Dear Avtar,

All unknown actions can be revealed by two assumptions

1). All mass and energy decay into the monopole gravitational wave. See 1993 Nobel Prize in physics

2). The Huygens Principle is the Huygens law. The Reaction to wavefront formation is the same as gravitation.

Two hidden processes, create the actions of time, space, dark energy(F=MxA) and dark matter(space itself constructively interfering), among others such as black hole evaporation.

Sincerely

C. Michael Turner

Hi Jeff:

Thanks for reading and commenting on my paper. The following are responses to your questions:

Your Question 1: "..... I don't understand how this would cause the kinetic energy of remaining mass clumps to increase. I note that in Einstein's dentition of GR, all energy (even kinetic) curves spacetime, so the local curvature should not be affected by the transformation to TE."

Answer: To understand this concept, imagine a photon being emitted from a stationary atom. Before emission, the photon rest mass is M0=E/C2. Soon after its emission from rest, it accelerates to attain a speed close to the speed of light via converting or losing its mass. Since, there is no external force accelerating the photon to the speed of light, its gain in kinetic energy comes from the conversion of its rest mass to KE. GR lacks or is deficient in this physics, hence it suffers from the singularity at r=0 and is unable to predict the dark energy required for the observed accelerated expansion. GR needs a fudge factor - nonzero Cosmological Constant to mock this missing physics and this fudging was the Einstein's Biggest Blunder. GNMUE model in my paper provides this missing physics from GR and QM. Integrating the missing physics resolves their singularities and paradoxes.

Your Question 2: "...As the mass is being converted, why would the accelerating expansion increase?"

Answer: I clarify and explain this in my paper (see Figure 3):

"It is important to point out that GNM based RUE provides a relativistic expansion model of the universe, while the LHM represents an empirical fit to the observed Hubble expansion data from the near field galaxies. When compared to the recent far-field Supernova data, LHM leads to the apparent conclusion that the universe expansion is accelerating. However, such a conclusion is merely an artifact of the over-extrapolation (V>C) of the linear expansion assumed by the LHM in the distant universe. It is shown later in the paper that the observed non-linear expansion from the far-field data is naturally predicted by the RUE vindicating the fact that the universe expansion in the far field is relativistic and not linear as predicted by LHM."

Your Question 3: "...can you state how you view your Fig.2 in relation to the cosmological principle and to the scarcity of baryonic matter? Doesn't equation (5) depict mass as a point?"

Answer: I am attaching a complete derivation of equation (5) as a pdf file below. It assumes that mass is spherically distributed over the entire universe. The scarcity of baryonic matter is evidenced by its conversion to the equivalent KE which is misinterpreted as Dark Energy because of its unknown source in the standard cosmology. Dark matter is another such mis-concept prevalent in modern cosmology that is shown to be the artifact of the missing physics.

Finally thanks for picking up and realizing the deeper theme of my paper to present to the forum not just a philosophy or list of what is wrong but actually offer a real physical/mathematical solution to what is missing and paralyzing physics and cosmology today. I hope there are more scientists on this forum that could think universally and see outside of their current boxes of GR, QM, or prevailing incomplete theories.

As I show in my paper, many of the current standard cosmology assumptions and mis-concepts (big-bang, cosmic time, inflation, nucleo-synthesis, dark matter, dark, energy, particles/strings, anti-matter, multiverses, multi-dimensions etc.) aren't even needed when the missing physics is properly considered. It is tragic that the physics/cosmology community and world are wasting so much of their talent, time, and money pursuing only unneeded assumptions or non-physical mathematical concepts (particles/strings) that are not real but only superficial artifacts of the missing fundamental physics. I would welcome your and others' ideas as to how to raise awareness of the science community to the missing physics rather than beating the dead horse of standard cosmology.

What is ironic and generally lacking in the forum papers is the presentation of a complete approach wherein instead of merely identifying the wrong assumptions, the right assumptions are presented and proven against universal observations to show their correctness. Without such a wholesome approach, this exercise is no more than firing shots in empty air.

Best Regards,

Avtar SinghAttachment #1: 1_Gravitation_Potential_Derivation__Excerpts_from_my_book.pdf

5 days later

Avtar

As per your post on my blog (2nd August-I have been on holiday), my comments would be as follows:

1 There is no constancy of light speed in GR (1st para Introduction).

2 I doubt if c should be in that famous equation (and many others), this being a function of substituting light speed, incorrectly, in the expression of time (see my post in my 11/7 19.33). Another way of putting this: why should the speed of light have anything to do with it? (1st para section 2)

3 There can be no such physical effect as time dilation, because the concept of time has no corresponding physical existence. It is purely an extrinsic measuring system which calibrates the rate at which change is occurring. (section 2).

