The Thing That Is Space-Time by Don Limuti

Dear Don Limuti

I gave 10 for your wonderful essay it was 6.1 and after 10 it became 6.5

Best wishes to your essay

=snp

Don Limuti

Thanks for an essay with many new and interesting ideas. It was stimulating toread it. However, it is very difficult for an amateur, as I am, to decide the value of these ideas.

I agree to your statement that physics is far from complete.

I do not completely understand how black matter, at half the radius of Mercury, can have the same period as Mercury?

With the best regards from _____________ John-Erik

Don Limuti

You are right regarding that particles is the best way to explain gravity. However, you could also point out that Fatio also said so 300 years ago.

Best regards from _____________ John-Erik Persson

Hi Don

I am really happy to meet you here again and I am so thankful for your high opinion to my work. But I was thinking till now that you are only a witty critics of our unhappy science that deviated from right way. Excuse me, because I see now you have suggested your own serious approach to greatest mystery of gravity. This very intrigued to me, moreover I am also felt myself as a good friend of not ordinary Dr Roger Penrose!

So, you can be sure - I will carefully read and properly rate your nice work after small time! Best wishes my dear!

George K.

Dear Don,

I have completed study your work and I have made my high duty as I promised (but it is not very important in my view, as they do not preparing prizes for us!)

I can say you many nice words on your work, but both we are critics and we well realize that honest criticism are much more preferable than many empty favorable words. Your approach can be interesting for specialists, of course, as an alternative way to construct gravity theory. But, if this can have some value for you, my opinion is that we need try to understand in first the essence (or, the physical nature) of gravity phenomenon. I mean - how to connect (to derive) the gravity parameters from known to us forms of materia?

In other words it means - how to get the value of Cavendish constant (gamma = 6.72 x 10^-11) from basic natural constants (c, h, pi, a=1/137).

The matter is there existing already huge quantity of different interpretations, connected with the field, with the ether, with the distorted space-time, with Mach principle, with hypothetical gravitons, or without that, etc. What is interesting here - in all of different kinds of interpretations have used this experimentally opened constant - without asking from where it comes and why it is this much and not other? (and here is the whole mystery of gravity!) And all of this theories has brought to almost the same quantitatively results! But, as a logical people, we can just conclude from aforesaid that actually we have deal with the different names of a same thing, which we can't yet understand how need to name correctly! So, What can I say you better than only that I already saying in my works! Just try to look those (from at last reference) in any best for you time.

Best wishes,

George Kirakosyan

Dear Don,

Here we are again all together.

I like your graviton.

Your Essay is really entertaining. You deserves the highest score that I am going to give you.

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

Vladimir Fedorov

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

Dear Don

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

Dear Don Limuti,

For conceptual views on space-time and Dark Matter, please read: http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0207v3.pdf

Quantum Mechanics 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

Kamal Rajpal

Hi Don,

I read your wonderful essay with great interest. You give deep ideas and make important conclusions aimed at overcoming the crisis of understanding in fundamental science. To "grasp" the original structure of the Cosmos today, it is necessary to maximally support competitive ideas, primarily in cosmology . Thanks to the FQXi for supporting the competition of fundamental ideas..

Pavel Florensky made a good conclusion, which is topical for physicists and mathematicians: "Мы повторяем: миропонимание -- пространствопонимание./ We repeat: world understanding is spaceunderstanding." ... Physicists and poets should have a single picture of the Universum as an holistic generating process, filled with the meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E. Husserl).

Best wishes!

Vladimir

Don,

Great job, again. Fundamental and well written. I'm always interested in your excellent ideas and explanations.

You Penrose and still share rejection of the BB. (You may recall my cyclic model published in 2013, similar to 'Conformal' but overcoming the issues Roger accepted with that).

If you don't like QM I this year finally have an option; a classical mechanism fully reproducing it's predictions, rather complex but easy as it's logical and sequential, from a starting assumption off OAM, so different to 'singlet' states.

(unfortunately few read carefully enough to form it in their minds, and dogma will defeat it, but Declan Traill's short essay & plot confirms it works!

May I ask, can we refer more to 'current physics theory' than 'nature itself' in saying; 'completeness is not one of its properties'? If so I heartily agree.

Well done.

Peter

Hi Don

Thanks for posting on my blog or I would have missed your essay. We are on the same wavelength as far as gravitons, and I really like your Quantum-Newtonian deductions. And LLF, LOL!

