Basudeba

"because of the uncertainty induced by the environment"

It has nothing to do with any uncertainty in the environment. There are all sorts of reasons why our knowledge of what occurred, or what will occur, may prove to be incorrect. But that is a function of how knowedge is compiled. Obviously, the more complex what is being investigated is, the more likely there are to be flaws, but that is a reflection of our ability to construct valid knowledge (ie that which corresponds with what manifested).

"Our "not non-existent" and your "existent" mean the same thing"

Not so. Your sentence was: "It is not non-existent, because it still exists in an evolved state unknown to us". What this means is that you have split something ("it") which exists and is in effect inert/not further divisible, etc, from its physically existent state. Which one must presume is a function of the 'properties' this 'it' has. I do not do this, because I do not know whether there is such an 'it' or whether what we think of as 'it' is in fact just the 'properties'. Furthermore, it is the physically existent state which matters anyway, in the sense that that is what defines physical existence at any given time. What is manifest, ie is the reality, at any given time is the physically existent state of whatever comprises it. The differentiation of 'thing' from state thereof, may be physically valid, but it can lead to confusion. Because "an evolved state" is what is existent, and that is different from the previous state in the sequence from which it evolved. Whether there is some non changing, inert, 'it' enabling this is another matter. There could well be. But physical existence is all about physically existent state, and since that alters that must relate to something existent which is alterable.

"Why restrict observation to "sight sensory system" and extend to other sensory mechanisms also?

I don't, see my essay, but observation is usually restricted to the sense of sight. I am not sure we 'directly' touch the existent matter, but never mind.

Re your point on SR:

1 Special relativity, as defined by Einstein, involves:

-only motion that is uniform rectilinear and non-rotary

-only fixed shape bodies

-only light which travels in straight lines at a constant speed

It is special because there is no gravitational force (or more precisely, no differential in the gravitational forces incurred). In other words, this is a purely conceptual situation, and there is no dimension alteration in this hypothetical circumstance.

2 The point you make about Doppler is valid, and indeed another reason why the concept of relativity, and particularly the concern about relative movement, seemed to make sense. This having first been rationalised by the concept that at different speeds, which is a function of different gravitational forces incurred, matter alters dimension, therefore comparison is difficult, ie everything must be in the same state of momentum or differences accounted for.

The effect you are referring to is as follows:

The duration of the delay between time of occurrence and time of receipt of light representing that occurrence will vary as a function of the distance involved, and the speed at which any given light travels (or is presumed to do so). Assuming a constancy of light speed for the sake of simplicity, then the perceived (ie received) rate of change of any given sequence will remain the same, so long as the relative spatial position of whatever is involved remains constant. But, when relative distance is altering (ie there is changing relative movement, which causes changing relative spatial position), then the perceived (ie received) rate of change alters. Because the delay is ever increasing (or decreasing) at a rate which depends on the rate at which the distances are altering. To the observer this gives the impression that the rate of change is slowing/speeding up, over time, but is an optical illusion, as the actual rate of change does not alter.

Paul

Basudeba

I think this is me you are referring to. However, it is not about accepting the representations, but extrapolating from perception what they were, and then, on the basis of understanding the relationship between how these representations are created and what existed which was part of that interaction, determining what occurred.

The real point here is that there is no such thing as 'object'. It is how we conceive reality, which is a sequence of discrete definitive physically existent states. From a higher level of conception/perception these appears to have a persistence over time which is not what exists.

Peter is saying there is only ever uniqueness, which is a correct, if somewhat obvious statement. The physical proof of this has nothing to do with light, it concerns how physical existence must occur.

Paul

Hello Basudeba and hi Paul,

RE: "In communication, length contraction or time dilation has no direct bearing on the final outcome"

The meaning of the cliche, 'light velocity is a constant (irrespective of the motion of the observer)' is the origin of the concept of time dilation and length contraction. What it means is that knowing your distance from a light source you cannot hasten the light's arrival time by moving towards an already in-flight and incoming light wave/photon due to time dilation, neither can you delay the arrival time due to length contraction. That is what Special Relativity postulates and that is the meaning of the cliche, although some have removed the words in bracket.

The postulate originates from the outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment which showed that receptor motion had no effect on light arrival times (i.e. resultant velocity). Other experiments like those of (1) Sagnac and (2)the effect of receptor motion on arrival times of signals from the GPS satellite are worth considering to get a complete picture.

Regards.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #24

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for raising some very important questions. We will try to explain.

When you say: "light velocity is a constant (irrespective of the motion of the observer)", you are right, but must remember the limitations of this statement. Firstly, Signals in fibre optic cables move slower than radio signals by a factor equal to the refractive index of the glass, which is within 1.1 and 3. This shows that speed is light is the same within a medium, but varies inversely with the density of the medium. Thus, when light travels between mediums of different density like those outside the atmosphere of Earth and within it, there will be a difference in the average speed from its constant speed in a medium - it will actually slow down not due to length contraction, but due to density variation of the mediums.

