Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Dear Friend,

My essay could have been written better. Its not up to the standards that you set for yourself. I know that I should remember your advice when each new contest arrives. My goal gets in my way. The general content does not change. The mathematical examples are three of what I believe are many corrections in method or understanding in theoretical physics. The one that I repeat most often is the undefined status of mass. That is because once it becomes acknowledged, it follows that physics will change drastically.

The words before and after those examples hopefully make scientific sense, I think that they do; but, I feel the mathematics should be put on the record repeatedly. FQXi.org represents the theoretical physics community. My message is understandingly not welcome here. But, I have followers, at other sites, including some physicists. I have presented more ideas elsewhere where progress is easier.

Another contest has arrived and I know that you will do very well. The quality of your essays never fades. I should work harder to follow your advice while continuing to try to achieve my goal. Thank you for continuing to offer it in my best interest.

James Putnam

James

You're very welcome. I haven't entered your score yet so can wait if you prefer. The only reason sometimes not to is that do think those near the top are likely to get more reads which should be helpful.

I look forwards to you comments and questions on mine. Almost nobody so far has recognised, or seen the the importance of the classical reproduction of the QM predictions. I expect as so few really understand the (not very empirical!) roots of QM. Data is all very well but where most go wrong is in the interpretation!

The very condensed 100sec version of the video is here, (but missing over 90%!);

https://youtu.be/WKTXNvbkhhI

best

Peter

Peter,

My experience has been that the one's fly freely in the last couple of hours of scoring. The main level of high negative activity is at the cutoff score for making it into the finals. I had a sufficient score for the last contest. It took several attacks on my score to knock me out, but, they got their way in the end. Maybe being a little low will be less of an 'attractor'. What is the case is that I will do what I can to make my ratings for others count. Submitting them in the last few minutes will at least make it difficult for attackers to react quickly enough to negate the scores I give. Follow your own procedure for your own reasons. I appreciate what you said. It counts for more and will last longer than a decent rating that will probably get wiped out if I am doing well at the end. I did print off your essay and will be reading it shortly. Thank you again.

James Putnam

Hi James,

I have been in all essay contests except the last and am glad to be back in the mix with you.

I have to admit I had trouble with your abstract (probably my limit english). But I had no trouble with your first paragraph. This first paragraph introduces a superior essay. I repeat your paragraph below for other readers to encourage them to go on and read the essay.

The Universe has evolved to the level of providing for human free-will. That is a display of great purpose and dedication toward a long term goal. The Universe rose up parts of itself to form our beings. Our parts know the means by which the Universe operates. They have to know what it is that they are destined to do. It does not matter whether one resents the word 'know' and prefers the word 'forced'. That choice is a matter of philosophical preference and does not pertain meaningfully to the Universe. We know what the Universe can do. Those parts of the Universe now working as individual beings are the means by which the Universe comprehends itself. Yet while the answers are part of our being, we do not know them without seeking to know them by our own efforts. We need to engage with the Universe in order to learn its nature.

And I appreciate your reminding me of how limited our current concepts of mass are. It is easy to forget.

Thanks for your essay,

Don Limuti

    Dear Don Limuti,

    This is a very welcome message. I admit to having had a low level of enthusiasm for this contest. The ratings history has shown no improvement. I decided to enter late. I feel that this opportunity to place our views alongside professionals is so rare and so valuable that it deserves full support. My essay is not as well edited as it should have been. However, it says everything that I intended for it to say. The mathematical examples provided are intended to strike at the heart of theoretical physics with power. Several more could have been provided and have been provided beginning with the first essay contest. Your kind of message raises my enthusiasm. The point I have had to keep repeating about mass being an undefined property, points to the most urgent correction needed out of many. Mass must be defined. I have printed off your essay and will read it. Thank you very much for writing your message and giving a fair rating for my essay.

    James Putnam

    Nice essay Putnam,

    Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg...

    "1. We see that the Universe is orderly and all parts of it are meaningful. There does not exist any lack of purpose anywhere

    2. During the evolution of the universe, the nature of intelligence has not varied. Our intelligence is of the same source as for the rest of the Universe. Intelligence has not wandered from that which was always intended by the universe.

    3. The fact that the properties of the Universe, not necessarily those of theoretical physics, work harmoniously together to continue the operation of the Universe is certain evidence that there is fundamental unity and any physics interpretation must embrace it.

    4. Physics and the mind work together to achieve understanding. Intelligence and information are the two absolute facts of the nature of the universe. Etc..."

    A Good idea, I fully agree with you, probably the Universe also had a mind and consciousness of its own ............

