Hello again,

Reading what I wrote above, it sounds a bit too critical. I thought that overall you explained your idea well, and also have an idea worth pursuing. But in a contest like this, where your competition is some of the very scientists who are the top experts at major conferences, a high standard of excellence needs to be applied.

All the Best,

Jonathan

At all, it is an honor to have your opinion, and I will send my book in PDF (if I have your email).

Reading your opinion I think it is one of the few that has understood the concept and importance of my essay, even if you compare it with Nottale or other Fractal Cosmology essays, I think my essay presents important differences, even if they are not proven:

Most important could be the following relationships:

The Dynamic Laws of Physics (and Universal Gravitation) have varied over time, and even Einstein had already proposed that they still has to evolve:

ARISTOTLE: F = m.v

NEWTON: F = m.a

EINSTEIN. E = m.c2 (*)

MOND: F = m.a.(A/A0)

FRACTAL RAINBOW: F = f (scale) = m.a.(scale factor)

Or better G (Gravity Constant) vary with the scale/distance due to fractal space-time: G = f ( Scale/distance factor)

(*) This equation does not correspond to the same dynamic concept but has many similarities.

But also there are a lot of proposal that could give good approaches for further Cosmology studies:

The Force of Gravity itself is a force clearly emergent and difficult to foresee for someone who only knew the laws governing small scales (within an atom, < 10 e -20 m), since it begins to have importance when grouping many Atoms and molecules (possibly we cannot clearly detect their influence before having the mass of a rock over 100 km in length). In the same way an Emerging Force (Y) can appear for very large scales (In the Supra-relativistic or Cosmic Landscape,> 10 e +20 m).

If this were so, these new forces/interactions could also be another alternative explanation to the Dark Matter, they could emerge on these scales due to the clustering of stars and/or galaxies, generating unintended effects and behaviors.

And to propose that TOEs are not possibles....they only will describe some scale Range:

TOEs could be just theories that attempt to cover a wide range of dimensional scales of the entire spectrum of the Universe (eg, from 10 e-35 to 10 e + 30 m). But every time this spectrum expands, new laws and concepts will emerge (new Landscapes). So we would need other laws and we will require the development of new models and patterns to understand these new physical landscapes/spectra. This would imply a modification or extension of the previous TOEs. If the Universe spectra was infinite, a single TOE would be impossible.

I will read this comment for detail later..

For now; I will assume you are familiar with the work of Magueijo et al, and so have heard about his Rainbow Gravity theory with Amelino-Camelia and others. If not, it's worth looking into. Also relevant is the Process Physics of Cahill, at Flinders U in Australia, if you do not already know of it. Spacetime is a moving or flowing fractal, in his formulation. I need to prepare for a meeting, but I will check back at some point, and offer further comments.

Regards, JJD

No sir, I don´t know these works:of Rainbow Gravity theory with Amelino-Camelia and Process Physics of Cahill... I´ll try to find them !

If you have any link, I´ll thank to you !

OK I see: Rainbow Gravity:"Particles with different energies will actually see different spacetimes, different gravitational fields,"

But it is different what i am telling in my essay and book ... although could be linked in some way (?)... do you see how to do ?

Process Physics from Cahill suggests to me my first idea of considering the Scale as another DIMENSION .... although I dismiss it as being dependent on the spatial dimensions xyz, and leave it as a simple variable, but I think that the SCALE can have a higher entity, and be Considered another DIMENSION.

That is a n idea to be considered !

    Dear Mr. Pinjana

    Your essay consists of many arbitrary conclusions without confirmation or attempt to explanation.

    Regards,

    Branko

      Dear David Pinyana,

      I've read your essay, but I'm somewhat confused as to what is supposed to happen on a scale. For example are you claiming new particles or other entities at smaller scales? Is yours a quantum field theory model? The only specific scale dependent entity I saw mentioned was the suggestion of the kind of 'quantum foam'. You also mentioned Calibi-Yau's 6D shapes, although I thought you tended to limit your consideration to 4D reality. Are there other entities suggested?

