Hi Sridattadev,

I indeed first studied chemistry but it required quite some additional study to be able to work in the foundations of physics. I have noticed that there are those who think that "a chemist" has no bussiness in theoretical physics, but I consider that nothing but pigeonholing: the fact that I once chose a chemistry education doesn't mean that I am confined to chemistry for the rest of my life. But I agree with them that a chemistry education alone does not provide enough background for a career in theoretical physics.

Now about your comment. I agree with you that an understanding of the true nature of the universe is intertwined with an understanding of conscience. Or to put it in other words: I sincerely believe that the fundamental questions of physics are intertwined with the mind-body problem in philosophy. My point of view is the same as that of the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead: a new ontology for physics means nothing if it doesn't provide new insight into the mind-body problem. I have investigated the implications of my Elementary Process Theory for the mind-body problem, but that is off topic here.

I have read your essay, but I must say that it raises some serious questions. For example, you write that "if 0 x 0 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 0 is also true". Aren't you going against (mathematical) field theory here? The expression "0/0 = 0" is just a notation for the expression "0 x 0-1 = 0", where 0-1 is the multiplicative reverse of the number 0 (the additive unit). That, however, does not exist: in field theory the number 0 has no multiplicative reverse. That is to say: there is no such thing as division by 0. So from that point of view, it is not true that 0/0 = 0.

Another point in your essay that I find difficult to understand is your equation on page 2, "s = bm2". Is this a relation between numbers, or are the soul, the body and the mind substances (things)? If these are numbers, then the question is: isn't the concept of a number too simple to represent something complex as a soul? And if these are substances, then immediately the question comes to mind: don't you get in troubles with the dimensions? What is the body times the mind times the mind dimension-wise? These are just some of the questions that come to mind.

Regards, Marcoen

  • [deleted]

  • Post #18

Hello Marcoen,

I say simply that it depends of what we want to interpret. An axiom in my line of reasoning must be rational when we speak about our rational sciences.

The criteria for this rationality are numerous and in all centers of analyzes, physics,maths, biology, chemistry,technology,computing even,....

You know I am not a fan of anti-thesis. I prefer the objective and deterministic road. The criteria are like the domains or limits or this or that, they are always rational if they want to explain our pure physics and its laws. It is like for the time.Let's take its irreversibility on the entropical arrow of time.We cannot say that this time is reversible.That, it is rational. The time travel is irrational, the space travel is rational.

Lifes inside our Universe everywhere inside this universal sphere,it is rational.

Harry Potter is irrational. The taxonomy of plants and animals and fungis is rational. The micro Black Holes are irrational. The centers of galaxies are spheres, BH ,it is rational. Our Universe is a sphere, it is rational. The extradimensions are irrational. The photosynthesis is rational. the rotations are rational, the spheres are rational. The irrational algeberas are irrational.a cell is rational like is rational a H or a C or a N or O .....amino acids ....adn EVOLUTION is rational .....this earth becomes irrational.....a music of Mozart is rational.....a hybiscus syriacus blue bird blue sky is rational.... avatar is rational and irrational ....euler was rational...borh also ...Newtom also...time machine is irrational....arms , weapons,monney,...are irrational.....in fact the list is so long.we can make a list of actual scientists if you want but perhaps it is not a good idea. The vanity is so important inside this international sciences community.What a world :)

Regards

@Marcoen,

"@Daniel: thanks for commenting on my essay.

Am I correct that you obtain a quantum-theoretical formulation of the physics of gravitational repulsion from just two assumptions?"

Yes. This is correct.

"Are your two assumptions (or axioms) all of the assumptions of the entire theory, or are these assumptions that are added to the assumptions of the quantum framework?"

Yes, the two axioms are the only assumptions. The rest of the theory is directly derived from them. For a brief introduction the main ideas, you can read my recent entry in the FQXi contest. If after reader questions remain, and you're interested to see an exposition of the entire framework, I'd be happy to direct you to a larger document (120 pages), which is the first part of an introductory work to the concepts.

