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

        Dear Sergey:

        Thanks for your detailed explanation about the ratings calculations.

        My main concern is that ratings lack any objective criteria for evaluation and hence are highly biased towards the current mainstream thinking. Such subjectivity would not help the physics community to progress physics towards identifying the critical missing physics, ending the current deadlock, and achieving the final universal theory. I have earlier expressed the "lack of objectivity" concerns to FQXi management as described below:

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

        SUBJECT: Objective Criteria for Evaluation & Ratings of FQXi Essays

        "Questioning the Foundations - Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?" forum provides a great opportunity to advance the state of physics/cosmology marred by irresolvable paradoxes and inconsistencies. However, in order to maximize the benefit of this valuable forum and contest, we must first define benchmark criteria to determine what is fundamental or basic. Without a uniform and consistent bench mark criteria, no definitive determination of the correctness or wrongness of an assumption can be made.

        The challenge faced by any judge or community evaluator of the essays is what objective criteria to use to rate an essay. With so many wide ranging assumptions, physical concepts, phenomena, mathematical treatise, type of tests and validation schemes, rigor and depth of description, and impact as well as consequences of using the wrong/correct assumption etc., it is almost impossible to achieve a fair and consistent evaluation and rating of an essay. In the absence of well-defined evaluation criteria, the ratings and evaluations are expected to be highly subjective and biased towards the prevailing widespread mainstream thinking that has failed physics/cosmology in the first place as evidenced by the fact that 96% (dark energy and dark matter) of the universe remains unexplained by the most widely acclaimed mainstream theories today.

        A quick look at the most highly rated papers by FQXi community, it is clear that both the level of interest as well as ratings is greatly biased towards the mainstream theories - QM and GR. There is hardly (with only minor exceptions) any consideration given to the missing fundamental physics that renders the addressed assumptions, questions, and answers irrelevant with regard to the ultimate universal physical reality. Without the proper identification and integration of the missing physics, tweaking or patching up the existing assumptions within the current theories may only be futile and wasted effort leading nowhere. A revolutionary out-of-the-box rather than an evolutionary fixer-upper or patch-up approach to physics/cosmology may be needed to avoid its current stigma and dead end conundrum.

        The determination of "Which of our basic assumptions are wrong?" must also provide answers to some fundamental questions that remain unanswered on a consistent basis as of today:

        1. Does the essay propose any New missing Physics or only evaluates the wrongness of assumptions within the current theories - QM and GR?

        2. Are there credible evidence and arguments provided to prove the wrongness - why the assumption is wrong?

        3a. Is there a corrected assumption proposed? and, 3b. mathematically formulated in a proposed New theory or within the framework of current theories - QM or GR?

        4. Is the proposed approach or theory validated against the observed universe data?

        5. Is the proposed approach or theory simple and efficient mathematical description that is demonstrated to be devoid of any singularities and known paradoxes?

        6. Does the proposed approach or theory provide definite and consistent answers the following open questions to resolve the prevailing cosmic conundrum?

        • Did the universe have a beginning - the Big Bang? Does it have an ending?

        • What is the true nature of time and space? Is the universe expansion accelerating?

        • Could the speed of light be exceeded? What is C? Do the universal constants vary with time?

        • Are there parallel universes and multi-dimensions beyond ordinary three spaces and one time dimension?

        • Is uncertainty or randomness the fundamental property of the universe?

        • What is the photon mass?

        • Why the cosmological constant is so small as compared to that calculated by quantum mechanics?

        • Is there non-locality in the universe?

        • What is quantum gravity? Does quantum gravity have an absolute time?

        • Is there dark matter or anti-matter? Do black holes exist? Do black holes evaporate -Hawking's Radiation?

        • What governs the creation and dilation of matter?

        • What governs the quantum versus classic behavior and the inner workings of quantum mechanics?

        • What is the ultimate universal reality? Is it digital or analog or else?

        • What is the role of consciousness or free will in the universe? How could this be addressed in scientific theories?

        In summary, to enhance the benefit of this forum to the real progress in science, only a wholesome and integrated scientific approach that addresses a set of comprehensive and holistic objective criteria must be screened and presented as the top rated papers or essays.

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

        Best of Luck and Regards

        Avtar Singh

          Dear Avtar,

          I appreciate your opinion about FQSi as opportunity to advance the modern state of physics/cosmology, and necessity for FQSi to focus not only at the problem of rating procedure which is not clear, but also take into account Objective Criteria for Evaluation & Ratings of FQXi Essays. I am sure that your Objective Criteria may be useful for FQSi to change their policy. The next step is to pass this information to FQSi. At the moment their e-mails do not work.

          Sergey Fedosin

          Dear Avtar,

          Thank you for a extremely interesting essay.

          There are two ways to do physics. The first is to develop and expand known dominant theories. The second is to work from new axioms which may exclude axioms of dominant theories, but which provides new insight that are consistent with observational and experimental data and not necessarily with the current theoretical interpretations of it. I'm happy to see you have chosen the second approach.

          There is a saying that what is clearly understood is clear explained. It was certainly refreshing to read an essay that clear, concise and though it presents new intriguing ideas avoids going into unnecessary complications.

          I will certainly keep a copy of your essay for reference and further reads.

          DLB