@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]

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]

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]

    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]

    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]

      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

      Dear Daniel,

      Having looked at your essay, I see that we share the idea that gravitation can be repulsive and that space is not fundamentally continuous. Our views on what underlies all that are, however, radically different. I do not believe that space is continuous, but neither do I believe that it is discrete. In my upcoming postdoc project I intend to develop the (mathematical) notion of a semi-continuum: this is a (semi-topologiocal) space that at macroscopic space has some properties of a continuum, but the continuum structure breaks down at small scale (e.g. at Planck level).

      I have some questions about your claim that your system rests on only two axioms from which everything else follows. I will focus at three things, one logics-related, one mathematics-related, and one physics-related:

      1) The definition on page 1 of the notion "fundamental" is a so-called if-statement, that is, a statement of the form

      [math]a \leftarrow b[/math]

      This has a consequence: if an object is fundamental, then it does not follow from the definition that it is invariant.

      The point is, namely, that the reasoning

      [math]a \leftarrow b, \ a \ \vdash \ b[/math]

      is known to be not logically valid.

      On page 2 you write that "Per our definition of what is fundamental, preons(-) and preons() never change." This statement is, thus, incorrect from the point of view of formal logics: with your definition, something can be fundamental but not invariant. Did you perhaps have an if-and-only-if-statement in mind when you formulated your definition of the concept "fundamental"?

      2) Furthermore, your axiom about the discreteness of space is merely about the qualitative composition of your quantum-geometrical space: apart from the fact that there is no definition of the concept "distance", by no means it follows directly from this axiom that there is a smallest possible distance, as you claim on page 1 just below the axiom. The axiom does not exclude that there are infinitely many preons(-) located at different distances from each other: there might be a positive distance between any two preons(-), but a smallest possible distance has not necessarily to exist. That is to say: isn't the statement that there is a smallest possible distance an extra assumption (axiom) in your theory?

      3) In your axiom of the discreteness of space, you mention that there is a repulsive force between preons(-). Yet on page 2 you write that the preons(-) are static: they don't move. Apart from the fact that the notion "force" is not defined in your framework, the question rises: how does the repulsive force manifests itself? How can we prove that it exists at all?

      I would appreciate it if you could elaborate specifically on these three topics.

      With best regards, Marcoen

      Dear Avatar,

      You are correct in your assessment that a necessary condition for a claim of correctness of the EPT is that the empirical data about the expansion of the universe have to be explained on the basis of the EPT. This will be the topic of my postdoc research project.

      Then about your formula. In your essay, the terms m and m* in equation (5) are not defined. You refer to figure 2, but - with all due respect - a figure is an illustration, not a definition. But alas, let us consider this issue solved by your additional information. Another question then arises, however. In the document that was attached to your last post, the factor r in formula (5.14) is the distance between two separated masses M and m. But in figure 2 in your essay, m and m* seem to be adjacent, not separated. Isn't the distance r between them then not 0, as in r = 0? In other words: how do you get from that equation (5.14) to equation (5) in your essay? Is in both cases the interpretation of r the same? I hope you can elaborate on this.

      With best regards, Marcoen

      Dear Marcoen,

      Thank you for your reply.

      I am sorry. I apologize for my poor English.

      =========

      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.

      =========

      For gravity, there is the influence of attractive force between objects with the same signs, but it does not come into existence, when applying this to electromagnetic force as it is. Charges with the same signs exchange repulsive force with each other, although this phenomenon is very weird, considering the case of gravity.

      Most of people have strong aversion of negative mass, but no law of physics says there is only positive mass in nature.

      I think that implausible phenomena in nature are phenomena against physical laws such as the law of conservation of energy or momentum, not our thoughts.

      We are necessary to watch carefully the fact that sort of physical laws such as law of energy conservation or law of conservation of momentum do not deny negative mass.

