Dear Gene,

Thanks for your heartening remarks.

You mention that I did not include values for the C-field. This is correct, although the values are included in the linked references. I will give you a brief summary:

In 2006, when I decided that a new field was likely, I asked myself how strong the field could be without interfering with known atomic and molecular physics and chemistry. I arrived at a value that turned out to be 31 orders of magnitude greater than indicated in Einstein's field equations. Then, within the year, Martin Tajmar reported measurement of the C-field with an experimental result 31 orders of magnitude greater than expected. So for the last seven years I've been using this scale factor. It has produced very interesting results, while at the same time not yielding other results that I expected to find. As mentioned in my essay Kauffmann's work in the East and Pretorius papers caused me to focus on the nonlinear approach I show on page 4. The result is that, rather than a fixed value, the strength of the field appears to vary depending on the driving force. This is a radical change from my previous work and I'm only beginning to pursue quantitative results. I have great hopes for this approach, but, so far, have solved very few quantitative problems. I expect this to change within a reasonably short time.

I've looked at your essay, but of course have not yet worked through all of your numbers. And I'm not sure that I fully understand your model. You ask where your large factor exp (90) comes from. My belief, based on work I have done, is that the nonlinear approach yields very unexpected numbers. Your comment references Kauffmann (reference 15 in my essay). I recommend reviewing this and looking at my reference 16, East and Pretorius, to gain a better idea of the effect of nonlinearity on gravity.

Thanks again for your extensive comment and your kind remarks.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

I would like to call my readers' attention to a remarkable essay by Alexei Grinbaum. To understand fully the following comments, one must read his essay, nevertheless, my comment to him is worth reproducing:

Dear Alexei,

A most interesting essay! If I understand you correctly, you are considering the case of what will remain of a physics theory "if one clears away its human inventors and users," based on the assumption that our ideas of physical reality are primarily a function of the way our brains are wired. Thus the first thing you throw away are ontological bases for theories. You conclude that only a mathematical basis of theories remains.

This appears to be a Platonic belief that math exists in some extra physical realm. An alternate perspective, developed in my essay, considers that, in the sense of Wheeler's "Participatory Universe", we are immediately connected to the physical universe (i.e., we sense gravity directly), while mathematics is a creation of the organization of our brains. In this case, if brain-based ideas are removed, then only physical reality, but no mathematical "principle" remains. This seems to cover the extreme cases.

A Platonic mathematical universe seems reflected in your statement: "in theoretical physics the axiomatic method must be separated from the Greek attitude that axioms repeat truths about reality." And "the axiomatic method has become a powerful tool for mathematical research."

My approach is based on the fact that I know how to derive math from matter, but I cannot imagine how to derive matter from math, and Occam's razor seems to argue against the separate independent existence of math and matter. Given a set of measurement numbers, an algorithmic procedure based on entropy maximization will produce a feature vector, with no ontological assumptions, and the space of such feature vectors is the typical basis of physical theories. The numbers and their mathematical manipulation, up to and including the derivation of the feature vectors, all are generated by material circuitry. Similarly, the fact that you discuss, that physics is observer independent (in the sense you describe) "only because quantum mechanics uses abstract mathematics..." is also compatible with matter generated math.

You have an interesting discussion that concludes that we do not have the "precise physical constitution" of the observer. This too is compatible with matter-generated-math as there are countless ways to design mathematical circuits, all of which will produce the same numeric outputs. You conclude that "the defining characteristic of the observer" is that "it must have information about some physical system." In my model this information is equivalent to energy transferred from the system to the structure of the observer, and thereby 'registered', becoming information. In other words wholly dependent on the 'it' of the observer structure. The 'bit' is the result that comes into existence only when a threshold is crossed. This is in agreement with your remark that "this information fully or partially describes the state of the system."

So we are both led to the conclusion that "An observer is a system identification algorithm."

I was surprised when our different assumptions converged on this point. You note that the observer can be flesh or silicon. Like you, I treated a robot developing a theory of physics, based on measurement, for the same purpose of eliminating human preconceptions. It is fascinating that you appear to start with the reality of a mathematical world and the reality of information, while I deny both, and we reach an important common conclusion. This became much clearer with the development of your schema based on where one cuts the loop.

You say "Each way of cutting the loop fixes one part of the loop in the position of derived concepts [...] while the other part becomes a given, ..."

You have done a superb job in developing this formalism. Congratulations!

