Dear Vladimir,

First, congratulations on your current high placement in the contest.

I downloaded the new Fig 3, and agree with the inclusion of the five senses. As you know I end my essay with discussion of the 'awareness' of reality, not just abstract 'theories' of reality, but literally 'sensing' reality. The fact that illusions can sometimes fool us does NOT mean that our senses are ALWAYS fooled.

Also, I noticed in your comment to Georgina that you are reading Gravity's Rainbow. I agree that the novel is not for everyone, but I have read it three times! And if you like the kind of mind Pynchon exhibits, I would also recommend David Foster Wallace's "Infinite Jest".

Finally, as I suggested in my first comment above, I'm glad you liked my elephant.

Best Regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear

    Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

    So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

    I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

    I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. 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.

    Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

    Best

    =snp

    snp.gupta@gmail.com

    http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

    Pdf download:

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

    Part of abstract:

    - -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

    Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

    A

    Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

    ....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

    Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

    . . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

    B.

    Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

    Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

    C

    Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

    "Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

    Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

    1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

    2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

    3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

    4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

    D

    Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

    It from bit - where are bit come from?

    Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

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

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

    E

    Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

    .....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

    I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

    Thank you Edwin - ah the vanities of placement in the contest ... but its fun participating, meeting people like you and Georgina with interesting ideas and sensibilities - like our both liking Pynchon (and philosophical pachyderms). This is the first book of his I read and I will check out Wallace many thanks.

    I tend to agree with you that our senses are very clever - human vision for example can reach important conclusions about things in space, even though it is inherently 'unrealistic' - seeing faraway things smaller than those nearby.

    Best wishes

    Vladimir

    Dear SNP

    Thank you for your kind message - in this essay I was tackling a 'philosophical' question of how we know things - it is a new field for me. My usual interests are expressed better in my last year's essay "Fix Physics".

    I will surely study your essay and comment about it.

    Wit best wishes

    Vladimir

      Thank you Vladimir,

      It is a very good topic, you are discussing - - - philosophical question of how we know things- - -

      I will come back to you through mail, and discuss with you in detail.

      Best wishes for the contest

      =snp

      Thank you for your suggestion on Eddington idea (I did not know it), and the BU model.

      Usually I wait the end of the community voting to comment the essays (the person are ingenuous, and I don't want influence nobody: but I real all, and voted all), but sometime happen a tsunamy of ideas that I must throw down (so happen for D'Ariano essay: you see the convergence of cybernetics, relativity, quantum gravity and phylosophy).

      I like the idea that there is a exchange between science and art, I think that can be like the philosophy: we use it in the everyday life, because the good ideas spread in the civilty (slowly or quickly), some other time are lost forever.

      I like ever your scientific painting: have the differential equation and the picture the same expressive power?

        Dear Dominico thank you for your encouraging words. I will read your essay and comment about it there.

        "Thank you for your suggestion on Eddington idea (I did not know it)"

        You are welcome - your comment is related to our interesting discussion on d'Ariano's essay page:

        D'ORRECIO: I am thinking that a curvature space, in this lattice, can be simple: an artificial delay in each point of lattice can reproduce a curvature space; so can be obtained the Einstein field equation in a lattice with delay?

        TAMARI: The 'an artificial delay in each point of lattice' Exactly!! That means a slower speed of light (a natural result of curvature, as Einstein himself admitted, contradicting his SR.) Eddington(1920) suggested treating the gravitational field as an optical medium with a gradient index of refraction. With that, and forgetting about SR because Lorentz transformations occur naturally in an absolute lattice, GR reduces to a ridiculously simple theory. I adopted this idea and incorporated it into my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory .

        Dear Domenico I forgot to add this interesting reference from my (BU) paper about a gradient index of refraction experiment, demonstrating the Hamiltonian Analogy between light and gravity. In this paper it is mentioned that a renown Italian physicist said the H.A. goes back to an idea to Al-Hasan Ibn Al-Haytham.

        Ambrosini, D., et al, Bouncing Light Beams and the Hamiltonian Analogy Eur. Journal of Physics. 18 (1997) 284-289

        Hi Vladimir,

        Just a quick note to let you know I found yours a beautifully written and illustrated essay. A very relevant theme and enjoyable read. I have not come across "the cloud of unknowing" before so I really appreciate being given the reference. Good to see it generating lots of discussion too.

        Best of luck Georgina

        Thank you for your nice message Georgina (or George were you one of Enid Blyton's Famous Five.) Your comment about the illustrations is the more appreciated coming from you as you have have done a nice job of illustrating your own lucid and interesting essay.

