NON-COMPUTABILITY AND UNPREDICTABILITY ARE SO YESTERDAY: WITH COMPUTABLE AND PREDICTABLE COSMIC STRUCTURE, PLUS IMPLICATIONS FOR MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE by Rodney Bartlett

I'll open the comments on this page myself - by extracting a few parts from my essay that are relevant to astronaut Christina Koch's record-setting spaceflight. She returned to Earth on Feb. 6 and now holds the record for the longest single spaceflight by any woman. She was on the International Space Station 328 days, made 5248 orbits, and travelled 139 million miles.

First of all - congrats, Christina. Well done!

Spending months in space has consequences for a trip to Mars. I don't know when we'll land there but I have an idea on how to get there instantly (impossible according to present-day science), saving the poor astronauts or cosmonauts from months and months of time in space that could potentially leave them unable to walk around when they get to Mars. There are 2 necessary factors in such seemingly impossible travel - an electrical engineering experiment carried out at Yale University last decade, and unifying gravitation with electromagnetism (spoken of in my article on the Foundational Questions Institute called NON-COMPUTABILITY AND UNPREDICTABILITY ARE SO YESTERDAY: WITH COMPUTABLE AND PREDICTABLE COSMIC STRUCTURE, PLUS IMPLICATIONS FOR MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3382

Unifying gravitation and electromagnetism has this consequence: A 2009 electrical-engineering experiment at America's Yale University, together with the ideas of Albert Einstein, tells us how we could travel to other stars and galaxies. Electrical engineer Hong Tang and his team at Yale demonstrated that, on silicon-chip and transistor scales, light can attract and repel itself like electric charges or magnets. (Mo Li, W. H. P. Pernice & H. X. Tang, "Tunable bipolar optical interactions between guided lightwaves", Nature Photonics 3, 464 - 468 (2009)) This is the Optical Bonding Force. For 30 years until his death in 1955, Einstein worked on his Unified Field Theory with the aim of uniting electromagnetism (light is one form of this) and gravitation. Achievement of this means the quantum components (gravitons) of gravity/spacetime-warps between spaceships and stars could mimic the Optical Force and be attracted together, thereby eliminating distance (this is similar to traversing a wormhole, or shortcut between folds in space and time). If the gravitons are superposed and entangled, distances between both points in space and points in time are totally eliminated.

So-called "time travel" would actually be space travel within the block universe where the past, present and future all exist -- and are equally real -- in a possibly infinite four-dimensional block and are relative, just as time is not absolute in Einstein's special theory of relativity. Visualizing an infinite block universe might be helped by picturing it as a DVD that extends infinitely in every direction. Every event on a DVD always exists but their positions are relative to the location of the laser reading the disk (which corresponds to the location of a brain's consciousness) - they aren't all accessed at once.

Of course, this elimination of distance doesn't need to be reserved for trips to other stars, galaxies, and periods of time. It can also be used for a quick journey to Mars - saving you months in space and the attendant wasting of muscles and bones, as well as sparing you from the potentially deadly "sunburn" cosmic rays might give you.

As far as I know, Isaac Newton realised that precession wasn't confined to Mercury. It affects all the planets but Mercury has the greatest precession because of its closeness to the Sun. So TNOs must also be affected by advance, or precession, of perihelia. The "celestial orientation of the axis" may be the act of Mercury and the TNOs sharing the universal unified field. There may not be any Planet 9 but a shared gravitational continuum throughout the cosmos (my essay shows how "advanced" plus "retarded" gravitational waves can produce quantum entanglement). After all, Albert Einstein said gravity results from the curves in spacetime - therefore, gravity IS spacetime. To make gravity a truly universal continuum, it should not only be identified with spacetime but also with matter in spacetime. This is done in my essay with gravitational-electromagnetic interaction forming matter's particles via VTS (vector-tensor-scalar) geometry.

PS

Wave interaction may not only produce matter but also dark matter. To produce dark matter, the waves would rotate around the Complex Number Plane away from the so-called real spacetime on the x axis and into other dimensions which include the y axis described by so-called imaginary numbers. As they rotate, the crests and troughs of the waves cancel and cause entanglement of the imaginary and real dimensions. This permits them to interact gravitationally. Electromagnetic - and other - interactions become increasingly difficult as the distance of the other dimensions approaches the imaginary axis which is perpendicular to all our perceptions and the detectability of scientific instruments (and thus normally imperceptible and undetectable).