Secondly, even within the same medium, an observer at rest, an inertia observer, and an accelerating observer will see a constantly moving object differently. Let us assume three persons, one standing, one circling on a bike moving at uniform speed, and another similarly circling on a bike, but accelerating at a uniform rate in the opposite direction, start from one spot and after 5 minutes of synchronized time, fire three identical pistols, which release the bullets at the same speed. To all observers the actual distance traveled and the angle of release of the bullets from the initial point (from where the bikers started), will be different because the point of release of the bullets are different. Now, let us assume that all three are positioned on a giant rotating platform. They fire the bullets at the same position from where they fired earlier. There will be a time difference between them, as they will reach those positions either earlier or later depending upon their orientation, as they would have to travel different distances. This effect is shown in the Sagnac Interferometers. The rest - specifically relating to the matter-wave interferometer (because historically that was the starting point), is explained as follows:

Sagnac published two papers in French titled "The existence of luminiferous ether demonstrated" and "On the proof of the luminiferous ether". This was against the backdrop of the null result of Michelson-Morley experiment. It must be remembered that Michelson-Morley experiment was consistent with the ballistic theory, but inconsistent with the naïve ether theory, whereas the Sagnac effect is consistent with the naïve ether theory but inconsistent with the ballistic theory. This is because the inference drawn from the MM experiment was faulty ab initio. We have already discussed this and repeating again.

Transverse waves are always characterized by particle motion being perpendicular to the wave motion. This implies the existence of a medium through which the reference wave travels and with respect to which the transverse wave travels in a perpendicular direction. In the absence of the reference wave, which is a longitudinal wave, the transverse wave can not be characterized as such. All transverse waves are background invariant by its very definition. Since light is propagated in transverse waves, Maxwell used a transverse wave and aether fluid model for his equations. Feynman has shown that Lorentz transformation and invariance of speed of light follows from Maxwell's equations. Einstein's causal analysis in SR is based on Lorentz's motional theory where a propagation medium is essential to solve the wave equation. Einstein's ether-less relativity is not supported by Maxwell's Equations nor the Lorentz Transformations, both of which are medium (aether) based. Thus, the non-observance of aether drag (as observed in Michelson-Morley experiments) cannot serve to ultimately disprove the aether model. The equations describing spacetime, based on Einstein's theories of relativity, are mathematically identical to the equations describing ordinary fluid and solid systems. Yet, it is paradoxical that physicists have denied aether model while using the formalism derived from it. They don't realize that Maxwell used transverse wave model, whereas aether drag considers longitudinal waves. Thus, the notion that Einstein's work is based on "aether-less model" is a myth. All along he used the aether model, while claiming the very opposite.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

You admit that the uncertainty induced by the environment can be for various reasons, and "that is a function of how knowledge is compiled. Obviously, the more complex what is being investigated is, the more likely there are to be flaws". All our perceptions and functions are influenced by such flaws. Hence it is important to identify and remove it and "construct valid knowledge".

Your interpretation of the "not non-existent" in our statement is not correct. We meant non-existence as such at here-now, but existence elsewhere, may be in a different combination. This is because of the conservation laws. In any case, every thing is ever changing; hence alterable.

You have correctly noted that SR ignores gravity, but left out its implication. Is there any place where gravity does not operate? Then while sailing on a sea, can we pretend as if we are moving on road and the same laws as on the road will be applicable even if we move on the sea?

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

The classical object has become modern state. Hence both convey the same intrinsic meaning. Uniqueness is inherent in all created beings. No dispute there.

Regards,

basudeba

Basudeba

"You admit that the uncertainty induced..."

No, I said the uncertainty in our knowledge of what occurred is a function of various reasons. There is no uncertainty in what occurs.

"We meant non-existence as such at here-now, but existence elsewhere"

What is this then? Existence occurs at a given time, that which occurs at another time does not co-exist with that. Another way of putting this is that there is only ever a present in the context of existence, and that was the physically existent state (reality) which prevailed at that time. As you say: "every thing is ever changing", which properly expressed means there is always difference. If there is change then there is difference, full stop. Not the same but different.

"You have correctly noted that SR ignores gravity, but left out its implication"

Einstein did not ignore gravity, he explicitly stated that SR explained a conceptual circumstance without gravity. Neither did he state that SR was a re-labelling of 1905 in order to distinguish it from the new theory, GR. This is a presumption that everybody is making. It is just his attempt to extricate himself from what he saw as a possible problem with the two postulates, ie "apparently irreconcilable". Actually, the problem does not exist, because he did not deploy the second postulate as he defined it. However, his 'resolution', ie SR, is useless as a theory because it is a self evident statement of what prevails in an unreal conceptualised circumstance. Essentially, he makes it sound interesting, but if you look at the conditions he imposes, it is a state of 'nothing is happening'! There therefore are no implications.

Here are some quotes:

Einstein 1916 section7

"As a result of an analysis of the physical conceptions of time and space, it became evident that in reality there is not the least incompatibility between the principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light, and that by systematically holding fast to both these laws a logically rigid theory could be arrived at. This theory has been called the special theory of relativity to distinguish it from the extended theory, with which we shall deal later."

Einstein 1916 section 18

"provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion...The validity of the principle of relativity was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity."

Einstein 1916 section 22

"A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)."

