Math Laws and Observer Wandering by Steve Agnew

Dear Dr. Agnew,

You are welcome. But please do not reciprocate in kind. I would really like to have my essay fairly rated.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Steve,

Good to see you in the forum.

Your definition for entropy as a sum of several logarithms is interesting to me ... matter and action. If you read my essay, you should think about that as I discuss 4-vectors.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Dear Dr. Agnew,

The truth about the real observable Universe am not an approximation.

Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings such as the ones you effortlessly indulge in. As I have thoughtfully pointed out in my brilliant essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY, the real Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Reality am not as complicated as theories of reality are.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Hi Steve ,

Happy to see your papper.Like said gary it is relevant.Regards

Dear Agnew,

You have nicely differentiated about the roles of classical and quantum observers

In page3 in last line, you took " a decreasing entropy for shrinking mass and increasing entropy for expanding action". Probably you are considering red- shifted Galaxies only. You may be knowing that the red-shifted Galaxies are only 40 percent.

I request you to reconsider your thinking and modify your equations accordingly...

Dear Sir,

You have made a brilliant analysis using modern views. But can we go a little out of box and analyze the facts?

What is the fundamental difference between classical physics and quantum physics? It is basically the motions of the collective versus the individual. In classical physics, the bonding of quantum particles makes the interaction non-linear. In case of quantum particles, it is linear. You also agree when you say: "A classical observer predicts a determinate albeit chaotic path for a goal". But is noise of classical chaos for macroscopic action usually masks the decoherence of quantum phase noise? Should it not be the opposite? After all, penetrability and energy level of quantum particles are more than classical particles.

Phase noise is the frequency domain representation of rapid, short-term, random fluctuations in the phase of a waveform, caused by time domain instabilities or "jitter". The idea of phase noise is based on some sort of a circuit model derived from practical measured data and/or intuitive observation regarding noise phenomena.

Phase defines a trajectory versus time (t), whose variance around the noiseless straight line trajectory grows proportionally with elapsed time. This is because ¤å(t) = Ô꽤ë(t)dt. Nevertheless ¤å is stationary, and has a well-defined power spectral density S¤å(f). Phase fluctuations in a sinewave correspond to voltage fluctuations; AM sidebands and PM sidebands at offset frequency fm from average oscillation frequency. In an oscillator circuit, there are multiple sources of voltage and current noise circuit. Noise sources collectively pull the free-running oscillator's frequency, through injection locking to generate phase noise.

Jitter could be bound or unbound. Deterministic jitter arises from coupling on to signal lines from: 1. Electromagnetic interference 2. Crosstalk 3. Reflections. Though random and deterministic effects are independent, they may be de-convolved from histogram, by first fitting tails of distribution to best-fit Gaussian. Then histogram of deterministic jitter is extracted by deconvolution. Histogram does not specify frequency of jitter-inducing signal. Spectral density of jitter is useful to isolate frequencies, which appear as discrete lines.

How are these relevant in the double slit experiment? The double shit experiment is usually conducted with electrons or photons. We do not know WHAT is an electron, though we know all about what it does. Photon is massless. Does the experiment conducted using protons behave similarly? If not why not? If you watch the water waves behind a steamer, they reconnect just like the interference pattern of the double slit experiment. Can there be no macro examples for the micro phenomena? We will comment on the other aspects of your paper separately.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

Zero is something that does not exist at here-now, but exists elsewhere. So you imply that your thought is at a different level and not coinciding with the mainstream, which is evident from your post.

Best wishes and regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

As we understand, entropy is a measure of disorder in a system, whereas information is a measure of order in the system. Thus, entropy is not unidirectional. Negantropy or negative entropy is already known, though we do not fully agree with that interpretation - we believe in reversible cycles of time. You also talk of two entropies, though reversible in a different way. It is true that there can be many future states, but it is because we do not always know the initial conditions. For any initial condition, there can only be one future state, unless it is modified by other influences. Of course uncertainty is inherent in nature. But that is because of our limitations to know all factors affecting an outcome and our lack of control over the environment that affects the outcome after we complete the operation and before we take the measurement. On the contrary, present can be fully explained based on past and future can be fully explained based on present.