And I foolishly thought you'd be happy to see that your post stimulated further thoughts in someone! Oh well, human nature constantly surprises me. The question I failed to answer must be "Do you know of a reference that states this (celestial orientation of the axis) in terms of constellation?" The answer is no.

Sorry I initially forgot to say that I had no reference regarding the question you asked, John. And thanks for saying you'll reference my essay in your excellent paper.

Was it Rene Descartes who said "One cannot embrace the immense." If it was, I think he should have added: "But in a sincere effort to see science progress, please feel free to attempt to describe the entire Universe (especially when you have an extra 400 years of scientific knowledge to help you)". I've always had a strong feeling that everything in spacetime and the universe must be part of an entangled unification. So my attempt to describe the universe would not merely use knowledge received from sources known to me. It would also use knowledge received from sources unknown to me. Perhaps this sounds mystical and scientifically impossible. But I prefer to think of it as a consequence of science's "entangled unification". Even if my attempt to describe the universe fails to have any impact at all with science, it has already permanently changed the fundamental approach of one person (me) to viewing that universe. As this quote I found on the Internet says, "As one person I cannot change the world, but I can change the world of one person".

Thank you for inviting me to your excellent essay. I particularly enjoyed the reference to the equivalence of space and matter. This is something Albert Einstein also believed in. He wrote a paper in 1919 which asked if gravitation plays a role in the composition of elementary particles of matter. My essay agrees with this when, in Vector-Tensor-Scalar Geometry, it talks about gravitational-electromagnetic interaction forming the mass and quantum spin of particles (whether fermion, boson, or Higgs). Since General Relativity states that gravity is nothing more than the result of spacetime's curving, gravity is spacetime and the mass/quantum spin of particles can be regarded as space itself forming matter instead of as gravity playing a role in matter's composition. In other words, we have what you called space-matter equivalence.

I made the following comments on the essay page "Why Can't Y'All See Things My Way" by Joe Fisher. I'd like to keep all my comments on the same page as my essay. Maybe that's got something to do with my being a freakosaurus for neatness and tidiness :-) So I'm going to copy and paste my comments to this page, too -

In the abstract of your essay, you mention "the visible Earth's extinction" and in the essay's first section after the intro, you start a question with "Is there a theoretical -- and preferably mathematical -- framework ..." In the spirit of other peoples' essays inspiring thoughts in me and my essay inspiring thoughts in others, I'd like to comment on those two things in your essay. My comments lead to the completed version of the shorthand formula E=mc2, redefinition of electromagnetic and gravitational waves, all bosons and fermions being produced by gravitational/electromagnetic interaction (this accounts for matter's wave/particle duality: see Vector-Tensor-Scalar Geometry in my essay) - plus the conclusion that the universe is, always was, and always will be incapable of expanding.

When you speak of Earth's extinction, are you referring to the time in about 5 billion years when the Sun is supposed to expand into a red giant and engulf Mercury and Venus and possibly Earth (the expansion would probably make Earth uninhabitable in less than 1 billion years)? It's entirely possible that there may not even be a red giant phase for the Sun. This relies on entropy being looked at from another angle - with the apparent randomness in quantum and cosmic processes obeying Chaos theory, in which there's a hidden order behind apparent randomness. Expansion to a Red Giant (and so much else) could then be described with the Information Theory vital to the Internet, mathematics, deep space, etc. In information theory, entropy is defined as a logarithmic measure of the rate of transfer of information. This definition introduces a hidden exactness, removing superficial probability. It suggests it's possible for information to be transmitted to objects, processes, or systems and restore them to a previous state - like refreshing (reloading) a computer screen. Potentially, the Sun could be prevented from becoming a red giant and returned to a previous state in a billion years (or far less) - and repeatedly every few billion years - so Earth could remain habitable permanently.

Now, about the mathematics -

Many scientists have said mathematics is a universal language because 1+1=2 no matter who you are. The trend in modern physics is towards a unified theory of the universe - starting with the unified theories of the 20th century (notably Einstein's) and extending to string theory and quantum gravity. What happens if a person in, say, the 24th century is raised believing in a unified theory that has implications in physical terms for everything in space-time? Would he or she think there is actually only one thing? Would (s)he think it's a mistake to add one apparently separate thing to another apparently separate thing to produce two, and that such addition is merely the result of the way the body's senses operate? (Our whole mathematical system is ultimately based on the idea that 1+1=2, and would therefore be incomplete in a unified universe.)

