Gravity and the Nature of Information by Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Eugene,

thank you very much for your very inspiring essay.

I was surprised to find even esoteric aspects in your profound approach, f.e. the Not-Two aspect of reality, which is indeed terribly difficult for our brains to deal with.

I am convinced that our Universe bases fundamentally upon such a Not-Two conception (which I am calling the "Principle of Radical Non-Duality"). The Wave-Particle Duality of Light is - as conceived by me - nothing else than a physical reflection of this fundamental principle.

It implies that wave and particle are two distinguishable aspects of one and the same reality comparable with the two sides of one and the same coin.

Einstein was quite unhappy about this dualism (i.e. this Not-Two aspect of light). He could not accept quantum mechanics because in quantum mechanics this duality was actually consolidated as a fundamental principle whereas Einstein dreamed of Oneness instead of Not-Two-Ness.

If we accept this duality of wave and particle as being a fundamental aspect of light, it would be natural, to assume that the speed of light c is of dual nature as well. That means the fundamental constant of c should be given twice - in a wave-like version and in particle-like version. In special relativity only one of these two faces of c has been taken into account, expressed by its second postulate.

In this way the Not-Two aspect of reality - if taken as a fundamental feature of reality - implies revolutionary physical consequences like the existence of a hidden face of c. If this concequence were true, special relativity would be fundamentally incomplete.

When P. Dirac combined Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity, just this incompleteness of special relativity became integral part of QED. To me this incompleteness of special relativity is the misleading core of QED, in particular with respect of the relativistic version of Lorentz symmetry.

Dear Edwin,

I enjoyed very much reading your essay, and I like your criticism on how physics is done, unfortunately too often today, much like in the theory of epicycles. I tend to see all these as explorations of alternative possibilities, so that natural selection can eventually apply to the various approaches. Thanks for citing my essay. It is good to see that you touched very well the theme, and I wish you good luck with the contest and with your GEM!

Best wishes,

Cristi

Cristi Stoica

Edwin,

What can I say. I started with a page to note the bits I agreed and any compliments and another for the bits I didn't fully agree with or grasp.

I now have a short essay and a blank sheet of paper.

Absolutely brilliant job. It deserves to be number one, and may even, god forbid, be noticed by the judges. OK, we mustn't get carried away, perhaps just a couple of Nobel prizes!

As there's no room for me to identify all the analogies and commonality with my own essay I'll leave it to you to do that 'Easter Egg hunt'. But I can't compare mine to yours. ill I've done is drawn a line between reality and maths, and resolved the EPR paradox. A drop in the ocean relative(istical)ly.

Just one point I'd offer, on; " ...the self-interaction grows until a threshold is reached, whereupon the field grows in strength almost without limit!"

In reality we have the Unruh effect, now not found as just due to acceleration but essentialy photoionization or condensation increasing with velocity, and I've also now derived the clear real physical mechanism of the curve and LT limit gamma. Perhaps we'' chat privately on that one.

Very best of luck. I think you've excelled this year.

Do let me know if you could follow all mine ok, I fear I made it far too dense yet again!

Peter

Thanks Guru!

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Edwin

I enjoyed your guided tour into realms of ideas that are brilliant, inspiring and always thought-provoking. I could not follow everything, and did not agree with everything that I did understand. You have the right combination of technical grasp and mental stamina, and have scribbled a treasure map with the few equations you distilled from the infinite tangle of those available. With this map you propose to find the way out of the jungle that physics has become full of untamed beasts (many mythical). And it has a friendly elephant too! Excellent!

Your kernel equation of the self-interacting field is very much how I see the self-assembly and self-convolution of a Beautiful Universe (BU) made up of a lattice of nodes interacting with adjacent ones as I have described elsewhere.

In the Einstein Maxwell equation what does the vector v represent? A variable speed of light? If so it is exactly as Eddington proposed that the vacuum has a coefficient of refraction n= c/v according to the local density, as incorporated into my (BU).

Thank you for quoting many of Smolin's bon-mots - I was not aware of this one - "the theory of epicycles was good to one part in 1000"..."Neither mathematical beauty nor agreement with experiment can guarantee that the ideas a theory is based on bear the slightest relation to reality." Bravo - so true.

Now where I tend to disagree with you is about gravity being a basic attribute. You say "Energy has mass, and mass gravitates". Hmm this is too sweeping a statement - perhaps you are sweeping some mechanism for how energy gets converted to mass and its gravitational field under the cosmic carpet. Yes (m) and (e) are mutually convertible but they are are not the same thing. Mass may be a knot of energy that prevents the energy propagating, whirring in place instead. So the gravitational field has energy but it is only created when mass is created. This process becomes very clear in (BU) when two nodes twist and their ( -) poles 'click' in place and the adjacent nodes twist accordingly and the effect propagates through the vacuum by twisting other nodes. If indeed gravity is due to such twisting, it is not at all a fundamental property. But perhaps we are thinking the same thing and the terminology is different.

You said "Gravity is a field, not abstract geometry". Bravo- and so much for General Relativity. I have stressed this point in (BU) theory where the local potential density slows down light, not flexes space-time.

In your mass-flow induced C-field diagrams should not the arrow follow the right hand rule and spin in the other direction?

You said "I hypothesize that awareness came into existence but once". Interesting and tantalizing, although again I do not see how this can be so. Are you talking about some sort of Teilhard de Chardin-like Noo-Sphere or a mystical universe that envelops the physical one? I sympathize with your drift to the neo-mystical because all this science has hardened our minds (at least it did mine) whereas mystical/religious experiences, while being "real", have no physical theory to explain them and give them weight in this too-confident age.

