snp: as requested, this is posted from my FQXi essay-site: Gordon Watson

More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

............

Dear snp [Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta]

Thanks for commenting thoughtfully on my essay and quoting one of its key components: my theory is driven by facts and evidence.

The truth of my premiss (in that its consequents agree with a thoroughly tested quantum theory and observation) thus advances science and commonsense: for I essentially refine much modern thinking via one realistic (but neglected) fundamental:

At the very foundations of physics, I simply do "what [in your terms] is clear to me" -- I replace naive-realism by true-realism -- to see even more realistic consequences follow.

From this recap, I trust you can see that I am in agreement with this (from you) --- "I use everyday physics as achievable by engineering" --- me happily recalling that many famous physicists were said to be, firstly, engineers.

Alas, as such an engineer, focussed on fundamental foundations, I'm in no position to comment on the grand sweep of schemes like your Dynamic Universe Model.

But from the above it follows that you need have no concern as to what I might mind (or what might be my opinion) about you and your work. I wholeheartedly encourage anyone that seeks to make sense of reality to proceed at their own pace and in their own way; and always (as we agree) with facts and evidence in mind!

In this regard, here are three commonsense mantras that I suspect we share: (1) Reality makes sense and we can understand it. (2) Correlated tests on correlated things produce correlated results without mystery. (3) Only the impossible is impossible.

So for me it is a bonus to see that you are NOT following a branch of main-stream physics that endorses naive-realism: with its consequent quantum-mysteries and nonlocality!

Also: I very much appreciated the question-and-answer-style of your essay; especially the emphasis on experimental results. Though I am more cautious re this conclusion: "No imaginary or negative time axis." Sure that I understand your meaning, I suggest the reference to "an axis" is unnecessary. For me it possible to reason "backward-in-time" from later evidence; like how it was that the Titanic sank so quickly [for then I might use a negative-time axis].

With my thanks again for your comments, and wishing you every success; Gordon

PS: As requested, I will post this on your FQXi essay-site.

......................................

Gordon Watson

More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

    Dear Prof Kamal Rajpal sab,

    I downloaded your paper a nd reading it, I will tell my opinion ASAP,

    By the way in Dynamic Universe Model Dark matter is not required....

    Best wishes to your essay

    =snp

    Dear Gordon Watson

    Thanks for well studied comments on my essay

    Your observations about truth do indicate that you are well educated and knowledged person... It is very nice that you work is based on experimental evidences from QM. Any study or work will be successful if it is based on experiments.

    ..............Your words....

    From this recap, I trust you can see that I am in agreement with this (from you) --- "I use everyday physics as achievable by engineering" --- me happily recalling that many famous physicists were said to be, firstly, engineers.

    ............... Thank you for the supporting comments...

    ..............Your words....

    Alas, as such an engineer, focussed on fundamental foundations, I'm in no position to comment on the grand sweep of schemes like your Dynamic Universe Model.

    But from the above it follows that you need have no concern as to what I might mind (or what might be my opinion) about you and your work. I wholeheartedly encourage anyone that seeks to make sense of reality to proceed at their own pace and in their own way; and (as we agree) always with facts and evidence in mind!

    In this regard, here are three commonsense mantras that I suspect we share: (1) Reality makes sense and we can understand it. (2) Correlated tests on correlated things produce correlated results without mystery. (3) Only the impossible is impossible.

    So for me it is a bonus to see that you are NOT following a branch of main-stream physics that endorses naive-realism: with its consequent quantum-mysteries and nonlocality!

    Also: I very much appreciated the question-and-answer-style of your essay; especially the emphasis on experimental results. Though I am more cautious re this conclusion: "No imaginary or negative time axis." Sure that I understand your meaning, I suggest the reference to "an axis" is unnecessary. For me it possible to reason "backward-in-time" from later evidence; like how it was that the Titanic sank so quickly.

    With my thanks again for your comments, and wishing you every success; Gordon

    PS: As requested, I will post this on your FQXi essay-site.

    .............. thank you for nice blessings and Good opinions expressed on my essay.

    You have written a nice essay and I am giving a high score ...

    Best Regards

    =snp

    Satyav,

    I posted the link you asked for on my string (under 29.1) Also appropriate high score now applied, as intimated. Hope you'll do mine if you haven't as it's just been hit with some 1's!

