John

Great little essay, a pleasure to read and interesting angles. We agree our rather rudderless physics does need to address the sub-matter 'vacuum' more seriously & rely less on numbers.

You also seem to describe your view of time better than previously, or maybe it's me! You'll have seen from my own essay that the flawed assumptions leading to 'backwards causality' have been put to bed so common sense physics can prevail. The way is then clear to think as you do without fear of descent into LaLa land.

You also identify the scant evidence and broad anomalies in BB & redshift/inflation cosmological theories. I classify 'dark' matter & energy quite differently as they emerge from real sound evidence, but of course they're only 'tags' and also generally misunderstood. I agree Christoff's and Eric R's generalizations but have also identified HOW the expansion of a wavefront orbital (as part of the causal sphere surface) naturally produces the increased wavelength found on interaction ('measurement').

Actually M&M DIDN'T 'prove' quite what people think! Though an ether coupling with light and with a single universal rest frame IS disproved. M&M's last big experiment was in Chicago and their final conclusion was YES there IS ether! But with the phase (delay) corrections I identify in my essay it can only be as Stokes version 'dragged' with the local matter bounded by it's fields.

Michelson, A., Gale, H., Pearson, F., 1925 The Effect of the Earth's Rotation on the Velocity of Light. ApJ 61 (i.e. 'c' in the galaxy is c with respect to (wrt) the galactic centre rest frame, BUT 'c' in baryonic frames (is wrt the star) and in our ionosphere is wrt Earth). How much simpler can it be? Full analysis here; arXiv Resolution of Kantor and Babcock-Bergman Emission Theory Anomalies. HJ 2012

So yes. "First you need a vacuum", then QM and all the other issues naturally resolve. Nice Job.

Peter

Peter

    Thank you, Peter.

    I have to say, the level of concentration I can bring to bear on this contest isn't sufficient. Not only the personal life, but just keeping up with the news is ever more distracting.

    If I was to suppose about dark matter and energy, it seems to me mass is an effect of gravity, rather than gravity a property of mass. That gravity is wave collapse, consolidation, synchronization, extending all the way out the radiological scales, to the spectrum of light and what we measure as dark matter is this attraction, contraction, consolidation far beyond what would be considered mass.

    As for dark energy, it is to explain why the rate of expansion doesn't decrease, with increasing proximity, at an even rate, but drops off rapidly, then flattens out, as sources get closer, but I look at it from the opposite direction, as an optical effect away from our location, then the need is to explain an effect which starts off gradually and then at an increasing rate, eventually going parabolic. Which would seem to be an optical effect that compounds on itself. So just optics, not another enormous force of nature, to explain a theory too popular to drop.

    I'm sure I'll comment on occasion, but my heart is not as into it as some years.

    Damn captchas to boot.

    Dear John,

    This is an extremely important idea: "Space is Basis". Almost one hundred years ago philosopher Pavel Florensky drew a conclusion that turned out to be extremely important for understanding of the sources of the modern crisis of understanding in fundamental science: "The problem of space in the center of the worldview in all emerging systems of thought predetermines the development of the entire system. We repeat: worldunderstanding - spaceunderstanding / Миропонимание - пространствопонимание." (Unfortunately in the English language there are no complex words that can be translated correctly, so I translated them myself.) The understanding of space is the basic ideality of the fundamental science, is "grasping" of its ontological structure.

    I also believe that alternative ideas regarding the nature of time and the "beginning of the Universe" are needed . In fundamental physics there should be a wide competition of ideas.

    My high rating of your idea. I invite you to see my essay.

    Yours faithfully,

    Vladimir

      Vladimir,

      Thank you very much! I will definitely read your essay when I get off work.

      John and Vladimir,

      Understanding the space is understanding the world? At least, Guericke's experiments de vacuo spatio lead to the first industrial revolution and to electricity.

      Most likely John Merryman, Edwin Klingman and Max Born are correct (although this means that others were perhaps incorrect): Space is the eternal, ubiquitous and unchanging entity of mutual distances each of which may change.

      BTW, I just commented on presentism at 3009.

      Regards,

      Eckard

      • [deleted]

      • Post #26

      Eckard,

      Not really. The question is; "What is fundamental?" Not; "What is the TOE?"

      Since I would equate an equilibrium of the vacuum with absolute, as in absolute zero, then space would be both absolute and infinite, which would be the parameters of the extant. This being the dichotomy of bottom up energy and top down form inhabiting space and reaching to infinity.

      John,

      In my essay I distinguished between two quite different notions of infinity.

      I am not sure what you meant with not really.

      Eckard

      Eckard,

      I wasn't trying to explain reality, as in first cause, or fundamental theory, so much as give a conceptual foundation for physical reality. To resurrect space as what geometry maps, not an artifact of geometry.

      There are lots of potential infinities, as any open set can potentially go on forever. I'm arguing against the idea of a finite universe. I think when the James Webb space Telescope becomes operational, they will find ever more and larger structures, at ever further distances, than can conceivably be fit in the age limits of current cosmology.

      I suspect the background radiation will come to be seen as the solution to Olber's paradox. The light of ever further sources, shifted off the visible spectrum.