4 Space does not physically exist, it is the corollary of 'not-space', ie objects, particles, or whatever term one wants to use. In other words, only that which has physical 'presence' exists, and then it is a matter as to which one selects and the prevailing circumstances, as to what 'constitutes' space (ie the consequence) in that context. And everything deemed to be physical must have 'presence', something cannot be deemed to exist, or have/be a physical effect but then 'mysteriously' have no 'presence'. Another way of putting this is, any detected alteration in 'space' is actually an alteration in some thing. The underlying assumption in relativity is that when matter is caused to alter speed it also alters dimension. (section 2).

5 There is no uncertainty in what physically exists, but this is not a function of 'relativistic effects'. It is how physical reality occurs, ie it must have a definitive and discrete physical existence as at any given point in time. The issue is establishing what constitutes that, and then what it was in any given circumstance (which is highly likely to be impossible, such is the rate at which alteration to a physically existent state occurs). (section 6).

6 Action can only involve physically existent states which are immediately spatially adjacent, as at any given point in time. Physical effects cannot 'jump' a circumstance. Then it can only be those physically existent states which immediately preceded the physical state being considered which are the potential source of the alteration, there can be no 'jumping' in the sequence. (But again the issue is, given what constitutes a physically existent state, the level of differentiation is too detailed to be detectectable). (section 6)

7 In respect of anything, it can only be in one physically existent state at a time, otherwise existence cannot occur, and then alter. (section 6).

8 However, leaving aside these 'technicalities', the real question is: physically, what is gravity, mass, energy, etc? Their existence and the relationships between them may or may not be depicted by the equations, but what is the corresponding physical reality which substantiates these concepts? Only by establishing this can we establish what is happening.

Paul

Dear Avtar

In response to your request for a comment on your essay, I would go slightly further than you have indicated in your essay and view the notion of a multiverse as being absurd - effectively giving up on physics and going for all out fantasy. Like George Ellis, I would disagree with your premise of dismissing GR by using a Newtonian gravitational potential. HOWEVER, a significant inconsistency in the standard interpretation of the cosmological constant in GR is readily apparent in a supposed 'constant' in a theory defined by the 'relative' - not exactly hidden from sight! The obvious physics question in a theory called Relativity should be to ask, constant relative to what? The answer is the term next to it in Einstein's field equations, namely the metric. In a FRW cosmology, the metric is parameterised by the radial scale factor R of the universe, g(R), which for a closed S3 universe is the radius R in a notional 4th dimension outside of the space that doesn't really exist. The cosmological term L is mathematically required to be constant relative to variations in the metric g(R) *within* the space, which means that it can also be parameterised by the notional 'extra dimensional' parameter R. In fact, interpreting GR as a physics theory and not just as a piece of maths, requires L(R) as it is a cosmological term denoting the global effect of radiation pressure against the physical space (see section 3 of my paper). This totally changes the game with respect to the failings of a cosmological 'constant' in the standard cosmology, and your equation (11) L(R) =3H2C2 would have the correct radial scaling for a radiation pressure effect which scales as 1/R4.

In GR both mass and energy have gravitational attraction, but the radiation pressure effect at the global level of a closed S3 cosmology would have an expansionary effect that cancels, or nullifies, some of the gravitational attraction of radiation. So I am left wondering just how much of the results of your model are due to using the right sort of radial dependence for the cosmological term L(R). It can also be noted that in a local version of GR, the gravitational coupling constant would also depend upon the radial scale factor of the universe G(R). With 2 of the 3 constants having such a radial dependence, this would seem to imply that the speed of light in a local theory would also has a radial scale factor dependence c(R). In which case, the reliability of observational data interpreted through a GR model of 'constants' is questionable. This might explain a number of the features of the 'absurd universe' and the way to resolve them as being to view GR as a *physical* theory and not as a mathematical map totally bereft of the physical territory it is supposed to be describing.

The 9 page limit and lack of freely accessible reference means that I cannot see how the issues of QT are resolved in your model.

Regards

Michael

    Dear Michael:

    Thanks for your time in reviewing my paper and providing thoughtful comments.

    While undoubtedly GR has been proven to be a successful theory for explaining (as George Ellis pointed out) Solar System level observations, the fact remains that it lacks some major physics that paralyzes it with the black hole singularity and two major unexplained paradoxes - dark energy and dark matter. In spite of its flagrant successes against selected set of data, it fails to explain 96% (dark energy and dark matter) of the universe. Hence, I would buy into yours and George's arguments in favor of GR if this major deficiency of GR is removed which prohibits it from being only a 4% universal theory. My paper demonstrates that while the Newtonian theory alone may not explain the cosmic observations, when combined with the missing physics of spontaneous mass-energy conversion, it does a great job in predicting the observed galactic and universe accelerated expansions without any black hole singularities. Such a wide ranging proof and evidence for the proposed GNMUE model in my paper are hard to ignore merely to hold the GR as a superior theory on its past 4% track record. Obviously, as you have suggested a lot more work has to be done to fix GR to remove its deficiencies to claim it as a superior theory from cosmological point of view.

