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

        Dear Michel,

        Thank you for asking,

        I define this word "VAKRADIATION" as radiation received per unit area from a distant source in space per unit time over all frequencies.

        This term is something similar to heat flux or thermal flux. These are common terms used in measurement of solar radiation. If I use these terms directly, people will take that as 'Solar Radiation' only, they will not take them as TOTAL STAR or GALAXY RADIATION in all Frequencies.

        I am defining this new term because, the terms "thermal flux" or "heat flux", are commonly used in conjunction with solar heat that is received per unit area per second on earth. This defines a similar unit for Star and Galaxy radiation at earth.

        ....

        Thank you very much for your comments "And your paper looks more like a technical note than an essay for the broad audience,". I will do that. I will prepare it in such a way that a Discovery channel viewer can understand. I will publish in some common forum, I will send a copy to you also.

        I hope it is not condition for FQXi essay, in that case they would have written that there should not be any equations in the essay.

        But I request you to please let me know all your problems and I will explain...

        Best

        =snp

        Dear Michal,

        Thank you once again for the questions you asked me on my essay. If you visit the FQXi page ,( at the beginning of the page)

        http://fqxi.org/community/essay

        .............................................

        I. GOALS & INTENT

        The goals of the Foundational Questions Institute's Essay Contest (the "Contest") are to:

        ^ Encourage and support rigorous, innovative, and influential thinking about foundational questions in physics and cosmology;

        .............................................

        They used a word 'innovative', that may mean they want more fundamental thinking and may not be a report on current research prepared for discovery channel viewers...

        Best

        =snp

        Dear Dr. Gupta,

        I believe it has been convincingly established in cosmology that the perfect blackbody thermal spectrum of the CMB cannot be produced by thermalization of starlight. For a convincing discussion you may want to see the review article by Peebles et al. in Nature 352, 769 (1991).

        Also, I think you intend to conclude `bit from it', not the other way round, judging from your arguments and from what you discuss.

        With best regards,

        Tejinder

          • [deleted]

          • Post #50

          Resp Prof Tejinder singh sab,

          1. Thank you very much for such nice fundamental questions you asked, which nobody doubted here. I will be very glad to answer. Thank you for your rating to my essay, which came down to 3.6.

          I am just a common man, nobody will bother for a man working against Mainstream and I am not a PhD. Being a prof in such institute researching in fundamentals like FQXi, You are confused by question of a common man.

          So you know the background of my paper and I will ask you few direct and straight questions. . .

          a. How much starlight is allowed in EACH measurement of Background Microwave Radiation as measured by WMAP or COBE satellites?

          b. What are the measures they have taken to compensate or for subtraction of starlight from that point measurement?

          c. Once they have measured only starlight concluded it is perfect Blackbody radiation why it was announced other way round. ( Here your question becomes redundant)

          2. 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- - . . . .

          Hope this will answer query sir,

          Best

          =snp

          Resp Prof Tejinder singh sab,

          1. Thank you very much for such nice fundamental questions you asked, which nobody doubted here. I will be very glad to answer. Thank you for your rating to my essay, which came down to 3.6.

          I am just a common man, nobody will bother for a man working against Mainstream and I am not a PhD. Being a prof in such institute researching in fundamentals like FQXi, You are confused by question of a common man.

          So you know the background of my paper and I will ask you few direct and straight questions. . .

          a. How much starlight is allowed in EACH measurement of Background Microwave Radiation as measured by WMAP or COBE satellites?

          b. What are the measures they have taken to compensate or for subtraction of starlight from that point measurement?

          c. Once they have measured only starlight concluded it is perfect Blackbody radiation why it was announced other way round. ( Here your question becomes redundant)

          2. 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- - . . . .

          Hope this will answer query sir,

          Best

          =snp

          Dear Goldfarb,

          Thank you for the explanation. And in your words ''''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". ''''

          You are referring to my IT ( Information technology) or your It ( A piece of matter) I was confused...

          Best

          =snp

          Dear Gupta Sir,

          Greetings. I humbly request that we not discuss ratings. I am afraid you are assuming that I have already rated your essay, and furthermore, that I brought down its rating, or that I intend to rate it at all.

          I am a theorist, not an experimentalist, and I do not have the expertise to comment on data analysis or technical instrumental details of CMB experiments. However, so many different CMB experiments starting 1965, including ground based and balloon borne experiments, and satellites, all say that the CMB spectrum is black body. It would be surprising if they were to be all wrong and yet agree with each other. Perhaps you may like to consult experts at IUCAA, Pune on this subject.

          All that I was saying in my previous post was that calculations show that it is not possible to thermalize starlight, and make a perfect blackbody spectrum, given the properties of the inter-stellar medium.

          Regarding your points a. b. c. above it is definitely true that galactic foreground is subtracted before arriving at the CMB spectrum. Moreover, it is significant that the galaxy is a disk - so that most points where CMB is measured are not affected by the starlight. For instance, you may like to see the papers

          http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9811358

          http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5088

          http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5089

          http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301077

          If these works are already known to you then I apologize.

          With kind regards,

          Tejinder

          Resp Prof Tejinder Sir,

          Don't worry about ratings sir. I am more interested in technical / logical / scientific discussions, Nothing more in this life.

          I can discuss with any one no problem.

          I know all these works, No problem.

          These were discussed extensively in the following discussion threads in BAUT forum during 2007-8

          I am requesting you to please have a look ....

          For COBE and FIRAS design features...

          http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?79815-CMB-Bigbang-Cosmology-COBE-FIRAS-design-features&highlight=

          CMB in our Dynamic Universe...

          http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?78554-CMB-in-our-Dynamic-Universe&highlight=

          http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?65088-SNP-Gupta-s-ATM-idea-re-the-CMB&highlight=

          These are mainly technical discussions.

          Any of your questions are welcome...

          Best Regards

          =snp