A Tale of Two Relativities by Colin Walker

Dear Colin,

Here we are again all together.

With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of the highest praise.

I agree with you

«recognizing the galactic redshift of light in the context of Planck's hypothesis dispenses with the big bang, inflation and dark energy». Great!

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Dear Colin

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don't rate them at all. Infact I haven't issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

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 and my essay 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. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn't then 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 attempt of 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 a 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 formation 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 chemistry processes arose.

By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. 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 explain 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

Hi Colin,

I just looked at your essay.

To quote you: "In quantum mechanics, Planck's hypothesis about quantization of energy levels is essential, while the notion that quantum mechanics belongs in the domain of the small is questionable."

I agree, and believe my work will "rocket" quantum mechanics into the furthest reaches of the universe.....really:)

1. Big bang ....Maybe.

2. Inflation... probably not.

3. Dark Energy....I believe it is the stuff of space-time.

Take a look at my essay, and let me know if it meshes with yours in some ways.

Thanks for your essay,

Don Limuti

Colin,

Re; above; The easy way to start is to follow through the actual mechanism using the brains visualisation skills computing power and logic. As Wheeler said, get the answer before doing the maths! I see you haven't read/commented on my essay yet (I always try to assess & score they who do!) The Process;

1. Start with Poincare sphere OAM with 2 orthogonal momenta pairs NOT 'singlets'.

2. Pairs have antiparalell axis (random shared y,z). (photon wavefront sim.)

3. Interact with identical (polariser electron) spheres rotatable by A,B.

4. Momentum exchange as actually proved, by Cos latitude at tan intersection.

5. Result 'SAME' or 'OPP' dir. Re-emit polarised with amplitude phase dependent.

6. Photomultiplier electrons give 2nd Cos distribution & 90o phase values.

7. The non detects are all below a threshold amplitude at either channel angle.

8. Statisticians then analyse using CORRECT assumptions about what's 'measured!

If the numbers match CHSH>2 and steering inequality >1 you've got them right.

Let me know how you get on.

Peter

Dear Colin,

I'm sure your explanation of the red shift is the best. Your work is very serious and deserves a good score. Two relativities are also one of the possible good approaches to explain the movements in the reality. Note that my essay describes the current state (without the analysis of the movement).

Regards,

Branko

Hi Colin,

Before this contest closes, I wanted to thank you again for the positive remarks you made on my blog. Of all the entrants you understand me the fullest. We do not agree on everything...so what. However, we both see QM as a phenomena that has been forced into the microscopic. When it explodes onto the dimensions of the universe physics will be changed.

This essay contest will be noted by historians as having two entrants having a foresight into the future.

Being understood is such a pleasure.

Thank you,

Don Limuti

Dear Colin,

You wrote an interesting essay in which you compared and contrasted alternatives to the current paradigm on gravity. I will offer some comments which are meant to help you consider possible ways to present them in a way that your ideas will be more likely considered by the relativity community.

1. On page 2 you write:"It turns out that the radial escape velocity required for general relativity is the same as Newtonian escape speed. This coincidence indicates that the foundation of general relativity is entrenched in the classical realm."

I suspect orthodox relativists will dock you for this because, as I understand, the coincidence comes about because of a cancellation of two factors. Now, you might have meant that the fact that the cancellation which results in the same escape velocity is exact indicates that the foundation of GR is entrenched in the classical realm, but that requires an application of the principle of charity of which you may or may not be the beneficiary.

2. I know that you have pursued the idea of multiplicative potential for some time now, and unfortunately I do not recall the answer to the following questions, so I ask now: Can you derive it from the Einstein Field Equations (EFE)? If not, is this because they require a modification? You gave an alternate potential formulation for the Schwarzschild solution. If the latter is not correct, do you mean that its derivation from the EFE is faulty or that you need modified EFE? Although I have only tangential contact with the relativity community, I think that they might be more receptive to an approach formulated in terms of field equations. Of course, that also means that any of the observed predictions of GR, most recently gravitational waves, also have be accounted by it.

3. The cosmological implications seem intriguing but unfortunately my background is too little to be able to seriously evaluate them. Questioning Hubble recession seems like it might be a radical step for many cosmologists.

I do hope that your ideas are seriously considered and compared to experimental data. It might be that GR still has some surprises in store for us.

All the best,

Armin

I like this essay a lot!

You certainly got me thinking Colin. I especially like the idea of applying the product integral to relativistic motion. Truly inspired! Your approach is not quite fully refined, but it has much to recommend it over the standard formulations. Well done! I have a lot to say, but I'll rate a few more essays first - while there is still time.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Dear Colin,

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

I hope you got to see..

My essay too.

