this rule would be responsible for the growth of space. But spacetime (the causal set) grows at *every* rewrite rule application, since:

1 rewrite rule application = 1 computation step = 1 node (event) added to the causal set (spacetime).

In this respect, my approach is indeed in contrast with the following statement from your essay:

"The universe evolves, but not because simplicity can generate complexity. Complexity can come only from pre-existing complexity. The greatest possible effects of complexity in the universe exist right from its start in a potential state."

I tend to disagree on that, based on the phenomenon of deterministic chaos, or algorithmic randomness. The best example of this is perhaps Wolfram's elementary cellular automaton n. 30: in spite of the elementary initial condition and the very simple rule (coded by a boolean function of three variables), the computation dynamics exhibit surpring pseudo-random character, as if information were continuously injected in the process from outside.

I like to believe (ideology again!) that our universe started from nothing, or almost nothing, and that space, spacetime, and complexity did increase: they were not 'already there' at the beginning, unless you mean that all the complexity of the mentioned rule 30 computation is 'potentially' present in the few bits that code its initial condition and boolean function.

I remember a workshop at the Phys. Dept. of the Padova Univ. (Jan 15, 2008) with lively discussions on String Theory vs. Loop Quantum Gravity. During the panel, Gabriele Veneziano and Carlo Rovelli did agree on one thing: they both were unable to point out a crucial validation/falsification experiment for their respective theories. I believe I am in good company in claiming that, in physics, both imaginative hypotheses and accurate experimental verification are necessary. If you call the former 'ideological', then I am afraid my essay has a lot of ideology in it. And, although I also provide simulation results (more in the references) that suggest interesting analogies with physical phenomena (e.g. the emergence of interacting objects!), my research on causal sets (as well as that of many others) is still very far from precise numerical predictions.

Since this is getting long, I answer to the remark on the self-modifying program in the next post. Looking forward to your comments after reading the essay. Thanks for your stimulating remarks!

Tommaso

view post as summary

Dear Constantin,

would it be wise to say that Quantum Field Theory is wrong because it does not predict the existence of unicellular organisms?

This is not meant to be provocative, but only to express what I believe is the 'delicate' status of any conjectured theory of everything (QFT not even pretending to be one). Any such conjecture should maximize the number of explained...

view entire post

Dear Constantin,

would it be wise to say that Quantum Field Theory is wrong because it does not predict the existence of unicellular organisms?

This is not meant to be provocative, but only to express what I believe is the 'delicate' status of any conjectured theory of everything (QFT not even pretending to be one). Any such conjecture should maximize the number of explained physical phenomena while minimizing the machinery of the explanations, for example by getting rid of universal constants such as c and G, which should be derived, not assumed.

I believe that the digital/computational reality conjecture (I wrote 'conjecture', not 'theory'), could hardly be beaten in terms of simplicity -- any kid can understand and reproduce the steps of, say, a deterministic Turing machine moving on a binary tape, or on a graph -- and this is already a great incentive for investigating it. But it is equally clear that the number of 'proof obligations' assigned to the conjecture is explosive, offering much room to criticism, until these are not discharged.

Then, looking at the long list of TODO's , let me first summarize the good news, and tick the phenomena that occur in spacetime, that the conjecture can comfortably explain, via emergence in computation (see also essay and references):

- random-like behaviors;

- periodicity, and co-existence of regular-periodic and random-like structures;

- self-replication;

- localized periodic structures that interact with one another, similar to particle scattering diagrams.

All these can be observed in cellular automata as well as in algorithmic causal sets.

What I find almost miraculous is that we get these features for free, that is, without coding anything of physical flavor into those simple models of computation. And I do hope that you agree in considering the above as fundamental PHYSICAL phenomena, in the broad sense that they characterize qualitatively our universe, as we perceive it.

I would not endorse any ToE proposal that does not perform VERY well at these tasks -- first qualitatively, and then, of course, also quantitatively. In my essay I additionally suggest that these properties, in duly varied forms, should manifest very early in the history of the universe.

I realize that this conjecture represents a radical shift of perspective, in open violation with a principle supported by many scientists (e.g. Carlo Rovelli), also expressed somewhere in these blogs, that science always progresses incrementally, by smooth improvements of the best existing theories. To say that this has always been, and will ever be the case, is quite a strong statement (proposal for the next FQXi Contest: 'Is the History of Physics Discrete or Continuous'?). But, if the 'continuous' solution is preferred, it would be certainly wise to widen the domain of theories to be considered for improvement or integration, including not only SR, GR and QM, but also Complex Systems, Self-Organization, and, or course, Darwin.

I have taken a larger tour than you probably expected. You raise specific points and I do want to answer them as punctually as possible. Take this as a preamble. I'll be back.

Bye for now

Tommaso

view post as summary

SECOND PART of my answer.