Einstein 1916 section 28

"The special theory of relativity has reference to Galileian domains, ie to those in which no gravitational field exists. In this connection a Galileian reference-body serves as body of reference, ie a rigid body...In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail in the general theory of relativity."

Paul

Basudeba

Indeed, uniqueness is a key feature of physical existence. The point is that the 'new order' (ie relativity/QM) involves a presumption of some form of indefiniteness in physical existence, which is incorrect. It usurped the 'old order (ie classical) because that was not followed through properly to its logical conclusion, and was therefore misrepresented. We know there is alteration, but the analysis of this stopped at 'it changes', leaving the classical to appear to be an insufficient explanation.

Paul

Dear Sir,

There is no dispute that uncertainty in our knowledge of what occurred is a function of various reasons. There is no uncertainty in what occurs. Existence belongs to the observable, whereas uncertainty belongs to observation by the observer. Both are mutually independent. Hence there is no dispute.

As a student, Einstein was mediocre. He got the job not due to merit, but due to recommendation. His married life was horrible. But his ambition was very high. Hence he tried everything including plagiarism to establish himself. Initially no one noted his tricks. But once he was established as a great scientist, he became more reasonable (except for his ego clash with Bohr). So what you quoted shows his better side. Both of his SR and GR are faulty. We have shown that the equivalence principle is a wrong description of facts and leads to contradictions. His theory of gravity fails outside the Solar System. Even within the Solar System, there are question marks. His explanation of Mercury's orbit was plagiarized from Gerber. Yet, the pity is instead of properly evaluating his theories, there is hero worship and he has become unquestionable!

Dear Sir, (Dr. Klingman)

You have proposed a different field, never seen, as the consciousness field and the field is aware of both position and motion aspects of reality - Space and Time! Did you realize that by this you have not only made a universally true statement that can explain the creation event?

If you bring down position and motion to fundamental levels (Space and Time are later derivatives), then position becomes the background structure on which motion acts multiplied by inertia. This, in turn, generates friction due to the reverse process of inertia of restoration (elasticity) of the background structure that acts like the bow-shock effect for the boat in a river. Where the inertia of restoration dominates, motion becomes zero cutting off a big chunk and returning back to repeat this process again. The successive motions are less energetic. Thus, viewed at the current rate of motion, everything will look far off the center. This is the true explanation of the current state of the universe and not the so-called Inflation.

In the universal scale, position can exist on its own independently, but motion is energy that requires an object to move to make it perceivable. Thus, the universal position can form the background structure. Since there is no true void, nothing moves in a straight line, because the object next to it obstructs it and it must "scrape through" by displacing that object laterally. This is because, all micro and planets, stars and galaxies, etc, are nearly spherical - their diameter is related to their circumference by a ration √10 instead of π. Thus, the universe is spinning on its axis making the galactic clusters look temporarily receding from each other, though no such effect is seen in lesser scales - the Solar system is not expanding. This explains the so-called dark energy, which is an oxymoron - if it is dark (non-interacting), it cannot be energy, which is perceptible only through its interactions.

You are correct that "It makes sense only if consciousness is inherently a field which concentrates locally to become aware of local structure and 'in'-formation - the formation of a model or encoded structure within more comprehensive structure". The in-formation part implies that there is a sequence. We have repeatedly shown how space and time arise out of the concept of sequence. But there is another important angle here. The observer (relatively static) and the observable (transitory) are related through the mechanism of observation. The content of all observations is "I perceive this...(different observables)". Thus, from the angle of observation, all A=A. But when it comes to the observable, A is not A. The other A represents the material world, where everything is discrete. The relation, which makes the observation possible, is the fundamental force gravity.

Have you ever wondered the difference between force and energy? Free on-line dictionary defines force as "The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power" in the general category, but changes to "A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application" in the physics category. The same dictionary defines energy as "The capacity for work or vigorous activity; vigor; power" and "The capacity of a physical system to do work" in general and physics category respectively. The word "capacity to cause" physical change means, energy in its stored or potential state is force. In its kinetic state (vigorous activity), it is interaction and after it ceases to act, it is action. Though the three are only evolutionary states of the same thing, they are physically different.

Gravity has two functions: structure formation that makes particles interact and its complement displacement that makes particles separates. Gravity as a "force" stabilizes orbits between interacting bodies, when both bodies circle around a point called barycenter. If you take the distance from this point to the centers of each body, draw a square of that length and distribute the mass of the two bodies in the reverse field, you will find some interesting results. We leave it to you for working it out so that you can draw your own conclusions. For this reason, gravity is closer to magnetism. Bodies with strong magnetic fields exhibit high gravitational potential also.

On the other hand, gravity as "energy" in its structure formation function; makes particles interact in four different combinations of proximity-distance variables (proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance-proximity and distance-distance) between the two bodies involved in interaction. These four are expressed as strong, weak nuclear, electromagnetic interaction and radioactive disintegration respectively.

