Thanks.

The centered text is a bit difficult to read.

I copy from my essay answer.

"It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv" - a very good Query, indeed. Why is gravitation seen as symmetric, invariant and 'collapsed' when it maybe is a false grasp to do so? It is maybe only one side of things? Matrices are also a quantum approach. It will be interesting to read your essay. Many thanks.

Ulla.

Clocks are relevant only as harmonic oscillations, I Think.

    Peter

    Thanks for following up on that discussion. I couldn't determine if you were recognising that which I referred too. But yes, you do. The transition of weight for the top end of the pole, as it is leaned over. You refer to as torque.

    I am not familiar with how this consideration of torque relates to a spheres? That is something I will have to follow up with you. And it sounds as though Ulla has something interesting to contribute in this regard. I will follow up on this also.

    So yes. A poles top end weight transition as it is leaned over in a gravitational field, creates the same curve as a Photons probability distribution (at the same respective angle). The question is, is this a meaningful observation? Does it tell us anything about the photons properties or behaviours?

    The pole and the Earths gravitational field is representative of an interaction between two systems, which gives a variable value for weight (top end of pole). The same can be said for the Photon and the detector, they represent an interaction between two systems, which gives a variable value for Quantum probability. They are both values obtained from twin systems.

    Let us focus on the nature of force interactions. We might use the example of the pole in Earths gravity to build a model for consideration. The simplest distillation of force interaction considerations is represented by (forces applied to bodies, and bodies resistance to forces applied) or (forceful influence, and resistance to forceful influence).

    The poles weight transition is a consideration of the poles resistance to pull of Earths gravity at various angles. Simple!

    Is it possible this is the nature of the relationship between a photon and detector, that gives variable quantum probability? The prospective origin of Bells Inequality. Photons possess force, and it makes sense this is coupled with the ability to resist forces applied toward changing its state, angle. And we know that the detector is applying force to the photon, because it does change the Photons state, angle.

    If all force interactions do possess component of (force and resistance to force), and the photon and the detector are a force interaction, then the answer is (of course the photons angle can effect its ability to resist the forces acting to change its state, angle.

    These are ultra-simple observations and conservative claims. And they do provide the prospective basis for decoding Bells Inequality. A pole in a gravitational field decodes a photons quantum probability. A simple geometry (pole) coupled with considerations of (forces applied and resistance to forces applied). To decode massive particles requires varied geometries (spheres) but the same force considerations apply as for the Photon.

    Peter, in my view your work represents the needed geometric considerations. However could benefit for the force dynamics. Physical interactions are about geometries, but also the "force interactions". There can be no interaction without forces. Force interactions include the dynamic of "resistance" which does contribute a necessary component.

    I'm glad I could say this for you. I wasn't sure we were on the same page the other day, so I didn't see the point in going further. The beauty is in how simply these considerations are retro fitted to your current body of work. It just clicks on. That is part of the reason I was so impressed by your work, and its prospective validity. But also allows you to begin your sequence of decoding geometries from a simpler basis geometry (poles), that then leads on to your higher level decoding efforts of massive particles (spheres). The simpler your starting position, the more fundamental your basis, the more justified and easy to interpret is your argument/theory.

    Think about Incorporate force interaction dynamics into your hypothesis.

    Steve

    Steven,

    I appreciate your taking the time to read my essay and comment on it. We all need to be honest. As you have seen, there is not a lot of that in this contest. I appreciate it.

    JIm

    Hi Ulla

    Thank you for dropping by my page and considering reading of my essay. I will certainly read yours.

    Yes, the equality between Guv and Tuv is something interesting to reflect upon. Physical interactions are usually energy conversions, from one type to another. It is interesting to ask the question, which is cause and which follows as an effect? between Guv and Tuv.

    I think Clocks are relevant in terms of the forces that drive their function. Force drives clocks, therefore clocks measure force. My essay explains the details

    Talk soon

    Steve

    Dear Steven,

    (copy to yours and mine)

    Thank you very much for writing me a message.

    Excuse me for being short-sighted, I refrained from communicating with you after your categorical statement in 2017.

    «These topics being prominent in the minds of people, evidences the complexity and fine tuning problem is a most pressing issue confronting our universal awareness. No matter we try, it will not find explanation in absence of a natural organisation principle!».

    I consider that I am one of the few who answered the question posed about the self-organization of matter even in the title of my essay.

    It is so close to me.

    «Questions of a fundamental nature of the world push up against our theories of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity».

    «It does indeed appear we exist as a world of matter fields of force, operating under temporal governance».

    In my essay it is shown that all the force interactions of the elements of matter are carried out at resonance frequencies of toroidal gravitational waves. In the universe, there is a general grid of resonant frequencies of limiting elements (such as an electron), which synchronizes all quantum parametric processes), so time is a derivative of the period of synchronous resonance frequencies and cannot be distorted.

    «MOND having achieved prediction of spiral galaxy rotation velocities, the same formula fails to extend prediction to motions of galaxy groups. If a single fudge factor fixed everything, it might tell us something important. But it's difficult to justify a unique fudge to suit numerous unique examples of gravitational interaction».

