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

      Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

      I've read your essay, not without difficulties, because I'm a theoretician, dealing more with quantum theory than astrophysical measurements :-)

      Nevertheless, I can see from the essay and the discussion above that you seem to be allergic to any "imaginary" concepts, including imaginary numbers, which are nothing more than a convenient way to denote 90 deg rotations ( i^2 = -1 means simply that two consecutive counterclockwise 90 deg. rotations are equivalent to one 180 deg. conterclockwise rotation).

      Going back to our "It from Bit" discussion, it does not mean, at least in my opinion, a creation of matter from mental experiments. It is rather about the influence that _getting_information_ (i.e. a measurement) may have on the state of an "element of reality", including it's emergence, as it is observed in various experiments involving quantum entanglement.

      You wrote:" ... we study the relation between Information and reality about CMB in this paper." A question arises, what information about reality is _encoded_in_ CMB, or it is rather the information encoded in our _models_of reality ?

      Another thing, which is problematic for me, is the use of Boltzmann-Stefan law in combination with "radiation in all frequencies" in your discussion. Isn't it prone to the "ultraviolet catastrophe" problem ?

      One more thing, there is a mention about your Dynamic Universe Model, based on flat Cartesian coordinates in 3D space and (global?) linear time. I'm afraid that such a model is rather problematic in view of the _observed_ properties of electromagnetic radiation.

      Best Regards,

      -Joachim.

        Dear Joachim,

        Thank you very much for your interest in my essay and for your time spent on this essay. These are good questions. I will be putting '''''' before your words. Next will be my answers.

        '''''I've read your essay, not without difficulties, because I'm a theoretician, dealing more with quantum theory than astrophysical measurements :-)'''''''

        Thank you once again for your efforts, any general scientific back ground should be sufficient, i feel. You have more than any such backgrounds. . . !

        ''''''''Nevertheless, I can see from the essay and the discussion above that you seem to be allergic to any "imaginary" concepts, including imaginary numbers, which are nothing more than a convenient way to denote 90 deg rotations ( i^2 = -1 means simply that two consecutive counterclockwise 90 deg. rotations are equivalent to one 180 deg. conterclockwise rotation). '''''''

        I know all those concepts. But they are not real numbers. I mean to say one should use only real numbers in their equations to get real results. real results can be used in Engineering. ( You may say 'one may get imaginary numbers as answers , which depends on their equations.)

        But in Dynamic Universe Model's case in these equations we get real results with input of real values, which can be compared with real measurements. That's what I am telling here. For eg., Time axis is itself not real, and a perpendicular axis to this is what?

        ''''''Going back to our "It from Bit" discussion, it does not mean, at least in my opinion, a creation of matter from mental experiments. It is rather about the influence that _getting_information_ (i.e. a measurement) may have on the state of an "element of reality", including it's emergence, as it is observed in various experiments involving quantum entanglement. '''''''

        This I have already mentioned in my essay. But I am asking this question 'creation of matter from mental experiments', forming basis my discussion.

        ''''''You wrote:" .... we study the relation between Information and reality about CMB in this paper." A question arises, what information about reality is _encoded_in_ CMB, or it is rather the information encoded in our _models_of reality ? '''''''

        The present day Physics says there is some information encoded at the time of Bigbang about the formation of Galaxies. The mainstream claim that that this information is the starting point of formation of the Galaxies. But the actual measure star and Galaxy light of that part of sky in Microwave ranges will give the same information.

        ''''''' Another thing, which is problematic for me, is the use of Boltzmann-Stefan law in combination with "radiation in all frequencies" in your discussion. Isn't it prone to the "ultraviolet catastrophe" problem ? '''''''

        Thank you for nice question once again. See Wikipedia,

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh%E2%80%93Jeans_law

        In 1900 Max Planck empirically obtained an expression for black-body radiation expressed in terms of wavelength in Planck's law. The Planck law does not suffer from an ultraviolet catastrophe, and agrees well with the experimental data, but its full significance (which ultimately led to quantum theory) was only appreciated several years later. Since, then in the limit of very high temperatures or long wavelengths, the term in the exponential becomes small. . . .

        Hence I feel for our ranges, there will not be any error!

