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

      Dear SNP,

      interesting collection of experimental results. I agree that every theory must be based on experiments. Reeality is much more important.

      All the best for you

      Good luck for the contest

      Torsten

        Dear SNP,

        You say that "it" cannot be created or changed by "bit".

        How would you explain, then, the famous entanglement process, where "its" can be changed without the *direct* involvement of any other "its'?

          Dear SNP,

          I enjoyed reading your essay and also went to your website - you have invested a tremendous amount of work in your ideas. In your N-body model do you mean to describe all the universal effects of particle physics, cosmology and things like radiation - or is it just for a Newtonian treatment of a limited problem in dynamics?

          Concerning your present essay you obviously know what you are doing - I will only ask one technical detail: In your analysis of radiation from a disc or spherical source don't you need to account for the effects of diffraction? Your analysis treats geometrical rays but the results may be affected one way or another with diffraction included. (If the ratio between the radius and the wavelength is very small diffraction will be minimal.)

          I wish you all the very best in your work and in the contest

          Vladimir

            Dear SNP

            In your abstract you start with "'Material objects are more fundamental' is being proposed in this paper; or in other words 'IT from Bit' is true."

            Oops. The first clause implies "Bit from It", not the other way around. (The mistake is repeated in your conclusion.)But that I presume is a small lapse; the rest of your essay makes it clear which one you meant.

            Your second sentence states "It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material." This depends on how you define "mental experiment", and according to many definitions, it is not "well known". This is, in fact, one of the ways to ask the question "it from bit?", and hence is the very point of this contest. Your article then argues for a conclusion by assuming that conclusion at the very start. (You repeat this style in your final summary.)

            In your first paragraph you state the creation ex nihilo to be a stock item in cosmology. However, no present physical theory about the Big Bang every ventures into more than speculation (e.g., collisions between branes) about the instance of the Big Bang itself, but only refers to the time as close to immediately after it as one can extrapolate to.

            You spend the bulk of the essay developing your "Vakradiation" theory, and giving instances how the uniformity of the CMB fits into it, using data from galaxy and interstellar dust observations. To be able to further defend your theory, you would also have to account for the new data (2013) from the Planck satellite which show a region which does not fit into this uniformity (but of course only confirmed when the full data set will be available in 2014). In any case, such a defense in the style which you are presenting it might belong in a professional journal, but one of the stipulations of this contest was that it should be easily readable by a person outside of the field. The middle part of your essay does not fit this criterion, in my opinion.

            In your essay you mention the Dynamic Universe Model as an aside; in your replies to posts you frequently refer back to this theory. I noted in your references that you refer to your own articles on this theory. May I assume that this is the same theory which is outlined by the article, which predates your works, to be found at http://www.sci.fi/~suntola/DU_library/2007_Introduction_to_DU.pdf ?

            As you say, this theory has a lot of potential. However, it concentrates primarily on trying to reformulate general relativity (if I am reading it correctly). Wheeler's assertion was a bold one because of the difficulties presented by quantum phenomena and theory, not because of general relativity. Hence I am not sure that the Dynamic Universe Model is entirely relevant to this debate.

            In any case your essay has prompted some lively discussion, which is good. Good luck in your further research.

            David

              Dear Satyavarapu

              Thank you for presenting your nice essay. You say a few words about Dynamic Universe Model, and you say it properly. Your explanation of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is resonable.

              Regards

              Ziki

                Thank you Maluga,

                Thank you for your nice complements,,, That's true,"every theory must be based on experiments. Reeality is much more important."

                Best wishes to you also

                =snp

                Dear Goldfarb

                I mean to say, whatever the manner one describes the material or matter with words, mental thoughts, using information technology or computers, his descriptions will not produce matar 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- - . . . .

                ----

                Can you please explain in some other words**** the famous entanglement process, where "its" can be changed without the *direct* involvement of any other "its"*****

                What is the entanglement?

                Best

                =snp

                Dear Vladimir,

                Thank you for your blessing""""" I enjoyed reading your essay and also went to your website - you have invested a tremendous amount of work in your ideas."""""

                Your question""""" In your N-body model do you mean to describe all the universal effects of particle physics, cosmology and things like radiation - or is it just for a Newtonian treatment of a limited problem in dynamics? """""

                Many problems I tried to solve using Dynamic Universe Model, in Cosmology, Newtonian Physics, Unsolved Solar system problems, VLBI etc.

                You may try other problems and tell me your results...

                It is not limited to "Newtonian treatment of a limited problem in dynamics"

                And your another question""""" Concerning your present essay you obviously know what you are doing - I will only ask one technical detail: In your analysis of radiation from a disc or spherical source don't you need to account for the effects of diffraction? Your analysis treats geometrical rays but the results may be affected one way or another with diffraction included. (If the ratio between the radius and the wavelength is very small diffraction will be minimal.)"""""

                Thank you once again for such good question. Dish size( Diameter) can be 0.2 to 50 Metres. I don't think your limitation will be applicable here. This diffraction will cause some more averaging effect on the measurement of radiation. What do you say.

                Best

                =snp

                Thank you once again Ziki,

                Thank you for your appreciation...

