Alternative Models of Reality

Give nature an energy potential and it will invent a Darwinian circumstance of emergence. Take early oceanic life for example, algae invented a way to exploit the suns energy in a process known as Photosynthesis, which then founded the base of a food chain that blossomed through a diversified range of organisms of increasing levels of character and complexity. Krill that eat the algae, in turn eaten by small fish, eaten by bigger fish and squid, eaten by tuna, sharks, birds, dolphins and whales.

Auv cosmological emergence is a like circumstance of Darwinian emergence, as a result of an as yet unidentified natural energy potential. Like the algae, this Auv elemental field of space foundations the base of a system that has compounded ever higher levels of universal order and complexity, in the form of atomic and cosmological structure. This is how elaborate Gluon and photon characteristics have emerged in the universe, and the circumstance whereby their activity is enabled by a metabolism of an Auv elemental field of space.

Loops, braids and Knots approach is forming a dynamical existence model where the "big bang" is just the initial setup while the existential evolution is still going on ...

I recent weeks I had started to read "Approaches to Quantum Gravity", edited by Daniele Oriti. A quite expensive (166 €) but very good book, worth every single Euro.

Especially remarkable is the introduction written by Carlo Rovelli, title: "Unfinished Revolution". And indeed, this is true in a doubled sense: it is a revolution and it is unfinished.

Rovelli tends quite well to a more fundamental approach where the physical heuristics is not just based on the evolution of understanding of our math based tools.

The second article I want the refer to is the one of Olaf Dreyer called "Emergent relativity".

Olaf Dreyer refers to macroscopic systems as internal relative in the sense that they establish the framework of space-time just by the relation of events to each other, so space-time is not existent for the single particle but is emergent with bigger quantum systems.

Olaf Dreyer start's with the only prerequisite of "coherent degrees of freedom", a setting that constitutes an external framework where the "internal" system is embedded in, so that it can't view it's embedding in an exterior system.

So, there is an isolation between the embedded / created system and the embedding / creating system.

This is quite fundamental and I had developed a similar approach where I coined these degrees of freedom "unoccupied potentials" or "UP".

Those unoccupied potentials are isolated in a way that we can not define an universal associativity between those potentials, but possibly they define a topology.

The "UP" belong to a system (maybe a multiverse or an embedding reality of unknown nature) that does not "use" functionally those potentials in the way that they are stable enough to organize towards a new, functional decoupled system, which is our universe or other universes.

Let's denote the set of the components of our world, created by that process "N".

Let us call the set of the unoccupied potentials "D", let us call the probability space of the evolution of the parts of N "A".

We can call A the "quantum level".

Let us now define a function set F = H + G, where H maps N->A and G maps N->D.

D->A->N is something like the "big bang", a fundamental cosmological event, where N is created. It marks the advent of universal associativity.

As you already know (I wrote it here for some times):

N=F{A,D} =H{A{D}} + G{D}, (equation 1)

where N_h = H{A{D}} (equation 1.1)

... and:

N_g = G{D} (equation 1.2)

"Relativity" in the sense of relativistic behavior is encoded within such a setting in the part G{D}.

It comes up always if the "delta N" affects D, the set of the unoccupied potentials (v->c, mass and energy concentration) insofar dependent from N.

Or if the D acts back on N in the "rare" case that one or more unoccupied potential of the infinite "UP" will become occupied (by the embedding reality / multiverse again) and the d_i "d element D" will fall out of the equation 1.

This can be seen as infinitesimal dynamics on the one hand (mathematically), but it is a sort of entropy of the existence giving system "UP" (physically) by shrinking or expanding D by some more or some less d_i (element of D).

The average setting of the "UP" with regard to creations and removals of those infinitesimal elements + / - d_i is in my model responsible for the specific setting of the cosmological constant.

And now, quite suddenly, time:

t = N_h / N_g = H{A{D}} / G{D} (equation 2)

The functions N_h and N_g must have some "topological support" -that can be make more dense further to algebraic structures - on the unoccupied potential "UP" in order to get functionally connected via sub-algebras.

