Dear Sir,

We have discussed Wheeler's delayed choice experiment in our essay published on May 31, 2013 to show that the measurement process and the conclusions derived from it are incorrect. Yet, when you say: "measurements made today can determine the past history of the universe", you are correct. Measurement is always taken a time t, and the result is frozen for use at later times t1, t2, etc. Thus, we cannot know the "present state" because by that time we perceive the result of measurement, the object has evolved further. From this, we can infer that the result of measurement represents the past evolutionary state. This is true both for the macro and the micro systems.

First the proposition, then the discarding of the Cosmological Constant by Einstein and its reincarnation to explain dark energy are mired in various controversies. Firstly, there cannot be dark energy (we call a background structure), because energy cannot be dark (non-interacting) - energy is always inferred from its interactions involving mass and has never been seen directly. Bare mass is dark because we see only when the radiation reaches our eyes and without energy, mass cannot interact by itself. The galaxy rotation problem is wrong mathematics. The galactic clusters only appear to recede from each other because the Universe as a whole is spinning on its central axis just like planets go round the Sun. Temporarily they appear to recede from each other to come close again. Similarly, after many years, the galactic clusters will appear to come closer. This is the reason why the expansion of the Universe is not evident in lesser scales.

The mathematics of General Relativity, Einstein's theory of gravitation, is highly misleading. It should be based on a constant differential that is not zero and seek the motion of some given mass or volume. This mass or volume may be as small as we like, but it cannot be zero (hence no infinities). This causes several fundamental and far-reaching changes to the mathematics of GR, but the first of these changes is of course the elimination of singularity from all solutions. Therefore the central "fact" of the black hole must be given up. Whatever may be at the center of a black hole, it cannot be a "singularity".

Chandrasekhar used Einstein's field equations to calculate densities and accelerations inside a collapsing superstar. His mathematics suggested the singularity at the center, as well as other characteristics that are still accepted as defining the black hole. Einstein himself contradicted Chandrasekhar's conclusions. Apart from using mass points in GR, Einstein made several other basic errors that even Chandrasekhar did not correct and is still being continued. One such error is the use of the term γ, which, as we have explained in many threads, really does not change anything except perception of the object by different observers unrelated to the time evolution of the object proper. Hence it cannot be treated as actually affecting the time-evolution of the object. Yet, in GR, it affects both "x" and "t" transformations. In some experimental situations γ is nearly correct due to Doppler shift. But in a majority of situations, γ fails, sometimes very badly. Also γ is the main term in the mass increase equation. To calculate volumes or densities in a field, one must calculate both radius (length) and mass; and the term comes into play in both.

Yet, Einstein had wrongly assigned several length and time variables in SR, giving them to the wrong coordinate systems or to no specific coordinate systems. He skipped an entire coordinate system, achieving two degrees of relativity when he thought he had only achieved one. Because his x and t transforms were compromised, his velocity transform was also compromised. He carried this error into the mass transforms, which infected them as well. This problem then infected the tensor calculus and GR. This explains the various anomalies and variations and the so-called violations within Relativity. Since Einstein's field equations are not correct, Schwarzschild's solution of 1917 is not correct. Israel's non-rotating solution is not correct. Kerr's rotating solution is not correct. And the solutions of Penrose, Wheeler, Hawking, Carter, and Robinson are not correct.

Let us take just one example. The black hole equations are directly derived from GR - a theory that stipulates that nothing can equal or exceed the speed of light. Yet the centripetal acceleration of the black hole must equal or exceed the speed of light in order to overcome it. In that case, all matter falling into a black hole would instantaneously achieve infinite mass. It is not clear how bits of infinite mass can be collected into a finite volume, increase in density and then disappear into a singularity. In other words, the assumptions and the mathematics that led to the theory of the black hole do not work inside the created field. The exotic concepts like wormholes, tachyons, virtual particle pairs, quantum leaps and non-linear i-trajectories at 11-dimensional boson-massed fields in parallel universes, etc, cannot avoid this central contradiction. It is not the laws of physics that breaks down inside a black hole. It is the mathematics and the postulates of Relativity that break down. The idea of Cosmological constant also similarly breaks down.