(The ultimate bottom)

You find a contradiction between placing indivisible atoms of spacetime at the bottom of reality, and the need for a digital computer that runs the evolution of this collection of atoms. You seem annoyed by the fact that such a digital computer would represent a 'deeper background structure' beneath the level of these indivisible...

view entire post

SECOND PART of my answer.

(The ultimate bottom)

You find a contradiction between placing indivisible atoms of spacetime at the bottom of reality, and the need for a digital computer that runs the evolution of this collection of atoms. You seem annoyed by the fact that such a digital computer would represent a 'deeper background structure' beneath the level of these indivisible spacetime atoms, requiring perhaps even an operator (you ask 'who/what manages this digital computer'?): discrete spacetime would no longer be the very 'bottom' of the universe. The answer is simple: I do NOT postulate the existence of such a computer, in the basement or elsewhere, as clearly written at the bottom of page 1 in my essay. An algorithm, as well as a differential equation, is simply a formal way to describe dynamics. No need for hardware.

(Computation and curvature)

You write that 'at the center of a black hole, a digital computation is not possible because spacetime curvature becomes infinite'. I completely agree that your PC (or even my Mac!) would start having computing problems a while after crossing a black hole horizon. But, again, we are not talking about hardware, we are abstractly talking about computation. Better: computations on graphs. The variety of structures and phenomena that one can obtain out of algorithmically evolving graphs is formidable. A cheap proof of this, if you wish, is that when you describe phenomena such as those involving black holes, you tend to visualize things precisely in terms of points and arrows, which is what directed graphs are made of...

By the way, a very good 1999 paper by Margenstern and Morita proves that, in the context of cellular automata, spatial (negative) curvature offers indeed a great computational advantage over flat space (M. Margenstern, K. Morita, 'A Polynomial Solution for 3-SAT in the Space of Cellular Automata in the Hyperbolic Plane', Journal of Universal Computer Science, vol. 5, no. 9, Springer, 1999, pp. 563-573). Amazing.

However, to me, the appropriate question is not whether a computation is possible inside a black hole, but, rather, what IS a black hole, how does it look like or manifest, in a graph-based, computational spacetime. I don't know. But simple concepts such as sink node (one with only incoming arcs), or strongly connected components are available that may help. Curvature can also be defined for (planar) graphs, called 'combinatorial curvature'. It is only finite, but possibly unbounded, if you grow the number of faces sharing the inspected node, as it can indeed happen in some of my algorithmic causal sets.

(Quantum effects)

If I had good answers for these problems, they would have appeared very early in the essay. Stephen Wolfram has some potentially useful suggestions for entanglement (NKS book, ch. 9). I have long discussed the quantum effects issue with Alex Lamb, who is also participating to this Contest , and he half-managed to convince me that a form of nonlocality could be achieved if we imagine the algorithmic graph rewriting to take place directly on the causal set, rather than on an underlying spatial support, as I've done so far.

But the more general question is: are we going to eventually apply the standard QM techniques and compose instances of discrete spacetime in a gravitational path integral -- a sum over histories? Perhaps... but later. In doing so, we could follow, for example, the work of Renate Loll and collaborators, who take sums of causal dynamic triangulations (CDT) of spacetimes, and investigate consequences such as emergent spacetime dimension. But I am reluctant to do this, at least before having fully explored the potential of a classical approach to emergence in discrete, computational spacetime. Exciting phenomena such as those illustrated at Figures 3 - 5 of my essay would probably be obscured by a QM treatment.

Finally, while I have no problems in conceiving 'computations' without 'computers', I am more skeptical about defining 'observations' without 'observers', and QM effects do depend on rather intrusive observers, engaging in interactions that affect both the observed and the observer subsystem. In a tiny, discrete, newborn universe that has just reached the size of say 33 elements -- counting edges, nodes, faces, or simplices -- is there enough room for this interaction? Is there room for an observer? (an INTERNAL observer, that is). Maybe quantum effects, and perhaps even relativistic ones, unfold only at a later stage, when entities emerge that can play the role of (proto-)observers. But this is only wild speculation.

view post as summary

Hi Juan Enrique,

Tommaso Bolognesi's essay contradicts quantum mechanics: How the digital/computational universe conjecture theory manages the motion of particle and Heisenberg uncertainty? For this purpose this digital computer must know the definite, absolute information about the position and momentum of every particle. Moreover, this ''computer'' must know all quantum information with...

view entire post

Hi Juan Enrique,

Tommaso Bolognesi's essay contradicts quantum mechanics: How the digital/computational universe conjecture theory manages the motion of particle and Heisenberg uncertainty? For this purpose this digital computer must know the definite, absolute information about the position and momentum of every particle. Moreover, this ''computer'' must know all quantum information with absolute precision before events occurs - it is forbidden by quantum mechanics. Also, to perform such processing, the exchange of information and the work of computer must be faster that light. How your digital computation theory explains the EPR paradox and nonlocality?

