Alternative Models of Reality

Jose Koshy

James putnam,

Quoting you, "The Universe has always had fundamental unity, meaning a single cause for all effects." Maybe you are correct. Whether it is actually the real fact or not, the argument is attractive and compels one to hear what you have to say.

Quoting you, "The equations, put at the mercy of theoretical physicists up until now, contain invented properties that cannot be directly verified by empirical testing." It is correct; Everyone will agree with it, though some may justify it; I agree with you in this case, excepts what 'empirical testing' can mean.

Quoting you, "there can be no four or more fundamental forces." "The first corrective action taken by physicists to fix physics needs to be the refutation of Relativity Theory". The main stream may not agree; but I agree with you. There is no evidence for space-time, length contraction or time dilation; but these are simply being followed.

I appreciate your stand in many cases; that is why I am going through your explanations expecting that you may come up with some new innovative idea. The present accepted models provide a very logical explanation of the physical world, though these contain many loopholes some of which you have pointed out. But any alternate explanation should be equally logical with less loop holes. Now I have got an overall picture of what you have to say. Unfortunately some of your arguments appear to be going against logic as given below. I would like to see how you can explain it out.

Quoting you, "However, that is what it always has been. A force is compared to a unit of force by dividing the force by that unit of force."

Your argument is not convincing; In all cases of measurements, we follow the same method;for example, in the case of length, we compare the length of the given object by dividing it by the unit of length. By doing so, length does not become unit-less. Force becoming unit-less is an anomaly. I will be going through the attached file soon.

Quoting you, "It does not mean that charge is made up of time." The equation clearly says that charge is made up of time. You cannot explain an equation in an arbitrary way. Saying that the equation is correct and at the same time saying that charge is not made up of time is contradictory and so is illogical.

Now coming to the case of acceleration of light, you say "It carries away an increment of the acceleration of the particle that brought it into existence." A positive acceleration means that velocity goes on increasing. Carrying some 'velocity' from the particle is meaningful, but carrying an 'increment of acceleration' is absurd. From where does the photon get 'the energy' for further acceleration?

Jose P Koshy

James Putnam

"Quoting you, "However, that is what it always has been. A force is compared to a unit of force by dividing the force by that unit of force."

"Your argument is not convincing; In all cases of measurements, we follow the same method;for example, in the case of length, we compare the length of the given object by dividing it by the unit of length. By doing so, length does not become unit-less. Force becoming unit-less is an anomaly. I will be going through the attached file soon."

You are correct. That is not what makes it unitless.It is unitless because that is what empirical evidence indicates. My point about always being a ratio was meant to show that being a ratio is not radically new. However, it does seem that there was no strength in that argument and should be avoided.

"Quoting you, "It does not mean that charge is made up of time." The equation clearly says that charge is made up of time. You cannot explain an equation in an arbitrary way. Saying that the equation is correct and at the same time saying that charge is not made up of time is contradictory and so is illogical."

The equation does not say that charge is made up of time. It says that that property which has been interpreted as electric charge must be reviewed in light of learning that empirical evidence indicates that its reduced units should be seconds. The units do not tell us what the property is. For example the reduced units of energy are meters. Energy is not simply length. Energy is force times distance. In the case of electric charge, I am working with equations that began with the re-establishment of fundamental unity due to finally defining the property of mass. Fundamental unity allows for just one cause for all effects. Therefore, either electric charge is that cause or there is no such thing as electric charge. I have already taken my lead from empirical evidence that it is the variation of the speed of light that is the single case for all effects. Now I must use the additional new clue that the units of what has been called 'electric charge' should be seconds. So I take that lead and put it to use by substituting 1.602x10-19 seconds into Coulomb's force equation and see where that leads. If that move is absurd then the results will make no sense. The results produce improved replacement equations for Maxwell's equations. No longer do the equations depend upon field theory. They make use of energy and momentum as the key properties. Electric permittivity and magnetic permeability are given clear physical explanations. The benefits go beyond application to electromagnetic effects. That incremental measure of time proved to be the single most unifying change that has general application in many other physics equations.

