Essay Abstract

The question of natural universal systems, their characteristic order and complexity? Generated by chance occurrence, or natural organisational principle? The term "in-animate matter" hardly seems an appropriate description of the world, with its innumerable physical agencies expressed as natural forces, that are seemingly contrived in the act of building and maintaining a finely tuned universe. Does acknowledgement of universal order serve clue, a clue to the fundamental nature of the world? Questions of a fundamental nature of the world push up against our theories of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Within this essay we identify clocks as being a QM device that measure GR effects. One device servicing two fundamental theories of the world? Could test of a unified theory be, a single theory that encapsulates all clock behaviour? We identify force for its role in clock function, then we relate forces to General Relativity and time dilation effects. Our inquiry seeks such answers then attempts to look beyond them, can time dilation be served effectively as a Quantum Mechanical effect?

Author Bio

An attentive student of nature

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Steven Andresen,

FQXi.org is clearly seeking to confirm whether Nature is fundamental.

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, two fundamental theories of one world. However QM and GR have clocks in common, in terms of clocks being a study in QM (made of QM), and GR being a study of clocks (time dilation). Two fundamental theories, servicing one world and now one device? QM might be surmised, a study of forces. GR might be surmised, a study of time.

Clocks can be thought of as possessing a split personality. They possess a back end mechanical spring, the study of which might be termed QM force. They possess front end hands considered a measure of GR effects time dilation. These split personalities however are connected via a shaft, which makes their respective studies of force and time an equivalent. Which makes perfect sense in terms of the spring drives the clocks function. My earlier message coined the term "force dilation" which represents this property of the spring, which stands equivalent to the term "time dilation".

Force dilation a quantity which is entirely equivalent to effect of time dilation? Which term is more fundamental, or carries more useful meanings? Force dilation is a property of the spring which drives the clock, so that places it at the heart by virtue of being attached to cause. It causes the clocks function, the clock hands but follow. The front end of the clock is superfluous in terms of cause, like a puppet dictated to by a puppeteer. Time, a puppeteers puppet? Not flattering I know, but it makes my intended meanings clear.

Substitute the term of time dilation for the equivalent term of force dilation, then General Relativities effect is translatable as Quantum Mechanical effect. Theory can then be summarized in terms of, Clocks are QM devices (made of QM) which measure variable QM behaviour (force dilation) in relative motions and relative gravitational environments. One fundamental theory of the world, one fundamental theory that describes all behaviours exhibited by clocks.

QM is a study of forces, and relativity is redressed as a QM study of forces of bodies in relative motions and relative gravitational environments.

Relativity boils down to being merely the study of the modulation of QM forces.

Dear Steven Andresen,

Your introduction is one of the nicest I've read in any FQXi contest. Congratulations. And, for a curious mind, every day is a good day for living.

I do agree that it does appear "we exist as a world of matter fields of force", the fact that some of our bookkeeping scheme's denigrate the idea of force notwithstanding. It also seems true that the measure of good metaphysics is abundance of how's and why's it can testify to."

You then say the Big Bang metaphysics credits properties of the world to chance. I'm not so sure. My comment on Conrad Dale Johnson's essay discusses my interpretation of his approach to this problem. And it's 'time'-based, not multiverse. It resembles your description on page 4.

We also seem to agree on the nature of information: "for a binary data-bit to hold any information, we also have to specify's location..." Yes, I believe energy crosses a threshold, changing the structure of the system; (atom absorbing photon, switching binary gate on/off, etc.) 'in'-forms a system and leaves a record. Interpretation of this always requires a codebook or context. "One if by land, two if by sea."

Your time-dilation as 'force'-dilation bears some resemblance to my energy-time interpretation of 'time-dilation', since force x distance = energy. While mechanical clocks are easier to think about, they cannot measure relativistic 'dilation'; only atomic clocks can do this, generalizing the 'force' aspect.

However your key focus seems to be on the origin of 'fine-tuning', like Conrad Dale Johnson. I think when one considers energy-time conjugation as the essence of time 'dilation', the energies of the primordial field at the big bang change the local nature of time to such a degree that we cannot describe the 'structures', if any. You refer to these as a 'superposition', but that is probably more poetic than factual. We will almost certainly never know, but if there was ever a time where a 'Boltzmann brain' might momentarily materialize, this would be the time and place.