      In a comment above you mentioned the possibility that this would somehow allow reinterpretation of the wave particle duality, but I do not recall discussion of this in the essay.

      Thank you for reading my essay and commenting.

      My best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Уважаемый Р"СЌРІРёРґ!

      РЇ РїРѕРЅСЏР» РёР· вашего СЌСЃСЃРµ, что физика - это РґРѕСЂРѕРіР°, РЅР° которую РґСЂСѓРіРёРµ набросали РјРЅРѕРіРѕ РјСѓСЃРѕСЂР°, Рё РІС‹ пытаетесь разложить этот РјСѓСЃРѕСЂ РїРѕ полочкам. Это увлекательная, РЅРѕ тяжС'лая работа. Тебе РІ этом поможет только New Cartesian Physic, РІ РѕСЃРЅРѕРІРµ которой пространство-материи эквивалентность. Единство пространства Рё материи возможно единственное рациональное РІ вашем СЌСЃСЃРµ. Рћ какой масштабности можно говорить, если то, что РјС‹ РІРёРґРёРј РЅР° небосводе изогнуто РІ прошлое, так как сигналы РїСЂРёС...РѕРґСЏС‚ минуты, часы, сто лет, тысячи лет Рё С‚.Рґ. после события. Р'селенная замкнута потому, что пространство РІ РЅС'Рј бесконечно двигается Рё меняет РµС' конфигурацию.

      Р-елаю тебе подружиться СЃ New Cartesian Physic Рё проявить РІ ней СЃРІРѕРё способности.

      Р'сего С...орошего!

      Dizhechko Boris

      Yes, I agree that the essay (and I say it in itself) is not about giving mathematical demonstrations or experimental evidence, and that its main objective is basically to offer a General Framework in which fit very well many new theories (Fractal, Emergency, MOND, DSR, ...), and also I propose other alternatives to consider that are not currently being considered: The possibility that for the different Scalar Landscapes may appear different Interactions Forces, and that Scale Factor should be considered as a new Variable (or possible a new dimension ?)

      Edwin, Thanks for your questions, and I´ll try to answer them:

      :

      1.- are you claiming new particles or other entities at smaller scales?

      Yes, better to say new entities or concepts, because what do you mean by particles ?...What is a particle ?... May we consider KK spaces as particles ?... And I also propose that there may be other entities within the KK spaces.

      2.- Is yours a quantum field theory model? :

      No, it isn´t. It is mainly a General Framework in which fit very well many new theories (Fractal, Emergency, MOND, DSR, ...).. If we see the Universe in this way we will be able to solve a lot of problems and questions we have nowadays.

      3.-The only specific scale dependent entity I saw mentioned was the suggestion of the kind of 'quantum foam':

      If you can read my book (I´ll send you PDF), you will see other entities forBoth for large and small scales.Pero yo no propongo ninguna entidad nueva, solo hago mención a entidades que se estan considerando actualmente por otras teorias o propuestas.

      4.- Although I thought you tended to limit your consideration to 4D reality.

      Not at all, on the contrary, I believe in the possibility proposed by the String Theory (Branas) that in other branes there may be more dimensions (KK = 6D & "Bulk" = 4-25D)

      5.About -the wave particle duality:

      Yes, it is true that I discuss about Dark Matter and Energy options, also Uncertainty Principle, but I do not discuss in concrete about the wave particle duality, but yes I propose to try to understand the different scale entities and problems from this scale point of view, and do not try to understand it only from our scale. If we do it we could understand that better these performances. For example wave particle duality could be understood only Assuming that the KK forms could be the famous strings or branes that form the different known particles, and that they are already both waves and particles.

      Normally the essays focus on proposals on small details and trying to give concrete solutions to specific issues, but this is not the case, and I would like you to understand the concept in a broader and more general way. The essay proposes a General Framework that can assume a jump in Cosmology as great as it was supposed in his day Newton and Einstein, although in this case this only proposed at conceptual level, and requires to be demonstrated and tested experimentally, something that will be very difficult and can take many years or decades.

        TRANSLATION:

        Pero yo no propongo ninguna entidad nueva, solo hago mención a entidades que se estan considerando actualmente por otras teorias o propuestas.