The states of matter are described their dimension, which differentiate the "internal structural space" - bare mass from the "external relational space" - the radiative mass. It is perceived through electromagnetic radiation (ocular perception), where an electric field and a magnetic field, move perpendicular to each other and also to the direction of their motion. Thus, we have three mutually perpendicular dimensions. For this reason, we classify the states of matter as solid, fluid or gaseous, depending upon whether the dimension is fixed, unfixed or unbound. Since gravity displaces all three types from each other, it appears in 3 x 2 1 = 7 types. Thus, all the present models of gravity, which treats it as one type, fail outside the Solar System.

These are elaborations of our essay, which harmonize with your essay.

Regards,

basudeba

    Basudeba

    Observation does not create physical existence, it is independent thereof. And there is only ever A, all physical existence is unique. I am not entirely sure what Edwin means by 'consciousness'. Matter (or whatever) quite obviously does not have consciousness, in the ordinary sense of the word. However, the basic rules of how existence functions could be superficially equated to an effective consciousness of sorts.

    Apart from that, the physical statements you make could be correct, just keep to the physics on order to explain the physical circumstance (with the important caveat: as is potentially knowable to us, ie not what we can dream up).

    Paul

    Basudeba

    You have said quite often you agree/there is no dispute, but then you say things that are different.

    Paul

    Dear Sir,

    We fully endorse your views and never disputed that "Observation does not create physical existence, it is independent thereof." All along we have held that observer only reports the state of the observable. If there is no observer, there cannot be any observation and the existence of the observable would be meaningless. Hence we have to accept observer (consciousness), observable (physical world), and their relationship - observation (concept or knowledge). Even quantum theory cannot ignore the observer, which has a special status.

    We would appreciate your comments on our interpretation of the four fundamental forces of Nature.

    Regards,

    basudeba

    Dear Sir,

    When we view the same thing from different angles, we describe it differently. But it is all about description. If you can point out the specific cases, we will try to harmonize our perspectives.

    Regards,

    basudeba

    Dear Sir,

    You are absolutely right. And there are two more reasons.

    The ego of scientists in the first half of the last century misguided science as they insisted to prove the superiority of their views instead of genuinely finding out the correspondence with reality. The famous clash between Einstein and Bohr is one example. It is more one-up-manship than science. The cult of incomprehensibility is born out of this compounding the problem. The other effect is self-praise or hero worship statements that are contained in almost all papers makes the students believe in them blindly. This makes them superstitious. Modern Scientists are the biggest lot of superstitious people.

    Secondly, all of QM and extensions of Relativity is incremental. They build the superstructure upon others without finding out the strength of the foundation. This way the mistakes are not only carried forward, but gets compounded. No one looks back because they are afraid of being left behind. This is giving rise to reductionism limiting the vision further. Science needs to be rewritten from the scratch based on presently available data.

    Regards,

    basudeba

    Basudeba

    "If there is no observer, there cannot be any observation and the existence of the observable would be meaningless"

    It is not meaningless, it is just not sensed by any sentient organism. It still exists. If all sentient capability was eradicated, existence would still contine, there would just be no awareness of it.

    "Hence we have to accept observer (consciousness), observable (physical world), and their relationship - observation (concept or knowledge)"

    There is no physical relationship. Existence occurs independently of sensing, which just outputs a perception of it.

    "Even quantum theory cannot ignore the observer"

    Every theory about the physical circumstance can, and must, ignore the sensing thereof, in terms of explaining that physical circumstance, because sensing is not part of the physical circumstance.

    "We would appreciate..."

    I have no idea.

    Paul

    Basudeba

    I note your 'cult of incomprehensibility'. This is certainly a factor. When I have raised this before I have likened it to the justification of some art, which is by any objective criteria, rubbish. That is not to say people cannot like it. But one gets this inverted snobbery argument: you just do not understand it, we are operating at a higher plane, you are deficient and not one of us. With QM one aspect of the sales pitch is that it is counter intuitive, only the enlightened understand. Not it is counter intuitive because it is wrong.

    Paul

    • [deleted]

    • Post #38

    Dear Sir,

    Just now we posted our comments on Dr. Anton Biermans essay. We have analyzed many aspects that may interest you. We reproduce it here.

    We had actually seen an egg being delivered by a hen from about 5 feet up on a wall which fell on a concrete platform below. It was a rose colored spongy blob that sprang a little on hitting the floor, rolled some distance and turned white and egg shaped with the exterior cover hardening. Thus, its creation does not "comes down to un-breaking the egg", but a combination of fluid (without fixed dimensions - we call it "anasthaa") to transforming a fixed structure (we call it "asthanwaa"). If you look at the creation of Earth and life form of Earth, you will find that entire creation process followed this route. But your gas example is not appropriate, because, though all gases have radiative dimension, the relatively low dense gases like hydrogen spread out more than relatively more dense gases like carbon dioxide - thus un-breaking.

    Entropy is the inertia that makes a thermodynamic process more likely to occur. Inertia of motion is always accompanied by inertia of restoration (elasticity) in the medium, which restores the equilibrium of the medium. Thus, low entropy, which describes the natural tendency of the universe to fall apart into disorder, is always accompanied by an opposite effect. This turns the times arrow to cycles making time cyclic. To that extent you are right in questioning the SLT.

