Alternative Models of Reality

JBW: "The 'measurement' of a property does not 'exist' until a physical setup is arranged.... This makes way more sense than the subjective belief that a particle's property doesn't exist until it is observed, which is about as unscientific and laughable a statement as I can imagine."

Strictly empirically speaking these statements are more or less equivalent, depending I guess on how you might choose to interpret the term 'to exist'.

It is correct that measurements of particle properties are only potential measurements until the physical setup is ready and the actual observational event takes place. The difference here is between potential and actual measurements, where the former can still be said to 'exist' in the potential sense. Potential events still need an actual physical setup, a world or an environment, in order to be a potential event. That is to say, their potentiality is derived from the actual observer's world they might take place in.

But likewise for the "assertion that particle 'properties' do not 'exist' until measured." A particle's properties are only potential properties until they are actually measured and become the actual observed properties. This is simply an empirical fact of the matter.

In both cases the 'existence' is potential until it is actualized. And this is true whether or not we're talking about classical particles with discrete properties or a superposition of non-commuting properties. The actual event of any potential observation / measurement is what makes any potentially measurable properties ... actual.

But it seems to me that you want to assert something more about that potential existence--that while potential events don't really exist until they happen, a particle's potential properties do really exist independently of whether they are observed or not. Would that be correct?

If so then this is a much stronger metaphysical claim concerning the 'real existence' of an unobserved particle and its properties, and I take it you lean more towards the realist side of Einstein's position as opposed to 'laughably unscientific' notions concerning what can or cannot be said about the non-classical reality of quantum properties? You would include for example a Many Worlds interpretation in your 'laughable quantum mysticism' category?

As a radical empiricist, all I can say is that a particle's classical or non-classical properties exist only in the potential sense until an actual observation is made, and that that potentiality is what is 'real' most especially where a quantum superposition is concerned. Which I take it is where we might diverge, as from this perspective no actual properties can exist independent of our potential empirical observations. Simply put, there can be no empirical evidence for the reality or otherwise of an unobserved particle's properties, and observation is the key to this historical conundrum!

JBW: "Particles and their properties 'exist' as independently of human intervention or observation."

So here I would prefer to say that particles and their properties can only 'exist' as potential observational events that by simple definition are dependent on the possibility of human or other sentient observation. Which is to say, any actual observable universe such as ours, requires an actual observer at its centre. With no actual observers there are only potential observable universes. And these last exist for us only as pure potentiality.

Steve Agnew: "I hope this will be useful to you and I do encourage your further endeavors."

Thanks for your patience and open minded replies. I came here to bounce some metaphysical ideas around with physicists and adapt my terms and logic to that discourse ... you are very useful indeed Steve!

SA: "You bring up the notion of the universe as a wavefunction, with which I agree.... Quantum entanglement is at the root of things that we cannot know and yet entanglement does affect our lives and so you are right in your surmise about entanglement."

I have a quite specific philosophical model in mind for the observer-observable universe that treats these two not as a dualism but as a unity where you can't conceive of one apart from the other, and I would like to think entanglement as the physical basis for that unity. But this doesn't mean there's a classical physical observer on one end and its observable universe on the other, somehow connected by entangled quantum systems. I'm trying to think of the whole as an entangled system such that the wave function of the observable universe is the universe observing itself. Any notion of the observer being merely one's own subjective individuality here would then be weakly emergent on a fundamentally universal physical phenomenon, that of the wave function of the observable universe and its constantly evolving observational subsystems.

So I think for this model to work, the observer must be defined not as just an isolated physical system, an individual body with sense organs and a physical memory (Everett's automaton), but rather the observer is nothing more than its sensory observations. From this perspective, the wave function of the observer is defined by its constantly evolving observational entanglements with its observable universe. And the total set of possible observational entanglements is described by the wavefunction of that observable universe.

For us humans this observational flux includes one's body senses, but also vision, audition, and the chemical senses. For example, when you look at Achernar in the night sky you become physically entangled with its photons incident on your retina, and that entanglement spanning 140 light years proceeds through to the electrochemical excitation of brain states and whatever cognitive behavioural outputs that may ensue. Unknown to you as you gaze is the faint radiation from the CMB filtering through the atmosphere and incident on your body thus also entangling that physical form and its environment with the horizon of our observable universe. So too with the laboratory setup just at much closer range, there is a sensory flux associated with the somatosensory, audio-visual and chemical sensory inputs, and these flux of physical entanglements together make up the totality of the observational environment within the lab, subject also to the earth's gravitational pull and the other fundamental interactions keeping it all bound together the right way up, so to speak. From this observational perspective the observer and its environment / universe are a constantly decohering / entangling whole.

