Alternative Models of Reality

Steven, the wing i mentioned was not necessarily a birds I was just thinking of an aerofoil shape and air flow. Brief to the point posts would help. You have said a great many things, what do you want considered/discussed most of all or first?

Hi Georgina

I would like people to listen to what I have to say on the subject, the possibility that Gluon activity is derived from space, that this maybe the nature of the interaction between space and matter. That fundamental force requires a prior cause, which originates with the emergence of space Auv, the observation of cosmological redshift associated with the cosmological constant, or if you prefer, Dark Energy.

I can argue the merit of this possibility twenty different ways, but most notably I can demonstrate how various empirical measures line up in support of this idea. Measures for which correlations have been known about for decades, however no interpretation could be determined that links them.

I can show how the same correlations provide an exacting mathematical solution in the case of anomalous galaxy motions, a simple remedy that is variable Gluon activity, that might be summarized as a variable baryon mass hypothesis. Not modified gravity, or an invisible particle theory, but the nature of baryons has not been properly understood.

I'm not sure how that sounds to fresh ears, but I assure you it's a very simple consideration. But it does require a person engage for comprehension. I am amazed that nothing of what I have said so far has attracted a curious and questioning mind. Thoroughly amazed!

In light of its mantra being "Foundational questioning", why doesn't this community engage with new and novel ideas?

Hi Steven, I can only speak for myself. I am uncertain of my ability to offer constructive criticism on what you present because of my own ignorance. As I see it, particle physics is just an accounting system rather than definite representation of what exists in foundational reality at the smallest scales. It accounts for energy changes and forces and properties of materials. While, as you point out, it does not account for every observation. Upfront I have two reservations. Will tinkering with the accounting system affect its ability to continue to account for the rest of physics as well as it does? The other is, I am unsure that cosmological red shift and dark energy are due to what happens at the fundamental particle level. I think perhaps they are to do with how EM information was distributed in space and per red shift is received by the observing system.

I note your reservations. What I propose doesn't change the observations and measures science has made. It corroborates them for the most part and verifies their accuracy. That is why I can use conventional science to corroborate and evidence my hypothesis. Yes I understand you will be "unsure that cosmological red shift and dark energy are related via a process that happens at the fundamental particle level". The discussion I would have with you, would bring the possibility and prospective evidence to your attention. I believe I know how to make this consideration fairly simple.

1. I would build a simple analogy for you, which loosely represents the nature of the relationship I propose between Auv and Tuv. That Auv is an emergent field from which Tuv metabolizes an energy potential that drives fundamental force.

2. We will then make a list of the parameters Paul Dirac mentions in his "Large Numbers Hypothesis", analyse where the parameters are derived from, discuss if they are likely to be accurate measures we can rely on. I will do the work for us, so put your feet up and relax.

3. Being satisfied that the parameters Paul refers to are conventional of origin and therefore likely to be valid, we will then see how they might conceptually relate to my above hypothesis. It is a simple consideration you needn't be apprehensive about. I will highlight an interesting pattern, theme of nature which depends on the parameters of (a) volume of space, (b) emergence rate of Auv, space, (c) value of universal Tuv, matter.

4. I will demonstrate how this same pattern, theme of nature dependent on Volume of space and density distribution of matter operates within galaxies, to give an exacting mathematical solution to galaxy rotation curves.

I don't think the above steps should sound overly complicated. But rest assured the considerations are even simpler than they would have it appear. Besides, I'll do the work and you need only follow me through this step by step please?

Steve

Dear Georgina and Steven,

I am sorry for appearing to insult your intelligence in my previous post. As I have stated earlier, I have notified Professor Stephen Hawking and his boss, Professor Nigel Peake of my conviction that only Nature could have produced the simplest visible physical condition, and as only visible surface am observable, it logically follows that only a single unified visible infinite surface could be occurring in one singular infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.. I have also provided this information to over seventy Physics Professors and over eighty holders of Ph.D in Physics certificate holders. Not one word of my assertion has been disputed. Is there any part of my infinite surface statement that you agree with?

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Joe, no. There is no part of it that I agree with.

Steven, I am happy to read your analogy. let's just see where it goes from there.

Dear Georgina,

Thank you for your reply, it has caused me to burst into song this bright sunny morning.

"They all laughed at Christopher Columbus

When he said the world was round..."