        But I do not propose any new entities, I only mention entities that are currently considering other theories or proposals.

        David Pinyana,

        You have tried to incorporate all the existing mainstream ideas into a single framework. Different emergent properties at different scales is a possibility. If the physical world is like that we cannot do anything about it; we can only try to explain each 'landscape' using different set of axioms.

        However you have limited the number of 'landscapes' to 20. Though this is more than enough to contain all our future discoveries, theoretically there can be infinite 'landscapes'. Any theoretical limit is arbitrary; but if observational evidence suggests any limit, then it may be real. As you concluded, if we believe in a lower limit, we can expect a TOE.

        What I propose is 'Finiteness Theory', limiting the 'landscapes' to a finite number, just five. Obviously, it has a lower limit and is 'a Theory of Everything'. Newtonian physics with some modifications (not MOND), is enough to explain these five 'landscapes'. The modifications are, (i). motion at speed 'c' is a property of matter (ii). force is reaction to that motion. The essay I have submitted is based on this model.

        Jose P Koshy

          David,

          Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay 'The Cosmic Odyssey of Matter'. I agree, there are similarities in our scale approach to describing the universe. Your essay nicely summarizes several key topics including point of view and scale of interactions.

          Regards, Ed Kneller

          No, I never limited the number of 'landscapes' to 20... I said that I think they could be infinites, and then TOEs are not possible.

          Dear David,

          Thank you for answering my questions and giving me a better understanding of your essay. I would have responded sooner, but it is hard to read all of the many excellent essays that have been entered in this contest. I received your pdf, thanks, but it too will have to wait until after the contest closes.

          My best wishes,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          I see you have discovered some of this from a search..

          No time now, but I have your e-mail.

          Best, JJD

          David,

          I found your proposals interesting, original and well explained. I also found them reasonable and with some foundation so worth exploring. Of course I would do as much of it resonates very well with fundamental concepts and mechanisms in my own work.

          It's a shame you couldn't align the presentation more with the essay topic, however you'll find my own essay uses similar fractal or 'layered' architecture and identifies how 'aims' are emergent from within and from interactions between layers and from feedback loops from quantum scale mechanisms. In this way I think our essays are quite complementary.

          Last year I identified the consistency of propositional dynamic logic (layered interleaved or 'modal' logic) with the rules of brackets in arithmatic. That reminds me of interlayer 'rules'. There can be no direct computation between contents of a bracket and the 'next level up', but once resolved, the bracket becomes a key part of the next level, or 'compound proposition' in logic. The layers are then infinite! Can you see a similar structure here?

          I particularly liked and agreed with your lines;

          "a volume of space has some intrinsic fundamental energy. This is what could give the empty space ("vacuum") a fractal (hierarchical) structure." ..."Uncertainty Principle could be simply a matter of trying to understand phenomena," ... and ; " Both, QM (all things are interconnected) and Relativity (all things are relational), seems to be telling us the same thing albeit from different perspectives which gives hope for a unification."

          In fact I also find, identify and explain a coherent small scale physical mechanism CLASSICALLY producing the predictions of QM at the next level up! I do hope you'll get to read and comment.

          Great essay, though early days on the model and much current science to review and reconsider (i.e. BigBang & Accelerating expansion theories etc) rather than just trying to build from (I have related work I could link if you're interested). However this is an essay not a scientific paper so doesn't devalue what's worth the high score coming.

          Very best of luck.

          Peter

            Peter, Thanks for your comments and I´ll have a look to your essay and give also my opinion.

            When you say: " to align the presentation more with the essay topic ".. I understand you mean with the theme for this Essay Contest: Wandering Towards a Goal: How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

            You are true, possible I should focus it more to the emergences of laws and how different mathematical-physics laws bring other different laws with no apparent links between them.

            But, well my idea was to show a very different cosmology framework which I think it will the future approach to follow, and where we can found many different particular approaches to study within a common framework.

            The Cosmological Framework of the spatial scales where I think the Global Universe and its laws are best understood ... and many current mysteries can be deciphered.