And as such, there can be no definite physical boundary between this observer and its environment--the whole set of entanglements is the 'observer' in the sense of an ongoing observational event, a flux of entanglements. It's this entangling flux of observation that I want to model as the 'world particle'. As an observational event it has a duration, such as an eyeblink for example, within which time we can observe say the alarm indicating the laser has emitted a photon in the lab. At 1/10 of a second there's a still a world of information that can be conveyed, and assuming the Planck second is a physical limit there would be about 1043 Planck level observational events comprising a single eyeblink.

SA: "You mention four force vectors but this means you are in spacetime. All spacetime forces emerge from particle exchange of quantum field theory and so matter action forces are all exchange forces, not vector forces. Vectors emerge from space and time."

I was more thinking of the four fundamental forces / interactions (strong, weak, EM and gravity) as vectors in the 'world particles' Hilbert space. Is this not an appropriate terminology?

The 'world particle' would then consist of the intersection of these fundamental forces, with the sum of their vectors defining the eigenstate of the 'world particle' at any Planck moment. This momentary eigenstate would be the product of the total entanglements constituting the observer's observable universe before it annihilates and is reconstituted in the next Planck second with the next set of constantly evolving entanglements. It's this series of Planck level events that makes actual the evolution of the observer's physical observational environment, on the order of 1044 times every second.

SA: "It is important to limit the complexification of things by bringing in too many complex terms. It is better to use as simple language as possible for civilians and save the complex math for the technicals..."

I totally agree! And this is absolutely true of philosophical discourse, where there are as many philosophies as there are philosophers to debate them. And we're always talking past one another by using the same terms but in fundamentally different senses. What I would like to do here is find our lowest common metaphysical denominators and work up from there which is why I'm deliberately trying my best not to introduce any technical terms from the philosophy of mind in favour of this world particle 'picture'. From a physics perspective I'm sure it is looking rather more like a cartoon?

Hi Malcolm,

Thanks for reading some of my paper, I really appreciate it.

SR-->QM, QM derived from SR

I definitely lean more towards the realist side of Einstein's position.

"But it seems to me that you want to assert something more about that potential existence--that while potential events don't really exist until they happen, a particle's potential properties do really exist independently of whether they are observed or not. Would that be correct?"

I wouldn't call the properties "potential". The properties are always there. What "state they are in" is the potential. A particle possesses the property of spin as an actuality. It exists. Which direction the spin is pointing is the potentiality. An observer can only find out by doing a measurement.

I agree with you that "observation" is the crux of what measurement is all about. However, I assert that "existence" is apriori to "observation". One cannot observe without oneself existing first, nor can one observe something which does not already exist. The potentialities you mention are the "information" that observers can obtain about physical systems, and that information is limited by the non-zero commutation rules one obtains from the mathematics.

I have been coming at the measurement question in QM from a different perspective than most. I started with the axioms of SR, which are really just a limiting-case of GR, and then went looking for what I needed to get the rules of QM.

As it turns out, there are only a very few empirically-observed facts that are required. One then gets the Klein-Gordon RQM Equation, of which the Schoedinger QM Equation is just the non-relativistic limiting-case.

Superposition is indeed about potentialities, which is partial information about a system. When one performs the actual measurement, the resultant is always in only a single actual state.

I have been coming to the conclusion that the type of equation on has plays a role in whether one is talking about actualities and potentialities.

JohnAttachment #1: SRQM-RoadMap.png

I agree that we and the universe exist together as a whole, but be careful of the term dualism. Dualism has a long history in philosophy and is defined in about as many ways as there are philosophers. Usually people disparage dualism because of the soul separate from body or mind distinct from body and so on.

A wavefunction has both phase and amplitude but a classical particle has only intensity, which is the wavefunction squared. Gravity is a very tiny force that does not seem to have quantum phase while charge and other forces are 1e39th greater and have phase and show interference and entanglement.

When we are in phase, we bond and when we are out of phase, we conflict or scatter. Entanglement is all about phase correlation, but that entanglement can therefore be either bonding or conflicting. Since we bond to this universe and not another, we are in phase and entangled with this universe just as you say.

