Mathematics and life goals have the same source -- nature by John C Hodge

Satyavarapu Gupta

Dear John Hodge,

Thank you very much for your interest in Dynamic Universe Model.

This Dynamic Universe Model is not just oriented toward galaxy and cosmology, but has many applications from Micro particles, Solar system level, Milkyway parts level, Astronomical jets, Galaxies level, Universe Level etc.

Many papers and books were published on Dynamic universe Model by the author on unsolved problems (of Bigbang) of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe

I will go to the link and see "The Scalar Theory OF Everything (STOE)" . Thank you for giving me the link.

Regarding CMB....

There are some basic problems in WMAP satellites' instrumentation and software. WMAP cannot eliminate Microwave radiation from Stars, Galaxies and clusters. If you calculate CMB using Stephen-Boltzmann law there will be nothing left from BB generated CMB radiation...

Please have a look at my essay on CMB in FQXi few years back

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1607

Regarding "The rotation curve and the asymmetric rotation curve" ... Are explained by Dynamic Universe Model very well. See the papers on "NO Dark Matter prediction", and "Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required" and all the other papers and books , which are available free downloads

You can post the comments here or send me mail...

Best Regards

=snp.gupta

John Hodge

Basudeba:

"What is emerging?"

The process of emergence is a discovered property (Character of the universe). Therefore, its value is to ask better question to reveal to action of the universe. I'll offer an example after defining some terms for communication.

"Unification" in this context is undefined (at least for me).

"Emerged from a common source" is a concept of reductionism.

I think we have a differing definition of "convergence". You seem to link it with the changing concepts of entities (results of emergence) from complexity to simplicity - from many entities to few entities (in my view to just 2 agents or 3 if the interaction is counted - each entity are agents of the next more complex level. (I'm using the idea of complexity not "higher". "Higher" has some unintended implications.)

Causation is from the simple agents to the more complex entities.

I mean "convergence" to be a selection of some entities that may be created from the agents from the less complex levels.

For example (finally): Consider the creation of atom entities as a combination of neutron and proton agents. The reductionist seeks the components of atoms (neutrons and protons). After a great deal of experimenting and false trails, the neutron and proton resulted and everybody (the reductionist that is)was happy. The emergenceist would start with the idea there exists agents that form atoms. They would be characterized as neutron and proton. Then would ask the question of what are nature's conditions that allow the atom entities that we know to be selected (the converge process) while other possible entities that we don't know how to dismiss as unlikely. So the agents may form an atom with 10 neutrons and 1 proton (10:1 ratio). Why is this possible atom not experienced? Is it another agent? Is it some result of the neutron interaction? Why does convergence select the 1:1 ratio? The answer would certainly change our perception of such things as atomic decay. Atomic decay is at the heart of our concept of "clock" (time). The change in atomic decay rate with the Sun's position has been noted. Perhaps acceleration such as gravity could change the rate of decay. The acceleration of an airplane would stop time as measured by a pendulum clock.

Note the differing perception between reductionist and emergenceist.

Your post mentioned a transformation example about position. The 9th paragraph in the Math section has a sentence "The number models are often abstractions that yield non-physical results such as infinity, singularities, and negative numbers." Singularity means zero. I suggest any transformation that yield or transforms a physical entity to have zero value. Negative value, or infinite value is improper (open to conceptual error). So the coordinate system of the position example is suspect. Good example.

What is the convergence selection process? Physics seems to prefer the energy minimization that is a reductioists view. I like the entropy maximation equations as mentioned in the section on "emergence of life".

The recent FQXi contest asked "How to steer humanity". The steering is an emergent of several societies to form a new entity (perhaps a new world order). Emergence has been the history of humanity's development of societies from family units to tribes to chiefdoms to states. The reductionists won the recent FQXi contest (How to steer humanity). The emergent model would suggest current organizations are the agents and the required entity is composed of all the types of society with some new organization.

Thanks

Hodge

Vladimir Rogozhin

Dear Jonathan,

Very interesting, in-depth essay and important findings to research ways to overcome the total crisis of understanding in the fundamental science:

"Roman numerals carved in stone represent unchanging quantities well, but viewing Mathematics in that way is a mistake, because Math is about how unchanging attributes and quantities come to be that way through a process. Seeing Math as dry - as though it was mindless and lifeless - is the real problem, and the mystery of where evolution comes from will disappear when we realize what Math is at its root, a systematic exploration of features characterizing the laws by which form evolves.

The unchanging quantities of Math itself include figures like the Mandelbrot Set, E8 and the other exceptional groups, as well as other mathematical invariants. While one could argue that humans constructed these things; it can also be said they were only discovered or always existed - even before the universe had its birth. So it is with even higher orders and levels of Mathematics we have not discovered yet, which the universe is already putting to use. But we are fortunate, at this juncture, to be equipped to learn how Math gives rise to life, in order to foster the evolution of consciousness."

