Thanks again for the Singh link. Had not yet read it, but Singh is really almost there...very cool...

Steve,

OK, yes I better understand the problem. Nobody who'se convinced they've found 'the solution' down some road of there own can ever disengage, back right up and be led down any entirely different road, even if it may lead to the same place.

That's human nature. And that's really what we need to advance to truly start to understand how the universe works.

Goof luck with your own model. If it involves some continuum field (ether) with density distributions then I agree it!

Best

Peter

Aethertime is a discrete quantum aether and discrete quantum action. Any continuum model of the universe will fail at both very small and very large scales. It is very interesting to me when very smart people seem to argue endlessly about identity recursions like what is matter or what is action.

These are axioms and therefore are simply things about the universe in which we must simply believe. Once we have axioms, then we can predict the actions of sources like spinning spheres. However, there is not a unique set of axioms and instead there are many different kinds of consciousness that successfully predict action. There do seem to be some notions that predict action better than others and for that, the proof is in the pudding...

Steve,

It seems we do do have much in common. I refer to a 'sub matter' particulate field rather than 'quanta' (which infers 'matter'), but that's semantic. It can then be a 'continuum' but not of a non-particulate variety which fails. Let me give you a quick written spec for comparison;

1. It is 'dark' or zero point energy, fulfilling all that role but not 'expanding'.

2. It is also 'ether', but has to condense fermion pairs to modulate EM propagation.

3. It is then the 'condensate'. or Higgs field, giving Coulomb, Casimir etc.

4. The extra spin state of the process is from shear perturbation.

5. The vortices formed are pairs of handed fermions, both with two poles.

6. Local energy loss on forming 'matter' isn't 'filled in' but creates a density gradient.

7. All matter tends to move towards the lowest density side (as in a gas).

8. Dim witted macro beings are confused by this, calling it 'gravitation'.

9. When matter returns to condensate form its energy level flattens.

There's plenty more but that's most of the essentials. What else would be needed?

However it seems science really needs to catch up with what's really happening at the 'kiddies bricks' condensed matter scale before getting ahead of itself. If most humans can't yet 'see' the TWO pairs of orthogonal momenta being exchanged on interactions with the simplest spinning spheres then it may be some time before they can see the next fractal down! Have you spotted them yet?

Best

Peter

You do have good intuition, but your maths could use some work. It has taken me almost ten years to work out the details of aethertime. Even to finally realize that aether and action are the fundamental reality, not space or time, has been quite a journey.

When I see other fringe theories, it seems to help congeal aethertime even more nicely. There are many measurements of aether decay and force growth but right now, they are simply labeled as artifacts by mainstream science.

This continuous spontaneous localization (CSL) theory is very intriguing Somehow the CSL community uses a coherence decay that is very close to aether coherence decay, 0.32 compared to 0.26 ppb/yr. And CSL uses a coherence length of 100 microns, which is very close to the gravity/dispersion = 1 at 70 microns.

It is really nice to see that more people are converging onto aether decoherence as a fundamental driver of all force...

Hi Steve,

I just wanted you to know I read your thoughtful and detailed reply. I do agree that it is likely dark matter and dark energy will go away (or be seen as far less pervasive), because indeed quantum gravity will explain those effects. Verlinde's recent work appears to have cleared the first hurdle. We'll see.

All the Best,

Jonathan

The notions of continuous spontaneous localization are very intriguing. First of all, it is remarkable that Singh's essay used CSL constants that evidently have been kicking around awhile, but are very similar to the constants of aethertime...which of course are just restatements of current constants. Singh notes a CSL collapse rate of 1.0e-11 s-1 and aether decays at 0.81e-7 s-1. Singh notes a CSL radius of 1.0e-5 cm and the dispersion to gravity radius is 0.7 e-5 cm.

Of course, the aether constants are not new constants...they just restate currently accepted constants in the context of quantum phase noise decay. The jostling of CSL seems to be simply arbitrarily chosen to work while the jostling of aether is the gravity jostling linked to charge motion. The motion of quantum charge results in a pervasive quantum gravity phase noise that only becomes important out beyond where dispersive dipole-induced-dipole noise drops below quantum gravity noise.

The nice thing about the CSL theory is that it already has a nice Hamiltonian and so represents a really nice starting point for quantum gravity. However, it is important to use conjugates like matter and action and avoid space and time. Space and time are simply too limited to ever represent quantum gravity. Only discrete matter and action can handle the limitations of the very small as well as the very large.

What this means is that every wavefunction is a composite of both the slow changes of gravity phase decay as well as the fast changes of charge motion.

Glad I came back to check for a reply..

I'll get to Tejinder's essay before long. Thanks again.

JJD

I do enjoy the essays and am sorry that I do not vote nor do I expect votes. The banter about the unfairness is part of the reason and it is not clear how such a simple-minded vote can ever have any meaning.

My essay continues to evolve into even lower entropy... for those who are interested...

Hi Steve,

You argue your point of view quite well, even though opposed to mine concerning expansion/contraction of the universe. Let experiment be the final arbiter.