Hi Marcoen,

In answer to your questions

"Am I correct that you obtain a quantum-theoretical formulation of the physics of gravitational repulsion from just two assumptions?" and "Are your two assumptions (or axioms) all of the assumptions of the entire theory, or are these assumptions that are added to the assumptions of the quantum framework?"

Yes, I do get gravitational repulsion from only two basic assumptions or axioms. The entire theory is directly derived from only two axioms. You can get an idea how this is achieve from my entry in the FQXi contest titled "Questioning the Assumption that Space is Continuous."

And should you want to see the entire framework, I would be happy to direct you to my introduction to the subject; the first part of which is only 120 pages.

You work and mine would certainly provide a basis for some interesting discussions, to say the least.

Daniel

    @Steve

    You wrote that you are no fan of antitheses. A dialectic process is merely a methodology in theory development, by which -- loosely speaking -- new knowledge is developed in a dialogue. One poses a thesis, someone else then objects to this thesis from a particular point of view, you then adjust the thesis into a new one, etc. The antithesis is merely the (objective) name for the objection to the thesis. That's it, in principle.

    Then about rationality. There is such a concept in mathematics: a number can be rational or irrational. There is also such a concept in philosophy: these two have nothing to do with each other. Although you speak of irrational algebra's, I get the impression that you refer to the philosophical concept of rationality. Usually, the predicate "rational" only applies to beliefs, behavior, or other things that involve a choice. In your comment, however, you also apply it to substances like atoms and amino acids. But how does an object in itself involve a rational choice? You might want to think this part of your rationality concept over. Furthermore, it is very difficult to give an objective definition of what rationality is. You say that space travel is rational, but when the idea was first suggested a century ago it was dismissed as completely irrational. You might want to develop objective criteria; there are already some theories, so you could get famiar with them and then propose an improvement.

    @Daniel: I am currently in a mountain cabin with a bad internet connection; I'll get back to you as soon as possible.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #22

    Marcoen,

    each person is free to have his own interpretations of what is really this rationality. It is not necessary to make a discourse about the numbers. I know what is a rational number or an irrational number. I know what is pi !a number between rationals and reals. If you think that the transcendance is an irrational tool,so we must be sure of what is a real interpretation of an irrational number. The constants are not there to imply confusions about the irrationalities of numbers.The constants and numbers are there to imply an evolutive harmonization.

    The process Marcoen is rational if and only if the tools are rational.You know, physics are not a simple play of maths without RATIONALSIM. How can you have a correct process if the tools do not respect the foundamentals laws and convergences.

    The geometrical algebras(lie or this or that...) must have correct UNIVERSAL DOMAINS!!! Your meaning of the antithesis is just a play of confusions at my humble opinion. Why I say that ? just because I see how you interpret irrationally the dark energy.:)

    Friedman lemaitre........expansion+curvature=mass of Universe +DE...my model says .....EUREKA .THE COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT IS OK IF AND ONLY IF THE UNIVERSAL SPHERE IS CLOSED AND IN EVOLUTION.see the baryons and the density .Hubble will agree.....now insert my quantum spheres and cosmological spheres inside this closed evolutive universal sphere.The serie is finite and precise considering the uniqueness.And at the two scales in 3D of course.

    Spherically and rationaly yours

    • [deleted]

    • Post #23

    Dear Marcoen,

    Thanks for reading the essay and trying to understand what I am trying to convey. The point I am trying to make with 0/0 = 0 to infinity is that the division we percieve in relativity is non existent. To put in words "when nothing is divided by nothing you can get anything including nothing".

    In the representation S=BM^2, 2 is not just an exponential number, it is the duality of our mind, to be or not to be the matter or body.

    We can just know what the universe is, if we only know our self.

    Love,

    Sridattadev.

    Jim,

    Having looked into your essay, my conclusion is that our essays have a different objective. My essay intends to present a part of the development of one particular theory in detail, while your essay is clearly intended to give a broad overview of various theoretical and practical ideas in the realm of gravitation. Of course, that leaves less room for detail. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

    Regards, Marcoen

    Evgeny,

    Thanks for this suggestion. It is, however, impossible to answer your question here and now.