You say, "it is mandatory to cut the loop, which makes it impossible to close within one theory the gap between the observer and the observed." This might also be considered the inherent boundary between the subjective and the objective. But where does one cut the loop? The system cannot choose, only the observer can choose. Based upon awareness that metric overlays on reality are mental constructs, and based on subjective awareness of the reality of gravity, I choose to interpret physics as real and information as a derived concept. I congratulate you again on having developed the schema and I hope you enjoy my essay as much as I enjoyed yours.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Gene,

    I'm slightly confused by your first table. Your label says Compton wavelength, but you show the Planck length. You say "they picked a combination of Compton mass and Planck energy that gave p/hc=1." Who is they? Also, by doing the calculations I see that E/C uses C for speed of light, while hc uses c for speed of light. It's time-consuming to have to check that you mean the same thing by C and c, and at the moment I don't have time to go through all the numbers in your essay to check everything.

    In short, the above page is too condensed for me to fully follow your arguments. It's not clear to me where the exp(90) comes from [which, I believe, is what you're asking me.] I will try to review your paper again, but at the moment I'm still catching up on the latest submissions, (some of which are very good.)

    I wish I could see the answer to your problem, but at the moment I don't.

    Best,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Because I have slightly misrepresented Alexei's position, I am including his response and my further response:

    Alexei Grinbaum replied on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 07:10 GMT

    Dear Edwin Eugene,

    Thank you for your comments. There is no claim in my essay about Platonism. Indeed I am not choosing between object realism, property realism, structural realism or Platonic idealism, i.e. the realism of mathematical entities (which is close to structural realism in some of its forms). I believe that science does not warrant claims about "reality", only about what is posited and what can be derived within a physical theory. There exists no proof of any predicate in the form "X is real", while one can show the opposite: "X cannot be held as fundamental".

    As for the question about where one cuts the loop, there is no one answer to that. The point of the loop view is that there can be many cuts, each of which leads to a different sort of theory. No one loop cut is better than the other: the job they are doing is different in every case. I understand that you prefer to posit something you call "matter" and to derive information. This is perfectly fine; but a different loop cut is equally possible.

    Is the loop cut the same as the cut between the objective and the subjective? I don't think so. In the Husserlian debate, of course, phenomenology is central, but my loop view is purely epistemological, i.e. it involves the ensemble of theories of (scientific) knowledge. All predicates are formulated in the third person and there are no first-person claims. Still, as you noticed, I support the attempts to analyze the connection between physical theory and observer-dependent point of view - in a scientific way. We lack mathematics for that, but I am hopeful that such mathematics will be found.

    Best wishes, Alexei Grinbaum

    Dear Alexei,

    Thank you for clarifying your position. It is more neutral than I assumed. I believe you have achieved a remarkable accomplishment, illuminating the essential arbitrariness of what is given and what is derived, when one is stuck only with logic. Fortunately I'm not stuck only with logic but possess awareness, experience, sensations, and knowledge. I can understand your goal, and find absolutely no fault with it. In fact I strongly approve it. But I have a different goal, which has been (for over half a century) to understand reality (to the extent possible). From my perspective, your development satisfies each of our separate goals.

    I fully understand that different loop cuts are possible, but I must cut the loop in the place it makes sense, based on my life as I have lived it. Others, it is clear, will make different sense out of it. You rightly proclaim that it is not (currently) amenable to a scientifically justifiable choice. From my perspective we will not find mathematics capable of making the choice, and not just because of Godel, but because math is an abstraction, unless one is a Platonist, which, as you point out, is not claimed or supported by your essay.

    From the perspective of the institution of science, which is inherently third-party, you show a scheme which does not fix an order of precedence. From my perspective, which is inherently first party, it is obvious what the precedence is. A win-win situation!

    Thank you again for your delightful essay. It should place highly in this contest.

    Best regards, Edwin Eugene Klingman

    This bold insightful essay has much in common with my own view on the current state of quantum theory. I especially applaud the comments on Bell's errant role in the current fiasco re nonlocality, and hope that my own contribution will be seen to rightly support the emergent view re Bell's theorem so clearly and forcefully presented here.

    [NB: My critique of Bell in no way diminishes my regard for his contribution to the search that so many of us now continue; the following being particularly relevant here:

    "Now nobody knows just where the boundary between the classical and quantum domain is situated. ... A possibility is that we find exactly where the boundary lies. More plausible to me is that we will find that there is no boundary. It is hard for me to envisage intelligible discourse about a world with no classical part - no base of given events, be they only mental events in a single consciousness, to be correlated. On the other hand, it is easy to imagine that the classical domain could be extended to cover the whole. The wave functions would prove to be a provisional or incomplete description of the quantum-mechanical part, of which an objective account would become possible. It is this possibility, of a homogeneous account of the world, which is for me the chief motivation of the study of the so-called 'hidden variable' possibility," Bell (2004:29-30).]

