Religion is called religion in the world of reality I happen to reside in. My knowing is knowing, it is not my "non-thinking." As I have carefully explained in my essay: Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it, and he real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. All of the theoretical physicists and philosophers who have ever lived have been wrong about the visible real Universe because they have arrogantly described what they thought instead of believing what they actually saw.

Joe Fisher, Realist

No getting through to you, Joe. You've wasted enough time talking about "your reality" in my essay forum, and never once mentioning my essay. Goodbye.

7 days later

Tom,

Nice essay ... I'm glad to see someone propose an experiment.

FYI, Dr. Klingman also proposes a consciousness field, although his experimental basis differs from yours.

I have a few questions for you beginning near the bottom of page 2 of your essay. You present a schematic of two self-interacting fields. Should not the observer O be either 2 or 2- to maintain neutrality? Assuming that the observer is the same for both fields, does this imply that the observer O is himself an alternating electro-magnetic field? Does the requirement that there be a pair of complimentary self-interacting fields account for the universe/self dichotomy? I might have made one of the triangles upside down to emphasize that the observer is changing.

Lastly, do you argue that if the cosmic background were warmer, there would be no gravity and no self-awareness?

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

    • [deleted]

    • Post #32

    Thank you, Gary, for a most thoughtful and insightful post.

    I'll look forward to reading Gene's essay. We agree on many things in principle (consciousness field among them).

    " ... near the bottom of page 2 of your essay. You present a schematic of two self-interacting fields. Should not the observer O be either 2+ or 2- to maintain neutrality?"

    It doesn't matter, physically, what number is assigned to a non-physical case. It does not affect local measure.

    "Assuming that the observer is the same for both fields, does this imply that the observer O is himself an alternating electro-magnetic field?"

    Yes! That's a good way to put it. The unsigned observer doesn't exist. The male-female ( + or - ), each valued 1/2, add the value +/- 4 to the interactive fields. In other words, the field becomes physical in an asymmetrical way -- here's how I explained it in the larger context of my work I referenced earlier:

    The introduction of one unpaired sign completes the circuit and forces action on the interacting left and right fields. It also tells us that there is such a thing as an unpaired sign--whether we say male and female observers, positive and negative charge, left and right orientation.

    The principle of least action is the principle of least separation, and least separation compels action in one direction at a time, and not simultaneously.

    If that physical separation were more than zero, there would be resistance to motion--inertia. What we actually observe is that universe is largely inertia free. (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1371)

    Zeno asked, is motion possible? Mach and Einstein answered that all motion is relative. There is zero separation between the relative and the possible--which begs a topological model. What we mean is that Einstein was essentially correct in his concept of a unified field theory, describing spaces in relative motion: " ... the infinitesimal displacement field ... replaces the inertial system inasmuch as it makes it possible to compare vectors at infinitesimally close points." (Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity, Fifth Edition, 1956, appendix II, p.142.)

    "Does the requirement that there be a pair of complimentary self-interacting fields account for the universe/self dichotomy? I might have made one of the triangles upside down to emphasize that the observer is changing."

    Couldn't have said it better myself.

    "Lastly, do you argue that if the cosmic background were warmer, there would be no gravity and no self-awareness?"

    Did gravity and self-awareness exist in the earlier, warmer, universe? :-)

    I have read your essay, and in due course will comment, hopefully with a comparable level of seriousness with which you have honored me.

    All best,

    Tom

    Thomas,

    Your essay is an interesting journey.

    Reading your essay, I feel like I've entered an interactive phantom world in which I'm bathed in neutrino radiation -- which I know we all are. I know that the quantum world does a number on us to the tune of some 7*1027 atoms. I never thought of the quantum (gravity) world being interactive with consciousness but you almost poetically declare neutrinos at the speed of light showed us a classical world. Like that.

    It's mind boggling.

    If you want to assemble yourself, I like to hear your comments on my essay.

    Regards,

    Jim Hoover

      Tom,

      Your speculation regarding gravity, consciousness, and the temperature of the background radiation is interesting ...

      I don't know about awareness, but I could believe that gravity did not exist until the universe cooled enough for there to be matter. So the first moment of cosmological inflation could have been gravity-free.

      Regarding consciousness, your idea implies to me that the neutrino field is the mediator of consciousness and it requires there be a single, lowest-energy wave function for the observer ....

      That is profound. These are new ideas for me. Thanks.