    Very best

    Peter

      Dear SNP

      I recall your Eq.25 from previous essays. It is quite intuitive and seems reasonable.

      A question not directly related to your essay: Do you have some idea about the cosmic microwave background? The big bang has a good explanation, but maybe it is just an average black-body temperature. Or maybe starlight that has gone in a circle - or a half circle. Imagine a water planet, with a source of waves (like an explosion) at the North pole. The waves would spread out towards the equator and then converge to a point at the South pole. The fact that light is deflected by gravity lends some weight to this possibility.

      Cheers, Colin

        Dear Colin Walker,

        Thank you for your asking about CMB.... My Paper on CMB is available at

        http://viXra.org/abs/1606.0226

        CMB is nothing BUT star light, Galaxy-light and Light from Other inter stellar & Inter Galaxieal Objects in the Microwave region. CMB anisotropies and variations were were calculated and and discussed in the in the above paper given by the above link

        I request you please have a look at this paper and calculations..........

        Best Regards

        =snp

        Hello SNPG,

        I like your list of 'No's. If that is 'Reductionism', so be it!

        Some essay authors have given little consideration to the FQXi evaluation criterion that essays should be 'accessible to a non-specialist audience'.

        We are all enthusiastic about our own interests, and I am no exception - except that I am a member of the 'non-specialist' congregation with respect to physics and mathematics.

        In ruminating over the subjects covered in your essay you make reference to 'about 125 billion galaxies in the universe'. I read between the lines that you are referring to the popular concept of the universe of all-that-is-known, without questioning what lies beyond; distinguished from the universe of all-there-is (known and unknown) which is singular and extends infinitely in all directions.

        This is an important distinction because it leads us to question the function, indeed the very existence of gravity. Insofar as the predominant constituent of the cosmos is vacuum, it follows that, from the point of view of an 'outsider', the outward pressure of vacuum is the cause of an effect that 'insiders' call 'gravity'.

        In matter we find an exhibition of defiance against vacuum, the exception that proves the rule. What is the rule? The rule is that vacuum (unfilled void or space) abhors nature, and flows to fill it's absence. That flow is Nirvana from the Sanskrit 'nir' meaning 'out', and 'vati' meaning 'it blows'.

        Notwithstanding, you are heading in the right direction. Keep going.

        GVH

          Dear snp, My thanks for your comments and support: I wish you well in this contest, with your research and long into the future. Best regards; Gordon.

          Dear Peter Jackson,

          Thank you for your comments and I also gave good score as appropriate.... I will go thro' the link ASAP and post about it...

          best

          =snp

          Thank you for your asking about CMB.... My Paper on CMB is available at

          http://viXra.org/abs/1606.0226

          CMB is nothing BUT star light, Galaxy-light and Light from Other inter stellar & Inter Galaxieal Objects in the Microwave region. CMB anisotropies and variations were were calculated and and discussed in the in the above paper given by the above link

          I request you please have a look at this paper and calculations..........

          Best Regards

          =snp

          Thanks SNP,

          I have downloaded your CMB paper. It is a confusing topic for me, but light from stars is what I also have been thinking.

          Best to you,

          Colin

          Thank you Colin Walker,

          You please ask me any questions if you need. I will try to clear your confusions....

          Best regards

          =snp

          Thank you dear Gary Valentine Hansen for your wonderful words,

          I like your list of 'No's. If that is 'Reductionism', so be it!

          Some essay authors have given little consideration to the FQXi evaluation criterion that essays should be 'accessible to a non-specialist audience'.

          We are all enthusiastic about our own interests, and I am no exception - except that I am a member of the 'non-specialist' congregation with respect to physics and mathematics.

          .................... Thank you , that's the reason I used as simple words as possible, I hope you understand them, but please ask me what ever the doubts you have.... I will try to clarify you...

          ....................Your words..............

          In ruminating over the subjects covered in your essay you make reference to 'about 125 billion galaxies in the universe'. I read between the lines that you are referring to the popular concept of the universe of all-that-is-known, without questioning what lies beyond; distinguished from the universe of all-there-is (known and unknown) which is singular and extends infinitely in all directions.

