Dear Edward,

You have produced yet another masterful essay and that too on your favorite subject- gravitation. Your essay is filled with originality and you have developed your C-field further so as to encompass both gravity and EM field in to one reference frame. It is interesting to note the way you have done it from your 'master equation'. You have now thought how gravitational field manifests (I don't want to use the word- creates) masses and hence energy in it. But this has been pointed out by me in my previous year's (2012) fqxi essay contest paper. In it I have dealt with the QG field and black holes. So, please, go through it and 'see' it through the eyes of your 'master equation' and C-field; there you find 'revelation' of your dream of unifying gravitational field with the EM field. I insist you to see that essay and then inform me what you have found in it.

BTW, please, have a peep in to my current essay (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827) and post your invaluable comments on it in my thread.

Thanks again for producing such a heart touching essay.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

    Dear Edwin,

    One single principle leads the Universe.

    Every thing, every object, every phenomenon

    is under the influence of this principle.

    Nothing can exist if it is not born in the form of opposites.

    I simply invite you to discover this in a few words,

    but the main part is coming soon.

    Thank you, and good luck!

    I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.

    Please visit My essay.

      Dear Antoine,

      Thank you for reading and commenting so nicely about my essay. Yes, gravity is real. I have now read your essay and am always happy to see others recognize the existence of the gravitomagnetic field. Your treatment is original. I'm confused about several points however. You seem to imply that 'informatons' carry only information, not energy, and gravitons carry energy from oscillating masses. I do not understand how energy-less and mass-less particles can exert a force. In addition, you state that the informatons carry information about the velocity of the emitter. Do you explain how this information is coded, and how it must be decoded differently in different inertial frames, and who does the decoding? I could not find the answers in your essay.

      I'm also confused about how the informatons exert the magnetic-like force orthogonal to both velocity and to the gravitomagnetic field. Do you explain this elsewhere? It's a very difficult concept to understand.

      Thanks again for commenting and for participating in the contest. Good luck.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Sreenath,

      Thank you for reading and so graciously commenting upon my essay. As you noted, I continue to develop my theory of gravitation as in earlier fqxi essays. Typically each contest provides questions to answer, concepts to explain, and the stimulus of new ideas from others essays. The result is year-by-year improvement in our theories.

      I focus on the few things that I have direct and immediate awareness of: gravity and self-awareness. You mention in your essay that -- as we advance from classical macro-physics, where sight and sound provide relatively direct information, to the microscopic world of QM, in which only indirect information is provided by instruments -- the kind of information is different, and can be interpreted in many ways. This helps to explain the many "consistent" versions of QM. I also agree with you that information is nonphysical in nature. And it is probably true that our knowledge is nonphysical, without defining knowledge exactly. Also, that "constructing [a model of] Reality of the external world" is the most important function of the brain. Additionally, I agree that "there is no limit to the comprehension power of the human mind [and] no limit to the horizon of his imagination." And finally, I generally agree that "Bit comes from It, but mind can know of It only through Bit", although it is difficult to fit the direct experience of gravity into this formulation.

      Best,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Amazigh,

      I agree with your essay that dualism is certainly a major aspect of reality, although I don't necessarily agree that the world is binary. The existence of almost any feature or property of anything is typically defined in contrast to its opposite, hence duality. Thus it seems not unreasonable to view duality as a basic principle of the universe.

      In fact, I discuss dualism in my essay and point out a little recognized duality associated with the gravitomagnetic field.

      Thank you very much for reading my essay and commenting. Good luck in the contest.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Edwin,

      Empirically nature of information is continuum, while the phenomenon of gravitation differs from particle scenario to string-matter continuum scenario, in that gravitation is a tensor product that emerges with eigen-rotations of string-matter segments. In this scenario, information is the transfer of mass of string-segments with eigen-rotational energy, whereas in particle scenario it is the transfer of energy only. This describes that, information is physical and gravity is an integral part of it; while eigen-rotation of string-segment is causal for dynamic time evolution with other space-time coordinators and thus a causal set, in that 'past' of that locality is local rather than universal.

