Alternative Models of Reality

Hi Steve D, and yes happy new year all.

Jose, I'm reading some tech detail which clearly makes sense to you. You understand it takes practice to realize your view, so I and everybody else have to find short cuts for rudimentary assessment. So we can decide if its worth the greater effort necessary to realize.

What are the top five advancements to scientific understanding that your theory offers? I'm not asking for a detailed account. I just want a plainly spoken conversational type summery plz? Something for the lazy listener

What do you think Jose, Joe, Steve, are people thinking about my earlier post, or is it just a bit to unfamiliar?

Hi Steven, thank you for sharing your interesting idea. You have specified Darwinian evolution. I don't think Darwinian evolution is exactly what you require. While there are environmental selection pressures, as in Darwinian evolution, as some structures are able to persist and others are destroyed or dismantled, I don't see self replication at the astronomic scale. Seems to me there are just more of some kinds of structure than others; those for which the environment is conducive. Regards Georgina

Hi Georgina, nice to meet you, and thank you for your reply. Although I haven't read your work, I note your interest in the nature of time. I intend to look through your above linked piece, and to see if perhaps it gives our works a common footing in some respect. The concept I present for you here, does prescribe to a particular treatment of the property of time. Hopefully a constructive conversation with this community, will allow me to progress my explanation that far.

I understand and yes, you do make a very reasonable comment. However I do very specifically refer to Darwinian principles as being responsible for universal orders and complexity, photonic, atomic and cosmological. I have an analogy which will make my intended meaning clear, but first I would like to touch on the nature of our Dark Energy observations. I'll try to raise a particular question in your mind.

It cannot be said that conventional theory is not brave! It does after all openly confront this extraordinary circumstance, an observation that universal space everywhere, is growing in extent. Furthermore, convention acknowledges that this observation must be attributed to something of an energy content, because of the nature of its energetic kinetic interaction with the material universe, hypothesized Universal Expansion. Occasionally you hear whispers toward the obvious implications this has for conventional interpretation of energy conservation laws. No energy created of destroyed within a closed system. Dark Energy a cause without prior cause? It does have the ring of fundamental force, don't you think? I have the feeling these issues are generally well considered, after all they are obvious enough. But I also have the sense mainstream considers these troubles under somewhat hushed whispered tones, so as not to arouse to much public attention while it stands as such an intractable issue of physics and cosmology. But still, brave for confronting and not shying away from this obscure Dark Energy observation.

In addition, how many different methods of energy creation, can it be expected that the universe has in its employ? Big Bang and Dark Energy emergence both? It is only a speculative assumption, but I feel a very reasonably aimed assumption, that the universe might only ever have possessed one mechanism for energies emergence. And if we have a direct observation that hints at energies fundamental emergence, then that source should be investigated as being that possible sole universal mechanism. An aimed assumption.

So what I will attempt to do, is have you view the potentials for Dark Energies emergence in a fresh light. I am going to have you confront the realization, that there are very few fundamentals required for a system to engage Darwinian principles. Perhaps as few as two, an entity might require an energy potential to exploit, and direct that energy potential towards replicating itself. Some might argue semantics, that generationally compounded change is another fundamental requirement, but actually, it might be that perfect copy making isn't impossibly, and that change is therefore inevitable. And even if perfect copy making is possible, systems will still adopt an evolutionary progressive stance for obvious benefit. Darwinian systems evolve to progressively evolve.

To be continued............

Hi Steven, you wrote "However I do very specifically refer to Darwinian principles as being responsible for universal orders and complexity, photonic, atomic and cosmological." Could you please give the Darwinian principles you are talking about? As inorganic matter is different from organic matter with mutable code allowing different phenotypes and different expressed phenotypes on which selection can act. Just would like to understand at the outset what you are taking and leaving from the Darwinian model.

Steven, sorry I meant to say -different genotypes and different expressed phenotypes..... No edit tab available today: )

Steve,

At the most basic level, force exists as reaction to motion (of the the most fundamental particle). When electron-positron pairs are formed, this force splits exactly into two, gravity and electromagnetic force. So both are emergent forces. As all matter that we can see are made up of atoms, and atoms in turn are made up of electron-positron pairs, the division of force is final. However, magnetic force emerges from electrostatic force, and so gravity and electromagnetic force are separately conserved.

What at present is considered as strong nuclear force is quantum gravity. Gravitational energy is finite and so the left-over gravity from the quantum-level is weaker, and the left-over gravity after formation of bodies like stars, planets, etc. is very weak. This very weak force is now identified as gravity.

In fact, it is the same gravity that is present at the quantum level and the cosmic level. But the available gravitational energy decreases as matter integrates and so the constant decreases. The constants at different levels can be theoretically deduced.

Jose P Koshy

Kurt,

Sorry, the above reply was wrongly posted in your thread.