    ..................... At this point I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ...............reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc...just have a look at my essay... "Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe" where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement.....

    I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems

    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

    Nice essay Putnam,

    Real visible mass has a real visible surface. Only abstract conjecture about invisible mass purportedly has any "undefined properties."

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    Hi James

    I'm reading your essay for the second time now. I find myself pausing constantly in my reading, while considering so many further implications of your ideas. Considerations that cascade to so many other contemplation's. Takes me ages to read a piece when this happens.

    I have enormous respect for your interpretation of physics and your consistent theme towards unification. Your approach towards defining physical units, mass, temp, charge etc, I believe is extraordinarily progressive, and will be seen somewhat as prophetic to the future of scientific method. I am sure. I know you know this well, but I also believe there are implications for the correctness of your ideas, which not even you have become aware of yet. Not a criticism at all, and besides just my personal opinion.

    Another aspect I thoroughly appreciate, is that you are acutely aware that the complexity of the world requires an explanation. You have settled on the notion of the intelligence of the cosmos as an explanation for this, however the problem I have with this is that I believe the type of intelligence we associate with ourselves that can be said to conspire intellectually, is emergent of complex systems such as the brain. And so I am reluctant to ascribe intelligence of this type to simpler universal physical configurations, or the cosmos at large. But the line is sufficiently blurred by the observation that brains are not required for systems to be said to be manifesting intelligent. The existence of Collective intelligence whereby a colony of disparate parts can work together obeying simple rules, and a greater intelligence is manifested by group behavior. So ant colonies display extraordinary behaviors, but the individual ants dumber than the collective. And so with a leap of whimsical fancy, all action in the universe no matter how small, that contributes its small individual behavior to manifesting a greater universe structure, displays agency. Like individual atoms which all respond to the laws of gravity, every atom contributes to the manifestation of the motions of larger bodies, which eventuates grand cosmology, character and behaviors. Notice how I used the word agency, rather than the word intelligence? Might it be better to say that individual ants act with their limited agency, which is an intelligence in its own right, but which then collectively manifests the greater intelligence.

    And so in this respect I am willing to implicate all universe actions with the phenomena of intelligence, however I think that intelligence describes a collective system better than it describes the sub components of such a system, which might be better referred to as being agents. So this makes particles dumbest, atoms smarter, cosmological structures smarter still, chemistry quite smart, but these being sub components that enable the human brain and height of intelligence that we are currently aware of.

    So why does the universe have atoms acting as individual agents, that manifest this obscure universe of cosmology and biology, intelligence as a compounded theme of physics? This is when I refer to the processes described to in my essay, Darwinian Physics.

    Steven Andresen

      James

      I suspect this essay might be to your liking by George Gantz. Have you come across this one yet?

      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2840

      Steve

      James

      So I think this enables me to agree with your notion of intelligence to a certain extent. That in a sense intelligence is just compounded agency that begins with the nature of atoms and physics, that is then manifested to greater extent as collective interactions. So intelligence would be a sliding scale.

      So if Atoms are at an extreme end of the intelligence scale, but none the less on the scale, then how did atoms get the very particular character and behaviors that they have? These properties require an organisational principle, which makes a sense of their very particular order and complexity. I believe I have this within a concept for which the title "Darwinian Universal" is perhaps the best fit.

      I have expressed some of my ideas here, however I have a multitude of further considerations which I belief makes a very solid argument. They are waiting for the right person to come along and be inquisitive enough to ask and test me. That hasn't happened in response to my essay yet. I would have thought there would be enough content within it to spark curiosity, but apparently not. Oh well, do I keep trying?

      Steve

      Hi Steven,

      "You have settled on the notion of the intelligence of the cosmos as an explanation for this, however the problem I have with this is that I believe the type of intelligence we associate with ourselves that can be said to conspire intellectually, is emergent of complex systems such as the brain. And so I am reluctant to ascribe intelligence of this type to simpler universal physical configurations, or the cosmos at large."

      Before I provide a link to Universal Intelligence, please read, if you have not already, my

      [link:fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Putnam_Innate_Understanding.pdf]essay[/link] from the How Should Humanity Steer the Future? contest of 2014.

      James Putnam

      Steven Andressen,

      Here is my link: [link:newphysicstheory.com/New%20Physics%20Theory%202014/Universal_Intelligence.pdf] Universal Intelligence by James Putnam [/link]

      It is many years old and I haven't read it recently. Please feel free to compare your ideas with mine. I will have to read it also. Something interesting connected with it is that someone who wrote the contribution to Wikipedia on Universal Intelligence quoted words of mine from this paper as representing the Modern Usage of Universal Intelligence.