          ........................................ It does not make any difference, to us, if there a few trillion more.... Isn't it?. Universe is not necessarily expanding, there are blue shifted Galaxies also...

          ................................................ your words.............

          This is an important distinction because it leads us to question the function, indeed the very existence of gravity. Insofar as the predominant constituent of the cosmos is vacuum, it follows that, from the point of view of an 'outsider', the outward pressure of vacuum is the cause of an effect that 'insiders' call 'gravity'.

          ....................................... I don't there is something beyond the universe. According to Dynamic Universe model postulates , there is no multi-verse. So there are no outsiders to universe. As per the definition of Gravity, I don't know. I feel gravity is mass and vice versa mass is Gravity...............

          ......................... Your words.............

          In matter we find an exhibition of defiance against vacuum, the exception that proves the rule. What is the rule? The rule is that vacuum (unfilled void or space) abhors nature, and flows to fill it's absence. That flow is Nirvana from the Sanskrit 'nir' meaning 'out', and 'vati' meaning 'it blows'.

          ........................... Nirvana is something like death for a yogi....Going into vacuum may not be required.

          Thank you for your blessings... I hope you will ask some further doubts...

          Best wishes to your essay...

          =snp

          Thank you Gordon Watson for your blessings,

          I also wish you the same....

          Best Regards

          =snp

          Satyav,

          That was an impressive paper, good work and I agree most of it. However it didn't contain the derivation of the underlying large scale CMB anisotropic patterns I referred to. Those are the background 'Helicity' in the 'whole sky' distribution, the 'dark' holes, and the overall 'linear' anisotropy; ie. analogously we seem to be towards one side of a 'river' of energy, so each side of us is different.

          These are important indicators of the inadequacy of our cosmological models (as well as all the smaller ones!) so must be fully explained in any proposed replacement model.or it'll just be ignored & dismissed.

          I have to say I also suggest no theory is complete without some indication of pre- 'BBT' conditions. (Not that I subscribe to a BB OR static universe).

          The anisotropies are complex and have confounded most all. There is only one model I know of which derives them, which I was involved with in 2012-13. It may be worth collaborating on an update. It starts with a method familiar at multiple smaller scales from nuclear tokamaks up, at stellar and most familiar at galactic scales. Please do study it carefully and revert if you see a flaw;

          Jackson, P.A. Minkowski, J.S. A Cyclic Model.. HJ/VOL36/HJ-36-6.pdf

          Very Best

          Peter

          PS My Email is;

          pj.ukc.edu@physics.org

          Dear Peter Jackson ,

          Thank you very much for the very nice and elaborate reply. Thank you for for complementing words...................

          That was an impressive paper, good work and I agree most of it. However it didn't contain the derivation of the underlying large scale CMB anisotropic patterns I referred to. Those are the background 'Helicity' in the 'whole sky' distribution, the 'dark' holes, and the overall 'linear' anisotropy; ie. analogously we seem to be towards one side of a 'river' of energy, so each side of us is different.

          These are important indicators of the inadequacy of our cosmological models (as well as all the smaller ones!) so must be fully explained in any proposed replacement model.or it'll just be ignored & dismissed. ................................. My reply...............

          Yes , I also study them with you....

          ...................Your observations....................

          I have to say I also suggest no theory is complete without some indication of pre- 'BBT' conditions. (Not that I subscribe to a BB OR static universe). ................................. My reply...............

          Is that necessary? I also study them with you....

          ...................Your observations....................

          The anisotropies are complex and have confounded most all. There is only one model I know of which derives them, which I was involved with in 2012-13. It may be worth collaborating on an update. It starts with a method familiar at multiple smaller scales from nuclear tokamaks up, at stellar and most familiar at galactic scales. Please do study it carefully and revert if you see a flaw;

          ................................. My reply...............

          Yes , I will collaborate with you no problems, study them with you....

          ...................Your observations....................

          Jackson, P.A. Minkowski, J.S. A Cyclic Model.. HJ/VOL36/HJ-36-6.pdf

          ................................. My reply...............

          I could not down load paper, but definitely like to work and study them with you....

          Best Wishes

          =snp

          PS I copying this to your mail also

          pj.ukc.edu@physics.org