"Now coming to the case of acceleration of light, you say "It carries away an increment of the acceleration of the particle that brought it into existence." A positive acceleration means that velocity goes on increasing. Carrying some 'velocity' from the particle is meaningful, but carrying an 'increment of acceleration' is absurd. From where does the photon get 'the energy' for further acceleration?"

It is not clear why you disagree. The reason I say this is because: Photons are brought into existence by 'charged' particles of matter that are accelerating. Later when those photons are absorbed by another 'charged' particle, they cause the receiving particle to accelerate. Whether one argues that the photon was given energy by the source particle and then later transferred that energy to the receiving particle; or, argues that the photon carries information that is communicated between the two particles such that, the second particle learns how it must accelerate to react 'properly' to the acceleration of the source particle, neither is absurd. I say it carries an increment of acceleration. That is not inferior to 'energy' or 'information'. Is it your belief that energy is a substance that is transferred from the particle to the photon? What do you believe the photon transfers between the two particles? When you say "From where does the photon get 'the energy' for further acceleration?" what do you mean by "...further acceleration?"

James Putnam

Jose and Steven,

Jose, I carelessly left your name off of my last two messages. Thinking about our difficulty in communication, I decided a large part of it is that you are apparently unfamiliar enough with my work that when I speak of a photon carrying away an increment of acceleration, that it is what I mean to say because of my definition for mass. Current theoretical physics has very little in common with my work. If you evaluate my statements by interpreting them from the viewpoint put forward by theoretical physics, then we will continue to have difficulties in communicating accurately with one another. Here is another presentation of the effect on physics equations due to defining mass as the inverse representation of the acceleration of light.

The important point is that there is just one cause for all effects and it is the variation of the speed of light. While a change in the speed of light can be measured either with respect to distance or with respect to time, it is with respect to time, acceleration, that is fundamentally useful. It is fundamental because each event of the acceleration of light and all effects that result from the acceleration of light are incremental because they all occur during the increment of time with the magnitude of 1.602x10[sup-19 seconds. That increment of time, recognizable as delta t, is used throughout my equations.

When a 'charged' particle accelerates it releases a photon. The photon carries away a measure of the particle's acceleration that occurs during the time period delta t. Every photon everywhere always delivers its stored value of acceleration within delta t. Everything that a photon is involved in always takes place within a measure of time equal to delta t. This delta t is a universal constant. It always measures the same whether measured locally or remotely.

Another place that acceleration has a fundamental relationship is for a freely falling object. The freely falling object accelerates positively as it falls. The amount of its acceleration is equal but opposite to the negative acceleration of light. Light loses speed as it approaches the Earth. Pages 1 & 2 of this essay Our Analogue Universe introduce the idea that the speed that a freely falling object gains is equal to the speed that light loses. Is this familiar? I will wait to see what you, Jose, know about the content of this message.

Steven, Here is a link to my 2009 essay contest entry What is Possible for Theoretical Physics?. It discusses a subject close to the Mindless Mathematics question. While searching through my essays, I spotted it. I had forgotten about it.

James Putnam

[deleted]

James Putnam,

You say that force is unitless, energy is in meters, charge is in seconds,and mass is inverse of acceleration. These do not make any sense; your definitions lack clarity and are vague. It should be noted that in the present setup the units are very clear and are logically set. So on comparing your theory with the existing ones, your proposal is a 'going back' in terms of clarity. However, your claim that it can bring in results (by results, I mean that it can solve some of the existing problems) is correct, then there can be some justification in doing so. Not only that, if your theory becomes successful as you go forward, there is the possibility you may remove the vagueness.

Regarding acceleration, generally we use the term for an increase in speed. When a photon is released, motion is transferred to it; that is energy is transferred. If you regard photon as a wave, the information that it carry is the wavelength and amplitude. These are well explained in the present setup. But carrying an increment of acceleration does not have any meaning; it is not like carrying some energy and carrying any information. If it is to carry 'acceleration', you have to redefine acceleration.

