• [deleted]

  • Post #9

Dear Felix,

I read your essay and agree with your point and it is same as the truth that I am putting forth in the following essay

Conscience is the cosmological constant.

There is no space unless one chooses to measure and there is no time until one chooses to count. There is no space-time besides one absolute self or singularity.

Who am i? I am concrete, i is abstract. I am physics, i is mathematics.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear Alan,

The title of your essay is "Newton's Isotropy and Equivalence Is Simplicity..." but in your question you say

"Isotropy it's simply wrong and that Einstein continued this simplicity...". So the statements:

1) Theory A is wrong

2) Theory A is a simplicity

are equivalent or not?

You might have missed the trick in the essay title: I said "..that has led to mass misconceptions of reality". I believe that the basic buildings blocks of matter and radiation are anisotropic, but slightly larger structures are isotropic. It's this simplification which gives us the inverse square law and therefore the definition of 'mass'. But by definition quantum particles behave in an anisotropic way and not isotropically. So yes, in a nutshell, isotropy of matter is both a simplification *and* wrong.

Dear Alan,

I remember that many years ago there were theories where particles were described not by a scalar (i.e. isotropic) mass m but by a nonisotropic tensor m_{ik}. When you say that "quantum particles behave in an anisotropic way and not isotropically", probably you mean not existing theories (e.g. with Galilei or Poincare invariance) but more complicated theories, right? So in fact this is a generalization of Galilei or Poincare theories. In your essay I tried to find those more complicated groups or algebras which should be used instead of Galilei or Poincare groups or algebras. Do I understand your ideas correctly? Thank you. Felix.

Felix, I'm on a very simple line of thought now. Let's compare gravity with magnetism. The magnetic force eminating from a bar magnet is anisotropic yet it's gravitational influence is isotropic. Is it not common sense that the fundamentals of the two forces ar the same? If so, is it not common sense that the gravity force is also anisotropic, but it's internal arrangement produces matter which eminates force particles isotropically i.e. in all directions equally? The magnetic force *can't* be fundamentally isotropic and produce a larger structure which is anisotropic but the gravity force *can* be fundamentally anisotropic and produce a larger structure which is isotropic. Do you begin to see what I'm getting at?

Alan, so if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the gravitational force is fundamentally anisotropic but seems to become isotropic when we take average values over large structures. The fact that the gravitational force is anisotropic is well-known (e.g. post-Newtonian corrections depend on velocities). Only in the nonrelativistic approximation, when we neglect all powers of (v/c) it is isotropic. The magnetic force is anisotropic since it depends on velocities already in the main approximation, so when v->0, the force goes to zero too.

Okay Felix, yes, you understand me correctly with your opening sentence. I wasn't fully aware of the known anisotropic nature of gravity when the concept of Einstein's relativity is applied. I assume that it's just for velocities which approach the speed of light. Am I right in thinking that there's no scientific reason why there *can't possibly* be non-baryonic matter at the centre of the Earth assuming that Einstein's relativity has a fundamental problem? This is what the Higgs-like particle discovery indicates, doesn't it?

Dear Alan,

My example with post-Newtonian terms was only for illustration. As I note in my essay, in my approach there is no "fundamental" gravity at all; gravity is simply a kinematical effect which takes place only if at least one body is microscopic. So I believe that nothing should be excluded right away. I am not a geologist, so cannot say anything definite about your idea on non-baryonic matter but it is not clear to me how the recent discovery can shed light on this problem.

Dear Lev

You addressed the reader at one point "if you are still reading this" well I read the entire essay and understood perhaps 20% of the very technical discussion. Nevertheless from everything you said and from the comments above I can see you have swallowed whole the assumptions of 20th. c. physics. I mean you seem to have mastered the methods of SR GR and QM even though they speak such different languages and address different domains. In my essay, naive as it may appear to you, there is an appeal for a concerted effort to find a better, simpler understanding of Nature. I would appreciate it if you read it as well as my Beautiful Universe theory upon which it is based. Yes it is a simplistic approach but I strongly believe one day some such simple approach will explain all of physics without the painful complications that you struggle with so bravely in your essay.

BTW I downloaded your essay a week ago but now I see that your abstract, bio and pdf download link have disappeared!!

Wishing you the best of luck,

Vladimir

    Dear Vladimir,

    Thank you for your comments. I tried to understand your approach; on some problems we have similar opinions but there are problems where we have considerably different opinions. As far as particle-wave duality is concerned, you could read my response to Edvin Eugene Klingman in this thread. You refer to the experiment 2 2 by Eric Reiter. Your reference is a cite unquantum.net but I could not find a detailed description of the experiment there. Could you please tell me where the details of the experiment can be found.

    Thank you. Felix.

