Hi Peter:

Thanks for your time and efforts in providing detailed analysis and comments on my paper. I appreciate it deeply.

I am not an expert in optics, plasma, plasmonics etc . Hence, I would try my best to respond to your questions in terms of relativistic formulations of the concerned phenomena:

1. Peter: "You seem to start with an assumption that photons are particles, so not waves and not requantized."

Avtar: While QM formulations are probabilistic wave functions, my paper depicts quantum events as relativistic, deterministic, and mechanistic phenomena in terms of mass/energy/space/time. Instead of quantization or re-quantization, my model allows spontaneous mass-energy conversion back and forth as needed to satisfy conservation laws and boundary conditions in a classical relativistic space-time. Hence, the optics formulations focusing on a detailed beam structure of individual particles - fermions, excitons etc are quite different and not easy to reconcile.

2. Peter: "2. You seem not to have considered the re-emitted photon speed as 'acceleration' rather than 'powered' by the emitter, i,e. the constant fermion spin energy after coupling (absoption/re-emission). Have you considered and discarded that apparently very consistent model? if so, why?

Avtar: I am proposing a new model or missing physics of spontaneous mass-energy conversion or equivalence totally focused on relativistic conservation of mass-energy as governed by relativity theory. You can draw your own parallels with fermion spin energy model that I do not have much familiarity with.

3. Peter: "You describe galaxies at z=8 as 'mature'. How do you arrive at this description when we have no model or sequence of secular evolution. I assume a 'red' stellar population? In any case this implies a life cycle' of galxies. i.e. what do you assume 'happened' to the old ones from 11bn yrs ago? (I don't challenge anything but I do have a coherent cyclic sequence answering that).

Avtar: The key point of my paper is that time or evolution sequence is not a governing parameter in my model. I have no problem if you would like to call either "mature" or "Red" etc. My model is a quasi-static universe model since the universe has no unique absolute time (time is relative in relativity, there is no one unique clock in the universe, no beginning, no ending, no evolution). Further my model predicts large mass galaxies far beyond 11 billion years that is falsifiable via future observations.

4. Peter: "You may have noted I've been working on QM the last 3yrs essays. I agree all you say (of SR as well as GR). You suggest the inconsistencies are 'resolved' but I've looked very hard and can find no actual full resolution defined, including to the EPR paradox. For the QM must be derived classically with CSHS >2, (or GM be proved completely weird!). On reading mine you'll see that's precisely what it does. Please study and identify any similarities."

Avtar: I read your paper and tried my best to digest the intricate details involving the particle physics, optics, and QM mathematical concepts that I admit not to have deep familiarity with. So, instead of treading in unknown waters, let me try to answer your questions in relativistic terms of my model:

• Peter's model explains the gaps between SR and QM via - " .... simple concept is relative motion, linear and rotational, so orbital & helical. All bound & ever more complex molecular matter and physics then evolves. As for 'foundational interpretations' of Quantum Physics; .......... Simply adding re-emissions at local 'c'. The model explains QM experiments, no comparisons or analysis presented against far-field cosmological expansion data showing dark energy. Need explanation for why the QM vacuum energy predictions are 120 orders of magnitude higher than observed, what is quantum gravity, how the collapse of the wave functions occurs, role of the consciousness of the observer, did the big bang happen, is there a unique time/clock in the universe, where, how, and when it started and what was before it?

• Avtar's model bridges the gaps between SR and QM via - " ......simply adding spontaneous mass-energy conversion inducing simple expansive (anti-gravity) relative motion complementing molecular, complex matter physics (described in detail in my book -"The Hidden Factor" but omitted from the FQXi paper due to space limitations). Predicts mathematically dark energy, supernova expansion, collapse of the wave function (via spontaneous conversion of wave energy to classical mass as V is interrupted via measurement), red galaxies in far-field universe, non-locality via space dilation etc. Need to develop details at the particle level (spin, refraction, rotation, plasma etc) - the focus has been global or universal mass-energy conservation rather than local particle behavior details.