      ========

      In your essay you write that "negative mass has repulsive effects towards each other so it cannot form any structure". ~

      ========

      As examined the equation of motion for negative mass, it is marked in form of F = -ma(m > 0), when attraction is applied together with nuclear force(when usually nuclear force is attraction, but has the form of repulsive core), and assuming nuclear force has the form of F = -Q(r) r^, Q(r) is the function of distance r, thus nuclear force is in the form of attraction worked in the direction of - r^. Because they form a binding structure together, regardless of the form of force~

      Here, for the force worked on negative mass m,

      F = - ma = - Q(r) r^

      a = (Q(r)/m) r^

      The term of acceleration is positive, so the effect of increasing distance r, namely repulsive effect appears. This means that negative mass hard to form the structure like atom(massive nucleon, baryon, particle consists of multi elementary particle), because nuclear force has not binding negative mass when it is applied to negative mass. Also, gravity has not binding negative mass (repulsive).

      We have to open up a lot of possibilities about negative mass(energy) and also, consider the possibility that negative mass does not make electromagnetic interaction.

      In a particular case, negative mass can form the structure such as atoms, but in general, it seems it is difficult for it to form a large-scale structure like stars or galaxies.

      =========

      If small particles with negative inertial mass would exist everywhere in the universe, would not we then observe a constant incoming flow of these particles on earth?

      =========

      In my article,

      If negative mass and positive mass were came into being together at the beginning of universe, since positive mass has attractive effects with each other, so it forms stars and galaxy. In addition, negative mass has repulsive effects towards each other so it cannot form any structure and may spread out almost uniformly across the whole area of universe.

      Therefore, positive masses and negative masses are completely offset in the whole universe, but there is a local area where positive masses exist more than negative masses.

      Owing to the effect of negative mass and positive mass, negative mass disappears near massive positive mass structures (such as the galaxy and galaxy clusters, etc.) after meeting positive mass. However, negative mass, which came into existence at the beginning of universe, can still exist in a vacuum state outside of general galaxy.

      The current structure of the galaxy is a structure that survived in the pair-annihilation of positive mass and negative mass and, since negative mass existed outside of this galaxy structure, therefore it has not been observed at the Earth.

      ========

      how can we in principle detect a particle with negative inertial mass? In other words: how can we prove its existence?

      ========

      1. Theoretical calculation

      After making new Friedmann eq., on the assumption that negative mass and positive mass coexist, we have to explain dark matters and dark energy using it, predict new phenomena and compare them with one another.

      Dark matter and dark energy come from one origin!

      "Pair creation model of negative mass(energy) and positive mass(energy)" insists that dark matter is not different from dark energy each other, dark matter is the effect of centripetal force by negative mass out of galaxy, and dark energy is that positive gravitational potential term in total potential energy.

      "Pair creation model of negative mass and positive mass" insists that dark energy is a gravitational potential energy(with positive value) between negative mass and positive mass.

      As a matter of fact, through numerical calculation using a computer, the distribution having a similar value to the predicted rate of WMAP was revealed.( Refer to 6~7P)

      We get a result at almost zero energy state.

      (Zero rest mass energy)

      Matter (U_posiposi) : -83.2 (Ratio:1)

      Dark Matter (U_neganega) : -459.6 (Ratio:5.52)

      Dark Energy (U_negaposi) : 1286.9 (Ratio : 15.46)

      2. Computer simulation

      1) Big bang simulation

      We set up each model from the birth of universe to the present, and calculated GPE using computer simulation in each level.

      As a result, we could verify that "pair creation model of negative mass and positive mass" explains inflation of the early universe and decelerating expansion, and present accelerating expansion in time series.

      This simulation is showing incredible results.

      It not only explains the total energy of the universe, flatness, and the essence (Total zero energy, pair creation of negative energy and positive energy) of the process of birth of the universe, but it explains inflation, decelerating expansion in the early stage, accelerating expansion(dark energy) in the late stage, and dark matter through the only term, negative energy. Moreover, this negative energy is one that is essentially required by the law of energy conservation.

      - The Change of Gravitational Potential Energy and Dark Energy in the Zero Energy Universe :

      http://vixra.org/abs/1110.0019

      - Dark energy - Accelerating expansion of distant galaxy due to negative mass :

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71nMvwUhHwE

      - Inflation, accelerating expansion with pair creation of negative and positive mass :

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRUqQM2FfNU

      Therefore, a larger-scale, precise experiment is needed.

      2) Bullet cluster simulation

      Have a nice day!

      ---Hyoyoung Choi

      p.s.: Your question contains a universal question about negative mass. Therefore, I would like to leave the opinions that I exchanged with you in the comment box of my article, unless you oppose it.