Jose P Koshy

Steve,

At the most basic level, force exists as reaction to motion (of the the most fundamental particle). When electron-positron pairs are formed, this force splits exactly into two, gravity and electromagnetic force. So both are emergent forces. As all matter that we can see are made up of atoms, and atoms in turn are made up of electron-positron pairs, the division of force is final. However, magnetic force emerges from electrostatic force, and so gravity and electromagnetic force are separately conserved.

What at present is considered as strong nuclear force is quantum gravity. Gravitational energy is finite and so the left-over gravity from the quantum-level is weaker, and the left-over gravity after formation of bodies like stars, planets, etc. is very weak. This very weak force is now identified as gravity.

In fact, it is the same gravity that is present at the quantum level and the cosmic level. But the available gravitational energy decreases as matter integrates and so the constant decreases. The constants at different levels can be theoretically deduced.

Jose P Koshy

Steven,

My theory offers the following:

1. Unifies gravity and electromagnetic force.

2. Removes singularities and infinities completely.

3. Removes all physically meaningless (in my opinion) concepts like, dark matter, dark energy, independent fields, wave-particle duality, metric expansion, mass-less particles, mass-giving particles, force particles, space-time, etc. from the domain of physics.

4. The number of arbitrary physical constants is the barest minimum, only four.

5. A single unified theory encompassing everything from the quantum-level to the cosmic level.

Regarding your hypothesis, my reply is posted under that thread.

Jose P Koshy

Thank you Georgina. Your original meaning was well received, I do understand your question. Phenotype, great word by the way. I think the main effort of this undertaking I do here now, will answer this question. I am drafting it afresh, so will submit it soon.

Thank you for your input Jose. Your comments and critic are well received.

Yes, a number of arbitrary assumptions, which I will ask you to judge within context of what is to follow. I have drafted these explanations before, but I find the process of rewriting leads to refinement, and I'm constantly advancing my conceptualizations which need to be incorporated. So I'm writing it afresh for this presentation. This also allows me to be responsive in my explanations, to the questions put forward to me.

In answer to your question, why simple to complex?

Darwinian systems tend to be progressive in this way, driving towards ever increasing levels of articulated complexity. But of course there are exceptions to this general rule. But the evolutionary circumstance I am describing is progressive, driving towards higher levels of complexity.

Light is a Gauge Boson, Gluons are Gauge Bosons. I will provide a fuller account as my explanation develops, however here it is in brief. Every universal energetic interaction owes its explanation to a Gauge Boson. Even gravitational interaction which points squarely at mass, mass generating Gluons, which are Gauge Bosons. Mass drives gravitational acceleration with the same general mechanism, or function that light employs to propel voids of space. It is so simple, it should be evidently so. But I don't expect this will yet be enough to convince people, so I will provide the explanation of how this is achieved by nature, and why this is so of nature. Sounds unlikely and impossible right! Plz stay tuned

I would describe my seedling as a young but established plant. It has taken root, and in my mind at least, looks likely to advance. But that doesn't mean it couldn't use some assistance, and pruning. I know you cannot judge this from what I have presented so far, but I have substantial more to say on the subject. It is a brave and assertive hypothesis, and does not dwell in the safety of obscurities that cannot be proven or disproven. And if I am wrong, there will be myriad opportunities to pull me up short.

Yes, I entirely agree with your sentiment. Nature is up to something, and people haven't worked out what that something is yet. I think people have this natural tendency to assume the unknowns are unknown, because they are hard to realize shrouded in complexity. So they look towards complex ideas for solutions, like string theory for example. They delve into the complex math hoping to learn something new and inspirational about nature. Assuming all the while that masterminds will progress science with brute brain computational power. I on the other hand am searching in the other direction, I presume the universe emerges from simpler configurations, I presume scientific advancement will be achieved through natural insight, inspired from natural observations. Whether that ultimate insight will come from a Brainiac, or somebody less presuming, time will tell.

Am I a beginner in the academic field? I am not a member of academia and nor have I been. Judging from my qualifications, I would be judged least likely to contribute to science. But that would be disregard of my personality, and natural aptitude.

Actually Jose, I have to retract my earlier concession, that emergence of space is purely an arbitrary assertion. It is aligned with an observation, redshift, which corresponds to Auv.

Then I draw on an association which has been known for many years, and is inspiration for Dirac's Large Numbers Hypothesis. It allows me to draw this relation between the rate of emergent dark energy, and atomic forces, mass Auv = Tuv.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_large_numbers_hypothesis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o8mUyq_Wwg&t=196s

And so my hypothesis is supported by these rather extraordinary correlations of nature. What you will find, is that my interpretation draws on the direct and simplest possible association, without adding degrees of theoretical inference. Dirac notes the value of redshift, associates it with a recessional velocity and expanding universe, further again infers the universes age, then scratches his head at why there might be a correlation between force of gravity and the age of the universe. Several inferences to many, it would seam to me.