        Best of luck Vladimir

        Thank you Tamari.

        Galileo write the first differential equation (the principle of inertia is a too simple differential equation), when he write the law of free fall using a translation of the numerical data in a mathematical form: the formulation is in words, but it is the first time that Aristotele's philosophy is defeated by the reality of the thing.

        If the Physics write differential equation from numerical data, then I tried to write a computer program to write differential equation from reality (Galileo, or Asimov, or Tolstoy idea); it work sometime: the differential equation are the optimal approximation of the reality; they are better of each numerical series, because they include all the series (we use the numerical series to solve the differential equation).

        The beautiful thing is that the differential equation are surface in the derivative space (the Harmonic oscillator is a plane, but is also a cylinder, or a sphere in y, y', y''), then some physical law are surface (if you draw the evolution of a system then visually you can write the differential equation, and you make physics).

        Yes, I try to write the differential equation for each iso-entropic differential equation, using a grid of point, and when the grid tend to continuous I write the differential equation of the iso-entropic flow (for each system).

        I use only C for my programs (it is quickly and robust), but it is necessary some time for learning it; but it is the kernel of many other language (and operative system).

        I think that the thechnological singularity is near, this is the reason of my care.

        When I write my essays, then I ask ever my brothers if they are interesting: if I write for they, I write for all.

        Vladimir,

        Well done and quite lucid.

        "In the Universe it is neither IT from BIT nor BIT from IT , but rather IT=QUBIT."

        Isn't this another way of affirming the Anthropic Principle of Wheeler, saying "it" is superposition?

        Jim

        Thanks Jim

        The Anthropic Principle? Hmm..I do not think so.

        Vladimir

        11 days later

        Dear Vladimir,

        I feel much glad to discuss with you again.

        The cloud of unknown is due to the inconsistency of observational information that is probabilistic rather than realistic. As the nature of information is continuum, the universe is not observational in reality with particle scenario. Even with string-matter continuum scenario, only near-reality observation is plausible as detection of information with IT. As discrete choice is integral of any numeral system, mathematical constrain is inevitable to detect observational information in continuum. Thus there are human limitations to substitute biological observation noumenon, as it is within the system of absolute reality of observational information, in that information continuum is observational with multiple parallel observers to perceive in absolute reality.

        With best wishes

        Jayakar

        Dear Jayakar,

        You say "The cloud of unknown is due to the inconsistency of observational information that is probabilistic rather than realistic." This statement puts the cart before the horse: theoretical considerations and inconsistent explanation of the "point photon" and "wave particle" led to Born's probabilistic theory. Observation as such is always, in a sense, 'realistic' not probabilistic, since it involves analyzing readouts from sensors, photographs etc. which is straightforward.The interpretation of such sensing follows probabilistic guidelines because of the prevailing habit of thought. I will read your essay and comment on your page about some of the other points your raise.

        Best wishes

        Vladimir

        Dear Vladimir,

        I just read your essay it was a smooth read and I enjoyed the twist on the blind men and the elephant. I think that parable may have some truth to it.

        Your illustration on special relativity immediately reminded me of a book, called "Relativity Visualized", by Louis Epstein. Although I take it that you don't care much for special relativity, I'd like to ask you to consider obtaining this book (Perhaps your local library has a copy?) and giving it a try.

        I believe that as an artist, you would find that it is right up your alley. It has almost no equations but explains relativity using pictures in a way that is frankly unmatched in clarity by any other relativity book I know. I would recommend this book to any physics student, no, anyone who wants to get a more intuitive grasp of relativity. But don't take my word for it, e.g. read the amazon reviews. In one section he uses diagrams similar to yours to show that the reason that time and space measurements are relative between moving observers is that the four-dimensional interval is absolute. Four-dimensional spacetime is fundamental, but our sensory organs are limited so that we can only perceive individual 3-D slices "at a time", but the slicing is arbitrary (i.e. relative between observers).

        Your third figure nicely illustrated your main point regarding the cloud of unknowing. Somehow it reminded me of Pierre Duhem's hypothesis (if you are not familiar with it, you should look it up).

        Finally I must admit that I do not understand the equation BIT=QUBIT. Each has a precise meaning, and I cannot Imagine any possible way that both could mean the same thing. Did you redefine the terms? If you meant them in the way that they usually are used, I'm afraid you are going to have to present a mathematical proof, otherwise it will be regarded as false.

        I hope you found my comments useful.

