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

      Interesting essay Steve...

      I like the way you contrast the effects of classical and quantum noise. In any confined sample of a gas, at room temperature, we note the increase of thermodynamic entropy and a co-existence of quantum and classical chaos. I have wondered if whether the formulation of entropy involving microstates is inherently quantum mechanical - given its dependency on n, the number of gas molecules - or is it just statistical mechanics? I think we see both a superposition of states, and the presence of alternate paths, so it gets complicated. You might want to check out J. Miguel Rubi, as his work offers some interesting insights.

      I examined a question related to the decoherence issues you bring up, for my presentation at FFP10. I thought that perhaps QM non-locality and Thermodynamic Entropy might have a common basis. Erich Joos was pretty emphatic in correspondence that decoherence is not dissipation, and it would appear that you take the view it contributes to self-organizing dynamics instead of disorder; is this correct? Finally; I see some connection of your work with the Continuous Spontaneous Localization folks. I had some correspondence years ago with Philip Pearle, regarding Statevector Reduction. But it would appear that you are saying the wavefunction collapse brings order out of chaos. Care to comment?

      All the Best,

      Jonathan

        Your comments are quite detailed and well appreciated. Your questions seem to have more classical than quantum bias and it is certainly true that the chaos of classical noise usually overwhelms any of the effects of quantum phase noise, even for science.

        You mention in particular the without the hidden knowledge of an initial condition, prediction of action is of course impossible. However, this is a distinctly classical view that presumes that all causes are in principle knowable. There are quantum causes that are not knowable and that means there are things about the universe in which we must simply believe.

        The double slit experiment represents one of many examples of how quantum phase noise determines the path of either a photon, electron, or indeed any particle. Recent experiments have actually shown that even large molecules show interference effects where a single molecule interferes with itself. In other words, a single particle's many possible futures represent uncertain paths and no single path is knowable.

        The one big hole in mainstream science is the lack of an acceptable quantum gravity. By supposing an inherent role for quantum decoherence, aethertime posits just such a quantum gravity and that is the basis of the entropy flow noted in this essay.

        You offer once again the classical notion that the future is solely determined by knowable causes. However, quantum phase noise represents a cause that is not knowable and that is the point of my essay.

        You also note that there are some questions about universe expansion and my essay is based on a shrinking matter and expanding action universe. Therefore, the fact that the Andromeda galaxy blue shift is heading towards us at about 0.28 ppb/yr is a part of our shrinking mass. Other more distant galaxies have red shifts due to our expanding force, not really our expanding space.

        The classical mass of an electron is indeed a constant of mainstream science. Two hydrogen atoms show the dominance of the gravity attraction of mutual mass once they are more than about 70 microns apart, which is the dispersion limit. Aethertime supposes that each hydrogen mass decays at a very slow rate even as their gravity increases at the same slow rate. This decay is what drives aethertime force.

        It is possible to build a universe with many different axioms as beliefs. Aethertime supposes a universe from the duality of just matter and action and so space and time are both emergent properties and not actually axioms. But the time decay and space that both emerge from the action of the universe matter pulse are still what mainstream science believes are axioms.

        Energy is just another form of matter as you mention, but phase also plays a very important role. What aethertime supposes is that motion and time are simply how we interpret the mass changes that are apart of all action. It is from the differential of action with mass that space and time emerge. Aethertime does not alter the barrier between mass and energy since both are just different forms of aether action.

        Aethertime simply embraces the Schrodinger equation as the basic action equation for both charge and gravity forces. Gravity is due to the same universal matter decay as charge, just scaled by the size of the matter size of the universe.

        Neural action potentials are the chemical ion pulses that excite and inhibit action for many organisms including, of course, human consciousness. What truly surprised me was that quantum gravity would play any role at all in neural action. However, it is not really quantum gravity per se, it is rather the underlying aether exchange that defines all quantum action.

        The action of ATP provides the basic energy for all of life and that includes neural life. The core concept of neural action is that a pulse-echo neural pair forms a particle of aware matter just like two atoms as observer and source form a transient bond by exchanging a photon. But there is both phase and amplitude information in a photon exchange and that is true for a neural exchange as well.