    Thanks for taking the time Felix. How do you feel about the concept of 'saturated maximum energy density matter' who's gravitational attraction is dependent on it's x-sectional area, rather than the amount of material?? This assumes that the surface can't emit any more force carrying particles and is at it's maximum limit, so therefore it doesn't matter how much material is behind it at that moment relative to another body of maximum energy density material. This is at the crux of my idea for additional exotic matter tidal forcing.Attachment #1: 1_Exotic_Cores.jpg

    • [deleted]

    • Post #21

    Dear Felix M Lev,

    I have had a couple of looks at your essay. I will need more to fully appreciate what you have written. I think it is clearly written and largely accessible, even though it is dealing with subjects that are not simple for non physicists. You wrote "One of the key ingredients of QFT is the notion of space-time background" and then proceeded to argue that the space-time background might not be necessary. I agree. The reason being, as I see it, because the space-time background for objects and events emerges from processing of received sensory data and is not the foundational source of the data or output reality. That insight allows many long standing questions of physics to be answered when the ideas are put into the correct working relationship.

    That holographic models do not have a space-time assumption makes a lot of sense to me. I can imagine EM sensory data spreading out as a cascade from a source and there being spherical shells of data related to the event, of different sizes within different iterations of the Object universe. Giving a hypersphere within the superimposed layers of 3D space, if all of the historical iterations are combined into an imaginary structure, rather than space-time. I can imagine how the 2D data can be intercepted and formed into Image realities of 3D objects. I do not think material objects are formed from such data but that the holographic model could have a place within the data pool existing along with material structures and particles, which are the source of the data, within Object reality.

    Your essay may be even more interesting that I have yet realised. I have only picked out those parts that are relatively easy for me to comprehend and relate to my own way of thinking.You have picked a very important false assumption as the basis of your essay. Good luck in the competition.

      Alan, in your essay this idea is not described in detail, right? Do you have a more detailed description elsewhere? My first impression is that this is in the spirit of holographic principle that information about a body depends on the area of a surface surrounding the body, not the amount of material in the body (see e.g. a paper by Verlinde which is Ref. [3] in my essay).

      Thanks for the reference Felix, I'll take a look as though it does sound much the same concept in principle. You're right, I didn't go into great detail in the essay or stress the points with repeated ideas. It's work in progress and very visual based on a lifetime of gathering the puzzle pieces. I've added a few diagrams and doodles to help explain which can be seen on my post forum at the bottom of my essay entry. Speak to you soon.

      Dear Georgina,

      I wish you good luck in the competition too. In the previous contest you criticized my essay for being too mathematical but my impression is that now your attitude is more favorable. In my understanding your essay can be treated as a program on what should be done. I agree with many points of this program. I believe that in my approach several points of this program have been already implemented. For example, gravity is derived from a pure quantum approach and it has nothing to do with the curvature of the space-time.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #25

      Dear Felix,

      It is still demanding for someone without a physics or maths background but there are papers that contain far more mathematics than your own entry in the competition.For me it looks like a good balance between clear verbal explanation and some mathematical precision.

      Thank you for looking at my essay. The explanatory framework answers a lot of questions but can also be used in many different areas of physics to interpret experimental results within a coherent context.It is a framework that details can be fitted into and it indicates some areas that will be worthwhile to investigate and others that are most likely dead ends.I have added a high definition version of diagram 1. to my essay thread which makes it much easier to read.

      I am glad you can see some overlap in our ways of thinking. It is still early in the competition and I expect that as well as reading new entries I will return to re-read those that I have found most interesting or would like to better understand. Which is likely to include your own essay. Good luck.

      Dear Felix

      Thanks for your response. In your reply to Eugene you say that "The notion of wave is purely classical; it has a physical meaning only as a way of describing systems of many particles by their average characteristics". On the contrary a wave can define each element it is made of very precisely at any given time and following sinusoidal pattern. The problem of course is what 'element' we are talking about. Since Einstein banished the ether it is considered laughable to say that quantum mechanics could be just a description of ether elements undergoing wave motion of one sort or another. This has got to change and for the reasons I mentioned in my fqxi essay Fix Physics!. I mentioned the fqxi contest to Eric Reiter and I think he will be submitting an essay here and will doubtless mention his experiments. On unquantum.net click the Home tab and the experiment is described in a 2003 pdf in Part I of the Unquntum Effect Book.

      Cheers Vladimir

      4 days later

      Dear Felix,

      Though from a different reasoning than yours, I arrive at some of the same conclusions you have.

      I explained in my reply to the FQXi recent article titled "Killing Time" that I find no reason to believe that time is anything else than a purely relational concept. It follows that the union of purely relational concept, that is, with space, a physical aspect of reality, is a mistake. Thus, not only can quantum theory do without space-time, so does all physics (in my humble opinion). There exist, if I am correct, no such thing as space-time.

      As for space however, I believe that it an aspect of reality that does not emerge from the presence of matter or depends on it. I further speculate that space is as physical as matter. That is is as dynamical as matter (but not in the sense that is understood by GR).

      On that, I congratulate you on a well written and interesting essay. I will certainly go back to it myself.

        Dear Daniel,

        Thank you for your comments. I agree that our approaches are different. I tried to understand your essay, so far it's rather difficult.

        Best regards, Felix.