Hi Ram,

The irreconcilable difference between Classical and Quantum Mechanics seems to me that in CM particles are thought to be only the cause of interactions, whereas QM can be understood only if we realize that in a self-creating universe where particles have to create themselves, each other, particles, particle properties must be as much the cause as the product, the effect of their interactions, of forces between them. As a result, a particle in CM is thought of as having a surface separating some content, mass (cause), from its effect on the environment, its gravitational field, so here there's a border between matter and space, as if space, though curvable by mass, has additional properties unrelated to mass, so particles in this view are fremdkörper in an alien environment, as if matter and space have been created separately. As this makes no sense, I agree with ''Einstein's earlier belief that "on the basis of the general theory of relativity, space as opposed to 'what fills space' has no separate existence ... [so] the mere consideration of a spacetime structure should be equivalent to considering the accompanying fields ... also.'' Though General Relativity is thought to be a background independent (a description of space without thinking it embedded in an 'Über-space'), by regarding the mass of particles to be only the cause of forces, mass becomes an intrinsic, privately owned quantity, i.e. an absolute quantity which but for practical difficulties can be measured even from without the universe, as if the gram is defined even outside of it, so the flaw of GR seems to me is that it isn't relative enough, not really background independent at all.

This same misunderstanding -that we think of the universe as an ordinary object we may imagine to look at from without, which comes down to assuming that the meter, second, gram and joule are defined even outside of it- has led to the mistaken belief that the Planck constant is the minimum energy quantum, the Planck length the minimum distance in the universe. If in blackbody radiation there are more energy levels per unit energy interval at higher energies so we need more decimals to distinguish successive energy levels at higher energies, then the energy gap between subsequent levels can become arbitrarily small: though energy is quantified, there is no minimum limit to the size of the quantum. The Planck constant h then is like the number 1 in arithmetic: 0.5 < 1 < 1.5. If we can measure h more accurately, add another decimal at a higher energy, then we can write that number as 0.95 < 1.0 < 1.05. So if in our equations we again set h = 1, then every time we improve its accuracy by another decimal, we increase the magnifying power of our microscope with a factor 10. In other words, the extent to which spacetime is defined, detailed somewhere, depends on the local energy density, so space is not built from discrete unit volumes which have the same size everywhere -and contain the same quantity of energy which indeed would lead to ''horrible fine-tuning problems''. The higher the energy density somewhere, the more detailed spacetime is, the greater the physical difference (observed lengths of rods, pace of clocks) is between adjacent positions, whereas the farther from masses, the emptier spacetime is, the less positions over a larger area differ. In my study I show why a self-creating universe (as opposed to a big bang universe) doesn't need any dark energy, nor inflation to explain observations. If particles are as much the product as the source of their interactions, of forces between them so there is no border between the mass of a particle and its gravitational field, then we can say that mass, a gravitational field is an area of curved, contracted spacetime, or, equivalently, that the gravitational field contains, represents mass, energy, so ''It is thus established that the source of curvature in (3) is the energy of the gravitational field present at the points exterior to r = 0'' indeed. To be continued in the next post.

In my study I propose a mass definition based on the uncertainty principle in the expectation that using this in GR might reconcile GR with QM: the less indefinite the position of a particle or mass center of an object is, the greater its rest energy is. If (see study) the distance between two particles is less definite as it is greater, so the indefiniteness in the position of an object also depends on the mass of the observing particle, their distance and relative motion, here mass is a relative quantity -if their energy is both the cause and effect of their interactions. Though one may object that it is not the mass of an object which varies with the distance it is observed from, only its expression as gravity, that only holds if the mass of objects only is the cause of forces.

If particles express and at the same time preserve each other's mass by exchanging energy, then the observed object owes part of its mass to its energy exchange with the observing particle, so here mass isn't the constant, privately owned quantity GR assumes it to be but instead is an interaction/observation-dependent quantity. That we always find an electron to have the exact same mass isn't so much because it is a constant, privately owned quantity but rather because the measurement is a standardized interaction. Anyhow, if particles are both source and product of forces between them, then forces and interaction energies obviously never can become infinite, so there are no singularities, no infinite bare masses and charges.