        All the best,

        Armin

        Dear Armin

        Thank you for your nice message. I immediately checked out the book "Relativity Visualized" - it is even available to be read online, and appears to be an excellent graphical way to described Special Relativity (SR). But that is the whole trouble with it - it is based on absolute space-time intervals.

        Based on thinking about it and reading the thorough analysis of modern dissident physicists like the late Gabriel La Frenier , I have long ago concluded that Einstein was wrong to set (c) constant) and thereby banish the ether. Given an ether medium and Lorentz transformations, SR results are explained without the unrealistic ideas of expanding time and compressing space as dimensions. This becomes even more logical if the ether is discrete as in my Beautiful Universe theory Beautiful Universe Theory also found here. Einstein himself realized that SR was wrong inasmuch as that light speed slows down in General Relativity. And in his 1920 Leyden lecture Einstein reconsidered the ether as a significant idea.

        I wish I had the stamina and mathematical mind of my late friend Gabriel, whose website was deleted upon his death, but fortunately was preserved in the Internet Archives link given above.

        I have looked at Durhem's Wikipedia page. It says "Duhem argues that it is important for the theologian or "metaphysician" to have detailed knowledge of physical theory in order not to make illegitimate use of it in speculations." - one should tell that to the advocates of spring theory and the multiverse.

        Armin, nowhere in my essay do I claim that BIT=QUBIT perhaps you misunderstood IT=Bit-or-Qubit in the caption of Fig. 4 where I meant It is either Bit or Qubit.Thanks for pointing this out the confusing phrasing.

        With thanks

        Vladimir

        Dear Vladimir,

        Thank you for your response. Ultimately, the future will tell whether an aether theory will prevail over SR, but I don't think the prospects are good for the aether to ever come back in an established way.

        The major reason why I personally think that special relativity is the correct description of our world is actually different from most other people's reasons. I believe that standard special relativity holds within its domain already the seeds for understanding how the phenomena described by special relativity (not general relativity though) and those described by quantum theory can be given a unified description. Modern quantum field theory is already based on SR+QT but it takes each already individually as a given. What I mean by "unified description" on the other hand is something deeper, namely I believe that eventually SR and QT will be both derivable from the same set of axioms. Under our current worldview, we are very far from such a realization.

        Should you be interested to know what those "seeds" are, I invite you to take a look at the following paper: Do Photons exist in space-time?

        I recently gave a talk in Sweden in which I tried to put these findings in a context where it becomes more obvious that they may well be consistent with what quantum mechanics tells us about nature. I will upload the talk soon on youtube, but the slides, which are very easy to read, are already online . The talk concludes with a visual argument, I must admit I am not sure how many of the physicists in attendance "got it" but since your visual sensibilities are presumably more refined, you may understand it immediately.

        Anyway, just a couple of other comments on your response. When I mentioned Duhem, I meant specifically this thought attributed to him: "Duhem's name is given to the under-determination or Duhem-Quine thesis, which holds that for any given set of observations there is an innumerably large number of explanations." (Wikipedia) That is because the chain of events from the occurrence of the experimental outcome to its manifestation in some experimental measurement apparatus contains a virtually infinite number of auxiliary hypotheses, and if the predicted result is not obtained, it may mean not that the theory was wrong but that one of the auxiliary hypotheses was false. This is what your diagram reminded me of.

        Concerning the equation, yes I checked and realized that I misunderstood. Sorry about that.

        All the best,

        Armin

        Dear Armin

        Thanks for explaining your views. You obviously have original ideas and the knowledge and energy to defend them. I will not try to engage with you on this - I have enough on my hands trying to simulate my own Beautiful Universe theory. However I did read the papers you mentioned, and my instincts tell me that 'here is another physicist who, like Einstein, is too clever for the good of physics. You are presenting a new scenario to satisfy some concept of locality, of entanglement, of a version of Relativity with one extra dimension. I am sure you will succeed in creating a theory because mathematics is very malleable and can accommodate almost any idea thrown at it.

        Intuitively I feel that you are on the wrong track, because I think Nature is really simple, and you are making it too complicated.

        Having said that I may add two ideas that may be relevant one way or another to your research: The extra dimension of the 4+1 Kaluza-Klein theory was interpreted as describing discrete ether elements. The other thing is that for very different reasons an experimentalist - see Eric Reiter's website has proven that the photon does not exist as Einstein described it. I now hope to be allowed to escape from these arguments beyond expressing these thoughts!

        With best wishes

        Vladimir