Chidi,

Tremendous essay, I believe much undervalued. Not just from the good clear writing style and organization, but way ahead of that for your conceptual analysis and proposition.

I came to; "The idea again is that spacetime (simultaneity or equality by any name) is simply the uncertainty or cut-off i.e. the observer per se and which observer per se as the phase-space is a non-trivial attribute..." and then smiled when I read; "...This may sound like a wild claim." No Chidi, not to me. You have just described a completely original view of a 'discrete field' model, (DFM) where not only each 'observer' but all inertial system of matter particles instantaneously localise light speed to their own c, conserving Snell's Law.

We must think similarly. I also discuss Godel, Huygens, psi, uncertainty etc. and define detection and observation. Having studied quantum optics I take a more practical mechanistic approach and show how a thesis founded (loosely perhaps) on your own has the power to resolve the Bell inequalities EPR paradox without FTL and spookyness.

The part closer to your own is better covered in my previous two essays (both Community 7th but passed over.) I hope to do better this year with important findings. I think my model proves your concept mechanistically, and included deriving curved space-time last year. That may sound like a very wild claim!, and you'll see I don't shy from other departures from common assumptions. I do hope you can read (and score!) mine soon and greatly look forward to your thoughts.

Yours has certainly earned a well deserved 10 score from me, with no 'allowance' needed for not being a 'professional' physicist. I have lots of qualifications but none mean anything more than my primary education and later work and research. You 'are' a physicist and an exceptional conceptual thinker. Those are the skills we need to extract us from this dark labyrinthine 'rut'. Congratulations on your work.

And sincerest best wishes in the competition.

Peter

    Dear Chidi,

    I appreciate your kind comments and would like to rate your innovative essay with a score of 8 and above if you like. Rate my essay and inform me soon.

    All the best,

    Sreenath

      Dear Peter,

      Need I say I most appreciate your comment (and hard-to-come-by score!). Have worried that may be physicists are only reading physicists, first and foremost. And I will make time to read your essays (twice, I suspect, because of the technical level. I always do that) and because I will certainly love to see your DFM perspective.

      Wishing you the stars this time.

      Chidi

      Dear Chidi,

      Thanks for rating my essay and I too have rated your essay with maximum points possible.

      Regards and good luck in the essay contest.

      Sreenath

      Thank you, Sreenath, for your intellectual appetite.

      All the best in the contest,

      Chidi

      Hello Chidi -

      I'm interested to see that you focus on the observer as crucial. This point is often overlooked, even in treating of information.

      I take a more descriptive and structural approach to developing a uniform treatment of the natural events of nature: I describe a cosmic paradigm of correlated energy vortices that include the evolving observer and naturally create a quantum/classical correlation. The evolving observer, I show, is the missing link in many of our quests. I think it is this that impels Physics' expansion into Bio- and Neuro-Physics - and that we must accept that we exist in a Species' Cosmos, and develop the necessary systems to interpret this fact usefully.

      You might find in this a way of further unifying the formative and spatial realms you describe. Of course - like you - I expand the definitions of It and Bit far beyond those signified by Wheeler.

      I found the text challenging, but engrossing; I have rated the essay, of course, and hope you'll soon have time to look at mine.

      All the best in the competition,

      John.

        Hi Chidi,

        Thank you for your attention on my work. Early I open your work because it devoted to interpretation of wave function, which was my hobby also. But, I delayed detailed study of question because of time. I see you have clearly divided the events as OBSERVABLE and UNOBSERVABLE. That is very important to be understand actual essence of quantum phenomenon. I was trying to do it in my works (after of this battle you can open references in my work - if you see interest) I will rate your essay surely within 1-2 days. I will recommend my friends also.

        Good wishes,

        George

        Dear Chidi,

        Thanks for writing a very interesting essay. I'll pick out a few things to remark on:

        You say "conversely, the observable is definable strictly only in inverse-observer values...". That's worth contemplating. For example, James Putnam objects to the vagueness and circularity of the force definition F = ma whereby force is defined in terms of mass and mass is defined in terms of force (assuming acceleration is measurable.) If instead one rationalizes forces to dimensionless ratios, the mass becomes inverse acceleration m~1/a. I've played around with this in a number of key equations and everything seems to work [as one would expect, but one must always check.] I'm not sure that this is analogous to your statement, I only point it out to note there's value in such statements.

        You also mention Peano's (and Noether's) notion of "the constant". I tend to think that physics is based around the notion of "the invariant", with energy being the prime invariant. Likewise your position that 'observer' implies superposition of natural unit and natural limit is intriguing. It also requires cogitation. In your endnotes you specifically note "this function of being at once the unit-and-limit is the essential utility of such as Planck's constant h, Newton's G, and Einstein's c." You then map this into the term "observer". As I said this requires cogitation.

