Dear Paul N. Butler.
I liked your To be successful in advancing Physics list and your observations under What is mathematics (the idea of language as abstractions). Are there articles that discuss the four dimensional aspect of photons you refer to under the heading Energy Photons that you could refer me to?
Regards,
Bob Shour
Dear Edwin,
I am glad we both agree that the relationship between physics and math is not mysterious and that it is not necessarily simple either, because although (at the level of structure that man is currently aware of) it begins with only 2 basic structures, which are simple motions and the dimensional system that they inhabit and interact in, the motions can be built up in the dimensional system into more complex structures, such as energy photons and matter particles, which can then be built up into still more complex hierarchical structural levels, etc.
It is good that we agree that the world is built using logical structures, rules of construction, operation or actions, and interactions. It is also true that it was made by the Amen.
Once one follows the chain of interactions that cause matter particles to be changed into energy photons and those that cause photons to be changed into basic linear or angular motions, it leads one to come to the understanding that energy photons and matter particles are composed of basic motions. The next step is to come to an understanding of how basic motions can be combined to build them. The biggest problem to solve is how to generate the repetitive cyclical motions such as the motion that generates the frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects of photons and the cyclical enclosed path motion that allows the photon that is contained in a matter particle to be altered from a simple straight line motion into a cyclical closed path that appears to be a static stationary particle. I found the use of additional dimensions to accomplish this to be the easiest way to visualize and build the needed structures to do this. If you can demonstrate a better way to do it please explain it. The primary way that is usually used by man at present to control MECs is to add a load such as a generator and/or physical or electrical drag mechanisms, etc. to keep their rotation speeds within acceptable limits. This can work ok, but a generator's drag depends on its load, so that often can't be used by itself to maintain limits because the load can typically change a great amount depending on the needs for the electricity that is generated. There are also various modulation control methods that can be used to maintain the motion limits, but the best approach is to use solid state MECs that use variable alignments of the matter particles within their structures to generate and control the output of the sub-energy fields that they generate within acceptable limits for the purpose for which they are designed. Matter particles were designed to accomplish this as part of their structure. The world was made such that similar structural concepts are used at all levels of structure, so that we can understand things that we cannot see by observation of the output results of their structure and comparing those output results to the output results of things that we can see. As an example, atoms have long been visualized to be small spherical objects long before methods were developed to indirectly see them as such. Of course if you look at them close up enough you would see the individual particles moving around in them, but then the matter particles would look much like still smaller spheres.
I am glad that we agree on some major points and I hope that we can work together to come to agreement on all of the details also.
You are welcome. I will try to comment on your essay also if I get the chance to do so.
Sincerely,
Paul N. Butler
Hi Paul,
I find this a very interesting essay! In fact, it has much similarities with the argument in my essay ("Beyond Math", in case you have the time, I'd be interested in your opinion). There is one point though in which I disagree with you. I know it is often said that science is about finding recurrences, and that is arguably how it works, but strictly speaking this is not necessary. What you really need is to find systems that are similar to each other. These may or may not be recurrent. The problem is of course if they're not recurrent, they're hard to find. Cheers,
Sophia
Dear Basudeba,
I am glad that you enjoyed my essay. I try to keep my information presentation as practical and simple as I can. I don't think that I saw your 2013 essay, but I am pleased to see that we agree about language concepts. Although most people do not think much about it because we are so used to using abstract spoken or written languages, the most basic language distinction is whether the language is abstract or literal in structure. As an example, when you say or write "The car is green." You are using an abstract language because the sounds or written shapes (letters) are not in any way connected to an actual car in sound or shape, etc. An alien who does not know your language would not be able to understand what information you are trying to transfer to him. On the other hand if you have a piece of paper and a pen you could draw a picture of the car on the paper with the pen and point to it and say car and write the word car beside it. You could then show him a green crayon and say and write the words green crayon. You could then color the car green with the crayon and write the word green to the left of the word car and say green car as you move your finger across the written words. The alien would then know what the spoken and written words car and green mean. This is because the picture is a literal language form that directly expresses the meaning of the car in a visual image form. When you say green crayon, the alien might think that those words both represent the object shown to him, but when you color the car image green and write green car beside it, he would likely understand that green is the color property of both the car and the crayon and would thus also understand what a crayon is. Literal language forms are easily understood because they either use the thing itself like the crayon or an image of the thing in some direct sensory input form that is the same as the real thing can use to present itself directly to you like the image of the car. It is important to realize that all of the things that we can sense are actually literal language forms that are being sent to us by the world around us. The structure of the world is such that it begins at its lowest levels as an abstract language form in the form of basic motions and is built up through many levels of hierarchical structure to form the literal language of the things that we see, hear, touch, smell, and taste. It is all a very complex communication to us and we are designed to be able to receive it. Of course, we are not able to directly observe all of the provided information, but we were made to be able to use the things that we can observe to make other things that can allow us to gain the ability to observe more of it over time as we respond, interact, and manipulate the words in that language. At the same time we ourselves are very complex multiword structures in that language. Mathematics is a very abstract language, but it can be used to build a structure that can represent the literal what, why, when, where, or with whom about objects as can easily be seen when you play a video game that can present very realistic literal action image forms as a result of the use of complex mathematical structure combinations. In a general sense, physics is the study of the world around us with the intent to learn how it works and how we can use that knowledge to make our lives better. In that endeavor we can use both the direct literal language that is directly provided to us by the world around us and we can also use abstract forms such as the English language and mathematics, etc. The important thing to remember is that an abstract language can portray things that are true to the reality that the world presents to us, but it can also represent things that are not part of our world, which we call falsehoods, errors, or fictions, etc. The problem is that if you get too absorbed in an abstract language and don't check out your results to be sure they conform to observed reality it is very easy to be living in a fictitious concept of how the world works.