There are questions on the concept of expanding universe. It is not evident in local scales. Galactic blue-shift has been observed. There are galactic mergers. The parameters of the galaxy rotation curve are questionable. The CMB is not homogeneous and has a direction after all - the Axis of Evil. The theory and observation relating to dark energy is dubbed the biggest mismatch in science. Thus, the observation can be better explained by accepting the universal rule: everything including the universe spins in its axis. Then the redshift and blue-shift can be explained with analogy from the solar system. Planets sometimes appear to move away from us at a fast pace while they appear to come close at other times. This will not need any dark energy.

Mass - classical or quantum, is never constant. The distinction between mass and weight is erroneous. If we take a stone to the Moon, its weight will not go up four-fold, as is written in text books. We have to take the same balance to Moon to measure the weight where the balance and the unit will also be the same effect, cancelling it. It will still weigh the same. If we use a different balance and unit, we cannot compare both. We cannot measure the stone on Moon while sitting on Earth. Thus, mass and weight are not different since acceleration due to gravity affects both sides of the balance equally at all places in the universe. Do we apply g in calculating atomic weight? Are the quantum particles immune from gravity? On the contrary, if we hold the same stone under water, it feels light. Thus, mass is an emergent property of the medium - forces acting on it. Action is possible only with energy, and is related to energy density in the medium. You say: "the universe actually shrinks in mass even while universe action grows". What this implies is that the barrier between mass and energy gets altered. After all, mass is energy confined and energy is mass released from confinement. You seem to agree when you say: "chemical replication is a natural process driven by free energy that occurs with the actions of nucleation or seeding along with replication or growth followed by re-dissolution in recursive cycles of dissolution, seeding, growth, and re-dissolution".

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

You have brought in a very important aspect involving ATP etc. which we wish you could have elaborated. The same mechanism that energizes the sodium-potassium pump also energizes the senses to receive and send external impulses to the brain.

The nervous system uses electrical and chemical means to help all parts of the body to communicate with each other. The brain and spinal cord make up the central nervous system. Nerves everywhere else in the body are part of the peripheral nervous system. The peripheral nerves run from the spinal cord to all parts of the body. They surround all the organs, muscles and tissues--the heart, liver, intestines, lungs, skin and blood vessels. The peripheral nerves pick up information about the body and send messages through the spinal cord to the brain. The brain sends messages via the spinal cord to peripheral nerves throughout the body that serve to control the muscles and internal organs. The somatic nervous system is made up of neurons connecting the CNS with the parts of the body that interact with the outside world. But the brain lacks pain receptors (nociceptors) - hence it cannot sense anything. What we feel when we have a headache is not our brain hurting -- there are plenty of other areas in our head and neck that do have nociceptors which can perceive pain, and they literally cause the headaches. Since brain lacks sensory receptors, it does not hurt to have brain surgery.

An object receives all wavelengths of light, but reflects only few after absorbing the rest. That gives the object its color. We see only through eyes because eyes only can measure electromagnetic radiation (measurement is a system of comparison between similars). We feel only with our skin when something comes in close contact. Thus, what we see is the radiation emitted by the object, whereas what we touch is not the radiation, but the body emitting radiation. In both cases, our information is incomplete. When these are carried to the brain, these are mixed and a composite picture is prepared. Emotions are cognitive responses to sensory stimuli after they have been processed.

This picture is measured (compared with similar responses earlier) with memory. Then the perception is matched with the earlier perception of similar impulses. If it matches, we "know" that "it (the concept arising from the perceived impulses) is similar to that (an earlier perceived concept). Hence it (the object of perception) is that (equivalence of the concept).

Modern research on consciousness is confined to the actions of neurons, which is the process and not the perception itself. We must differentiate between the observer, the observed and the process of observation. Thus, modern research is wandering aimlessly.

Finally, thank you very much, because your paper gives much food for thought.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Steve Agnew,

You considered only red shifted Galaxies only. You may be knowing that the red-shifted Galaxies are only 40 percent. In the remaining 60 percent Galaxies in the Universe; there are "Blue shifted Galaxies Quasars (also Blue shifted)" are 40 percent and final remaining 20 percent dont show any shift....

Please see the (4 th) Book on blue shifted Galaxies from Dynamic Universe Model blog, which is available for a free down load, for further details.....

Have a look at my paper also............

So Request you to reconsider with this fundamental data.

Best Regards

=snp. gupta