    «a unique fudge to suit numerous unique examples of gravitational interaction». are explained very simply. Due to the invariable gravitational potential in the disks of galaxies, the stars move approximately at the same speed, which does not correspond to Newton's law of gravitation and Kepler's laws.

    I think that the overwhelming majority of scientists do not assume that the gravitational potential is equal to the square of the equilibrium orbital velocity, because all are accustomed to consider the gravitational potential through the gravitational coefficient, which, in my opinion, is not fundamental.

    In addition, the gravitational potential is related to the temperature of the medium of the physical vacuum (analog of "dark matter"). And the temperature in the galactic disk is approximately the same, so the speed of the stars does not depend on the distance to the center of the galaxy.

    I highly appreciate hope your essay and hope for reciprocity ....

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

    I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.

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

    Vladimir Fedorov

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

    Steve,

    Yes indeed, properly rather 'vector analysis' for force dynamics, but we can also construct the full wave function in vectors!

    The issue with your pole was you never referred to just the 'top' of the pole, so you'll see all my responses made sense.

    In fact your analysis still isn't quite true because there's a difference between the uniformly distributed mass of a pole and the case of a 'point' mass at that radius. However your point is otherwise well made and matches mine (see also my essays from 2-3 yrs ago).

    Good job on your essay, score going on now for a nice boost.

    Best of luck in the run in.

    Peter

    Dear Steven,

    Your essay opens a myriad of questions in an apparent search for a way to approach the essay topic. Yet you answer so few of them, it makes one wonder whether you have any destination in mind..

    However, you do sense the crucial importance of causality, waxing poetic about its mutual effect on both GR and QCD (QM...). That was beautifully enigmatic, although you missed the tragedy for QM, since it must fundamentally change to be causal and thereby consistent with GR.

    Ah well, I hope that in your musings you find a path to the truth.

    Wayne

      Wayne

      Really, no destination in mind? Posed questions and didn't answer them? Can you give me an example of a question I posed but didn't answer? In any case, I can't be held responsable for your comprehension skills.

      Steve

      Wayne

      People invent clocks, then Einstein comes along and discovers their rate is modulated in gravitational environments.

      What you have done is listen to somebody say, "forces drive a clocks function, so forces must be implicated in general relativitys effects".

      To which your respond. Nothing of any interest here, bit of poetic mumbo jumbo maybe!

      Maybe it's that you're not very deductive

      Steve

      Dear Steven:

      Lucky you that you can go sailing!

      Sailing has indeed been the inspiration for many great thinkers and students of nature. Indeed, you're no exception. I thoroughly enjoyed your writing and found your idea of force dilation very interesting and worthwhile as a way to reconcile galactic rotation with GR.

      My very short essay focused on the applicability of the ideas represented by the word "fundamental" itself to physics, rather than focusing on any particular theory or attempt at a theory. It is a warning that considering things to fundamental can confuse rather than clarify physical relationships.

      However, you did a good job of using "fundamental" in simplifying your explanation.

      Sincerely,

      Luis Felipe Patino-Cuadrado

        Dear Luis

        Thank you. I will read your essay as well, but I'm afraid I won't be able to before contest close. I'm out and about surfing camping and writing this on my phone. Didn't end up going sailing.

        You like the clock rendition? If you like, in the days to follow allow me to discuss the ins and outs of the subject. Help you determine if there really is anything of interest in this observation and my interpretation of it. And there is.

        I recently framed it like this

        People invented clocks, then Einstein comes along and discovers their rate is modulated in gravitational environments.

        I suggest that, "forces drive a clocks function, so forces must be implicated in general relativitys effects". How could it not be? It is observable and quantifiable. Force dilation.

        Steve

        7 years later

        Hi Steve,
        I have come to your essay and last answer 7 years later, but that is the beauty of FQXI essays and forums.
        I enjoyed reading your essay. I, too, along with others like Edwin, believe that time/energy need to be considered as some form of unity. You come close to it with your force dilation. That's good - asking why?
        In past FQXI essays I have stated that via the Einstein-Planck equation, when you put the clock into the equation (as a volume of space filled with the energy of the clock) you find that the tick of the clock is inversely proportional to the energy density of the clock. It a simple idea that holds great power. Now, in general, energy density will be primarily by mass equivalent (as is gravity). The more mass, the more energy, the slower the tick. In deep space, away from mass, the local mass of the clock is all that statistically affects the forces that drive the clock, be they potential energy or some form of atomic transition. But when the clock is located near a large mass (a star), those forces that drive the clock are swamped by the force field of the star, which has the effect of slowing down the natural force mechanism of the clock.
        In my model there are only electromagnetic forces and gravitational forces in what I call the star's force field. Most people would discount the electromagnetic field as the positive and negative charges are in balance, and thus only consider the gravitational field. Be careful here, as I make a distinction between the electromagnetic field as a force field and electromagnetic radiation, as a travelling disturbance in that field.
        So I believe your idea has merit.
        Aussie Dave.