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Gary D Simpson,

The Category of this thread is listed as: Ultimate Reality. The Topic is listed as: Alternate Models of Reality. According to Dr. Zeeya Merali, the Administrator: "If you have an unconventional, alternative model of reality, then this is the place to discuss it. (This is for contributors who have preliminary ideas and would like feedback, but do not have an academic paper or arXiv preprint and have not given a conference talk based on their ideas.)

You can obtain information about swimming pool maintenance at url: https://triangle.poolscouts.com/?_vsrefdom=ppc

Joe Fisher, Realist

Hi Georgina

Just a quick message to show I'm still here. I'm in the middle of a busy week, so please bare with me. I will return here soon and present my explanation.

Kind regards

Steve

All,

This post and its attachment concern the basis for conservation of momentum.

The attached .pdf file contains two Figures that both have a center of mass at point (0, 0). I used simple numbers to make things ... well, simple:-)

The two figures could represent the same system at different times. Therefore, the changes in position of the particles represent momentum and since the two systems have the same center of gravity, it follows that the momentum associated with the position changes must sum to zero as required by conservation of momentum.

I think that this is a very simple example of the Noether Theorem.

Best Regards,

Gary SimpsonAttachment #1: Center_Of_Mass.pdf

Hi Georgina

I apologise for the slow reply. I would like to have prepared this explanation for you while having more time on my hands, however I guess I better make a start.

I will present a couple of analogies that are somewhat comparable to my cosmological model. The general idea that we are testing, is that matter is dependent upon an interaction with space, that is the source of the energy that motivates atomic forces. So conceptually this is a very simple and intuitive consideration, and the analogies I give will reflex this simplicity. Analogies that serve this consideration are, the relationship between a candle flame and atmospheric oxygen, that the intensity of the flame is dependent on atmospheric oxygen density. Another analogy might be, an electrical appliance circuited with a battery, and the relationship between battery capacitance and an appliances ability to undertake energetic work.

I think the first step in realizing this might be a worthwhile use of your time, would be based on the prospect of assigning fundamental forces with a prior cause. It can be surmised that fundamental forces undertake work actions in the world, and so long as fundamental forces remain theoretically causeless, then this ability to undertake work also remains causeless. Is "causeless work" a reasonable notion to ascribe too?

My hypothesis is that the observations and measures which indicate to us that space has an expansive property, corresponds to a regenerative elemental field of space. I refer to the observation and measure of cosmological redshift, which is one and the same thing as the cosmological constant, and Dark Energy. That this continually emergent field is a universal energy supply, which matter is dependent upon to drive its fundamental force. So we will begin with three main parameters to quantifying a system of this type, then expand it to a forth parameter. We begin with 1. volume, 2. energy density throughout that volume 3. Intensity of an entity which is dependent upon that energy source. Then we incorporate the forth parameter which is, replenishment rate of that energy source.

We have a perfectly sealed room of set volume, which contains an oxygen density, and we place a candle within the room, its flame intensity dependent on oxygen availability. We set a clock ticking. Obviously the room volume remains a constant, so it is the oxygen density and flame intensity which is a declining variable parameter over time. It is also worth noting that oxygen density and flame intensity will share proportionality with one another during their mutual decline. Let us suppose that after 10 hours the room is nearly depleted of oxygen and the candle is about to wink out.

Now place two candles with the same room and set the clock ticking. Room volume and oxygen density remain the same parameters as the first experiment, but now the parameter of flame intensity is doubled. By doubling the demand on the oxygen supply, the rooms oxygen density and therefore flame intensity, decrease at twice the rate of the previous experiment. Adding further candles to the room, the results are simple arithmetic.

Forth parameter

A slightly more dynamic circumstance would be if the oxygen supply within the room was steadily replenished. Perhaps leaking under the door. Let us consider the example whereby there is one candle placed in the room, and the oxygen replenishment was set at precisely the same rate as the candles rate of oxygen consumption. All four considered parameters would remain constant over time, in balance with one another. The room volume, oxygen density, oxygen replenishment rate, and flame intensity.

Now we place two candles within the room, with the oxygen replenishment rate set as before mentioned, enough to replace the oxygen demand of one candle only. What happens? The system as a whole is not in equilibrium, so the oxygen density in the room and flame intensity will decline proportionately with one another until equilibrium is re-established. Equilibrium will be restored when each candle burns at half original intensity, which added together equals, the rate of oxygen replenishment. This relationship is important for my hypothesis, that between the replenishment rate of oxygen and flame intensity. Please take its note.