    So, given my preference for critical discussions of my own contributions, I want to critically address what is, for me, an unnecessarily off-putting by-product of the essay's focus on an important "hidden variable." That is: Its concluding emphasis on the word "AWARE" across (to my mind) far too many contexts!

    IMO that word has no place here, EXCEPT by way of psycho-physical analogy: FOR it is too closely rooted in and associated with the psycho-physical; and it is too far removed from basic foundational issues.

    However, NB, I have no problem with the use of psycho-physical analogies as we work to unite the BIG-and-the-small ...

    ... thus, by way of analogy, AWARENESS certainly provides the foundation for much of modern psychology and consciousness-theory; exemplified via this simple mnemonic that might help us here: ABC,

    Awareness -> Behaviour -> Consequence. (1)

    So, seeing no need for "taste" or "smell" in foundational matters, I certainly see no need for a "psycho-sixth-sense" -- as it were -- even as a foundation for our consciousness at this early stage: ALL these can emerge later! But I do see a need for the-issue-at-hand, the needed variable. Thus, favouring as I do the view that "maths is the best logic," let's represent the sought-for foundational variable by what I interpret it to be: R = Response.

    For analogously helpful (1) above can then be represented schematically, meaningfully AND physically by:

    response -> Response -> RESPONSE = Stimulus-Response theory; (2)

    with the following one-real-field (F) connection:

    response = F's response Ri to the stimulus of its Source Si. (3)

    Response = F's response Ro to the stimuli of all other Sources So. (4)

    RESPONSE = F's total response R to the Universe of S. (5)

    PS-1: Respectively: self-awareness; Other-awareness; TOTAL awareness! I can see this working for me. (And you, dear Reader?)

    PS-2: IMO, the essay would be improved by directly linking "IN-formation" to correlations and to its root "TO INFORM;" for, in the end it seems to me, the value of information is related to its degree of correlation with facts.

    Delighted to learn, via FQXi and this essay, of another highly-qualified non-conformist taking a fresh look at foundations, I look forward to further mathematico-logical developments, especially of the essay's equation (1).

    Gordon Watson

    Gordon,

    Thanks for the positive comments on my essay. Let me spend my time addressing the critical comments.

    You and I are both convinced that Bell's inequality is the root of what you label the 'fiasco of non-locality'. In particular you are focused on showing mistakes in Bell's logic. Toward that end, the focus on awareness, which you view as psycho-physical, and more properly in the realm of psychology, is a distraction; even one that leaves a bad taste in some physicists' mouth.

    I appreciate your position, and, as far as a practical attack on Bellian non-locality, agree with you. You wish to focus all firepower on the problem, without getting sidetracked.

    This is been your focus and goal since at least 1989. My long-term goals have been different. Since the mid-60s I've been focused on consciousness in an attempt to understand awareness. It was absolutely clear to me that the range of my awareness (and presumably others) did not arise from 'putting Lego blocks in the right order'. I cannot justify that position in a brief comment, but it is my key pursuit in life. After 40 years of this effort I arrived, as described elsewhere, at the realization that consciousness is a field and guessed at the equation relating this field to the physical world. To my initial amazement it turned out to have the form as the gravitomagnetic field equation, and things began falling into place nicely and have continued to fall into place for the last seven years.

    As there are many unsuspected physical effects of this field at the particle level, I have tended to focus at that level. As a result I believe I will be able to derive particle masses from first principles, an impossibility in the Standard Model. And also explain key anomalies that are so far unexplained. So (with the exception of one other essay) I tend to suppress consciousness aspects and work on physical calculations and predictions. But if there was ever an occasion to bring out the consciousness aspects of the field, this "It-from-Bit" contest is the occasion. The issues here are inseparable from Wheeler's "Participatory Universe" -- and his participatory universe has no meaning without consciousness.

    Nor does "information, meaning, knowledge, interpretation, context, etc." have any meaning without consciousness.

    A number physicists appreciate this and are supportive.

    Some physicists feel this issue is best left to psychologists and neuro-anatomists. Your comments seem to place you in this group. Your wording, "taste", "smell", and "psycho-sixth-sense" tell me that not only have you failed to understand my issues, but that we are so far apart on this that no immediate communications on these issues is likely to be fruitful. I found that even those for whom consciousness (in physics) is a major issue typically require a period of "converging vocabularies" before much communication occurs, simply because the standard terminology is fuzzy and precise definitions almost non-existent. For those who view consciousness as irrelevant to physics, no real communication is possible.