I can prove a theory false by simply finding one example in which the theory does not hold. Let us analyze your statement: ''all the complexity we observe in the physical universe, from subatomic particles to the biosphere, is a manifestation of the emergent properties of a digital computation that takes place at the smallest spacetime scale''.

I can show you a place where the digital/computational universe conjecture theory is wrong: 1) At the center of a black hole as described by general relativity lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite. Thus, at the center of a black hole a digital computation is not possible because spacetime curvature becomes infinite. You see, there are places and phenomena which exist without need in the digital computation. Since I found at least one place where the digital computation can not exist, it is a proof that this theory is wrong.

Besides, to process an event the digital computation needs the exchange of information. Inside of the black hole (event horizon) all paths bring the particle closer to the center of the black hole. It is no longer possible for the particle to escape. Since the signal can neither escape from a black hole nor move inside of a black hole, it means the exchange of information is not possible. Since the exchange of information near the event horizon is not possible, it mean that digital computation also is not possible. Pay attention that the digital computation is not possible even outside of the Black Hole, near the event horizon because the exchange of information is forbidden.

The essay is inconsistent; I found propositions which contradict each other. For example: ''There exists a tiniest scale at which the fabric of spacetime appears as a pomegranate, made of indivisible atoms, or seeds''. ''all the complexity we observe in the physical universe, is a manifestation of the emergent properties of a digital computation that takes place at the smallest spacetime scale''.

Suppose that at the level of indivisible atoms a universal computation keeps running and manage the external physical processes. There appears a question: who/what manage this ''digital computer' and the work of the indivisible atoms? It means the existence of the deeper background structure which process and manage the activity of "indivisible" atoms this ''digital computer''. If the universal computation sits at the bottom of a multi-level hierarchy of emergence then where sits the computation which manage ''the universal computation''? Thus, the idea of the digital/computational universe conjecture contradicts to the idea of indivisible atoms.

In conclusion, I agree with you that Reality is ultimately digital, but the digital/computational universe conjecture theory is wrong and inconsistent.

Sincerely,

Constantin

view post as summary

Sir,

In the above thread, we had spoken of gravity as a different type of force from other fundamental forces of Nature. Here is a brief discussion on that.

Before we discuss whether the force we were referring to was gravity, we will like to discuss something about force itself. A force is experienced only in a field (we call it rayi). Thus, it is a conjugate of the field. If...

view entire post

Sir,

In the above thread, we had spoken of gravity as a different type of force from other fundamental forces of Nature. Here is a brief discussion on that.

Before we discuss whether the force we were referring to was gravity, we will like to discuss something about force itself. A force is experienced only in a field (we call it rayi). Thus, it is a conjugate of the field. If something is placed in a field, it experiences something else. This something else is a kind of force. Depending upon the density variations of the field, we experience the force differently. Hence we call it by different names. While the field is one, the forces are many. Since they are conjugates, we can also say that different forces create different variations in the field.

The basic nature of the field is equilibrium. The basic nature of forces is displacement. This gives rise to two different types of inertia: inertia of motion due to forces and inertia of restoration (elasticity) due to the field. This leads to both these inertia acting against a point of equilibrium. In such a scenario, the combined effect leads to confinement around the point of equilibrium. The confined structure is called particle. Thus, all particles have a central point of mass or nucleus, an extra nuclear field surrounding it and fixed orbitals confining it. This is the common feature of all particles be they quarks or the Cosmos. The confinement may also cover the field without the central point. This is caused due to non-linear interaction of the forces. We will describe the mechanism separately. In such a case the field behaves like a fluid. The latest finding of LHC is that the Universe was created from such a super-fluid and not gases. The confined field also interacts with the Universal field due to difference in density. This in turn modifies the nature of interactions at different points in the medium (Universal field).

A force can act only between two particles as only a particle can influence the field, which in turn can be experienced by another particle. If the external force of the field is more than the confining force of the two particles, then the two particles break up and join to form a new particle. We call this “sambhuti”. In the opposite case, the two particles experience the force without being internally affected. The force acts between the centers’ of mass of each treating each as a point particle. We call it “bibhuti”. This second category of relationship, which we call “udyaama”, is known as gravity. Since it stabilizes the two bodies at the maximum permissible distance between them depending upon their respective masses, we call it “urugaaya pratisthaa”. For reasons to be discussed separately, this is possible only if gravity is treated as a composite force.