I expect that the lowest graviton energy would be Hh/2, which is related to the energy, Hh, lost from a photon each cycle in the tired light scenario. If that is true, then an expanding universe ought to be ruled out, as I argued in my essay. However, it is merely a quibble whether associated terms such as dark energy are appropriate.

Incidentally, there is apparently a theoretical limit to the temperature which can be attained by a solar concentrator, and that limit is the temperature of the radiation from the Sun. I would guess that gravitons have a temperature similar to photons given by kT=hf, where k is Boltzmann and hf is photon energy. The graviton temperature would be quite low corresponding to its low frequency, and should not raise the temperature of matter when it interacts, if this reasoning is valid.

Cheers,

Colin

Dear Don,

(copy to yours and mine)

Many thanks for the kind words about my work and for mutual understanding.

Understanding, respect and your advices are highly valued.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

Vladimir Fedorov

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

General relativity represent gravitation as curved spacetime. But it is possible to formulate theories of gravity without any spacetime curvature. This fact shows that spacetime doesn't really has such properties.

In fact, spacetime per se doesn't exist. It is merely a mathematical construct build over the extensions of the real particle positions.

Quantum mechanics is needed when Newtonian interaction is introduced in a quantum description.

"The key postulate is that mass curves space-time". No really, massless particles can curve spacetime as well because the source of curvature in GR is Tab, not m alone.

The same argument that gives photons a zero mass also gives zero mass to gravitons.

Why would one assume all photons have the same wavelength?

"E = Nhc/d" isn't correct because Newtonian gravitational energy is negative.

Also graviton model cannot be "fit" into Newton theory. Gravitons are quanta for contact-action model of interactions. Newton theory is action-at-a-distance. Graviton model can be fit into a field theory of gravity.

Gravitons associated to the scalar potential are virtual.

For rotating masses we have to include velocity-dependent potentials. Multiplying by 2pi a scalar potential doesn't give the gravitational energy of rotating masses.

The energy of a graviton is not E=mc2. Besides the graviton being massless and energy of massless particles being given by E=|p|c; this is a special relativistic expression lacking the corrections due to gravity.

Dark matter and dark energy couldn't be more different. One is a fictitious distribution of mass measuring 'inertial' corrections to the 1/r law. The other corresponds to a matter-gravitation interaction term is lacking in Tab in the metrics equations of GR.

Vulcan was introduced as hypothesis to explain the discrepancies between Mercury orbit and the predictions made by Newtonian gravity. We know today that Vulcan doesn't exist and that the discrepancies are due to relativistic effects not considered by Newtonian gravity.

Does "05.3" mean 5.3? Or is it a typo and means 0.53?

The discrepancy between perihelion shift of Mercury and GR prediction is of 0.1%. Table in page 5 doesn't represent this.

"Thus we do not call the effect the curving of light but the curving of Space-Time." Light bends both in the geometrical picture of GR and in the non-geometrical picture. See attachments.

"By increasing the density of gravitons we can create a black hole." No really, the gravitons generate a pressure that prohibits the collapse into a singularity.Attachment #1: 1_curvedspacetime.gifAttachment #2: 1_flatspacetime.gif

Don,

Thanks for your comments on mine. I see your score has slipped, probably the 1's issue I've also had! Mine should boost it back up. Well done for yours. I really did like; "completeness is not one of its properties". I think teaching year in year out causes most academics to forget or ignore that.

Best

Peter

Thanks for your kind comments Don.

I checked out your website and it is fantastic! A great source of many ideas contrasted to each other in the ways worth caring about.

Best,

Jack

Dear Don,

Your interesting essay offers new ideas on the nature of gravity and dark matter and deserves high estimation

With the best regards

M.Yu.Khlopov

Hi Don,

your essay is dense and well written. It's also nice on a graphic level, which does not hurt :)

It deals with very complex problems and hypothesizes the existence of gravitons, which, as we know, is considered by many to be essential, if one wants to include gravity within the Standard Model, but it is very difficult to prove. Your theory goes further and considers gravitons not only as carriers of a fundamental force, but as "bilding blocks" of space-time.

I don't have sufficient skills to evaluate your theory in depth, but it seems to me that it is meditated and coherent. I hope you have the opportunity to support it and make it known as much as possible.

Last, but not least, I can only share your "parting thought":

"Physics is amazing, but I believe that completeness is not one of its

properties. And it keeps on getting better."

All the best,

Giovanni