    Not as a defense, but merely as context: there are few great physicists in quantum theory who have not dealt in one way or another with consciousness and QM; Bohr, Einstein, Pauli, Bohm come immediately to mind. Bell, while admitting "a degree of embarrassment at consciousness being dragged into physics" [page 27 'Unspeakable'] nevertheless drags it in!

    To conclude, I fully understand, Gordon, why, finding a potential strong supporter for your attack on Bell's logic, you are mildly dismayed to find that he stoops to what you consider 'psychobabble'.

    This of course will have no bearing on my support for your logic. After one reading I am favorably impressed. It will require more than one reading to comprehend your logic. I plan to read it and reread it. If your logic convinces me I will be a very strong supporter, since we both agree that Bell's "non-locality" is proving disastrous for physics.

    This is completely independent of whether or not you come to realize the part that awareness must play in understanding information in physics. Or even whether you believe consciousness comes from putting Lego blocks together in the correct order.

    Thanks for a sincere critique. That's the best kind.

    Best,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Edwin; one (maybe both) of us is communicating badly. From reading another of your essays I got the drift of your admirable focus on consciousness -- BEFORE I replied. SO that was in no way my concern; especially as I've studied many writings on the subject by the founders, Pauli in particular coming to mind

    The essence of my concern -- please study it carefully -- was expressed thus:

    "So, seeing no need for "taste" or "smell" in foundational matters, I certainly see no need for a "psycho-sixth-sense" -- as it were -- even as a foundation for our consciousness at this early stage: ALL these can emerge later!"

    That is:

    (i) It is my view that consciousness is emergent and not therefore foundational.

    (ii) Given the potential physics associated with your ONE REAL FIELD, it seemed to me that consciousness would emerge nicely -- nicely linked to the Responsiveness of that field as you developed your quantitative calculations, etc.

    (iii) I was surprised that AWARENESS should be so frequently stressed so early -- "at this early stage" of development -- in the closing phase of this essay. (Over 30 times, I'd guess?)

    (iv) At NO stage did I have psychobabble in mind -- so I doubt it is to be found anywhere in my response!

    (v) Thus, Edwin, with great respect, this next says too much; yet not enough!

    "To conclude, I fully understand, Gordon, why, finding a potential strong supporter for your attack on Bell's logic, you are mildly dismayed to find that he stoops to what you consider 'psychobabble'."

    For my attack on Bell is only a means to getting at the fact that the quantum is classical!

    AND I have NO dismay whatsoever at your position on anything; quite the contrary!

    I appreciate you extended comments above re consciousness, and find no concerns therein: EXCEPT where you misplace me in sets to which I DO NOT BELONG!

    SO, please: Dismissing any notion of psychobabble, please reconsider my response in this extended context.

    Looking forward to your (hopefully amended) response, with best regards; Gordon

    Gordon,

    Amended response forthwith. Best to focus on a common position, which is that quantum is classical, since that is our shared focus.

    'Psychobabble' was an overreaction to 'psycho-sixth-sense' which is just as inappropriate from my perspective. As I noted, communication is almost impossible before the vocabulary is nailed down. 'Psycho' to me has to do with the psychology, which has to do with thinking, which is based on logical (physical) circuitry in the brain. This is clearly emergent. Awareness is awareness. It is (in my considered opinion) fundamental and could never emerge from the arrangement of physical entities. It is as fundamental as the fact that gravity pulls on you.

    But, as I mentioned at the end of my essay, one can delete awareness from the field, the physics still holds. But then one must account for awareness, and no one can do this. And, as I noted, this "It-from-Bit" contest is the perfect venue to discuss awareness because blah blah blah...

    Since we don't share a common vocabulary here, but we do (or should) share one re Bell, let's focus on our shared goal of restoring reality to physics.

    Best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Edwin

    Please help guide : What is name the Lee Smolin's new book ? and what write about matters? - many thank you.

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

      Dear Hoang cao Hai,

      Smolin's book is the second reference at the end of my essay:

      L Smolin, 2013 "Time Reborn", Spin Networks Ltd ISBN 9780547511726

      Best,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Hi Edwin,

      Things like ''ad hoc 'creation' and 'annihilation' operators'', ''virtual particles'', ''Bell nonlocality'' and ''awareness'' look quite different when we discard causality -in which case we can no longer conceive of the 'speed' of light as the velocity light moves at but have to interpret c as a property of spacetime, which is something else entirely.