• The EPR paradox becomes irrelevant in Avtar's model because of the relative motion between the two subjects (Alice and Bob) effects each of them equally and hence, no paradox of varying ages between the two.

• Heisenberg's uncertainty is shown by Avtar's model to be an artifact of the measurement deficiency/error in resulting from classical (fixed space-time) measurements of the highly relativistic (V close to C, greatly dilated space-time) quantum phenomena. The uncertainty would dissolve if the measurements are made in the same relativistic space-time as the quantum event. (This is described in great mathematical detail in my book).

• Both models prove that "the apparently most ridiculously simple of concepts can resolve & unite incomplete and incompatible theories."

Wishing you the best for the contest and hoping to continue the wisdom-full dialogue,

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

avsingh@alum.mit.edu

I am reminded that...

We became friends at CCC-2 in Port Angeles, Avtar, where you presented your ideas on how the limited lifetime and decay of protons could explain the excess of background energy that drives the accelerated expansion of the universe. We sat together at the banquet for that event and exchanged stories about our Engineering background and how we got into Physics. Sometimes these chance meetings have afterwards been quite meaningful. At FFP11 in Paris; I sat with Andrew Beckwith, who is also in this contest, and we became friends afterward.

But I am still taken by the sense that people must be dense to rule out the possibility that unbound protons have a limited lifetime, the same as unbound neutrons, and I think it is quizzical. My thought is that the rapid decay of free neutrons is due to the fact that their electrical neutrality is a gauge setting mechanism that requires something positive or negative to be measured against, where the proton is more stable or enduring. But as we have discussed; it too should have a finite duration or half-life - a limited lifetime.

Re-examining the obvious omitted possibility should be mandatory. I will need to read this essay to the end, but the first part seems quite interesting and it reads well. I already know you have something worthwhile to share.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Hi Jonathan:

Thanks for remembering the prior acquaintance and interactions at the CCC-2. It all comes to cherishing the sweet memories of the past.

I read your essay and enjoyed it fully agreeing with most of your conclusions. I also gave the highest rating it deserves. I fully agree with your assertion that forces including gravity are not fundamental and - "...if all forces are the consequence of just one unified field of interactions - and sub-ranges thereof."

As I described in my paper- "What is Fundamental - Is C the Speed of Light", this unified field is nothing but the absolute Zero Point State (ZPS) that is invariant in space-time i.e. fully dilated with zero space-time. Since, a finite mass has a finite non-zero space-time, mass should also be zero in the ZPS. Such a fundamental state or reality would be immeasurable since it is absolute and not relative. A theory that predicts and bridges this absolute ZPS state with the relative (non-zero mass-energy-space-time) states of the comprehensible universe should be defined as the "Fundamental" theory. Remember, "Fundamental" refers to the predicted end state and not to the theory itself. Quantum theories (QFT, EFT) predict arbitrarily large vacuum energy and hence are not fundamental.

The ZPS is synonymous with Anti-gravity (Dark energy) as the fundamental state from which all complimentary forces and relativistic states of manifested mass-energy-space-time arise. In this fundamental state all forces are ZERO. In my paper- "What is Fundamental - Is C the Speed of Light", I propose the missing physics of anti-gravity as the spontaneous mass-energy conversion (as observed in wave-particle behavior) that bridges the observed relative mass-energy-space-time states to the ZPS while resolving the paradox of the missing dark energy that is revealed as the relativistic kinetic energy, the paradox of the collapse of the wave function that is explained via transition to the classical space-time from the fully dilated space-time when a measurement is made, the black hole singularity of GR eliminated via mass dilation at small R, and solution to other current inconsistencies as well as weirdness of mainstream theories as described in my book.

With regard to the stability and life-time of any mass or particles, the mainstream position is biased by the classical mentality of fixed space-time wherein time is absolute. While the majority of the universe is inhabited by photons of light moving close to the speed of light and in their relativistic frames of references the billions of years of stable lifetime is nothing but almost an instant decay of the so-called stable particles. Time and stability are only illusions of the eye and mindset of the earthly observes. All masses in the universe decay and that is consistent with the spontaneous (without delay) equivalence of mass and energy. Spontaneous instant wave-particle behavior is also an objective evidence of spontaneous mass decay to energy without half-life or decay duration.