I believe that the solution to the "hard problem of consciousness" is possible after solving the super hard problem of the foundations of mathematics (knowledge). Mathematicians, physicists and poets should have a single, full of life's meaning, picture of the world. I invite you to read and evaluate my ideas.

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

Vladimir Rogozhin

Dear John,

Very original and compelling ideas and conception. My high score.

Previous comment I posted in error. I invite you to read and evaluate my ideas.

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

pjackson

John

I'm trying to finish some graphics on a solution quantum erasers / delayed choice and it occurred to me there's no logical explanation without wave particle duality. Indeed the most advanced experiments divide and modulate the wave states of a photon (Indeed even the original rotated one of two parts to an orthogonal axis.

Can the photons you employ be 'split' into two in this way? Have you derived an explanation for the methods and findings consistent with your theory? If so is is accessible?

Also are you aware of the experiment which reverses the wavefunction (helical path axis) Chirality on passing through a screen? This was a fundamental proof of my model (though not explained in quantum terms) and I wonder if it can also be consistent with a ballistic solution? (I have a great Figure titled 'Polarisation flip pt.5.7087 figure1' but would have to search for the paper.)

Many thanks

Peter

basudeba mishra

Dear Sir,

It appears we are talking about the same thing in different languages. We agree with your notion of emergence. Unification and convergence means the same in our interpretation - one cause for many effects or as you say, "a selection of some entities that may be created from the agents from the less complex levels". Causation can be from the simple agents to the more complex entities or the opposite also. Emerged from a common source" is not a concept of reductionism, but its exact opposite. We consider moving from one to many as emergence and from many to one as convergence. But treating each element of the many separately is reductionism, which misleads. To give one example, there is a proverb of six blind men who went to "see" an elephant. Each touched only one body part of the elephant and described the whole of the elephant from his experience. Thus, while some who touched the leg said it is like a pole, others who touched the tail said it is like a rope. One who touched the ear said it is like a big fan of the ancient type, while the one who touched the teeth said it is solid and smooth. None of them are wrong in their description, but it does not describe the elephant. But if we take all their statements together, then also it does not describe the elephant. This is the problem of reductionism. But if we start from convergence: knowing the elephant, then we can understand each of the statements. Alternatively, if we combine all observations of all parts, we will be able to picture the elephant. The problem is, we examine only a part and generalize that to describe the whole.

Atomic decay is not at the heart of our concept of "clock" (time). The concepts of space and time arise from our concepts of sequence and interval. The interval between ordered sequences of objects is space and that between events is time. Atomic decay is an event. It is time per se. We measure the interval between two or more successive events and compare it with a standard interval to call it time measurement.

Concepts such as infinity, singularities, and negative numbers have been thoroughly misunderstood. Number is a quality of all confined objects by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, it is one. If there are similars, it is many, which can be 2,3,4,...n, depending upon sequential perception of 'one's. Infinity is like one - without similars, but whereas the dimensions of one are clearly perceived, the dimensions of infinity are not perceived. There are only four infinities in the universe: space, time, coordinates and consciousness. Singularity does not mean zero. Zero is the non-existence of something at "here-now", though it exists elsewhere. Singularity is total convergence of everything erasing the distinction between the observer, the observed and the mechanism of observation. Negative numbers show ownership exchange. If I have five oranges that I gave you without any consideration, I have a right to get it back. To that extent I owe five oranges. But since I cannot use it whenever I want, my ownership is conditional. This is shown by the negative sign. Unfortunately, this concept has been twisted out of context to suggest complex numbers. If the square of i is -1, then it is not mathematics. Because while squaring, not only the digit, but also its sign are multiplied. The square of all numbers is always positive and it can never be -1. This wrong concept has been developed into quaternion and all. But no one is questioning.

John Hodge

I've looked at the "quantum eraser/ delayed choice" type of experiment. If you've seen the video, remember the photon between mask and screen sends waves of plenum (space, gravity) out in all directions including behind it where the mask is. The reflected waves come back with informationabout the mask (slit arrangement). Because the waves travel as van Fandern suggests, Thus, this looks like "delayed choice". A logical model verified by computer simulation. The video references the papers (yes, s many pages and time to develope). Yhis is not wave particle duality, it is more like Bohm.

The simulation as the photon going through only one slit. However, the waves continue to sense the mask by the reverse waves. Note, however, this is NOT the same as the photon sends waves through both slits which then direct the photon in the single photon experiment. Immediately upon passing the mask, the waves are comming from the photon after the mask. The photons are not "split".

A simulation was run for the new experiment (Hodge Experiment) in which the slit is partially illuminated. This result is inconsistent with ALL the experiments I've examined.

