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

    Avtar,

    Thank you for reading my essay and your kind words. As the end of the contest approaches, I tend to revisit essays I've commented on to make sure I've rated them. This I did on 2/19/18 with an 8.

    Regards,

    Jim

    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!

      Dear Dr. Avtar Singh,

      I have re-read you essay. Please read:

      http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0201v1.pdf

      Light Speed Invariance & Maxwell's Equations

      Kamal Rajpal

      I wanted to add this...

      I agree with the notion of a variable speed of light Avtar, as a component for healing any number of discrepancies between observation and theory. But I am doubtful that your application of a stationary boundary condition, leading to a zero initial value of C (on emission) is reasonable. While I think a photon can (and probably does) have a rest mass; I am not sure it actually has a resting state.

      Instead; I think the slowness of light is due to the total mass in the observable universe. So I am more of a mind that we can open up the top end of the velocity spectrum in a matter-free regime. But this would seem to jibe with your notion of proton decay being unaccounted for in conventional theory. So I find many of your ideas fulfilling, but the essay somewhat confused or confusing.

      All the Best,

      Jonathan

        Hi Jonatan:

        Thanks for your new comments on my paper.

        Rest mass is only possible or definable when photon is at rest. This is the biggest and most serious inconsistency in the mainstream or Maxwell's theory that Photon has energy and momentum but no rest mass and that a photon is born with V=C.

        I agree with your assertion that the gravitational pull of nearby masses effect the speed of a photon (bending of light). However, this also is possible if photon has a non-zero mass. A zero mass photon cannot be impacted by the gravity pull of other masses.

        Regards

        Avtar

        Write a Reply...