Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background by Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta

Dear Hoang cao Hai,

Thank you very much for asking.

And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on.

The Egg or Hen question cannot be answered once again, as there are many interchangeable forms of energy. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. All these forms are dynamically change from one to another depending on situation.

I saw your abstract at:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

You are correct. Nothing is eternal in the universe. Everything is temporary and changes its form dynamically.That includes matter , astronomical bodies, energy etc.

Dear Antony Ryan,

Thank you very much for supporting my arguments --a mere description of material properties does not produce material--. I mean to say, whatever the manner one describes the material with words, mental thoughts, using information technology or computers, his descriptions will not produce material bits or atoms. This explanation can give information describing the material bits only and nothing more.

Here I used words - -IT- - for: - -Information technology- - and - -Bit- - for : --a piece of material or a bit of material- - . . . .

Thank you very much once again for your pleasant comments- - I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable- - . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

I want to bring it to your notice one more thing. How well one does the description of the material mathematically or otherwise, there will be some undefined region like a blackhole which will create problem. All our educated energies and efforts will be lost or wasted in search of such singularities.

I sincerely feel that energies of our educated intelligentsia should be directed towards experimental results. Non-realistic and speculative things are to be avoided. . . . . . . . .

Best

=snp

My dear Antony,

Thank you once again for your excellent words- - - Anyway, as I said - excellent way to approach the contest. Well done! - - -. . .

So you accept there are no bigger blackholes in the sky as observed in astronomy? You mean to say only possibilities left are micro blackholes . . . . ?

Regarding LHC, one put more energy, one will get more particles. One can call them God particles, Micro blackholes etc., depending on the properties observed during their very short lives. Probably core of the SUN have all these particles! ? !

I am more interested in open and live discussions rather than ratings; please do not worry and I do not do such things. . . . Let FQXi bother about such things!

Best

=snp

Thank you very much Peter,

( I am showing your words with - - - =snp)

You took lot of time and wrote a beautiful comment. Started with - - - Excellent essay, pertinent well argued and quantified, - - - Thank you once again.

You are not only a thinker very much knowledgeable something like Encyclopaedia Britannica. You have excellent knowledge in many fields, which is humanly impossible.

- - - Up north' in England there a common saying; -You don't get owt for nowt.- meaning you can't get anything from nothing. There also another one which seems to apply well to many mainstream theorists; "there's nowt so queer as folk". Which I think needs no translation. What are they thinking? It's like some mass hysteria of phase locked group reliance on numbers and beliefs rather than mental powers.

You cut through that very well, also addressing it in their terms, numerically. I also agree, as you may see from my last two essays, that I agree totally with your statement- - -

Thank you once again for such a comment

You are very appropriate to say- - - - - - radiation at first gets partially scattered and partially gets absorbed, later the remaining part only passes through. All these are non-linear processes, and are very difficult to approximate. Incidental energy is always higher, and only a portion of it gets pass through - - - The same thing I also did.

- - - What I'm glad of is that you didn't rely too much on your full 'Dynamic Universe Model' as I believe you may be -throwing out the baby with the bathwater-. (another northern expression). To believe that matter is the only form of energy is wrong and may be a failure of the imagination, indeed against the owt from nowt principle, so what is termed dark energy should not be dismissed as mainstream dismisses things. - - -

- - - Dark enrgy , dark matter are calculation mistakes.

Please see, and discuss on any point, you feel not satisfied. . . .

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/2012/11/fundamental-questions-addressed-by.html

Fundamental questions addressed by Dynamic Universe Model

This Model is new Cosmological model fundamentally and mathematically different from Bigbang, Steady state model etc. I am giving below its Foundational points, Present Day unsolved problems, which can't be solved by other prominent models, New Satellite Mass reduction technology and publications (Four Books published).

Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model:

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

- - - It is also perhaps arrogant to assume we can detect all matter. We cannot of course directly detect plasma or condensed fermion pairs, so that may rightly be called 'dark' matter- - -

You are correct, we are not in the centre of universe. We can not see all matter. What ever our telescopes see is the matter that we can see.

