Dear Sir,

Your essay is a good analysis of various prevailing thoughts - most of them fiction than science. Till date we have not come across a precise definition of "what" an electron is - Bohr's description of an enigma notwithstanding. In our essay, we have attempted to do just that. You are recommended to go through it.

In one previous essay "Is Reality Digital or Analog" as well as in the present essay, we have defined three characteristics of reality. Two of those were knowability and describability - reality must be capable of being known (what lies beyond the universe is not real, because we can never know it) and composed in a language for communication to others. Of these, the first is confined to the observer and the second is between observers. Though both are information, their difference must be recognized. There are some 'knowledge', such as intense emotions, that cannot be communicated properly. We have classified information into 5 categories.

The result of measurement is always related to a time t, and is frozen for use at later times t1, t2, etc, when the object has evolved further. All other unknown states are combined together and are called superposition of states. Thus, it is a limitation on the knowledge of individual observers and not real. The collapse postulate leads to the measurement problem.

We have discussed the double slit experiment using protons and come to the same conclusion. Can you give us any reference to the experiments cited by you? We have shown that there is no quantum 'weirdness' in this experiment.

Wheeler's physical unit of quantum, like his bit, indicates a class or a set. There can be many elements conforming to this set. If we choose a jigsaw puzzle and intelligently arrange the pieces, we will get the picture right. All pieces or random pieces cannot be so arranged. Similarly, generalizing his "surprise version" of 20 questions may not be correct. Our consciousness loops back into the past (memory) to compare the present impulse with it and finds its similarity or otherwise past experience with yes-no questions. It does not create reality. We have discussed it elaborately in our essay.

The content of all observations is of a form: " 'I' see or feel or perceive 'it' as 'such' ". Here 'I' is the observer, 'it' is the observable and 'such' is the result of measurement expressed as a concept through a language for communication. In this format, 'it' and 'such' change with each perception, but the observer 'I' remains invariant. Communication proves that all 'I' perceive in the same manner (what one sees, others also see the same thing), though the concept 'such' may vary due to defects in the mechanism. Since there is no means of differentiating one 'I' from another 'I', it is one. But since we can not count or perceive all 'I' that exists, it is infinite.

The brain cells and microtubuli within the cytoskeleton of the brain, though belong to the micro world, are instruments of measurement or hardware and not conscious, because they exist as such even immediately after death. The electrochemical energy of one conscious mind that carries information in 100 billion neurons with 1000 trillion connections can channel countless sub-atomic particles like an inert super-computer, but not into a consciously assembled reality. Our body including the neural network of the brain or our eyes etc. are not the observer, but only an instrument for observation. Equating an instrument with the observer is not correct. It is because consciousness never acts, it only observes. It is the 'I' part of observation, neither the hardware nor the software. It remains invariant as 'I' in all perceptions, just like space and time - they do not interact with objects, objects evolve in them. The "conscious mind before encased in a human body, itself an assemblage of some seven octillion atoms (7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 7*1027)", does not "create physical reality", but merely observes it. The Moon continues to exist when we are not looking at it. Observation is meaningful only to the observer for his information and does not change physical reality. The cat will lead its life. Observation will only report its state, neither will it kill nor make it come alive. There is nothing like a 'undead' cat. Our ignorance of its state does not change its life history.

How do they define consciousness? If it evolved from fish like ancestors, then either the fish would have been most intelligent or the humans would have evolved out of fish - both of which do not stand scientific scrutiny.

We do not accept inflation, but have repeatedly advocated the opposite mechanism - rapid expansion leading to a bow-shock effect slowing it down till it stops at a boundary and retards - gaining momentum to repeat the process again and again within these boundaries, so that at the present rate of expansion, the positioning of galaxies would appear to be more than it could have shifted had it moved at a steady rate. We also do not accept Big Bang, but advocate the Big Bounce - a self recreating universe that is not "dependent on extra dimensions, string theory and branes, or a Multiverse with all probable outcomes".

We have also refuted the idea of singularity by showing here in various threads and elsewhere that division by zero is not infinity, but leaves the number unchanged. We derive the Big Bounce from simple laws of conservation and inertia and not loop quantum gravity.

We have repeatedly asserted that entanglement is not an exclusive quantum phenomenon and does not continue ad infinitum. It's over in a few kilometers. A pair of socks or gloves is also entangled. We impose our ignorance to an imaginary superposition of all possible states. The result of measurement is always related to a time t, and is frozen for use at later times t1, t2, etc, when the object has evolved further. All other unknown states are combined together and are called superposition of states. In the case entanglement, there are only two fixed states and once our observation determines the state of one, the state of the other is automatically known - it does not come out of a superposition of all possible states.