      Best Regards and Good Luck,

      Gary Simpson

      Tom,

      Could a Bose-Einstein Condensate be sentient or could it measurably interact with the consciousness field?

      Best Regards and Good Luck,

      Gary Simpson

      Hi Tom,

      Nice Essay and a bit provocative. Your neutrino experiment to test quantum gravity is interesting, despite thinking about the Neutrino field as the fundamental field is a bit speculative. In any case, your Essay enjoyed me, so, I will give you the highest score. Thanks for your comments in my Essay page, I wish you good luck in the Contest.

      Cheers, Ch.

        Hi Tom,

        I understand your essay a little better than the first time because I've read the comments here.

        It's not clear to me that the neutrino beam, which is uncharged, will disrupt superconductivity, which is an electromagnetic phenomena. Or perhaps you're saying that if the neutrino is absorbed in a nucleus that then radiates the secondary radiation will disturb the superconductivity. You could be right, I don't know. It's always good to propose experiments.

        By the way, my gravity-based model of the neutrino is Majorana, that is, a neutrino is its own antiparticle. Does this agree with your model or not? Attempts are ongoing to determine this aspect, but so far the question is unanswered.

        I liked your Kevin Brown quote re 'free particles'.

        Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay, and thanks for continuing to play this game.

        Best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

          • [deleted]

          • Post #40

          Hello Thomas - we meet again hoping you are well.

          I read your paper, and you appear to endorse an Einsteinian view of physics with some variations that I could not quite follow on a preliminary reading. In general I have been trying to propose a physics without some key Einsteinian concepts like the importance of the observer, spacetime and the point photon localized in space (hence duality). I have outlined this my fqxi essay

          I noticed you relate neutrinos to solitons - again I did not understand the exact scenario. However I was interested because in section 3.4 (Fig. 40) of my Beautiful Universe Model I speculate that due to a fundamental topological property of vectors on a sphere, each atom will have a a non-diffracting anomalous tube or vortex extending in space - can that be the neutrino-soliton? I value your opinion on this and on my essay.

          Best Wishes,

          Vladimir

            10 days later

            Hi Vladimir,

            I'm doing better, thanks.

            I agree with Einstein in toto. To eliminate observer entanglement eliminates spacetime--and to eliminate spacetime eliminates the possibility of locality.

            A soliton is a self-reinforcing wave that overcomes the resistance of dispersion in a medium. That requires time. Sure, ol' man river might keep rolling along, without ever telling us his secrets ... as you acknowledge, Einstein's quest was to know the thoughts of "the Old One ... the rest are details", including the origin of ol' man river.

            Now, while solitons are solutions to non-linear equations, they are dependent on conditions, and so cannot be fundamental. I suggest that the conditions under which neutrinos can decay into solitons include time dilation, released in a heat bath up to a threshold of decoherence.

            In other words, The Old One is speaking continuously, on a very specific frequency and in a compressed (time dilated) message. One doesn't have to be a believer to get it.

            Best,

            Tom

            Gary,

            That's an interesting question. Let's talk about the question from this angle: Would you agree that "sentience" is equal to "harmony'?

            Hi Edwin,

            Certainly, it agrees with Majorana, insofar as "self-interacting" is identical to "self-reinforcing", as a neutrino particle, converted to soliton wave, has become.

            The LASER-generated neutrino beam should generate sufficient heat, I think.

            Kevin Brown is the best. I haven't read all his mathpage essays, and I bought the book, just in case of zombie apocalypse. :-)

            Best,

            Tom

            Oooh, and a zombie just took a bite of my score. Hide your brains.

            Hi Tom

            Glad you are doing better - so am I (chemo).

            My idea about neutrinos being solitons obviously needs fleshing out. But why is time-dependence needed if the soliton just moves, like a particle from A to B in various states of an absolute universe? From your remarks on my fqxi essay page I take it you - very understandably - wish to stick to the tried and true Einsteinian spacetime universe. Who can blame you given my sketchy if not flighty suggestions for a rudimentary alternative? (muttered as I exit: ...and yet it is absolute :)

            Best, Vladimir

              Thomas,

              Time grows short, so I am reviewing those I've read to see if I have rated them. Yours I did on 3/20. Bad accounting and short memory.

              Hope you enjoyed the interchange of ideas as much as I did.

              Jim Hoover

              Awww, I didn't know you were taking chemo treatments, Vladimir. Wishing you better health!

              Will reply later.