Assuming the maths humanity has developed does indeed apply to the universe, it cannot be totally in error - merely incomplete. Even Einstein's famous mass-energy equation E=mc2 would be incomplete, requiring quantization ie production of a theory of quantum gravity via unification with the wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics (which has also been repeatedly verified by experiment).

The wave-particle duality mentioned in the section above can be described by starting with v = fλ (wave velocity equals frequency times Greek letter lambda which denotes wavelength). Velocity (speed in a constant direction) of a collection of particles like a car equals distance divided by duration. Since distance is a measure that has to do with space while duration is a measure that has to do with time, it equals space divided by time. (Brian Greene in "Speed", part of his "Space, Time and Einstein" course at http://www.worldscienceu.com/courses/1/elements/YhF9pw) Gravitational and electromagnetic wave motion (space-time motion) travels at c, the speed of light ie

v= fλ = distance/duration = space/time = c

A particle's velocity, whether the particle be a boson or fermion, is directly dependent on its energy - so it may be said that

E = v=fλ = distance/duration = space/time = c

This is not quite right since c represents energy alone, and space-time deals with mass-energy, so it's better to say

E = v=fλ = distance/duration = space/time = mc

What about the 2 in E=mc2? In later papers Einstein repetitively stressed that his mass-energy equation is strictly limited to observers co-moving with the object under study, and comovement may be represented by the exponent 2.

In order for E=mc2 to apply to the universe (and it does), observers must be able to co-move with anything being studied (even a light beam). Moving in the same direction is no problem but how can anyone or anything move at the same speed? Present-day observers can never move at the speed which light covers in the vacuum of space-time, so the only way for observers and light to co-move is for the nature of electromagnetism to be revised.

Like waves of water, electromagnetic waves are known as transverse. Consequently, the particles (photons) of light and microwaves etc that travel through space-time would have relatively little movement themselves. It's the disturbances from the sources of electromagnetism (shock waves of fluctuating amplitudes and frequencies) that travel. (They go through the fields of energy filling the so-called vacuum.) Since E=mc2 only applies to photons when they're at rest, the equation can only describe photons that have no motion in one direction - the horizontal "line of propagation" in which the shock wave moves. The photons can only move in the vertical direction, perpendicular to the shock wave - if they move at all.

As Paul Camp, Ph.D. in theoretical physics, writes at https://www.quora.com/How-big-is-a-photon -

"A photon is a quantum of excitation of the electromagnetic field. That field fills all space and so do its quantum modes."

This is consistent with energy being transferred from one place to another (as wave motion) without involving an actual transfer of particles (little or no movement of photons). General Relativity says gravitation results from the curvature of spacetime (gravity IS space-time) ie the gravitational field also fills all space, so the seeming motion of gravitational waves could also be due to fluctuations of shock waves' amplitudes and wavelengths causing excitations (called gravitons) in the field. These excitations cover 186,282 miles every second.

The above ideas of gravitational and electromagnetic waves displaying little or no motion are a new interpretation of John Wheeler's geon or "gravitational electromagnetic entity", an electromagnetic or gravitational wave which is held together in a confined region by its own nature. (J. A. Wheeler, (January 1955). "Geons". Physical Review. 97 (2): 511 - doi:10.1103/PhysRev.97.511)

If there's little or no movement of photons and gravitons, the universe could not be expanding.

Thumbs up, John - the reference to my essay looks good!

My reply on this page to Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich addressed the relation of space (spacetime) and matter, spoken of by him and French philosopher/mathematician/scientist Rene Descartes (1596-1650). Today I wish to discuss how that reply fits in with my idea that it's time for a new scientific paradigm. This reply is also indebted to Stephen Kelly (skelly131) of the U.K. who has a Master's Degree in Computing and engaged me in much stimulating conversation at the online cosmology course being run by ANU (the Australian National University) and the Internet company edX.

First, I'll copy and paste the relevant paragraph of my response to Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich -

"Thank you for inviting me to your excellent essay. I particularly enjoyed the reference to the equivalence of space and matter. This is something Albert Einstein also believed in. He wrote a paper in 1919 which asked if gravitation plays a role in the composition of elementary particles of matter. My essay agrees with this when, in Vector-Tensor-Scalar Geometry, it talks about gravitational-electromagnetic interaction forming the mass and quantum spin of particles (whether fermion, boson, or Higgs). Since General Relativity states that gravity is nothing more than the result of spacetime's curving, gravity is spacetime and the mass/quantum spin of particles can be regarded as space itself forming matter instead of as gravity playing a role in matter's composition. In other words, we have what you called space-matter equivalence."

