Essay Abstract

How do goal-oriented systems arise, and how do they exist and function in a world that we can describe in terms of goal-free mathematical evolution? We focus on this question with a model of a goal-oriented system approach to gravitation as opposed to general relativity's progressive goal-satisfaction. This is done by showing how space and time exist on their own in order to determine the origin of gravitation, while leaving general relativity's four-dimensional spacetime interpretation intact.

Author Bio

I studied mathematics and physics at the University of British Columbia and developed an interest in physics and cosmology.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Peter Bauch

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

Dear Peter Bauch,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The 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.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joe

Thanks for stopping by. Simple is good. I'll read your essay and comment.

Peter

Nice essay Bauch,

Your new study about "Space-time" is good.

But this approach gives rise to Blackhole singularity as well as Bigbang singularity etc.

For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems 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.

With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Best wishes to your essay.

For your blessings please................

=snp. gupta

Dear SNP. Gupta

Thanks for reading and your comments. Actually my model has no singularity in a black hole. There is nothing inside the event horizon. The mass is in a shell outside the horizon.

You have an admirable passion for what you are doing and I think you have a good idea with a many-body solution using Newtonian physics - something you can't do with general relativity. It could be important as we reach out into space to calculate the positions of a multitude of bodies for practical purposes. General relativity has its place though as a theory about how gravitation works and I don't believe it will ever be supplanted.

I see that you have some disdain for general relativity ("outdated") and I think that if you want to be taken seriously (no laughing behind the back as you put it) don't tread on Einstein - it's a red flag. I say that because I would like to see you succeed with your potentially valuable many-body approach which doesn't need to consider general relativity anyways.

Cheers,

Peter

4 days later

Peter,

Very nice essay. I like the model too, though as an astronomer there are some things that would bear closer examination. i.e. Have you yet looked closely at Active Galactic Nuclei and quasar dynamics? and What conclusions would your model suggest regarding the effect of what we designate; 'dark matter'?

I see you have a derisory score but feel, though short and not really on topic, that it's still worth far more.

As a mathematician I'd be interested in what you make of the derivation in the latter part of my essay. I similarly debunk the nonsense of QM, retaining all the findings and Bells theorem but producing the 'predictions' entirely classically.

Well done and thanks for a nice non obscure read, and also nice diagrams,

Best

Peter

Peter,

This is a nice essay. I favor the notion that time is not a dimension and your rationale is plausible I think. The visual aides are clear and effective.

I have a question for you. You make a comparison between the deflection predicted by Einstein vs that predicted by Newton and the ratio between the two values is 2:1. I understand that the spin of a photon is 1 compared to the spin of a fermion as 1/2. The ratio between these spin values is also 2:1. Is this a coincidence or is spin the link between GR and QM?

BTW, if you believe that space-time is an artificial construct, then you might be interested in my essay. I believe that time is simply a scalar value.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Dear Peter Bauch,

Your new study about "Space-time" is good.

I believe in that space-time is an artificial construct.

You tried to visualize the space time and gravitational interaction by the hypothetical particle such as graviton and dark matter particles. I don't mind that.

I suggest that you should your approach on the Lagrange points in a system of gravitating two bodies.

And also you would read my essay "A SPACE-TIME AS A PERFECT FLUID SINK FLOW" at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2826

if you write your email address on your post, we would discuss more about General and Special Theory of Relativity.

Best Regards,

Ch.Bayarsaikhan

Dear Peter,

Nice to hear from you. To answer your questions:

Have you looked closely at Active Galactic Nuclei and quasar dynamics?

I assume you are talking about black hole jets and accretion discs and so forth. The black hole I came up with is basic. The main point is that inside the event horizon there is no space. The matter that is normally thought to collapse into a singularity has instead been forced into a dense shell around the event horizon by the growing "bubble of nothing" that expanded from the inside. A spinning shell would be like a flywheel and at the poles, where the rotation slows, jet outflows from accretion discs are possible.

What conclusions would your model suggest regarding the effect of what we designate dark matter?

The gravitons I came up with are also dark matter particles, although they contain no matter. Instead they impart curvature to space and so act like matter in causing gravitation. They position themselves between particles - they never interact with particles. If you were trying to detect one it would elude whatever method of detection you had, not to mention that it is essentially composed of nothing in the first place. Dark matter is thought to exist in a halo extending well beyond a galaxy. If you consider that galaxies were much closer together in the early universe, two neighboring galaxies would have had a number of gravitons between them in addition to inside them. As they drifted apart the gravitons between them followed one or the other galaxy in a halo.