This means:

Although we have no general associativity between the elements of the "UP", there are "rare" / "finite" cases where elements or sets of elements can fit together anyway. These cases could be algebraic in their nature or just mapped that way.

"Finite" could mean something like the possible baryon count for our universe of 10 exp 80.

The back-reaction of the created system composed of {N}, basically isolated from the creating system based on {D}, towards the creating system via another mechanism / an alternative topology, that is the essence of models like this.

The map:

X = D->[f]->N->A

... is different from:

Y = N->A->[g]->D.

Both maps, X and Y are maps that are creating relativistic effects.

Y by movement -> c and acceleration, X by mass concentration locally as gravity and globally by the change of Kappa, the cosmological constant.

We can possibly define another map Z, that looks like:

Z= N->[m]->A->D

..., which describes a case, where a "macroscopic configuration change" effects coherently the particle / quantum level and by this induces a process / map "A->D", which is a non-local process with many a_i "element A" involved.

And if any configuration in N realizes the map Z, then the function "m" can modify D, say: we are acting back onto the level or creation or existence. As we know nothing about this system, such a back reaction would probably create just a sort entropy, that is gravity.

An example for this could be NASA's QThruster or EMDrive or my proposal for a Gyropeatron.

The bases for such processes is non-locally "coherent" quantum activity, such that the underlying virtual quantum processes (VQP) are not arbitrary but in a certain correlation, thus inducing a chain of virtual quantum activity ("VQA") that acts "coherent" back on D. For the QThruster this result in a setting, that produces micro-gravity.

So, the narrative that Quantum Gravity is only an issue at or near the Planck scale, do possibly not hold in those special cases of "coherent VQA" where it QG could come around already at the micro scale and subsequently is in our technological reach if we can transform quantum processes to UP-coherence.

In order to get this done, we have to listen to that process first, we have to "listen" at quantum processes first.

Of course, this back-reaction to D is to define in greater detail and clarity. Possibly we can coin Olaf Dreyer' s "coherent degrees of freedom" this way more detailed using this conceptual route.

Some thoughts about Dark matter in the "UP" / internal relativity context:

If we change our equation one as follows to a multiverse setting:

N_n=F_j{A_m,D_i} =H{A_m{D_i}} + G_j{D_i}, (equation 3),

... and the X_h, Y_k and Z_p are describing the respective maps in all universes of the multiverse.

We want to suppose that the UP's of those universes are separated, but not completely, so there is possibly an intersection I_d off all D_i which is subject to all maps X_h, Y_k and Z_p.

According to our above described relativistic model all X->I_d, Y->I_d and Z_I_d are creating in this case relativistic effects in all universes, contributing that way the missing amount of mass that can contribute to the gravitational settings of the galaxy's.

Knots and Loops Model:

One can imagine this construction by a geometric-algebraic - where the geometric parts supports our intuition and the algebraic parts make it mathematically concrete - model of Loops, Braids and Knots while the knots are arising from the loops and then feeds back partially to the loop (G{D}) and moreover creating secondary loops, forming braids that are transporting and exchanging energy.

The loop is represented by D / UP and the knot is representing N, the general n-fold. The knot (which represents essentially matter) is not purely local, it is connected by other loops and braids with other knots.

The knot is represented by a sub-algebra over D, which is picking certain elements k_j out of D into N.

The whole mechanism is about Entropy and Information, which are forming a system in an "active state of existence".

This model is describing "existence" as a dynamical process which could have initial bursts ("big bang") but then evolves further in interaction with the base of existence as well as with the created function set in the shape of a "universe" over D.

So:

E{D} = K{D} + B{D} - I{D} (equation 4)

G{D} = K{D} + B{D} (equation 5)

and:

E{D} = G{D} - I{D} (equation 6)

where:

+ E{D} is the overall entropy going back to the loop / D,

+ G{D} is positive entropy expressed withing N as gravity,

+ K{D} is the knot, representing matter components,

+ B{D} is the braid and

+ I {D} represents information.