The explanation is in the paper including the assumptions . The simulation was derived using the assumptions.

If you want, I could send (email) a copy if the simulation program (in Visual Basic 5, XP platform, with poor annotation).

I have examined some helical axis models. Unless the photon can satisfy the wave generation need for the experiment, the may not work. But it may be possible.

Hodge

John Hodge

I'm surprised no one took aim at the Emergence Principle's idea of the "arrow of time". This was one of the aims of this contest.

Most essays had no comment about the "arrow of time".

Those few who did took it as a postulate or observation rather than a result of the universal postulate.

A universal model that follows from postulates that fail to derive the Equivalence Principle (not a principle) or the "arrow of time" are incomplete.

I was hoping for some insight.

Hodge

John Hodge

Peter

One more point (I like talking of MY model- Thanks).

a photon between the mask and screen send a wave back to the mask. The mask reflects waves ( a \pi phase change). The slit do not reflect.

In the papers somewhere is a discussion on the math of this corresponds (produces the same equation without the HF weird assumptions).

Essentially, the reflected wave of a solid plane sheet is as if the emitter (photon) were on the other side of the mask. From this subtract the wave from the the slit. do the algebra, solve for the wave from the slit (the \pi is a negative as if it is an emission ) the result is the sinc() function.

That is this model corresponds with the HF model and does a lot more. That is how I know the wave models are rejected.

Hodge

pjackson

Hi John,

Yes, most all prefer discussing their OWN theory, exactly as my essays hypothesis. I try not to, but we are each the only expert on them!

It seems as I suggested your theory would exclude one CLASS of wave theory, but not many others (indeed you wrote 'wave' more than 'photon' above!) If your photon emits waves to solve the issues then it has it's own valid 'duality'.

The problem is then that the quantum eraser DOES rely on split 'photons', but then still also requires backward causation. It becomes more a matter of what a photon is 'constructed of' and its dynamic morphology. Do you address this anywhere?

I propose the whole nonsense, ALL the weird nonsense! simply reveals that the wrong starting assumptions were chosen. That was Bells view, but he too never found assumptions or a particle morphology that worked.

That's what I've now done; With 'duality' allowing orthogonal spin momenta (which we know anyway from Maxwell!) and the energy 'split' asymmetrically between pairs of slits (coherence length is microns, and again we know 'division' is done in spontaneous parametric down conversion SPDC) then the WHOLE THING falls into place!

1. In ALL case where only one part is 'measured' ('interacted with/observed/detected etc.) it's distribution follows a sine curve (50:50) and there's NEVER a fringe shift.

2. In ALL cases where the two paths are recombined and there's any path length difference or inversion asymmetry, there WILL be a fringe shift or destructive interference.

I'm not sure which of the scores of videos you refer to, I refer to Kim et al's original experiment. You'll note when recombined one of the paths had an extra reflection. That inverts polarity, which is 'PHASE REVERSAL'! (another fact known in photonics but largely unused by theorists).

Now I know that has the "someone else's model" problem but is the beautiful simplicity & logic really not visible? If not I'm struggling to work out why. Can you offer any thoughts?

Very best

Peter

John Hodge

Peter

My video on photon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k

paper http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603

videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc0mfCssV32dDhDgwqLJjpw

I noticed you had videos on youtube plese send links ("Jackson yields film makers, singers...

Your acedemia.edu site had no photon models?

Do you have a reference for the Kim experiment?

As I remember your video of the photon, there was no experiment, simulation, or equation derived for the diffraction. Is there a reference?

Wave - particle duality suggests the light is either a wave or a particle depending on the experiment. The stoe suggests light is the photon period. the wave is a gravitational wave. wold you say the LIGO experiment is seeking wave-particle duality of heavy masses.

What class of wave theory that produced the diffraction pattern and not use any HF assumptions?

Hodge

William Goodwin

John,

You seem to be saying that nature gave rise to deterministic mathematics and separately nature gave rise to life goals, such as aims and intentions. So, the two are not necessarily related. Then you allow that in the future, life goals may be explained by mathematics. Your future conclusion would then be that life is deterministic?

John Hodge

William

This hinges on the definition of deterministic. Does it mean that I will wake up (good news at my age) at exactly 6:02 AM. I find this hard to accept. However, if it means that humanity will change in a major way - yes. Note the emphasis on large numbers in the emergence principle and the method of convergence. Large numbers of entities bring quality in the class of entities.

