• [deleted]

  • Post #21

Life is not possible without fundamentally stabilized distance in/of space.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #22

Armin,

It is wonderful when conflicting essays stimulate debate. My essay shows that there is a previously unknown close relationship between the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force when the forces between two charged particles are analyzed in a way that emphases the wave properties of the particles. The only difference in the gravitational and electrostatic force equations is a square term. (It is necessary to read my essay to understand this point.)

There are two reasons that this conflicts with your essay. 1) I am actually proposing that this square relationship is a step towards unifying gravity with the other forces and 2) this mathematical relationship emerged as a prediction from the assumption that all particles, fields and forces are made of the single building block of 4 dimensional spacetime. Therefore the spacetime model assumed is the single component of everything in the universe (the basis of a theory of everything).

Thus far I have emphasized differences between out essays. However, there are also points of agreement and points that must be pondered further. Thank you for a stimulating essay.

    Hello Armin,

    You know I think that the theory of everything is found in all humility of course.

    Could you tell me please how I can do to go in USA. I d like to go in an university of New York or in California.I will publish my works with this university.I need to learn more also, I need good courses in engeniering and technology.I have several innovant inventions also.

    I have still so many things to do. I am frustrated to be at home. I have contacted Princeton. But my pc is bizare. You know Armin, I need to share my works to the world with the good team. I know that it is an improtant discovery. Even revolutionary in all centers of interest. The fact that the universe is a sphere and the elementary particles also is an important answer to many things! My equations are relevant also. I have so many things to publish, to do,...

    I really need help you know. I am a little lost me with all that. I need help. I need to build the team, I need to evolve.....Alone it is not possible.

    Regards

    Hi Armin:

    I enjoyed reading your well-written paper. Some comments and what is missing are discussed below.

    Your paper makes a strong and convincing argument that our current distinct fundamental theories (GR and QM) of nature already have mutually exclusive domains of validity. You also suggest that the concept of mass may not have the same meaning in two theories, because gravity may be an emergent rather than associated phenomenon.

    It is interesting to note that in my paper - -" From Absurd to Elegant Universe", it is shown that the exclusive domain between GR and QM is nothing but an artifact of the missing physics of the well-known spontaneous decay/birth of mass particles. A Gravity Nullification Model is developed to describe this missing physics. When this missing physics is combined with relativity, the inner workings of QM are explained in a deterministic manner eliminating current singularities as well as paradoxes and inconsistencies between the two theories. The new proposed theory is shown to predict the observed behavior of the universe as well as the classic behavior.

    Even if a Meta-theory consisting of GR and QM with their individual domains of validity is accepted, such a Meta-theory would not be able to explain 96% (dark energy and dark matter) of the universe because of the missing physics of the spontaneous mass-energy conversion to bridge the individual domains.

    I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper.

    Best Regards

    Avtar Singh

      Armin

      As I've come to expect this was an excellently written and argued essay, covering some very important issues. I agree with most of your proposals, but do still cling on to the fundamental belief that nature IS logical and comprehensible to intelligent creatures, without 'divisions'. When we will become intelligent enough to comprehend it is the only question.

      Also that our antropocentricity is also one of the main factors preventing this.

      I hope you'll read and comment on and score my essay as I think I show, in a readable way if dense, that we do have indentifiable room for improvement in our kinetic thinking methods (and math) which may remove the mutual exclusivity of divisions of physics, but utilise it in inertial frames with a quantum mechanism.

      Well done. and best of luck.

      Peter

        Hi Armin,

        On turning to page 3 to finish the quote from Wald on quantum gravity I was taken by the simplicity of his proposition, a state of matter that could exist with 50 percent probablility in two regions, and its relevance to a problem I have been considering relating to potential energy we discussed last year. After that I was a captive audience, and was not disappointed to ultimately find an explanation for the difficulties Wald perceived.

        Briefly, I consider that two bodies reduce each other's potential energy so that the amount of potential energy involved is twice the binding energy. This can be solved using the principle put forward in my essay. But then there would be unaccounted energy equal to the binding energy. If the potential energy involved was in a state similar to Wald's example, that difficulty would be removed. The idea of mutual effect naturally suggests Mach's principle.

        I also enjoyed your video presentation. I found the short time spent very worthwhile.

        I am motivated to re-reread your dimensional theory and try to get a grasp on the details of the phase term, and the actualization condition.

        Your essay is a gentle readable introduction to a revolutionary idea which questions foundational assumptions in a fundamental way.

        Colin

          Hi, Steve!

          By the way, I was saddened to read about your piano... Ironically enough, my piano may flood in the next few hours because of a hurricane, but there are lots of other places where I can play. Anyway, I imagine Armin doesn't want his thread to degenerate into a discussion of music and misfortune, but I was interested to see a couple of fellow composers here... I have 200 piano compositions but most are not recorded and no youtube channel. I enjoyed listening to Armin's, though. Do you have an essay here? Take care,

          Ben

          Hi Armin,

          I really struggled through your essay. You never gave me time to pause and think. A paragraph is a good point to pause and your page long paragraphs make heavy reading, I hope others are not put off because of this.

          I fully agree with you; who ever thinks that by unifying two possible incomplete and/or faulty theories to arrive at a theory of everything is grossly mistaken. I rest my statement, by just one example, on the fact that we have no idea of the workings of an accretion disk and it's observed jets in terms of accepted mainstream theory. 聽However, 聽once we have correct theories in place our little corner should be able to explain the diversity of the universe with just one base theory.