Thus E{D} represents the overall entropy brought back on D / UP, where is G{D} is the source of gravity, subtracted by the information I{D}, coming from the knots.

If E{D} works "coherent" back to D, (which is the case for E{D} < 0, so I{D} > G{D}, the d_i count will increase and Kappa, the cosmological constant, will be negative, the universe will expand.

If G{D} > 0, which implies G{D} > I{D}, the d_i count will decrease, kappa will grow and the universe will shrink.

Parts of the outgoing loops from the knots are branching into other loops, forming ("energy-like") braids.

Physical interactions in general (except gravity) are going also via braids in the loops.

Loops between some knots are closed while loops over many knots are producing themselves knots, then representing an inertial system.

Knots in general are increasing the entropy of the loop because they extracting "information" from the loops ("D").

But if the knots are feeding the extracted energy into other loops which are creating themselves knots, then they could act back coherently to D, which is I{D}.

I{D} is always coming from equipping loops with a knot, which have to be for that purpose in a coherent state, which means that it is stable and represents a function towards D, so D = f(I) or I{D} = - E{D}

This energy is coming back to the Loop / to "D" as entropy, as some of the d_i of the D are branching out into the knot-forming sub-algebra.

to be continued...

Some personal remarks:

I know that this is pretty heavy stuff for some people, maybe especially for whom the world ends with Standard Model, Planck Scale and General Relativity.

What we can think it in principle, what we can describe is the measure for our mind, the outer boundary for what is possible in principle, for what could be possible in principle.

So, we can model completely new aspect of reality but we have to detail it also much more.

This is not only about physics though. It is about deep and so far hidden connections between mathematics and physics. Especially important is the supposed fact, that mathematics is still able to describe the "UP" - the unoccupied potential.

Another thing is the fundamental importance of virtual quantum processes (domain "A") as a layer of systematic "action" (not: "interaction"!) between the UP and our physical world, a layer of reality, where general commutative and associative behavior is not given from the onset.

Equation Z= N->[m]->A->D offers in principle the possibility to address gravity technologically by designing chains of micro-(quantum-) processes, implementing matter-energy-based technological solutions far before the Planck scale, like QThruster / EMDrive is one, opening completely new and hitherto unthinkable technologies.

So, the road map I describe above, is to be seen as a practical way for designing technological systems which are implementing Quantum Gravity practically.

Best regards from Berlin,

Robert Gallinat

Electromagnetism is considered one of the four fundamental forces of nature.

Another force considered as fundamental is the strong nuclear force, for which the Gluon is the mediator, which importantly is the generator of "mass", which is the property of matter which responds to gravitational fields. Or I could have said it like this "The strong nuclear force makes the "MASS" which motivates the gravitational acceleration".

Why do people believe gravity is a forth fundamental force independent of the other three, when clearly the strong nuclear force generates the property of matter "mass" that responds to gravitational fields? Why dont they acknowledge that Gluons mediate the force that drives gravitational acceleration? Because they are not trained as detectives to follow evidentary clues.

But your question is about connecting magnetism to gravity, and it appears I have connected Gluon activity to gravity instead. What you have to realize is that Gluons and electromagnetism (EM) are very very similar entities as one another. So to relate gravitational interaction with EM, I show you that Gluons and EM are closely related.

How are Gluons and EM related? They are related in every way! Electromagnetism is light (photons), and a useful value we can attribute to light is its velocity C. Mass is a measure of Gluon activity, and mass is a very tidy sum multiple of the speed of light kg x C x C. Or famously E=MC2. So it can be said that Gluon activity and Photon activity are correlated via proportionate magnitude of one another. Gluons and Photons also perform very similar roles as one another, in much the same way as one another. Gluons create the bonds which hold the nucleolus together, and photons create the bonds that hold electron bonds together. The theory of charge applies to both the Gluon and the Photon in the mediation of their bond interactions. You can visualize them as operating in very much the same way as one another. I could go on all day long about the similarities between Gluons and Photons, but that should be enough to make my point of their relation.