I find your description of how early life could have begun quite revealing and interesting. While describing this you touched on the role of the sun. Do you share the views of the late Carl Sagan concerning the 'faint yellow sun' paradox? How much life can such a young sun drive on earth's surface if this paradox is true? Or what is your own proposed resolution?

Lastly, you use the term, 'action' a lot in your writings. Matter we know is measured in kilograms, time in seconds... what is the unit of measure of action (i.e. the fundamental units)?

Best regards,

Akinbo

    You always ask very insightful questions. I am aware of the faint sun paradox, but the snowball earth periods are equally perplexing to me.

    Since mass decays and force grows over time, there are different interpretations of the past. Gravity and charge scale differently with time since gravity goes as Gm^2 and charge goes as q^2c^2 over time. This means that the effects of gravity and charge vary in different ways over time and that will occur for any theory where mass and force vary over time.

    What this means for the sun is that convection, which heat and gravity drive, varies differently from fusion, which quantum charge drives. The current models of the sun over time simply do not allow for changes in mass or c and so the faint sun paradox is simply a result of fixed constants of nature. The sunspot cycle seems to be a result of this effect and the variability of many types of stars is likely related to quantum gravity linked to charge.

    Action is a very well known term in physics and is a result of the integration of energy (or equivalent mass) over time or space or spacetime. Thus the units of action are kg s or kg m depending on whether the integration is over time or space. Note that Planck constant/c^2 has the action units of kg s and represents the quantum of action.

    Thus, space, time, or even spacetime all emerge from the differential of action with respect to mass. This means that the whole universe of space and time emerges from the simple duality of the conjugates matter and action. This means that all quantum wavefunctions are a product of both very slow gravity as well as very fast charge oscillations that have a pure matter and action basis.

    Once an observer of a source tries to make sense out of matter and action, that is when space and time emerge as a way to keep track of source mass and source action.

    Dear Steve Agnew

    I invite you and every physicist to read my work "TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I'm not a physicist.

    How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.

    1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

    2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

    3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

    4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as "Time" definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

    5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,... a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander.....

    6) ....worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn't a viable theory, but a proved fact.

    7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

    8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

    9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

    11)Time "existence" is exclusive as a "measuring system", its physical existence can't be proved by science, as the "time system" is. Experimentally "time" is "movement", we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure "constant and uniform" movement and not "the so called Time".

    12)The original "time manuscript" has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

    I share this brief with people interested in "time" and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

    Héctor

      Hi Steve,

      I read your submission and I am not happy. Your profile suggests a better researched and referenced submission. I didn't get that. I see no references, (I seem to live on those). And in your first paragraph you are making statements that other material contradicts. Here is the statement. "The quantum observer has many more possible futures and may not be able to remember the mysteries of exactly which door they actually took or why they chose the door they chose." And here are the references that contradict that statement. [Link:https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.04781]Lev Vaidman1[/Link] and [Link:https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.04109]Lev Vaidman2 and others[/Link]. I choose to believe Lev Vaidman in this case.

      Jim Akerlund

        Thank-you very much for your views on time. Time is a very useful notion and helps science predict the futures of sources, but ultimately, time is limited and does not represent all action in the universe.

        Time needs very careful interpretation and then the notions of time have much value for prediction of of source action.

        There is nothing really wrong with your two-state vector formalism, it is just limited and does not apply to dynamical QM and does not include the decoherence of quantum phase noise.

        You are correct in that I do not give a lot of references since those are present in other papers. Any true quantum description of reality must include decay of quantum phase coherence or it makes no sense. Technical references exist and if you want to see them, you are welcome.

        Without the decoherence of quantum phase noise, the universe simply does not make sense...

        5 days later

        Dear Steve Agnew

        I inform all the participants that use the electronic translator, therefore, my essay is written badly. I participate in the contest to familiarize English-speaking scientists with New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the principle of identity of space and matter. Combining space and matter into a single essence, the New Cartesian Physic is able to integrate modern physics into a single theory. Let FQXi will be the starting point of this Association.

        Don't let the New Cartesian Physic disappear! Do not ask for himself, but for Descartes.

        New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show potential in this essay I risked give "The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural" - Is the name of my essay.

        Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. After you give a post in my topic, I shall do the same.

        Sincerely,

        Dizhechko Boris

        Dear Steve Agnew,

        You have chosen frequencies in a different manner than I did...

        Why and How Blue shift calculation are possible in the way it was shown in the 4 th Book, about Blue shifted Galaxies. 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

        Dear Steve Agnew,

        Probably we may be missing a fundamentally new and different Picture of Universe......

        Best Regards

        =snp

        Dear Steve Agnew,

        You view of physics is one of those I find far too loose in its handling of properties and especially their equation representatives, their units, to agree with. However, I do also think that it is representative of cutting edge physics theory as theory is handled today. I think we have spoken more than enough about our views. I will not bring anything more about our differences here unless you bring them up. I want you to know that I think you wrote a very good essay promoting your views. I don't rate essays according whether or not I agree with their content if that content is consistent with today's professional presentations of theoretical physics. I think that yours is consistent in that manner. I won't be posting my votes until the last minutes of the contest. Thus far I have posted no votes. Whatever my vote for your essay is, it should have a good chance of counting at that late time. Good luck to you.

        James Putnam