It is useful to think of light exchange as the glue that binds or indeed scatters all matter. An electron bonds to a proton by exchanging a photon in a hydrogen atom. An observer bonds to a measurement by exchanging a large number of photons. Remember that we get both phase and amplitude with each photon, but we shine on the measurements just as it shines on us and also affects whatever we measure as well. Light exchange is what bonds us to the universe and results in the noncommuting matter and action operators (or position and momentum or many other pairs).

Matter and action are both wavefunctions with quantum phase and therefore show entanglement. Matter and action are a Hilbert space and so you seem to be okay with that term. Be careful with the term annihilate since creation/annihilation operations are what make quantum field theory work.

The collapse of wavefunctions is really no mystery since the quantum fluctuations of charge also result in gravity fluctuations. The noise of gravity fluctuations seems to be more than sufficient to explain wavefunction collapse...

The current status of physics stands on the firm belief of an ultimate reality and a theory of everything. This stems from the thought that there is a notion of reality independent of human thoughts and scientific queries. However, basic knowledge of mathematical science regarding units and measurements is suggestive of relational existence and therefore, no ultimate reality i.e. the perception of reality is based on how we perceive or choose to perceive. This leads to singularity resolution in gravity, results in a well behaved ``small distance'' theory of gravity. The two body interaction given by an infinite series expansion in G-inverse i.e. gravity is asymptotically safe. The mathematics is so easy that it can be taught to an undergraduate student. I have explained it in detail in an essay named ``Contradictions, mathematical science and incompleteness'' posted in the essay competition on 7th April, 2020. I have attached a copy of that essay here also. Any feedback from anybody is appreciated. However, since it is an essay, it contains a bit of dramatic writing that should be taken by the reader personally.Attachment #1: FQXIESS_arxiv.pdf

Hi there John,

"Proves that the 4-VectorPotential A is more fundamental than

e and b fields, which are just components of the Faraday EM Tensor"

I fully agree, its a pity that this is not more well known as well as the Ahranov-Bohm experiment that experimentally verifies this.

"These ideas lead to the conclusion that the wavefunction is just one observer's state of information about a physical system, not the state of the physical system itself. The "collapse" of the wavefunction is simply the change in an observer's information about a system brought about by a measurement or, in the case of EPR, an

inference about the physical state."

I think this is important. I was wondering a few years ago whether sheaves might be important in this context as they, speaking mathematically, glue local objects into global objects.

"Quantum information (qubits) differs strongly from classical information, epitomized by the bit, in many striking and unfamiliar ways."

Just like quantum physics from classical physics! Have you come across quantum logic? I came across it many years ago and I dismissed as not really being logic. But theres some intriguing results I've come across using paraconsistent and intuitionistic logic that revived my interest.

"The QM Schrodinger Equation is not fundamental. It is just the low-energy limiting-case of the RQM Klein-Gordon Equation. All of the standard QM Axioms are shown to be empirically measured constants

or emergent properties of SR. It is a bad approach to start with NRQM as an axiomatic starting point and try to generalize it to RQM, in the same way that one cannot start with CM and derive SR."

I'm not so sure about that. Obviously it's more effective and efficient but I think when we look at the broader picture about how we teach students, then there are other isues to think about.

I mean that it's *pedagogically* useful to demonstrate how people thought about NRQM on their way to RQM. After all, physics isn't a deductive science and we can only demonstrate the inductive method by showing how it has been used. Obviously this has to be used with some discretion othwerwise its just gets too burdensome.

(I also think that people are mistaken about mathematics as a deductive science. It's just as inductive as the other sciences, but of course in a different way. After all, Euclid didn't deduce his axiomatic system).

"Don't bet against Einstein ;)"

I wouldn't either ...

As for superluminal signalling, personally speaking, I think there is more there than correlative effects.

I recently came across this article in Nature that put a lower bound of at least four orders of magnitude than c!

Whatever it is, it's definitely very fast. I find it hard though to believe that its instantaneous...

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07121

Warm wishes,

Mozibur Ullah

Dear Al Schneider,

"Eventually I decided to consult more knowledgeable people. I had a couple friends from some other thread of life that held high positions in the physics community. If I hinted at my idea, they would have nothing to do with it."

Did they at least explain that you were in the right ball-park? The standard model is a progressive elaboration of Maxwells equations which explains light. It goes by in several steps:

1. The Yang-Mills equation generalises Maxwells equation by showing how there is something called a gauge group involved. In Maxwells equation this is just U(1), which is basically a circle.