So what am I all about? What am I alluding too? If the cosmological constant corresponds to the replenishment rate of an elemental field, which is the source of atomic force via an interaction between space and matter, then the same general parameters will apply, and you would expect appropriate values to demonstrate correlation. Paul Dirac's Large Numbers Hypothesis deals with precisely these parameters. Auv conforming to replenishment rate, his measures of distance serve as components of universal volume and density of matter distributed within that volume, and then he determines (there exists an equality between the measure of Auv which we relate to replenishment rate, and a measure that corresponds to value of atomic force).

We can verify this by analysing Paul Dirac's 9 minute video in explanation of the Large Numbers Hypothesis. We simply list the parameters he mentions and this becomes clear.

So there is a good deal more to discuss, but none of it is overly complex and or unintuitive. Every point I make can be related back to simple considerations of simple analogous systems. But I want to quickly jump to the end game, where I am leading you, so you are not in the dark in this respect.

The end game hypothesis is this.

If Gluon activity "which is the primary giver of mass" is a variable value, dependent and proportional to energy density of space, in the same general way candle flame intensity is dependent on oxygen density. Then we can infer a relationship of proportionality between the density distribution of matter in galaxies, and a variable gluon activity, which is variable baryon mass. Gluon activity will directly correlate to universal matter densities.

Here's the evidence this works.

By studying galaxy luminosity profiles, it has been deduced that star densities within spiral galaxies generally decline by square of the distance from galaxy centre. That is the same thing as saying, matter densities decline by this uniformed value. If we now relate the proportionality of gluon activity and star density as before mentioned, it can be hypothesized. Gluon activity increases by square of distance from galaxy centre, in lock step as star density declines by square of the distance. Gluon activity equating to mass, then this places mass in precisely the correct place, and precisely the correct value to correct galaxy rotation curves. A variable baryon mass hypothesis, with an exacting mathematical formula, based on volume of space, Auv energy density within volume of space, and predicted Tuv gluon activity.

Based on a theory that provides an answer to the universal measures we have taken and the unexplained equality they are known to demonstrate. By ascribing atomic forces to a prior cause, which also describes a universal system that continually regenerates and can conceptually compound changes over time, evolve, develop intricate complexities through the only natural process we are aware of capable of achieving such articulated order, Darwinian. Give nature a natural energy potential and it will invent a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. The observations and measures that lead to Dark Energies inference, could point to just such a natural potential, from which complex universal systems have arisen.

The measures taken that define the Dark Matter puzzle couldn't fit this hypothesis any better than they do. A mathematical relation between volume of space and Gluon activity. Hopefully I will be afforded the opportunity to explain these considerations here at FQXi.

I jumped right ahead here, but backing up a bit. What do you think of my oxygen filled room and candle flame analogy. Do you have any questions about it?

Thanks for listening Georgina.

Kind regards

Steve

Dear Steven,

Only nature could have provided the simplest visible universal construct. Although "The general idea that we are testing, is that (finite abstract) matter is dependent upon an (finite) interaction with (finite invisible) space,.." is a neat highly complex idea, it has nothing to do with natural simplicity. All real matter has a single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one singular infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

I hope you see my point,

Joe Fisher, Realist

Steven, if I have understood how you are thinking about the fundamental forces your idea seems to violate conservation of energy, which is a pillar of physics. Likening energy input to combustion of oxygen I have to think about the products as well as the input. The oxygen does not just sustain the flame but is built into the combustion products. So if energy is being supplied from space like oxygen to a flame what happens to it, as it isn't "disappearing". I grasp that the candle is the atomic matter, the flame the strong nuclear force, the room is the galaxy, the oxygen is the energy. I don't know what the draught under the door is or why there is one- are you proposing some kind of diffusion to balance energy concentration ?

To be clearer Steven; I understand the replenishment of oxygen is an analogy for replenishment of energy and you have linked that idea to the cosmological constant giving expansion of the visible (Image) universe. An objection to that is that energy is not being used up. I think the first indication that this isn't going to work is when you say the nuclear force is performing work. This makes me think that you are likening it to the forces we see in everyday life that require energy input to the system to maintain the force; as energy is converted to heat by friction causing the system to run down if not 'fueled'. A better analogy, to my mind, is chemical bonds that are themselves a form of energy and do not require energy input for maintenance.