          Regards and good luck

          Anton @ ( 聽.../topic/1458 聽)

            Dear Armin,

            it's a pleasure to read your essay, though it is not very easy task (for me). Very well argued and with conviencing historical perspective. I have, however, some thoughts coming to mind during the reading: one can have different physical domains though, still, mathematics bridges them; otherwise, you refer to some kind of irrationality, but I do not think so. If mathematical description is possible, what would be the relation between 'instantonuous' pictures (labeled by the additional dimension) and the superposed (non-actual) entity. Should it be understood as the relation between eigenvalues and the self-adjoint operator with these eigenvalues? Otherwise, we lose quantumness, and are left with just 'set of pictures'. There are also some other things which are interesting to me, but maybe later.

            Again, congratulation for your work, and best wishes,

            Jerzy

              5 days later

              Dear Armin, I reacted on your constructive and critical post on my thread. Thank you for your time and effort, for easy find I'll give you the the link

              I am still awaiting your answers of my post of 25 august, but take your time I saw on the net that you are very busy with video's and so on, sorry but here in the country of France I have only very slow internet so that viewing a video is not a pleasant thing.

              best regards

              Wilhelmus

                Hi Joe,

                I am honestly not sure if you are asking me in jest or if you are serious, but I will give you a serious reply: I think we have to assume certain very basic facts about our existence simply as a given in order to make sense out of our reality. One of these that I take as a given that in a normal state of mind my sense do not deceive me. Since my sense experience tells me that there are three dimensions of space and I know of no evidence to the contrary, this is sufficient for me to accept this as a basic part of reality.

                take care,

                Armin

                Hi Ben,

                Wow, I hope your piano (and the rest of your stuff) did not suffer any damage. Also, is any of your music available to listen to anywhere?

                I have noticed that many people with a predilection for math/physics are also musically talented. There should be a record label just for people like us. It could be called quantum music or something like that. Ha!

                Armin

                Hi john,

                I briefly read your essay but need to reread it and do the calculations myself because some of the relations, and especially the square force equation, are just too unexpected to me. I will let you know when I do so,

                Thanks,

                Armin

                Hi Avtar,

                I did ask you some questions on your paper, which you were kind of enough to answer. As regards the relationship of the metatheor to dark matter and dark energy, I suspect that you may have missed the appendix of my paper, in which I present a guess, based on the overall pattern of how our theories of nature fit the schema, that these may be manifestations of higher-dimensional events/objects observable to us.

                Thank you for your comments,

                Armin

                Hi Peter,

                Thank you for your comments. I must admit your comment "I agree with most of your proposals, but do still cling on to the fundamental belief that nature IS logical and comprehensible to intelligent creatures, without 'divisions'" puzzles me a little.

                Surely you recognize that there are already 'divisions' in the domains of validity of any area of human endeavor, be they the arts, sciences, mathematics etc.? The 'division' I propose is modeled after one that is already an integral feature of Euclidean Geometry, so I'm not sure why you find that it should be avoided. But it doesn't matter because my framework makes a definite prediction: If we fail to find superposed gravity fields for objects in a quantum superposition, as predicted, we have no choice but to go with a 'division'. I see no other way to save the internal consistency of our description of nature under that circumstance.

                Thanks again,

                Armin

                Dear Colin,

                Thank you for so much for your comments. I have the impression that you have obtained a good idea about what my theory, given that you read the original paper, my essay paper and watched the talk. I find it very gratifying that someone has understood the main points of my idea. I don't nearly care as much about whether one agrees or disagrees with my ideas(though in the latter case I would care to know the reasons for disagreement) as I do about just being understood.

                thank you, Colin, and if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

                Hi Anton,

                thank you for your useful criticism. The problem you point out may be partly due to the font style and the fact that some paragraphs just happened to end at the end of the line. Neverteless, it is important for me to take into account just how easily my papers can be read and I thank you for sharing your perspective.

                My knowledge of accretion disks is too little to be able to usefully comment on your second paragraph.

                thanks once more,

                Armin

                Hi Jerzy,

                Thank you for your feedback. Would you care to elaborate why you did not find it a very easy task to read my essay? Was this also because of overly long paragraphs? Having seen some of your work I suspect that instead it may be that my paper is not nearly as mathematical and precise in the expression of some of the core concepts as one would expect of a mathematical paper. But I'm not sure, and your feedback would certainly help me improve my writing style.

                I completely agree that mathematics bridges the separate domains, just as the concept of area does not suddenly become meaningless in three-space. It is just the entities that are the subject of the theory and described by it which are confined to those domains.

                As for your question about the relationship between the pictures, I take it that you are asking me about the relationship between the object in fig. 3 and that in fig.4 and how it relates to quantum theory. I think you understand the analogy correctly: fig. 3 is an analogy for a an eigenstate immediately after it has been 'measured' and fig. 4 is an analogy for the superposition state just before the measurement (also fig.5 which is an analogy for the 2-state system). the attribution of an interval along z is an analogy for a 'measurement'. note that the analogy can even to a limited extent accommodate a change in basis: Instead of 1 unit length along z, we could chose 2 or n unit length to attribute to the column, in which case fig. 4 would turn into a superposition of an infinite number of objects with unit width and depth but n-unit height.

                The purpose of these pictures and analogies is just to help develop intuition for the basic idea, which is simply that an object (really a worldline) in areatime manifests itself to spacetime observers as a superposition of spacetime worldlines which however do not have the same quality of existence as the worldlines of spacetime objects., and that a 'measurement' is what happens when the superposition of worldlines collapses to just one actual one.

                I hope I was able to answer your questions. if you have more feel free to let me know.

                take care,

                Armin

                Hi Wilhelmus,

                My posting on your thread was the response to your august 25th post, but I will shortly post something in addition.

                Take care,

                Armin