Dear Paul,

You are right in many respects. There can be different opinions and all may be correct in there own right. Statement 'But the reality we can scientifically establish is only what we can know of it' to me is an opinion.

I consider, when we are not certain about the location of object, there is nothing we can know about. In PicoPhysics, the uncertainty principle expression spatial boundaries with-in which we shall find the object. They are not expression of probability of finding the object at a point.

This makes PicoPhysics a deterministic theory Vs Quantum mechanics which is considered statistical or theory of chance (Probability).

Elephant is an interesting analogy. First it means the observer already knows what an elephant is. Elephant by itself does not exist - it may have died, body burnt or decay with decomposed into nature etc. It is constituents at core - complex organisms->molecules->elements->elementary particles->Knergy. Thus finally it is Konservation that answers existence of all objects as complex reality of nature.

It is also possible for observer to extrapolate an observation (say the shape & structure of teeth) to say it belongs to a particular elephant. In addition, a limited inspection of patterns on his ears to predict it is an identified living elephant. These conclusions of observer draw on so many other processes and Knowledge that they do not seem relevant when discussing foundations as we want to think in simple terms of cause and effect logic.

You are right, we need to scientifically establish reality. It again has many facets to it. But theoritical & experimental work is many times related to reality that is already established scientifically. For example the reality that is experimentally established is signal over noice ratio at 5-sigma level when 2-3 Tev protons collide in 120Gev range. We have an existing formulation, that conceived Higgs Boson if they exist will lead to similar results. Joining the two is in process. I differ with respect to postulating Higgs Boson as a particle irself. But people will have different opinion.

When we say scientific established reality, I belive we are at a state where we need to re-visit scientifically established facts and determine the weekness in the arguments or determinations made in ignorance in the past. May be, if higgs boson become a scientif fact of nature we may need to re-visit them as well.

Thanks and Regards,

Vijay Gupta

Vijay

"I consider, when we are not certain about the location of object, there is nothing we can know about"

Any given practical failure in the sensing process, is just that, a failure. The object certainly existed in a definite location as at a specified point, whether we subsequently can identify that or not. Physical existence is not subservient to our sensory capabilities. There was a potential to know, we failed to realise that potential.

The point here being that when we are all talking about reality, what we are really referring to is knowledge of reality, though we strive, with adherence to due process, etc, to establish the best abstraction we can achieve. Maybe in a million years, if we haven't completely ruined this planet before then, we will be getting close to knowing all there is that we can possibly know (either directly or indirectly).

Paul

Dear Mr. Vijay Mohan Gupta

I thank you for your kind and encouraging response and explanations. Physics is really wonderful and I am enjoying the fqxi discussions to meet and discuss theories and ideas with like-minded people from around the world. Many years ago I saw the work of Prof. Rati Ram Sharma of Chandigarth and he too had proposed a new ether-based physics.

To include URL in your post click "link help page" under Add New Post below. It will explain the format - but I found that deleting the "http//:" from the link added will insure it works properly. Try it before you post.

Cheers

Vladimir

10 days later

Hi Vijay,

"Just few comments from a PicoPhysicst.

1. Preferred system of reference (PSR): Preferred system of reference has always been there and will continue to exist. It is the reference system realtive to which the observer is at rest. In most of our arguments we also believe the observer is at origin that enables use of different co-ordinate systems and easy interpretation of mathematical formulations."

OK, I'll go along with that.

"2. Ether was a very different concept so was earth at center of universe."

The aether is the light bearing aether. That means it incorporates all of the characteristics that light needs to exist. All this other stuff about the sun being the center of the universe is just

"3. There are many more assumptions that come to mind which are at core of mechanics - whether Newtonian or relativistic. First and foremost of them being the assumption of uniformity of space.

In the essay 5-Dimensional Universe we describe the universe as 5-dimensional with time dimension mapped in drift direction. This not only provides constancy of speed of light as well as seen as a proof for uniformity of space."

I'll agree to 4D (3D time); but where is this 5th dimension?

"Thus time and one of the dimensions (in the drift direction) have conformal mapping and thus measures to same number. The ratio is unity - giving speed of light a character of universal constant.

If we try to meditate on means available to measure distance and time independently, we will find that is not possible without bringing into picture constancy of speed of light."

I've noticed that too. What do you think it means?

Thanks annonymous,

My view on Ether

Arguments on ether may begin with carryover of Pre-Newtonian concept of space as extension of matter. Cartesian physics considered everything extended to be corporeal, thus rejecting the idea of empty space. Observation of interference and diffraction of light made some theoretician to relate light with sound. In parallel to this, conservation of energy led to unify kinetic energy, heat, light and sound to be collectively and inter-convertibly called energy.