So anyway, the key point to take home is that Gluons operate very much the same way as light (EM) does. Light can propel itself through the voids of space, so why couldn't Gluons be responsible for a similar capability of generating motion? Gluons generate mass, and mass motivates gravitational acceleration, so this is indeed how it can be interpreted.

Magnetism and gravity are related, because an entity which is very closely related to magnetism, that is to say "Gluons" are the driving force for gravitational acceleration. Simple! Why dont people realize this? Because they are to confused by the idea that somehow the concept of "spacetime" will inform them how, why objects are set to motion. How can time motivate motion? is a question which leads nowhere!

I appreciate what you are saying, and judge you fairly for saying it. You have to appreciate that is only a page of explanation, and so is stated in simple terms. I can provide further justifications. But it is an interesting idea isnt it, that Gluons are much the same as light, and light has the capacity for motion. That Gluons might be the force provider that motivates gravitational accelerations?

I could answer toward your points directly, or I could provide a more interesting explanation from which you could infer the answers you need? Which I will do, but we can always come back to individual points whenever you like.

If you are willing, I would like to discuss the question of the origin of force? Again lets focus on Gluons and photons, which is to say, strong nuclear force and electromagnetic force, whos actions are ascribed to the theory of "Fundamental Forces". Within this context, the word fundamental might be interpreted as a theoretical "first cause". Or force with no prior cause.

There are some basic problems with the theory of "force with no prior cause". It raises the same general criticisms we might have for the notion of perpetual energy machines. But are these same general criticisms rightly directed towards the function of atomic forces? Fundamental forces do a lot of different things, but we want to identify an action which is clearly in the business of undertaking "work action" and therefore cannot be interpreted as energy conserving. So let us focus on EM electromagnetic electron bonds which glues matter together. I select electron bonds because they manifest a property of matter which we can appreciate at the macro scale of human existence, and which we can wrap our own hands around an object, and directly sense the "work effort" these electromagnetic forces are responsible for mediating.

The question is, how can perpetual work effort exist without prior cause? If we try to excuse this situation, as fundamental forces being energy conserved systems, then how do you extract work from such a system without affecting its internal checks and balances?

I know it seams as though I'm leading us toward an intangible circumstance, for which the activities of matter cannot be provided a rational explanation. But I'm not. I'm leading us down a well considered path, which I hope gives reason enough to entertain the novel solution I will provide. It is a solution which prescribes a prior cause for atomic forces, while solving a number of further problems confronting scientific understanding.

Let us consider the possibility that the following two questions have the same answer. What is the nature of the interaction between space and matter, that would marry quantum mechanics and general relativity? and what is the prior cause of atomic forces?

Let us envision, space containing a physical element which matter is in the business of consuming, to enable matters forceful activities. Guv = Tuv is the conventional interpretation of the interaction between space and matter. If it is indeed an energy transfer and conversion to atomic force, then the equality demonstrated of each of these terms bodes well. However, a conceptual challenge to this notion, would be as follows. If space contains an elemental field that is consumed by matter, then wouldn't it be a finite resource that would eventually be depleted? And on the face of it, you might think that presents an end to this conjecture. But it doesnt.

Space isn't only described in terms of Guv. Space also has a property which is described as cosmological expansion, and termed as Auv. For the benefit of this conjecture, I'll ask you to consider the possibility that Auv is a measurement that corresponds to a regenerative process undertaken by an elemental field inhabiting space, which continually replenishes the potential, that in turn drives atomic forces. For this hypothesis to have any prospect, there would have to be a link between the value of Auv (cosmological expansion) and Tuv (atomic forces) that demonstrate an equality. And indeed, such a measure has been known about for many years. Those interested please quiz me?

Auv = Guv = Tuv.

This line of conjecture provides something further. Entities which continually regenerate have the prospect of compounding changes over time and evolving. Generationally compounded change, conceivably can lead simple systems toward heightened levels of order and complexity. The character of structures that evolve in such a system, as exampled by life, can be used to infer the circumstances of their evolution, revealing motives and purpose, which in turn convey reasons and meanings. Does this conjecture lead to an interpretation of universal emergence that explains for its very particular style of order, complexity, fine tuning? It does, and I am part way through the process of uncovering an interpretation of it.