2. The weak force is then given by specialising the gauge group to SU(2), which without even knowing what it is, and just going by the name can be seen to be a generalisation of U(1).

3. Similarly, the strong force is then given by specialising the gauge group to SU(2), which again going by the name can be seen to be a generalisation of U(1)

So your intuition that the world is basically made up from light is correct. No doubt the 'high-ups' want to see more mathematical detail. But often there is a lot of mathematical papers with a lot of mathematics without there being anything said.

Actually the notion of a gauge group got me confused when I was learning high energy physics. I came from a mathematics background and the way the two different communities - mathematicians & physicists - spoke about it was different. Oscar Wilde said England and the USA were two nations divided by a common language. Likewise for mathematicians and physicists ...

So 'let there be light' is basically correct.

Someone ought to tell the Vatican.

I can't resist adding here that there is a school of philosophy called Illuminationism which was founded by an Iranian philosopher called Suhrawardi. Apparently both Roger Bacon and Robert Grossteste were influenced.

Warm Wishes

Mozibur Ullah

Hello, thanks for sharing your ideas. But if I can, why do you consider that we have only photons like primordial essence, we need a balance for our standard model, it is with this cold Dark matter encoded in nuclei that I have reached even this quantum gravitation. This matter is also encoded in nulcei for me and this cold permits to balance, like a balance between heat and cold, electronagnetism and gravitation, order and disorder,entropy and negentropy, matter anti matter. The fact to consider only photons seem an error, of course the GR and SR are correct but not sufficient at my humble opinion, we need to superimpose a deeper logic. It d be very odd to consider that we have only these photons like main primordial essence, I consider 3 main series of coded spherical volumes in my model and these 3D spheres, one for the space , and two fuels , the photons and this cold dark matter and when they merge they create our tologies, geonetries, properties of matters with fields, energy and particles. I don t understand why many thinkers consider that we have only photons really,

Regards

Dear Steve Duforney

I said that the idea that the universe is made up of photons 'is in the right ball-park' and I explained why. This doesn't mean that there isn't more to consider. For example, in string theory gravitons arise as the resonances of closed strings.

Regards

Mozibur Ullah

Hello,

I like the ball park :) logic I consider that the foundamental mathematical and physical objects are 3D coded series of Spheres, one for the space , the primordial code and two fueld, the åphotons and the cold dark matter, that permits to have a balance between entropy negentropy, matter anti matter, cold heat, electromagnetism gravitation, order disorder....So I don t consider that all is made of photons, and I don t consider these strings like foundamental objects like if all was made of fields. The gravitons of spin 2 are an extrapolation of strings to explain this quantum gravitation, this weakest quantum force, but there are problems of quantification and renormalisation, I have reached it in considering this cold dark matter encoded in nuclei, and that respects this newtonian mechanics when you consider different distances and mass due to these main codes in this space and these 2 fuels, photons and cold dark matter,

Regards

Discussion with David Chester of the quantum gravity research team with Garreth Lisi, Ray Ascheim, Klee Irwin, .... The problem about the strings is really philosophical at my humble opinion.

David Chester s answer

Steve, the only reason I'm interested in strings is because others are. Branes are the way to go, that's what Witten by unifying string theory with supergravity in M-theory. Supergravity has branes. You always talk about spheres, yes, there is Bott periodicity for n-dimensional spheres.

Einstein created multiple theories of gravity, including metric-affine gravity. Tesla should have studied that theory. Tesla had an idea for what gravity was. By the 1990's it was shown that there is a form of symmetric teleparallelism that is equivalent to GR. This gives a canonical energy-momentum tensor...

The problem isn't Einstein or Witten. The problem is everyone not studying their work in full detail.