        Mainstream science presumes that neural action of ion charge phase decay is much too fast for any quantum neural effects like interference or entanglement. However, with quantum aether, this statement is no longer true. While it is true that the phase decay of quantum charge is very fast for neurons, the phase decay of a neural pulse-echo pair is what defines each moment of thought.

        In other words, the current loop of a neural pair results in a magnetic field that couples aware matter particles as a quantum aether into moments of thought. Science measures these neural couplings as the EEG spectra of consciousness, but there is not a theory of the mind that yet understands what EEG spectra really mean.

        Once again, thanks for your thoughtful comments.

        Since I am not an astronomer, I leave interpretations of galaxy red shifts to those who do the observations. I am a spectroscopist, though, and so do know how to interpret spectra. You have taken the red shift spectral data of hundreds of thousands of galaxies and reinterpreted spectral red shifts as blue shifts.

        I have looked at the same dataset and see the red shift spectra as very good spectral information. However, my expanding force and shrinking mass aethertime universe does posit a different reason for the spectral red shifts. Denying the large body of evidence for spectral redshifts of increasingly distant galaxies seems futile to me.

        Measurements are key to making sense out of the observer-source quantum bond and the measurements of galaxy spectra are how science makes sense out of the universe. Since the SDSS redshift spectra data is very certain, there is no reason to change that view.

        What a really nice comment...indeed, it would appear that wavefunction collapse brings order out of chaos, but it is important to stipulate: When quantum phase noise drives wavefunction collapse, that is distinct from the wavefunction collapes driven by the noise of classical chaos.

        Of course, an isolated compressed gas does not change classical entropy unless heat or mass exchanges with the reservoir. However, in the quantum entropy of aether, even a classically isolated system is still subject to the decay of matter and expansion of force. All of the universe decays in matter and expands in action and the quantum phase decay of an isolated system entangles all other isolated systems as well.

        Therefore even a classically isolated system shows the same arrow of time of phase decoherence or as you say, dissipation. Does your isolated system account for tunneling? Or coherence? How about interference?

        Certainly classical decoherence is not classical dissipation, but then again, the classical universe has no role for quantum gravity in any event. Without quantum gravity, there is no meaning for gravitational decoherence and what I call gravity matterism. The motion of stars along with their radiation provides the dimension of a vector force that has no classical meaning, but happens to be exactly what keeps galaxy rotation constant in aethertime. Galaxy rotation is a consequence of quantum gravity and yet cold dark matter halos are still the classical belief of mainstream science.

        Statistical mechanics integrates quantum mechanics by quantizing the modes of an empty box. This works really well for many thermo applications, but does not include the dissipation effects of quantum phase noise just like QED does not either. Really Stat Mech and QED both need to quantize the universe with a finite discrete aether instead of an infinity of vacuum oscillators and then let the space and time of empty boxes emerge from that quantized and finite discrete aether.

        Any math that begins with the assumptions of continuous space and time is necessarily stuck with the limitations of continuous space and time. The issue with quantum nonlocality is stuck with the conundrums of continuous space and time because of what the word local means. Beginning a universe instead with discrete matter and quantum action in place of space and time makes life so much easier...and thanks for the Rubi and Pearle links...

        Dear Sir,

        We find similar echoes in your reply with our views. We have also made distinctions between classical and quantum aspects. Majority people accept that these are different. But are they really different? Every micro phenomena has a macro equivalent. In 2003, we told Leggett about this. Our inability to know does not change the rule of Nature. Just like hydrogen and oxygen have properties different from water, micro world shows different behavior from macro world. But it is not random - there is order behind such coupling. Hence, theoretically, it is knowable. Can you please list a few quantum causes that are not knowable?

        Regarding the double slit experiment, when you say "even large molecules show interference effects where a single molecule interferes with itself", are you not proving my statement - the macro world is a composite of the micro world?

        When you say: "a single particle's many possible futures represent uncertain paths and no single path is knowable", are you not expressing our inability to know? The same initial conditions will lead to the same final outcome - the same future. If we accept that it has a possibility to lead to different futures, can we have science at all? All equations will have different solutions, which cannot be known? We agree that we are talking against mainstream science. But are we wrong? Should we accept majority view without proper analysis? Is majority always right?

        Regards,

        basudeba

        Dear Steve Agnew,

        It is very nice to contact a spectroscopist, who knows how to interpret spectra.

