@Peter Jackson: In your article "Inertial Frame Error Discovery ... " with R K Nixey, you state: "We conclude that the limits of EM coupling potential and the field qualities of GR are adequate to provide the Discrete Field Model boundary shock conditions as observed both in space and around accelerated particles." http://vixra.org/pdf/1007.0022v9.pdf

Have you attempted to explain the GZK paradox with your Discrete Field Model?

@John C. Maguire:

So far, I have two basic testable predictions: the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect and the Space Roar Profile Prediction. My guess is that superstring determinism based upon the monster group and the 6 pariah groups is the correct way to implement string theory. I need a deterministic model that correctly predicts the free parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics. The best clue might be John P. Lestone's heuristic string theory.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0703151 Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant

Hello, David!

It's wonderful that you are in your essay actualized the idea of space and its structure. Science has already accumulated enough facts to make the space to think differently than they thought in any previous generation, including physics. Modern physical picture of the world is too semantically poor, if not flawed. And it should start again with the concept of "space", and only then comes the understanding of the nature of information and its place in the physical world. A new breakthrough in string theory is only possible through the ontology and the dialectics of concepts of "space" and "matter" mainstream ideas of "generating structures." I wish you success! Vladimir

    6 days later

    Hi David,

    it was short but very interesting. I haven't contemplated about the space roar but it fits very well into a finite and discrete model of the universe. And this may be the thing to look for. I've touched some of these ideas in my essay. You may find it interesting

    Regards,

    Kjetil

      @Vladimir I. Rogozhin: "Modern physical picture of the world is too semantically poor, if not flawed." My guess is that to unite quantum field theory and general relativity theory there is need for some form of string theory. If nature is finite then I think that SU(8) governs the Big Bang, SU(5) governs the Big Stop to the Big Bang (recurring every 81.6 ± 1.7 billion years), and SU(3) X SU(2) X U(1) governs all time except the first and last Planck time intervals. If nature is infinite then I think that superpartners (in some form) occur in nature. Is the Koide formula merely a coincidence? What might be the physical semantics of:

      ((mass electron) + (mass muon) + (mass tau))/((mass electron)^.5 + (mass muon)^.5 + (mass tau)^.5)^2 = .66667 approximately ?

      @Hoàngcao Hai: "... we often choose a concept to accept and did not use a measure to determine." String theory now lacks a solution to its measurement problem, but space roar seems to be empirically valid.

      http://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/arcade/pubs/arc2_apj_cmb_2011.pdf "ARACADE2 measuremnt of the absolute sky brightness at 3-90 GHz", by Fixsen, Kogut, Levin, et al., 2011

      @Kjetil Hustveit: "If we discover that a finite solution is impossible, then we have to backtrack to the temporal infinite solution." My guess is that unless the finite nature hypothesis explains dark matter, dark energy, and the space roar in a convincing way, then the finite nature hypothesis is either wrong or useless as a physical hypothesis. In any case, I think that anyone who wants to create a valid theory of quantum gravity must consider the space roar.

      Dear

      Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

      So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

      I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

      I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

      Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

      Best

      =snp

      snp.gupta@gmail.com

      http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

      Pdf download:

      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

      Part of abstract:

      - -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

      Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

      A

      Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

      ....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

      Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

      . . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

      B.

      Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

      Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

      C

      Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

      "Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

      Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

      1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

      2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

      3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

      4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

      D

      Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

      It from bit - where are bit come from?

      Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

      ....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

      Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

      E

      Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

      .....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

      I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

      6 days later

      David,

      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

      Hello David,

      I like your article it is a good synthesis of a current position, although discreetness is not the only possible feature of information and computation. I did an article to explain this. I you have time read it, and let me know "Nature from the bit and beyond". Do you thing string theory could speak about continuous information or just discrete information? Let me know your opinion.

      Best regards,

      Sergio

        Sorry I saw some errors in my message, it is too late here :)I write it again.

        Hello David,

        I like your article it is a good synthesis of a current position, although discreetness is not the only possible feature of information and computation. I wrote an article to explain this. If you have time, read it, and let me know your opinion "Nature from the bit and beyond". Also I have a question for you if you read it. Do you think that string theory could speak about continuous information or it can only use the concept of discrete information? Let me know your opinion.

        Best regards,

        Sergio

        Hi David,

        This subject is very interesting (I have rated you good). In my system I can simulate using both real numbers and integer, both give similar results at large distances. but for small they differ , particularly it seems to say that space has a cut off at .2 proton size. And strangely that is what was heard with Hogan's experiment, they expected a planck length effect. But I am not sure yet, this real vs integer is driving me crazy with all the simulation that I have to do.

        I have also selected you because you are a programmer.