                A few words about Dynamic Universe Model..............

                Please have a look at:

                http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in

                Dynamic Universe Model of Cosmology is a singularity free N-body solution. It uses Newton's law of Gravitation without any modification. The initial coordinates of each mass with their initial velocities are to be given as input. The theoretical physics of the model given herein, finds the coordinates, velocities and accelerations of each mass UNIQUELY after every time-step. Here the solutions are based on tensors instead of usual differential and integral equations. This solutions are stable; they don't diverge. There are no singularities or dividing-by-zero errors with these equations. With this model it was found , with uniform mass distribution in space, that masses will colloid but no singularities will result. With non-uniform mass densities, the masses trend to rotate about each other after some time but then they don't colloid. SITA (Simulation of Inter-intra-Galaxy Tautness and Attraction forces) is a simple computer implementable solution of Dynamic Universe Model and other solutions were possible. An arbitrary number of 133 masses were taken in SITA simulations using the same framework in solving various problems.

                The equations are based upon Euclidian space, real number based coordinate axes, no space-time continuum, non-uniform mass distribution, no imaginary dimensions, and an Engineering style of physics are its basis. This SITA simulation is a calculation method using a mathematical framework, where one inputs sets of values of masses, initial distances and velocities to get various results. Based on these the related computer program achieves a non-collapsing and dynamically balanced set of masses i.e. a universe model without involving a Bigbang or Black-hole singularities. This approach solves problems like Galaxy disk formation, Missing mass problems of stellar and galaxy rotation rates, as well suggesting explanations for the Pioneer anomaly, the New Horizons trajectory calculations and prediction, and Blue shifted Galaxies in Expanding Universe... etc. This Dynamic Universe model, which uses Newtonian physics, is sufficient for explaining most cosmological and solar system phenomena.

                The Resultant Universal Gravitational Force is calculated for each body for every sequential time-step, included with the three Cartesian dimensions. Conservation of energy, moment, etc, were taken into consideration as shown in the Mathematical formulation. Using exactly the same setup of mathematics and SITA algorithm, using the same number of masses (133), all the results were eventually derived.

                The Dynamic Universe Model is a mathematical framework of cosmology of N-body calculations, based on classical Physics. In The Dynamic Universe Model all bodies move and keep themselves in dynamic equilibrium with all other bodies depending upon their present positions, velocities and masses. This Dynamic Universe Model is a finite and closed universe model. Here we first theoretically find the Universal Gravitational Force (hereafter it will be referred to as UGF) for each body/ particle in the mathematical formulation section in this book (2010). Then we calculate the resultant UGF vector for each body/ particle on that body at that instant at that position using computer based Simulation of Inter-intra-Galaxy Tautness and Attraction forces (here after let us call this as SITA simulations) which simulate Dynamic universe model. Basically SITA is a calculation method where we can use a calculator or computer, with real observational data using this theoretical simulation system.

                ....

                I am requesting you to please feel free to ask any questions.....

                Best

                =snp

                Part 1

                Dear David,

                Thank you very much for a beautiful enquiry. ( I am putting ''''' for your words at the beginning and end.)

                '''''In your abstract you start with "'Material objects are more fundamental' is being proposed in this paper; or in other words 'IT from Bit' is true."''''

                I mean to say, whatever the manner one describes the material or matter with words, mental thoughts, using information technology or computers, his descriptions will not produce matar 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- -

                '''''Oops. The first clause implies "Bit from It", not the other way around. (The mistake is repeated in your conclusion.)But that I presume is a small lapse; the rest of your essay makes it clear which one you meant.''''''

                Thank you once again.

                '''''Your second sentence states "It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material." This depends on how you define "mental experiment", and according to many definitions, it is not "well known".'''''

                Yes I mean to say, God can create matter and physical objects just by thinking in the common sense. Creation by Human is not well known to me. You can give some references.

                '''''This is, in fact, one of the ways to ask the question "it from bit?", and hence is the very point of this contest. Your article then argues for a conclusion by assuming that conclusion at the very start. (You repeat this style in your final summary.)'''''

                Yes I explained my way above

                ( I am sorry, This reply is very lengthy and some flicker happened thrice, I was to repeat preparation of whole whole reply. That's why I am answering this reply in parts)

                Best

                =snp

                Part 2

                Dear David,

                Thank you once again for the time you spent on my work for preparing your elaborate quarry.

                ''''''In your first paragraph you state the creation ex nihilo to be a stock item in cosmology. However, no present physical theory about the Big Bang every ventures into more than speculation (e.g., collisions between branes) about the instance of the Big Bang itself, but only refers to the time as close to immediately after it as one can extrapolate to.''''''

                Creation ex nihilo is not a stock item , It is an incompleteness of the Bigbang theory. Bigbang keeps many questions open.

                ''''''You spend the bulk of the essay developing your "Vakradiation" theory, and giving instances how the uniformity of the CMB fits into it, using data from galaxy and interstellar dust observations.''''''

                Yes , Scientists won Noble prizes by allowing the starlight into the electronic window of sensors of WMAP and COBE satellites and claiming it as Bigbang generated CMBR. The whole world was confused on this issue.

