Dear Peter,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. So you can produce matter from your thinking or from information description of that matter. . . . ?

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.

===============

Please try Dynamic Universe Model with some numerical values, give initial values of velocities, take gravitation into consideration( because you can not experiment in ISOLATION). complete your numerical experiment.

later try changing values of masses and initial values of velocities....

Calculate with different setups and compare your results, if you have done a physical experiment.

I sincerely feel it is better to do experiment physically, or numerically instead of breaking your head on just logic. This way you will solve your problem faster.....

Best

=snp

    Jeff,

    I suggest perhaps not only the wave as an up down fluctuation, for energy conservation, but (adding the dimension) as an 'energy density fluctuation.'

    I agree with Faraday, and indeed Raman also found such birefringence (and multirefringence) in diffuse media including the atmosphere in his (1930 Nobel winning) work.

    On a slightly different tack to you I've found this is a temporal difference as well as one of 'optical axis' of re-emission (Raman scattering), which is refraction, then kinetic reverse refraction is stellar aberration from waves (as I've just written elsewhere, without the aid of ballistics and umbrellas!). The interactions through a diffuse medium are progressive, so the light path appears to curve, but is quantized. (An anticedent of my co-author dubbed this effect 'space-time' but that's been confusing.) That is rather a leap not a baby step (in my last years essay), but it does seem to work consistently.

    I do hope you get to read my essay again slowly. Like last years, it can't be 'speed read' or most of the chocolate Easter eggs and Lego bits remain hidden and the significant ontological construction showing it's much needed top scoring value can't be built. On that subject, one thing I do object to is your entirely unacceptable lowly score and position, which I appear able to effect a significant affect on so shall.

    Best of luck in the contest. I look forward to any further comments.

    Peter

    Dear Jeff

    1.I see your positive attitude to Ernst Mach and recommend Frank Wilczek article about him

    http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/%28356%29Total%20Relativity.pdf

    2.I would like also recommend G.Hooft Nobel lecture about limitation of Calculus

    http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1999/thooft-lecture.pdf

    Regards

    Yuri

      Dear Jeff,

      Your idea is very intriguing. Does your Area Calculus then require two dimensions per integral (e.g. 4 dimensions for a double integral)?

      I did not quite follow how you went from the geometric arguments to the dynamical part, and unfortunately I am utterly unfamiliar with Nordstroem's theory (you might want to consider writing an expository paper on it at some point) but I hope that there will be some topologists/differential geometers/general relativists/astrophysicists looking at your paper.

      Finally, let me suggest that the final three sentences would seem to be more impactful at the beginning of the paper.

      All the best,

      Armin

        Hi dear Jeff,

        I have acquainted with your interesting work that written in attractive form.

        However I am definitely pessimistically that you will get some big successes on this way. If we will thinking pragmatically then first we need take into attention that there are a lot of theoretical investigations devoted to gravity problem. Those mostly are ,,working,, satisfactorily (parallel with Einstein's GR).

        And practically there no way to define experimentally which one is better, that will enough to recognise it as better than GR. I mean you can spent a lot of time in vain (sorry for such advice, but it is what I think)

        If you want listen my opinion on this matter then I will tell you something strange (from first view!) Just try read my work in which I try to say what goes on in the physics. After for you will become easy to perceive what I can tell you on gravity problem (if you find interest on this matter!) Essay

        Sincerely,

        George

          Dear Jeff,

          I agree with Armin that the most important sentences occured at the end of your essay, particularly: "We conclude that everything is up for review including our most basic assumptions.". It echoes my last year's fqxi paper entitled "Fix Physics!" by getting rid of outdated notions - like a fixed speed of light and the point photon.

          I only partially understood your suggestions to reform our basic notions of area and calculus, but could see where you were going with it : to explain a repulsive force and therefore Inflation. Another interesting part of your paper dealt with Nordstroem's gravitational theory that I was not aware of. I am now reading the fascinating paper you referenced by Norton a paragraph in it struck me where the question of density or internal energy of an object was rejected as being relevant to gravity.

