What is Fundamental is the area of the imaginary unit by Jouko Harri Tiainen

A nice essay. I think you would be interested in my 2012 FQXi essay titled "A Classical Reconstruction of Relativity" located here:

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1363

And my work on modelling the electron/positron wavefunctions as 3D standing waves, located here: http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0054v6.pdf

I also have an essay in this year's contest titled "A Fundamental Misunderstanding" about a Classical explanation for QM entanglement (EPR experiment).

Regards,

Declan Traill

Dear Jouko

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 Jouko Tiainen Harri, the speed of light as the imaginary unit is very interesting, I bet 10. But I think you don't need to associate a complex number with the geometry of Minkowski is interesting only from an analytical point of view, but not physical. In New Cartesian Physics is the imaginary unit used as an operator of rotation of the radius vector 90 degrees, the square of the imaginary unit turns the radius-vector by 180 degrees. Thus, where the formula is the imaginary unit, we observe a rotation.

New Cartesian Physics needs your support to develop further. Visit my page and give your assessment there.

I hope that you are interested in her ideas.

FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

I wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

Juoko,

Very interesting and original. I always knew there was something wrong with our mathematics! But don't you maybe need yet one more dim to make it 3D? Good score coming.

I hope you'll get to read & score mine, not many pages.

Rich

Dear Jouko,

(copy to yours and mine)

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

The understanding and appreciation are highly valued.

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

«I'm happy that maybe you are on the threshold of some new discovery.

So by reinterpreting the Born Rule, as probabilities |Ψ|2 or (Ψ*Ψ) then the wave-functions of the ket *i and bra i* states respectfully, give us enough mathematical elbow room to accommodate both Relativity and Quantum mechanics in one scheme».

«Current maths thinking only uses "one" encoding side -- the complex conjugate of the

Dear Jouko,

(copy to yours and mine)

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

The understanding and appreciation are highly valued.

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

«I'm happy that maybe you are on the threshold of some new discovery.

So by reinterpreting the Born Rule, as probabilities |Ψ|2 or (Ψ*Ψ) then the wave-functions of the ket *i and bra i* states respectfully, give us enough mathematical elbow room to accommodate both Relativity and Quantum mechanics in one scheme».

«Current maths thinking only uses "one" encoding side -- the complex conjugate of the a+ib| side -- to obtain areas. Basically in current maths thinking there is only z=a+ib, with zero=0+i0. We can devise a different set of complex numbers z=a-ib with zero=0-i0. And both can be related to the area of the imaginary unit, to obtain a new dual mathematics».

As a radio engineer and mechanic, I highly appreciate the idea of a new interpretation of complex numbers.

In a couple of days, I'll try to answer some of your questions.

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

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

Vladimir Fedorov

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

Dear Jouko,

A fellow 'finn'? from the name.

Now first I read your essay, and I get many of my ??? explained. Thanks.

For me it started with Dirac, but imaginary unit is in so many places, also Planck's constant. But area, dual?

In some simulations we found the frame to be E6 dual, and the duality is important to get the dynamicity. What if those dual 'boxes' are not symmetric? I have looked for asymmetric solutions of GR, and the covariance/countervariance should then vary. I guess they could, of course.

Asymmetryor aperiodicity is developed in my essay https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3093

Ulla Mattfolk.

Hi Jouko,

I echo some of the comments on presentation and also mathematical application.

i is a placeholder for a number. However it represents a specific dimensionless value, not c or h.

X^2 1^2 = i^2 * 0^2 = 0 and then x^2 = (-1)^2, which has the solution x = sqrt(-1) = i. In this situation, x is not a variable, but an unknown to be solved.

To consider a^2 b^2 = c^2 as an area, the values of the variables have to be allowed to vary. This is not the case for the solution of x^2 1 = 0 (where x is an unknown, not a variable).

In a different direction, since 'i' is really just a placeholder for an unknown, there is nothing to prevent us evaluating that unknown and defining an actual numeric representation of both i and, by extension, any complex number. In other words, i should be able to be represented in the same way as any other (real) number is - as a single value, rather than x iy. This would require some new areas of mathematics (like maybe defining what and how a negative base operates) and it could change a lot of equations and possibly some other areas of mathematics by simplifying complex equations. It would need to show that a complex value can be represented and manipulated as a single valued number, not the more cumbersome x iy representation involving an unknown placeholder. That would change both mathematics and physics in a fundamental way.

Best to you,

Don

Dear Jouko Harri Tiainen,

Your essay is nearly undigestable, at least to me. It is not clearly structured. You didn't even use page numbers. You didn't reveal much in your Bio and no referces at all. You claimed that a number is a square, etc.

Nonetheless, you might have correctly felt that the issue of i and Dirac's brackets deserves critical reconsideration. So far, I see you mainly ignoring the fundamental difference between the basic frog's level of reality and the timeless bird's view level of models that were abstracted from it. Somtimes it is necessary to distinguish chicken and egg duality from a concrete chicken that laid an egg.

Looking forward receiving a comment on my rather contrary essay,

Eckard Blumschein