As sound can not travel without a medium, it was argued by some theoreticians that a medium is required for light to travel. However, light travels through space devoid of any matter. For space to act as a medium for propagation of light a host of properties shall be assigned to space. Considering the fact the value of these properties are unreasonable and sound does not propagate through space, it was a dead concept at the origin it-self. So ether as an all prevailing medium concept was dead at birth. But as usual, in human nature, we prefer not to be negative in our conversations. This makes different thought processes co-exist in a given period of time. The ether concept continued to exist for some time. The argument in favour of ether was a possibility of providing it a unique characteristic of being at absolute rest. (Though, absolute rest was not defined clearly). In terms of Newtonian frame of reference, it was seen as a universal reference frame that assigns each object a value in each of three dimensions of space representing rate of change of position. This association ether with absolute rest was turned down by Michelson-Morley experiment. This was as big an effort as recent discovery of Higgs-Bosons. The proposed defining characteristic of ether at absolute rest was negated by observations by in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley. So ether as a concept similar to a medium that is essential for sound waves died as a result of Michelson-Morley experiment.

During the time interval between Newton (& Galileo) to Einstein, science was in formative state. From flat earth, to universe with sun as center to doing away with any preferential location or reference was completed in this period. This purified concept of space from all the baggage it carried due to limitations of human intuition and observations.

In PicoPhysics, we define realities of Knergy and Space as host realities for two opposite concepts. Knergy of Konservation and space is antidote to Konservation. The unary law 'Space contains Knergy' describes the interaction between the two.

Fifth Dimension of universe

In PicoPhysics we can establish only three dimensions of space. So space has only three dimensions. There is no fourth or fifth dimension of space. Let us consider what a dimension means. Dimension is one of the observable aspect of reality. The universe includes both Space and Knergy. While Space has 3-Dimensions, Knergy has 2-Dimensions. This gives the universe its five dimensions.

Science also deals with degrees of freedoms in relation of dimensions. Though universe has five dimensions, the degree of freedom is less than four. The dimension of Time, is maps conformal to space dimension in drift direction. The dimension of energy is less than one, since it does not allow for negative values. Thus degrees of freedom are at best four for universe.

Thanks & Regards,

Vijay Gupta

19 days later

Vijay

I agree there is a cut off, probably more on the lines of the Yukawa potential, rather than infinity. My model provides a physical presence and mechanism, coupling and diffraction at the plasma shock, to form boundaries preventing infinite effects. These are kinetic so unite SR and GR via QM. This is all built into the kinetic model in my essay, unfortunately too complex for a cursury read to extract it seems.

Your essay was original and gave fascinating new viewpoint with some pertinent observations. I note it is languishing and will apply the score boost it deserves. I hope you may also score mine in the same way.

Best of luck

Peter

4 days later

Thanks Peter,

I read about Yukawa potential (in Wikipedia) that introduces an exponential decay term that creates a cut off. PicoPhysics has no opinion on the same.

In view of PicoPhysics (infinite - maths part) a reality that is measured with a number of third infinite order, can not be spanned by another reality that is linear. (This is also the reason for space to have 3-dimensions.)

This essay may be languishing - since I don't belong to the community organizing this competition. I am thankful to them, for the plate form they provided to me to air my views on nature.

I am satisfied that I have been able to understand nature based on a single statement 'Space Contains Matter'. 5-Dimensional universe can be seen as a corollary of the same. By the way, in PicoPhysics even the 3-dimensions of space are proved as corollary to unary law 'Space contains matter'. So are manu other concepts that are taken as facts from human intuition are established starting teh logic from Unary law 'Space Contains Matter'.

(I have re-worded the Unary law from Space Contains Energy' since I wrote this essay).

Thanks and best regards,

Vijay Gupta

17 days later

Dear Vijay Gupta,

You,I feel,have tried to explain whole of physics on entirely unknown concepts and descriptions.It,ofcourse,reflects original way of thinking. But,for me,it appears that it would have been nice if you had demonstrated your ideas quatitavely and shown as to how they are related to the existing theories.

Anyway,wishing you good luck in the essay contest.If you have time go through my essay too (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1543--Sreenath B N.).

Best regards,

Sreenath.

    7 days later

    Vijay Mohan Gupta,

    I would like to see relativists debate some of the content of your essay. I have not found any use for Einstein's, or his supporter's, visual aids. They are not needed to explain or account for relativity type effects nor for deriving the correct equations necessary for properly modeling those effects. Now, that is my opinion. I think though that your approach has more opportunity to draw serious debate. I hope it happens. Your arguments deserve to be evaluated.

    James

      My apologies Vijay. I posted that message in the wrong forum. Please disregard it. I will repost it in Robt Curtis Youngs' forum. I have your essay open and was reading it at this time and ended up posting incorrectly.

      James

      Dear Vijay Mohan Gupta,

      "The most powerful abstraction is found in mathematics - Georg Cantor's set theory. It extended natural numbers to transfinite numbers. With this a rational and logical world is built around numbers as objects in themselves."

      This appears to be a learning opportunity. I see that you proceed to explain it. I look forward to understanding how numbers become objects. :)

      James

        Dear Vijay,

        Ok I think I understand that when you say: "... With this a rational and logical world is built around numbers as objects in themselves." you actually don't mean that numbers are objects themselves, but, rather are symbols for counting objects. The objects are those things that justifiably deserve units of measurement. That is normal enough if I correctly interpret your meaning. I presume from what I have read that you do not assign units to numbers as if the numbers alone really are objects.