We live in a motion continuum. Time is not an entity of itself. It is just a relationship between motion and the space that it travels through. If all motions contained the same amount of motion (were all of the same volume or amplitude of motion) time would equal distance and it would be easy to understand. If someone asked you how long it took to travel from your house to their house you might answer "It took me 5 miles" and everyone would understand the duration of your travel because it would always take anyone the same duration to travel five miles. You could easily compare the motion of 2 cars because if they were both simultaneously started side by side and traveled in the same direction they would always tie in a race, etc. You could use any name that you wanted to, but you would only need one name to represent both distance and duration. In this world motions can possess different magnitudes or amplitudes, which make the situation more complex, however, but there are no time dimensions, multiple universes, or past or future worlds to go to. There are only motions. The positions in the universe that a given motion used to be in, but has now moved out of are that motion's past, but you cannot go back to look at that motion in those places because it is no longer there. It is only in its present position. The positions that the motion will go into, but has not yet arrived at are its future. It cannot be found in them, however, because it has not yet arrived there. All of the matter particles, energy photons, and sub-energy particles in the universe are composed of motions. The total motion content is the only thing that is truly conserved. Motion is the true energy that is conserved. C is just a specific motion amplitude. When you burn coal you are just rearranging its molecular structure. In the process you cause some atoms to be joined together by sharing electrons and portions of their respective sub-energy fields, etc. and in the process some of the excess motion is transferred to sub-energy particles causing them to be changed into energy photons which then carry that excess motion away from the interaction. The e=mc2 equation shows the motion transfer between the fourth vector and the fifth vector. If the motion is transferred from the fourth vector to the fifth vector the result is generally that an energy photon is changed into a matter particle. If the motion is transferred from the fifth vector to the fourth vector the result is generally that a matter particle is changed into an energy photon. Of course, matter particles also have a continuous inter-dimensional motion flow from the fifth vector to the lower three dimensions then to the fourth vector and finally back into the fifth vector as part of their internal structure. What do you consider the electric field and the magnetic field to be composed of? If you say they are waves, then what are those waves composed of? If they displace the electron from an atom by giving it extra motion and in the process they cease to exist, then they must be composed of simple motions that are transferred to the electron to increase its motion to the level that causes it to escape the atom's sub-energy field, but simple motions cannot move back and forth in a cyclical manner in the absence of an interaction. In the absence of an interaction a simple motion always continues to travel in the same direction.
All that exists is the spatial system that provides the positions for motions to travel in and the motions that exist in the spatial system. Motions can interact with each other in that system when they intersect at the same position. Such interactions can change a motion's motion amplitude and/or direction of travel. Energy photons and matter particles are composite structures composed of more than one motion. Because of the small size of their structural points they do not usually intersect head on. It is usually their angular motions that generate the interactions. The angular motions are what gives an energy photon its dynamic inertia or mass effect and matter particles their static inertia or mass effect, etc. Most interactions take place through sub-energy motion transfers except when great velocities are involved.