- - - Lastly. I have falsified Cartesian co-ordinates as inadequate for describing the temporal evolution (dynamics) of real non-zero bodies. In fact that is where mainstream science leaves the rails. Points and lines are not real and thus cannot move. I think you'd find your otherwise soundly based model far more powerful if examining and shedding those assumptions- - -

Cartesian co-ordinates did not give any problem. I used them upto 10^55 meters, Two three times larger than our visible universe. I can not recollect the numbers exactly. We can discuss the problems you faced. No problem.

- - - But you did not go into or rely on those so I can't downgrade your essay or it's value. Now if only you could write it in fully "mainstream language" with fewer obvious departures it may then also be taken seriously by those who don't already agree with it!- - - I fight with mainstream philosophy, in many points. You remove NO from the above list of 20 points it will become mainstream, its speculations and imaginations.

Thank you once again and best wishes to you. . .

best

=snp

Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:13 GMT

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1770

After reading Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta's essay (Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background), where I noticed the abstract says - "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

I realised I'd concluded differently in my essay.

I think perhaps reality can be more fundamental than information. At the very least, I would not say that information is likely more fundamental than reality itself, but then that's the beauty of this competition, it encourages shared ideas!

Thank you very much Antony,

Thank you for remembering my essay.

All the reality, all the information about the matter by our 6 senses ( mind is another sense)are stored as stored as pictures in our mind. This picture we will share with other human beings when we live. What we transfer via the communication to others is INFORMATION, It is never a matter. We may hand ove a physical object such as a pen to others. That is only matter. That not information. The description about the pen is information.

Hence by just information we can not create matter.....

I also request you to have a look at Dynamic universe model:

- - - Dark enrgy , dark matter are calculation mistakes.

Please see, and discuss on any point, you feel not satisfied. . . .

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/2012/11/fundamen

tal-questions-addressed-by.html

Fundamental questions addressed by Dynamic Universe Model

This Model is new Cosmological model fundamentally and mathematically different from Bigbang, Steady state model etc. I am giving below its Foundational points, Present Day unsolved problems, which can't be solved by other prominent models, New Satellite Mass reduction technology and publications (Four Books published).

Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model:

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

best

=snp.gupta@gmail.com

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 17:03 GMT

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1820

Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

Thanks for your post. Your essay sounds interesting to me, as I think we'll see eye to eye on some fundamental issues. I hope you do enjoy my essay when you read it!

There was one particular statement you made that raised a red flag for me though. You wrote "The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule", and really I couldn't disagree with that more. Out of all the areas of physics, I think cosmology is the one that's done the best to maintain a grasp on reality. I believe this is why, despite being more inclined towards philosophy, as my main interest lies in searching for a clearer and more realistic understanding of nature, I persevered through the "shut up and calculate!/purely hypothetical mathematical derivations leading to descriptions of observable events are all that matter/etc." attitude in modern physics, to a PhD in cosmology.

Don't get me wrong: I do think the model is fundamentally flawed, and people are reading too much into the measured parameters; but modellers in every science are prone to doing that, and I think with cosmology the heart's in the right place. Cosmology aims to describe the large-scale structure of our Universe; to realistically account for the redshifts, etc., of distant galaxies that we believe really exist, despite the fact that we're only observing images of them that were shone into space millions of years ago---i.e., so we can't really verify that they're actually there "now", in the cosmological sense of "now".

I think the dividing line in this contest is between people who strive for a sensible, realistic, and self-consistent description of nature that would agree with all observations we can make, and those who care more to push the limits of nonsense, to derive a theory of reality that's not inconsistent--i.e. is technically compatible--with observation, despite possibly being nothing like experience. Personally, I'm in the former camp, and while I can appreciate to some extent the sense of scepticism that motivates the latter, I think it's been more damaging than anything, and really defeats the purpose of science and philosophy.