    Secondly, the - "...the right sort of radial dependence for the cosmological term L(R)" comes from the mechanistic physics of the spontaneous decay as described in my paper. I would welcome GR experts to integrate this physics into GR and demonstrate that it can explain the 96% of the missing universe (dark energy and dark matter) without a singularity at R=0. Only then, one could claim the validity of GR from the universal or cosmological point of view. Until then, there is no evidence - " .... to view GR as a *physical* theory" And also, until then GNMUE is a demonstrated model correctly predicting the observed universal behavior in spite of the fact that it is based on Newtonian gravitational potential.

    I am attaching the following two files to provide additional information from references [15] and [18] of my paper to show how GNM resolves the quantum paradoxes and explains its inner working:

    [15] A. Singh, The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology and Universal Reality, AuthorHouse, 2003. (Chapter 4,6,7 and 8)

    [18] A. Singh, Quantum Non-Locality Explained by Theory of Relativity, Physics Essays Vol. 19 No. 1, 2007.

    I would greatly appreciate your comments on these references.

    Best of Luck & Regards

    Avtar SinghAttachment #1: QM_Nonlocality_Physics_Essays_Paper_Final_Version_03singh1.pdfAttachment #2: Book_Manuscript_Chap_467_and_8__9412.pdf

    6 days later

    "Space and time are relative entities. There is no absolute time or synchronicity in the universe, which has no absolute beginning, evolution, or ending. The apparent flow of time is a relative reality (an illusion) of the fixed (V

      Appendix 4 Solution of cosmological constant problem

      Theory: Cosmological constant is 10^94 g/sm^3

      Practice: Cosmological constant is 10^-28 g/sm^3

      Planck constant h=10^-28 g x sm^2/sec in 2D space embedding in 3D space

      Only right value is experimental value.

      Yuri:

      I respect your opinion. However, you need to demonstrate its physical validity via comparison against cosmic and galactic expansion data. Until then, it is only an opinion. Also, does this opinion resolve the current paradoxes of physics/cosmology, QM, GR, singularities? Please demonstrate how.

      Thanks

      Avtar

      Dear Avtar,

      Technically dark matter is a particle physics problem, not a GR problem. I note that you have posted on Johann Weiser's essay and so would have seen that Johann claims to have found a non-singular black hole solution by including the distribution of matter that gives rise to the metric. If true that would imply a black hole singularity is not necessarily a real thing. Similarly if there are extra dimensions and GR is extended to describe them, then black holes are also non-singular. That just leaves the remaining problem with GR that you identify - dark energy, and I agree that is a problem.

      Dark energy is directly related to what the cosmological 'constant' in GR means, and here the standard presentation is simply wrong - the cosmological term *must* depend upon the radial scale factor of the universe in order for GR to be a *physical* theory (see attachment for a simple toy model that illustrates this). So I agree with your dispute of GR up to the point that the standard presentation of GR with an artificially 'constant' cosmological term does *not* constitute a *physical* theory. This provides the background for my earlier comment that I wonder to what extent your usage of a variable cosmological term is responsible for your results.

      From the attachment you will see that a *physical* GR is likely to also possess a gravitational constant and speed of light that depend upon the radial scale factor as well. This scale factor dependence of c is perhaps also captured by your model. There is a further feature of a *physical* GR model that is not emphasised in the standard presentation of GR - the *definition* of energy is *not* constant in a time dependent metric. So in an expanding universe the *definition* of energy within the time dependent metric will be varying. For a model with a constant definition of energy, this changing energy definition effect could possibly be captured by adding an effect that changes the energy terms in the model, which your model does. So I wonder to what extent the results generated by the features of your model are due to approximately including the sort of effects that should be present in *physical* GR.

      I have looked at the attachments you gave with regards to QT. The dominant issue is that QT has a weird illusion of non-locality that isn't real - I call it a non-locality of identity that isn't accompanied by non-locality of causation. Standard QT presentation is not always clear on this issue and can give a misleading impression of it. The difficulty of alternative approaches to QT, is capturing this illusion of non-locality without actually capturing real non-locality, and like other such models in this essay contest, yours doesn't quite pull it off. It is extremely difficult and rather subtle, but without a theory will conflict with known experimental results.

