A Crazy It From A Misleading Bit: How A Zero-Referenced Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Loses Information And May Be Misleading Mathematical Physics by J P Baugher

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.

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

Thank you Jeff,

I answered to your post in my forum.

And give me time please. I need read your work one more time.

George

Dear Jeff

Thank you for posting on my thread. I did a reply there, please have a look there.

So you think we can produce matter from nothing but just by thinking or by the description of matter available some where like in a computer memory?

Regarding your essay, I am having questions too...

You may please know that Dark matter, and Dark energy are mathematical problems. If you solve mathematics properly, they don't appear!

I hope to have a good discussion with you about all these...........

Best

=snp

Dear Jeff,

In your essay you have made very valiant effort to revive Gunnar Nordstrom's gravitational theory on the basis of your newly invented Area Calculus (metric field theory) and you have succeeded in predicting at least gravitational redshift and you hope to predict gravitational lensing by developing this theory. Regarding accelerating expansion, you are saying that "in essence, the late appearance of an accelerating expansion would be due to the inherent quantization of energy levels, which are quantized reductions in vacuum energy density". I want to know what you precisely you mean by that. By information you mean matter and dimensions and it is stored as integrals and also that by the processing of information you mean derivatives and these derivatives are forces and energy; thereby you have given geometric meaning to matter, dimensions, forces and energy, like in general relativity. You have rightly said that our current models can only account for about 4% of our own kind of energy density in the universe and so everything is up for review including our most basic assumptions. Finally you have concluded that "Without a mathematical language that includes the information of area, we may not be able to describe our Universe". That is without information (Bit) it is not possible for us to describe the universe, that is, reality (It) through the language of mind, that is, mathematics. Thus the union of all three (It, Bit and mind) is essential for our knowledge to exist. This is also the conclusion I have come to in my essay. So, please, go through my essay and express your comments on my essay in my thread. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

The thoughts you have put up in your essay are logically consistent and you got to develop them further so as to engross all problems pertaining to current day cosmology. Figures in the essay make it easy to comprehend your ideas.

Wish you best of luck in your endeavor,

Sreenath

Dear Jeff,

Please have a look, and discuss on any point, you feel not satisfied. . . .

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/2012/11/fundamental-questions-addressed-by.html

Fundamental questions addressed by Dynamic Universe Model

This Model is new Cosmological model fundamentally and mathematically different from Bigbang, Steady state model etc. I am giving below its Foundational points, Present Day unsolved problems, which can't be solved by other prominent models, New Satellite Mass reduction technology and publications (Four Books published).

Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model:

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Best

=snp

Hi Dear Jeff,

I have read and good rated your work. From your answer (in my forum) I saw you are a little bit sad with my advice about your efforts on gravity problem. Sorry my friend, maybe I have say not like that which I want actually you perceive. Dealt is you are fully right when you says ,,need to change the paradigm of investigation,,. I want tell you only - it is really need change and very deeply - i.e. by forgetting the formal-mathematical reasons (temporarily!)and by trying to solve the problem using the LOGIC only. It looks now very strange what I am saying (because of our education!) But, it really works (just believe me!)

Best wishes,

George

Hello Jeff -

I was impressed by your very thorough revision of metric field theory - and I agree with you that it is stunning to find we are ignorant of 96% of the universe!

Yes, the math must be reconsidered - and indeed all of our assumptions too.

In my essay, I've taken a non-mathematical approach - though the math will have to be developed - and I've described in physical terms a paradigm that accounts for the Cosmos as a confluence of energy vortices.

This might seem a little irrelevant to what you are saying, but if we are to review everything, we need to consider that our key central assumption is that inorganic reality is fundamental - while life and cognition are merely chemical. There are many interesting insights to be gained from considering life and cognition as fundamental - not least of which is the manner in which they appear correlated with inorganic reality.

I'm particularly interested in the point of view of mathematicians, since my paradigm must be expressed in mathematical language one day.

I have read and rated your work, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best of luck in the contest,

John

Dear Jeff,

Thanks for your kind comments and appreciate rating my essay highly. I am too going to rate your essay much more favorably.

Regarding your query " Since technology has allowed us to view further into space, would you call this an enlargement of the Biosphere since we now can absorb Information from previously undetectable sources?"; it is not due to the enlargement of the biosphere but it is due to the enlargement of our vision (knowledge) of our 'mind'. Similarly, to your another query, "Would you state that the evolutionary process of gathering data becomes more fine tuned as Life attempts to reconcile discontinuous Bits in Information of It(GR and QM)?"; again it is due to 'the evolution of the knowledge of mind' rather than due to Life.

If you have further queries, please, inform me.

Best of luck in the essay contest

Sreenath

Hello Jeff

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

Mr. Baugher,

I thought your essay was extremely well written. I was a little apprehensive because it started with an impossible abstract perfect diamond, however, your theorizing about the consequence of information waves seemed sound enough to me.

I do hope that you do not think me impertinent. I am a crusty old realist and as I have carefully explained in my essay BITTERS, everything in the real Universe is unique, once.

As you know, each snowflake is unique, once, and that means that each real molecule of each real snowflake must be unique, once. The whole real Universe is unique, once.

Which brings me to the consideration of your essay's graphics. They are not unique. They are computer generated perfect squares and perfect circle and perfect columns of perfect number and alphabetic symbols, and while they are pretty to look at, they are unusual, unrealistic, and unnecessary for explaining reality.

I wish you well in the competition,

Joe

Dear Dr Baugher,

I found your essay very interesting. I like the use of area calculus and Figure 18, the graphical analogy of difference between "attraction" and "reduced repulsion" was excellent. It reminds me of my simplex based theory that partly unifies the four forces of nature and resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony, with regard to my attraction/repulsion approach.

I think your essay oozes enthusiasm for our chances to find answers to what the remaining 96% of Universe.

If you get chance please take a look at my essay, which isn't my unification theory, but looks at information exchange.

Best wishes,

Antony

Dear Jeff,

You are correct,

I am sorry in the delay in replying you. I did not check the replies. FQXi should have issued a notification that you have replied....

I think we form a picture of anything in our mind, and keep them in our memories. We communicate about that picture to others, which we call information. When we die we loose all these pictures and memories.

Now in this context, can we create material from information...?

You can discuss with me later after this contest closes also.

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com