The fourth (time) dimension of GR does not exist as mentioned above. Time is just a relationship between motion and the distance that it travels in the space that it travels in. In the lower three dimensions, motions can be transferred between dimensions easily through interactions with other motions due to the way those dimensions are connected to each other in the dimensional system. One way to look at the way that the fourth dimension is connected to the others is to visualize that instead of the direct connections that the lower three dimensions have with each other, the fourth dimension is separated from the others by a small distance. A low speed motion in the lower three dimensions does not travel far enough in one of its position changes to jump that gap, so it cannot enter the fourth dimension. Once a motion gains a great enough motion amplitude level, however, one position change of that motion can bridge that gap and travel into the fourth dimension. That minimum required motion amplitude level is anything greater than the speed of light. The addition of fourth dimensional motion to a sub-energy particle changes it into an energy photon by giving it its frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass/inertia effects. This is because the fourth dimension interfaces with the lower three dimensions at a ninety degree angle in the same way that the other lower 3 dimensions interface with each other. This creates the motion component that acts at a ninety degree angle to the photon's direction of travel. Since the energy photon is traveling at a composite motion amplitude of the speed of light in those dimensions, the fourth dimensional motion can be transferred back into the lower three dimensions during an interaction. This allows the photon to give up its fourth dimensional motion to the electron during an interaction, so that the electron can then contain enough motion within itself to leave the atom that it was bound to. I have not seen your current essay shown on this contest yet. What is your conclusion that extra dimensions are a myth based on?
Sincerely,
Paul
Dear Bob Shour,
I am always happy when others understand and appreciate the concepts presented in my essays. I am not currently aware of any other sources in this world for the information that I have provided concerning the four dimensional aspect of photons. I have presented some other aspects in my earlier papers on this site, so you can check them out. If you have any specific questions concerning the subject let me know and I will try to answer them if I can.
Sincerely,
Paul N. Butler
Hi Sophia,
I am glad that you find my essay interesting. I have not had the chance yet to completely go over your essay, but I took a quick look at it and do find some similarities, especially in the concept that physics can sometimes be advanced by analysis of observations without the use of math structures. I will try to look at it more and comment on it on your paper's space. It is true that things sometimes happen in the world in such a way that we cannot repeat in experiments. Some of these things seem to operate contrary to the currently accepted scientific theories. As an example, a person may appear to be about to die of cancer and then wake up the next day and find that the cancer is gone or a person might die and then come back alive after 45 minutes and fully recover when medical science would say that his brain cells would have died before that time. Many such one-time happenings have occurred and we all experience some at least minor one-time odd happenings in our lives. The scientist who doesn't believe in God would usually say that it is just that we don't know enough about things to know the reason for their happening and that as further knowledge is gained we will one day understand their cause(s). The ones who believe in God would say they are examples of God's intervention in the usual way that he has made the universe to work in order to make something work the way that he desires it to work when the normal way would not result in his will being done or that it may just be a sign of his existence and care for those who are his that he gives to increase faith in him and the understanding that he loves them. The person who believes in God is happy with that explanation and knows that he cannot make God repeat it just to please him. The scientist would like to figure out how to get it to repeat, but he doesn't know how and is satisfied with the belief that one day he or someone else will figure it out. As you hinted in your comment, if you can't get it to repeat, you can't put it to any practical use in science.
Sincerely,
Paul
Dear Paul,
Thank you for your contribution, I also share same view as yours i.e.: "The biggest problem that we have at present is that we are trying to understand things that are too small or for some other reason can't presently be observed directly and some that we can't even observe indirectly". I've also been addressing this view in my article.
Good luck
Paul,
I do not believe we as theorists, actually preference one method over another. There are those that demand we represent a conclusion with an experiment and test the motivation using mathematics, but this request is one way of illuminating a perception of reality in which our senses are often fooled into believing. Relativity offers many of these perceived examples.
Furthermore although there are dimensions we can not observe, they are not beyond our ability to detect and describe considering we persist in our efforts of resolving these observations. We currently detect distant planets within our vast universe that we initially have no sensible way of assuming their existence otherwise.
Einstein did not prefer mathematics or observation...he relied on intuition as a guide, and no one can argue if it was not a preferred method.
All in all, I agree we should not exclude or prefer one method versus another.
