The Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter as the Source of New Ideas by Sergey G Fedosin

Dear Sergey Fedosin,

I have responded to your comment under my essay but just had to make a mention here (reading your Bio) that we may have missed each other at Penn State by just a few of years. I was there as late as 1974 as a graduate student in the Mathematics Department but had many many good friends in the Physics Department at the time. A nice coincidence indeed. Those were the days ... studying and living in Happy Valley!

Your essay is very interesting and raises many new ideas and questions. It will take several readings by me to fully appreciate all the important details you include in it, but some questions quickly pop in my mind. How does this Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter relate to entropy? And could each scale in the hierarchy be used as a frame of reference to the scale above it? And wont this hierarchy of scale ultimately terminate at the most fundamental level (empty space?), which defines "being in the Universe'? So at this level, all reference has to be self-reference? Wouldn't this then explain CSL through 'empty space' (ie ether) since this will require all measurement of the speed of propagation of light to be 'local' to the 'ether'?

All the best,

Constantinos

Dear Sergey!

I read with great interest your deep and insightful essays. You, as an independent researcher thought through anew vertical and horizontal world. Your findings once again confirm that, to overcome "troubles in physics" needs a new conceptual model of the world. Science, including fundamental physics is on the threshold of a new conceptual revolution. Especially important as search a single source, the meeting point of knowledge and faith. Especially interested in your research on the nature of ball lightning. I appreciated the essay their maximum high. Good luck in the contest FQXi! I hope you agree with me, FQXi implementing projects relevant for the Science!

Sincerely, Vladimir

Dear Sergey G Fedosin,

thank you for your nice calculation of my lousy ratings!

I just like to reply here with my sincere congratulations to your excellent article about the

Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter where "all living beings fit into five levels of matter, at the sixth level there are communities of living organisms and biocoenoses."

In fact one may arrange them all in the higherdimensional discrete space modell boroughed from quasicrystallography which I roughly described in my ROMANCE with many Dimensions.

(I wished ony could collaborate on the vizulalisation...)

With very best wishes to you!

Renate

Dear Sergey

Thank you for reading my essay, as I did yours. May I just concentrate on one point you make - that there is a strong gravitational constant at small scales G_small> G where G is the macroscopic constant measured on the earth's surface involving masses much larger than atomic particles.

In Section 2.9 of my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory upon which I based my fqxi essay, I speculated that at the scale of the universal lattice of nodes (ether nodes in my theory) G can be larger:

"Another explanation for the low value of G known today might is that relatively massive macroscopic systems are now typically used to measure G. A single node is immediately surrounded by just 12 other nodes in an FCC lattice. Currently a spherically homogeneous mass is assumed in deducing G from the measured gravitational forces between two spheres. The geometrical differences between the two models should be studied to calculate, measure or deduce the true value of G on the scale of two adjacent nodes.

Revising the value of G of would increase the value of the smallest distance assumed in nature, the Planck Length, 4.05096x10-35 m. which must equal do the distance between nodes in the lattice. This of course does not imply that do equals the present value of the Planck length."

Your essay of course is much more quantitative.

Good luck to you.

Vladimir

Dear Sergey,

I'll repost here my reply to your explanation of rating ranking changes...

I do have an aversion to equations, especially since retiring. If I understand, though, if a new rating is is made for an essay that is slightly lower than the existing average rating for that essay, the new average rating will be reduced. Is that correct?

There may be another consideration in the ranking of essays by rating: if an essay's rating was tied or very close to many other essays, even a slight reduction in rating could significantly reduce an essay's position withing the rating ordered list. In that case a single rating (even one that is not so 'bad') could produce a large change in the essay rankings.

Thanks very much for explaining. Once I began watching the rankings I noticed in particular that my essay repeatedly jumped up & down between ~50 & 100 in very wild and dramatic swings. It's now settled down to something >100. Oh well, I never hoped to be a finalist anyway and don't have any professional aspirations.

Sergey, I sincerely apologize if I (and others) unfairly accused you of making excessively low ratings. Please consider that your 'rating announcement' postings called people's attention to whatever (dramatic) change was produced. At any rate, I'll now consider that you must have given me a fair and deserved rating.

Sorry for jumping to any eroneous conclusions, Jim

Dear Sergey,

I suspect there's not much that FQXi could do to change things in this contest, unless they could possibly identify your ratings and retract them. Again, watching the rankings, I suspect there are others who did not really understand the effect their ratings would have. I'll see what I can suggest to the administrator. I imagine they (I think it's more like 'he') are quite busy at this time - perhaps they'll respond soon. Thanks very much for you efforts in this regard!

Sincerely, Jim

Hi Sergey,

There are guys who have written very nice words prasing other peoples essays, and hinted at deals (mutual high scores) "I scratch your back and you scratch mine". Then there are Community members who have access tothe FQXi main forum where their essays are highlighted. These two groups have not only have high averages a, they have high aggregates A and high number of ratings N. So occasional low rating (say 2 points) has only a very marginal effect of their average. But for those who have left things open for impartial rating, and who have a low number N, a low increment (say 2) to the aggregate has disastrous results.

A/N = a

(A + 2)/(N +1) = a' a' becomes very much lower than a.

I had already challenged an unscupulous canvasser of high scores and in retailiation my position had falllen significantly (just two days back)from about 120th to 160th. Now after your rating it went down about another 40 positions.

By your rating it is those who have already in a position of unfair advantage that gained. These are 'unintended consequences'. I know you did not mean them.

Best regards,

Viraj

Dear Sergey:

Thanks for your comments on my paper - -" From Absurd to Elegant Universe".

I have posted a response to your kind comments - please read.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

To All:

My main concern about the ratings is the apparent subjectivity due to a lack of clear and objective criteria for the ratings as expressed in my posting (below) under my paper --" From Absurd to Elegant Universe".

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

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, end 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 Sergey,

A Self-Creating Universe (SCU) doesn't exist as a whole, as 'seen' from without, so to say, so we cannot even ask, from the outside, whether it has a border.

According to the uncertainty principle, a particle of an infinitesimal energy has an infinite lifetime: as its position in space and hence in time is completely indefinite as long as its energy is infinitesimal, we can say that it always has existed and always will exist, though as the effects of its existence then are infinitesimal, we can as well say that it doesn't really exist. If in a SCU the mass of particles is as much the product as the source of the force between them so is a relative quantity, varying depending on their distance and motion, and they evolve in a trial-and-error process to an ever-increasing energy (which they do by contracting), but start out with an infinitesimal energy, then they have no sharp birth date so to speak, so their universe, their interaction horizon has no sharp border either.

If the mass of the objects within its universe also depends on the mass of the observing particle, the force it feels from and exerts upon such objects, then according to the particle, its universe starts to exist as it starts to exist itself, that is, as it starts to interact.

So whereas in a Big Bang Universe all particles have been created at the same time, in a SCU particles keep creating each other everywhere, always, so while a BBU has a beginning as a whole and hence a border, a SCU, as seen from within, has no border which is the same for all observers: a SCU looks, is different to different observers.

As any particle is at the center of its own interaction horizon, its own universe, two particles don't live in the exact same universe unless they are ate the exact same spacetime point: the farther they are apart, the less their universes overlap, the less what happens within the interaction horizon (which obviously has no sharp border) of one particle is related to what happens within the universe of the other.

Anton

Dear Sergey,

Thanks for your response and references. A lingering curiosity I have with every theory - what in your theory determines "being in the Universe"? And don't you agree this is a fundamental question that every theory must answer? As this determines 'physical existence'. As compared to 'mathematical existence' which never needs to be 'real'.

Constantinos