Let me say my opinion frankly. It appears that you do not agree with Newtonian, Quantum mechanical or Relativistic theories; but still you use some of their equations. You use the existing equations and explain the variables in it (like mass, force, acceleration, etc) in some other way. But you forget the fact that the existing equations are valid only if each variable in it is taken as what it is meant to be. That is, you cannot explain the variable as you like and then claim that the equation is correct.

But still it seems that you have something to offer: your 'delta t' appears to me as an 'absolute value' or an 'absolute unit' for time; I assume you have such an 'absolute unit' for length also. So I would suggest, if you do not mind, that you use a set of different terms in place of mass, force, acceleration, etc and define each term and come up with your own equations, and explain why each equation is correct according to your theory.

Jose p Koshy

James Putnam

Jose P. Koshy,

Your are mistaken in your evaluation. It is necessary to read the mathematics to understand what it is that I do and what is it that I have accomplished. I provided links such as this one. The mathematics is not complex. Can you tell me what I have done in this paper? Otherwise all that is happening is that we are talking and talk is not enough for you or anyone to understand what it is that I do. Physics is mathematical. I have reproduced work in several areas of physics and provided solutions that include solutions to problems that have remained unsolved. I have read your opinion. You appear to be responding to the content of these forum messages. We are accomplishing nothing by simply talking. Good luck presenting your theory to physicists.

James Putnam

With regard to what it is that I do with physics, there is one major difference that should by itself be understandable and recognized as very important. The physics of theoretical physics is a physics that is fundamentally disunified. That is why there are separate fundamental forces; and, that is why theoretical physicists, the source of guesses about properties and their meanings, has such a large role to play in forming and interpreting physics equations. The work that I pursue is fundamentally unified. The orderliness of the Universe requires that this be the case. It is the case in my work. There is one cause for all effects. The Universe would not exist if it were otherwise. And, if an independent cause was added into the Universe at this moment, the Universe would cease to exist. The fact that the properties of the Universe, not necessarily those of theoretical physics, work harmoniously together to continue the operation of the Universe is certain evidence that there is fundamental unity and any physics interpretation must embrace it. Today's theoretical physics has been teaching fundamental disunity from the moment that mass was made a fundamental indefinable property. The return of fundamental unity requires that mass be a defined property. That is the first step needed to make physics directly dependent upon empirical evidence for meaning. The second step needed to keep fundamental unity in physics equations is to define temperature. The third step needed is to remove the circular definition of electric charge. After that, fundamental unity reigns and empirical evidence, the sole source for all that we will learn about the Universe, becomes our guide in forming physics equations and understanding them.

James Putnam

[deleted]

Jose

Sorry for the late reply. I was focused on an essay, however feel I still left to little time to hone it like I would have liked. Oh well, I'm not trying to win it, but rather just share some ideas and engage in discussion.

Regarding our earlier conversation

I asked you the question

"So we consider e=mc2, and ask the question. Why is the energy content of mass a tidy multiple of a measure of velocity C ?"

You replayed

"This is a very basic question. The 'speed of light' and 'not the units used for measuring it' has the significance. You can use any set of arbitrary units (of length and time) for measuring speed of light. In whatever units you measure, you can convert it into meter and second, and get the same value (3x108m/s approximately). Thus in any set of units speed of light will have a certain value, and that value will work provided we use the corresponding units in all equations. I think this what you have asked.

Yes it is a basic question, but basic questions lead to the most valuable insights. Your answer is fine, however do you want to have a try at a more fundamental reasoning? Can you see a line of inquiry that leads beyond your given answer? Why does the energy value of mass correspond to a value of velocity? Does it suggest something about the nature of mass? or will you ascribe a generic answer, all energies share equivalence? Which by the way, might be true, but its an answer blocks further inquiry.

Steve

Steven Andresen

James

How did you go with your essay? I dont feel I left myself enough time to hone and polish, but I did submit.

I wrote about how emergence of aims and intention in the universe, is basically just an aspect of the complexity problem facing our physical understanding. So I presented an explanation for universal complexities within a Darwinian context, that gives meaningful purpose to the structures observed in this universe. In doing this, the complexity problem is resolved.