      James Putnam

      Steven Andressen,

      It appears visually, at this changed search engine result, that Wikipedia might have decided that Universal Intelligence has been ruled out of existence in favor of the the dumb mechanical interpretation of theoretical physics. Many years of Wikipedia being free of the control of theoretical physics may have come to an end. In other words, those who have no understanding of the origin of the existence of Intelligence want to keep pretending that they are on the trail of revealing the dumb mechanical origin of Intelligence and that no Intelligence existed before the advent of mechanics. If this is true, then I have seen; the ultimate 'turning of the back' to empirical evidence. I chose to be careful not to be misrepresented by anyone; I say that: There is no way for dumbness to give rise to intelligence. None!!!

      James Putnam

      My last two ratings were both anonymous 'ones'. Dear anonymouses, You are wise to remain anonymous. Otherwise I would expose your failings. If you should doubt this, try me.

      James Putnam

      Dear James . . .

      I like the purity of your approach. You have what seems to be a clean perspective on the science of physics. I did not follow your mathematics as I'm not a scientist, but I did follow your line of reasoning and it seems sound. I do agree that much of what I read nowadays in science books and magazines is speculation and mathematical models. Your method of accepting only the empirical, I think, will lead to a more consistent and integrated physics.

      One question: Intelligence is seen to be an innate property of the universe, which gave rise to human minds. These two quotes from your essay express that view:

      "We see that the Universe is orderly and all parts of it are meaningful. There does not exist any lack of purpose anywhere. This can be known by recognizing that any lack of purpose or meaning, if such a thing could exist, in any amount, anywhere in the Universe would destroy order. If such a circumstance had ever existed, then the Universe would not now exist. It could not have evolved passed the time when meaninglessness was made part of it."

      "During the evolution of the universe, the nature of intelligence has not varied. Our intelligence is of the same source as for the rest of the Universe. Intelligence has not wandered from that which was always intended by the universe. That is why life was capable of understanding what was needed for survival at all levels of evolution."

      If this is so, how is it that human minds, being a direct expression of the intelligence of the universe, seem to make mistakes and errors, and choose false ideas, which lead to lack of understanding about the universe in which they live? It seems a paradox that intelligence could ever not understand itself.

      At any rate, your essay was one of my favorites, being easy to read and understand. Thank you.

      Sincerely,

      Michael Z. Tyree

        Dear Michael Z. Tyree,

        Thank very much for your kind words. With regard to human intelligence please read my essay Lead With Innate Knowledge from the 2016 essay contest. It is just 5 pages long. The means by which we learn and think is not exact. The explanation begins with photons. There is no mathematics. I have downloaded your essay and will be reading it soon.

        James Putnam

        There are three mathematical examples provided in my essay. Each demonstrates a correction to physics. Here I deal with the first example and add to it. It covers the correct method for solving for photon energy and photon momentum:

        I showed that increasing the energy of a charged particle by an incremental amount allows one to solve for that incremental amount of energy. That incremental energy is what a photon carries away. The equation for photon energy that I presented is: EKc=(delta)EKp where (delta) is the Greek letter that I use to represent the word 'incremental'. The procedure used is that of taking a derivative. Nothing new to that. Now I add the solution for the momentum of a photon: Pc=mVc1(delta)vc2)/Vc1=m(delta)vc2. Einstein's energy equation gets replaced with an energy equation derived using defined mass. It leads then to a replacement for Einstein's photon momentum equation that no longer predicts excessive momentum. It predicts the correct momentum.

        Neither of these two new solutions involves the use of time-dilation. This is an improvement because there is no empirical evidence that time dilates. There is empirical evidence for clock's slowing, but, clocks are not time. Clock's don't even measure time. Clocks are imprecise mechanical cyclic activity. There is a precise universally constant measure of real time. It was introduced in my essay for the very first essay contest. It has nothing to do with Einstein's misuse of the 't' in physics equations. That 't' has always represented mechanical cyclic activity, and, never has real time, as a unique fundamental property, been included in physics equations.

          The second mathematical example presents the very close equality of magnitudes in the equation:

          h=keC

          Where:

          h=Planck's Constant=6.625x10-34(joules*seconds)

          k=Boltzmann's Constant=1.38x10-23(joules/(molecule*degree-kelvin))

          e=electron charge=1.602x10-19 coulombs

          C=speed of Light=2.998x108(meters/second)

          Clearly the units of this equation do not match in any system of today's theoretical physics. Yet, look at those numbers. They each are important constants that come from different branches of physics: Relativity, quantum, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics. Those magnitudes are far too odd to expect that they could ever be arranged to appear to form an equation by chance. In a fundamentally unified theory, it is expected that such a powerful link would exist between those four branches of physics. That is where this equation has come from. It was derived from the fundamentally unified work that I do. When the units of physics are derived solely from dependence upon the two units of empirical evidence, the units for this equation match; and, the equation makes great sense. Physics needs it now.

