Gravity and the Nature of Information by Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Israel,

Very happy to see you back. Even happier that we have no points of disagreement. Having just read your essay I found nothing to disagree with either. In fact, your final argument about the vacuum as 'material substance' is the major physical fact underlying my model. I don't recall this particular argument. Is it new with you? It is very effective.

Your requests are reasonable and I address them here. Recall that I do not claim my Master equation for the evolution of the vacuum 'is' GR or QM but that it 'reduces to' GR and QM in appropriate cases. I have showed that my equation reduces to Einstein's weak field equations in 'Gene Man's World' (on Amazon) and, in abbreviated form, in an earlier FQXi essay. This is done in terms of vector algebra. I'm developing a more generalized derivation using Geometric Algebra. These of course derive only the weak field equations of GR. But Vishwakarma's current essay points out that the stress-energy tensor cannot handle self-gravitation or angular momentum of the gravitational field and has inspired me to investigate a tensor-based derivation of the full field equation.

As for QM, I follow an approach by Sakurai (in 'Modern Quantum Mechanics') to derive Schroedinger's equation from the C-field equation (which is derived from the Master equation). This is presented in my last FQXi essay, 'The Nature of the Wave Function'. It has since been pointed out to me that this is an idealization, treating the C-field as constant, and I have extended this to the case of a variable C-field induced by the particle motion. I've not yet published this generalization.

Since my previous essay I have developed some proficiency using Mathematica. This is reflected in the n-GEM non-linearization technique described in my current essay.

Finally you ask about predictions. I've made a number of predictions in the past, in essays and books, but all of these were based on the assumption of a constant scale factor associated with the C-field, with the value as measured by Martin Tajmar. My n-GEM approach seems to indicate that this is actually a variable factor obtained from the inherent nonlinearity of the field. Therefore I am in the process of reconfirming the results obtained based on the assumption of a constant factor. Additionally, some of my intuitions failed based on the use of the constant, but it looks like they may succeed on the basis of a nonlinear approach. So I'm cautious about predictions until I feel that I fully understand all of the implications of moving from a constant C-field scale factor to a variable strength field. I'm very optimistic about the new approach.

I will make further comments on your essay page.

Thanks again for reading my essay and agreeing with it.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Jonathan,

You say "let me speak mathematically", then discuss smooth, topological, and measurable objects and spaces, - and relations between same." I could say "let me speak physically, then discuss smooth, topological, and measurable objects - and relations between same."

That is my point. Yes "waves and fields require spaces that admit smooth relations", but that's physical reality! And to say it is "a looser condition than topological or measurable" is simply to impose abstractions on physical reality. And you do this with your physically real brain, and, if I'm correct, your consciousness which is integral with physical reality. I have no objection to the creation or derivation of arbitrarily complex mathematical relations from physical reality. Only to the assumption that these have real existence apart from physical reality.

You note that the unbroken space [or field] has the not-two quality, which is divided when symmetry breaks and more complex forms emerge. This is exactly my point, that all this emerges from an initial unity [or not-two-ness]. Yes, the whole of mathematics emerges as the field evolves. But it emerges from the inherent logic of the physical field, which as far as I can tell, demands self-consistency and forbids contradiction. This alone leads to math. It leads to endless logical physical structures, one of the simplest of which is the counter, which physically implements the Peano axioms, leading to the natural numbers, which Kronecker said leads to all the rest of math.

Yes, the key is the self-interaction, which, as you note, can lead to a torus [and does so in my theory]. All abstract questions of topology and dimension, and what have you, are consequent creations of mind, not inherent "FORMs" existing in Plato-land.

The question is, can one start with real objects and actions, and logical combinations thereof and, first, form a language map that accurately reflects the reality that served as the basis for the evolution of the language, and, second, can one use this language to spin tales that are not physically possible, such as, for example, the sun rising and setting at the same time? Math is the evolved language that emerges from a conscious physical world, such that it can map physical reality, and then go beyond physical reality, just as language allows fairy-tales to go beyond historical novels. But the natural language does not exist in another realm. It evolved from physical reality. And so does math, which is just a 'purer, formal' language.

I think the only point we don't agree on is the supernatural existence of math outside the natural physical realm.

We seem to agree on everything else.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Anton, I'll study these and reply. Thanks for pointing this out!

Jonathan,

If it's emergent, then we agree on almost every thing. And if not, we still agree on almost everything. It's not necessary for friends to agree on everything. It would get boring. So you are right, let's focus on the things we both find exciting, such as Kauffmann's, Schiller's and Vishwakarma's work, and how it relates to ours.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Georgina,

Thanks for reading my essay and for your kind words. I've read yours and will comment on your page. Good luck to you also! Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Michel,

I have had a chance to review the two papers you referenced. The Riemann paper discusses the details of a specific partition function, which I find interesting as I base the applicability of the Born probability to my wave function model on the partition function. The other paper, on time perception is also interesting. I had not seen the Poincare discussion of the Continuum, and found that fascinating, as well as your connection. I am somewhat confused as to whether you are proposing the phase locking as the 'mechanism' of time perception or of the 'scaling' of time perception? I can understand how this could relate to scaling, but not perception as I understand it.

Thank you for reading my essay and commenting. I hope it stimulates some ideas for you.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Dipak Kumar Bhunia,

Thank you for your gracious comment. I have read your paper and believe we overlap as follows: you support that nature is not (or cannot be proven to be) analog, and consider observers (us) to be digital: "then nature that perceives through such digits or quantum must appear as a digital." [and] "the digital observers (like us) have a natural limit to detect the nature non-digitally, even if it would be non-digital anywhere in its deeper levels beyond that digital limit. "

This is a well-thought-out proposition, and the locus of our agreement seems to be here. I tend to believe that the deeper levels are non-digital, but, as you may recall, I view the transfer of information as energy transfer, that does, or does not cross a threshold. This is the digitization you refer to. If the threshold is crossed, then the digit is '1', else '0'. This sets the digital limit of observation. The details of the observed world are so rich that we cannot expect any two essays in this contest to agree upon all of them, but the basic mechanism seems to be in agreement.

Thanks again for reading and commenting.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Antony,

Thanks for your very gracious comment.

Fermi, who claimed "with five parameters I can fit an elephant", probably never dreamed that our main theory of particles would have more parameters than particles!

I too am interested in how electromagnetism arises. I have a 'mechanism' in my theory that explains this, but it is probably the weakest part of my theory. On the other hand, I can show how the nonlinear gravito-magnetic field confines quarks, which is about the only thing that the 'strong' force does. The theory also both produces and transforms particles which is what the 'weak' force does. So if my electromagnetic 'mechanism' is correct, the forces are unified.

It's hard to keep up with the number of essayists this year, but I will read yours and comment on your page.

Thanks again, and good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman