Jacek,
I look forward to your review...
Manuel
Jacek,
I look forward to your review...
Manuel
Hello Jacek,
In addition to this summary of the analytical essay, made in the strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, I have read your work vixra:
Safuta J., Spacetime Deformations Evolution Concept. vixra.org/abs/1102.0026 (2011)
Safuta J., Spacetime Deformations Theory. vixra.org/abs/1006.0005 (2010)
Safuta J., A simple spin experiment. viXra.org/abs/1304.0027 (2013)
You did well to reduced svao ideas to the table. Get crisp and clear, in the spirit of Cartesius. The general conclusion: deep philosophical approach to the ground of being, "to grasp" the nature of the information. Most importantly, you are trying to connect the spirit of Hegel and the spirit of Popper. Excellent, the secret of the world - in the triad! I invite you to visit my forum and evaluate essays. We're finding with you in the same mind.
Only one question. Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics":
«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence».
http:/ / www.ccas. ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm
Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?
Best regards,
Vladimir
I have just left some comments on your essay's forum and some more on your e-mail.
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you very much for reading my publications and for your appreciation.
In a couple of days I will read your essay and leave there a comment if I am competent.
Trying to download Alexander's publication I have found the link you gave me does not work. Try again.
http:/ / www.ccas. ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm
Best regards
Hello Jacek,
Here is a direct link A. Zenkin SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS
http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm
I'm waiting for you on my forum.
Best regards,
Vladimir
Hello Jacek,
Short but beautiful is the best way to describe your essay and that is no flattery! Why do I say so? That Table 1, 'Three worlds connection analysis' captures so much of what I did in long words in my own essay. As you showed in answering the question, the Platonic world would be important.
But I am not sure experiment can answer the question 'It from Bit' or 'Bit from It'. I think that question can best be answered by dialectic and philosophical arguments that can resolve one or the other possibility to an absurdity. That was my approach and I think you will like it.
Following additional insights gained from interacting with FQXi community members, perhaps you will like to view the judgement in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT which I wrote after my essay was submitted.
Then, of course if you like my contribution give me a rating.
Thanks,
Akinbo
Dear Akinbo,
Judge: What of extended points?
Jacek: Your honor, I agree that all is geometry. It is not easy to abandon the idea of a universe made of matter and embrace the vision of a reality made of a pure (conformally flat, isotropic, elastic, homeomorphic and self-organized) spacetime. We shall be looking for that one, universal, distance scale invariant metric (eventually reducing to Einstein GR metric within Solar System distance scale) and having ability to generate predictions. The first prediction of that geometrization concept is the spin experiment outcome. Depending on the outcome we shall look for a proper metric or give up.
Judge: The hearing is suspended until the spin experiment is carried out!
-------
You are absolutely right that we seem to have been led along the wrong road. I do not mean that I agree with you in 100%. E.g. I would exchange your extended points for wavepackets (spacetime deformations) as fundamental objects of geometry. This is not the same in details but they are also extended objects. That is a way to reduce physics to geometry.
I like your approach and I think that philosophy is very important to understand the reality (for teaching purposes) but in my opinion it is not enough to prove anything (for judgment) in the field of physics. My experiment is not described in the essay (my fault as I had a lot of place). It is the best to read full description here: http://vixra.org/abs/1304.0027
We differ in some issues but I think your essay deserves the high rating!
Best regards,
Dear Jacek,
We are at the end of this essay contest.
In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.
Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.
eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.
And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.
Good luck to the winners,
And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.
Amazigh H.
I rated your essay.
Please visit My essay.
Jacek,
I read the two Vixra papers and also your essay. Although there are some minor differences, you are correct in that we certainly are speaking of the same concept. All of these are now how I also have come to view gravity and wave/particles, albeit through a different path:
"The reason of the gravity phenomenon is that the gravity force of e.g. a planet is a sum (wave packet) of many tiny spacetime deformations (elementary particles) resulting in far-reaching, but relatively weak interaction (the surrounding spacetime expansion). The gravity is not a fundamental but emergent interaction."
"We assume the matter can be created out of a force field and vanish transforming into the field and we assume not only the matter deforms spacetime. An example: electron - positron pairs are created in (and out of) the vacuum (vacuum polarization). "
"In brief: every particle (spacetime deformation) movement is a wave and every
particle is a wave (wave packet) and not: it only possesses a wave properties."
"In brief: every "massive" object e.g. the earth is a gravitational wave itself. And the
wave is not traveling outward from the source. There is no source e.g. the Earth is a
gravitational wave orbiting the Sun along the geodesics."
"The mathematics we need is partly existing and ready to use for decades because GR
and QM math are probably only special cases of the spacetime deformations theory
(being only the concept today)."
This last quote is how I view the move from Nordstroem's original equation, into the a flat metric (and its perturbations along with the Cosmological Constant problem) and then into the Area Calculus modification:
Nordstroem:
[math](-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_0^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_1^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_2^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_3^2})\phi_{Newton}=0[/math]
General Relativity:
[math][/math]
[math]g_{00}=1-2\phi_{Newton}[/math]
[math]\Lambda g_{00}[/math]
Nordstroem modified through Area Calculus:
[math](-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_0^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_1^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_2^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_3^2})(\Lambda-\Lambda 2\phi_{InvertedNewton})=0[/math]
The first doesn't seem to predict gravitational lensing, the second seems able to describe the geodesic motion of a positive density "particle" whereas the third would seem to be almost a mirror image of the second but instead describing the geodesic motion of a reduced density wave, just as you have described. I have given you a top rating, and I hope you will also see the merit within my essay.
Jacek,
Catching up with scoring and read your essay again plus the response to my post above. Your chart suddenly started to make more sense to me. In fact my essay is all about spin not measured in the quantum eraser and Bell Inequalities cases.
I'm afraid I'm also a non-professional, but has anybody with a lab offered to do the experiment yet?
The 'optical illusion' I referred is the case of 'co-ordinate' not 'Proper' time.
If you are driving past a bus when someone fires a bullet in it the bullet speed c that you see is c+v or c-v, but those are arbitrary, not the real "propagation speed" of the bullet. I'm simply saying that (as my last essay showed) space is also a diffuse medium with propogation at c as the SR postulates. The problem of CSL is resolved because 'inertial systems' have REAL spatial boundaries formed by scattering surfaces. All matter is then an inertial system.
This is difficult to first grasp due to conditioning, but is the giant 'elephant in the room' which appears when you do. Let me know if you get a glimpse, or if you don't believe in elephants!
(It was hiding in the spin the quantum eraser didn't measure)
Best wishes
peter
The missing LaTex portion reads:
-1,1,1,1
Poisson, not Newton..woops
Hi Jacek,
I have once more check up my conversations in my forum and has find that I still not rated your essay that I has intended to do. Sorry my dear! Now I am going to do it and to give you ,,high,, score (with compensation of my non considerability!)
Best wishes,
George
Dear Jacek,
I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.
I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.
You can find the latest version of my essay here:
http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf
(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that).
May the best essays win!
Kind regards,
Paul Borrill
paul at borrill dot com
Jacek,
I went through Carolyn's essay but it appears she is no longer monitoring the site for comments. She does have similar sounding material, but without equations kind of hard to tell what her meaning is.
Thanks
Jeff