        The units you refer to always belong, in the sense of counting, to some sometimes unidentified but recognized in a general physical sense to be objects. I further presume that those unmentioned objects are empirically verified physical objects when physics is discussed.

        I have avoided using many of the mathematical terms mentioned in your essay. one reason is that I am not a mathematician and prefer to not be tested as one, and, perhaps justifiably be taken out to the woodshed. The other more important reason is that I am interest mainly in how your perception of object relates to the objects of empirical physics. I do not say theoretical physics because then I invite into discussion the unempirical properties invented for its needs. An example of this would be 'space-time'.

        Your opinion even as a correcting one is welcomed. Thank you.

        James

        Dear James,

        It is heartening to note that you read my article in fair details. I experience lot of problems with language and choice of words. As you rightly noted, in PicoPhysics we are attempting to understand the nature a fresh.

        We donot have words with suitable meaning in contemporary language. I tried to minimize the same, by explaining the power words in the beginning like Host Reality etc. Some existing words and phrases are used like 'SPACE'. They are used since, the message conveyed keeps it's meaning in-tact when we use the word. I could not use the word ENERGY in place of KNERGY. Now I found the word 'MATTER' may be used.

        So when I use the word 'OBJECT' it is in linguistic sense here. Otherwise OBJECTS play a critical role in PICO-PHYSICS when we look at various steps that constitute an observation. (I have an article on the same at picophysics.org). In the article attempt has been made to bring out importance of observer at par with object. They are grouped into categories such as Internal, External and Independant.). In this essay it was not the intention to bring in the consideration of Object & Observations. It was meant to remain slightly abstract on this front.

        But mathematics is a science of symbols (numerals) raised to the level of abstraction by removing unit from quantitative observation. When such removed from realty, mathematics handles them independent of real words objects, like objects themselves. This is what I meant to convey - may be language and words used were not appropriate.

        Now, when we talk about relativity, in PicoPhysics it is a very minor outcome of logic, since invariance is incorporated in unary law 'Space Contains Matter' itself. The more significant outcomes are - explain the formation and life cycle of matter as we know it. Let me explain essence of PicoPhysics sequence MATTER CYCLE'. Knergy is Konserved. It is contained in SPACE. To contain Knergy - dimensions of space need be 3-dimensional. The space by itself has to have a possibility to possess Knergy without which it does not exist. For whole of space to have a possibility to possess Knergy, three processes of possession and de-possession of Knergy by space are required.

        The dynamics of the universe are now explained as controlled by these three processes. 5-dimensional universe is an article coming out of that dynamics.

        MATTER CYCLE: Knergy gets to a confined state (Particles). These particles act as sinks of space, that forces them together to form complex particles ultimately leading to heavier objects. These objects finally decay into energy (photons). These photons cool down as they travel into CBR - cosmic background radiations. These cosmic background radiations finally merge into dark matter - original state of Knergy from which matter is formed.

        With this understanding, Pico-Physics is not in agreement with theories based on transient universe (Big Bang or otherwise).

        Electromagnetic and other observations are also explained with in framework of interaction between Space and Knergy governed by Unary law in Pico-Physics. They are integrated as the properties of partcles formed out of Knergy. In this sense full quantum and nuclear physics is included as properties of matter formed out of Konserved Knergy.

        I invite you to google words 'picophysics' or 'vmguptaphy' to see more info about picophysics if time and interest in my discussions.

        Thanks and Best Regards,

        Vijay Gupta

        Dear Sreenath,

        PicoPhysics has been developed as a thought process to integrate my knowledge about physics into a single postulate. The postulate is called Unary Law of PicoPhysics. It simply states that 'Space contains Matter'.

        You are right - quantitative match is required. We do the same by correlating and reducing the number of universal constants. For example Gravitational Constant and Hubbles constant are related to each other.

        Though I donot yet have complete quantitative match with scientific facts, I have a fairly developed logic to integrate most of the established physics into this single Unary law - SPACE CONTAINS MATTER.

        Thanks and best regards,

        Vijay Gupta

        Goodmorning Dear Vladimir F. Tamari,

        Thanks for your comments. I followed your link, and would like to express my thanks to you to point the same to me.

        PicoPhysics is not based on Ether - since the concept of ether was based on propogation of disturbance (and energy causing it) in space. While KAMBHAR of PicoPhysics signifies the Non-Konserved nature of Space. It is not different from space itself.

        So in PICOPHYSICS the third reality KAMBHAR is reflection of SPACE itself and introduced to keep the argument in line with human perceptions.

        Thnaks and Best Regard,

        Vijay Gupta

        Dear James,

        In PicoPhysics, we are concerned with all aspect of nature including human intuition and experiences. We classify the observation steps into 7 categories and measurement into two - comparative and associative measurements. To understand the PicoPhysics logic that assigns 3-dimensions to space, the measurement process deployed is associative; with space (A reality) being associated with Knergy (another reality) as per Unary law.

        This is added here for the purpose of record and those who may be inquisitive to understand the origin of all 5-dimensions of nature.

        The three of the dimensions attributed to space are proved to be Euclidean separately.

        Vijay Gupta

        7 days later

        Hello dear Vijay. 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

        5 days later

        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