    Entropy is very hard to directly measure as it is a value that can be seen to embody several quantities such as kinetic and potential energy, temperature, work and force. So it can be seen as a derived value that relies on all these values. It can mean the tendency of the cosmos to fall into disorder, be a measurement of thermodynamic process or reaction, or simply a measure of the energy available for work or becomes heat. Heat is associated with hot energy like those associated with elementary particles. Once that becomes unavailable, the opposite effect takes over and the structures dissolve into equilibrium led by the inertia of restoration. Slowly it revives its conjugate inertia of motion, which brings in inherent instability to the system in different localities. This starts the creation process again. Thus, all along there is the cause and effect chain operational.

    You say: "particle properties are defined to be independent from their behavior". This is true only for the physical properties. You cannot directly define the some properties of a particle (such as charge) without interaction with other objects. And that behavior is not random. Further, you cannot separate particle properties from particles. The egg-shape comes with the egg.

    Gravity is not a force that contracts like magnetism. It stabilizes the two bodies to orbit around each other with the barycenter as the center to induce equilibrium.

    A "clock inside a gravitational field is observed to run slower" has to be treated with caution. Even light travels slower in denser mediums. A strong gravitational field means more mass over a smaller field leading to high average density. But this affects the entire field and not the clock alone. Thus, there will be no net effect like the passenger of the train did not find length contraction. In any case, clock readings are not relativistic, as even Einstein has used the clock at A as a privileged frame of reference to synchronize the clocks at B and C (though later he claimed the opposite). In any case, to define the very concept of second, we use a privileged frame of reference - the motion of Earth around Sun. Even the atomic clock uses a large number of readings to match with this unit. The GPS uses the average readings of a number of atomic clocks to do just that.

    There is much misconception regarding Higg's particle. It does not provide mass to all particles. Many particles acquire mass via strong interaction. Secondly, why should these particles require such a massive particle - as much as 134 protons - to hammer in the mass? In fact it raises many questions on the electro-weak theory itself. The W boson is said to be the mediator in beta decay by facilitating the flavor change or reversal of a quark from being a down quark to being an up quark: d → u W-. The mass of a quark is said to be about 4MeV and that of a W boson, about 80GeV - almost the size of an iron atom. Thus, the mediating particle outweighs the mediated particle by a ratio of 20,000 to 1. Since Nature is extremely economical in all operations, why should it require such a heavy boson to flip a quark over? There is no satisfactory explanation for this. The W- boson then decays into an electron and an antineutrino: W- → e v. Since the neutrinos and anti-neutrinos are said to be mass-less and the electron weighs about 0.5MeV, there is a great imbalance. Though the decay is not intended to be an equation, a huge amount of energy magically appearing from nowhere at the required time and then disappearing into nothing, needs explanation.

    Messers Glashow, Weinberg, and Salam "predicted" the W and Z bosons using an SU (2) gauge theory. But the bosons in a gauge theory must be mass-less. Hence one must assume that the masses of the W and Z bosons were "predicted" by some other mechanism to give the bosons its mass. It is said that the mass is acquired through Higgs mechanism - a form of spontaneous symmetry breaking. But it is an oxymoron. Spontaneous symmetry breaking is symmetry that is broken spontaneously. Something that happens spontaneously requires no mechanism or mediating agent. Hence the Higgs mechanism has to be spontaneous action and not a mechanism. This does not require a mediating agent - at least not the Higg's boson. Apparently, the SU (2) problem has been sought to be solved by first arbitrarily calling it a symmetry, then pointing to the spontaneous breaking of this symmetry without any mechanism, and finally calling that breaking the Higgs mechanism! Thus, the whole exercise produces only a name!

    A parity violation means that beta decay works only on left-handed particles or right handed anti-particles. Messers Glashow, Weinberg, and Salam provided a theory to explain this using a lot of complicated renormalized mathematics, which showed both a parity loss and a charge conjugation loss. However, at low energies, one of the Higgs fields acquires a vacuum expectation value and the gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken down to the symmetry of electromagnetism. This symmetry breaking would produce three mass-less Goldstone bosons but they are said to be "eaten" by three of the photon-like fields through the Higgs mechanism, giving them mass. These three fields become the W-, W, and Z bosons of the weak interaction, while the fourth gauge field which remains mass-less is the photon of electromagnetism.

    All the evidence in support of the Higgs mechanism turns out to be evidence that, huge energy packets near the predicted W and Z masses exist. In that case, why should we accept that because big particles equal to W and Z masses exist for very short times, the SU (2) gauge theory can't be correct in predicting zero masses. And that the gauge symmetry must be broken, so that the Higgs mechanism must be proved correct without any mechanical reason for such breaking? There are other explanations for this phenomenon. If the gauge theory requires to be bypassed with a symmetry breaking, it is not a good theory to begin with. Normally, if equations yield false predictions - like these zero boson masses - the "mathematics" must be wrong. Because mathematics is done at "here-now" and zero is the absence of something at "here-now". One can't use some correction to it in the form of a non-mechanical "field mechanism". Thus, Higgs mechanism is not a mechanism at all. It is a spontaneous symmetry breaking, and there is no evidence for any mechanism in something that is spontaneous.

