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.

        Reference to advantages of Majorana particles: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7173872_Distinguishing_between_Dirac_and_Majorana_Neutrinos_with_Two-Particle_Interferometry

        Vladimir:

        I suspect that few if any among us have examined our biases and hidden assumptions as thoroughly as we can, or ought to.

        Fear, or conviction, stops us at some point, and we rest our arguments. That's the limit of anyone's competence.

        As you suggest, relativity has physical, testable consequences. One realizes, as an observer, that what one observes is necessarily distant from its source, or else "The physical world is 'cock-a-doodle-do'" as Einstein put it. We assume that the distance has a limit, a point at which the world becomes objective, because we say that's what "objective" means.

        Maybe, however, the world is too close to be objective.

        Be well,

        Tom

        Dear Sirs!

        Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».

        New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

        New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

        Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

        Sincerely,

        Dizhechko Boris

        Dear Ray

        Thank you for your commisseration- so far so good!

        I have read your defence of Einstein and fear it is lost on me I have capacity only for understanding one world-system at a time!

        The distinction you make between a distant information source and local experience, each emitted or absorbed at different rates is too foreign to my mindset and the model I have adopted. In that model everything is connected through the 'clockwork' of the lattice. Motion at A is transmitted node to node to B, whether B is sentient, living, or neither. Another way of thinking of it is to expand the reference frame to include all of the Universe and within that frame everything is absolute and classical. It is only when an observer is introduced, by no means necessary for example when two black hokes interact that relativistic effects kick in ... for that observer only!

        Do not mind me - best wishes in your work. Be well.

        Vladimir

        Vladimir

        Write a Reply...