      In this context your concepts on information, 'in-formation' from form-al structure on states, is true; though three eigen-rotational states are expressional with this paradigm.

      With best wishes,

      Jayakar

        Dear Edwin,

        From your last sentence in your above remark it appears (or certain?) to me that you are not 'seeing' gravity now but feeling (experiencing) it as you are trying to become one with the reality of gravity through the vision your wisdom has provided you with the help of your mathematical skills. This reminds me of subject (mind) becoming one with the object (reality), in the Indian philosophical system of 'Advaita' Vedanta, to attain liberation from the bounds of our senses. This is how I cognize your present state. Am I mistaken? You only can tell.

        Best wishes,

        Sreenath

        Dear Edwin Eugene,

        Thanks for your reply.

        In my essay INFORMATION AS THE SUBSTANCE OF GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS I give an introduction to my idea's about gravity (and electromagnetism). These idea's are elaborated in detail in ref 6 and in ref 7. Some comments on the points mentioned by you.

        1. In a space where there are no other particles, a particle with mass m at rest in a point P is at the centre of its own perfectly spherical cloud of informatons whose g-indices all point to P. This symmetry relative to P of the g-field generated by m is called the "characteritic symmetry of the own field of m" (§3.2). When there is a second particle (with mass M) in the neighbourhood, the flux of g-information generated by that particle will disturb the characteristic symmetry of the own field of m. In P - the position of m - , the extent of that disturbance is characterized by the gravitational field {E-g} generated by M. If it is free to move, the particle m could restore in its direct vicinity the characteric symmetry of its own field by accelerating with an amount {a}={E-g}. Indeed, accelerating this way has the effect that the gravitational field generated by M is cancelled in P. If it accelerates that way, m becomes "blind" for the g-information send by M to P. That implies that the gravitational field {E-g} exerts an action on m: the gravitational force. In the same paragraph it is shown that this action must be proportional to the mass m and to the field {E-g}.

        2. "How is the information about the velocity of the emitter of an informaton coded?" An object at rest emits informatons whose g-index {s-g} has the same direction as their velocity {c}. This is no longer the case when the emitter is moving (§4.1). How greater the speed of the emitter, how greater the deviation of {s-g} relative to {c}. This deviation is characteristic for the speed of the emitter. The additional attribute of an informaton referring to information about the status of motion of its emitter is called its "beta-index". The beta-index of an informaton is represented by a vectorial quantity {s-beta} that is perpendicular to the plane formed by {s-g} and {c}; and the magnitude of {s-beta} is proportional to the component of the velocity of the emitter that is perpenicular to the velocity of the informaton. Macroscopically the density of the cloud of beta-information in a point is characterized by the "gravitational induction" {B-g}.

        3. The gravito-magnetic force on a moving mass m is explained in the same way as the gravitational force on a mass at rest: as an effect of the disturbance of the characteristic symmetry. It is shown that a mass m, moving with a velocity {v} is the source of an own g-induction field that "rotates" around its path. The extent to which this "characteristic symmetry" is broken when m moves in the induction field {B-g} generated by other masses is characterized by the vectorial product ({v} x {B-g})and it is shown that m becomes blind for that disturbance by accelerating with an amount {a}={v}x{B-g} (§4.2).

        I hope that this remarks may clarify some points mentioned by you.

        Good luck,

        Antoine.

        Dear Antoine,

        Thanks for answering my questions so succinctly, and pointing out that refs 6 and 7 hold more elaboration. I will look at these references. The idea that the acceleration of mass is generated by the particle's motion to restore symmetry is an interesting, and I believe original, idea and I will give it some thought. I do not quite understand your answer about the information about the velocity, but I will look at 6 and 7 for this insight.

        If your theory makes any predictions, I would also be interested in those as I am, as mentioned, very interested in gravito-magnetism.

        Thanks for the clarification and the links to references.

        Best,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Sreenath,

        I am even more hesitant to interpret other philosophical systems than I am physics, however, according to my interpretation of Vedanta, you are not entirely mistaken in your cognizance.