You touch on other interesting things in your gem of a paper, but I had better stop here. Best of luck with your ongoing research and work.

Vladimir

Dear Sir,

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

Dear Edwin,

Nice to read and comment your next essay.

You are right saying: "Not all theories make predictions, yet some physicists seem to believe in these because of the 'beauty' of the math. But what about theories that do make predictions testable by experiment? What does 'testable by experiment' mean? Generally it means a theory can fit the data."

You claim also that: "Gravity is real. This is experientially obvious, yet gravity is considered mere geometry by many..." I have proposed a simple experiment to prove or falsify your statement about gravity:

http://vixra.org/abs/1304.0027

If the photon spin in my experiment will not change as predicted by my concept (at this point contrary to QM) and calibrated measurement will show that, the concept will fit the data. This spin experiment is simple and has only two possible outcomes. If physicists claim that physics is nothing more than geometry it does not mean that it is not real. I do not think that geometry itself is the reality but I try to use it as a model of reality helping me to imagine and understand the laws of physics and create predictions about the reality evolution. The geometrical point of view together with an evolutionary approach lets me reason that the universe is a dissipative coupled system that exhibits self-organized criticality. This structured criticality is a property of complex systems where small events may trigger larger events. This is a kind of chaos where the general behavior of the system can be modeled on one scale while smaller- and larger-scale behaviors remain unpredictable (this is also Smolin point of view). The simple example of that phenomenon is a pile of sand. When QM and GR are computable and deterministic, the universe evolution (naturally evolving self-organized critical system) is non-computable and non-deterministic.

After the same Smolin you claim "Neither mathematical beauty nor agreement with experiment can guarantee that the ideas a theory is based on bear the slightest relation to reality." So tell me what could possibly give us the guarantee? If anything? I know this is a hard issue with our perception involved.

Best regards

Edwin,

Quite a mindfull. Much of it above my paygrade though.

If I may make a few observations about the section on consciousness;

"Awareness is located in the field, but concentrated where the action is.'

The example I tend to think of is of a magnifying glass, focusing light to a point. When we draw it out, the light is diffuse and fills the whole circle, while when we draw it in and concentrate the light to a point, there is shadow in the surrounding area. I find concentration to be like this; Isolating from the broader network of beingness. It is when we blend, unfocused, with what is around us, that we are one with it. Meditation is the conventional model, but steady activity works just fine.

I think though, that I would compare awareness to light, rather than gravity, while gravity is the coming together that is knowledge. Like light, awareness is constantly pushing at its surroundings. looking for whatever crack it can find, constantly moving on. While knowledge is the thought structures, insights and observations that form and either grow, if we keep adding more attention/energy to them, or are forgotten, if our awareness moves onto something else. Only those thoughts which hold together and grow are what we would think of as logic, while the rest are only connected as a stream of consciousness. Awareness is what is present, the hands of the clock, constantly taking on new forms, or building up the old ones and knowledge is events, marks on the face of the clock, that come into being and recede, like waves, either crashing or fading. So with galaxies and gravity, the structure falls into the vortex, while the light radiates out. Awareness moving on, as thoughts fade away.

There is a political relationship in here as well, since conservatism is the structure, seemingly hard and fast, yet constantly crumbling and consolidating, while liberalism tends to be more the soft connecting tissue, radiating out and growing, yet never quite grasping and when it does, becoming conservative and solid. Like youth and age. Light and structure.

Edwin,

The distinction is between awareness and self-awareness. Yes, I do agree self-awareness is (a form of) gravitational feedback. Yet as I point out in the analogy of the magnifying glass, when we become too self-aware, it becomes that gravitational collapse into narcissism, personal obsessions and political fanaticism, that causes isolation. Much as gravity points to a center, without having a point at the center, the sense of self becomes a vortex. And motivates the sort of people who end up either behind bars, or running large corporations. Or both. (Large centralized organizations are gravitational vortices, with requisite cult-like tendencies.) Not to say we are all not the center of our own view of the universe, but best to keep it in perspective. We need to maintain the connective tissue that is like the light simply radiating out and not ever coming back, but will locate our position for a long time to come, to whomever else is aware.

Not that I have anything against gravity, but like everything else, best in moderation.

Edwin

"In short, awareness is a field property, while perception is awareness of the relation between structures that information has built into one's brain. The question is how awareness couples to physical reality. The general fuzzy idea that prevails today is that arrangements of matter lead to awareness. Instead, the field is inherently aware, and always has been. But the biological evolution reached the point where energy, sensed by bio-physical mechanisms, is stored as information (because it creates formations within) and these then lead to perception. It was a long process, but without the built-in awareness, I don't believe it would have ever happened. No possible arrangement of matter is capable of creating awareness from a non-aware piece of matter"

This is incorrect, the main reasons being:

1 Awareness is the receipt of physically independently existent input (which happens to be representational of something else, but is existent in its own right). Whereas perception is the resultant output of the subsequent processing of that. How that processing occurs is irrelevant to the physical circumstance in that it does not create it, or in any way affect it. It affects the perception of it.

2 Physical existence demonstrates no form of awareness, only sentient organisms possess the capability to be aware, this being an evolutionary development which takes advantage of certain existent phenomena. In other words, a brick also receives that physical input, but unlike the eye, it has no means of processing it.

3 We are trapped in an existentially closed system. Which is a function of what we can be aware of (ie what we can potentially know), that being determined by a physical process. There could be an alternative, but we cannot know it. And this is science, which is limited to the potentially knowable, indeed, whether we can fully know that is another matter. Asserting how this existence came into being is outwith our possible knowledge.

Paul