Real particles can be thought of as virtual particles which have managed to set up a continuous energy exchange: by alternately borrowing and lending each other the energy to exist (so no conservation law is violated), they force each other to reappear again and again at about the same positions after every disappearance. The uncertainty principle is often thought to say that spacetime is filled to the brim with virtual particles, their energy higher as we look at smaller scales: though this should have gravitational effects, none are observed. However, if the energy of particles isn't only the source, but also the product of their interactions, then their energy evidently only is as great as can be expressed as a force between them (a force which, as it only can be as great as the counter force it evokes, is as attractive as it is repulsive. For why gravity seems to be an exclusively attractive force, see my 2013 FQXi essay). So instead of saying that for energy to be a source of gravity it must have a position to be able to act from, we can as well say that for a particle to have rest energy, it must have a well-defined position. If the position of particles is less indefinite near masses, then the energy of virtual particles, like the price of real-estate, depends on the location: they are, in fact, part of the gravitational field, of the mass of its 'source'.

As to ''action at a distance'', in my 2012 FQXi essay I argue that there's something 'horribly wrong' with our notion of time: that the speed of light shouldn't be conceived of as referring to the motion of light but rather to a property of spacetime, which is something else entirely. As in a big bang universe, in the classical view it is the same cosmic time everywhere, here it takes a photon time to travel a space distance so there's no action-at-a-space-distance in GR. In contrast, in a self-creating universe it is not the same time everywhere, so here the photon bridges any spacetime distance in no time at all, so here there is an instantaneous action-at-a-spacetime-distance. As I presume you to be a busy man, perhaps reading my 2012 essay would be the most efficient use of your time -sorry for this already far too lengthy post.

Regards, Anton

Dear Dr. Vishwakarma,

I have expressed my comments on your enthralling essay in your thread and now it is your turn to read my essay (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827) and post your invaluable comments on my essay in my thread. I, hope, you will kindly take that much of risk.

Best regards,

Sreenath

    5 days later

    Dear Professor Gopal.

    Thank you for a very nice essay. Key highlights for me were:

    1. The total energy of the universe must always remain zero.

    2. Einstein quote {for GR} "space as opposed to 'what fills space' has no separate existence". I assumed Einstein believed the opposite, I was pleased to hear I was wrong.

    3. The observations actually reveal a simpler and more elegant Universe than anyone could have imagined!

    Congratulations on an original set of ideas, cogent explication and those wonderful snippets of education.

    My only criticism - this was much more about General Relativity than the subject of the contest (It from Bit).

      Dear Paul,

      Thanks for your interest in my essay. The title of the essay does not say that one cannot relate it with general relativity. Here `bit' is the information and `it' is physics. I have tried to show that a correct physical theory can emerge from the `bit' if perceived correctly.

      Dear Ram Gopal and All,

      I am attaching the iDNASeries.bmp that I have envisioned and how it shows the DNA structure in its sequence.

      I give you all a cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.

      iSeries always yields two sub semi series, each of which has 0 as a base seed and 2i as the first seed.

      One of the sub series is always defined by the equation

      Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

      where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

      the second sub series is always defined by the equation

      Sn = 3 * Sn-1 -Sn-2

      where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

      Division of consecutive numbers in each of these subseries always eventually converges on 2.168 which is the Square of 1.618.

      Union of these series always yields another series which is just a new iSeries of a 2i first seed and can be defined by the universal equation

      Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

      where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2*i

      Division of consecutive numbers in the merged series always eventually converges on 1.618 which happens to be the golden ratio "Phi".

      Fibonacci series is just a subset of the iSeries where the first seed or S1 =1.

      Examples

      starting iSeries governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

      where i = 0.5, S0 = 0 and S1 = 0.5

      -27.5 17 -10.5 6.5 -4 2.5 -1.5 1 -.5 .5 0 .5 .5 1 1.5 2.5 4 6.5 10.5 17 27.5

      Sub series governed by Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

      where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

      0 1 2 5 13 34 ...

      Sub series governed by Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2

      where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

      0 1 3 8 21 55 ...

      Merged series governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2 where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

      0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...... (Fibonacci series is a subset of iSeries)

      The above equations hold true for any value of I.

      As per Antony Ryan's suggestion, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.

      http://msel-naschie.com/pdf/The-Fibonacci-code-behind-super.pdf

      Now that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM and GR and together they explain the Quantum Gravity. Seems like this duality is a commonality in nature once relativity takes effect or a series is kicked off from a basic singularity. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 (singularity) and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.

      Its also interesting to see the singularity is in the base seed of zero and how it is all pervasive all through out the DNA structure in the attached image. I have been telling that I is that nothing which dwells in everything and this DNA structure seems to prove that notion. Singularity is right with in the duality. Absolute is right with in the relativity. This proves that both of these states of singularity and duality are interconnected and are the source of life.

      Love,

      Sridattadev.Attachment #1: 8_iDNASeries.bmp

      Professor Vishwakarma:

      Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

      said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

      I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

      The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

      Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

      Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

      I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

      Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

      Good luck,

      Than Tin

      Dear Ram,

      Thank you for your interest in my essay. As noted on my page, I believe our theories are compatible and I am working to show this.