My answer

David Chester, You have not well understood what I told, the problem is philosophical, we cannot affirm that we have a 1D string at this planck scale and a main Cosmic field like if all was fields, the GR and its details is not the problem, I like this GR , I say that we have probably a deeper logic than this photon like main primordial essence. the Bott periodicity is well and the n dimensional spheres, but that has nothing to do with my 3D coded spheres sent from the central cosmological spheres., I prefer to formalise them with the Clifford algebras, the problem so in that the thinkers forcus only on strings, photons and GR and forget to Think deeper. Tesla was good but he considered also that all was made of fields, can we affirm this ? no , nobody can affirm this and all now they try with tese fields and strings or points to explain the emergent geometries, topologies, matters due to fields. For me it is a fashion and I prefer my 3D coded spheres , particles like main origin, I don t want to change the works of thinkers, they make all what they want, but ne logic, these 3D coded Spheres seem more logic and that respects the wave particle duality and the fields and the energy distribution. I suggest to the thinkers to Think beyond the box and change their philosophies and don t forget to doubt, me I doubt and if I am false I will accept but nobody can prove me that I am false with my philosophy of spherisation and these coded spheres , we don t see this planck scale and we don t know how this universe transforms the energy in matters. You are persuaded, me also lol so we could converge but I find very odd that the persons consider only this GR and photons and strings, is it a business or a blockage in the mind or lobbies ? I don t know but that seems very odd for me, the coded particles are better for me and explain the evoluttion, not the fields because there is a big philosophical problem about this consciousness aand the evolution with these strings and fields like origin of all. Sorry for Witten and the teams working about this but I see like that andd I am frank, never these roads shall explain this quantum gravitation. Don t be persuaded but doubt like I make, we must prove after all what we extrapolate like assumptions, but nobody can prove these strings and the branes or Mtheory or fields, the same for me and my coded spheres. But see well the generality of sciences, all seesm made of coded particles ....3D coded spheres for me , not need to have a 1D towards a 11D. Friendly

Witten has not reached this quantum gravitation, he has not renormalised and quantified it , and he has not proved these strings at this planck scale and this 1d main Cosmic field, sorry. Maybe many confound his field medal for a good work about the mathematical rankings of fields , with his theory, he has well worked I recognise, but is it a reason to accept his exterapolations and assumptions ? My theory os the theory of spherisation, an evolution optimisation of the universal 3D sphere or future sphere with quantum 3d Spheres and cosmological 3D spheres, I don t consider extradimensions, for me it is just a mathematical Tools, we have a pure 3D at all scales, if this universe has chosen the 3D and the 3D spheres, maybe there are reasons, don t complicate the general simplicity of this universe, don t forget the Words of Feynmann in all humility, one day we shall see all the truth and we shall say all, oh my god, how is it possible that we have not seen a thing so simple Before? it is maybe for me because the thinkers have forgotten the generality and the simplicity in focusing on details. It was evident for me, I have found this universal link in ranking a littlee bit of all, animals, vegetals, minerals, maths, physics, Chemistry, evolution, biology and you know how I have had this simple humble Eureka, due to a page of biology where we see the evolution of hominid Brains since the lemurians, we see this relative spherisation also, it was for me incredible, the spheres can create all Shape and geometries and not need to have an external field to create these geometries and topologies, the codes are inside the particles for me and they can be deformed these sspheres simply.

Think well about all this even if I know that it is difficult to change a line of reasoning, I know that Lisi has worked about this E8 and that QGR team works with this but please forget your prison and Think deeper, I know that you have a business als...Voir plus

Can you prove that all what I tell is false? No , the same for me , we cannot affirm but see well the general philosophy and the nature around you, the universe at all scales is very simple and logic....Even Einstein was clear about these photons and GR , he has never told that they were the only one piece of puzzle ....

I have asked on FQXi to have Witten to discuss, Hooft, Susskind, Baez and Connes, together we can with these 3D spheres coded and with the Clifford algbras make an incredible revolution if we formalise this space and the two fuels, I wait , I hope they shall come on FQXi, they are good mathematician and that can be relevant in complementarity in forgetting the vanity

lol how the thinkers can affirm that the way to go are the branes lol and these strings and the correlated philosophy about how this universe transforms the energy ??? is it a joke, who can affirm ? they speak to God dear David Chester? Me I want well but it is odd for me all this. Is it the lobbies of strings the problem or the Vanity or what , a lack of generality and simplicity?

Hi Mr Kampaktsis, welcome to this wonderful platform,

I am not a specialist of this time, but for me I see it like a pure universal duration correlated with a pure entropical irreversible Arrow of time. I beleive strongly that it is like an universal general Clock of evolution. I don t beleive that we can check it really , we cannot for me travel in time because respecting the evolution andencodings of informations, we could have a problem os mass equivalence if we travel in the past or the future. But we know that with the relativity we can decrease our internal Clocks in travelling at c, so we can go in a kind of future but the problem is that we cannot return at our present. An other thing about this time respecting this general relativity is that we see our past more we observe far in the space, for example we see our sun 8M20sec in late, it is good tool to observe the universe and its evolution, we can better understand the evolution of this universe. But I consider it purely irreversible and it cannot be checked for me, but of course it is just my opinion.