In short, it just explains that Auv is a regenerative field of space, from which Tuv photons came to emerge for evolutionary progressive reasons. The purpose of photons is to consume Auv, to allow Auv to regenerate, which is useful within a Darwinian context. So Auv field and Tuv photons have compounded complexity while entwined on a symbiotic Co-evolutionary relationship. Matter is just highly evolved structured photons, which are optimized for this purpose of existence. The properties and structures of atoms, planets, stars, galaxies, are optimized in terms of being spread out across space for example, to make for an efficient interaction between space and matter. In this respect the material universe exists to gravitate, and the energy which transfers from Auv to Tuv through the gravitation process, is what enables photons to perform energetic work within these evolved structures of matter. Mass owes its work function to photons, and this is the very simple reason the energy content of mass corresponds to photon velocity C. Infact every action the material universe is capable of engaging in, is mediated by photons. Or put another way, photons are the universes only way of imparting force on anything at all. A profound truth which indicates all physical measures will be derivable from photon velocity, and its sub units of length and duration. Leading to unified physics.

I'm not asking if you believe it. But I do wish to know if my meaning is conveyed please? Do you see how this idea works? and how it corresponds to real world observations? Is there anything obviously wrong with it?

Jose, can I put these questions to you too please? Do you see how simple this idea is?

Steven Andresen

Dear moderation

I hope you will approve my essay for submission please? Unfortunately I ended up in a situation whereby I had minutes to spare before submission closure, and so had to submit even while the spelling and grammar was less than desirable. Most unfortunate but I hope this will be forgiven please?

I hope the meaning of my essay is conveyed? Following is a short summery to help the concept gel. My concern is that being a new idea, the conversation might be dismissed before its potential is realized. And its potential is more than merely the prescription of a naturalistic organisation principle to explain for universal physical complexities.

In short, it explains that Auv is a regenerative field of space, from which Tuv photons came to emerge for evolutionary progressive reasons. The purpose of photons is to consume Auv, to allow Auv to regenerate, which is useful within a Darwinian context. So Auv field and Tuv photons have compounded complexity while entwined on a symbiotic Co-evolutionary relationship. Matter is just highly evolved structured photons, which are optimized for this purpose of existence. The properties and structures of atoms, planets, stars, galaxies, are optimized in terms of their physics for being able to maintain their structures and also being spread out across space, to make for an efficient interaction between space and matter. In this respect the material universe exists to gravitate, and the energy which transfers from Auv to Tuv through the gravitation process, is what enables photons to perform energetic work within these evolved structures of matter. Mass owes its work function to photons, and this is the very simple reason the energy content of mass corresponds to photon velocity C. Infact every action the material universe is capable of engaging in, is mediated by photons. Or put another way, photons are the universes only way of imparting force on anything. A profound truth which indicates all physical measures will be derivable from photon velocity, and its sub units of length and duration.

I think that even if this might be hard to believe, it is not a concept that should be hard to understand. That is my hope in any case.

Thank you for your consideration

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Steve Dufourny

Food for thought..PRIMES,QUANTUM GRAVITATION,SINGULARITIES....

The primes ar facinating ,GAUSS and RIEMANN have shown the road of these numbers.Why they are so harmonical and permit all numerical buildings.And these zéros whic are so harmonious in their distribution.These zéros which extends ,like if they pushed these primes like builders of groups.It is fascinating.Like if these primes danced ,like if God has created a music oftrimes and 3D sphères.The gravitation and its stability like the series of uniquenss, finite seems correlated with these primes.Like if these primrrs and the universal primordial fractal was linked, unified in a harmonical music.I search a road for a better understanding of these primes and the distributions of groups of spherical volumes consoidering this quantum gravitation towards the singularities, coded if I can say.The fact that these primes could be geomtrised and algebrised correctly with the spherical volulmes become very relevant if we insert the zero absolute and the fractal of this cold in encircling the standard model.The grouops in logic could appear for the electromagnetic forces and this gravitation.I am intrigued a little about the 0 and after these primes in beginning with 123 the 2 is very odd and intriguing because it is the only one which is pair.These 4 Tools permit to rank all the 0123.The convergences for the quantum 3D computing can be made and the road to link dark cold matter and gravitation also.The serie of uniquenss of this gravitation seems finite like the cosmological serie of cosmological BHs.It becomes relevant considering the proportions with my two humble équations.The spherical geometrical algebras could appear if the good domains, operators, tensors, rotors,series, groups,vectors, scalars, associativities and commutativities....are well partitioned in respecting the harmonical distributivity.These primes and sphères make me crazy lol .Riemann helps us ....