      6 days later

      Hi John Brodix Merryman

      It is important observation "It is also interesting to note that in the few days since I posted this, the issue of different methods of measuring the Hubble Constant keep yielding different numbers, with the errors bars on both just getting smaller, not converging" dear John Brodix Merryman......

      ............. very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity ....You may please spend some of the valuable time on some of the concepts of Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

      Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

      -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 GR on any condition

      -No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

      -No many mini Bigbangs

      -No Missing Mass / Dark matter

      -No Dark energy

      -No Bigbang generated CMB detected

      -No Multi-verses

      Here:

      -Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

      -Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

      -All bodies dynamically moving

      -All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

      -Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

      -Single Universe no baby universes

      -Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

      -Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

      -UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

      -Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

      -Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

      -21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

      -Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

      -Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

      - Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

      http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

      I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

      Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

      In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

      I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

      Best

      =snp

        Dear John Brodix Merryman

        Thank you for reading my essay....

        You have nice concept; probably that there is a cyclical relationship between expanding radiation and collapsing mass.

        It is nice idea .... I never heard it before... this concept is good... that ' That mass is an effect of what we call gravity, rather than gravity a property of mass and this contraction extends to all stages and aspects of frequency contraction, or blueshift.'

        We should develop further, lets work out together.... By the way there is no darkmatter in Dynamic Universe Model.......

        Best Regards

        =snp

        John,

        Your essay seems as compact as a neutron star since light does escape in the form of word packets with great perspective width. Your ideas are fresh to me and thought provoking. I deal with light and space too but with more convention. Hope you can check out mine. I will need to think about yours.

        Jim Hoover

        John,

        Seems to be sparse reviewing and rating in this essay contest. I am revisiting those I have reviewed and see if I have scored them before the deadline approaches. I find that I have not scored yours and am doing so today. Thanks for your Olympic-sized comments.

        Jim Hoover

        4 days later

        John,

        Good to be in another contest with you. I too bashed out an essay on Space just in time to meet the deadline. We both agree it is fundamental.

        I could not resist going after a TOE based on a novel concept of a graviton. I go after what the curvature of space-time means. This investigation results in a malleable ether that explains: 1. the curvature of space-time and 2. why the speed of light is independent of an objects motion.

        I know this conflicts with a pure void which is aesthetically pleasing.

        This is a long shot, but do visit my essay. I like to believe it enhances the beauty of the void and you will like it.

        Thanks for your fine essay: "The vacuum might fluctuate, but first you need the vacuum.

        Don Limuti

        4 days later

        Dear John,

        Replied to your comment on Flavio and Chiara's 'Demolishing Prejudices' essay, however as i understand our fqxi gui you will not get pinged by that. So pasting the comment in here:

        Dear John, Flavio, Chiara,...

        love the way dialogs evolve in the fqxi competition/collaboration format.

        Came back to 'Demolishing Prejudices' to reply to a different thread and got caught by 'Do NOT spend...'. Being closely related to oppositional defiant disorders, i was immediately in.

        takedown of cosmology and inflation is excellent, thank you. That it leads to classifying redshift, accelerating expansion, anomalous radial dependence of galactic rotation,... as 'optical effects' gives a nice little perspective shift. Suggests to me that until we understand how quantum gravity is related to the photon the 'Do NOT spend...' injunction is well advised.

        staying with the optical effect for a moment, in particular to have an understanding of what goes on in the near field at the Planck length in photon emission and absorption seems essential in quantum gravity.

        I like what is said about time, that it emerges from 'action', or more precisely from inter-actions. Pauli vacuum wavefunction is that of the geometric objects of 3d space - point, line, plane, and volume elements of geometric interpretation of Clifford algebra. No time there.

        Interaction of two wavefunctions can be modeled by geometric product of Clifford algebra - sum of inner (dimension lowering) and outer (raising) products. Inter-action generates the 4D Dirac algebra of flat Minkowski spacetime. Time emerges from interactions of the enigmatic unobservable wavefunction.

        Dear John,

        Your view that 'space is basis' seems intuitively perceptive and powerful. In the language of geometric Clifford algebra (the geometric interpretation of the particle physicist's matrix representation is unfortunately lost in the mainstream), the Pauli matrices are the basis vectors of 3D Euclidian space, and the Dirac matrices those of flat 4D Minkowski spacetime.

        very much like your view on 'optical effects'. Thank you.

        Best regards,

        Pete

          Stefan (and John) - It could be that the world is deterministic at the fundamental level, say for instance at the level of the unobservable wavefunction, and becomes probabilistic only with the phenomenon of emergence.

          Peter,

          Rushing off to work so reply further later, but just mention I got into physics as a way to better understand society, given the powerful physical forces permeating it.

          Here was a FQXi entry of some years ago, addressing the social aspects of it.

          https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1981

          Dear John Merryman

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

          I also invite you to read my essay on wave-particle and electron spin at: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3.pdf

          Kamal Rajpal

          Dear John

          Nice to meet you again, I think a lot of advancement in science but since you interested from Philosophical aspect of science raher than details I hope you will be entrested my essay

          https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3143

          I will come back to comment yours after reading.

          Thank you for sharing knowledge,

          Best wishes

          Bashir