Thanks for an enjoyable, well-thought-out essay. Good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Edwin

    I'm glad you liked my intro and I much appreciate your complement.

    I understand your grand effort contribution for this community, reading and communicating with a large number of essays and authors. I know you are extremely busy in this community service, and I feel guilty for demanding more of your time than you have already volunteered for me. But it is a relatively simple question I hope you can address for me please? An is more important to me than I might readily admit too.

    I have been going on about galaxy rotation velocities. That if atomic energy is modulated/dilated dependent on gravities square law. What do you think of applying consequence to dilated mass?

    Galaxies do rotate as though their mass density is constant from middle to edge. While infact star densities decline proportional to square of distance from galaxy centre. This illustrates the deviation from GR predictions. Its very tidy.

    If atomic energy/mass increases dependent upon proximity of stars to each other, gravities square law. Then it applies mass precisely where it need be so as to predict galaxy rotation velocity. It presents a mathematical fit. Do you recognise my reasoning in this regard please?

    Please can you tell me where you stand with this reasoning? and in light of your gravity / atomic energy considerations?

    I understand your misgivings concerning the use of "perfect clocks" in theoretical context. You made that point clear in your essay. And you said to me that mechanical clocks can't measure relativistic effects. I spoke loosely within terms of, near and afar large masses. Would you object in the same fashion if the mass was sufficiently large so as to have a dramatic effect on the mechanical clocks function? A neutron star or larger mass.

    Thank you once again

    Steve

    Quoting Edwin from his page

    "Dear Steve,nThanks for your gracious compliment. The interactive commenting is one of the most valuable features of these FQXi contests. I learn a lot from participation.nIt's difficult to address the 'flat rotation curve' problem in a single comment. Even tougher to analyze your specific model and address the pros and cons. A few years ago I treated spiral galaxies as 'mass current loops', which induce an axial gravito-magnetic dipole similar to the electromagnetic dipole induced by a charge current loop. This 'gravito-magnetic moment' pierces the galactic plane and exerts a Lorentz type force mv x C, where v is the velocity of the orbiting star with mass m and C is the gravito-magnetic field vector generated by the rotating spiral galaxy. Physically, this acts in exactly the correct manner, with faster objects experiencing greater force inward toward the central axis of the galaxy. Quantitatively, I have no results to compare to anything.nTherefore, since I have a qualitative theoretical explanation for 'flat rotation curves' from gravitational equations of the type seen in equation (5) of my essay, but I have no quantitative reason to believe it, I tend to stick with my own qualitative theory unless and until someone comes up with a qualitative explanation with quantitative calculations that are convincing.nAs for whether mechanical clocks in massive gravity would exhibit relativistic effects, I don't know.nI hope this answers your question.nBest regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman"

    Dear Edwin

    Thank you

    Ok I had hoped or assumed that your correlating clock cycle counts to consideration of energy value, resulted in our works having an equivalence. The only difference being you speak in terms of a variation of energy as clocks increase or decrease their cycle count, while I relate the same principle with term of force dilation.

    However, when you convey to me that you don't know if mechanical clocks can measure relativistic effects near massive gravitating bodies, then I realize I have misunderstood something within your work. That you must have divorced Theory of General Relativity in preference of original concept. For the answer to my question within scope of GR is a trivial one. "This is not a criticism, as I value original opinion, especially yours"

    I take your point concerning qualitative research for exploratory purposes. That a predictive solution is not worth more than mere curiosity, if it can't be related to a reasoning whether conventional or not. You offered a good example of a hypothesis which stands alone as an island, detached from conventional theory or unique justifications. However that example entirely neglects two points of my essay.

    1. That I anchor my hypothesis to an observation and measure I term "force Dilation". It is incontestable within scope of GR, although you might argue beyond its bounds.

    2. And I follow through with metaphysics within context of why nature would behave this way. That atomic force dilation occurs because space contains the substance which provides atoms with the capacity for force. That Baryonic systems are evolved to harvest this energy potential, and all the agencies of matter are directed towards an optimised structural theme.