There is no proof that "ancient gods took larger-scale human forms and interbred with humans". We cannot "project our consciousness into the fabric of space". Sorry to disappoint you, but we apply our mind independently. Outside this forum, you can write to us at mbasudeba@gmail.com.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Basudeba,

Thanks for the comment on my essay. There are many interesting and resonating points condensed into your essay and I will attempt to discuss a few of them which resonated.

"...since density of space is the minimum, the velocity of photon in space is maximum." "Particles are nothing but locally confined fields of densities." "The interval between objects is space and that between events is time"

One way is to treat 'density' as the overall remnants/effects of the state of motion of particles or more precisely the state of location and displacement of particles from the prior and next state (analogous to one frame after another in a video). For a photon, which is not a localized or confined particle (sort of spread out in comparison), it will navigate with greater ease in a less dense (less particle perturbation) environment.

"There is a continual pressure starting from the creation event to achieve complete knowledge."

The way I treat it is that once 'density' and information come into existence, it has already set the stage for moving towards the ultimate event where the 'overall density' is at its 'optimum'.

Regards,

Hon Jia

    Dear Sir,

    Thanks for your comments. We fully agree with your first comment, which can be further extended.

    Regarding your second comment, we must differentiate between 'density', which is a state and 'information', which is the description of the state in a 'language'. Knowledge is the perception of the contents of this language. Description or reporting is action. The content is perceived only after this action. Hence it is not action. It is compared with the stored concept in memory. Thus, ultimate knowledge is the ultimate store house of all concepts.

    Regards,

    basudeba

    Dear Basudeba,

    You have put a ,,strange,, task - ,,harmonizing the generalities of the macro world with those of the micro world,, from viewpoint of modern ideology,adopted in the oficial physics as indisputable principle! I mean there finitelly are accepted - our macroworld has its own rules (that is the cause-effect relations)- and thre are the microworld, which controled by brobable-statistical own relations (i.e. by quantum laws.) So, how you can dared to go against to thousands professors, uncountable quantity of courses and handbooks? You puting also laffulness questions - what is photon? What is the electron? Who give you permission to put such eretical questions?

    Dear Basudeba! You are on very right way! I welcome your work and hope you can find some answers of your right questions from my work ESSAY(after you need check the referenses there)I am inclined to high rate your work, and hope to listening your opinion about our common points in my forum.

    All the Best,

    George

      Dear Sir,

      Thank you for your gracious comments.

      Modern physics is at cross roads and needs to be saved by independent research. In this forum itself, we have received monetary offers and offers to mutually vote high, which we have declined.

      We can give our independent views because we are not running after any prize or recognition, but we want to understand Nature for our own satisfaction. We do not accept the 'established theories' blindly, because that is superstition. We accept only those that stand scientific scrutiny based on latest observations and experiments. Additionally we try to link similar principles in different fields like the Doppler effect or inverse square law were used in different fields in the last century. We do not fantasize with physics and follow strict mathematical principles.

      We will surely visit your site and comment on it.

      Regards,

      basudeba

      basudeba,

      "Quantum states give only probabilities, which aredetermined by observation.

      The probability is related to the observer's inefficiency to control the environment and not to the way the quantum world behaves"

      A lot of pearls of wisdom like the above and a lots of good unanswered questions. As your assessment indicates, We share a number of concepts and questions.

      Jim

      Dear Basubeda,

      I have read through your essay and I have noticed that you are only describing some of the most fundamental principle in physics and you are trying to be philosophical about the subject - unfortunately you are not doing it the right way. I do not understand how the Essay title "it from bit or bit from it" is related to your writings.

      Firstly I do not see how the water waves experiment you carried out - you are implying that the observations made are similar to the double slit experiment with one electron? There are interferences and diffraction observed in both cases because of the way the waves propagates. [by the way your experiment was carried with matter waves (like water waves or waves in a string) while the waves in the wave/particle duality are electromagnetic waves - there are some fundamental differences from a quantum mechanical point of view! Unfortunately you are in a classical world!] You cannot compare with a classical experiment water molecules and the behavior of a single electron quantum mechanically speaking! The water waves are just energy propagating, the molecules are right here but you do not know in what state is the electron until you observe it ( This reduction or collapse of a wave function as per the Copenhagen interpretation).