          James Putnam

          The third mathematical example demonstrates that direct dependency upon empirical evidence for derivations of properties and their units, makes it clear that proportionality constants of important property relationships should be left to have their meanings revealed by the mathematics of equations that are not those of theoretical physics, but, rather equations that have been returned to their empirical forms. In their empirical forms they have fundamental unity and their empirically communicated meanings will be faithfully revealed by the mathematics. They can tolerate no intersession by anyone's mind. They are formed free of theorists' guesses and imaginings. They reveal what empirical evidence is communicating to us. What is the importance of this to proportionality constants? The answer to this question is made clear by my example:

          Using the mks system of units, Coulomb's Law for two equally charged particles is:

          f=k(qq/r2)

          The proportionallity constant 'k' is found by experiment to be:

          k=8.987x109((newtons*meters2)/coulomb2)

          This constant must be found experimentally because: The units of force f, charge q and distance r in the mks system are defined independently of Coulomb's Law. Their meanings have been set before the advent of Coulomb's Law. The only source left that can contain and therefore reveal the new meaning that is represented by Coulomb's Law, is the proportionality constant. It is the only new source of information to be learned from experiment.

          In the case of Coulomb's Law, it is usually written showing an inverse proportionality of force with the square of distance. Actually it is inversely proportional to the area of the surface of a sphere with radius r. The formula for the area of the surface of a sphere is:

          S=4*pi*r2

          Taking this into account, Coulomb's Law can be written as:

          f=kf(qq/4*pi*r2)

          Where, kf is the pure proportionality constant. As stated previously, when all the other terms in the equation are independently defined based upon previous empirical measurements, then, only the proportionality constant can bring new meaning into the equation that makes Coulomb's Law express unique new meaning.

          It does not matter that the arithmetic values are relative. It does not matter that some of the units may be artificial. What is essential is that the proportionality constant be separate from each of these other properties. It then becomes possible to identify this new property. Within the framework of my work it is found to be:

          kf=vsvc

          Where vs is the speed of sound and vc is the speed of light in the specific medium. This relationship is approximate for a gas and accurate for solids.

          James Putnam

          Example 1 from above shows that Einsteins' idea that setting rest energy equal to zero leaves an equation for the energy of a photon.is wrong. Yet his solution does predict photon energy accurately. The reason is that energy is derived from force times distance. The rest energy term does not result from applying a force across a distance. The product of force and distance yields kinetic energy. The term that is left to apply to photon energy is the kinetic energy term. Even though I suggest that the form of his energy equation is not the best form, it will successfully predict kinetic energy whether for an object or for a photon. However when he divides his photon energy equation by the speed of light C, he does not get the correct form for photon momentum. That is why his photon momentum equation over predicts the amount of photon momentum. The equation that I provided for photon momentum will predict the correct momentum.

          The second example shows an equation that makes no sense in any unit system of today's theoretical physics. After mass is defined, the equations of physics begin to be replaced by their empirical forms. Their empirical forms take their lead directly from empirical evidence leaving no room for theorists to add their ideas. The result is physics equations that have had theory removed from them. They are returned to their natural empirical forms where all properties are defined directly from empirical evidence. The units for all properties are formed from different arrangements of the units of empirical evidence. There are just two natural units for the two properties by which all empirical evidence is communicated to us. The equation introduced in my second example is a solution reached using the new units of physics properties, and, the immediate fundamental unity that they bring back to physics equations. The units for the equation in its empirical form do match; and, the equation makes great sense.

          The third example shows that the practice of setting proportionality constants equal to unity, for convenience, can be a bad practice. In the case of Coulomb's law in the mks system, the proportionality constant is not set to one. Because of that, it is able to communicate to us the new meaning that arrives with the formation of Coulomb's equation. I also will stress that although I have provided no examples thus far, I am certain the the practice of 'normalization' suffers from the same risk. It can make it more difficult or nearly impossible to learn the new meaning that comes with new expressions. For example, the equation E=MC2 normalized so that it reads E=M, an apparent equation that is definitely not an equation, loses the potential for understanding the detailed physical information that is being communicated by E=MC2. That information is not yet recognized, but writing the non-equation E=M makes it impossible to learn the physics basis for the equation E=MC2.

          James Putnam