    I wont revisit these arguments now because that's what the assay was for. But for your example of qualitative exploration to stand comparative to my work, well it would seem to dismiss all of my crafted arguments and justifications.

    To me at least, the complex systems of this world serve as a glaringly obvious clue. A clue that nature is serviced by an organisational principle, the types of which we are only aware of one. It surprises me that others are so blind to this evidence, even when I can articulate a scenario which rationalizes universal agencies and structures within its context.

    What I believe my work is deserving of at the very least, is curiosity, on the mere basis that such a rationale can be crafted at all. Surely a relatively simple task would be to test such an idea, attempt to pull a card out from under the house, see if and where it might break down? I feel my ideas are well prepared for such a challenge, but it is not forthcoming so far. I would hope this much might occur at an international science essay contest questioning the fundamentals of universal existence. Even on the basis of it being a novelty theory.

    Anyway, I'm off sailing now. I'm going to find a quiet little cove, dive for lobsters and scallops, and spend the rest of my time reading and rating essays. You are destined to do well in this contest, and probably all future contests to come. You're an asset to this event.

    Steve

    Dear Steven,

    Thanks for taling time to read my essay, as you posted in the dedicated section. I had already read your interesting work and also rated it. I hooe you get more visibility and votes.

    Good luck!

    Flavio

      Dear Steven,

      You ask very deep questions and give answers that lead to the deepest metaphysics. The metaphysics of the process, the new ontology, bring ideas to overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science. Mother Nature tells us new concepts and makes us start a new dialogue. Success in the contest and research!

      Yours faithfully,

      Vladimir

        Dear Steven, nice and original Essay, congrats. Here are my comments, which concern gravitation because I am a gravity's physicist. 1) Your idea of a natural energy potential is intriguing. Its application to Dark Energy corresponds to the existence of an intrinsic curvature in extended theories of gravity. This paper of mine operates in that sense. 2) Strictly speaking, the deviations from theoretical predictions referred to as anomalous galaxy velocity are not deviation from general relativity. They are deviation from Newtonian gravitation instead. This is due to the issue that Einstein's equivalence principle prevents to localize gravitational energy. As a consequence, the total energy is frame-dependent. There are indeed various attempts to explain both Dark Matter and Dark Energy as frames artifacts, despite none of those is today considered definitive. 3) MOND is a non-relativistic theory of gravity. Thus, it needs a relativistic counter-part which cannot be general relativity, but an extended theory. With some colleagues, I have developed an approach in that sense. In any case, I find your Essay very innovative and entertaining. It deserves my high score. Congrats again and good luck in the Contest. Cheers, Ch.

          Dear Steven Andresen, you have very interesting reflections. I agree with you that "There isprospect that evolutionary theory can serve as a natural organisational principle, that reasons theseproperties of the world." I was more interested in thinking about slowing down time. In New Cartesian Physics I applied this to explain the stability of microparticles. They are vortices of space, in the center of which the speed of movement reaches the speed of light, therefore time in them slows down and they do not disintegrate. Look at my page , FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. Evaluate and leave your comment there. I highly value your essay, however, I'll give you a rating after becoming acquainted with the Descartes' idea. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness.

          Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

          Steven

          Thanks for your note on mine. (I'm sure it wasn't you who gave it the '1' today!) I loved your intro. You'll note in my bio I'm a rep level sailor. I've found it seminal in understanding nature and have written papers on it. I took some Kent & Delft students on a cross channel race last year. Using & teaching inertial 'tidewind' effects we did managed you may have heard of as a 'horizon job'!

          You outline a highly unique and original idea showing unbounded thinking, which I like. I found the model itself fascinating. You'll see I'm also an open minded astrophysicist studying 20 papers a week for the data (much analysis is flawed!). Agreement with content isn't a scoring criteria here, but ALL novel ideas should be assessed. I did see some flawed starting assumptions, but that's common even among astronomers. i.e. the old galaxy merger idea and clock rate changes just aren't found. (Hafele & Keating had to revise their initial 'atomic clocks' report to comply with theory to get their PhD's!). Digital clocks would also seem an issue anyway, and your inferences from the Tulley-Fisher relation seems to have problems needing investigation, so there are many issues to be addressed. I see others also identify some above.