    The radiation belt is a macroscopic phenomenon: it is quite an enterprise to explain that with a theory of the Planck scale. It might be an idea to investigate whether a concrete mathematical model of the theory (i.e. the EPT) is consistent with the radiation belt, that is, whether the model does not exclude the existence of the belt. That requires, however, that a model of the theory is at hand; currently this is not the case. So for the moment we have to shelve the idea, but it remains an interesting suggestion.

    Regards, Marcoen

    Dear Marcoen,

    I have a similar model on antigravity or repulsive gravity. In generally, the concept of negative mass(energy) has two models.

    Model-1 is

    Inertial mass > 0, (Active and Passive) Gravitational mass < 0.

    The principle of equivalence is not valid. Your model is a model-1.

    Model-2 is

    Inertial mass < 0, (Active and Passive) Gravitational mass < 0.

    The principle of equivalence is valid. My model is a model-2.

    In my article, I show that negative mass provides a qualitative explanation for dark matter and dark energy.

    Please view to my article and simulation video.

    Article topic 1309

    Computer Simulation on negative mass

    Have a good time!

    ---Hyoyoung Choi

      Hello Avtar,

      Thanks for reading my essay and sharing your opinion about it.

      My essay does indeed not argue in favor of an equal abundance of matter and antimatter: it purely deals with gravitational repulsion - the nature of the interaction between matter and antimatter does not depend on their relative abundance. It is not true, however, that the dark energy problem has necessarily to be solved by an antigravity mechanism that requires equal amounts of matter and antimatter.

      The observed acceleration of the universe gives the idea that there is something that counters the effect of gravity, but that does not necessarily mean that this something is an antigravitational force at cosmic scale. Simply put, the approach that I take is that an aggregration of individual processes, which take place at Planck scale, leads to the formation of space: that is then the reason that the universe expands. So objects do not move away from each other because of some repulsive force, they merely appear to move away from each other because there is space formed inbetween them.

      I have looked at your paper. To start with, I have a question about the main equation of your model. How do you get the value of the integral in formula (5)? The integral in (5) is, namely, syntactically incorrect: it lacks a variable of integration. If I assume that the value of integration is dr (and from the context that is likely), then the value of the integral becomes Gmm*(ln R - ln0). But this doesn't exist, so it cannot be the stated value 3Gm2/5R. But this is an important equation, because you use that value 3Gm2/5R in your master equation (6), on which your entire paper is based. So how did you get the value 3Gm2/5R?? Furthermore, you make some strong claims; since you asked for my comments, I must say that I think that your model is mathematically too simple to back up some of those claims. Your model consists of a few equations in real calculus; yet you claim on page 9 that it gives a mechanistic description of the collapse of the wave function. This raises imediately a question: how can that be when the wave function is not a term of your theory (your theory only uses numbers, while the wave function is an element of a complex Hilbert space)? As I see it, you have an idea for a simple model for the developement of the universe as a whole, and perhaps you should focus you attention at that, that is, at showing that it gives good predictions for atronomical data.

      Regards, Marcoen

      Hello Steve,

      The notion of antithesis that I have used in my essay is not something that I have made up myself, not have I given it a new meaning: it is a common notion in philosophy. There are several forms of dialectic reasoning, though.

      Furthermore, you wrote that every person is entitled to have his own idea on rationality. I agree with that to a certain degree. I am a postmodernist myself, so I think it is impossible to give criteria for a rationality predicate that work for all persons under all circumstances and in all contexts. There are always cultural differences that are irreducable: what in a given situation is a rational choice in one culture may be irrational in another culture, and there is no set of "transcultural" rules that can determine which culture is the best.

      Best regards, Marcoen

      Hi Sridattadev,

      I see that you give a very unusual interpretation to the expression S = BM2. Usually M2 is just the element that is produced by applying the binary operation multiplication to the elements M and M; in Polish notation M2 = *(M, M). With all due respect, I think you give the expression a meaning that is not represented by the mathematics in the expression: you might want to think it over to use this expression to represent your idea on soul, body and mind. I would advise you to first develop the idea further and write it out in words. When it then is in its final stage, you could search for a suitable symbolic representation - if that is more preferable than a formulation in just words.