                ''''''To be able to further defend your theory, you would also have to account for the new data (2013) from the Planck satellite which show a region which does not fit into this uniformity (but of course only confirmed when the full data set will be available in 2014).''''''

                Thank you once again, I think I will workout it with your collaboration. Previously I explained the WMAP dark spots.

                '''''''In any case, such a defense in the style which you are presenting it might belong in a professional journal, but one of the stipulations of this contest was that it should be easily readable by a person outside of the field. The middle part of your essay does not fit this criterion, in my opinion. ''''''''

                I am not from a proper English speaking country. My English is not very good. I am being a poor man, I cant afford some professional editing services...

                I hope I will ask your help and I hope that you will be able to devote some time for EDITING my paper next time.

                I hope that will be ok for you...

                Best

                =snp

                Part 3 ( Final)

                Dear David,

                ''''In your essay you mention the Dynamic Universe Model as an aside; in your replies to posts you frequently refer back to this theory'''''

                This essay is not related to Dynamic Universe model. It is independently derived from fundamentals. This essay is totally independent of the dynamic universe model theory. When someone questions I go into that theory.... Did you find any relation between these two?

                '''''I noted in your references that you refer to your own articles on this theory. May I assume that this is the same theory which is outlined by the article, which predates your works, to be found at http://www.sci.fi/~suntola/DU_library/2007_Introduction_to_D

                U.pdf ?'''''

                No No No, that link is some new theory. Mine is Dynamic Universe Model, which is an singularity free N-body problem solution.

                '''''As you say, this theory has a lot of potential. However, it concentrates primarily on trying to reformulate general relativity (if I am reading it correctly).'''''

                Yes, Cosmology, Solar system dynamics, VLBI explanations, many other problems, (you may also give some new problems) etc...

                ''''' Wheeler's assertion was a bold one because of the difficulties presented by quantum phenomena and theory, not because of general relativity. Hence I am not sure that the Dynamic Universe Model is entirely relevant to this debate.'''''

                Here I am discussing about CMB, if somebody asks about Dynamic Universe Model, I will have to reply. I think 'Wheeler's assertion' is not the only thing in this contest. There are a wide verity of papers.

                '''''In any case your essay has prompted some lively discussion, which is good. Good luck in your further research.'''''

                Thank you once again, You can ask me your questions even after this FQXi contest is over no problem. I will answer them.

                OK, let me clarify it a bit more. ;-)

                As you know, when one interacts with one of the entangled particles one is *instantaneously*--and hence not via "it", which cannot propagate with the speed higher than c--interacting with the the others.

                Again, I take it to be a form of interaction actualized by some kind of informational means, which I see as a disproof of your claim that "it" cannot be modified by "bit".

                Hi, Satyavarapu

                Thank you for explaining how you are using the terms "It" and "Bit". The confusion occurs because the topic is based on Wheeler's article, where the sense in which he is using the terms is explained; since the topic was based on that article, it was assumed that these meanings would be preserved.

                No, I do not mean to bring any divinity into the discussion. Rather, there are different senses as to how matter is created by information. The sense in which you are basing your idea is the classic idea of the conservation of mass-energy; this I do not deny (beyond the limits imposed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, of course). To use philosophical terms, this is the classical Philosophical Materialism view, which is the view taken in classical physics. However, there is also the view of the Philosophical Idealists, such as Berkeley, Hume, etc., not to mention many philosophies closer to your own soil, from Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Although quantum physics has not pushed the viewpoint of physicists quite that far (despite popular misconceptions), quantum phenomena have required physicists to re-evaluate the strict Materialism of classical physics.

                Secondly, however, the idea of information being necessary for physical reality is different to the idea that information creates matter. The geometry of space-time, for example, can be seen as information, and mass can be seen as part of reality. One does not speak of one creating the other, but rather that they are the same thing. Although Information and Reality may not be the same things, nonetheless their interdependence does not necessarily imply creation. After all, just as we say that mass-energy is neither created nor destroyed, so too we say that information is neither created nor destroyed.

                End of reply to Part 1.

                You write that the Big Bang Theory leaves questions unanswered. Yes, of course. This is just part of the ongoing search known as physics.

                The full data from the Planck spacecraft will be easy to find when it comes out in 2014.

                My point about the style of the essay had nothing to do with your English, which is fine. Rather, your essay contains so much data and equations in the text that would belong either to the technical appendix mentioned in the conditions for the essay (see the FQXi page about the contest) or in a technical journal. The texts of the essays in this contest are supposed to be for an educated lay person.

                End of reply to Part 2

                Thank you for explaining to me that your "Dynamic Universe Model" is different to the usage of the term predating your publications. Since you state that this is only a side issue in your essay, I will not go into details of your theory here.

                Best, David

                Dear Satyavarapu,

                To be honest, I had some problems to understand your proposed concept Vakradiation. And your paper looks more like a technical note than an essay for the broad audience, may be you should rewrite it with graphs, so that the understanding of the reader may improve. On the other hand, as a non-expert in cosmology, I cannot judge its deep interest.

                Best regards,

                Michel