Jayakar,
I found your approach to the topic at hand fascinating and would like to rate your essay highly. However, before I do may I run some questions by you via email? Please let me know at: msm@physicsofdestiny.com
I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Manuel
Dear Sir,
We have replied to your post in our thread.
Regards,
basudeba
Dear Basudeba Mishra,
Nature of communication language is continuum whereas the computer language is a set of discrete functions. Numerals and figures are discrete representations. As per this paradigm sound waves also described as spiral propagation of string-segments, in that both longitudinal and transverse wave characteristics are expressional. The Doppler effects in this scenario is same as that in particle scenario and described in analogue with the transverse wave on particle wave duality, while the duality is resolved with the propagation of spiral eigen-rotational string-matter segment.
Tensor potential difference between the observer and source string-segments is causal for the transfer of eigen-rotational string from the source to the observer, while the density of this differential potential is much higher with in-vivo bio-chemical systems and exhibits variability with tissue differentiation, and this describes the existence of life and consciousness, in that lattice of discrete cause-effect cycles is representational for impels and memory.
Numerals are quantum to describe infinity. Photons are hypothetical, whereas photon string-segments are hypothetical representations for integration. Universe without dynamics is hypothetically one-dimensional string-matter continuum, while zero-dimension is not empirical. Though the dynamics of universe is descriptive, the causality of the beginning of dynamics is undefinable with human capabilities. Thus the universe is eternal.
With best regards
Jayakar
Dear Sir,
Nature of communication language appears continuum though actually it is a set of discrete functions. Any perception that is communicated as information has three distinct components:
1) It is about or concerning a physical object (matter), that is perceived as form.
2) It is expressed through a language (signal) that is perceived as sound.
3) The language conveys a universal or common concept (perception) about the object so that the receiver gets the same message as the sender.
These three are different because the object (matter) is perceived through electromagnetic radiation by our eyes that cannot hear. The language (sound, signal) is perceived (through sound waves or electromagnetic signals converted to sound waves) in our ears that cannot see. The concept signifying the object is perceived through our memory, which is in the cerebral cortex. The sounds of the alphabets are uttered in a discrete sequence. Subtle changes in the form are also discrete (the emitted radiation changes continuously). Yet, they get into a state of superposition in our memory, which 'mixes' and compares them. The resultant impression is the perception.
Here also the sense organs and mind function in binary style. The sense organs always reach out to the incoming impulse, whether sound, electromagnetic radiation, or smell, taste, touch. Over the years, views on the mechanism of perception of sound - how the ear perceives the tonality of sound and the frequency range of auditory perception - have changed. There is a reason why the human pinna is not asymmetrical and folded. Experiments by Hero Wit (Spectra of cochlear acoustic emissions - Kemp echos - Journal of Acoust. Soc. Am. 1981) showed the emission of a continual sound from healthy human ears in the range of 1 to 2 kHz. This implies that the ear sends out a reference wave and interacts with the incoming wave to produce an acoustic hologram. This is facilitated by the unique structure of the human pinna (Hugo Zuccarelli, New Scientist, 10th November 1983 p-438). Similarly, our eyes send out a reference wave to electromagnetic radiation emanating out of the object (and not the object which emits these radiation). The form we see is not the same as the object we touch and vice versa. Because when we touch, we cut down the radiation and touch the mass that emits it. The same goes for taste and smell.
As we have explained, at any moment, our sense organs are bombarded by a multitude of stimuli. But only one of them is given a clear channel at any instant to go up to the thalamus and then to the cerebral cortex, so that like photographic frames, we perceive one discrete frame at every instant, but due to the high speed of their reception, mix it up so that it appears as continuous. This happens due to an active transport system against concentration gradient with input of energy like the sodium-potassium pump, which moves the two ions in opposite directions across the plasma membrane through break down of Adenosine triphosphate (ATP). The concentrations of the two ions on both sides of the cell membrane are interdependent, suggesting that the same carrier transports both ions. Similarly, the same carrier transports the external stimuli in the opposite direction to the cerebral cortex. This carrier is the mind.
Regards,
basudeba
Dear Basudeba Mishra,
Describing an object by language is in continuum with thinking, in that even the definition of definition itself is continuum.
Even plants have memory and not have cerebral cortex.
Defining a generic wave mechanics for both acoustic and EM waves is much imperative to resolve the wave particle duality.
In particle scenario touch, taste and smell involves transfer of energy by ionic exchange and not with radiation, whereas in this paradigm it is expressional as transfer of string-matter segment with energy.
Chemistry is incomplete and fails to describe many of the biophysical phenomena that includes mechanism of aging, etiogenicity of malignancy, etc.. and thus the physical causality that effects chemistry to be investigated, that indicates the imperativeness of restructuring atomic analogy. Thereby this paradigm got evolved and needs adaptations with the mainstream physics, starting from the axiom: zero to one dimension; in that the constructs of the atom to be three-dimensional.