Best Regards,
D.C.Adams
Dear Koorosh,
You are welcome. I looked at your paper and found it very interesting. You are right that many of the problems in physics today have to do with the inability to observe many things due to size, speed, or other scale limitations. Sometimes even though we cannot observe the actual thing, we can observe effects that it causes and these effects can give us some understanding of what the thing is and how it works, etc. One example is an energy photon. An energy photon cannot be observed directly, so we can't directly look at its structure or how it works, etc. It does, however, enter into interactions and we can observe the output results of its interactions. From these observations some things can be understood about its structure and how it works. It can be determined that it travels at a specific motion amplitude that we call the speed of light and that all photons generally seem to travel at that speed in a straight line. We can also observe that it has a variable mass effect that operates at a ninety degree angle to its direction of travel. This effect is cyclical and repeats at a specific frequency rate for a given photon, but different photons can have different frequency rates that range over a very wide range of frequencies. The greater the frequency rate the greater is the photon's maximum mass effect in an interaction. We can recognize and understand these things because large scale things that we can observe behave in similar ways. As an example, If you push one pool ball on a pool table so that it hits another pool ball that is currently at rest on the table it will transfer motion to the ball that was at rest causing it to begin to move. This ability of one thing to cause another thing to move during an interaction is caused by a property that it possesses that we call its mass. The greater this property is, the greater the amount of motion it can transfer during an interaction. This makes sense in large scale objects because a large thing like a car is composed of a very large number of matter particles and if you accelerate the car to 60 MPH you have to accelerate all of those particles to that speed. In an interaction all of those particles can transfer their motion to the thing that the car is interacting with. When a photon interacts with a free electron in a gas it can transfer motion to the electron. A higher frequency photon can transfer more motion than a lower frequency photon during an interaction, so it must contain more motion than the lower frequency photon. During an interaction the photon usually disappears as a result. This suggests that the photon is made of motion and it transfers all of that motion to the electron, etc. during the interaction. There are some cases in which the photon does not cease to exist as a result of an interaction, such as in Compton scattering. In such cases the photon still travels at the speed of light after the interaction, but its frequency is generally reduced. It has given up some, but not all of its motion that moves at ninety degrees to its direction of travel. Since all photons travel at the same speed in their direction of travel, but those with higher frequencies have a greater mass effect during an interaction, the ninety degree angular motion appears to generate most of the photon's mass effect. Very low frequency photons still travel at the speed of light, but exhibit very little mass effect. Very high frequency photons, on the other hand, can knock electrons out of atoms. Since photons can cease to exist after an interaction, they appear to be composed completely of motions that can be completely transferred during an interaction. It may seem strange that all mass effects could be caused by motions, but motions do generate mass effects even at large scales as can be seen in that a car that is traveling at twice the speed of another like car will demonstrate twice the mass effect in an interaction. The only difference between the 2 cars that could generate that extra mass effect is the extra motion possessed by the faster car. The matter particles in the car possess a 3 dimensional angular motion due to their enclosed path motion structure. This angular motion transfers the car's linear motion during an interaction, since that large scale linear motion is actually composed of the linear motion of all of those matter particles. The matter particles' 3 dimensional enclosed path angular motion is what gives them their static mass effect. As you can see, much can be learned about the structure of things that can't be directly observed by looking at the results of their interactions and comparing them with large scale observations that we can observe.
I use another (4th) dimension (it is not a time dimension) to explain how the ninety degree cyclical motion of the photon can be generated because it is much simpler than things like multi-universes, etc. Similar to your approach I use somewhat of a discontinuity in considering that the 2 outer positions of the fourth dimension's three positions are located outside of our three dimensional structure. Those 2 positions do not need to be connected to anything other than the center position of the fourth dimension.
I try to keep the concepts that I use as simple as possible because I have found that man generally has a low believability quotient. To some degree this can be justified due to man's current limited observational abilities. Of course this limits the amount of information that I can pass to man in a given amount of time, but it is better to give a small amount and have it received than to give a lot and have it all rejected. Since you seem to be open to concepts such as multiverses, etc. have you considered that this world and all of its matter and energy, etc. structure could be just the output of a more complex background structure that we can't sense? It could be somewhat like the television set that sits behind and generates the light images on the screen and our world would be like the light images that it outputs except that our world's behind the scenes structure outputs other forms of motion such as sub-energy and matter and not just light. Food for thought.
Sincerely,
Paul
Thanks for the discussion, summarizing your comments, I think the bottom line is somewhat similar to my view "this world and all of its matter and energy, etc. structure could be just the output of a more complex background structure that we can't sense?"聽
Dear Demond,
If when you say we as theorists, you are referring to you and me, you may be right in your belief, but I don't believe that applies to all theorists. There are many in this world (both those who base their theories primarily on observations and those who base them mostly on mathematical models) who do not believe in a balanced approach especially if such an approach would disprove their pet theory or if their careers are at stake because they are dependent on maintenance of current scientific beliefs, etc.
I believe that the best approach is to first observe as much as we can of the world around us and all of the results of the interactions of its parts and then logically look at the possible structures and the rules of operation of those structures that are required to make a world that works in the way that this world does. The structures and rules of operation that are needed may include some that we can't presently observe where necessary for everything to work the way that it does (These could be considered to be predictions to be looked for in future observations). This will likely lead to the production of many possible hypotheses that attempt to explain this world. Math will be needed at all of the above steps to quantify measurements of things observed and the relationships that are observed to occur between them, the rules of their operation that we observe, and the interactions between them, etc., but at this stage I would discourage the building of complete math models as they would be very incomplete and could misguide efforts to understand the basic structures involved. All of the proposed hypotheses should then be compared to identify their differences and also the elements that are the same in all of them. At this point a math model can be built to model all of the parts that are common to all proposed hypotheses. Then the goal should be to identify and remove any parts that:
1. are unnecessary duplications of structures and rules or where they can be combined under one structure and/or rule that turns out to describe more elements of observed reality than was originally envisioned,
2. don't actually perform in agreement with observed reality,
3. conflict with other proposed structure(s) or rule(s), etc.
Those structures or rules that conflict with each other should then be analyzed and modified and/or replaced with structures or rules that are internally consistent and also agree with observed reality. The end result of this stage of development should be a math model that is internally consistent and agrees with observed reality, but will likely not explain all of it. The next step would be to look at and make math models of the parts of each hypothesis that do not agree with all other hypotheses. Those that are proved to be both consistent with observed reality and the main math model and add new understanding of or explain areas of observed reality that are not covered by the main math model can then be added to that model. In some cases multiple sets of structures and rules may be found that are both internally consistent with the math model and what can be presently observed of reality, but all describe the same parts of reality only in somewhat different ways. In such cases all such sets should be included in the math model and continually be compared to new observations and the required changes in the math model to accommodate such new observations with specific attempts being made to make observations that will discern which one actually most closely fits observed reality. The others can then be removed from the math model when they are proven incompatible with it and/or observed reality. Observations should also be made to confirm that the structures and rules that were needed to make the hypotheses and the math model, but hadn't yet been confirmed to be valid by previous observations are actually valid predictions. Any changes needed to bring them into conformance should be made and any that prove to be false should be removed. Because of the complexities involved in constructing and maintaining a complete and accurate logical hypothesis and math model, there should be 3 divisions made in the scientific community to be sure that a proper balance is maintained between work on the logical hypothesis structure and the math model. One section would be made up of those who are expert in making and recording the data results of observations. The next section would be composed of those who are expert at pattern recognition, logical reasoning, and interpretation of the data produced by observation. These would work on the production and maintenance of the logical hypothesis. The third group would be those who are expert in mathematics who would produce and maintain the math model. There would also be those who would be cross trained in 2 of the 3 areas who would act to transfer and coordinate the information between the 2 groups for which they are trained. Finally there would be those who are trained in all 3 areas that would handle overall coordination between the three groups and also transfer information to the general public, etc. This, of course, is only a general guideline and would need to be fleshed out much to be implemented into practice. As an example, there might be a division that would look at all new observations, new logical hypothesis concepts, and new math developments to determine how they might be further developed and then integrated into the total information structure as appropriate to ensure maximum overall development. Such new inputs of information could come from anyone, not just those who are currently working in the area that the new input is associated with.
You are right about the dimensions. This is because even though we cannot directly observe the extra dimensions, we can observe their outputs, such as the frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effect of energy photons that are generated by their fourth dimensional motions.
You are right. Einstein used both logical reasoning about observed reality and math structures to model it.
You are right again. All methods are required to get a full true understanding of reality to man's best ability.
Sincerely,
P. Butler
Dear Koorosh,
It is good that we agree on that. One thing that I find interesting is that after working for many years to gain an understanding of much of the information that I am currently giving in my papers, I came across a book that had been written about 2 thousand years ago that gave information about the world and not only included many of the concepts that I came up with from analyzing scientific observations that have been made only in about the last 100 years by man, but also gave other new concepts that I was not at that time aware of. It also describes a framework structure that our world is built upon that we can't see and gives many details about it.
Sincerely,
Paul
Theoretical physics is lost in mathematical models. String theory is good example. Basic laws of the universe one find only on the base of experimental observation.
Dear Amrit,
I agree with you that many current math models have strayed far from observed reality. I also agree that experimental observation is the most important element necessary to find and understand the basic laws of the universe. The one thing that I find most missing today in physics is those with the ability to logically analyze the results of observations and generate a logical model of the universe's structure from which reasonable mathematical models can be generated. The results of observations are there and there are many involved in making math models, but there is a great lack of those in the middle that can interpret the observations into an overall structure that the math models can then emulate. The result has been that the models that are made usually do not conform well with reality in the sense that they may be able to quantify what interactions are possible and the probability of each one happening, but they can't explain why they work that way or what is really going on inside of the entities that are interacting or even in the details of how the interactions accomplish the observed results, etc. They then drift off into false concepts like time dimensions, multiverses, or the concept that nothing happens until it is observed, etc.
I read your paper and see that you have a pretty good understanding of some of these things. I break things down a little differently because I have found that matter and energy photons are made of motions and change (change of position) is a property of motion. As you point out in your paper, time duration is just a relationship between motion and the distance it travels through in the dimensional system. I therefore, would start with just motion and the spatial system that the motion travels in. Everything else is built up from these 2 basic elements.
I received some emails from you asking me to join linked in. I usually don't join those types of things unless there is some special reason to do so to accomplish some purpose, so I was going to email you back to let you know that you could reach me at my email at pljb1@juno.com, but when I tried to make a reply, the email seemed to only go back to linked in and not to you, so I wasn't sure that you would get it. You can contact me at the above email address if you wish to. I am not very good at checking it every day, so it might take me some time to get back to you. It is just that I sometimes get involved in some project and forget to check it for some time.
Sincerely,
Paul
Dear Joe,
You are right that there are differences in individual things that are categorized by man to be the same type of thing. Generally things are not categorized with the same name because they are believed to be completely the same in all respects, but are similar enough to each other in form or function, etc. that an action or interaction that works in a specific way with one will generally work the same with all of them. As an example, if you take a snowflake and heat it to above 0 degrees centigrade it will change from the solid snowflake to a drop of water. This is a general truth that applies to all water snowflakes. Although environmental conditions such as pressure, etc. could alter the temperature at which the change would occur; such variables would still affect all similar snowflakes basically the same. The reason that science is based on the concept of identifying things that are very similar to each other in some way rather than trying to identify all of the structural details about each individual thing is that it is based on the fact that man does not have the capability to determine all existing details about all things, but you can gain much in ability to control your environment for your benefit by looking for similarities in appearance and function, etc. in things, such that when you learn how to get one of such things to do what you want it to do, you can then apply the same methods to the others also. On the other hand, if you look at a specific snowflake and identify some trait that it possesses that is different than in all other snowflakes, anything that you do to exploit that difference will only apply to that particular snowflake. It might not work the same in other snowflakes that didn't have that trait. Practical science is all about making things conform to man's desires so that they can be used to make man's life better in some way. As an example, it is not necessary to completely understand all of the conditions existent in each matter particle in a sample of a substance such as Freon in order to use it in a heat pump to transfer heat from one place to another place. All you really need to know are the traits that they all or at least most of them share in the way they are structured together that can be used for that purpose. There is one problem with that approach, however, in that relatively small differences in very complex structures can sometimes yield undesirable results. This is why drugs that are developed for and usually work well on most people for some purpose can cause other problems such as allergic reactions in some people who have slightly different genetic makeup, etc. The simpler a structure is, the fewer such variations in behavior should be expected to be found. That is one reason that Physicists should be greatly concerned about why simple interactions between what they believe to be very simple matter particles can yield so many different outcomes and why those outcomes have different probabilities of occurrence. I find it very interesting that instead of considering the possibility that matter particles are more complex in structure than they were thought to be, the approach has been to consider something that is in some ways much simpler in structure than matter particles (space) to be much more complex than it is with vacuum energy, etc.
If you consider that the things like the stars and snowflakes that we observe in some way with our senses are actually real existing things, then observations of them would not be abstract observations, but literal observations of their forms. If you then use your mind to analyze a star that you observed through your telescope, your mind will generate abstract structures that will ultimately generate a literal image in your mind of what the star looked like when you saw it. Not all observations or analysis of such observations are abstract. Repetitive patterns and cycles that exist and that can be observed can also be literal and not abstract in nature. I usually use the word abstract to mean when information is produced in a form that does not allow you to extract that information from direct observation without knowledge of some type of code or structure that must then be interpreted in order to access the enclosed information and literal as information that is provided in a form that can be understood by direct observation. It appears that you may be using abstract to mean information that is provided in a literal form through observation, but is ignored by the observer. I was not talking about that type of observation in my paper. That being said, it is important to recognize that when an observation is made by man, much of the information that is presented is often not perceived and/or understood by the observer even when the observer is attempting to understand the observation to the best of his ability. As an example, when the astronomer looks through his telescope, he cannot directly observe all of the frequencies of energy that are presented to him in the image because his eyes can only see a very limited range of frequencies. When you couple with that the fact that man's current limited level of development prevents him from even knowing some things that would be important to look for, it is true that sometimes information that is presented even in a literal form may not be recognized and perceived by the observer.