        I have taken the spectral data of hundreds of thousands of QUASARS and interpreted spectral lines as blue shifts, but not Galaxies as you said.

        But NOW I will ask the FUNDAMENTAL question... which way is correct? Why something like that is possible?

        I say probably your "expanding force and shrinking mass aethertime universe" explains well present scinerio. But we have to exclude the fundamental question first is that not?

        You are correct in saying that Measurements are key to making sense out of the observer.

        The SDSS redshift spectra data is very certain, that is exactly correct, but the interpretation of data is done by the software we use. That depends on the requirement and guidance given to programmer.

        Finally it will be your will to change that view or not.....

        Best Regards

        =snp.gupta

        ...of course, what I meant is that any particle path is not precisely knowable, but that does not mean that we do not know anything about the path. It simply means that there are limits to what we can know.

        It also means that given precisely the same initial conditions, a similar but not exactly the same future occurs. Thus, science works just fine, but the quantum uncertainty principle does limit the knowledge of science and so that means that quantum phase noise is different from the chaos of classical noise.

        The Schrodinger equation only admits probabilistic solutions, not the determinate solutions of the Hamilton-Jacobi action equation of gravity and relativity. However, there is a quantum Hamilton-Jacobi action equation that describes the determinism of gravity's relativity as well and the probability of quantum charge.

        Every time that I look at quasar spectra, I am amazed...but here is an example of the plots of 46,420 quasar spectra that show redshifts, not blue shifts.

        Does your data show blueshifts for these many spectral lines? Quasar spectra are due to the near c jets of matter ejected from SMBH's and so are different from the spectra of galaxies and stars, which move much more slowly. Are you somehow reinterpreting the hypervelocity quasar jet are a motion of the galaxy?

        As you probably know, there are many more quasars looking back in time and quasars seem to peak at about z = 1.2 or so. Local galaxy density is ~3.5 Mpc^3 and so it is not yet clear why quasars peaked at z = 1.2. In aethertime, the Hubble constant is proportional to the local speed of light, which decreases going back in time just as mass increases going back in time.

        The aethertime universe of expanding force does interpret quasar numbers very differently, but the quasar red shifts seem to be real.

        Hi Steve, Good essay.

        As we tend to come at things from different angles I was pleasantly surprised about how much I was fundamentally in agreement with. In particular I agree your P4 recycling description as very consistent with my published paper on the subject, identifying a pattern reproduced at CMB scale so extending to the universe.

        But of course scores anyway shouldn't be based on 'agreement with' content, and we do need all disparate viewpoints. Yours was well written, organized and argued so should be far higher than it presently is.

        I hope you may also enjoy reading mine and look forward to your response. In particular I wonder if your 'quantum phase noise' is as similar as I suspect to the squared sine curve distribution I show can be derived classically.

        Very best of luck

        Peter

          Thanks. I have really been encouraging a null vote even though I appreciate thoughtful comments. I do not know how to rate the very different notions in all of the essays so I do no bother to.

          I do differentiate between classical and quantum with the notion of quantum phase noise. Although there are many ways to generate the chaos of classical noise, quantum phase noise shows superposition, entanglement, and interference. Classical noise does not show these effects.

          Steve,

          If you check the scoring criteria they exclude rating 'notions' or whether or not you like or agree with actual content. It seems most people have (again) entirely missed the point on that! That should make valid scoring a lot easier.

          Thanks for confirming my understanding of your QFN. I asked because my essay describes a logical Classical explanation for each of the effects you describe, all from the very simplest mechanism we know; a spinning sphere. It's too important and 'simple' (elephant in the room) for most here to even 'see' but I did have you marked down as one who may.

          I hope you get a chance to read it as I'd value you thoughts.

          Very Best

          Peter

          Dear Sir,

          Modern scientists bring in many imaginary concepts without properly understanding it. One is extra-dimensions, which is used for over a century, even though it has never been observed. In our paper we have proved all modern notions in this regard as wrong and given physical explanations of 10 dimensions. Similarly, complex numbers, or quaternions, etc. are wrong mathematics, because square of i is treated as -1, whereas, mathematically, square of any positive or negative number is always positive. It can never be -1. After writing a beautiful essay, you are leading towards the trap. While other fundamental forces are intra-body forces, gravity is an inter-body polygamous force that acts throughout the universe. This implies that it cannot be quantized. Hence graviton will never be found. So why bring in absurd concepts like quantum gravity, when you can explain life mechanism without it? What you have missed is equating the process of observation with the observer. Life mechanism is different from consciousness. The same mechanism continues during life time, but ceases to operate at death. This implies the mechanism is not consciousness, but only a process. We can observe the same process in all objects, except that there is freewill in conscious beings. So your search should be directed towards freewill and consciousness - not quantum gravity.