    Since charge is perceived through a mechanism, a broken symmetry that is gauged may mean that the vacuum is charged. But charge is not treated as mechanical in QED. Even before the Higgs field was postulated, charge was thought to be mediated by virtual photons. Virtual photons are non-mechanical ghostly particles. They are supposed to mediate forces spontaneously, with no energy transfer. This is mathematically and physically not valid. Charge cannot be assigned to the vacuum, since that amounts to assigning characteristics to the void. One of the first postulates of physics is that extensions of force, motion, or acceleration cannot be assigned to "nothing". For charge to be mechanical, it would have to have extension or motion. All virtual particles and fields are imaginary assumptions. Higgs' field, like Dirac's field, is a "mathematical" imagery.

    The proof for the mechanism is said to have been obtained in the experiment at the Gargamelle bubble chamber, which photographed the tracks of a few electrons suddenly starting to move - seemingly of their own accord. This is interpreted as a neutrino interacting with the electron by the exchange of an unseen Z boson. The neutrino is otherwise undetectable. Hence the only observable effect is the momentum imparted to the electron by the interaction. No neutrino or Z boson is detected. Why should it be interpreted to validate the imaginary postulate? The electron could have moved due to many other reasons.

    It is said that the W and Z bosons were detected in 1983 by Carlo Rubbia. This experiment only detected huge energy packets that left a track that was interpreted to be a particle. It did not tell that it was a boson or that it was taking part in any weak mediation. Since large mesons can be predicted by other simpler methods (e.g., stacked spins; as proposed by some, etc), this particle detection is not proof of weak interaction or of the Higgs mechanism. It is only indication of a large particle or two.

    In section 19.2, of his book "The Quantum Theory of Fields", Weinberg says: "We do not have to look far for examples of spontaneous symmetry breaking. Consider a chair. The equations governing the atoms of the chair are rotationally symmetric, but a solution of these equations, the actual chair, has a definite orientation in space". Classically, it was thought that parity was conserved because spin is an energy state. To conserve energy, there must be an equal number of left-handed and right-handed spins. Every left-handed spin cancels a right-handed spin of the same size, so that the sum is zero. If they were created from nothing - as in the Big Bang - they must also sum up to nothing. Thus, it is assumed that an equal number of left-handed and right-handed spins, at the quantum level.

    It was also expected that interactions conserve parity, i.e., anything that can be done from left to right, can also be done from right to left. Observations like beta decay showed that parity is not conserved in some quantum interactions, because some interactions showed a preference for one spin over the other. The electroweak theory supplied a mystical and non-mechanical reason for it. But it is known that parity is not conserved always. Weinberg seems to imply that because there is a chair facing west, and not one facing east, there is a parity imbalance: that one chair has literally lopsided the entire universe! This, he explains as a spontaneously broken symmetry!

    A spontaneously broken symmetry in field theory is always associated with a degeneracy of vacuum states. For the vacuum the expectation value of (a set of scalar fields) must be at a minimum of the vacuum energy. It is not certain that in such cases the symmetry is broken, because there is the possibility that the true vacuum is a linear superposition of vacuum states in which the summed scalar fields have various expectation values, which would respect the assumed symmetry. So, a degeneracy of vacuum states is the fall of these expectation values into a non-zero minimum. This minimum corresponds to a state of broken symmetry.

    Since true vacuum is non-perceptible; hence nothingness; with only one possible state - zero - logically it would have no expectation values above zero. However, Mr. Weinberg assumed that the vacuum can have a range of non-zero states, giving both it and his fields a non-zero energy. Based on this wrong assumption, Mr. Weinberg manipulated these possible ranges of energies, assigning a possible quantum effective action to the field. Then he started looking at various ways it might create parity or subvert parity. Since any expectation value above zero for the vacuum is wholly arbitrary and only imaginary, he could have chosen either parity or non-parity. In view of Yang and Lee's finding, Mr. Weinberg choose non-parity. This implied that his non-zero vacuum degenerates to the minimum. Then he applied this to the chair! Spontaneous symmetry breaking actually occurs only for idealized systems that are infinitely large. So does Mr. Weinberg claim that a chair is an idealized system that is infinitely large!

    According to Mr. Weinberg, the appearance of broken symmetry for a chair arises because it has a macroscopic moment of inertia I, so that its ground state is part of a tower of rotationally excited states whose energies are separated by only tiny amounts, of the order h2/I. This gives the state vector of the chair an exquisite sensitivity to external perturbations, so that even very weak external fields will shift the energy by much more than the energy difference of these rotational levels. As a result, any rotationally asymmetrical external field will cause the ground state or any other state of the chair with definite angular momentum numbers to rapidly develop components with other angular momentum quantum numbers. The states of the chair that are relatively stable with respect to small external perturbations are not those with definite angular momentum quantum numbers, but rather those with a definite orientation, in which the rotational symmetry of the underlying theory is broken.