The cosmological principle has come into question recently as astronomers find subtle but growing evidence of a special direction in space. The CMB, the so-called afterglow of the big bang, is not perfectly smooth - hot and cold spots speckle the sky. In recent years, however, scientists have discovered that these spots are not quite as randomly distributed as they first appeared - they align in a pattern that point out a special direction in space. Cosmologists have theatrically dubbed it the "axis of evil". More hints of a cosmic arrow come from studies of supernovae, stellar cataclysms that briefly outshine entire galaxies. Cosmologists have been using supernovae to map the accelerating expansion of the universe. Detailed statistical studies reveal that supernovae are moving even faster in a line pointing just slightly off the axis of evil. Similarly, astronomers have measured galaxy clusters streaming through space at a million miles an hour toward an area in the southern sky. Thus, the mass density calculation of the universe is wrong.

The equation: ΩM ΩΛ Ωk = 1 appears tantalizingly similar to the Mr. Fermi's description of the three part Hamiltonian for the atom: H = HA HR HI. Here, H is 1. ΩM, which represents matter density is similar to HA, the bare mass. ΩΛ, which represents the cosmological constant, is similar to HR, the radiating bare charge. Ωk, which represents curvature of the universe, is similar to HI, the interaction. This indicates (as Mr. Mason A. Porter and Mr. Predrag Cvitanovic had shown in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society in 2005), that the macro and the micro worlds share the same sets of mathematics. Thus, the Universe is spinning on its axis as a whole, the receding galaxies phenomenon is temporary and the concept of dark matter is fiction.

Regards,

basudeba

    Hello Basudeba,

    Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I can't really do justice to them here, since they are so far-reaching and varied. However, I'll try to make a few miscellaneous points that may provide some degree of clarification and illumination.

    To begin with, dark energy is "dark" not because it doesn't interact at all, but because it interacts only gravitationally (or anti-gravitationally, to be more precise); in other words, it's purely (anti-)gravitational energy. I take the existence of dark energy to be strongly supported by observations of the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect.

    Concerning the issue of black holes and General Relativity (GR), it may well be that some additions/modifications to GR are needed in order to deal with the problems posed by (e.g.) singularities. One promising approach is to "tame" singularities using noncommutative (i.e., "fuzzy," or "smeared") geometry. An interesting effort along these lines is the arXiv paper by Modesto, Moffat and Nicolini, "Black holes in an ultraviolet complete quantum gravity," in which GR is augmented by a coupling to noncommutative smeared matter. The authors conclude that this augmented GR is dual to their own UV complete quantum gravity with ordinary matter. So, I don't think it's necessary to do away with GR altogether; nor is it desirable, since then one is faced with the task of finding a new theory that reproduces all of GR's successes (e.g., with respect to gravitational lensing).

    Your idea that the universe is rotating is an interesting one; indeed, as is well-known, Kurt Godel's solution of Einstein's equations can be interpreted as describing a rotating universe. The cosmological model of Dmitri Rabounski and Larissa Borissova, which is based on an extension of GR using the method of "chronometric invariants," also involves rotation of the universe; in fact, the idea that the universe rotates at the speed of light leads to their idea of "zero-space," which I invoke in my paper in connection with nonlocality (though zero-space can, I believe, be motivated in other ways besides the assumption of cosmological rotation at light-speed). By rejecting GR in its entirety, however, you cut yourself off from these interesting GR-based perspectives. It might be better to adopt a somewhat more conciliatory attitude toward GR, since by doing so you could perhaps connect your ideas with similar ideas of others in a fruitful manner.

    Regards,

    Willard Mittelman

    Willard,

    Fine essay. I incorporated discussion of DeBroglie-Bohm in my paper as well. So if Information ~= Dark Energy, but Information can have "no physical effect", is the "acceleration" (i.e. physical movement) an 'illusory' effect enacted by Information on our perceptions? Sorry if that question doesn't make total sense, just trying to wrap my head around the conclusion. Thank You!

    Regards,

    John

      • [deleted]

      • Post #13

      Dear Sir,

      What exactly is anti-gravity? Is there any theory for it like that for gravity or it is something different? Is it like anti-proton that gets annihilated when it comes into contact with proton? If so, why gravity and antigravity annihilate each other? If it is not like anti-proton, how is it different from gravity? Is it a repulsive force? Then it must be something totally different. When we are questioning the present theory of gravity, should we not consider all possibilities to explain the observed phenomenon and revise our theory, if necessary and possible? We have given an alternative explanation. Is it totally impossible? The integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect is based on circular reasoning. Yet, it does not contradict our view, but rather supports it. In fact the last paragraph of your above post also supports our view. But the Universe cannot be spinning at the speed of light, as it would bring in further singularities in your mathematics. Hence the concept of zero space is not correct.