It goes something like this. Give nature an energy potential and it will invent a circumstance of Darwinian emergence which leads to heightened levels of complexity. Whether that is Algae which evolves the ability for photosynthesis, which exploits the freely available natural energy potential of the sun, which then becomes the basis of a food chain that leads to diverse organisms of increasingly complex character. Algae eaten by krill, eaten by small fish, eaten by bigger fish and squid, eaten by tuna, sharks, dolphins and whales. Could this be how all complexities evolve in the world, including atomic and cosmological structure?

Could Auv cosmological emergence be the result of a natural energy potential, ( as yet unidentified physical process), which has lead to a Darwinian cascade that provides circumstance, reason and purpose for the structures, complexity, fine tuning, we observe in the world around us? I am building the case so that people might be able to judge merit. Writing to you now provides me an opportunity for practice.

Dear Theoretical Physicists,

According to the FQXi.website, "If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread..."

I obediently posted my contention that only nature could produce the simplest constructed Universe , therefore, the real Universe must consist of only one singular unified visible infinite surface occurring in one singular infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Please do not remove this entrancing post.

Joe Fisher, Realist

All,

Here is an interesting puzzle for you to ponder.

The attached .pdf file presents a slight variation on conservation of momentum. The puzzle is that the mathematical system is over-specified. There are 6 equations available but only 5 variables to determine. Therefore, one of the equations is either unneeded or redundant.

Discussion/Comments are generally welcomed.

Best Regards,

Gary SimpsonAttachment #1: Momentum_Conservation.pdf

Dear Joe Fisher,

I do not read anything posted by you.

Gary Simpson

Dear Gary D Simpson, and all readers,

Unfortunately, you do not appear to have read the first comment posted in this area written by Dr. Brendan Foster that reads: "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.)"

After spending years researching reality, I have concluded that only Nature could provide the simplest reality obtainable.

The real visible Universe must consist of only one unified infinite visible surface occurring in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. The Gobi Desert and the Atlantic Ocean and Polar Icecaps are all naturally formed. The one visible thing that they have in common is that each of them has a complete surface. Not only that, each grain of sand in the Gobi Desert, each fish and strand of seaweed in the Atlantic Ocean and each icicle and flake of snow located at the Polar Icecaps also have a complete surface. The Tower of London and the Great Wall of China and the Verrazano Narrows Bridge are all man-made constructions. The only one thing they have in common is that all three of them have a complete visible surface. Each rivet and piece of angle iron and brick also has a visible surface. Only infinite surface has ever existed. There has never been any space or holes in that infinite surface.

I would really appreciate any feedback you may care to offer.

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

Dear Steven, and all readers,

Unfortunately, you do not appear to have read the first comment posted in this area written by Dr. Brendan Foster that reads: "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.)"

After spending years researching reality, I have concluded that only Nature could provide the simplest reality obtainable.

The real visible Universe must consist of only one unified infinite visible surface occurring in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. The Gobi Desert and the Atlantic Ocean and Polar Icecaps are all naturally formed. The one visible thing that they have in common is that each of them has a complete surface. Not only that, each grain of sand in the Gobi Desert, each fish and strand of seaweed in the Atlantic Ocean and each icicle and flake of snow located at the Polar Icecaps also have a complete surface. The Tower of London and the Great Wall of China and the Verrazano Narrows Bridge are all man-made constructions. The only one thing they have in common is that all three of them have a complete visible surface. Each rivet and piece of angle iron and brick also has a visible surface. Only infinite surface has ever existed. There has never been any space or holes in that infinite surface.

I would really appreciate any feedback you may care to offer.

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

All,

I am curious, does anyone read the posting of Joe Fisher? If so, can someone articulate in their own words what he believes and how that belief would be empirically tested.