    Mr. Weinberg declares that he is talking about symmetry, but actually he is talking about decoherence. He is trying to explain why the chair is not a probability or an expectation value and why its wave function has collapsed into a definite state. Quantum mathematics works by proposing a range of states. This range is determined by the uncertainty principle. Mr. Weinberg assigned a range of states to the vacuum and then extended that range based on the non-parity knowledge of Messers Yang and Lee. But the chair is not a range of states: it is a state - the ground state. To degenerate or collapse into this ground state, or decohere from the probability cloud into the definite chair we see and experience, the chair has to interact with its surroundings. The chair is most stable when the surroundings are stable (having "a definite orientation"); so the chair aligns itself to this definite orientation. Mr. Weinberg argues that in doing so, it breaks the underlying symmetry. Thus, Mr. Weinberg does not know what he is talking about!

    Mr. Weinberg believes that the chair is not just probabilistic as a matter of definite position. Apparently, he believes it is probabilistic in spin orientation also. He even talks about the macroscopic moment of inertia. This is extremely weird, because the chair has no macroscopic angular motion. The chair may be facing east or west, but there is no indication that it is spinning, either clockwise or counter clockwise. Even if it were spinning, there is no physical reason to believe that a chair spinning clockwise should have a preponderance of quanta in it spinning clockwise. QED has never shown that it is impossible to propose a macro-object spinning clockwise, with all constituent quanta spinning counterclockwise. However, evidently Weinberg is making this assumption without any supporting logic, evidence or mechanism. Spin parity was never thought to apply to macro-objects. A chair facing or spinning in one direction is not a fundamental energy state of the universe, and the Big Bang doesn't care if there are five chairs spinning left and four spinning right. The Big Bang didn't create chairs directly out of the void, so we don't have to conserve chairs!

    Electroweak theory, like all quantum theories, is built on gauge fields. These gauge fields have built-in symmetries that have nothing to do with the various conservation laws. What physicists tried to do was to choose gauge fields that matched the symmetries they had found or hoped to find in their physical fields. QED began with the simplest field U (1), but the strong force and weak force had more symmetries and therefore required SU (2) and SU (3). Because these gauge fields were supposed to be mathematical fields (which is an abstraction) and not real physical fields, and because they contained symmetries of their own, physicists soon got tangled up in the gauge fields. Later experiments showed that the symmetries in the so-called mathematical fields didn't match the symmetries in nature. However, the quantum theory could be saved if the gauge field could be somehow broken - either by adding ghost fields or by subtracting symmetries by "breaking" them. This way, the physicists landed up with 12 gauge bosons, only three of which are known to exist, and only one of which has been well-linked to the theory. Of these, the eight gluons are completely theoretical and only fill slots in the gauge theory. The three weak bosons apparently exist, but no experiment has tied them to beta decay. The photon is the only boson known to exist as a mediating "particle", and it was known long before gauge theory entered the picture.

    Quantum theory has got even the only verified boson - the photon - wrong, since the boson of quantum theory is not a real photon: it is a virtual photon! QED couldn't conserve energy with a real photon, so the virtual photon mediates charge without any transfer of energy. The virtual photon creates a zero-energy field and a zero-energy mediation. The photon does not bump the electron, it just whispers a message in its ear. So, from a theoretical standpoint, the gauge groups are not the solution, they are part of the problem. We should be fitting the mathematics to the particles, not the particles to the mathematics. Quantum physicists claim repeatedly that their field is mainly experimental, but any cursory study of the history of the field shows that this claim is not true. Quantum physics has always been primarily "mathematical". A large part of 20th century experiment was the search for particles to fill out the gauge groups, and the search continues, because they are searching blind folded in a dark room for a black cat that does not exist. When US Congress wanted to curtail funding research in this vain exercise; they named the hypothetical Higg's boson (which is non-existent), as the "God particle" and tried to sway public opinion. Now they claim that they are "tantalizingly close" not to discover the "God particle", but to "the possibility of getting a glimpse of it". How long the scientists continue to fool the public!

    Regards,

    basudeba

    Dear Sir,

    Again you will say that we say there is no difference, but tell the opposite.

    Actually there is no contradiction between what you say and what we say. You are speaking in absolute terms and we are speaking at relative terms. Like the opposite side of Moon. You say it exists. We say, we are not concerned because it does not affect us. But both of us agree about what we see.

    Your views are very close to two branches of ancient Indian philosophy, Samkhya and Vaisheshika. Both deal with the physical world from different perspectives - Samkhya starting from creation event and dealing mostly with perceptual side and Vaisheshika staring with the physical world and its characteristics. But both admit a non-interacting conscious observer to report the existence.

    Regards,

    basudeba

    7 days later

    Reply to Dr. Willard Mittelman,

    Dear Sir,

    We have discussed Wheeler's delayed choice experiment in our essay published on May 31, 2013 to show that the measurement process and the conclusions derived from it are incorrect. Yet, when you say: "measurements made today can determine the past history of the universe", you are correct. Measurement is always taken a time t, and the result is frozen for use at later times t1, t2, etc. Thus, we cannot know the "present state" because by that time we perceive the result of measurement, the object has evolved further. From this, we can infer that the result of measurement represents the past evolutionary state. This is true both for the macro and the micro systems.