Hi Steven, you wrote "Darwinian systems tend to be progressive in this way, driving towards ever increasing levels of articulated complexity." But importantly they don't have to be if there is no need or if conditions are not conducive. Think about the crocodiles doing very well, coelacanths and many simple life forms that remain simple. And with environmental conditions, such as massive global warming or ice age the progress of adaptation will stop, as conditions are beyond adaption for most and worst case only simple forms may remain viable.

"no need" isn't really clear enough. I should have said without the necessary selection pressure. As Darwinian evolution involves culling of the maladapted or less well adapted from the reproductive gene pool, either through death or competition.

Hi Georgina. When I referred to "Darwinian system" I was generalizing the entirety of branching life forms on Earth. I spoke in terms of "tendency" for the very reason you have mentioned. Because not all life forms on Earth are undergoing rapid evolutionary change, all of the time. You mentioned the crocodile comfortable and relatively unchanging in its niche, which is true. However the crocodile underwent extraordinary levels of progressionary advancement to achieve its current form, and so it wasnt always that complacent. It was a worm, then a fish, then a reptile, and in its current form, is a highly evolved, "complex" organism.

You say "such as massive global warming or ice age the progress of adaptation will stop". I respectfully suggest this is far from the case. It is times of changing environment which places the greatest demands on animal survival, and forces rapid evolutionary change and adaptation. Animals not suited to heat, might find themselves in an uncomfortably hot environment, and provided they can first survive, then their descendants are likely to begin process of adaptions. Further more, if a more dominant species dies out due to changing environment, then there are often species in the waiting, ready to advance their stature within the ecosystem, as these niches become available. Environmental change can be a trigger to wide reaching evolutionary progression. Such is the case when dinosaurs took their final bow, and allowed mammals to take the stage. The advancement of mammals on the Earths stage, represents an example of Darwinian systems tending towards ever higher states of complexity.

Steven,

I am also an outsider. That is why asked about you. Regarding what you have stated, an observation is an observation, the inference you arrive at is an assumption to suit the observation. It is arbitrary from which you start explaining. Non-expanding space, expanding space, space-time, curved space-time, multidimensional space, etc are options to start with. I assume a non-expanding space (it is the galaxy-clusters that move out causing expansion of the system, and not the space).

Since you promote a new idea, you will have to explain 'everything' based on observations only. So it will be better to start from Newtonian model or Relativity model or Quantum mechanical model, so that you need not explain many fundamentals. Wherever you differ, you can state that.

Regarding biological evolution, the evolution from simple to complex is the observed fact, but it is not a rule. Even now, why such an evolution happens in the case of life is not fully explained. Comparing two acts is just to make the reader understand what you say. Similarity does not say that if one is correct, the other is correct.

Jose P Koshy

Hi Steven, I was thinking of more extreme selection pressure, the mass extinction kind. I have quite recently seen a program about the brain power of crows which is comparable to apes in tool use and problem solving. Thought to be due to more efficient brain structure allowing it unexpected high functioning of such a small brain. This article gives the idea. Despite their small brains, ravens and crows may be just as clever as chimps, research suggests Maybe the dinosaurs are underestimated. I can't remember where I saw it but I read about researchers thinking of using the birds brain structure as a model for artificial intelligence rather than the mammalian brain because of its efficiency,

Jose

Yes, I appreciate what you are saying and agree. Theory is always inference, and a theorist infers at his/her own risk. I would make a distinction however, that there is such a thing as direct inference, that isn't removed by several degrees of extrapolated inferences. I think this reduces the level of arbitrary. I put a great deal of esteem, in what I refer to as the correlations of nature. Gravity and mass share correlation. Expansion rate of space (redshift) and mass share correlation. Time and motion share correlation. I believe the correlations are the best clues as to what nature is really doing. I believe my theory is grounded on multiple correlations of nature, for which it benefits direct inferences.

Big Bang cosmology measures the redshift that occurs to photons transiting space. It's first inference is that the fabric of space itself is stretching at every point. Then the second inference, this is forcing galaxies away from each other, therefore corresponds to a galaxy recessional velocity and distance. But lets back that up a couple of inferences. A photon traversing deep space billions of miles away from any galaxies is being lengthened by a property of space = galaxies flying apart? That should raise an eyebrow.

Furthermore, Big Bang cosmology pays no attention to a glaring correlation between universal redshift values Auv, and universal atomic forces Tuv. That's selective reasoning. Ignore equalities like this at peril of missing something important. In any case, I feel that my hypothesis honours the direct inferences only, regenerative field of space stretching, lengthening photons (redshift), and this field is then interacting with matter is such a way, that the fields energy potential is being transformed into "work", that is mass. This is the reason for equality Auv = Tuv. This is why gravity shares equality with mass. Atomic actions are not fundamental in nature, cause without prior cause. The universe leverages its full and considerable volume, to the continual regeneration of force. This energy flows through and animates the material universe, and is not conserved in the process of doing so. It is extinguished in the act of driving Gauge Boson work actions.

Yes, I know it must sound strange to hear somebody claim, the same principles that drive complexity in biology, also drive complexity in physics and cosmology. However I think people will be surprise at the case I can build.

Steve