        I view information as what is stored following a threshold crossing which changes ('in'-forms) a physical structure. Until this threshold crossing and consequent change of physical structure occurs, there is only energy flow. Information "emerges" in "structure" or "context".

        Once one "standardizes" such thresholds (as in silicon electronic gates) then one can construct 'logic gates' and connect these in simple structures to accept sequential inputs and produce binary (or other) coded outputs. This 'counter' circuit is the hardware implementation of Peano's Axioms, and it really doesn't matter whether the counter is implemented in DNA, silicon, or neural networks -- numbers result. Kronecker attributed these natural numbers to God and claimed that all other math is the work of man.

        You seem to have something like this threshold in mind when you attempt to derive the "action potential" of 55 mV. I'm unsure whether you attach significance to this value, or simply to its function. You follow this with "the observable-ness of a number as a thing represented by the successor function of Peano's Axioms...". Again, I'm uncertain of your final point being made, but I would note that I elsewhere present the counter as the essential basis of physics, both in instrumentation and as creation-annihilation summation-of-particles counter in QED.

        In summary, you've taken some very high-level abstractions, and, as far as I can tell, attempted to raise the level of abstraction. You tie this into specific numbers in a way that I do not understand. Your complete picture is impossible to understand in one or two readings, but some of your statements are worthy of reflection. I think you have covered too much ground, in a very unorthodox way, to accomplish in nine pages what you hope to accomplish. I would suggest that you pick a few key points and try to make them clear to an "average" physicist [whatever that may be.] Your point about the observer and the observable being inverse is fascinating, but I believe you will lose most people by going too far, too fast.

        I hope this comment is useful to you.

        Best,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Hello Chidi - I'm sure you are busy, as we all are - I simply want to let you know that I look forward to your feedback once you've read my essay. Hope you have time to do that soon!

          Best Regards,

          John

          Hello Chidi,

          I have read your essay, as promised, and I see that propose on page 9 a theory of everything in the form of four axioms. That raises some questions.

          Your first axiom is that an equality is an entity. The question is then: are there also entities that are not equalities? Or is every entity an equality?

          I am interested in your reply.

          Best regards,

          Marcoen

            Dear Chidi,

            I found your essay quite an interesting read even though I am not a physicist. In my essay BITTERS, I have taken a realistic point of view.

            I think that as everything is already in a perpetual state of motion, that is the only reason needed to prove why a perpetual motion machine cannot be erected. That would be as futile as trying to perfect a chemical that would make the oceans wetter.

            Good luck in the contest,

            Joe

              • [deleted]

              • Post #34

              Dear Marcoen,

              Thank you, for making time to reading my essay.

              It might help to catch a physical picture of my "entity" and not confuse it with the normal usage.

              I define entity (equality) as virtual work i.e. the "configuration space for all times" (some will call it instead the "consistency" or "invariance" or as in QM the "wavefunction"/"non-locality"). Now, as the 4th axiom says, there can be one and only one VALID entity (every other is only then hypothetical).

              Implicit is that any given observer is to itself this DE FACTO entity.

              And inequality is then the flux or perturbations or amplitude or as QM will say "observables" of this entity.

              I hope I have answered your question. Please I will appreciate that you feel free to ask me more questions if you are not clear.

              All the best,

              Chidi

              Chidi,

              Thanks for replying to my question. I am still confused, however.

              Your axiom #1 merely state that an equality is an entity. Usually, an equality is represented by an expression of the type t1 = t2. But in your above answer you say that you define an entity as virtual work, that you identify as "configuration space of all times". But that is not an equality. And you then mention all of a sudden that others call it "consistencey", "invariance" or "wavefunction". But these are entirely different notions (that is, these notions are something else than "configuration space").

              So my question remains: what is an "entity", mentioned in your first axiom, in your universe? Is it an equality? Or is it a wave function? Or still something else?

              To grasp your idea, I think this is the first thing that should be clear.

              Best regards,

              Marcoen

              Dear Marcoen,

              Thank you for replying. And sorry about that "anonymous".

              To your question: another way to put all this is to say that for any system of events (observables) there is a de facto invariant (observer). This then is the same essentially as Noether's theorem.

              The idea of equality as "configuration space" (virtual work) goes to say that for us to assert that any two t's are equal we must FIRST assume a constant of proportionality "k". One may think of "k" as the invariant such that the two states (t1, t2) are merely among its possible "states". In wave motion one may say "k" is the well-behavedness. In logic generally one could call "k" the consistency.

              Now we can think of Godel's incompleteness theorem as saying that one must presume the ACTIVE consistency/constant NOT at the same instance that it IS the consistency/constant also to be part of own observables/variables. Meaning "k" is essentially to itself the imaginary or virtual or (as is Newton's "inertia" only the IDEAL state [of motion]).