Jonathan, I would appreciate your time and feedback on my paper (rating if possible) at your convenience. Let us keep in touch sharing wisdom full dialogue and discussions. You can directly contact me at avsingh@alum.mit.edu.

Best Regards

Avtar

Dear Avtar,

Thank you for the comments you posted on the page for my essay. Thank you also for bringing into the discussion your paper, "A Universal Model Integrating Matter, Mind, & Consciousness Resolves the Hard Problem & Cosmic Conundrum." The following comments refer both to that paper and of course to your essay for the present contest.

There seems to be an understanding common to both papers that human understanding of reality is still incomplete. Hardly anyone would dispute this. In both essays you mention the fact that currently there is no explanation for dark matter and dark energy, which are the bulk of what exists within the physical world. It is very interesting that in the essay for this contest you confine the discussion mainly to topics relevant to the physical universe, but in the earlier essay you widen the discussion to include phenomena of consciousness also. I am not sure that I fully understand the relationship between the solution of the strictly physical problems related to the possibility of a mass for the photon and the solution of the other problems which involve consciousness as well as physical phenomena. Perhaps the relationship is in the concept of spontaneity. As you say in the paper on matter, mind, and consciousness, "Thoughts or emotions are free willed activities in this sense, similar to the generation of a photon, a kinetic energy wave packet, via self-induced decay of quantum particles. Both processes are spontaneous or self-induced without the presence of an external physical force." This is a useful way of making the connection.

I think that your discussion of experimental results and future empirical tests is a very good step. Sometimes theoretical discussions lose this link to experience. From what you say, it seems that presently available results are encouraging. That is a good sign for the future.

Laurence Hitterdale

    Dear Dr. Avtar Singh,

    I have read your essay and suggest that you read Dark Matter http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0207v3.pdf

    QM claims that an electron can be both spin-up and spin-down at the same time. In my conceptual physics Essay on Electron Spin, I have proved that this is not true. Please read: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3.pdf

    Kamal Rajpal

      Avtar,

      I cannot pretend to understand the Universal Relativity Model (URM) but can recognize the need for it, and from your past essays, gather the weight and understanding of your approach. Certainly we can agree that "fundamental" is universal, pointing to an ultimate universal reality that is not fragmented. We all look for a ToE that is fundamental, as I mention in my essay. I garner my argument from a more generic definition of fundamental, "that which is necessary for existence." Current mainstream theories -- GR, QFT, BBM do need to unify the dynamics of a mass-energy duality. I believe your work is making inroads in that direction and deserves high marks. Hope you get a chance to check out my essay.

      Jim Hoover

        Dear Kamal:

        Thanks for your time and comments.

        I would greatly appreciate it if you could point out any deficiencies/strengths in my approach and why it it right or wrong? It predicts the empirical universe behavior and dark energy, hence vindicated.

        Best Regards

        Avtar Singh

        Dear James:

        I enjoyed reading your essay and agree with the main theme that understanding light is fundamental. However, as I show in my paper, to understand light (photon), one must answer the question as to how a photon accelerates to the speed of light from zero when it is born. This understanding then changes the whole picture of reality - big bang never happened, universe is eternal, light is the source of dark energy, time is only a relative reality in the frame of matter etc.

        This new picture of reality then shows the light, the way, providing a basis for purpose and meaning to the universe and life in it.

        Best Regards

        Avtar

        Dear Kamal:

        Thanks for your time and comments.

        I would greatly appreciate it if you could point out any deficiencies/strengths in my approach and why it it right or wrong? It predicts the empirical universe behavior and dark energy, hence vindicated.

        Best Regards

        Avtar Singh

        Dear Avtar Singh,

        I've been reading your essay, I have a question about wave function collapse. I like your way of putting: 'Could quantum uncertainty be the fundamental foundation of nature and reality or merely a measurement induced artifact?' It's true that our views of what it might be range all the way from that to that.