      You have re-analyzed Einstein's full field equations and concluded that R_{ab} = 0 does not represent 'empty' space-time, as it produces 'curvature', and therefore must represent at least the gravitational fields which, in my opinion [and Einstein's], 'define' or 'make real' space-time. You suggest the fields are represented in the equations through their non-linearity. Of course! What else could represent the self-interacting field?

      My approach has been to assume initially one field, with no 'matter' sourced, and attempt to solve the evolution of this field. Except for the initial state of perfect symmetry, I have not focused on cosmological solutions but on particle creation. In particular I have worked with the 'linear' weak field equations which, however, represent a field that is inherently nonlinear. So I have attempted to 'add back' the non-linearity, but in a form that offers new solution possibilities. The jury is still out.

      I find your analysis and your arguments compelling, most particularly:

      "The fact that the sources of curvature are implicitly present in R_{ij} = 0 and must not be added again (through the stress-energy tensor), is vindicated by the failure to obtain a proper energy stress tensor of a gravitational field."

      I'm very excited about your new theory, and believe it offers great promise in a time of great confusion. A stress energy tensor that does not incorporate the stress of the field's non-linearities cannot be the answer. Your approach looks like the answer to me.

      My best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Edwin,

        Thanks for your wonderful remarks! By the way, mine is not a new theory. It is just the resurrected version of GR. Einstein barely missed it. He did this twice: first, when he discovered that the energy-stress tensor was the `wood' portion of his grand edifice of `marble'. Second, when he couldn't find a proper energy-stress tensor of the gravitational energy. Had he not gone astray, he would have discovered that the concept of the energy-stress tensor is not compatible with a geometric theory of gravitation [Astrophys.Space Sci. 340 (2012) 373-379].

        One should also note that not only the gravitational energy, but the matter field (which is the ultimate cause of the gravitational field) also appears in equations R^{ik}=0 without including the energy-stress tensor. The source mass M appears in Schwarzschild solution, through a constant of integration, without including the energy-stress tensor. (Though GR is not sufficient for this identificaton and we have to invoke extra assumptions. For example, in the present case, we assume that GR should reduce to the Newtonian gravitation in the case of the weak field.)

        Best Regards.

        ___Ram

        Dear Ram,

        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.

        Dr. Vishwakarma,

        An out of the box look at GR is long overdue, especially with the continuing mystery of gravity, black holes and the BB. Your essay was challenging but remarkably clear for an unschooled, yet newborn physics zealot such as myself.

        Empty space is not bereft of energy and does seem to engender gravity, perhaps perturbed by virtual particles. That is my image in portraying the BB in my essay and its occurrence, absent of conscious observation.

        I would welcome your skilled look at my essay.

        Jim

        4 days later

        Dear Ram,

        Congratulations on an important and undervalued work. The very well written essay pales to insignificance against the content.

        However I hope you may bear with me if I suggest it is incomplete and slightly flawed. I suggest we require a quantum gravity also unifying SR and QM.

        Have you ever wandered, lost, then come across a familiar place from an entirely unfamiliar approach? If you know that feeling you'll know how I felt reading your essay.

        Over the last few years using only geometry, dynamics and wide experimental data, not formula, I've evolved and ontological construction including all of the characteristics of the Kasner solution (which I first herd of ten minutes ago) complete with 'singularity', curvature, and 'real' condensed matter particles not just a geometrical field description. This 'discrete field' model (DFM) derives SR direct from QM. It's outlined in my last 3 essays here and includes a cyclic cosmology coherently explaining the peculiar CMB anisotropies and resolving hosts of astronomical and other anomalies (and paradoxes). I'm not sure how well I grasped your proposal at first read, but I think an evolution of Kasner as you are thinking but with a full physical model may work.

        My current essay simply takes one DFM element and shows how that can decode the 'noise' limiting Shannon's channel capacity and resolve the EPR paradox. The full coherent 3D jigsaw puzzle picture seems to stretch way beyond just QG. However, it'd stand no change of even denting doctrine without the rationalisation and description in currently understood terms that you are close to being able to offer. People only gain glimpses of mine but have no conceptual 'hooks' to hang it on. My 7th places in the last two years have not been adequate to turn the judges heads. This year however many more essays are complimentary to mine.

        I commend you for your excellent and important work and essay, certainly top marks from me, and I greatly look forward to discussing my own essay/s with you further.

        Congratulations, and very best wishes.

        Peter