When you talk about each thing being unique once how would you consider a water molecule if it is first broken down into its separate atoms and then the same atoms are combined again back into a water molecule? Would it still be the original water molecule or is it now somehow a new different water molecule to you? Changing a matter particle into an energy photon is similar in that they are both composed of motions. If a motion exists in one place in it a matter particle is produced. If it is moved from there to another place in it then it becomes an energy photon. The same total amount of motion exists in it in either form. Observations have shown that if you bring a matter particle (an electron) and an antimatter particle (a positron) together at low kinetic energy, the matter and antimatter particles disappear and an energy photon(s) appear in their place. If the matter and antimatter particles have not been changed into energy photon(s) then what has happened to the matter and antimatter particles and where did the energy photons come from? The energy photon(s) that appeared as a result of the interaction contain the same total amount of motion (energy) that was in the matter and antimatter particles that disappeared in the interaction.
Sincerely,
Paul Butler
Dear Paul,
I pointed out in my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL that every real thing has a surface. I also pointed out that any real object can appear as a solid, a liquid or as a gas providing sufficient extremes of temperature were applied to it. But it would still have a surface. I also pointed out that empty space was a physical impossibility. The real Universe consists of a real surface. You can verify this for yourself because the plethora of surfaces you see wherever you look is well lighted. Real light must not have a real surface.
Joe
Your work had the simplicity relations of relativity which uses the framework to devise better mysteries and complexities simultaneously with some pinches of salt.
Best reagrds,
Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan
Dear Paul,
I enjoyed reading your essay and found the conclusions section very much in line with my own thinking on the need for a greater emphasis on understanding. This must come from renewed effort to explain reality in easily understood terms.
By this I mean to find a bridge between observations and the mathematical model which, as you state in your conclusions, is a visualization or what I have referred to as a physical description of properties and processes.
Your essay provides a good example of how to describe physical effects and provides a clear statement which can be challenged. In the section on energy photons, I didn't understand why it was necessary to introduce a fourth space dimension. I have been able to explain the properties you describe using three dimensions of space and one of time (spacetime) by proposing that the waves are wave variations in spacetime curvature propagating at speed c through spacetime.
This is explained in my essay 'Solving the mystery' which I hope you will have a chance to read and give comments.
Regards
Richard
Dear Joe,
I am sorry that it has taken so long to get back to you, but I have not had good access to the internet for the last couple of weeks.
I have found that the concept of a real surface is not as most people consider it to be. If you look at a polished piece of metal, you will see a solid looking smooth surface, but as you magnify it you will see that it is not a smooth continuous surface, but is instead composed of metal crystals with visibly defined interfaces. You could consider each metal crystal to have a surface, but once again as you magnify it enough you see that the surface is actually composed of small spherical objects (atoms) with space between them, which is not a solid smooth surface at all. You might say that the atoms appear to have solid smooth spherical surfaces, but if you could magnify them enough, you would see that their apparent surfaces are actually caused by light photons bouncing off of the electrons that are moving around the atoms', nucleuses. There is no actual surface to the atoms. If you could magnify one of the electrons, you might consider that it would be a spherical object with a surface, but if you magnified it, you would see that it is just an energy photon traveling around in a three dimensional path much like the electrons traveling around the atom. If you could then magnify the energy photon, you could possibly see an actual surface, but man does not at present have the observational data to in any way prove or disprove that at this time, so I won't go into that now. The point is that most of the things that we see as solid with surfaces are actually mostly empty space with various motion interactions generating what we see at our limited size scale range as solid objects with solid surfaces. When looked at closely their surfaces are not really solid, but are composed of smaller and smaller continuous cyclical motion interactions.
Why do you believe that light does not have a surface? Do you have any actual observational evidence of that being the case?
I looked at your paper and have a few questions about the concepts presented in it.