      Despite your anti-GR stance, I think your model may provide a background basis for constructing an argument in favour of adding the features which would turn GR as it has been presented into *physical* GR.

      MichaelAttachment #1: 1_Balloon_world.pdf

      Dear Avtar Singh,

      I have carefully read your excellent essay.

      I am not a physicist, nor a cosmologist.

      I, who conceives my models on the current physics and the accepted cosmological theories, do I revise my way of making, but in which direction?

      I see the Universe full of energy which transforms. At the beginning there was at first a space (dark energy), then the dark matter, then the ordinary matter.

      The energy is transformed in passing from simple to complex, as I showed it on the model in my essay.

      I thank you for any advice you can give me on this, as you are a professional physicist.

      See my essay : http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1552

      Best regards

      17 days later

      Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

      This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

      Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

      A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

      An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

      Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

      Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

      Thank you and good luck.

      Vladimir

      Dear Avtar,

      Why according to your Gravity Nullification model (GNM) in essay you find (7) and (8) where cosmological constant attached to kinetic energy of universe substance? The question is because I calculated cosmological constant in the paper The Principle of Least Action in Covariant Theory of Gravitation, and it proportional to density of substance, not to the kinetic energy. Also there is a paper Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. in which supernova data explained in another way. You give Figure 5 for redshift and relative brightness of supernova. Similar to it in my first book Fizika i filosofiia podobiia ot preonov do metagalaktik. at page 291 is Figure 61 for redshift and apparent magnitude for galaxies up to z = 5. It is interesting that GNMUE Eliminates Black Hole or Big Bang Singularity. In the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter (my essay about it) black holes are not allowed too. What do know about mechanism of transformation of mass in energy in your theory?

      Sergey Fedosin

        Dear Sergey:

        Thanks for reading my essay and asking thoughtful questions. Below are the answers:

        1. Why according to your Gravity Nullification model (GNM) in essay you find (7) and (8) where cosmological constant attached to kinetic energy of universe substance?

        First of all, the cosmological constant is a fixed universal constant and not a variable. So, it cannot be proportional to a variable density of a substance. Secondly, when one compares the Einstein's cosmological term (left hand side of equation (7)) with the GNMUE (6), the KE term is the equivalent term that also dominates the far-field energy term of the universe expansion. The gravitational energy term dominates only the near-field hence is not associated with the accelerating universe expansion demonstrated by Supernova observations. Hence, eqn (7) or (8) correctly represents the physics of the cosmological constant which was introduced by Einstein only as a fudge factor without any physics describing it in mathematical terms.

        2. "Also there is a paper Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. in which supernova data explained in another way."

        GNMUE not only explains the redshift and dark energy, but also provides a complete solution to many of the singularities, paradoxes and inconsistencies of physics - GR and QM. It also explains the inner workings of QM resolving its paradoxes, predicts star velocities and galactic expansion, and provides a timeless solution to the universe expansion. Other possible explanations or theories predict only limited or isolated observations or behavior of the universe expansion and do not provide universal and complete solutions to all what is ailing physics today. For example, some theories only explain the supernova data but no solution to black hole singularities or QM paradoxes such as quantum gravity or quantum time. Most of the papers lack such holistic or universal approach to resolve the overall cosmic conundrum.

        3. What do know about mechanism of transformation of mass in energy in your theory?

        The easiest and direct way to think about the mass-energy conversion is that it represents the most fundamental process of creation of mass from the Zero-point energy of the so-called vacuum state. Any theory of the universe that does not include this fundamental mechanism of the creation of matter would fail to predict the observed universe since this mechanism is the bridge between the vacuum state and the matter state. Without such a matter-energy conversion model (GNM), the universal behavior cannot be predicted in totality and only partial predictions may be possible without a complete solution. Particles as such are not fundamental, but the process of creation of particles or mass is fundamental to any universe model.

        I hope the above provides satisfactory answers to your questions and comments.

        Best Regards and wishes

        Avtar

        Dear Hoang Cao Hai:

        Thanks for reading my essay and asking thoughtful questions. Below are the answers:

        As I describe in my essay, particles are not fundamental entities in the universe but the process of conversion of energy to mass or particle creation from the Zero-point energy state is fundamental process modeled by GNM in my paper. The observed universe and galactic expansion can be explained by this model without consideration of any specific particles or strings. So, whether Higgs boson exists or not is only a mute question that does not need to be answered to have a universal theory. Also, inner workings of QM and all its related paradoxes can also be answered as well as singularities of GR can be eliminated by GNM, and no particles physics is needed other than their creation and dilation process modeled by GNM. Time is also not needed to explain the universe.

        I hope the above provides satisfactory answers to your questions and comments.

        Best Regards and wishes

        Avtar

        If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

        Sergey Fedosin