              Now if one can see matter wave ("wave function" barring all technicalities else) as but the "configuration space" (k) of all observable matter this analogy comes through. But if you want it put strictly, I am claiming that in any system of observables the matter wave will represent qulitatively the "nothing" (same in fact as the "all things" or more conventionally the "uncertainty")

              The strange thing about axiom 1. is that our entity (observer) has non-local attributes, it is the "configuration space" or "conservation law" proper. But that goes to say that in a participatory universe (one in which the observer must be assumed as subject to the same laws as its own observables) we must FIRST PRESUME any given observer as the boundary condition (the ideal constraint).

              The science of thermodynamics shows us that the notion "isolated system" (thermodynamic equilibrium?) can in fact be non-trivial.

              Hoping that I have been able to make myself clearer. Otherwise, Marcoen, feel free to press on.

              Regards,

              Chidi

              Dear Joe,

              Thank you for reading my essay.

              By the way, I always knew that part of my bio that says about perpetual motion must make me look PRE-SCIENCE. But its okay, the science of thermodynamics emerged after mankind as a whole made the same error or fallacy as myself. Come to think of it that experience has made me confront in a unique way the notion of a conservation law.

              I'll make time to read BITTERS.

              Regards,

              Chidi

              Dear Edwin,

              Thank you for finding the time to read my essay. Actually I have delayed to reply to your power comment because I have been reading it over and over and over again to be sure it sinks!! Actually I have had to abridge three different papers of mine to get this essay.

              Your comment is most valuable to me.

              Just again, thank you for finding the time.

              I'll be at your blog soon.

              All the best,

              Chidi

              Hello Chidi,

              I read with interest your analytical essay made in the strategy of Descartes's method of doubt. Contests FQXi - this is a competition for new fundamental ideas. You included in your essay is a huge amount of material that gave a very interesting ideas, new images and made a very interesting radical conclusions.

              Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics":

              «The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence».

              http:// www.ccas. ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

              In the russian version of the paper that thought shorter: "the truth should be drawn and presented to "an unlimited number» of viewers".

              Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

              Maybe we need a new mathematical revolution in the spirit of Descartes, to overcome the "trouble with physics" and build «a model of self-aware Universe» (V.Nalomov), united for physicists and poets?

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY

              Please read my essay. I think we are the same in the spirit of our research.

              I put a great rating.

              Best regards,

              Vladimir

                Dear Chidi,

                I admire your attempt to cast your theory of everything in the form of an axiomatic system. But you need to develop your system of axioms further.

                E.g. you write in the above reply that "The strange thing about axiom 1. is that our entity (observer) has non-local attributes". But that is an additional axiom: your axiom 1, namely, merely says that an equality is an entity - it says nothing else.

                If I purely look at your four axioms, then according to axiom 1 the equality '1 = 1' is an entity, and according to axiom 4 there are no other entities (as there is only one entity). So the equality '1 = 1' is then a model of your universe of entities if we look at these two axioms. I don't see how that yields any verifiable statement about protons, electrons, etc. I'm sure that you have something else in mind, but currently that isn't expressed by the axioms - that's my point.

                To develop your axioms further you might want to familiarize yourself with the theory of axiomatic system, in particular the axiomatic method.

                Anyway, good luck with the contest!

                Best regards,

                Marcoen

                Dear Marcoen,

                Your comment is well taken. May be I should make myself more express and not unduly expect imagination from my readers.

                That said, I will appreciate you to inspect again my axioms AS A WHOLE of 4 units, not just 2 units. Axioms are supposed to work together.

                Also you will find that as shown within the body of my essay, the electron actually DOES EMERGE (precisely the Hartree approximation of the n-body wavefunction of the electron)in the sense of Huygens' "wavelet" or symmetry breaking. See equations 3, 7 and 8.

                Yet you are right. I owe it to my readers (and to myself) to be more exact. The more the better.

                Thank you, Marcoen, for taking time out. I will be back at your blog.

                All the best,

                Chidi

                Hi Chidi,

                Now I have read your essay (see your early post)and I find it interesting. I can not say that I am fully agree with all your points and approaches, particularly there seems some uncertainties about definitions. But, no problem my Dear! Main thing is that you have strive to give interpretation to Wave Function (and to Schroedinger equation by the same) I welcome this efforts because it is just inevitable/necessary to be comprehend physical essence of QM phenomena!

                On this I am going rate your work on ,,high,, score. I have my own approach to interpretation of Schrodinger equation and wave function that actually works! (i.e. it gives a lot of results on the cause/effect principle) After, when you find free time just try to study ref [9] in my work. I hope you will find there some interesting for you.

                Good luck,

                George