        Best wishes,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Jayakar,

        Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. I'm glad to see that you find the concept of 'information' from formal structure on states as true, and will follow the link you provided to see in what sense you interpret this.

        Best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Edwin Eugene,

        Thanks for your interest in my ideas.

        1. The idea that the mechanism behind gravitational interactions is a tendency to restore the symmetry of the "own" field (cloud of g-information) of a particle in an "extern" g-fied is inspired by the observation of the gravitational interaction between two (or more) masses.

        Indeed; two masses - m and M - anchored in the points P and Q of space - are the source of a gravitational field that is the superposition of the g-fields generated by each of them. That effective gravitational field is not symmetric, nor relative to P nor relative to Q. If we make the masses free, m will be accelerated by the field of M and M by the field of m. If we let them move to each other via equilibrium states (on every moment we compensate the gravitational attraction) they will finally form one particle with mass (m M) generating a gravitational field that is perfectly symmetric relative to the position of its source. From that we can conclude that the reciprocal attraction aims to realize a situation where there is only a perfectly symmetric graviational field.

        The same result could be obtained by repulsion: when both particles are infinitely far apart there is also no disturbance of the symmetry of their "own" fields. In the case of gravitation nature chooses apparently for attraction but in the case of electricity repulsion is also an option.

        2. A mass m, moving with constant velocity {v} relative to an inertial reference frame O, emits informatons that move away from the position of m at the time of emission (P-o in fig 3 of the essay): the velocity vector {c} of these informatons - that on the moment t pass in the point P - is oriented in the direction of the position vector {PoP}.

        But one must understand that their g-index {s-g} always points to the actual position of their emitter (point P-1 in fig 3). Indeed; according to the postulate of the emission of informatons, in the inertial reference frame O' anchored to the moving mass {s-g} points to the emitter of the informatons. This implies that - relative to the reference frame O - {s-g} points to P-1.

        So, there is a deviation (the "characteristic deviation") between the orientations of {c} and {s-g} that depends on the velocity of m: it is chracteristic for the speed of the emitter. All g-information about the velocity of the emitter is contained in the vectorial product of {s-g} with the unit vector {c}/c: the characteristic deviation as well as the plane in which the mass and the informatons are moving. We call that vectorial product the "beta-index".

        3. It is GEM that makes predictions about gravity, my theory has the ambition to explain GEM. In ref 6 there is a detailed mathematical deduction of the gravitational field and of the gravitational induction in relativistic situations, and of the four laws of GEM (analogues to Maxwell's laws) from the dynamics of the informatons. I think that this, together with the deduction of the gravitational force (see point 1), the study of gravitational phenomena associated with accelerated masses and the explanation of electromagnetism (in ref 7) justifies the introduction of information as substance of gravitational and electromagnetic fields, and of informatons as the constituent elements of that substance.

        Best,

        Antoine Acke

        Dear Edwin - a very thought provoking essay. I think I may need to read your other work in order to appreciate it fully. I enjoyed the snippets of wisdom from Lee Smolin's book, which is on my iPad the day it came out. I enjoyed it very much, but perhaps not as much as his previous books, the Trouble with Physics (which makes many similar points to your essay), and Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, which I regard as a classic, and should be read by every scientifically literate individual.

        I liked the way you brought in the Leibniz quote. Very nice.

        Good luck in the contest.

          Dear Paul,

          I'm glad you enjoyed my essay. As I noted on your page, I very much enjoyed the originality and lucidity with which you present a 'far-out' idea so well that I must take it seriously. That is the real beauty of these FQXi contests. Neither your nor my essays would stand a chance of being published in Phys Rev Lett, partially because we are outside of academia (the 'establishment') but also because we push the limits. Yet FQXi gives us a platform to expose our ideas and receive feedback. Who could ask for anything more? (Well, yes, we could ask, but who would expect anything more in this old world.)

          Thanks for reading and commenting (I also enjoyed your comments scattered about) and good luck in the contest. I look forward to your future contributions.