          None the less it was novel, nicely written and interesting so I think worth a good score. It also included a number of matter I agree on, including that 'inanimate' is a poor concept, that MOND and indeed many current assumptions ARE wrong, and that QM and relativity need a common cause and treatment of time. (You'll have seen I present a consistent classical derivation in my own essay which I hope you understand. It DOES take good visualisation!)

          Very nicely done. Keep up the research. I'll give you a link link to my own papers if I didn't know you were busy reading essays!

          Best of luck

          Peter

            Steven, I'm not sure where all those 'n's came from or where the breaks went! Trying again.;

            Thanks for your note on mine. I'm sure it wasn't you who gave it the '1' today! Loved your intro. You'll note in my bio I'm a rep level sailor. I've found it seminal in understanding nature and have written papers on it. I took some Kent & Delft students on a cross channel race last year. Using & teaching inertial 'tidewind' effects we did what you may know as a 'horizon job'!

            You outline a highly unique and original idea showing unbounded thinking, which I like. I found the model itself fascinating. You'll see I'm also an open minded astrophysicist studying 20 papers a week for the data (much analysis is flawed!). Agreement with content isn't a scoring criteria here, but ALL novel ideas should be assessed. I did see some flawed starting assumptions, but that's common even among astronomers. i.e. the old galaxy merger idea and clock rate changes just aren't found. (Hafele & Keating had to revise their initial 'atomic clocks' report to comply with theory to get their PhD's!). Digital clocks would also seem an issue anyway, and your inferences from the Tulley-Fisher relation seems to have problems needing investigation, so there are many issues to be addressed. I see others also identify some above.

            None the less it was novel, nicely written and interesting so I think worth a good score. It also included a number of matter I agree on, including that MOND and indeed many current assumptions ARE wrong, and that QM and relativity need a common cause and treatment of time. (You'll have seen I present a consistent classical derivation in my own essay which I hope you understand. It DOES take good visualisation!)

            Very nicely done. Keep up the research. I'll give you a link link to my own papers if I didn't know you were busy reading essays!

            Best of luck

            Peter

            Just a quick note to thank everybody for their comments and let you know I'm sailing for a day or two. So i won't have opertunity to write until I return. Hopefully with some fat lobsters

            Have a great week all and talk soon

            Kind regards

            Steve

              Steven,

              Excellent essay. Great beginning in spirit and principle with letting nature overtake you. And the structure of your essay tends to augment your message. You introduce the elements which the natural forces of Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin work on with the principles of evolution. Have you read Jeremy England and natural forces: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/? Seem to fit in with your quantum forces, energy bath, natural energy, and the natural forces mentioned like generational exchange.

              Hope you can check mine out.

              I highly rate yours.

              Jim Hoover

                Steven,

                Looks like someone took note of your excursion and gave you a 1 or a 2 after my 9. I take note because I have already gotten a 2 and a 1 w/o any comment.

                Jim

                Jim

                The drama since I've been away. Being equal top of the list was to good to last. I got a picture while it was up there though.

                I understand that my essay achieved that momentary ranking for its novelty value, not because people believe it is so, or could be so. I suspect people are amazed that something so obviously crazy, could make a type of logical sense. And that although it might be likened to an elaborate house of cards, many delicate parts, it doesn't topple as easily as people first assume it might.

                I dont have the expectation that such a novel concept could take a win in this contest. I wasn't even sure if people would acknowledge it, so my expectations have been exceeded in this respect. Thank you to those who appreciate a little creativity and originality. You bring me joy

                FQXi seek new and original ideas, and spend time discussing how they might qualify material for evaluation. Not only are there a vast number of ideas out there to sift through, and limited resources to dedicate. But how are new ideas to be qualified for appraisal, while current scientific preconceptions might disqualify unfamiliar content?

                I only really have one hope. My hope is that this essay contest opens an opportunity for discussion and test. It does serve a simple prediction, so let us attempt to falsify?

                Steve

                Thank you Jim

                I havent read Jeremy England and natural forces, but I'll make a note to look it up. When the contest is closed.

                I'll definitely be having a look over your essay, so will see you over on your page soon.

                Thanks for reading my essay

                Steve