1. Why do you believe that all surfaces must travel at the same speed when they appear by observation to be traveling at different speeds relative to each other? It would seem to me that due to the finite speed of light, there is always a delay from the time that light is reflected from or emitted by an object to the time that ours eyes interact with those light photons and we perceive the object. If light photons are continuously leaving 2 objects and traveling to our eyes, we would continuously see both objects simultaneously (at the same time) once light from both objects reached our eyes. If both objects were not in motion relative to us and each other and each of the objects aimed a light source at our eyes and if both lights were turned on simultaneously, we would see the light first from the closest object since the light from that object would travel a shorter distance to reach our eyes. If both objects were traveling straight toward us at different speeds and they both turned on their lights simultaneously just when the faster object pulled up beside the other object so that they were both the same distance from us, and if the light always travels at the same speed to all observers, we would expect the first light from both objects to reach us simultaneously. If in the observational test above, the light from the faster object is speeded up by its faster speed so that its speed is greater than the speed of the light from the slower object, we would expect that the first light from the faster object would reach us first. Observational evidence suggests that the speed of light is the same regardless of the direction and speed that the object is traveling when it emits the light photons. This suggests that when the object is moving in the same direction as the emitted photons, the extra linear motion of the object is transferred to the photons' fourth vector (dimensional) motion, which would increase the photons' frequency and dynamic mass effects and would decrease the wavelength effect of the photons, thus creating a blue shift effect. If the object is traveling in the opposite direction of the emitted photons, the decrease in the motion of the photons that would be expected is also transferred to the photons' fourth vector motion, which would decrease their frequency and dynamic mass effects and increase their wavelength. This would generate a red shift effect. This suggests that the photon's fourth vector motion acts as a motion sink that servos the photon's linear speed at the speed of light by either transferring motion to the linear motion to increase it up to the speed of light or by transferring motion from the linear motion to decrease it down to the speed of light.
2. Please explain why you believe that if all surfaces were not traveling at the same speed it would be physically impossible for one to observe them simultaneously?
3. Why do you believe that a sub-surface must travel at a speed that always remains lower than the constant speed of the surface and why it can only travel in or out?
4. If light cannot travel, what happens when a moving surface intersects a stationary light photon? Does the surface get stopped by the stationary light photon? Does the surface just pass through the stationary photon without any effect on either one or does some other action or effect occur?
5. You say that real objects have surfaces. If you take a 1ft by 1ft by ½in piece of wood, it would be a real object and its top, bottom, and sides would be surfaces. If you lay it on a larger piece of wood, its bottom would then become a sub-surface. If you placed 1/2 in thick wood pieces against all of its sides, its sides would become sub-surfaces also. If you then placed a large piece of wood on top of it, the top would also become a sub-surface. At this point it would no longer have a surface because they would all have been changed into sub-surfaces. Would it still be a real object without any surfaces or would it now be unreal, etc.?
6. You say: "Real light cannot have a surface for the only way light can be seen is if it adherers to a real surface". It makes sense according to your theory that the side of the light that adherers to a real surface would be a sub-surface, but why couldn't the light possess a side that is not adhering to the real surface that has a surface on it, thus making the light also a real object?
7. It would seem to me that the air (gas) that covers the planet earth is (according to your theory) a real object and the top or outside side of it is a surface. The bottom of it that touches the other objects on the earth below it would be a sub-surface and all of the parts of those surface objects that contact the air are also sub-surfaces. Most of the other surfaces of those lower objects that are not in contact with the air are in contact with other objects and are, therefore, also sub-surfaces and not surfaces. This means that most of the earth objects except for the air do not have real surfaces and, therefore, are not real objects unless real objects can exist as real objects when they do not have any surfaces.
So far it appears to me that your theory does not fit well with observational data and possibly in internal structure as well, but maybe you can clarify it for me.
Sincerely,
Paul
Dear Sujatha,
Thank you for your positive comment, (if I am correctly interpreting it.) I read your paper and noticed that it seems to be based on belief in Indian (Hindu) religious principles and texts, etc. It appears that according to them the ultimate creator of the universe is called Brahman.
1. Is Brahman considered to be eternal or does he enter into the cycles of existence and non-existence as mentioned of all of the others mentioned that come from him in one way or another in their cycles?
2. What is considered to be Brahman's purpose or reason for creating the universe and all that are in it. What does he get out of it for himself for all of the labor that he put into it that made it worthwhile for him to have created it?
3. What is the purpose for each of the multitude of sub-cycles that make up each major cycle and why are the major cycles continued infinitely (if they are)?
4. Is each major cycle exactly the same in all respects as all other cycles or do they differ in one or more respects from other cycles?
5. What is the universe (matter, energy, etc.) considered to be composed or made of? To put it another way: what is the most basic substance from which all things are built up or made?
Unlike many who think that it is unscientific to make any attempt to consider that God may exist and to look for any useful information that he may have provided for us, I believe that it is best to take all possibilities into consideration. Those who do not do so are purposely blinding themselves to half of the possibilities. At the same time any information that is provided as coming from God should agree with observed reality to the extent that man can presently observe. Any such information that is provided that cannot be confirmed by observation should not be considered to be as established as true unless all of the information from that source that can be confirmed to be true checks out to be true. I look forward to the information that you can provide to me in this endeavor.
Sincerely,
Paul Butler