      If real particles are virtual particles which by alternately borrowing and lending each other the energy to exist, force each other to reappear again and again after every disappearance (Uncertainty Principle (UP): the smaller their distance, the higher the frequency they exchange energy at, pop up and disappear to pop up again, the higher their rest energy is), then they create and un-create each other over and over again. As the energy sign of a particle alternates, it is a wave phenomenon. If the energy, the rest frequency of a particle is the superposition of all frequencies it exchanges energy at with all particles within its interaction horizon, a frequency which depends on their mass, distance and motion, then the particle in its properties carries all relevant information about its entire universe, information which is refreshed in every cycle of its oscillation, so we might perhaps say that it at all times, in real time is 'aware' of what happens within its entire universe, however primitive that awareness is.

      We can distinguish between two kinds of interactions: the conspicuous kind in which the energy and motion of particles changes, and the energy exchange by means of which particles express and preserve their, each other's properties, interactions which, preserving the status quo, aren't observable so aren't thought to exist, in fact can be identified as the long sought for ''hidden variables'', which of course only works if their communication is instantaneous. As a Big Bang Universe (BBU) lives in a time realm not of its own making so it is the same cosmic time everywhere, here it does take a photon time to travel. In contrast, a Self-Creating Universe (SCU) does not live in a time realm not of its own making but contains and produces all time within, so here clocks must be observed to run slower as they are more distant even when at rest relative to the observer. As a result in a SCU it is not the same time everywhere, so here a photon bridges any spacetime distance in no time at all (see http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1328). That we cannot experimentally determine whether c must be conceived of as a (finite) velocity or as a property of spacetime, combined with the fact that an instantaneous transmission over any spacetime distance would make the riddles of quantum mechanics like entanglement, the EPR paradox and the double-slit experiment self-evident, should at least give pause for thought.

      Wheeler's participatory universe obviously doesn't require human participation to make the universe exist as his existence then would causally precede the universe. Since in a SCU particles create each other so particles, their properties are as much the cause as the effect of their interactions, their energy exchange, it is a participatory universe indeed. However, while in a SCU particles would vanish when we could cut of their energy exchange, in a Big Bang Universe (BBU) particles are assumed to keep existing even when they would be isolated from interactions since here their properties are privately owned quantities, only the cause of interactions so are unchangeable, they cannot be accused of having any form of awareness. The problem of a BBU is that it violates the conservation law according to which what comes out of nothing, must add to nothing, unlike a SCU which does obey this very most fundamental law of physics. Big bang cosmology conceives of the universe as an ordinary object we can imagine to observe from the outside, which has particular properties as a whole and evolves in time, i.e., lives in a time realm not of its own making. Since a SCU obeys the law which says that everything inside of it, including space and time must add to nil, it is that unique, paradoxical 'thing' which has no physical reality as a whole, as 'seen' from without but only exists as seen from within, here it doesn't make any sense to ask how old or large it is, how much energy it contains or what its entropy is, questions which anyway require that the meter, second, gram and joule are defined even outside the universe. As in a BBU particles only are the cause of forces, here one has to assume the existence of virtual photons and gravitons to transmit forces between real particles, so must move, like pin-balls in a pinball machine, at a finite velocity. Though the emission and absorption of virtual particles by real ones is supposed to be random so the energy of real particles fluctuate randomly, they nevertheless obey the UP according to which a deviation in the energy of a particle may last shorter as the deviation is greater, begging the question how its neighbors can know when to supply the particle in a timely fashion with energy so it can obey the UP. This is obvious in a SCU since here the particle in every cycle exchanges all of its energy: in fact, the UP is just another formulation of the Planck relation E = h v, with h the Planck constant and v the frequency the particle oscillates at.

      Continued in the next post.

      As to ''the origin of the universe'', as argued, unlike a BBU, the real universe we live in has no beginning as a whole, no cause, no origin as it does not exist as 'seen' from without: in a SCU every particle can consider itself to be (at) the center of its own interaction horizon, so is the alpha and omega of its own universe. A SCU obeys the perfect cosmological principle: here particles start to exist to each other, create one another as they start to exchange energy, start to evolve to higher energies, as they start to contract, which they will due to gravity which, as I argued in my 2013 essay, favors events which increase their mass above a decrease, powering time as they do. If according to the UP a particle with an infinitesimal energy has an infinite lifetime, then we can say that it always has existed: the smaller its energy, the less definite its energy, its properties are, the more it has a virtual character, the less its presence differs from its nonexistence.