Hi Georgina

Conservation laws

Yes, my approach violates the conventional interpretation of conservation laws, however it offers a new interpretation which you can test for consistency. Which you are already doing I might add. But convention is inconsistent, and selectively violates its own conservation laws. Because my hypothesis attempts an explanation of the universe as a whole, the question of the big bang origin of the energy which formed matter is not out of context. With this in mind, how does SMoC account for creation of universal matter in context of conservation laws? Rhetorical question, because of course it cant. How can convention approach the question of Dark Energies apparently continual emergence in terms of conservation laws? And I might add, any force which undertakes an action which defies popular interpretations of entropy, in terms of the equal measure of disorder that a system need generate in the process of generating order. In this respect gravity defies the notion of entropy, and before it could be declared an entropic force, it would been to be determined where it exports the disorder too, to be able to create the order expressed as cosmological objects, planets, stars for example. And the same issue is true of nuclear bonds and electron bonds which are responsible for the creation of order, however where is the exported disorderly counterpart which need be identified, if this activity is to be interpreted in terms of being entropic? Heat process being the origin of the notion of entropy, however heat processes only play a very minor role in the formation of universal structure. It mediates elemental phase changes, and initiates chemical bond formation, and it holds stars buoyant against the non-entropic force of gravity which would otherwise collapse the star. But the major players by far, in the mediation of universal structure and therefore order, are non-entropic gravitational interactions, and non-entropic fundamental forces which maintain the nuclear and electron bonds. So until an entropic interpretation can be given to gravity and fundamental forces in general, then the popular emphasis which is given to the concept of entropy is way over stated. When you are more familiar with my concept, then this will serve as a useful test. But for now we are better off focusing on a more tangible aspect, as follows.

Do electron bonds undertake work?

The concept of "work" and its implications for conservation law, offers a useful test for the conventional model and or my model. Fundamental forces are responsible for all manner of interactions, but which ones are clearly undertaking work actions, because work can be viewed as a product which should not be perpetually given for free, at no cost within a closed system. And you have already zeroed in on the appropriate theme that offers an effective test, chemical bonds serving very well. Electron bonds occur on a micro scale, however there effects are clearly observed at the human scale of existence, and we can wrap our own hands around an object and apply direct force in opposing them and directly sense their ability to resist our efforts. I would go so far as to assert, that anything capable of imparting force in the world, or has the capacity to resist forces applied against it, is undertaking work. Is it possible that the electromagnetism which holds the electron bond secure is an energy conserved system, that is 100% efficient with no energy losses over billions of years, all the while issuing the "work" that holds rocks together, which has to be interpreted as some kind of by-product which places no demand on the system. A conserved system implies some kind of stable balance, equilibrium. But how can balance or equilibrium be maintained while work is being demanded of the system, or while it is absorbing forces and issuing resistants to forces?

If you want to upset this argument, then I suggest the way to do it would be to explain how and why the term of "work" does not apply to electron bonds. And the more straightforward and unambiguous your counter argument is, the higher I will judge its quality.

But no need to present a counter argument yet. If you expect my storey will unravel itself under the weight of its own details, and inconsistencies that might inevitably become apparent, then you might simply ask the questions and extends me the rope, which I might use to hang myself. But what I would much appreciate from you is comments and questions that indicate your level of comprehension please? As you have done very well so far.

I'll have more for you soon.

Steve

Thank you Georgina. All of your considerations are excellent. Yes you are approaching the understanding I seek to convey, and you are contrasting it very effectively with conventional interpretations. This is precisely what you need be able to do, to tease out the validity, or non-validity of my arguments. Your focus on conservation laws is well chosen.

I would also like to add, we should not view this discussion as me trying to convince you of anything. It is not my goal that you believe what I am saying. Merely that you comprehend my theme, and are able to contrast it to conventional theory. I felt it might be useful for you if I made that expectation known.

You said

"Likening energy input to combustion of oxygen I have to think about the products as well as the input."