      Incidentally, the problem of singularities can be tamed easily if we look closely at division by zero, which has been erroneously treated as infinity as explained now. Since zero does not exist at "here-now" where the numbers representing the objects are perceived, it does not affect addition or subtraction. During multiplication by zero, one non-linear component of the quantity is increased to zero, i.e., moves away from "here-now" to a superposition of states. Thus, the result becomes zero for the total component, as we cannot have a Schrödinger's "undead" cat before measurement in real life. In division by zero, the "non-existent" part is sought to be reduced from the quantity (which is an operation akin to "collapse reversal" in quantum mechanics), leaving the quantity unchanged. Thus, physically, division by zero leaves the number unchanged.

      Alternatively, if you divide 20 by 5, then what you actually do is take out bunches of 5 from the lot of 20. When the lot becomes empty or the remainder is below 5 (the divisor), so that it cannot be considered a bunch and taken away further, the number of bunches of 5 are counted. That gives the result of division as 4. In case of division by zero, you take out bunches of zero. At no stage the lot becomes zero or less than zero. Thus, the operation is not complete and result of division cannot be known, just like while dividing 20 by 5, you cannot start counting the result after taking away two or three bunches. Conclusion: division by zero is mathematically void, hence it leaves the number unchanged.

      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.

      We reject SR & GR in totality based on proof and not conjectures or hypotheses. We also give alternative explanations. In case you are interested you can write to: mbasudeba@gmail.com.

      Regards,

      basudeba

      Hi John,

      Thanks for the question, which does make sense. The thing is, though, I don't actually mean to equate dark energy with information, and I'm sorry for giving the impression that I was equating them. The point I was trying to make is that, even though dark energy itself (and its associated pressure) is not reducible to information, its total magnitude at a given time is determined by both (i)the global distribution-pattern of the Planckian spacetime volume-fluctuations occurring at a given time, and (ii) the total amount of these fluctuations. (By "global" here, I mean "ranging over the entire spacetime volume of the universe.") These two determining factors, I suggest, represent "informational inputs" from which dark energy is obtained as an "output." Hence, information is of great importance in connection with dark energy, but it is not equivalent to the latter.

      There is, arguably, an energy of information itself, an energy that is not available for doing work; and I speculated that this sort of energy can be attributed to (superluminal) de Broglie phase waves, thereby allowing us to regard these waves as physically real, while at the same time justifying the claim that these waves don't give rise to any actual relativity-violating effects. This postulated information energy, however, is completely distinct from dark energy.

      Hope this helps. I look forward to reading your essay soon.

      Best Wishes,

      Willard

      To say that dark energy is "anti-gravitational" is just to say that its associated pressure is negative and hence has a repulsive effect. This pressure is a force; and though it exists at all only because dark energy exists, it is not identical with this energy.

      Regards,

      Willard Mittelman

      Dear Sir,

      Your reasoning is circular. Whether the pressure is exerted by dark energy or dark energy exists because of this pressure? You seem to agree with the first. In that case, is dark energy an addition to the fundamental forces of Nature? This is because all fundamental forces of Nature create pressure in specified directions: strong force towards center, weal force laterally, e.m. force from greater concentration to lesser concentration, gravity towards common center of mass, etc.

      We had discussed some of these issues in our essay published on May 31. You are welcome to see it.

      Regards,

      basudeba

      It may be that all fundamental forces create pressure; but it does not follow that everything that creates pressure is a fundamental force.

      You noted earlier that the ISW effect is circular, and that it supports your theory. So, since my reasoning is circular, I presume that it must also support your theory. Therefore, your theory is correct, and we are in agreement; end of story.

      Regards,

      Willard Mittelman

      10 days later

      Before pronouncing relativity dead, it might be worthwhile to read the following article, which just recently appeared on the arXiv:

      http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.6071

      The author is Mohammed Sharifi, and the title is "Invariance of spooky action at a distance in quantum entanglement under Lorentz transformation."

      Sharifi's emphasis on the infinite phase velocity of the wave function of an entangled system (in the system's rest frame), as well as his view that such a system should be treated as a single entity, fits perfectly with the ideas laid out in my essay here. In addition, he argues that quantum mechanics and relativity actually "cooperate" here, rather than being in conflict; and he notes that the phase velocity plays the same role in quantum mechanics that the speed of light plays in relativity. Furthermore, his discussion of information (on p. 15) gives his paper special relevance to the topic of this essay contest.

      I highly recommend a reading of his paper, especially for those who want a fuller understanding of the issues raised in my own essay.

      Hello Willard,

      Thanks for your comment & also your essay. I've read it again as I found it so interesting, I like the large scale nonlocality that you describe.