          In my 2005 work-in-progress Beautiful Universe Theory also found here I posit a universal lattice (like the diamond you started out your essay with!) made up of a crystal like arrangement of rotating magnetic nodes. These repulse each other (++ and --) but also rotate so that (X-) attraction causes them to clump together to form matter, or simply rotate to transfer dipolar angular momentum that we call e/m radiation. Gravity is enacted by a change in density in the field surrounding matter (again like your wave in the diamond) I also called for a special maths, a discrete calculus.

          As they say Ars Longa Vita Brevis (Art - and Science - is vast, but life is short) I am over seventy now and I doubt I can prove my theory fully, but you are starting out, so the best of luck to you!

          Vladimir

          Peter,

          Sorry it has taken so long to reply. Was on holiday and didn't have reliable wifi connections in the Canary Islands. It does sound like we agree on the energy density fluctuation and will review your past work more in depth. I was able however to print out your essay for the flight back and read it more in depth.

          I can bolster your argument and will post to your thread an example of how A=A is not applicable in physical phenomenon, which I completely agree with. In essence, the postulates listed HERE are not necessarily valid for physical phenomenon (renomalization anyone?).

          Thank you so much for helping draw some attention to my essay!

          Kindest Regards,

          Jeff

          Hi SNP,

          Thanks for the kind comments. It would be more correct to call it a path to translate between wave functions and particle phenomenon, as well as an understanding of what "metric" field theories actually are. I look forward to looking through your essay also.

          Kind Regards,

          Jeff

          Dear Yuri,

          Yes, have to say I am a fan of Mach's thinking and skepticism. I was aware of t'Hooft but did not know that his lecture was on the limitations of Calculus, I certainly look forward to reading both of your recommendations.

          Kind Regards,

          Jeff

          Hi Armin,

          No, it simply requires two functions per integral (Nordstroem's Theory only used the single function of the Newtonian Potential). I would have to be careful about how I phrased my answer to your question. In the theory I am proposing a flat metric (-1,1,1,1) translates to a zero area 4 dimensional integral (no Action) and thus "dimensions" disappear. Dimensions require "curvature" to exist so without a wavefunction to curve "space-time" there also are no equations of motions. Not sure if that answered your question though, heh.

          It would be nice to have some published feedback, but unfortunately asking professional scientists to risk their standing and be willing to review basic calculus and metric theories is an extremely tall order. The symbolic form of the field equations would look so similar as to be confusing to a geometer who has baaed their life's work on manifold theory, but I am somewhat young and still hopeful.

          I have to write another paper on going from the motion of a particle into that of a wave function. It will probably have to be in a contest such as this that allows for fundamental questions.

          I will be certain to put that statement at the front in subsequent papers.

          Kind Regards,

          Jeff

          Hi George,

          Thank you for reading and considering my essay. Which other theories work satisfactorily along with GR (I take it you mean on scale of a solar system hence the LambdaCDM model)? I do know that there are other scalar-tensor models but am not aware any of these are helpful.

          I would have to disagree with you on knowing which one was "better". There are couple of sayings that I tend to like, "Cosmologists are often wrong, but never in doubt" and "You have a beautiful, elegant theory. Too bad it is wrong". When push comes to shove, it will come down to whether I can develop a computer model that more accurately predicts celestial movements better than what is currently available. I may never be able to get published in a "respectable" journal, but from my perspective all the theories within them are founded upon some fundamental mistakes that are finally peaking into to paradoxes that cannot be rectified without a paradigm change. I see no choice but to solve these issues outside the mainstream and believe that we live in the best time period to do so. That FQXi exists (and realizing that major funding is coming from The John Templeton Foundation, a man who apparently was at least unafraid to ask "What if what I believe to be true is not?", I think that there definitely is hope.

          I look forward to reading your essay.

          Kind Regards,

          Jeff

          Vladimir,

          Many thanks for the review, I look forward to checking out your research. Interested to see whether you think of these nodes the same way as Maxwell's curl works.