      Best regards, Marcoen

      • [deleted]

      • Post #30

      Dear Marcoen,

      I purposefully chose this non mathematical representation of soul, mind and body, S=BM^2,so as to engrain this simple truth in the hearts of humanity, as this representation of singularity or soul is similar to the popular relativistic view of E=MC^2, which very well explains the duality of existence. Universal I in us gives meaning to everything. What is E, M and C but just alphabets and exponential 2 some abstraction until we assign them meaning. So are S, B and M just another set of alphabets to give meaning to our perception of the self.

      There is absolutely nothing but thy self, everything emerges from thee.

      Love,

      Sridattadev.

      Dear Sridattadev,

      It is true that the equation e = mc2 in itself says nothing about physical reality, but the "e", "m", and "c" in that equation are not just letters from the alphabet: the formula says that the real number e is identical to the product of the real numbers m and c2, where c2 is the product of the real number c with itself. That is, the formula e = mc2 is an expression that has a distinct mathematical meaning because it is formulated in the framework of the real number field. This expression gets a physical meaning by interpreting the terms e, m and c as energy, mass and light speed.

      The point is that your formula S = BM2 is not formulated in the framework of any mathematical theory (like field theory), and from your interpretation it is clear that we have to view it as outside the framework of real numbers. But that makes the expression mathematically meaningless. So to give it a mathematical meaning, you have to specify -- in a way understandable for mathematicians -- what S, B, and M are mathematically, and what the operation multiplication means. Only then it becomes clear how this represents your idea on soul, body and mind.

      Best regards, Marcoen

      • [deleted]

      • Post #32

      Hello Marcoen,

      I am understanding, it is cool to tell me it.

      I agree about your words, but I beleive strongly that the universalism is the best road. The rationality is universal and possesses its laws and foundamentals.

      You say"what in a given situation is a rational choice in one culture may be irrational in another culture, and there is no set of "transcultural" rules that can determine which culture is the best."

      I don't really agree, because when a person is universal, the differences disappear. The irrationalities are in all cultures, religions or countries.In fact the irrationality is simply the sister of the stupidity. If it exists chaotic and irrational parameters inside the systems of all countries, cultures or religions(I am repeating :)) So it is just due to unconsciousness and the stupidity.The problem is that it exists stupid persons in several high spheres.These high spheres must be entirely universal. If not, we can add several chaotic exponentials quickly. You know Marcoan, the global earth is irrational in its pure analyze of foundamental equilibriums. The rational Universe is the same for all after all.We live all on this blue planet. We are all results of evolution.We are all humans. Why so ? the probelm is more complex than we can imagine in fact. Just due to an add of several chaotic parameters, irrational.

      The real secret is this universality in evolution spherization. We are tools of optimization spherization.We are catalyzers in fact of harmonization. Why so the high spheres are not able to solve this globality ???? We return at a simple evidence about this stupidity and unconsciousness cited above. You know, personally I beleive that the hour is serious. I beleive strongly that it is time to act globbaly for the well of all. I fear of several chaotic exponentials if we do not harmonize quickly several systems. Instead of be in competition, I think that the religions can work together. If the chiefs of main religions say the peace, it will be more easy for this spherization of high spheres. In all case , at all problem, it exists a solution.Perhaps it's time to think about this global solution.

      Do you know the composting Marcoen, I have worked a lot this topic, I beleive that the composting at big scale is one solution for the ecology like the increasing of vegetal mass by vegetal multiplication. In fact , you know what ? I see that a lot of people have forgotten their links with nature. We live in big towns without trees and plants and flowers ...even the bees they kill them. In fact, we loose our foundamental ecosystems, we loose our instincts, our senses. It is not rational all that Marcoen. the earth in the logic must be a big harmonized garden of equilibriums. Of course we must also prevent the future protection against meteorits....we do not know when, but we can say that we shall have a meteorit one day. What a big puzzle !