    First the proposition, then the discarding of the Cosmological Constant by Einstein and its reincarnation to explain dark energy are mired in various controversies. Firstly, there cannot be dark energy (we call a background structure), because energy cannot be dark (non-interacting) - energy is always inferred from its interactions involving mass and has never been seen directly. Bare mass is dark because we see only when the radiation reaches our eyes and without energy, mass cannot interact by itself. The galaxy rotation problem is wrong mathematics. The galactic clusters only appear to recede from each other because the Universe as a whole is spinning on its central axis just like planets go round the Sun. Temporarily they appear to recede from each other to come close again. Similarly, after many years, the galactic clusters will appear to come closer. This is the reason why the expansion of the Universe is not evident in lesser scales.

    The mathematics of General Relativity, Einstein's theory of gravitation, is highly misleading. It should be based on a constant differential that is not zero and seek the motion of some given mass or volume. This mass or volume may be as small as we like, but it cannot be zero (hence no infinities). This causes several fundamental and far-reaching changes to the mathematics of GR, but the first of these changes is of course the elimination of singularity from all solutions. Therefore the central "fact" of the black hole must be given up. Whatever may be at the center of a black hole, it cannot be a "singularity".

    Chandrasekhar used Einstein's field equations to calculate densities and accelerations inside a collapsing superstar. His mathematics suggested the singularity at the center, as well as other characteristics that are still accepted as defining the black hole. Einstein himself contradicted

    Chandrasekhar's conclusions. Apart from using mass points in GR, Einstein made several other basic errors that even Chandrasekhar did not correct and is still being continued. One such error is the use of the term γ, which, as we have explained in many threads, really does not change anything except perception of the object by different observers unrelated to the time evolution of the object proper. Hence it cannot be treated as actually affecting the time-evolution of the object. Yet, in GR, it affects both "x" and "t" transformations. In some experimental situations γ is nearly correct due to Doppler shift. But in a majority of situations, γ fails, sometimes very badly. Also γ is the main term in the mass increase equation. To calculate volumes or densities in a field, one must calculate both radius (length) and mass; and the term comes into play in both.

    Yet, Einstein had wrongly assigned several length and time variables in SR, giving them to the wrong coordinate systems or to no specific coordinate systems. He skipped an entire coordinate system, achieving two degrees of relativity when he thought he had only achieved one. Because his x and t transforms were compromised, his velocity transform was also compromised. He carried this error into the mass transforms, which infected them as well. This problem then infected the tensor calculus and GR. This explains the various anomalies and variations and the so-called violations within Relativity. Since Einstein's field equations are not correct, Schwarzschild's solution of 1917 is not correct. Israel's non-rotating solution is not correct. Kerr's rotating solution is not correct. And the solutions of Penrose, Wheeler, Hawking, Carter, and Robinson are not correct.

    Let us take just one example. The black hole equations are directly derived from GR - a theory that stipulates that nothing can equal or exceed the speed of light. Yet the centripetal acceleration of the black hole must equal or exceed the speed of light in order to overcome it. In that case, all matter falling into a black hole would instantaneously achieve infinite mass. It is not clear how bits of infinite mass can be collected into a finite volume, increase in density and then disappear into a singularity. In other words, the assumptions and the mathematics that led to the theory of the black hole do not work inside the created field. The exotic concepts like wormholes, tachyons, virtual particle pairs, quantum leaps and non-linear i-trajectories at 11-dimensional boson-massed fields in parallel universes, etc, cannot avoid this central contradiction. It is not the laws of physics that breaks down inside a black hole. It is the mathematics and the postulates of Relativity that break down. The idea of Cosmological constant also similarly breaks down.

    The cosmological principle has come into question recently as astronomers find subtle but growing evidence of a special direction in space. The CMB, the so-called afterglow of the big bang, is not perfectly smooth - hot and cold spots speckle the sky. In recent years, however, scientists have discovered that these spots are not quite as randomly distributed as they first appeared - they align in a pattern that point out a special direction in space.

    Cosmologists have theatrically dubbed it the "axis of evil". More hints of a cosmic arrow come from studies of supernovae, stellar cataclysms that briefly outshine entire galaxies. Cosmologists have been using supernovae to map the accelerating expansion of the universe. Detailed statistical studies reveal that supernovae are moving even faster in a line pointing just slightly off the axis of evil. Similarly, astronomers have measured galaxy clusters streaming through space at a million miles an hour toward an area in the southern sky. Thus, the mass density calculation of the universe is wrong.

    The equation: ΩM ΩΛ Ωk = 1 appears tantalizingly similar to the Mr. Fermi's description of the three part Hamiltonian for the atom: H = HA HR HI. Here, H is 1. ΩM, which represents matter density is similar to HA, the bare mass. ΩΛ, which represents the cosmological constant, is similar to HR, the radiating bare charge. Ωk, which represents curvature of the universe, is similar to HI, the interaction. This indicates (as Mr. Mason A. Porter and Mr. Predrag Cvitanovic had shown in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society in 2005), that the macro and the micro worlds share the same sets of mathematics. Thus, the Universe is spinning on its axis as a whole, the receding galaxies phenomenon is temporary and the concept of dark energy is fiction.

    Regards,

    basudeba