With best regards
Jayakar
Dear Jayakar,
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
Dear Sir,
Nature of communication language appears continuum though actually it is a set of discrete functions. Any perception that is communicated as information has three distinct components:
1) It is about or concerning a physical object (matter), that is perceived as form.
2) It is expressed through a language (signal) that is perceived as sound.
3) The language conveys a universal or common concept (perception) about the object so that the receiver gets the same message as the sender.
These three are different because the object (matter) is perceived through electromagnetic radiation by our eyes that cannot hear. The language (sound, signal) is perceived (through sound waves or electromagnetic signals converted to sound waves) in our ears that cannot see. The concept signifying the object is perceived through our memory, which is in the cerebral cortex. The sounds of the alphabets are uttered in a discrete sequence. Subtle changes in the form are also discrete (the emitted radiation changes continuously). Yet, they get into a state of superposition in our memory, which 'mixes' and compares them. The resultant impression is the perception.
Here also the sense organs and mind function in binary style. The sense organs always reach out to the incoming impulse, whether sound, electromagnetic radiation, or smell, taste, touch. Over the years, views on the mechanism of perception of sound - how the ear perceives the tonality of sound and the frequency range of auditory perception - have changed. There is a reason why the human pinna is not asymmetrical and folded. Experiments by Hero Wit (Spectra of cochlear acoustic emissions - Kemp echos - Journal of Acoust. Soc. Am. 1981) showed the emission of a continual sound from healthy human ears in the range of 1 to 2 kHz. This implies that the ear sends out a reference wave and interacts with the incoming wave to produce an acoustic hologram. This is facilitated by the unique structure of the human pinna (Hugo Zuccarelli, New Scientist, 10th November 1983 p-438). Similarly, our eyes send out a reference wave to electromagnetic radiation emanating out of the object (and not the object which emits these radiation). The form we see is not the same as the object we touch and vice versa. Because when we touch, we cut down the radiation and touch the mass that emits it. The same goes for taste and smell.
As we have explained, at any moment, our sense organs are bombarded by a multitude of stimuli. But only one of them is given a clear channel at any instant to go up to the thalamus and then to the cerebral cortex, so that like photographic frames, we perceive one discrete frame at every instant, but due to the high speed of their reception, mix it up so that it appears as continuous. This happens due to an active transport system against concentration gradient with input of energy like the sodium-potassium pump, which moves the two ions in opposite directions across the plasma membrane through break down of Adenosine triphosphate (ATP). The concentrations of the two ions on both sides of the cell membrane are interdependent, suggesting that the same carrier transports both ions. Similarly, the same carrier transports the external stimuli in the opposite direction to the cerebral cortex. This carrier is the mind.
Regards,
basudeba
Dear Jayakar Johnson Joseph:
I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called "time".
I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".
I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).
Hawking in "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.
I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.
With my best whishes
Héctor
Dear Héctor,
Time emerges with motion though it is not physical, yet integral with dynamics including thermodynamics. This indicates the emergence of discrete sub-time for discrete systems in dynamics with reference to the flow of time of the universe, in that the reference time is external to systems.
In particle scenario, the history of time begins with the origin of universe and it is linear, whereas in this paradigm time is cyclic, as the dynamics of eigen-rotational strings, is cyclic, and thus cyclic-time emerges with eigen-rotations.
This indicates the imperativeness to consider a holarchy of referential cyclic-time that emerges on organising clusters of string-matter segments of the universe in holarchy, in that there is change of eigen-rotational phase of a holon of cluster-matters of string-segment in time, while the period of eigen-rotational cycle of a holon is finite.
In particle scenario, information is the transfer of energy in time; whereas in this paradigm it is the transfer eigen-rotational matter with energy.
With these assumptions, I shall go through your essay in detail and submit my perceptions at your page soon, in that I would like to discuss the relativity of phycology with cyclic-time.
Thanking you.
With best regards
JayakarAttachment #1: Holarchy_of_clusters_of_string-matter_segments.jpg
There is a defect in constructing the sentence in the previous post.
Kindly replace:
'in that there is change of eigen-rotational phase of a holon of cluster-matters of string-segment in time, while the period of eigen-rotational cycle of a holon is finite.'
with,
'in that each holon of a cluster differ in their eigen-rotational phase, while the period of eigen-rotation is finite. Thus linear flow of referential cyclic-times is expressional with a top-to-bottom dynamics in the universe.'
Jayakar
On continuation with this work, an experimentation project is intended to get proposed at CERN to determine that the pi masons exists in sequence in correspondence with the string-matter continuum described in this paradigm. Axiom on this is been attached herewith to invite discussions for improving further.
With best regards
On continuation with this work, an experimentation project is intended to get proposed at CERN to determine that the pi mesons exists in sequence in correspondence with the string-matter continuum described in this paradigm. Axiom on this is been attached herewith to invite discussions for improving further.
With best regards
