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...
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
...but you have to know that I always reply to comments that are worth replying to. I realize that I have been hard on you, but such is life in the fast lane.
The fact is that you have really good intuition about reality and I always appreciate good intuition. What you could do better on is in not redefining physics so much as clarifying physics instead.
Granted. There are many ways to redefine the fundamental nature of physical constants. However, redefinition is a perpetual recursion that can tie you up in philosophical knots that lose sight of the primal goal: predicting the future of sources.
What we are all about is predicting the future better than the current models, and that is quite a challenge. For this essay, it means showing how mindless equations result in aims and intentions. In other words, how does the objective reality of the universe couple with the subjective reality of sources.
Since observers can only know sources and not themselves, that means that observers always affect sources in ways that those observers can never know. In many ways, that is exactly what your intuitive arguments state, but since you have not yet reached quantum phase noise, you have not yet reached the third stage of consciousness.
Spectral consciousness is an awareness of the universe sources as spectra of matter. In a way, you could do force spectra in terms of acceleration, which you are want to do. But really, matter and action are much better conjugates for the duality that defines our universe.
"There are many ways to redefine the fundamental nature of physical constants."
That can only occur so long as physics properties have not each received empirically revealed definitions. Once all inferred physics properties have received their empirically reveal definition, there is no further means by which to offer other definitions.
"In many ways, that is exactly what your intuitive arguments state, but since you have not yet reached quantum phase noise, you have not yet reached the third stage of consciousness."
My arguments are not intuitive if by that word you are charging that I do not know physics. They are explaining that all inferred physics properties can be and must defined in the same terms as is their empirical evidence. This is a restatement of the requirement that physics properties must be defined in terms of pre-existing properties. The physicists of the past who established this criterion knew what they were doing and why. Physics has nothing to do with stages of consciousness. It should have, but so long as it remains restricted to the dumbness of its mechanical interpretation, it will continue to fail to either predict or explain consciousness.
Your theory lacks an empirically revealed physics foundation. You need to go all the way back to the introduction of the property of mass and learn what it is. Stay with the empirical evidence until you see it. The procedure for you to follow is to figure out how the units of mass can be formed from a combination of the units of its empirical evidence. There is empirical guidance provided in the equation f/m=a. The units of force divided by the units of mass must reduce to the units of acceleration. It is in this manner that both force and mass become empirically revealed defined physics properties. It is by in this manner that the units of both force and mass become empirically revealed physics units. That is the only kind that meets the criterion for defining physics properties. The immediate result is that fundamental unity is an established part of f=ma. The leeway in the interpretations of physics equations that is currently the fodder by which theory prospers is removed and theoretical guesses go away with it.
James Putnam
You have been kind enough to share your empirically revealed foundations with us along with your empirically revealed definitions of physical properties. Fortunately, you also then explain what foundations and definitions mean. Unfortunately, foundations are empirical revelations and physical properties are what definitions reveal and so we recursively go a giant circle until we hit the showstopper...
When we hit f/m=a, this reveals the hidden truth that defines physical properties...that way, force and mass have physically revealed units. I do admire your ability to continuously recursively redefine reality and actually seem to believe that it helps to predict the action of sources better than current physics.
Since you use all of the same equations as current physics, save a few, where is the beef? Please...tell us what the entropy of a black hole is...
Steve Agnew:
You cannot, nor can anyone else, provide the mathematical basis for claiming that the units of Planck's Constant include the units of kilograms. I challenge you, and anyone else who thinks that they know better, to provide the mathematical basis for claiming that Planck's Constant contains the units of kilograms. It cannot be done by anyone. Anyone please provide it!!!
Verbal diversionary tactics count for nothing and accomplish nothing. I invite professionals: Please do this: Handle mass your way, then proceed from the introduction of the property of mass through the mathematics that finally reveal that the units of Planck's Constant include the units of kilograms. Lets make this personal between myself and theoretical physicists as a group. I say you cannot provide the mathematics to show that kilograms is a unit of 'action' anytime, anywhere!!!
James Putnam
Dear Steve Agnew,
You are not interested in discussing this with me, and, I don't really want to fruitlessly take up your essay forum space. I will give you a good rating in the last few minutes of the contest because I think your essay deserves it. I will return to my own space for anything further that I feel needs said about the theoretical side of physics. That is where others know to find what I think. Good luck to you.
James Putnam