Best Regards

I study the Clifford algebras and Bott periodicty for these spheres and I try to find a conjecture unifying the two different philosophical interpretations about this main origin of our universe, my 3D coded spheres or the fields, it exists probably something there to unify, not easy I must say.

the periodicity in the homotopy groups of classical groups, which proved to be of foundational significance for much further research, there is convergence with the K theory but I am interested to converge with the 3D coded spheres like primoridal essence as well as the stable homotopy groups of spheres. The quaternionic symplectic group becomes interesting for the homomorphism i from the homotopy groups of orthogonal groups to stable homotopy groups of spheres, now in inserting the good number for these finite primordial coded series of 3D spheres, that can become very relevant with the Clifford algebras. This poincare conjecture also becomes relevant and an intrinsic Ricci flow more the lie groups, derivatives and algebras, and the topological and euclidian spaces, an universal partition exists in logic with these motions of 3D spheres, their rotations and oscillations more the 3 main finite series thjat I have explained, one for the main space, this gravitational aether and the two others, the fuels, the photons and this cold dark matter.

The Hopf fibrations on 2D surfaces of My 3D spheres permit to rank a lot of quasiparticles under excitations, these finite primordial finite series of 3D spheres more these hopf fibrations on their surfaces can permit to rank and discover many quasiparticles. The phonons, polarons,magnons,plasmons, excitons, are just a small part of all these rankings.

The rankings with the Hopf fibration on 2D surfaces, more the motions rotations of these 3D finite series, one for the space, and the two fuels can show us an universal partition if it is well utilised, see these relevances for the ranking of all these 3D spheres with the angles of rotations, sense of rotations permiting to balance and di fferenciate this negentropy and entropy with the cold and heat, the photons and this cold dark matter encoded also, in fact we can rank many things, the particles, the fields and quasiparticles with the volumes of these finite primordial series having the same finite number than our cosmological finite serie of spheres ,more the fact that this space disappears with the gravitation space aether, the main codes and the two fuels. We can rank the motions, the volumes, the 2D surfaces with these hopf fibrations, the densities due to synchro, sortings, superimposings, the moments, orbital and spinal rotations, the mass, this and that, in fact the combinations are infinite.

Dear contest particiants,

I have recently proposed a new theory of quantum gravity, which I named Spontaneous Quantum Gravity. According to this theory, underlying quantum indeterminism, there is a deterministic theory at the Planck scale.

If this is of interest to you, please have a look at the following recent paper:

Nature does not play dice at the Planck scale

Thank you,

Tejinder

Dear Singh,

I am not sure why you are upset by your score. You are a FQXI member with a lot of knowledgeable peers, so they can evaluate your theory a lot better than the huge majority of the contestants who are mostly pseudo philosophers, arm chair physicists and what not.

Also, given the huge numbers of essays, people are unable to dig into essays that need careful study. My essay is that kind, so I use the opportunity to enhance its results but do not expect people to dig deep and I am not interested in political chit chat for the score.

Tejinder,

Your new gravity theory agrees with with the 2019 collaboration paper cited in my essay, as a 'Higgs Condensate' dark energy effect. You didn't cite that so I assume may not have seen it. I agree it's basis but didn't find an ontological explanation, or relationship with EM's similar 'action at a distance'. Do you have any different ideas in those regards? If so can you outline? ..and give your views on mutual consistency. www.isaacpub.org/images/PaperPDF/TP_100087_2019070910523565700.pdf

Tejinder,

I was intrigued by your FQXi essay. Thanks for this reference to you paper, which takes this to a deeper level. I will try to respond here for a day or so, but this page has a lot of posts and is pretty cranky at loading.

Cheers LC

I am new here, and I was not sure whether to send my question to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. So, I send it to both.

I have found a simple method to calculate alpha (α) based on phi (φ) .007297352569... My question is: An alpha constant based on phi, if true, (I guess only time will tell), would that confirm that alpha (α) is a perfect unchanging constant? Because phi is.

I am new here, and I was not sure whether to send my question to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. So, I send it to both.

I have found a simple method to calculate alpha (α) based on phi (φ) .007297352569... My question is: An alpha constant based on phi, if true, (I guess only time will tell), would that confirm that alpha (α) is a perfect unchanging constant? Because phi is.