      As to ''gravity may not fit into quantum mechanics'', in my study (which is a bit of a mess, see website) I have defined the mass of a particle as being greater as its position is less indefinite, agreeing both with the uncertainty principle which is at the heart of quantum mechanics, and, as the (in)definiteness in its position must be specified relative to an observing particle, also is a relativistic definition. The greater the mass of a particle is, the stronger the forces it exerts and feels from all directions, the more exactly equal they are, the smaller the area is where they are more precisely equal, the smaller the area it can be found in, the less indefinite its position is. Conversely, the smaller its mass is, the less definite its position is, the less it matters physically whether it exists or not, where it is when. If the (rest) energy of a real (massive) particle, its rate of change varies within every cycle, from an infinitesimal value to some non-zero magnitude, then according to this mass definition, the indefiniteness in its position similarly varies within every cycle and hence its momentum.

      Your lamentation that ''we don't have access to reality'' presupposes that there exists such a thing: as I argued in my 2012 essay, there is no objectively observable reality at the origin of our observation, with emphasis of ''objectively'' since in our self-creating universe, the building blocks of reality, its particles are made out of each other. The fallacy of classical mechanics, of big bang cosmology and general relativity is that they assume that there exists an absolute reality, something we could objectively observe from outside the universe if we could step outside of it, if we could look over God's shoulders at His creation, so these theories are infected, contaminated with religious suppositions we aren't even aware of.

      Regards, Anton

        Edwin, very nice essay. I think we are in solid agreement on the approach to physics - one grounded in the idea that there is something real, an "It", from which we derive information, "Bit".

        You do a good job of exploring why we believe a theory is good. The graphic of the n-parameter elephant, combined with the Jaynes quote in your conclusion "the proper question is not "How well do data D support hypothesis?" [but] "Are there alternatives which data D would support relative to H, and how much support is possible?" puts its all together. Just because one hypothesis yields a nice elephant does not mean it is correct, and we always need to explore other hypotheses which might draw better elephants.

        In my essay, I put forward an argument for an interpretation of quantum theory which associates wavefunctions with experiments, not things. By rejecting assertions that QM is a theory of things, thus is not a physical theory, we are free to pursue theories that are physical. We can now explore what sort of physical things and physical theories might then explain the predictions made by the predictions of QM - other hypotheses which might fit the data. After reading your essay, and re-reading your essay of last time, I understand that you seek a locally realistic theory underlying QM, as I do.

        Your proposal is that we begin with a single field ("But rather than postulate hundreds of fields as Susskind does for his Multiverse, we can assume that only one real field existed initially.") and I agree this is an excellent beginning. I am a little unsure whether you a proposing that we now have multiple fields, and I am a little unsure where particles fit in your scheme. Here we may diverge somewhat, as I would suggest exploring the hypothesis that the one real field is what existed initially and is still all there is, thus no particles (in the sense of Democritus or Newton) and no other fields (except perhaps as components of one field). Certainly, as you argue in your last essay on the nature of the wavefunction, we must also distinguish between the real field and our probabilistic estimates of what we might expect should we perform experiments on the real field.

        You took some pains to distinguish between the field and geometry in your essay, but I think that if you adopt the idea that there is only one real field, then the distinction between the field and geometry is not problematic: the geometry and the field are equivalent. As you quote from MTW, "any physical theory originally written in a special coordinates system can be recast in geometric, coordinate free language." We encounter many more problems if we try to describe geometry as multiple fields and particles.

        I think your final discussion regarding awareness and the consciousness field is daring, in that it may venture a little beyond the conventional realm of physics, but you argue very logically and come to a sound conclusion. You make a sensible assertion that, for example, there is a sense in which we can say gravity is "aware" and proceed very carefully from there. If you assume there is only one real field the argument is even simpler: if there is only one field, then you (or anyone else) are a manifestation of that field, and combined with the apparent evidence that you are aware, you are quite logically led to a conclusion that the field is in some way aware. As I said, this is logical but also daring.

        Nice job on the essay. Thanks for recommending that others read mine. I think that it fits very nicely with yours, and discussing how ideas can be fit together - arranging the jigsaw puzzle of ideas - is the most valuable part of this contest.

        Regards, Mark

          Mark,

          Thanks for reading my essays and commenting. Just as I managed to pick out the key point of your essay, that "an observable is a name for a type of experiment, not a property of some physical thing", you have discerned the key point that data fitting should discriminate between theories.

          We both prefer to start with a real field. In my essay the field can produce a self-interacting vortex which shrinks to a finite soliton-like toroidal particle, which is simply a very stable "concentration of field". So it is still field, but probably is more localized than your view of the field, although this local 'particle' has sufficient mass density to produce a secondary disturbance or circulation that corresponds to de Broglie's 'pilot wave' (but not an exact correspondence). Since the local energy is stable, particles endure, but sufficiently high-energy collisions produce new vortices which yield particle jets spitting out new particles. The process is too complex for a comment, but I hope you get the idea. The process also leads to integral charge, including quark charges, and quark confinement also falls out of the single field.