      Secondly I do not understand why you would say that no one knows what is an electron? It is a fundamental and stable particle, a proton is however a composite and stable free hadron - the only one. An electron however can exhibit wave like properties ( this is how the quantum world operates ). Otherwise modern medicine would not be existing since most researches in the field requires the extensive use of electron microscopes which makes use the wave like nature of an electron.

      Finally I would say that if you are to question the most fundamental principles of Physics and thereby Nature, then do so by including some references as this is a very important part of any kind of research which has been undertaken by the author of the article.

      Best

      Salvish

        Dear Sir,

        You have justified our addressing you Sir, because you have shown real inquisitiveness to know. We are pleased with your questions, but since space is a constraint, we will reply a few points briefly. You can read other comments in other threads or write to us at mbasudeba@gmail.com.

        If you read the original Essay announcement, you will realize that, our essay is one of the few essays that strictly follow the principles and conditions of relevancy and interest mentioned therein and is the only one that follows all conditions in its entirety. This has been published only after FQXi was satisfied about these conditions - specifically the possible questions and sub-topics.

        October 2005 issue of the Notices of American Mathematical Society has published a paper, in which it has been shown that the macro and the micro worlds share the same sets of mathematics. We use this principle universally. The Copenhagen Interpretation is restricted to text books now. Most in the research community have abandoned it. You say that we are philosophical, because we are not taking the language of mathematics. But what about the concept of the observer? Though observer has a central role in Quantum theories, its true nature and mechanism has eluded the scientists. There cannot be an equation to describe the observer, the glory of the rising sun, the grandeur of the towering mountain, the numbing expanse of the night sky, the enchanting fragrance of the wild flower or the endearing smile on the lips of the beloved. It is not the same as any physical or chemical reaction or curvature of lips. Do you call these philosophy? Are they not real? If they are real, they description about them must be physics. Mathematics explains only "how much" one quantity accumulates or reduces in an interaction involving similar or partly similar quantities and not "what", "why", "when", "where", or "with whom" about the objects involved in such interactions. These are the subject matters of physics.

        We have shown in various threads the correspondence of macro objects with micro objects like the internal structure of proton and Planet Jupiter are similar. We have shown there is nothing as quantum weirdness and all quantum phenomena including superposition, entanglement, spin, tunneling, etc. have macro equivalents. We have shown how the experiments of the double slit experiment are faulty. It is in our essay. If you can, prove us wrong. Take this as a challenge.

        Regarding wave function and its collapse, the less said the better. We have quoted one of them in our post below your thread. Since it is widely agreed that any quantum mechanical system is completely described by its wave function, it might seem that quantum mechanics is fundamentally about the behavior of wave functions. Quite naturally, all physicists starting with Erwin Schrödinger, the father of the wave function, wanted this to be true. Nonetheless, Schrödinger ultimately found it impossible to believe. His difficulty was not so much with the novelty of the wave function: "That it is an abstract, unintuitive mathematical construct is a scruple that almost always surfaces against new aids to thought and that carries no great message". Rather, it was that the "blurring" suggested by the spread out character of the wave function "affects macroscopically tangible and visible things, for which the term 'blurring' seems simply wrong" (Schrödinger 1935).

        For example, in the same paper Schrödinger noted that it may happen in radioactive decay that "the emerging particle is described ... as a spherical wave ... that impinges continuously on a surrounding luminescent screen over its full expanse. The screen however does not show a more or less constant uniform surface glow, but rather lights up at one instant at one spot ....". He observed that one can easily arrange, for example by including a cat in the system, "quite ridiculous cases" with the ψ-function of the entire system having in it the living and the dead cat mixed or smeared out in equal parts. Thus it is because of the "measurement problem" of macroscopic superpositions that Schrödinger found it difficult to regard the wave function as "representing reality". But then what does reality representing? With evident disapproval, Schrödinger describes how the reigning doctrine rescues itself by having recourse to epistemology. We are told that no distinction is to be made between the state of a natural object and what we know about it, or perhaps better, what we can know about it. Actually - it is said - there is intrinsically only awareness, observation, measurement.

        Many physicists pay lip service to the Copenhagen interpretation - that quantum mechanics is fundamentally about observation or results of measurement. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to find an ardent supporter of this interpretation. It is assumed that quantum mechanics is fundamentally about atoms, electrons, quarks and strings (if they exist at all), and not those particular macroscopic regularities associated with the measurements of the properties of these things. But if these entities are not to be somehow identified with the wave function itself - and if any discussion about them is not a short-hand for elaborate statements about measurements - then where is their place in the quantum description? Discerning the objects we believe quantum mechanics should be describing in the quantum description is a difficult task. We are not discussing the probability wave, whose intensity is given by a complex number, so that it has to be squared to make it meaningful. Intensity is physical. Complex numbers are non-physical. Hence they cannot be used in computer programming.

