Constantinos,

I'm glad we got to a point of some mutual understanding, too. The concept underlying your hypothesis is one that was abandoned long ago for lack of a mathematically consistent rationale that fit the experimental interpretations of the era, and is still difficult to grasp. What I found most difficult was in confronting the numerous iterations of the quanta in arguing against doing so. It just reinforced the conventional approach. A lawyer I know, whose father was also a lawyer (funny how that goes), is fond of a saying of his Dad's; "A barrel sits on its own bottom". Meaning, don't remind the court that your adversary has a case (!).

But don't feel yourself so all alone in trying to figure out what the heck physicists think they are talking about. Your message is the same that is always being sought, and in one sense goes to what Tom Ray points out - that we might not find answers until we find better mathematics to define measurement of space, time, action. Everything in front of me is in the anterior hemisphere of my observation, everything behind me is in the posterior hemisphere. Similarly, everything above is in the upper hemisphere and all below, the lower. Same with the right or left, so we can measure from one octant to another. But not as if a line from my upper left octant goes to a point in my lower right like a beam of light through a lens of barium glass. There is nothing upside-down and backwards to the physical relationship between what's in front and what's behind me. So we have to develop the math of bijective complex planes with the rules of IFF. Non-commutative algebras. There has GOT to be a simpler way! In human daily experience we don't even think about it! We just move without confusing where things are around us, and without knocking over our neighbor's beer.

Incidentally, without sorting out the whole rationale of your conditional criteria of 'if and only if', it did make me wonder if there would be an operational correspondence to the 'if and only if' criteria of complex analysis. (That, I'll leave to those who like to play with math!)Topology is a math of continuous simple connectivity.

I have often thought what physics needs is a writer in mathematics of the sort Isaac Asimov was in physics. And I still occasionally refer to my $4.49 used copy of the 1988 printing, three volumes in one, 1966 copyright, 'Understanding Physics'. It presents in conversational prose with the simplest math, how the ideas in physics developed, and what the thinking at the times were. And in hindsight, that gives a perspective of "what hadn't been known, or considered then?" The argument between the corpuscular (particle) form of light that held sway in the 18th century and the wave form that was ascendant in the 19th, was never completely resolved, and morphed into the strange world of todays physics. Today's physicists have no more difficulty accepting non-locality and superposition than did earlier physicists accepting that to be a wave and move through a solid crystal, light had to be a transverse wave similar to that on the surface of water. While if it also moved through the ether as a longitudinal wave like the compression and rarification of sound through the same water, the ether would have to be both orders of magnitude more rare than the thinnest gas yet more rigid than steel. Today the 'massless particle' would be expedient even without Lorentz, because if the 'light particle' had any mass at all the sheer numbers of them that would have struck the earth would have added up to enough to make the orb heavy enough that we would have spiraled into our star long before we climbed out of the sea.

Perhaps what makes the limiting conditions of what amount of energy materializes as a periodic waveform, is how massive gravitationally, a source is in relation to its physical size volumetrically, compared to the amplitude of the wave. Perhaps frequency is a consequence of how fast the energy of any quantity might potentially seek to stream away from the source but runs into the limit of light velocity. Like a dog getting excited by a sound on the porch, and trying to stop just as it hits the limp rug on a freshly waxed hallway floor. And... so how is it physically(?), that the probability for energy to spread across frequencies is observed as the curve of intensity of frequencies in blackbody radiation, when the domain of probability for any frequency would be f^2? If we accept the continuous paradigm, perhaps it is simply that a too feeble a quantity, will not escape the gravitational integrity of the source mass. And mass is only a 'mass of energy' until a unit quantity specific to a unit volume is determined which exhibits the characteristics we associate with matter, not least of which is longevity.

Much to chew on. It would be nice to hear what people with well developed math would have to say. I honestly get to a point, where I exceed my own limitations in trying to gather new knowledge in a way I can assimilate, and find myself as I have recently, on the threshold of not knowing a damned thing. It's time for me to step back and focus on other things that don't require much focus. Cordially, jrc

4 days later

Constantinos,

As Peter mentions above, you communicate a great deal in few pages, deserving a higher rating. Your views are similar to my own though with a more open mind (MUH). Math is a tool and the language of objective reasoning but we do model and look for presupposed things, like BICEP2 looking for inflation mincroseconds after the BB, which is also presupposed.

I argue the effectiveness of connection mind, math, and physics and offer proof and stellar achievement in quantum biology, DNA mapping and simulation of the BB with LHC. . I hope you get a chance to look at mine: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2345.

Jim

Kostas,

Just as good at 2nd glance. Maths is the tool not the product! I hope you might now have a chance to also look closer at mine and perhaps even now collaborate by giving input and taking on the maths side!?

Now applying scores, and hope you climb into the finalists.

Very best wishes.

Peter

Dear Constantinos Ragazas,

I continue to be very impressed by your analysis of 'energy accumulation' and 'action'. In reviewing your earlier essays, I noted comments from Ray Monroe about the partition function for bosons ("photons") and fermions. Have you ever analyzed his objections? That is, have you explained the difference and partition functions? I believe this would help your argument.

I've had some recent thoughts on the issues involved, which are premature at the moment, but I hope to spend some time in the future pursuing these. I also hope that you continue to push this idea, as you are clearly onto something.

I had forgotten to rate your essay, so I'm pleased to be the 10th person to rate it, which I believe is necessary to qualify.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Good to hear from you again Edwin! And thank you for your good wishes. Always appreciated and reciprocated.

    I see the Partition Function and the Equipartition of Energy as seeking to allocate otherwise continuous energy to discrete particles (entities). IMHO, this current paradigm of physics (this metaphysics) is ultimately unsustainable and has to change. I have shown, for example, Planck's Law can more easily be derived using continuous processes and not needing to assume energy quanta. Further, I show Planck's Law more generally is in fact a mathematical identity (much like the Pythagorean Theorem) and not a physical law as such.

    I am arguing all of Physics can and should be similarly formulated! And our formulation of Physics be guided by The Anthropocentric Principle! Which simply states, "our Knowledge and Understanding of the Universe is such as to make Human Life possible". Few can argue the current Understanding of Physics makes "human Life" possible. To the contrary! It has become counter-intuitive and nonsensical.

    This approach I am taking has lead to some very interesting revelations. Including a direct connection between entropy and time. And the recognition the Second Law of Thermodynamics is fundamentally about "time" and secondarily about "entropy". It should be modified to read "every physical event takes some positive duration of time to occur". This, to me, makes perfect sense! As for "bosons" and "fermions", I'll let others untangle that "mixed paradigm".

    Constantinos