I read your well illustrated essay and found it interesting that you would use a classical spin because I do the same thing with the spin-2 graviton which returns to its original state after a rotation of 180 degrees. I get how you bring a 1/2 spin particle back to its original state after a 720 degree rotation - that's good. I think the major roadblock to the acceptance of such an interpretation is that particles are thought of as points by the mainstream, where spin can only be described in terms of the abstract mathematics of linear algebra. However, particles such as an electron may have internal structure which could permit a classical spin but that is yet to be discovered. Gerald Gabrielse, a physicist at Harvard, thinks the electron may have an internal structure.

Regards,

Peter

    Dear Gary,

    Thanks for your favorable comments.

    I'm not sure if there would be a solid connection between the ratios you pointed out - interesting point though.

    It's been a long time since I studied math and although I still understand the concepts I learned I've lost my technical ability so much of what you've presented in your paper is unfamiliar. However, I get the basic idea of what you are doing. Your centerpiece is 6pi^5 and I like the way you have tried to establish meaning to the coefficient 6 and the order 5 in the way you have. You've gone beyond a numerical derivation to find the mass ratio between the electron and the proton and tried to establish some physical explanation for those numbers. Kudos for that. As Richard Feynman said in QED, "you would be surprised how many numbers you can make out of pi's and e's and so on." I read that Lenz's paper was only one sentence long so obviously he didn't come up with any significance beyond that mysterious "coincidence."

    Good luck,

    Peter

    Dear Bayarsaikhan Choisuren,

    Thank you for taking the time to look at my work. It's good to hear from someone who has an an advanced understanding of physics. Although my bio says I studied math and physics I didn't make it as far as differential geometry, although I have a grounding in the basic concepts. Thanks for the invitation to discuss issues but I'm afraid I wouldn't have much to say since you're light years ahead of me in a technical sense.

    I went through your essay and you have some excellent diagrams and I learned a bit about Lagrangians. It's good to see you have some ideas regarding cosmology. For instance you posit a cyclical universe which I like, although I favor a big crunch as opposed to a big rip. In one of your posts you said that "free space should not be empty, it might be filled with an invisible perfect fluid with a critical flow velocity equal to the light speed." Personally I think this is correct.

    Best Wishes,

    Peter

      Dear Peter Bauch,

      Thank you for your reply, it is nice to me to read your essay.

      I appreciate your attempts for gravitation.

      I think that you have a much things to do in your future.

      And also I am a theoretical physicist so I am interested in your idea for GR and SR and Cosmology.

      I would like to have a discuss on this subject if you send me a massage by my email address that is written in my essay in the contest

      Thank you again,

      Ch,Bayarsaikhan

      Dear Peter Bauch,

      The speed of light in vacuum is constant relative to 'Space' itself, instead of relative to a material object. Therefore, the speed of electromagnetic wave is not only a speed but also a fundamental property of nature, which is able to be a key property to generate gravitational and inertial forces.

      Thank you again,

      With Best Regards

      Ch.Bayarsaikhan

      Dear Peter Bauch,

      The second term in Eq.6 in my essay is to corresponds to the Fly-by anomaly. Just remember Anderson's empirical relation.

      With Best Regards,

      Ch.Bayarsaikhan

      Dear Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren,

      Thanks for that.

      Regards,

      Peter

      Hi Peter,

      Your essay grabbed me. And what you point out is heretical to current physics with a vengeance! And there are a few that agree with you...including me.

      I would say that gravitons exist in a cartesian 3d space. However, gradients of gravitons act like a prism. Light bends when it passes thru gradients of gravitons. This creates the illusion that mass curves space-time. This illusion is workable (like the sun rising), but it causes us to miss dark matter and dark energy!

      I define the graviton in a slightly different way than you do. You can check it out in the paper:

      http://prespacetime.com/index.php/pst/article/view/1188/1163

      High Marks,

      Don Limuti

      Dear Don,

      Thanks for your support. Will score in kind.

      I've checked out your work and I see you have quite the passion (as I do) to come up with out-of-the-box ideas in physics. I always like looking at other alternative concepts. I've seen that idea about the gravitational deflection of light due to refraction in other places (a few here at FQXi like it) and it's interesting that you attribute it to gravitons.

      I read your short (but sweet) essay which had me thinking about determinism. That reference you gave is chock-full of interesting material.

      Cheers,

      Peter

      To Peter Jackson,

      You said I was not really on topic and I'll explain why I think I am.