The first category of forces, which are interactions between two bodies, acts differently based on proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance – proximity and distance – distance variables. We call these relationships “antaryaama”, “vahiryaama”, “upayaama” and “yaatayaama” respectively. This interaction affects the field also inducing various local disturbances. These disturbances are known as “nitya gati”, “yagnya gati”, “samprasaada gati” and “saamparaaya gati” respectively. Any particle entering the field at those points feels these disturbances, which are known as the strong nuclear interaction, weak nuclear interaction, electromagnetic interaction and radioactive disintegration respectively. Thus, you can see that gravity belongs to a completely different group of forces and cannot be integrated with other fundamental forces of Nature in the normal process. Yet, it has a different function by which other forces can be derived from it. We will discuss that separately.

According to our theory gravity is a composite force of seven forces that are generated based on their charge. Thus, they are related to charge interactions. But we do not accept Coulomb's law. We have a different theory for it. We derive it from fundamental principles.

Regards,

basudeba.

view post as summary

Dear Sir,

You have raised a very important question. We have discussed it below the essay of Mr. Ian Durham. Here we reproduce it for you.

The latest finding of LHC is that the Universe was created from such a super-fluid and not gases. The confined field also interacts with the Universal field due to difference in density. This in turn modifies the nature of interactions at...

view entire post

Dear Sir,

You have raised a very important question. We have discussed it below the essay of Mr. Ian Durham. Here we reproduce it for you.

The latest finding of LHC is that the Universe was created from such a super-fluid and not gases. The confined field also interacts with the Universal field due to difference in density. This in turn modifies the nature of interactions at different points in the medium (Universal field).

A force can act only between two particles as only a particle can influence the field, which in turn can be experienced by another particle. If the external force of the field is more than the confining force of the two particles, then the two particles break up and join to form a new particle. We call this “sambhuti”. In the opposite case, the two particles experience the force without being internally affected. The force acts between the centers’ of mass of each treating each as a point particle. We call it “bibhuti”. This second category of relationship, which we call “udyaama”, is known as gravity. Since it stabilizes the two bodies at the maximum permissible distance between them depending upon their respective masses, we call it “urugaaya pratisthaa”. For reasons to be discussed separately, this is possible only if gravity is treated as a composite force.

The first category of forces, which are interactions between two bodies, acts differently based on proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance – proximity and distance – distance variables. We call these relationships “antaryaama”, “vahiryaama”, “upayaama” and “yaatayaama” respectively. This interaction affects the field also inducing various local disturbances. These disturbances are known as “nitya gati”, “yagnya gati”, “samprasaada gati” and “saamparaaya gati” respectively. Any particle entering the field at those points feels these disturbances, which are known as the strong nuclear interaction, weak nuclear interaction, electromagnetic interaction and radioactive disintegration respectively. Thus, you can see that gravity belongs to a completely different group of forces and cannot be integrated with other fundamental forces of Nature in the normal process. Yet, it has a different function by which other forces can be derived from it. We will discuss that separately.

According to our theory, gravity is a composite force of seven forces that are generated based on their charge. Thus, they are related to charge interactions. But we do not accept Coulomb's law. We have a different theory for it. We derive it from fundamental principles. We will discuss it separately.

According to our theory, all particles are locally confined fields. This confinement takes a three fold structure for the particle - center of mass or nucleus, extra-nuclear field and the confining orbitals. If we take into account the external field with which the particle interacts, it becomes a four-fold (3+1) structure. The particle interacts with the field in two ways. If the internal energy distribution cancels each other with a little inward pull, then it behaves as a stable particle. Thus, all particles can be described as composites that exhibit two types of charges: that which pushes out from a central point and is described as positive charge and that which confines it and is described as negative charge. Where both are balanced, it is neutral charge.

We have derived theoretically that the charge of proton in electron units is not +1, but +10/11. Similarly, the charge of neutron is not 0, but -1/11. This makes the atom slightly negatively charged. This excess negative charge is not experienced out side as it is directed towards the nucleus. It is not detected during measurements due to the nature of calibration of the measuring instrument. But it is released during fusion and fission.

The confinement described above takes place where the external field dominates to confine the particle. Here the particle becomes negatively charged. In the opposite case, the particle becomes positively charged. The particles are classified as positively charged or negatively charged according to whether the external field dominates over confinement or the confined force dominates over the local field. Since equilibrium is inherent in Nature, in either case, the particles search for their complements to become full. The less negative part of the proton (since it is +10/11, it has -1/11 negative charge) seeks to couple with the electron to become -1/11. This makes hydrogen atom highly reactionary.

The combined charge of proton and electron (-1/11) seeks the neutron since it has an equal charge. Thus, the opposites do not attract and same charge does not repel. It is not the opposite either. The charge interaction can be of four types:

positive + positive = explosive. That is seen in fusion reaction.

Positive + negative (total interaction) = internally creative (increased atomic number)

Positive + negative (partial interaction) = externally creative (becomes an ion and interacts with other particles.)

Negative + negative = no reaction. They co-exist.

For further clarification, kindly write to: mbasudeba@gmail.com.

Regards,

basudeba.

view post as summary