I am also curious, does anyone read my posts:-)

On a more serious note, what is the difference between an earnest amateur and a complete crack pot? I'm not pointing my finger at anyone in particular ... none of us will know the truth until after it is discovered and then everyone will claim to have known it all along.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Hi Gary

Yeah I'm kind of wondering the same thing. If people are reading mine then they arent placing comment. I wouldnt have expected my approach to appeal to everybody, but I would have thought somebody here would find something of it interesting. I had thought my essay score was a reflection of how interesting people found the topics. That in the lee of the contest I might have people interested to talk about it. Not the case.

I hadnt looked at your work before now. Now that I have I see it delves into extra dimensions, and involving mathematical descriptions. If you only had one paragraph with which to explain the main theme of your work and what you feel it achieves, then what would you say?

Steve

Halton Arp's observations that demonstrate an association between quasars and a galaxy of their apparent origin. They are visually evident. At face value, its reminiscent of life's process of cellular division. Quark separation which spontaneously generates new quarks is also reminiscent of life's process of cellular division. Highly suggestive observations that imply matters ability to replicate itself.

When cells divide in the process of replicating themselves, it allows for genetic drift, which compounds changes over many generations and allows for the process of natural selection and evolution. This is how highly complex systems emerge within biology. The question of complexity in physics is a huge problem to answer, and for which SMoC doesnt have the slightest grapple on. Thats why there is speculation about multiverses, to attempt explain complexity of the world. Could this be the mechanism that explains our fine tuned universe, and the emergence of articulated structure on atomic and cosmological scales? Let us dare to speculate.

Life on earth builds complex ecosystems, but all these ecosystems have one thing in common. It is the simplest life forms which tap into and exploit a "natural energy potential" which then becomes a food chain for organisms of increasing complexity. Such as oceanic Algae which exploits the suns energy potential, Algae eaten by krill, krill eaten by small fish, eaten by bigger fish and squid, and in tern eaten by highly complex organisms like tuna, sharks, dolphins, whales, birds etc etc. Give nature a natural energy potential and it will invent a circumstance of Darwinian emergence.

Now I jump to a concept that on first appraisal seams bonkers. But given a chance it achieves things you wouldnt expect.

I reiterate. Give nature a natural energy potential and it will invent a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. With this in mind, space is thought to contain an emergent energy, which takes its measure from cosmological redshift and referred to as Auv within theory of general relativity. Pop media refer to as mysterious Dark Energy. Presumably whatever Dark Energy is, it is exploiting a natural energy potential to preliterate itself. So let us speculate that DE might serve as the foundation of a system from which complexity has arisen, complexity in the form of the material baryonic universe that we are made of. If this were to be the case, then what clue can we assume from it that we might be able to conceptually test?

The link that stands unbroken between Algae and organisms of higher complexity within Earth ecosystems, is the passing of the suns energy from one organism to the next. One organism eats another, and I emphasize the term "metabolism" as the process that enables the energy transfer. So if we're looking at this circumstance with a view to obtaining insight that we might test, then let us test the idea that atomic forces are enabled by a process akin to "metabolism". A metabolism which converts Dark Energy into atomic activity. Could this be the nature of the interaction between space and matter that would marry quantum mechanics with general relativity? The conventional approach to atomic force is "fundamental force". The term "Fundamental" can be interpreted as "first cause" or "original cause" but of course there is no prior cause attributed to the work effort that fundamental forces are capable of. This amounts to it being a "causeless work effort". So by ascribing the ability for atomic forces to undertake work actions, to a process of interaction that is a metabolism between Dark Energy and Baryon matter, it gives us a concept to test further.

For this hypothesis to yield anything further of interest, it would have to be demonstrated that there was a prospective link between Auv and Tuv. That is to say, the value assigned to the emergence of space Auv, and the value assigned to universal Baryons Tuv. And whats amazing, is that this connection is clearly identifiable and has been known about for decades. But the conventional cosmological model couldn't make sense of these connections between the equality of Auv and Tuv, and so has been put aside as a mere curiosity. Rather than listen to me going on about them, here is a short 9 minute video of Paul Dirac making a muddle of these associations by trying to interpret them within the conventional model. But pay attention to where he derives the parameters of his hypothesis from and you will see they are indeed an indication of the associations needed if atomic forces originate from an interaction with space, that in term originates as Dark Energies emergence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o8mUyq_Wwg

Give nature an energy potential and it will invent a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. Dark Energy might be the result of just such an energy potential, and which serves as the basis of an integrated system able to compound changes, leading to ever higher levels of order and complexity of the world. Atomic and cosmological structure provided an explanation.