The best example I know of is the Macheo-Leibnizian stance that a Universal frame of rest isn't observable, and is therefore to be rejected from the point of view of relativity. This supports the Einsteinian stance on the relativity of simultaneity, and consequently the description of reality as a block universe in which time doesn't really flow. According to the sceptical stance, this isn't strictly inconsistent with experience, and we have no way of proving that all of eternity isn't real as what we think of in our minds as now, right now, each and every second.

As I argued in this essay, however, this has often led to a very inconsistent way of thinking, in which all of eternity is actually thought of as existing--i.e. another temporal dimension is snuck into the mix--and the whole thing becomes a muddled mess with even more structure, which is even further from being scientifically defendable than the one bit of structure--the ultimate cosmic rest-frame--that they wanted to deny at the outset. In short, those who argue in this way can't even get their story straight, but that's generally okay by them because it's all a bunch of abstract unobservable gibberish, which they think is a good thing because they anyhow take quantum physics to support the idea that reality really is a bunch of nonsense. In short, its stances like the one that there is no cosmic rest-frame, that lead physicists into rabbit holes where they're happy to play around with math and make a complete mess of things and deny the notion that reality could even possibly make sense.

But then, as I argued in my previous essay, the Macheo-Leibnizian stance is actually DEAD WRONG! For the past 80 years we've reasoned from the cosmological data that there is actually a cosmic frame of rest--an absolute rest-frame--and the CMBR provides unprecedented scientific evidence that this is so. The observation of a cosmic rest-frame more than motivates the idea that only the three-dimensional Universe exists, and therefore time actually passes, etc., and the events that occur in the Universe as it exists make up the space-time map of all observables, which we describe with four-dimensional physics.

Sorry if this sounds like I've gotten my back up. I really don't agree with a lot of what cosmology is supposed to have established. But I do think cosmologists have done a better job of *striving* for a realistic and sensible theory than physicists in other areas. Mis-attributing the meaning of measured parameters isn't the same as pushing abstract magic as something better than a sensible description. I still think cosmology is, at its heart, a realist's theory.

Daryl

Dear Datyl,

Thank you very much for an informative post.

I say Thank God , I could provoke anger in some one at least.!!!

I will answer all your questions, and please read the following in this post...

You remove all the "NO"s you will get main stream cosmology. If have any differences on any point we can have eye to eye.

after this FQXi also you can contact me by my id snp.gupta@gmail.com

- - - Dark enrgy , dark matter are calculation mistakes that rules to start with,What do you say?????

Please see, and discuss on any point, you feel not satisfied. . . .

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/2012/11/fundamen

tal-questions-addressed-by.html

Fundamental questions addressed by Dynamic Universe Model

This Model is new Cosmological model fundamentally and mathematically different from Bigbang, Steady state model etc. I am giving below its Foundational points, Present Day unsolved problems, which can't be solved by other prominent models, New Satellite Mass reduction technology and publications (Four Books published).

Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model:

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Author Daryl Janzen wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 20:34 GMT

Dear Eckard,

Following up on my first response to your comment on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 04:41 GMT

I thought you might be interested to discuss the following: consider a situation in which two gunslingers about to duel with laser pistols stand at either end of a train and there's some gunpowder at the middle that gets lit by a referee. Someone else watches the whole thing from a field outside, and from his perspective the train is moving to the right.

Do the gunslingers see the signal at the same time, or not? According to which perspective? If no, is it still a fair fight (assuming each stands his ground)? How do you reconcile this with there being one common time?

Cheers,

Daryl

Dear Daryl,

Did you get solution to the above problem?

Please try Dynamic Universe Model with some numerical values, give initial values of velocities, take gravitation into consideration( because you can not experiment in ISOLATION). complete your numerical experiment.

later try changing values of masses and initial values of velocities....

Calculate with different setups and compare your results, if you have done a physical experiment.

I sincerely feel it is better to do experiment physically, or numerically instead of breaking your head on just logic. This way you will solve your problem faster.....

Best

=snp

Dear all,

Dynamic universe model can solve a number of problems...

see

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in

or contact me

snp.gupta@gmail.com