          I am certainly not opposed to geometry, but was addressing what I see as a problematic view: that physics is "nothing but" geometry. That seems to abstract away physical reality, replacing it with math.

          I am extremely pleased that you see the logic in my hypothesis. It is logical and seems to match my experience, so I put it forth at the risk all 'daring ideas' run. As I am independent and cannot be fired, I can afford to pursue probable truth.

          Mark you have a real ability to cut through the fog. I hope you continue to produce works the quality of your current essay!

          With my best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Hi Anton,

          As I noted in my comment on your blog, we agree on a number of points, and I'm confused on different points. I still fail to see that a BBU exists "inside" anything any more than an SCU does. In fact I see the BBU as a self-creating entity, and, I see it as conserving momentum and energy. So either we have different definitions or I am missing some fine point.

          I also find it reasonable, in fact preferable, to interpret c is a property of the material that fills, and essentially defines, space-time.

          Your description of virtual particles is excellent. In fact, as I noted in my essay, data fitting should be used to discriminate between theories. As most of QED is based on virtual particles, then that means my theory would have to fit the data as well as or better than the virtual particles to be taken seriously (unless it had other extreme advantages...).

          I'm certain that I do not understand some of your points, for example that "in an SCU it is not the same time everywhere."

          You mentioned that in a BBU particles keep existing even when isolated from interactions ... and so can't have awareness. But in my view the particles are stable concentrations of the field, which has the awareness, and so are unseparated from this (infinitesimal level of) awareness.

          Again, you mentioned that "everything is inside of an SCU" while I see a BBU the same way. I do not believe in a multiverse where multiple BBU's exist. Perhaps that is what you attribute to me that would constitute the difference in BBU and SCU. In that sense the "eternal inflation" of the multiverse picture would seem to describe a (system of) self-creating universe(s). In any case, there is some distinction here that I am missing which keeps me from understanding the fine points of your argument.

          You clearly have a theory with details worked out that fit together in your mind, and I do also. There's enough confusion between us that may be partly based in terminology and partly based on incompatibility of ideas. That leads to a situation where "data fitting" comes to the forefront, and for this reason I'm focusing my efforts on quantitative results as my qualitative aspects seem to work well. From what I can determine your qualitative aspects work well also.

          You misconstrued "we don't have access to reality". I am quoting others. I do believe there is a reality, and I listed number of ways in which I do have direct access to it in my closing paragraph. But we again are out of sync in terms of definition, as I do not see reality as something we could step outside of.

          I will have to give more thought to your comments and your essay to try to discern where this confusion arises, aside from different definitions.

          Thank you for the detailed comparison of our ideas and the effort you put into the comments.

          Best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear Edwin,

          I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Mean while, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

          Regards and good luck in the contest.

          Sreenath BN.

          http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

          Hi Edwin,

          A Big Bang Universe (BBU) is not a self-creating entity. This is extremely hard to explain and comprehend, yet crucial if we are to comprehend quantum mechanics (which to me seems a prerequisite to develop quantum gravity), to understand our universe. Though like you ''I do not see reality as something we could step outside of'', we actually do so in Big Bang Cosmology (BBC) as the entire 'theory' is drafted from an imaginary observation post outside of it. The psychological barrier we have to overcome seems to be that even the hard core atheists among us, tend to think about ourselves as having an absolute existence, transcending the universe, as if there's Someone outside of it with respect to which we exist, Who is witness to our existence, a habit from times when we believed to be at the center of God's attention, the idea which caused Galilei so much trouble when he questioned it.

          If there would be only a single charged particle in the entire universe, then it wouldn't be able to express its charge in interactions. Since it in that case it cannot be charged itself, charge, or any property, for that matter, must be something which is shared by particles, something which only exists, is expressed and preserved within their interactions: the 'its' indeed are as much the cause as the effect of the (exchange of) bits so you cannot have one without the other.