          If you are interested in Nordstroem's theories I highly recommend starting at "2.2 The Lorentz Model of a Field Equation" in PATHWAYS OUT OF CLASSICAL PHYSICS

          originally located within

          The Genesis of General Relativity. It is my intention to consult this as a helpful guide as I modify Nordstroem's theory using Area Calculus.

          Thanks for the well wishes, perhaps we can all together correct some things while you are still around to enjoy the show!

          Kind Regards,

          Jeff

            Armin,

            I will be working on a future paper that I can hopefully enter into another contest comparing and contrasting GR, Nordstroem's Theory and my modification. I did post another paper to Vixra but it was before I found out about Nordstroem's previous theory. I will use some of that material as a jumping off point. Also within it is how to modify the tensor for a perfect fluid, Here.

            Thanks

            Jeff

            snp,

            I now see what you mean by producing matter out of information. What I would state is that I can produce pure information and equate that to a wave within a perfect fluid. That wave would be matter, so the answer to your question is yes.

            Thanks

            Jeff

            Hello Jeff,

            Your essay caught my eye and I browsed through very briefly. You may wish to check out my essay and rate as you think because it is all about what you said, "We conclude that everything is up for review including our most basic assumptions. Without a mathematical language that includes the information of area, we may not be able to describe our Universe". I will also be asking you if there is a lower limit to dx. Meanwhile...

            As the contest in Wheeler's honor draws to a close, leaving for the moment considerations of rating and prize money, and knowing we cannot all agree on whether 'it' comes from 'bit' or otherwise or even what 'it' and 'bit' mean, and as we may not be able to read all essays, though we should try, I pose the following 4 simple questions and will rate you accordingly before July 31 when I will be revisiting your blog.

            "If you wake up one morning and dip your hand in your pocket and 'detect' a million dollars, then on your way back from work, you dip your hand again and find that there is nothing there...

            1) Have you 'elicited' an information in the latter case?

            2) If you did not 'participate' by putting your 'detector' hand in your pocket, can you 'elicit' information?

            3) If the information is provided by the presence of the crisp notes ('its') you found in your pocket, can the absence of the notes, being an 'immaterial source' convey information?

            Finally, leaving for the moment what the terms mean and whether or not they can be discretely expressed in the way spin information is discretely expressed, e.g. by electrons

            4) Can the existence/non-existence of an 'it' be a binary choice, representable by 0 and 1?"

            Answers can be in binary form for brevity, i.e. YES = 1, NO = 0, e.g. 0-1-0-1.

            Best regards,

            Akinbo

              Hi Akinbo,

              For your question to whether there is a lower limit to dx, I would have to reply that there must be limits from empirical observations.

              My answers to your questions would be

              1-0-1-maybe

              I hadn't considered whether it might be possible to model all matter as units of the presence or absence of Planck Lengths but it is an intriguing question. Thanks for the new path of thought.

              I will check out your essay also.

              Regards,

              Jeff

              Relevancy: 1

              I didn't find the topic to have anything to do with "information" so I didn't see the relevancy to the topic. I can kinda see that calculus is used to produce information.

              Interesting: 2

              I was hoping to find something about attractive/repelling forces are created by the vectors you describe, but this is just too mathematically dense to correspond to something you can visualize. In order to be of general interest, you loose all the regular folks like myself who read Scientific American with all the math. After reading your intro and conclusion, I'm still not sure what your points were. Sorry... I want to know what the other 96% is made out of and I didn't get that from your essay.

                Franklin,

                The instructions for this contest state:

                Possible topics or sub-questions include, but are not limited to:

                What IS information? What is its relation to "Reality"?

                So I am not sure whether you were confused about the topic of the contest or topic of my essay. "Area" is information. Zero Area=Zero Information=Zero Energy

                I will try next time to graphically illustrate how changing areas correspond to changing volumes and into changes in density and pressure of the vacuum modeled as a fluid.

                Dear Baugher,

                I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

                Regards and good luck in the contest,

                Sreenath BN.

                http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827