        A spontaneous change from energy to matter, if you're saying the change from waves to particles is also that, is an idea I've never heard. But it sounds like an objective collapse model, if it happens literally spontaneously - I'd be interested to know what you think sets it off in the lab. And does it also happen elsewhere, without anything setting it off?

        It's good to think about truly new ways of seeing these things, I do think new ways of seeing them are needed. I'd appreciate it if you'd rate my essay (it only has 6 ratings, and it needs 10, or the average doesn't count). It's about conceptual physics, and how new concepts are needed if we're to find the underlying picture, which both Einstein and Wheeler said we'd one day find. I try to work out just what can be worked out, rather than guessing, and there are some things in the essay that have been worked out using conceptual thinking.

        Anyway, best wishes,

        Jonathan Kerr

          Hi Jonathan

          Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

          You asked - "A spontaneous change from energy to matter, ... sounds like an objective collapse model, if it happens literally spontaneously - I'd be interested to know what you think sets it off in the lab. And does it also happen elsewhere, without anything setting it off?"

          It is already demonstrated in the wave-particle complimentarity wherein mass and energy exist simultaneously and instantly with no delay. Einstein's mass-energy equivalence principle is also based on this spontaneity existing in nature.

          I am attending a conference and will try to read your paper as soon as I get a chance.

          Best of luck,

          Regards

          Avtar

          Dear Avtar

          If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

          A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My sail area overpowered. Ordinarily I would have reduced sail, but this day I felt differently. My contemplations were on the forces of nature, and I was ventured seaward increasingly amongst them. As the wind and the waves rose, my boat came under strain, but I was exhilarated. All the while I considered, how might I communicate the role of natural forces in understanding of the world around us. For they are surely it's central theme.

          Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me in questioning this circumstance?

          My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. for if they didn't then nebula gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

          Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

          For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

          My essay is an attempt at something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up an energy potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists, and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond forming activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemical process arose.

          By identifying process whereby atomic forces draw a potential from space, we have identified means for their perpetual action, and their ability to deliver perpetual work. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might apply for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

          To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

          Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

          Kind regards

          Steven Andresen

          Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

          This essay is interesting Avtar...

          On first pass; it appears to be more a patchwork of partial answers to deficiencies in the conventional fabric of fundamental Physics, rather than a new view on what is fundamental, but I need to read it again for detail before I determine your rating, or comment further on what you did or did not explain adequately. It is helpful to my understanding, that I have a prior knowledge of your work, but I will have to grade you based mainly on how well the essay explains your point, and how that addresses the question posed by FQXi. I wish you good luck in the contest.

          All the Best,

          Jonathan

            For the record,

            I think this essay has been rated lower than what it deserves, but I calculate that giving you a fair grade will still leave you in the basement. I will reread this essay, to see if there are perhaps a few extra points in one category or another upon rereading, given that I rate essays using a grid system.

            All the Best,

            Jonathan

            You highlight some interesting points Avtar...

            There is a lot to like about this essay and the ideas behind it. It is so often overlooked, that spontaneous decay of long-lived particles could easily account for the universe's expansion, where people do need a constant reminder that it could make things just work. Likewise; even the tiniest mass of the photon could account for some significant discrepancies we observe between standard model theory and real-world Physics.

            It was once assumed that neutrinos were massless, but now we think otherwise. Likewise the graviton is believed to have zero mass, but some theorists posit otherwise because they know it could have profound implications if true. Another participant, Andrew Beckwith, wrote several papers on how minimally massive gravitons could explain accelerated expansion - much as you do with photons. I will have to assume that some of the missing pieces are explained in other work, but I am not 100% convinced that this is realistic Physics.

            I gave you very high marks anyway.

            All the Best, JJD

            I find your essay as intriguing in originality and substance. You keep things open by saying that things do not get established without firm experimental proof! I like the idea that the so-called physical constants are not really constants over the cosmic time scale. In our essay here i have attached a manuscript 'Inconstancy of the Physical Constants, with my own bias as an experimental worker! Kindly spare time to look up our essay and care to rate us after reading and giving your own comments thereon!