          Similarly, in the seemingly innocent assumption that we can regard the universe as an ordinary object which has particular properties as a whole, which change IN time, we actually assume there's something outside of it it interacts with, owes its properties to, and, implicitly, that it has been created by something outside of it. This is why I say that a BBU lives in a time (and space) realm not of its own making, that it is not a self-creating (or self-contained) entity. BBC, in looking at the universe like we may imagine God to look at His creation, in fact paints a religious picture of the universe. Evidently, this attitude can be justified only if and when the inside objects only are the cause of interactions, not when we have to concede that particles they are built out of, ultimately must be as much the cause as the effect of their interactions. Indeed, the fact that the meter, second, gram and joule are not defined outside the universe already takes any significance out of any statement about the universe BBC cares to make. If it does not make any sense to speak about its properties as 'seen' from without, then we also cannot speak about its properties, as a whole, as seen from within. This is what I mean when I say that, unlike a BBU, a Self-Creating Universe (SCU) does not live in a time realm not of its own making. While a BBU is thought to be quite homogenous and isotropic, about the same everywhere (but not at all times: a BBC obeys the Cosmological Principle (CP)), as if it 'contains' a single, unique reality, in a SCU where we can only make statements from within, any observer, no matter when he lives and where he looks from, sees objects in all possible phases of their evolution, and, unlike in a BBU, not as they were in ''the'' past. Though a SCU obeys the Perfect Cosmological Principle (PCP), it shouldn't be confused with Hoyle's Steady State Universe as this suffers the same conceptual flaw as a BBU, as it is thought about from an imaginary observation post outside of it. Indeed, if to avoid having an outside Creator, we must discard causality, and hence the concept of cosmic time, then we can no longer determine what in an absolute sense precedes what and say that the emission of a photon by A causally precedes its absorption by B. In a SCU an observer doesn't see a distant galaxy as it was in a distant past but as it is at present to him.

          In the 'virtual particle' description in my previous post I proposed that the energy a particle has according to a nearby observer contains contributions from all particles within its interaction horizon. While in a BBU it is the same cosmic time everywhere (ignoring the effect of gravitational fields on clock paces) so a photon has to travel at finite velocity so its contribution to the energy of the observed particle originate in a distant past, in a SCU they contribute in real time to its energy, no matter their spacetime distance to the particle. If you agree that particles only exist to each other if and for as long as they interact, exchange energy (so they in some sense can be said to exist 'out of each other') and have no physical reality to an observer who doesn't physically interact with them, who finds himself outside their interaction horizon, their universe, then in this sense to him everything inside of it cancels, is unobservable so he cannot make any statement about that universe. So my objection to BBC isn't just that as we cannot step outside of it to actually observe what happens inside of it, we cannot say anything about it; it is because in a universe which obeys the law which says that what comes out of nothing must add to nothing, everything inside of it must cancel so there's nothing 'left' for an imaginary outside observer to observe, unlike a BBU where the observer would find things to look at.

          To be continued in the next post

          Though at macroscopic scale a property of an object indeed is what the dictionary says it is, something it privately owns, only the cause of its interactions, independent from interactions, here the observer doesn't affect the observed in a perceptible manner. If, as classical mechanics, big bang cosmology and general relativity assumes that the properties of objects are eternally unchangeable, they obviously can, in principle, be observed without being affected by the observation, so in this, outdated, view, there indeed exists an objectively observable reality at the origin of our observations: as Einstein said: ''We all, more or less in the same way, say that a rose is red, smells like perfume, and feels like velvet. In other words, there is an objective reality which is conceived by the senses, and behind this objective reality are natural laws which are the privilege of the scientist to discover.'' However, things are entirely different at quantum level: if particles are both cause and effect of their interactions so the particles of the rose and those of the observer contribute to each other's energy, each other's properties, then he cannot observe the rose as it is since without his own existence it wouldn't be the exact same rose. Though as a rose is a macroscopic object, the effect of the observer on the rose is negligible, at quantum level an observing particle does affect the observed particle to the extent they are 'made out of each other', exchange energy. Einstein continues: ''Nature doesn't know chance, it operates on mathematical principles. As I have said so many times, God doesn't play dice with the world.'' Though despite this statement, he said that he didn't believe in God, in insisting on causality, on determinism (which made him reject quantum mechanics), he actually did, the result of which is that general relativity in its adaptation to big bang cosmology became corrupted.

          I am well aware that what I propose constitutes a completely different paradigm so cannot be understood very well in the terms of the present one: ''To adopt a new theory or paradigm means to accept a completely novel conceptual scheme that has so little in common with that of the older; now rejected, theory that the two theories are "incommensurable," for no objective yardstick exists that makes it possible to compare them. Furthermore, as the meaning of every scientific term in a given theory depends upon the theoretical context in which it occurs, even the individual scientific terms of the new theory are incommensurable with the terms of the old one, despite the fact that the same terminology is often retained.'' (''Concepts of Mass in Physics and Philosophy'' M. Jammer, p 57)

          Regards, Anton