        Please if you have the time run The programs which are at my website

        http://www.qsa.netne.net

        please make sure you unzip the file properly, the code is in JavaScript, the programs are very simple. also see the posts in my thread for some more info.

        you can find my essay at this link

        http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1877

        see the amazing formulas in section 6, like this one

        alpha/FSC =.007297352568, charge ^2=3, 27=3^3, m_e, m_p are electron and proton mass

        M_p/m_e= (27/2)*(1/(alpha) -1) -1/3 = 1836.152654

        Thank you.

        Adel

        5 days later

        Dear David,

        Thank you for bringing the "space roar" to my attention, somehow I did not know about it. This is very interesting and I will read more about it.

        I regret that in your short paper did not say some more about what possibilities exist to explain this phenomenon in terms of more established physics and where you stand on this.

        Although I am a skeptical that string theory will turn out to be a valid fundamental theory of nature, property #2 in your paper caught my eye. I hope you won't mind if I link to a paper I wrote some time ago, called Are the concepts of mass in Quantum Theory and in General Relativity the same? which explores this as a way of understanding that there is a boundary between the domains of QT and GR.

        All the best,

        Armin

        David,

        No, but I just had a look and a possible explanation emerges from the DFM via non-linear optics.

        At a certain (very high) intensity particles can be polarized depending nonlinearly on the incident electric field. This gives a change to refractive index, and is known in optics from the effect producing the 'frequency comb' we now use for better astronomical spectroscopy, referred as 'supercontinuum' generation.

        It's a very complex mechanism, but the effect would seem to be that at anything over a certain energy absorption in the QV would be higher, so reducing the maximum. This of course may then also have implications for redshift.

        I've done a paper deriving the LT's gamma limit from two-fluid plasmas and the optical breakdown ionization density limit (wavelength gamma). It sounds like another may be needed. Lee Smolin apparently thought it would be 'momentous'.

        If you agree that could you collaborate on the maths? I'm a little tied up with an EPR paradox paper at present (as my essay). Have you read and rated mine yet? I confirm I also think yours should be rather higher.

        Let me know if you find any resonance with the above, or have any better ideas. I only researched the comments for an initial 10 minutes as I'm a bit buried under essays!

        Very best wishes.

        Peter

        very best wishes.

        Hello David,

        I like your essay very much, clear and concise is always a sign that the author understands and believes what they are putting across. Some ramble. You don't! These ideas are original and interesting, certainly relevant to the contest.

        I'm going to rate you very highly now, as you deserve to do well!

        Please take a look at my essay, as I hope you'll like it. If black holes aren't your thing, then please also consider that the ideas I present should apply at the quantum scale to particles, so my be relevant to your Planck approach. I'm working on a theory away from the contest which uses simplex geometry to partly unify the forces of nature and resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony.

        Best wishes & nice to "meet" you,

        Antony

        7 days later

        Thanks David,

        I appreciate your bringing the space roar to my attention, and I've passed on some info to a colleague who is in gravity wave research, and was exploring early forming black holes. The Cosmic Radio Wave Background is a new one for me. Of course; as the researchers comment, they will have to repeat and expand the experiment. Anyhow, thanks for the tip.

        Regards,

        Jonathan

        Dear David,

        For your essay topic you have chosen a very mysterious subject called 'space roar' whose source is yet to be identified and currently it is a challenge to astrophysics since known theories such as relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, etc. cannot account for it. Thus the information available to us through the signals of space roar is to be properly comprehended in order to make it fit in to our known theoretical frame work. It is also to be known whether it is a universal phenomenon or a mere local effect. This subject certainly raises curiosity in the minds of knowledge seekers. For this, this article deserves a very good rating.

        Best wishes,

        Sreenath

          Dear David,

          Feel free to visit my site (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827) and post your comments on my essay in my thread.

          Sreenath

          10 days later

          David,

          Ref your question above, I've recently been discussing 'reddening' in DFM terms and suddenly realised it is another prime candidate for the GZK limit, or certainly a contribution thereto.

          It's about absorption of the higher energies by QV particles which don't affect higher wavelenths, so the top part of the spectrum is 'subdued'. This is just like radio waves at out ionosphere. After your question I put GZK in the (long) line up to point the DFM at. Can you give me any better description and evidence on your own derivation? I'd be interested to discuss more.

          I'm just doing final ratings and not I hadn't done yours so a boost is due. I don't recall any comments on my blog from you (but there are 220!) and hope you'll read it by the deadline if you haven't yet. (If you think it's nonsense please don't score it till Thursday!) You should ignore the offputting dense abstract it's been kindly described in the blog with; "groundbreaking", "clearly significant", "astonishing", "fantastic", "wonderful", "remarkable!", "deeply impressed", etc. so I hope you're tempted.

          Well done and very best wishes.

          Peter

          Dear David,

          I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

          I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

          You can find the latest version of my essay here:

          http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

          (sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that).

          May the best essays win!

          Kind regards,

          Paul Borrill

          paul at borrill dot com

          Write a Reply...