Hodge

John Hodge

topic started me thinking. The new math may be like Boolean for computers. Neurons work by their frequency of pulsing not by the on-off of Boolean in computers. For example, a pain blocker is a slight current to keep the nerve cell "ON" (no frequency = no information transmittal. This implies there may be multiple levels of frequency which could sum if 2 or more cells send their signals to another cell. This is how the bundles and levels of laMuth work. So, f1 +f2 =f3 culd mean if f1 active, f3 active. if f1 1/2 active f3 is off, f1 and f2 half acive f3 on. if f1 nd f2 acive f3 could be off like the pain blocker.

Jonathan Dickau

An interesting essay John..

I must take issue with the statement that Math treats Geometry and Algebra as mutually exclusive. It is certainly not universally true, and from what I've seen it is more common that they be treated as interchangeable. I like the idea of a fractal universe and I published a paper in Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals on that topic. Much of what you talk about resonates with me personally.

Overall; I like what you are saying a lot, and I think the exposition of your subject is good. It feels like it's almost there, but not quite up to the level of some of the professional scientists in this contest, where both the idea and its exposition are nearly impeccable. If it was a journal submission, I would almost certainly approve it, because it hits the mark - but I might have some suggestions for improvement.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Jonathan Dickau

A further comment..

Some of the statements about the value of trig would have been aided by a discussion of measurement protocols and triangulation. Distance and size estimation are a big deal, essential for navigation, and trigonometry is the subject that opens the door to that possibility. So there is more you could have said. Yes it bridges the way Algebra and Geometry are different, but it actually goes farther than that.

All the Best,

Jonathan

John Hodge

If you like fractal cosmology (world of the very large), perhps you could like fractal world of the very small. the "walking drop" experiment look like quantum phenomana. They are on YouTube. I particularily like Fig. 5.(c) in Bush, "The new wave of pilot-wave theory", Physics Today, 68, 8 (2015) as a demonstration of the \Psi* in the classical world.

Remember the size limit of an essay.

Hodge

Jonathan Dickau

As it turns out..

I've had some correspondence with professor Bush. And during FFP11, I think I walked right by the lab of Couder and Fort. I remember reading a sign in the hallway of the Physics batiment (where my lecture took place) at Paris Diderot, and thinking it looked rather low-tech when I peered into the room. But I had no idea at the time, what the experiments were about.

As it turns out; there is an exact analogy of the shape in figure 5(c) in the Mandelbrot Set, and that is a point of interest for me. What I see is that the X shape in the tail is a phase inversion that chases the droplet along. The fish's tail drives the fish along, and the droplet is suspended over the fish's body. If you zoom way in on the droplet, you will see a bow-tie shape.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Steve Dufourny

Hi Mr Hodge,

Happy to see your essay on this contest.I liked it.

Congratulations.

ps this info about the works of Tom Van F. intrigues me.I beleive the same with this waves of gravitation that many confound with the gravitational waves which are them Under our special relativity.These waves tend to infinity like this quantum gravitation in fact.It is probably this zero absolute the secret balancing this standard model and thermo.This matter not baryonic the dark matter and the BHs have still many secrets to show us in fact.It is facinating because we are at doors of a real revolution in technology due to the checking of this gravitation at quantum scales.We could utilise a new kind of energy.This cold ...

Regards

John Hodge

Agree we t the door of a revolution - the data exists. Now we need the think of the new model.

Suggest the gravitational aether produces the rotation curves of the Dark matter" models.

Thanks for the note.

Hodge

Jeffrey Schmitz

This is an interesting idea, that the Universe is deterministic and that there exist a "theory of everything" which our science, math and philosophy are just imperfect reflections of this entity. The author shows the utility of the "theory of everything"; all can be explained by starting with the theory of everything and working down to anything: Life, Quantum Mechanics, dark matter and human society. The author even has methods to help reveal more information from the theory of everything. Regrettably, this reviewer does not share the premise. Science cannot assume a perfect theorem exists and base all inquiries using that requirement. All ideas must be part of the debate that is the scientific method.

Sincerely,

Jeff

John Hodge

"Science cannot assume a...", Why not. you also say "All ideas must be part of the debate..."- contradictory.

Assuming there is a TOE suggests a line of inquiry into what are the common elements of General Relativity and quantum mechanics. Perhaps add life and societies.The Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) suggests the "space" is a "gravitational aether" of Bohm Interpretation and the \Psi* suggest faster than light waves. The result produces new models that explain quantum entanglement, rejects wave-particle duality with another explanation of photon light. The diffraction experiment rejecting wave nature of light also suggest the cause of entanglement, quantum eraser experiment results.

The STOE is a little rough on life and society, but I have written the papers on life and society from the STOE perspective.

Hodge

Jeffrey Schmitz

Hodge,

Science cannot assume a perfect theorem exists and base all inquiries using that requirement.

If you include the whole quote it is no longer it is no longer contradictory. A perfect theorem might exist, but the existence of the theorem must also be shown using the scientific method.

Sincerely,

Jeff

« Previous Page Next Page »