        Your reply about what is an electron is like telling Salvish Goomanee is a person. This is not the answer, because it is only a name and you are much beyond this name. Find out the most intelligent Professor of physics in your locality and put him this question. See what he replies and compare with your views.

        Regards,

        basudeba

        Dear Basudeba,

        I am glad to find with you many common views on how must be seen

        the science based on objective principles but not on the subjectivism,

        which mainly find place in disputable sections of physics.

        Caming to your detailed interpretation of Schredinger equation, I must tell you

        sorry, because I have my own approach to this very intriquing problem

        (you know already whit this question mostly has conditioned the origin of

        quantum representation). If you have enogh time (I mean after this battle!)

        just open ref. [9] from my work. I hope my explanation will deserved your

        attention. There you can find also my viewpoint about relation of matematics,

        logic and physical reality.

        My Best wishes to you,

        George

          11 days later

          Dear All,

          It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.

          iSeries always yields two sub semi series, each of which has 0 as a base seed and 2i as the first seed.

          One of the sub series is always defined by the equation

          Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

          where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

          the second sub series is always defined by the equation

          Sn = 3 * Sn-1 -Sn-2

          where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

          Division of consecutive numbers in each of these subseries always eventually converges on 2.168 which is the Square of 1.618.

          Union of these series always yields another series which is just a new iSeries of a 2i first seed and can be defined by the universal equation

          Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

          where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2*i

          Division of consecutive numbers in the merged series always eventually converges on 1.618 which happens to be the golden ratio "Phi".

          Fibonacci series is just a subset of the iSeries where the first seed or S1 =1.

          Examples

          starting iSeries governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

          where i = 0.5, S0 = 0 and S1 = 0.5

          -27.5 17 -10.5 6.5 -4 2.5 -1.5 1 -.5 .5 0 .5 .5 1 1.5 2.5 4 6.5 10.5 17 27.5

          Sub series governed by Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

          where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

          0 1 2 5 13 34 ...

          Sub series governed by Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2

          where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

          0 1 3 8 21 55 ...

          Merged series governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2 where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

          0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...... (Fibonacci series is a subset of iSeries)

          The above equations hold true for any value of i, again confirming the singularity of i.

          As per Antony Ryan's suggestion, a fellow author in this contest, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.

          d-super.pdf"> The-Fibonacci-code-behind-superstring-theory](https://msel-naschie.com/pdf/The-Fibonacci-code-behin

          d-super.pdf)

          Now that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM and GR and together they explain the Quantum Gravity. Seems like this duality is a commonality in nature once relativity takes effect or a series is kicked off. I can draw and analogy and say that this dual series with in the "iSeries" is like the double helix of our DNA. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.

          I have put forth the absolute truth in the Theory of everything that universe is an "iSphere" and we humans are capable of perceiving the 4 dimensional 3Sphere aspect of the universe and described it with an equation of S=BM^2.

          I have also conveyed the absolute mathematical truth of zero = I = infinity and proved the same using the newly found "iSeries" which is a super set of Fibonacci series.

          All this started with a simple question, who am I?

          I am drawn out of my self or singularity or i in to existence.

          I super positioned my self or I to be me.

          I am one of our kind, I is every one of all kinds.

          I am Fibonacci series in iSeries

          I am phi in zero = I = infinity

          I am 3Sphere in iSphere

          I am pi in zero = I = infinity

          I am human and I is GOD (Generator Organizer Destroyer).

          Love,

          Sridattadev.

          Dear Sir,

          We have refuted your equating zero with infinity in our first post. We avoided replying to that telling that you do not want to discuss relativity. Then why are you continuing with such weird ideas?

          In your Author bio-data, you have said "I am your alter ego. We are one and the same i or the singularity or the conscience or the soul or the absolute or the god." I is discrete (consciousness is not) and alter ego suggests duality. Then how can both be same?

          What is the rationale of your writing or post to the topic at hand? It is beyond us! You are advocating 'pravritti' path, which only tempts the sense organs to go more for it (material enjoyment) and away from salvation. Of course it is your choice.

          Regards,

          basudeba

          Dear Basudeba -

          It is interesting in this contest to see how disparate thinkers start from such different perspectives and draw near to a concept of the Cosmos that can, I sense, accommodate a grand synthesis of their views.