          Regards,

          basudeba

          Dear Sir,

          There is much misunderstanding regarding uncertainty of the quantum world. When Heisenberg proposed his conjecture in 1927, Earle Kennard independently derived a different formulation, which was later generalized by Howard Robertson as: σ(q)σ(p) ≥ h/4π. This inequality says that one cannot suppress quantum fluctuations of both position σ(q) and momentum σ(p) lower than a certain limit simultaneously. The fluctuation exists regardless of whether it is measured or not implying the existence of a universal field. The inequality does not say anything about what happens when a measurement is performed. Kennard's formulation is therefore totally different from Heisenberg's. However, because of the similarities in format and terminology of the two inequalities, most physicists have assumed that both formulations describe virtually the same phenomenon. Modern physicists actually use Kennard's formulation in everyday research but mistakenly call it Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. "Spontaneous" creation and annihilation of virtual particles in vacuum is possible only in Kennard's formulation and not in Heisenberg's formulation, as otherwise it would violate conservation laws. If it were violated experimentally, the whole of quantum mechanics would break down.

          The uncertainty relation of Heisenberg was reformulated in terms of standard deviations, where the focus was exclusively on the indeterminacy of predictions, whereas the unavoidable disturbance in measurement process had been ignored. A correct formulation of the error-disturbance uncertainty relation, taking the perturbation into account, was essential for a deeper understanding of the uncertainty principle. In 2003 Masanao Ozawa developed the following formulation of the error and disturbance as well as fluctuations by directly measuring errors and disturbances in the observation of spin components: ε(q)η(p) + σ(q)η(p) + σ(p)ε(q) ≥ h/4π.

          Ozawa's inequality suggests that suppression of fluctuations is not the only way to reduce error, but it can be achieved by allowing a system to have larger fluctuations. Nature Physics (2012) (doi:10.1038/nphys2194) describes a neutron-optical experiment that records the error of a spin-component measurement as well as the disturbance caused on another spin-component. The results confirm that both error and disturbance obey the new relation but violate the old one in a wide range of experimental parameters. Even when either the source of error or disturbance is held to nearly zero, the other remains finite. Our description of uncertainty follows this revised formulation.

          While the particles and bodies are constantly changing their alignment within their confinement, these are not always externally apparent. Various circulatory systems work within our body that affects its internal dynamics polarizing it differently at different times which become apparent only during our interaction with other bodies. Similarly, the interactions of subatomic particles are not always apparent. The elementary particles have intrinsic spin and angular momentum which continually change their state internally. The time evolution of all systems takes place in a continuous chain of discreet steps. Each particle/body acts as one indivisible dimensional system. This is a universal phenomenon that creates the uncertainty because the internal dynamics of the fields that create the perturbations are not always known to us. We may quote an example.

          Imagine an observer and a system to be observed. Between the two let us assume two interaction boundaries. When the dimensions of one medium end and that of another medium begin, the interface of the two media is called the boundary. Thus there will be one boundary at the interface between the observer and the field and another at the interface of the field and the system to be observed. In a simple diagram, the situation can be schematically represented as shown below:

          O !->

          I must admit that I do like many aspects of the DFM approach...but quantum stuff does trump classical stuff and so quantum owns the issue today. Maybe that will change, but right not, quantum owns the day...

          Obviously you have thought a lot about quantum physics and that I like. You mention complex numbers and then disparage them, but complex numbers are just a convenient way to keep track of quantum phase coherence.

          So using the Euler method, sqrt(-1) is just a phase shift of pi and so what is the big deal? My quantavangelism is to make both gravity and charge quantum aether and so far, that has been successful.

          I just cannot convince anyone else in the universe...but may C. Wetterich has the key. His theory uses expanding mass and shrinking force, but what the hey...it could also be shrinking mass and expanding force...