Hello Steve,

I seldom comment on posts that I read unless I have a question or something useful to say. I did not read your essay during the contest but I have now done so. I see that you argue for Darwinism. That is as good an explanation as any and several of the essay that I read made similar arguments.

If I had to describe what I am attempting to do, I would say that I am reimagining physics using the mathematics of Hamilton rather than the mathematics of Riemann and Grassmann. What have I accomplished? See "Quaternion Dynamics Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. They are all posted to viXra.org. For me, the connection between the math and the physics is Equation 2 in my 2017 essay.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Dear Gary and Steven,

I have read your essays and I have read your comments. Unfortunately, you do not appear to understand simplicity..Dr. Brendan Foster, who happens to be the administrator of this site clearly stated in the first comment: ""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.)"

With best regards,

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Gary and Steven,

I have read your essays and I have read your comments. Unfortunately, you do not appear to understand simplicity..Dr. Brendan Foster, who happens to be the administrator of this site clearly stated in the first comment: ""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.)"

With best regards,

Joe Fisher, Realist

Hi Gary

You read my essay! Thats nice of you. I will return the favor and have a look at your work. Maths is not my strong suit, but I'm sure I can make some sense of it.

I'm perhaps a good audience for you, because I am of the opinion that maths is merely the tool set from which several internally consistent mathematical interpretations of natural are possible. If you have fashioned an alternative mathematical model then I'm willing to judge it on its own merit. In my opinion, to many people confuse mathematics with the theory, but maths is only a tool employed to describe the theory. When the maths becomes the theory, then a person handicaps themselves. Its an important distinction. The misconception can lead advocates of general relativity for example, to resist all proposed amendments, because the maths has been wrongfully instated as the sacred cow.

Steven,

Many thanks and good luck with the reading. The math is not as difficult as you might think. I was not formally educated regarding quaternions and such. What little I know has been largely self-taught. So, I try to write and explain as clearly as possible.

The URL for the postings to viXra.org is:

http://vixra.org/author/gary_d_simpson

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Thank you Gary

I will have a look. I dont mind being prompted, and it will remind me in event that I get distracted :) But yes I am interested.

Steve

I'm practising variations on my theme. Heres another one

The universal and all structures within as a singular fractal process. From micro atomic structure through to macro cosmological structure, for which it has long been noted share a remarkably similar structural theme as one another. Electron shells surrounding atomic nucleus resembling the orbit of planets around stars. Further more, that atoms glued together to form molecular chains of atoms, resemble not only solar systems that build the composite structures of galaxies, but also the filaments and walls of galaxies that resemble elaborate molecules, but are the cosmological web. The universe on the smallest and grandest scales.

What I find most fascinating, is the origin of that which motivates the formation of all these structures. Obviously it is the electromagnetic force which motivates the molecular structure building, which is responsible for electron bonding that builds rocks and humans. But there is an aspect which closely relates the building of molecular structure to that of cosmological structure, which it seems to me is selectively overlooked. It is the property of matter that is mass, that responds to gravitational fields and which therefore motivates cosmological structure building, planets, stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters. It is the Gluon within the nucleus of the atom which is primarily responsible for the generation of mass. What becomes supremely interesting about this, is what Gluons and Electromagnetism share in common with one another, and in light of the fact they are collectively responsible for all universal structure.

Both Gluons and Electromagnetism are treated within conventional theory, as the mediators of fundamental force. Also, both of these forces are ascribed to the theory of charge, to describe their undelaying mechanics, QCD and QED within respective order. Also, Gluons and EM are associated with one another in respect of a proportional magnitude, that mass is a measure of Gluon activity, and the value of mass is a very tidy summed multiple of the value of the propagation speed of EM. The speed of light, as is famously represented by E=MC2, mass = kg x C x C. Or I could have said, and to press my point home, Gluon activity = kg x C x C.