Warm regards,

Jonathan

Thank you Colin Walker,

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

Best regards

=snp

Dear Colin,

It appears that your response was cut short by the cyberpoltergeists lurking around here, ha.

Armin

Dear Colin,

Thank you for your response. I think you definitely should look more into the field equations. Unfortunately, because there are so many relativity deniers out there, many relativists have been conditioned to look at proposals that seem far out and come from someone without the right credentials not just with skepticism, but active hostility, or at least an unwillingness to take time to consider it.

I experienced this myself when I attended the midwest relativity conference here at the University of Michigan a short while ago. I asked a couple of very people very well known in that community a question about something in quantum gravity that does not make sense to me. Mind you, I wasn't even proposing any new idea, simply asking a question, albeit an unusual one. The first one literally ran away from me, the second almost immediately tried to put me in the crackpot box. Not only did he never even attempt to answer my question, but he kept on pretending that I was asking other questions that relativity deniers or people who even lack a basic understanding of relativity would ask. My efforts to clarify what I was actually asking went nowhere, as in his mind I was already in that box. I felt so disgusted with my treatment by him that I left the conference early, and I have lost respect for him. But I do realize that as a well-known relativist, he has in the past probably been bombarded by such people that it is only too easy to put me in that same category.

Anyway, this is just to say that I think for such a radical proposal as you are making, it is incumbent to understand the relationship between the field equations and the potential. I thought about it, and I think there might be a way to connect them fairly straightforwardly:

For some time in the 60's and 70's, Brans-Dicke theory was the main competitor to General Relativity, but more recent tests have essentially ruled it out. BD theory is basically a more flexible version of GR, in that the only difference is that it contains a dimensionless parameter, the Brans-Dicke coupling constant, which can be adjusted based on observation to effectively change the value of the gravitational constant. The parameter is symbolized by small omega and when omega=1, BD theory reduces to GR. It occurred to me that perhaps to obtain a multiplicative potential, you may want to look into having the BD coupling constant actually be the Taylor expansion of an exponential. For e^x, the zeroth-order term would be the same as in GR, but differences would occur in first and higher orders between your theory and GR. If this difference is already ruled by observations (which I don't know) you could also consider e^(e^x), in which case the differences occur at second and higher order. I don't know whether this idea would work out, but it seems to me at least woth looking into. In any event, I urge you to explore the relationship between the field equations and the potentials.

All the best,

Armin

Dear Colin,

Thank you for your response. I think you definitely should look more into the field equations. Unfortunately, because there are so many relativity deniers out there, many relativists have been conditioned to look at proposals that seem far out and come from someone without the right credentials not just with skepticism, but active hostility, or at least an unwillingness to take time to consider it.

I experienced this myself when I attended the midwest relativity conference here at the University of Michigan a short while ago. I asked a couple of very people very well known in that community a question about something in quantum gravity that does not make sense to me. Mind you, I wasn't even proposing any new idea, simply asking a question, albeit an unusual one. The first one literally ran away from me, the second almost immediately tried to put me in the crackpot box. Not only did he never even attempt to answer my question, but he kept on pretending that I was asking other questions that relativity deniers or people who even lack a basic understanding of relativity would ask. My efforts to clarify what I was actually asking went nowhere, as in his mind I was already in that box. I felt so disgusted with my treatment by him that I left the conference early, and I have lost respect for him. But I do realize that as a well-known relativist, he has in the past probably been bombarded by such people that it is only too easy to put me in that same category.

Anyway, this is just to say that I think for such a radical proposal as you are making, it is incumbent to understand the relationship between the field equations and the potential. I thought about it, and I think there might be a way to connect them fairly straightforwardly:

For some time in the 60's and 70's, Brans-Dicke theory was the main competitor to General Relativity, but more recent tests have essentially ruled it out. BD theory is basically a more flexible version of GR, in that the only difference is that it contains a dimensionless parameter, the Brans-Dicke coupling constant, which can be adjusted based on observation to effectively change the value of the gravitational constant. The parameter is symbolized by small omega and when omega=1, BD theory reduces to GR. It occurred to me that perhaps to obtain a multiplicative potential, you may want to look into having the BD coupling constant actually be the Taylor expansion of an exponential. For e^x, the zeroth-order term would be the same as in GR, but differences would occur in first and higher orders between your theory and GR. If this difference is already ruled by observations (which I don't know) you could also consider e^(e^x), in which case the differences occur at second and higher order. Alternatively, you could look into expansions of log(x), which would seem trickier but more in line with what you said about logarithmic differentials. I don't know whether this idea would work out, but it seems to me at least worth looking into. In any event, I urge you to explore the relationship between the field equations and the potentials.

All the best,

Armin