        '''''''One more thing, there is a mention about your Dynamic Universe Model, based on flat Cartesian coordinates in 3D space and (global?) linear time. I'm afraid that such a model is rather problematic in view of the _observed_ properties of electromagnetic radiation. '''''''

        We can discuss any of the observed problems, no problem....

        Best

        =snp

        Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

        I read your essay. To be honest a lot of things I do not agree, but not right.

        I see that we do not have the same idea about what may be the information. For me, and I hope for a lot of other information that is all that exists, all that is reality, everything is an object or phenomenon.

        And I would like to have your opinion and so to get a better view.

        best regards

          Dear SNP Gupta,

          The theme up on which your essay is based is having deep rooted meaning and you have aptly said that it is 'IT from Bit'. I am in complete agreement with you when you say that CMB radiation is fully misinterpreted in confirming the 'big-bang' hypothesis. You have also given good reasons for that and this also follows from the large scale 'isotropy' of the universe according to general relativity. Misinterpreting scientific data from satellites has plagued the current trend in science and regarding this your essay is an eye opener.

          I also like you to go through my essay and post your comments.

          Best regards and good luck in the essay contest.

          Sreenath

            Dear Gupta,

            A nice essay full of experimental data. However, the resemblance to the theme of this contest seems to me rather obscure.

            Let me simplify the whole thing with the following simple experiment (Did I misunderstood something?):

            Let us have a box full of water. Each set of molecules within it has its own temperature according to its molecules' kinetic energy. Hence, they emit the appropriate radiation. If we set a Vakradiation detector somewhere in this box - obviously - we will detect the VAKR... radiation that appears to be uniform and emitted from any set of molecules we like. However, the cause of molecules' kinetic energy is not explained in any way by these observations.

            This is the meaning (among many others) of Big Bang (BB) theories that it tries to explain "background" energy by saying that it came from a "superhot" singularity. Nobody seriously supports the idea that CMB came straight from BB but it came to us (no mater how) as a consequence of the BB. The observed fluctuations of CMB are caused by certain stars' or galaxies' procedures but the overall CMB - by any evidence - was caused by BB.

            During last contest I posed a major worry about our conception beyond our galaxy.

            "... Milky way (our galaxy) is even more interesting as its Schwarzschild radius is approx. 3*10^25 m (mass = 2*10^42 kg) while its radius is about 5*10^20 m. ..."

            I would like your opinion on this as it is substantially related to your essay.

            Best wishes

            Dear amazigh mabrouk hannou,

            Thank you for reading my essay and starting a nice discussion.

            You said - - - - - I see that we do not have the same idea about what may be the information. For me, and I hope for a lot of other information that is all that exists, all that is reality, everything is an object or phenomenon.- - - - -

            In my opinion, we have physical 5 senses and a sixth sense called mind. We form pictures of all the real things around us in our mind from these senses. Mind interprets these real things around us for forming these pictures. All these information will be lost when we die.

            We invented the communication to transfer these pictures to fellow humans.

            This communication uses information which is nothing but description of our mental picture.

            But you say information is real, how it is real?

            Is there any other information other than what I said?

            Please reply in this thread so that I will get a communication from FQXi, and I can reply you, , , ,

            best

            =snp

            snp.gupta@gmail.com

            Dear Sreenath,

            Thank you for your very nice comments on my essay. I have gone through your nice essay also, and conceptually your is similar to mine. I am giving account of both below. Your concluding words

            - - - - Although Information & Reality (Bit & It) have physical origin, without mind they are in themselves empty and blind. Bit comes from It, but mind can know of It only through Bit- - - -

            That is very nice, and in my opinion, we have physical 5 senses and a sixth sense called mind. We form pictures of all the real things around us in our mind from these senses. Mind interprets these real things around us for forming these pictures. All these information will be lost when we die.

            We invented the communication to transfer these pictures to fellow humans.

            This communication uses information which is nothing but description of our mental picture.

            - - - -

            Your comments - - - - The theme up on which your essay is based is having deep rooted meaning and you have aptly said that it is 'IT from Bit' - - - -

            Here 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- -

            Please reply in my thread so that I will get a communication from FQXi, and I can reply you. .

            best

            =snp

            Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

            I did not make a mistake : we do not have the same idea of the word « information ». For me, any object is information. The word « information » is taken here in the large and extended sens, in the physical sense of the term and not in its abstract, symbolic and limited shape.