      What inspired me to enter was in the preamble: "The motion of the most basic particle can be described by the action of a particle moment by moment." Also the question: "How do goal-oriented systems arise, and how do they exist and function in a world that we can describe in terms of goal-free mathematical evolution?"

      The geodesic path taken by a particle in gravitation is a perfect example of mindless mathematics at work. The particle is like a mindless robot - it has no goal other than to deal with the moment at hand, then depending on what the input is, it moves to the next moment and so on. In mathematics that moment has a domain called a neighborhood which has no spatial extent, yet it is treated as though it has, and that is where all the mathematics is performed. Thus the particle wanders in its mathematical evolution with no sense of a future goal and so is goal-free. This tells us how the particle moves but not why it moves in that path. For that you would require a goal-oriented system (i.e. quantum gravity) which has the initial intention of bringing matter closer together. I tried to show how that could be done and since quantum gravity is an open question, I used my own idea (as you did with entanglement).

      Peter

      Peter,

      I agree fermions are probably more complex than a spherical shell, I keep getting pointed towards tori, with only 'handing' of view dictating whether we find an electron or positron (see Majorana..)

      The interesting thing is they do couple with light (absorption/re-emission) but have a refractive index on 1. i.e. they leave no EM 'signature' (except kinetic when in motion, which we do find) so are 'dark'. They also have the right mass for dark matter, populate the outer halos of galaxies, and indeed form the surface fine structure of ALL matter! I've never seen anyone argument against them or even consideration of them!

      The 'discrete field' model I developed suddenly seemed able to produce and resolve a whole tranche, indeed just about every anomaly is astrophysics! I got a paper published, though the top mainstream journals ran a mile as it was 'new physics'! Perhaps you could have a look and see if you can find any inconsistencies; HJ; A Cyclic model of Galaxy Evolution, with Bars

      I see I haven't rated your essay yet so will do. Hold on for take off. Mine's been hit with 11 '1's so far so so I hope you'll think it's work a good one too. Do revert on my string with comments including on the above paper.

      Very best.

      Peter

      Peter,

      Thinking of Time as a 4th dimension is useful mathematically, but I think it has also led to numerous bizarre concepts that completely miss the mark. We need to free ourselves from the accepted ideas and supplement it with others, risking ridicule of followers of orthodoxy. For example, consider musings of this physicist in his blog: http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2015/12/what-is-spacetime-really/. Does the formalism of quantum mechanics negate space being a spin network

      quantized down to 10-34 meters?

      In my essay I speculate about discovering dark matter in a dynamic galactic network of complex actions and interactions of normal matter with the various forces -- gravitational, EM, weak and strong interacting with orbits around SMBH. I propose that researchers wiggle free of labs and lab assumptions and static models.

      Interesting out-of-the-box adventure here that is accessible.

      Hope you get a chance to comment on mine.

      Jim Hoover

      Hi James,

      Thanks for your comments. I agree with your remark that the fourth dimension has led to bizarre concepts. Mathematically it's as easy to add any number of dimensions to three as it is to to add one and you're right, theorists have taken that to extremes. I don't think dimensions higher than three have any bearing on reality simply because of the unnatural leap that has to be made in forcing a fourth axis onto three.

      Yours is a very well written essay which I think addresses the question: "Is goal-oriented behavior a cosmic trend?" You point out the difficulty of survival in the face of entropy and how self-replication may have a role not only with respect to human survival, but to microstructures and large-scale structures as well. Looks like a winner.

      Good luck,

      Peter

        Thanks, Peter. I gave yours a high rating two days ago. I hope you liked mine as well. We always appreciate comments and up-front ratings, considering that 1/3 of mine have been w/o comment or reading.

        Jim

        Thanks, Peter. In this day and age, your interests -- and mine, physics and cosmology -- provide a curiosity, substance, independence, and wonder that silences too much noise and odious crassness in our popular culture.

        Jim

        9 days later

        Dear Peter

        I enjoyed your essay starting as it did with Eddington's attack on spacetime. In my fqxi essay I too launch strenuous objections to basing physics on spacetime. Eddington in the book you quoted also proposes a density based explanation for gravity wereby it is like a field of gradient index of refraction, hence the bending of light as it does in a desert mirage due to density gradations in the heated iur.

        I need to re-read your paper to more fully understand the radius explanations.

        With best wishes

        Vladimir

        Dear Vladimir,

        Thanks for taking an interest in my essay. You are, like many others here at FQXi, a kindred spirit in trying to come up with a model explaining the workings of the universe that is far removed from the mainstream.

        I read your nicely illustrated essay with your musings on the state of physics today and scored highly.

        Cheers,

        Peter

        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