          Simply put, we're all questioning the established parameters, as has occurred throughout history - and we're doing so for the same reason as always: so that we might interact with a field of reality that is more comprehensive (or consistent), and less paradoxical.

          I was captivated by your combination of thoroughness, and your concern for the 'real-world' aspect of whatever paradigm will one day resolve the issues at hand.

          At the beginning you state how time is fundamental to information language, and wires in certain distortions. This brings in the observer-bias, I think - and ultimately, evolution.

          I found your description of the dual waves meeting in the photon very interesting - and this is something I trace to the 'gravitational-magnetic force' of pure energy. I think you'd agree that there's duality in the foundation of the Cosmos: you see two types of waves meeting, I speak of this duality as fundamental to energy itself, and the source of electrons and protons (negative and positive charges that - once properly aligned - got the cosmic process going.

          You address what can be called the general topic of distortion in a very interesting way in your analysis of Einstein's time dilation experiments. Ultimately relativistic and quantum distortions occur at the periphery of the Cosmos - very far away, at great speeds, or within particles - but are less relevant in the universe at hand. However, these factors, or distortions, are always taking place - and they are always relevant in defining the Cosmos.

          What is the Cosmos? You have raised several interesting points here to help us answer this question - and given your broad perspective (your exploration of information systems and the mechanics of perception were very helpful - as were your cosmic conclusions) I'm sure you'll find many useful insights in my essay, too.

          I have rated your paper, of course, and I wish you the best of luck in the competition.

          John

            Basudeva

            Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

            (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

            said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

            I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

            The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

            Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

            Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

            I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

            Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

            Good luck and good cheers!

            Than Tin

            Dear Sir,

            We fully agree with your opening remark. We are sorry for over-looking your essay till now. Our views are very similar, though from different perspectives; so that it will take some time to finalize the common language. Due to space constraint we may not be able to express our views fully here and we will like to continue our interaction beyond this forum. We are also going to write to FQXi to devote more time for discussion (at least 2 months) than writing the essay (not more than 45 days) and abolish the prizes, since the list of finalists are being manipulated.

            We will write more detailed comments on your essay in your thread. Here we will like to comment with appreciation only on "duality as fundamental to energy itself ... that ... got the cosmic process going" to further elaborate and corroborate.

            Let us consider motion. It requires application of a force. Two things happen simultaneously when a force is applied: the object changes its position in space over time and continues to move due to inertia of motion, which, in turn, generates the complimentary inertia of restoration (elasticity) in the field due to differential velocity (friction). Both these are equal and oppositely directed. Thus, application of one force generates a pair of reactions, which, when faced with other reactions, become non-linear and express themselves in a multitude of ways. Now suppose a body is in equilibrium. It means, all forces acting on it cancel themselves. (We have shown elsewhere mathematically that there is nothing as inertia of rest). Let us remove one of the forces acting on the body. The body starts moving due to the other forces acting on it. In other words, by both applying force as well as by removing force, we induce motion in the body. Thus, equilibrium resolves into two oppositely directed motions.

            Motion can bring one body near another (proximity) or take one body away from another (distance). The rate of change will vary depending upon the force applied. This duality will compound when we consider both bodies together. Thus, when the equilibrium resolves into two oppositely directed motions, the variable effect can be of four types: proximity-proximity variable, proximity-distance variable, distance-proximity variable and distance-distance variable. These are called the strong, weak, electromagnetic interactions and the radioactive disintegration. The relationship of two bodies in equilibrium to each other (may be in orbit) is the gravitational interaction.

            Let us examine what is a force? A medium or a field is a substance or material which carries the wave. It is a region of space characterized by a physical property having a determinable value at every point in the region. This means that if we put something appropriate in a field, we can then notice "something else" out of that field, which makes the body interact with other objects put in that field in some specific ways, that can be measured or calculated. This "something else" is a type of force. Depending upon the nature of that force, the scientists categorize the field as gravity field, electric field, magnetic field, electromagnetic field, etc. Thus, ultimately we arrive at a duality of a field and an object that experience a force if placed in the field.

            In the primordial state, this is referred to as the quark-gluon plasma. But in the first instance, how did the difference arise? We hold it to be in five stages, out of which the first two stages belong to your Sensory-Cognitive realm. The last two stages belong to your inorganic realm, while the third was the threshold of transformation. This again leaves two thresholds. The first created the qualitative differentiation and the second the quantitative differentiation, which is the charge. Thereafter, the objects interacted as per their positive or negative charge, which behaves like moving out of the center and confining to the center respectively.

            Regards,

            basudeba