Its good that you question the issue of "products" in terms of the chemical interaction between oxygen and flame. It does lead to a very pertinent issue, which I would much enjoy discussing. But we shouldn't get too carried away with this discussion until you have a firmer grasp on my overall theme. That universal energy emerges as Auv, which is transitioned to Tuv atomic forces, giving a reason for the peculiar equality of Auv = Tuv. But I will give you the short answer for now, and deflect the need for a more in-depth explanation by suggesting that, the oxygen and flame interaction is only intended as an analogy. Analogies are seldom perfect, but the oxygen density in the room and its proportional flame intensity does serve very well within its limited context. The short answer for your question is, the only product that is yielded during the interaction between the Auv elemental field of space, and Tuv matter, is atomic force, which is "work" effort. And this work effort is at the cost of the fields existence. It is annihilated in the process. However if you do want a more in-depth explanation now, then you could refer back to my contest essay. The Auv field is a Darwinian entity, and Darwinian entities benefit from continual re-generation, because otherwise they cant undergo intergenerational exchange and therefore evolutionary progression. The Auv field benefits from this annihilation interaction with matter, because otherwise its habitat of space becomes congested. In this respect, the annihilation process serves the same function mortality serves within biological systems, freeing habitat for consecutive generations. I am satisfied that this serves a good enough reason, to explain the function of the material baryon world and why it came to emerge from this Auv energy field in the first instance. And why all the agencies of matter are directed towards building the structures we observe of the world, evolved in terms of being optimized for their reason for existence, which is efficiency of interaction with the Auv field, to clear the field so that it may regenerate.

Darwinian entities evolve structure and agency best suited for obtaining the thing it is reliant upon to exist. A tuna is a highly refined torpedo of the sea well adapted to catching small fish and squid. Slip streamed, powerful and fast. Their reason for existence characterises everything about what they are, that is what nature does. Galaxies and the matter that forms them, have the structure and agencies characterised for interacting with the Auv energy of space, that provides their ability to mediate force, which enables them to build and maintain the structures we observe, which are optimised for that purpose for existence.

I am familiar with the sense that approaches being a distaste, that entertaining the idea of a Darwinian world brings with it. Darwinian is only a biological process after all. I too found myself confronted by this sense. But my enquiries insisted I confront this possibility, and its explanatory power overcame my objections in time. Now it is the notion of multiverses and many worlds interpretations that seam clumsy and inadequate, in their attempts at explaining the complexity of the world. An organisational principle of nature seams far more reasonable to me now than these alternatives. And the fractured interpretations of SMoC that cant make a unified sense of the world, despite the remarkable equality of various universal measures and observations serving as clues. The measures you and I have been discussing, Auv = Guv = Tuv. My model necessitates these equalities, and it is to my amazement that these equalities exist and have been known about for so long. I did not know about these equalities and reference them to build my model. I only discovered them after having toyed with the idea that space provides the resource that enables atomic force, and that being the reason that gravity = mass, Guv = Tuv. Then I was faced with the challenge of how space might serve as an infinite resource, for which the measure and observation of Auv and its very specific value equality with Tuv became known to me. That Auv = Tuv is a most extraordinary and unlikely association unless they shared an associated process, and of course how it would influence my opinion that I already had such a process in mind.

So I had an idea to test, and found these remarkable and unlikely associations which supported it. So you might appreciate that circumstance effects my perspective. But you don't have the benefit of the reassurance that gave me. Rather, your confronted by a very unfamiliar idea which contradicts important aspects of an understanding which you have hard earnt. But still you ask questions, credit too you. And I hope the existence of these rather unlikely equalities I use to evidence my hypothesis, will be enough to draw your curiosity further.

So theres a bit of waffling there for you. But it paints an aspect of the picture I hope is useful.

Hi Georgina

I hope you can forgive the rough and in-ready state of my explanations. I barely have time at the moment to prepare these at all. But to hone their form in an elegant format like I can do, I havent had time. Its not that I'm unhappy with the function of the points I'm making, but rather their form is less than desirable. But function over form, as they say, and I'm sure you will appreciate!

Steve

Dear Georgina and Steven,

Nature provided us with the simplest visible structure obtainable. The real Universe consists of only one singular unified visible infinite surface occurring in one singular infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. What do you not understand about this? I asked you if reality was visible and neither of you answered my question. I now ask you if reality is understandable? You do not appear to understand your own complex finite theories.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Steven, with respect, I don't want to spend time on an argument against conservation of energy. There are many ways to explain things but the requirement for the possibility of validity, as I see it, is not just explanation of certain specific observations but not requiring abandonment of the basic building blocks that are laws of physics (applying also to chemical and biological systems.) Do not take that badly, I would put your idea in the same basket as the Many worlds hypothesis.