Gravity is not fundamental; or is it? by Jonathan J. Dickau

Jonathan,

Perhaps I missed it. I see no mention of the chief characteristic of the Mandelbrot set -- self-similarity.

What's interesting about this characteristic is that it emerges from an arbitrary function in the complex plane, to become a completely coherent object at any choice of scale. In other words, the global set looks like any local subset. This being so makes it the most symmetric object in mathematics. Just as a see-saw depends on weight distribution to induce an oscillation, so does symmetry depend on a compensating factor -- time in this case -- equal areas in equal times, as Kepler formulated it for planetary orbits. Nonequilibrium states of asymmetry therefore, are due to a symmetry principle. To know this, however, we have to appeal to a measure space -- and the 2-dimensional measure space of the Mandelbrot set is infinite.

If gravity is subject to self-similarity, then it is fundamental.

My opinion. Though I find your essay well argued and well written, I have to disagree. Let's debate.

All best,

Tom

Is anyone else experiencing this loss of format? Is it my computer only?

Its systemic... that 'n'.

Jonathan, your identifying an approximate time for the problem is about three hours after the most recent uploading of three essays to the output display.

I thought on reading your essay that the item about phase reversal on either side of the Misiurewicz point was perhaps the most important thing you addressed. If we look at a naïve model of condensed matter with the Maxwellian identification of c proportion between magnetic and electrostatic intensities in a point charge, then hypothetically we might argue an ontology that boundary conditions of density are by c, c^2, c^3, and c^4. But if phase reversal occurs at those junctures it might resolve the problem of how an electron can have a uniform negative charge and the proton a positive charge without a directional physical rotation, and without counter-rotating torque on vectors. Very similar to the inversion by a simple lens. jrc

Thank-you Jonathan,

I did not know that. But ironically I spent a dozen years from my early 20's handling 300# blocks of ice and lesser chops with a set of tongs. I preferred a strap handle where others liked a two handle. ("There's no such thing as cold. Cold is the absence of heat.")

I think Tom's point is interesting also. And its the interplay of symmetry and asymmetry that becomes fascinating, like you spoke about of teaching methods. I am reconciled to my naivete, and know at times I can't help but be a pest. I came too late to the party of what mathematics really is to attempt a comprehensive study, comprehension is my goal. One thing for certain is that symmetry is essential to achieving empirical measurement, but that also is a mathematical requirement more than a physical absolute. Epistemology, I guess. Its the actual math that for me is the unnecessarily complicated, mindless chore unless I can intuitively see a reason for chasing it down. And even then I have a bear of a time remembering the symbolic meaning of function. I think it goes back to working nights in high school and having to cover for my folks when a creditor would call who was my algebra teacher's spouse. But I do enjoy how much enjoyment you all show in the endeavor, and have managed to learn some of real value. And I get a good laugh at my audacity at times trying to figure out what people are talking about. What I like is that Physics is about that which is physical and trying to puzzle what is.

All the best. jrc

Hi Jonathan,

Another good essay and interesting thesis. I also read your Gravity paper. Of course all very speculative but speculation is essential to find the way round present barriers to understanding (your; 'Impasse'). John Bell said of QM it would take an 'astonishing leap of imagination.. which would amaze'.

Actually I do hope you'll get to my essay (and Declan Traill's short code & plot) as after trying many such leaps, amazingly one seems to have worked! And yes, it came from a more complex partial symmetry of momentum on a condensed electron than the imaginary 'spin up/down' Bohr allowed for.

You identified; 'Condensation is a natural consequence of thermodynamic cooling that also arises in the context of emergent gravity theories'. Yet for Higgs and 'pair production' it seems to relate more to an additional macro spin state in the dark energy or 'sub matter condensate' whatever that is (smaller fractal spins?). I don't think the thermodynamic view has born fruit (or maybe now will), have you seen advances?

But I vote Yes & No, Gravity is a fundamental effect but as a consequence of the process condensing matter, which just any relative 'motion' seems to do. Then isn't the real question; what is the Mandelbrot set, and matter, 'made of'?

Very nice job & best of luck.

Peter

Jonathan Dickau

I forgot to ask what you mean by 'pedigree', as you said on my page. (English is not my normal language.)

Regards from ____________ John-Erik Persson

Jonathan Dikau

Thanks for clearifications.

I have proved why Michelson and Morley's tests and stellar aberration cannot give any indications regarding the ether wind. You can see this also at my blog page at:

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/

Regards from _______________ John-Erik Persson

Jonathan

See My blog

John-Erik Persson

Jonathan Dickau

I agree to the statement that gravity is fundamental. However, gravity is a property of the ether and the ether is even more fundamental.

Your reference to Osheroff is important. An important hindrance to making discoveries is the illusion that we already know.

Einstein added mistakes to an already confused situation. He realized that when he was older. One mistake was to assume clocks without errors.

Thanks for many links.

Unfortunately I am not qualified to give an opinion regarding Mandelbrot's fractals in relation to physics.

Best regards ___________ John-Erik Persson

Hi Jonathan:

Your statement is intriguing - "And yet, there is a debate among scientists as to whether gravity is a fundamental force of the universe or not. "

Stretching your logic further, my research shows that anti-gravity is fundamental reality that explains 96% of the missing universe from the current mainstream theories. I would like to draw your attention to the missing fundamental physics governing - "What causes a photon to accelerate to the speed of light?" I would like to invite you to look into my paper - "What is Fundamental - Is C the Speed of Light". that describes the fundamental physics of antigravity missing from the widely-accepted mainstream physics and cosmology theories resolving their current inconsistencies and paradoxes. The missing physics depicts a spontaneous relativistic mass creation/dilation photon model that explains the yet unknown dark energy, inner workings of quantum mechanics, and bridges the gaps among relativity and Maxwell's theories. The model also provides field equations governing the spontaneous wave-particle complimentarity or mass-energy equivalence. The key significance or contribution of the proposed work is to enhance fundamental understanding of C, commonly known as the speed of light, and Cosmological Constant, commonly known as the dark energy.

The paper not only provides comparisons against existing empirical observations but also forwards testable predictions for future falsification of the proposed model.

I would like to invite you to read my paper and appreciate any feedback comments.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

Dear Jonathan

What an intriguing, thought-provoking essay! I really liked it. Asymmetry ought to be an important factor and should be investigated thoroughly, especially since nonlinear systems can generate it rather easily. I also appreciate your use of the Mandelbrot Set as an alternate to standard group theory. I have posted a more extensive reply after your comments on my own essay, so I won't repeat those ideas here.

Keep up the good work.

Best wishes,

Bill