Steve Dufourny

the fact that these zeros hunt, extend,structure these primes and so the numbers towards the infinite serie becomes interesting considering the ranking of groups of extensions.These spherical volumes and these groups can be relevant to find the bridge for this quantum gravitation which is not baryonic.It exists a bridge for the checking of this paradoxal force.The weakest but the strongest at this quantum scale.These primes and this universal harmonical distribution has many secrets to show us in fact.Primes, gravitation,singularities and sphères ....

Steven Andresen

James Jose

Very quiet out there. Darwinian physics, does this seem interesting to you or silly? Your first impressions are interesting to me if you will please, and it would be a shame if I wasn't offered a chance to add evidence? I have a host of further considerations, which I believe conveys simple meaning to various universal structures and properties. Really straightforward and down to earth explanations.

Steve

Steven Andresen

James

Did you submit an essay? I'm looking out for it. A lot of Jameses submitted essays, but no James A Putnam as yet.

Steve

[deleted]

Steven,

Hi, I have been absent. My wife and I have some free time and we are using it. Yes I did submit an essay. Maybe it will show up soon. I had written and reviewed most of it. I got busy and left it hanging thinking I would get back to finishing my review. That time did not come, so in the last hour I submitted it. What lies ahead usually does not significantly depend upon the content of an essay. The ruling paradigms of professional theoretical physics will continue to rule. The voting system will reflect preference for each amateur's own view; and, for professional views that advance theory beyond its current state but including its current state. The professional administrators are more than fair to amateurs. I know of no other place run by professionals that allows free speech from amatuers about physics.

I have printed off your essay and will be reading it. My view of Darwinian evolution has been public on the Internet since 2001. It lacks means to an end. It lacks goals. Darwin or those who followed him misled the scientific community by presenting natural selection as if it was the mechanism responsible for the evolution of life. Natural selection is an after-effect. It does nothing to raise the level of complexity of life. It can only destroy life brought into existence by a cause that is not natural selection. Most importantly, Darwin was careful to recognize that his proposal of the evolution of life could not and did not say anything about the evolution of intelligence. This is an example of a level of understanding that avoided the misunderstandings of his followers both then and now. Today's Darwinians think that dumbness can give rise to intelligence. That is, of course impossible. Darwin either recognized that or at the least understood that nothing about the evolution of life could address the very, very most important question of: Whence came intelligence? Without that answer, there is no evolution theory.

There is evidence of the evolution of intelligent life but, no means by which it could rise above the nearly constant level of one move up versus another move down, or worse, and, definitely more scientifically the case, failure due to the natural persistence of lack of meaning. Meaning must already be available before it can be called up for use. No meaning can be conjured up by theorists' imaginations. There is no possibility of a meaning appearing unless it was already existing! There cannot be a move up unless it was provided for since the beginning of the Universe. Meaning cannot be miraculously added into the Universe after the beginning. Science must not permit miracles to occur after the Universe began. After the Universe began, there must be an explanation that sources from the original condition of the Universe. The origin of the Universe is the only time when 'magic' can be introduced; and, only so long as it is admitted as being miraculous. After that, scientists must show direct empirical support for answers.

This is my opinion. You are invited to challenge it.

James Putnam

Steven Andresen

James

Oh good, you submitted. I'll keep a lookout.

Yes, if I was trying to win a contest then I wouldnt have related peoples popular notions in a poor light. Like the multiverse as a mathematicians trick with questionable infinities, and anthropic principle as a bad science teacher. Not very diplomatic of me, but I'm here to do as you do, be honest to opinion and share in discussion. It's not so bad if I receive poor reviews, but if I dont get some interested discussion for having presented those views, then I will be disappointed.