      How can we solve all our probelms.......in centralizing the skilling and competences for the well of all. A time for all after all ! The solutions exist in all centers of interest in fact.The rational solutions exists. Like is rational an euler analyze.

      I wish you all the best in this contest.

      Best Regards

      Marcoen

      Very interesting and original essay and theory. I'm not entirely clear if this may be thought of in terms of the gravitational force replicating the repulsive element of the strong nuclear force. Or the latter balancing the former.

      My essay pulls up at discussion of this as it was already too desne, but I hope you'll give your views on it anyway, and I'd comment you following Vladimir Tamari's web link including work in a similar area.

      Best wishes

      Peter

        • [deleted]

        • Post #34

        Dear Marcoen,

        That is where 0 = i = infinity comes into picture, mathematical representation of metaphysical truth about S=BM^2. You might continue to say that inverse mutliple of zero does not exist in the current mathematical field theory, we are the ones who put that limitation for ourself, then it is time to revisit the fundamentals of mathematics and change our underlying assumptions. The truth is inverse of nothing (0) is infact everything (infinity) and their multiple is singularity (i). There is only "i" in the entire cosmos and, zero = i = infinity.

        Love,

        Sridattadev

        Dear Marcoen:

        Thanks for reading my paper and providing comments. Below are answers to your questions/comments:

        The basic approach in the EPT - ".. an aggregation of individual processes, which take place at Planck scale, leads to the formation of space: that is then the reason that the universe expands. So objects do not move away from each other because of some repulsive force, they merely appear to move away from each other because there is space formed in between them." needs to be validated against the observed universe expansion data from Supernova. Until then, the completeness or correctness of the EPT remains unsubstantiated.

        You have misinterpreted the integral form of the Gravitation Potential Energy term -3Gm2/5R. The exact derivation is provided in my book, ref [15], and also excerpted in the attached PDF file herewith. Also, detailed model of the extended wave-particle model, wave-function collapse, Heisenberg uncertainty, and inner workings of quantum mechanics resolving its paradoxes such as the measurement problem, multiverses, antimatter, quantum gravity etc. are described in detail with complete mathematical derivations in Chapter 4 thru 7 (see attached Pdf for Contents of the book). Obviously, you have not have had a chance to read these detailed model descriptions and hence, prematurely labeled them too simplistic based on a quick reading the abbreviated (11 pages) paper only.

        Best Regards

        Avtar SinghAttachment #1: Gravitation_Potential_Drivation__Excerpts_from_my_book.pdf

        Hello Hyoyoung Choi,

        Thank you for reading my essay.

        You use the term similar for our ideas, but in the framework of my theory there is no such thing as negative inertial mass: if this would be detected, then my theory would have to be discarded.

        You may be able to develop a mathematically consistent framework in which negative inertial mass is possible. But it raises some serious questions from a physical point of view. For example, if one would apply contact forces to a body with negative inertial mass (assuming there is such a thing in a world where also positive inertial mass exists). If I would push such a body away from me, it would accelerate towards me, or not? Doesn't this sound so implausible that we can dismiss the idea of negative inertial mass? I would be interested in your thoughts about this.

        In your essay you write that "negative mass has repulsive effects towards each other so it cannot form any structure". However, two bodies with negative inertial mass and like electrical charges would attract each other: the Coulomb force on the first charged particle, exerted by the second equally charged particle, is directed away from the second particle, so the first particle would accelerate towards the second because of its negative inertial mass. So why would atomic structures (e.g. hydrogen-like) be impossible in a universe where negative inertial mass exists? Also, objects with negative inertial mass and negative gravitational mass would be attracted gravitationally towards objects with positive gravitational mass. If small particles with negative inertial mass would exist everywhere in the universe, wouldn't we then observe a constant incoming flow of these particles on earth?

        That brings me to another question: how can we in principle detect a particle with negative inertial mass? In other words: how can we prove its existence?

        I myself do not believe in the existence of objects with negative mass, but the thoughts about it are interesting!

        With best regards, Marcoen