            We define the word according to the conception which we have of the Nature and the reality. And not according to the common opinion, or its definition in a standard dictionary.

            This is how I see the word « information » and I have my reasons which are directly related to a particular concept of the Universe.

            If you design an object in your computer and you print it in three dimensions.

            The object works, as if it was made at the factory. The symbolic information that you transformed into a physical information, is this real or an invention ?

            You are free to have a different idea of the word « information », but I have another opinion.

            With all my respects.

            Dear Ioannis hadjidakis,

            Thank you very much for your interest in my essay and for your time spent on this essay. These are good questions. I will be putting - - - - - before your words. Next will be my answers.

            - - - - -A nice essay full of experimental data. However, the resemblance to the theme of this contest seems to me rather obscure. - - - - -

            Thank you very much once again for good comments.

            - - - - -Let me simplify the whole thing with the following simple experiment (Did I misunderstood something?):

            Let us have a box full of water. Each set of molecules within it has its own temperature according to its molecules' kinetic energy. Hence, they emit the appropriate radiation. If we set a Vakradiation detector somewhere in this box - obviously - we will detect the VAKR... radiation that appears to be uniform and emitted from any set of molecules we like. However, the cause of molecules' kinetic energy is not explained in any way by these observations. - - - - -

            This is NOT an micro sensor( smaller) but is an all radiation detection sensor ( Like a Microwave dish antenna used in satellites). Kinetic energy of the molecules is not a point measuring criteria. This case is not applicable.

            You may have a look into these two points asked others in the ABOVE posts, which are reproduced in the following

            1. Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 05:16 GMT

            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.

            2. Joachim J. Wlodarz wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 16:48 GMT

            ''''''' Another thing, which is problematic for me, is the use of Boltzmann-Stefan law in combination with "radiation in all frequencies" in your discussion. Isn't it prone to the "ultraviolet catastrophe" problem ? '''''''

            Thank you for nice question once again. See Wikipedia,

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh%E2%80%93Jean

            s_law

            In 1900 Max Planck empirically obtained an expression for black-body radiation expressed in terms of wavelength in Planck's law. The Planck law does not suffer from an ultraviolet catastrophe, and agrees well with the experimental data, but its full significance (which ultimately led to quantum theory) was only appreciated several years later. Since, then in the limit of very high temperatures or long wavelengths, the term in the exponential becomes small. . . .

            Hence I feel for our ranges, there will not be any error!

            - - - - -This is the meaning (among many others) of Big Bang (BB) theories that it tries to explain "background" energy by saying that it came from a "superhot" singularity. Nobody seriously supports the idea that CMB came straight from BB but it came to us (no mater how) as a consequence of the BB. The observed fluctuations of CMB are caused by certain stars' or galaxies' procedures but the overall CMB - by any evidence - was caused by BB. - - - - -

            None of the experiments conducted till today detected any BB created radiation. Everybody measured only star / galaxy radiation. This is what I am showing here. There is no overall CMB except these radiation.

            - - - - -During last contest I posed a major worry about our conception beyond our galaxy.

            "... Milky way (our galaxy) is even more interesting as its Schwarzschild radius is approx. 3*10^25 m (mass = 2*10^42 kg) while its radius is about 5*10^20 m. ..."

            I would like your opinion on this as it is substantially related to your essay. - - - - -

            This is not directly or indirectly related to this essay. Because these are no Blackholes in the Dynamic Universe model, Blackholes are mathematical singularities. In this essay on CMB also, we don't use the concept of Blackholes.

            Any further questions are welcome...

            Best

            =snp

            Dear Gupta,

            According to my knowledge none experiment has ever shown the existence of matter. We only deduce its existence by the experiments just like BB.

            I am sorry I had not misunderstood in the very first place.

            good luck to the contest

            Dear SNP Gupta,

            Thanks for your fine analysis of my essay and for your kind compliments and in the final analysis, in treating It as primary to Bit, we both agree. The meaning that you have given to 'IT from Bit' simply substantiates that. My e- mail address is, bnsreenath@yahoo.co.in

            All the best in the essay contest.

            Sreenath