I recall reading your views on evolution quite some time ago, but I didnt perceive it in the same way I interpret your current message. You flatly dont buy into Darwinism. I guess my essay wont be of much interest to you then. Thats ok I dont mind. As for challenging your views, I'm not really inclined. I like to pick such battles, and for now I want to focus on convincing people that believe in Darwinian biology that Darwinian can be applied to cosmology. Not convince somebody of Darwinian biology then physics. Thats sounds even harder haha. But just commenting briefly toward a point you made, I'm not opposed to your argument that there are missing details in the explanation of Darwinian evolution, the progressive aspect of it. However you use this argument to detract from evolution, whereas I would suggest there is more to know about biology process.

But anyway, I'm confident you will give me an essay I will judge generously. I do tend to appreciate your content.

Steve

James Putnam

Steven,

Just to be clear. You must already know that clarity requires saying more than one thought was necessary. Evolution of intelligent life did occur. What has not occurred is that there has not been an explanation of how something this incredible can be credibly explained. My point is that the fact of the evolution of intelligent life can be used to guide scientific inquiry.What cannot be used, at least not according to me, are inexplicable 'explanations' that professionals put forward as being settled; all the while that Darwin speaks from the past that: "I have nothing to say about the origin of intelligence". Theoretical physicists, and no other scientific professional, can say something about the origin of intelligence. I know that they keep saying things that are to serve for the rest of us as explanations as to the origin of intelligence. I challenge them that they offer no explanation for the origin or even the development, or most of all, for the evolution of intelligence. Yet the fact of the evolution of the Universe is to be used for scientific purpose. What I call for are answers that do not depend upon the 'fog-of-complexity' for hiding their inadequacies.

James Putnam

Steven Andresen

James

Sorry, not right to say you dont believe in evolution. I put that wrong. then perhaps you can appreciate my essay. I will be interested to know.

Steve

Steven Andresen

James

"What I call for are answers that do not depend upon the 'fog-of-complexity' for hiding their inadequacies."

Yes well said, all of it. I'm going to give this some thought and think if there is something can be said of it in relation to my hypothesis. It would be nice to have some thoughtful questions and conversation directed toward my essay.

Steve

dieu le

Einstein's theory of Gravity has no place

for Gravitational Waves

Dieu Le

Years after the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) instrument's discovered Gravitational Waves, the LIGO scientists still have not provided the answer for this question: "What are the Gravitational waves MADE OF?" or "When someone talks of waves, the instant response should always be, 'Waves of what?' ", as Charles Scurlock put it.

So, as of today, the basic nature of LIGO Gravitational Waves is still a mystery.

Actually, this widely and cheerfully accepted discovery creates much more mysteries and myths that need to be addressed...Attachment #1: Einsteins_theory_of_Gravity_has_no_place_for_Gravitational_Waves_F.doc

Steve Dufourny

hi ,

you are right, the gravitational waves are Under the sepcial relativity and the waves of gravity are speeder;

Many confounds the gravitational waves and these waves.LIGO knew the coalescence of 2 supermassive BHs in the past and so they knew the time of a&rrival if signalms Under c.Simple tool respecting both of them,the special and general relativity.The garvitation isn not baryonic nor relativistic.There are not mysteries or myths, simply Tools permitting to rank our evolution.

Best

Bishal Banjara

Thanks to FQXi Administrators for granting me to post through this platform..

It has been long time that we have people diverting from the main stream with different ideas of their own to pursue a different fragrant of flavor in physics. But there are few countable numbers of people who true grace within them to orient and explore the truth. But so far I have known, there are almost none who are working in to the root level for revising the very basic foundations of physics. We are all working from the branches to orient new physics relying on the common footage or say particularly, the one who works for 'force' relies at common foundation of Newtonian Dynamics. But it is my endeavor to reform it from such level to revolutionize the main stream through the rational way of scientific thinking.In the course, I have posted my research work as 'essay' in the essay contest conducted by the FQXi for this year entitled as 'Newtonian Dynamics: An explicit diversion from Reality'. The related file is attached here with.Attachment #1: Banjara_Newtonian_Dynamics_1.pdf

« Previous Page Next Page »