      All the very best,

      Antony

      Willard,

      If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

      Jim

      21 days later

      Hi Willard,

      I found in your conclusion, "the wave's energy is purely information energy" reflective of the findings of a 12 year experiment which serves as the basis of my essay. Although you have a different approach to information than I do, I found your essay inspiring and most worthy of merit of which I have highly rated.

      I wish you the best of luck in the competition.

      Regards,

      Manuel

      Hello Willard,

      Your description of Planck scale physics was interesting. I also make some arguments on that scale but using more of philosophy than physics. You may view.

      Best regards,

      Akinbo

        Hi Akinbo,

        Thanks for making me aware of your interesting and well-written article. I liked your use of monads.

        Best wishes,

        Willard

        • [deleted]

        • Post #27

        I would like to correct a significant error in my essay. Instead of saying that the waves associated with spacetime "bits" become entangled with each other, I should have described these waves as soliton-like entities that may "merge" or "fuse" to form superpositions that are NOT characterized by entanglement. Properties of the "composite particles" that result from such superpositions -- properties such as mass, energy and momentum -- are obtained by simply adding together the masses, energies and momenta of the individual bits that constitute these compound particles. This sort of merger or fusion of individual entities has been described by Agung Budiyono in "On de Broglie's soliton wave function of many particles with finite masses, energies and momenta" (arXiv:quant-ph/0510117).

        The idea of entanglement is the wrong one for describing the sort of composite particles that I have in mind here, due to the "monogamy" that prevents entangled systems from forming new entanglements with additional wave-particles. The effects of entanglement that are discussed in my essay -- namely, reduction in the number of degrees of freedom, and entropy arising from information-erasure at cosmological horizons -- are still present when the idea of entanglement is replaced by that of merger/superposition.

          I shall be having at this one over the weekend, Willard..

          Given your relatively low placement and my respect for your past work; I shall endeavor to read through and give an uplifting rating to your essay. I wish you good luck in the contest.

          More later,

          Jonathan

          Hi Willard,

          I finally had a chance to at least glance at your essay and it has some interesting ideas which I had some questions/comments on. First the jumping off point is is the work by Barrow and Shaw which I was not aware of but seems important in what I gather they say from your essay. In this model there is an effective c.c. Lambda which is the product of some effective lambda plus the (huge) QFT vacuum energy (I'm assuming they take the vacuum energy density from QFT in which case it will be huge). Thus in the present era lambda must also be huge in order to almost cancel the vacuum energy density leaving a Lambda which is small and positive thus giving the small observed cosmological constant Lambda which should drive the current accelerated expansion. My question "Is it possible that at an earlier stage of the Universe lambda would take a different value so that Lambda would be large -- much larger?" In other words could one explain the early postulated inflationary phase in this model? The Universe appears to have had two burst of accelerated expansion -- the current dark energy stage and the initial inflationary stage. However these two accelerated phases have vastly different magnitudes. It would be nice if some single mechanism could explain both.

          One further unrelated question -- you have S ~ (N)^{1/2) where I think (correct if wrong) that N is something like a degree of freedom. If this is correct then wouldn't one expect S ~ Log (N)? However you mention you are considering entanglement entropy so this may explain the difference. Or maybe I am misunderstand what N is?

          My interest is if this model provides both dark energy and inflation comes from a recent paper of mine "Inflation with a graceful exit and entrance driven by Hawking radiation", Sujoy Kumar Modak and D. Singleton, Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 123515, e-Print: arXiv:1207.0230 [gr-qc]. In this paper Sujoy and I assume a discrete/non-commutative space-time a la Piero Nicolini's work. We had discussed this issue earlier since you pointed out this NC space-time will become incompatible with the self-similarity we use in our essay. Anyway as I mentioned it's good to "cover all the bases" and look at different options up to the point when experiment/observation gives us a more definite hint in which way to go. And Piero's version of discrete space-time gave a very natural "entrance" mechanism for our version of inflation.

          Anyway I liked very much your essay. Best of luck,

          Doug

            Dear Willard,

            I find your essay as one serious review/analytical work that I am inclined to rate in good score (after some more study). Main intriguing thing for me that you gives first significance of the real/material than the information (and moreover, to a binary encoded version of it, in form of ,,bits,,) I am working on some different direction (actually, somewhere between physics and philosophy.) But I am very hope that we have many common perception to right scientific methodology. I hope my work Essay text may be in your interest (despite its different task.) I hope we can soon mutually to complete our opinions. Welcome to my forum.

            George