          Best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear Edwin,

          Great essay, as far I can see. Here is to you (my rating) for pushing boundaries. You state:

          "My self-awareness is integral, not fractured or fragmented. So I see light --not a photon, not a 'bit'--but images"

          I think it is the central objective of science to differential always between FACT and EXPLANATIONS of fact. If we mix these up we miss the unique value of science to society.

          And thanks for that power comment over at my blog. You may want to take another look and see my exchange with Marcoen. I think it clarifies. And please DO rate me as you deem.

          Regards,

          Chidi

            Dear Chidi,

            I very much appreciated your remark above, "I think it is the central objective of science to differential always between FACT and EXPLANATIONS of fact." That is a very appropriate response to the statement you quoted.

            I am also pleased that you found my comment to you helpful. Also, you suggested that I look at your exchange with Marcoen, which I have done. He put a lot of effort into suggestions on how to make your ideas more understandable. At one point you say "May be I should make myself more express and not unduly expect imagination from my readers."

            Yes, that is very important. When one has a clear idea of something, one sometimes assumes that others have the same idea, or can do so "with just a little imagination." But the fact is that when one is dealing with complicated ideas of the kind treated in FQXi essays, it is best to require as little imagination as possible from the reader. The more one can clarify his ideas, requiring minimum interpretation, the better.

            Finally, in your last comment to Marcoen you say, "if in my axioms we replace the word "entity" with the word "universal constant" this whole thing about axioms DISAPPEARS and one has rather conventional wisdom." This choice of words is critical, and changes the whole meaning of your essay for most readers. For most of us, the word "entity" does not connote "universal constant", or vice versa. I would strongly suggest that you make this change in your future development of your ideas. It takes a while to understand these things, and even a longer while to help others to understand them.

            This change helps me understand better the point you are trying to make.

            Thanks for reading my essay and commenting.

            Best wishes,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman.

            Dear Edwin Klingman,

            If I understand correctly, you are exploring the issue of reality in the context of 'theories' of reality of physical nature, highlighting the large content of 'belief' and inserted parameters in the constructed reality in theories. Certainly it is important to point that out.

            However, you have decided to risk proposing a theory yourself, subject to the same critique. You work with a single complex field, because that is simpler, but with a larger ingredient of belief and hope, perhaps. The problem does not end after writing down an equation - the consequences and their connections to what one can observe and test, quantitatively, is also important. So, isn't it too premature to call the description on page 3 a theory of physical nature?

            Thanks and regards,

            Unnikrshnan

              Dear Unnikrshnan,

              You are certainly correct to state that, if I am highly critical of current theories of physics, I should expect equally critical examination of my own theory. You are also correct that page 3 does not constitute a theory. With a 9 page limit it is difficult to furnish a complete example of a theory, and also discuss the nature of the reality of information, in support of the main theme. But that is what page 12 is intended to support, and what my references 10, 11, 14, 22, 24, 25, 26,and 28 contain. So yes, I think it is a theory, with predictions, and suggestions for tests, and explanations for current anomalies that other theories cannot explain. And as I mention with respect to my newly worked out n-GEM technique of 'non-linearizing' the weak field equation(s), I hope to provide much more quantitative predictions in the reasonable near future.

              Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay.

              Best regards,

              Edwin Eugene Klingman

              Hello Edwin from Margriet O'Regan from DownUnder - I just finished a very long commentary on your fine essay & thanking you for your encouragement & I pushed the wrong button & lost it - I think !! I'm so cross with myself, I enjoyed your essay very much - I might try again later today (actually its 3.30 am here !!!)

              Regards

              Margriet

                Hi Margriet from DownUnder,

                Sorry to hear the dog ate your homework. That has happened to me so many times that I now prepare long comments offline in WordPad or equivalent, then copy the comment over. Then if it eats it, I still have it.

                Anyway, thanks for reading and commenting. As I remarked on your page, we have largely arrived at a similar general model of consciousness and information, although the specifics of the 'interstitial fluid' differ in details.

                Again, welcome to FQXi and thanks for submitting your essay. Most of your feedback was good, which should make you happy as this was your first effort at a paper or essay.

                Best wishes,

                Edwin Eugene Klingman