So the take home point becomes, note that Gluons and EM are responsible for all universal structure building, and that both of these properties of matter are remarkably similar to one another. Focus on their similarities.

The question becomes, why and how do Gluons and EM conspire to build the universal we witness around us?

Lets start with the "How" question. Conventional theory ascribes to the concept of "fundamental force". Which could just as easily be termed as, "force with no prior cause". The problem with this notion, is that these forces are contributing work effort to the world, and how can work effort be causeless? If instead atomic activity is enabled by the interaction which exists between space and matter, an energy transfer, then fundamental forces can be ascribed to having a prior cause.

Now the "why" question. Why would this circumstance have arisen, whereby the atomic activity via the actions of Gluons and EM, would be in the business of consuming an energy potential of space, and directing it to building articulated elaborate structures? And this is where I return to the theme of my original post. Give nature an energy potential and it will invent a circumstance of Darwinian emergence, leading to heightened levels of complexity. This is the new light I would like people to shine on the observation and measure of cosmological redshift, the cosmological constant, Dark Energy. An entity which has emerged from a natural energy potential with the ability to proliferate itself, which came to serve as the basis of a Darwinian circumstance of emergence which has led to a universe of compounded complexity and structured order. This is why Gluon and EM activity are reliant on the interaction with space that brings them energy, which in turn gives them the ability to mediate force, which is directed through evolved purposeful actions to build the universe we observe around us. The baryonic universe is structured in such a way that is optimised for its reason for existence, which is to interact efficiently with Auv space. Or Dark Energy, if you prefer.

In this respect, all the agencies of matter can be viewed as having reasons, and reasons are the basis of meaning. SMoC doesn't trade in meanings, because chance occurrences don't prescribe them. Whereas this explanation offers natural meanings in abundance, even to the extent of suggesting that molecular bonds form ridged bodies that enable persistent structures in a highly kinetically energetic universe. EM electron bonds glue matter together to maintain optimized structure. Give electron bonds a reason, and you've given meaning for chemistry which is the property of matter which builds electron bonds. Give chemistry a reason, and you can give meaning to why there are wet worlds, as water can be viewed as a universal solvent which facilitates chemical reactions that build the electron bonds that form rocks, that cements the earth's surface into a ridged rocky sheet. So given reasons for universal complexities and how it emerged, and resulted in wet planets and electron bonds and chemistry, then that's an explanation of natural reasons that gives meaning to emergence of life and therefore humans. Nature evolved atomic processed to a level of complexity for reasons other than life, but known the less life became a possibility.

I was asked this question!

Aside from the word "evolution" what parallels are there between a process occurring on a vast scale involving predictable nuclear processes, and one at a small scale involving random chemical mutations selected for and against by environmental pressures?

To which I answered!!

Nuclear fusion is a process occurring on a vast scale, involved in the process of generating heat within stars, providing the force that keeps stars buoyant against gravitational collapse. Whats interesting is that if fusion rates were other than what they are, stars wouldnt exist. To sensitive a reaction and stars explode as they form. Not sensitive enough and stars dont generate enough heat, gravity wins they collapse. This is one of the parameters attributed to the universal fine tuning problem.

Within my hypothesis, Stars are of an optimized physical state evolved for efficiency of interaction with Auv space. So the agency of matter we refer to as fusion is selectively calibrated to serve the purpose it is observed in the function of. The conventional approach by contrast, can only ascribe this agency of matter to being the product of lucky chance. As in, lucky the universe accidentally created this unlikely circumstance or else the universe would be dark, and wouldnt give rise to life.

You want a contrasted example concerning evolved biology.

Take your pick. Thats what typifies an evolved state, its calibrated state that enables the necessary agencies for an organisms survival. It is evolved as a state, that is also its reason for existence. A birds aerodynamics that enables it to fly. A dolphins hydrodynamics that enables efficient swimming. Human ability for comprehension which enables us to adapt, but also listen and rationalize new and novel ideas ;)