Now I'll copy and paste a relevant paragraph to skelly131 -

"Measuring the mass of each planet in the solar system relied on the old paradigm in which knowledge was limited to the perceptions of the bodily senses. The new paradigm relies on the mind, supported by mathematics, taking priority over the senses - and this might be the path to a theory of quantum gravity. In the new paradigm, objects and events aren't truly separate. Maybe we could take the example of a computer image where apparently different things appear separate but everything is one thing (a string of binary digits). In the new paradigm, only one mass exists in a universe that's infinite in both space and time. So, it's an infinite mass (saying a planet or a person has infinite mass would not strictly be accurate since everything - unavoidably including science and astrology^, as well as spacetime and matter - would be connected/entangled)."

^ Pairing science with astrology is guaranteed to upset many readers (including professional scientists). But I ask you to remember that, if science is to truly be free to progress, anything - even our most cherished and firmly established scientific beliefs - must be able to be questioned. If science is indeed in need of a paradigm shift, the most ludicrous statement imaginable today could become tomorrow's firmly established fact if the reasoning behind it is sound - and if people are able, as real scientists are, to overcome the bias which ties them to past teachings.

FQXi member Sean Carroll (California Institute of Technology) posted an item regarding mathematician William Clifford's 1870 paper "On the Space-Theory of Matter", in which Clifford suggested that matter might be entirely a consequence of local curvature of space (Twitter

). This gives Clifford something in common with Descartes, Einstein, and NON-COMPUTABILITY AND UNPREDICTABILITY ARE SO YESTERDAY: WITH COMPUTABLE AND PREDICTABLE COSMIC STRUCTURE, PLUS IMPLICATIONS FOR MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE, my entry in the 2020 physics/cosmology essay contest of FQXi (essay).

The relation of space (spacetime) and matter was spoken of by French philosopher/mathematician/scientist Rene Descartes (1596-1650). Today I wish to discuss how the space-matter relation fits in with my idea that it's time for a new scientific paradigm. The equivalence of space and matter is something Albert Einstein also believed in. He wrote a paper in 1919 which asked if gravitation plays a role in the composition of elementary particles of matter. This article agrees when, in Vector-Tensor-Scalar Geometry, it talks about gravitational-electromagnetic interaction forming the mass and quantum spin of particles (whether fermion, boson, or Higgs). Since General Relativity states that gravity is nothing more than the result of spacetime's curving, gravity is spacetime and the mass/quantum spin of particles can be regarded as space itself forming matter instead of as gravity playing a role in matter's composition. In other words, we have Descartes' space-matter relation.

Post replying to "It takes a Decision to Decide if Decidability is True or False"(https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3367) by Manfred U.E. Pohl -

I see that our essays have something in common (mine is NON-COMPUTABILITY AND UNPREDICTABILITY ARE SO YESTERDAY: WITH COMPUTABLE AND PREDICTABLE COSMIC STRUCTURE, PLUS IMPLICATIONS FOR MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE: dinosaurs and Einstein). At the end of yours is a picture of dinosaurs and a question asking if the universe will be found within life. Mine refers to Albert Einstein's General Relativity when my essay says

"gravity is the curvature of space-time; therefore, gravity is space-time (and when my vector-tensor-scalar geometry is taken into consideration, gravity makes up the entire universe)".

My essay also says the gravitational waves that make up space-time and the universe (some are powerful and detectable, most are tiny and undetectable) have both "advanced" and "retarded" components, and these have consequences for dating the ages of dinosaurs etc. In other words, the nature of the universe is found within dinosaurs. Suppose we accept

"the Block Universe where the past, present and future all exist -- and are equally real -- in a possibly infinite four-dimensional block. Past, present and future are relative, just as time is not absolute in Einstein's special theory of relativity."

These lines from my essay suggest the nature of the universe is found within dinosaurs which are still living (beyond our perceptions and scientific instruments).

"Michio Kaku writes, "When we solve Maxwell's equations for light, we find not one but two solutions: a 'retarded' wave, which represents the standard motion of light from one point to another; but also an 'advanced' wave, where the light beam goes backward in time. Engineers have simply dismissed the advanced wave as a mathematical curiosity since the retarded waves so accurately predicted the behavior of radio, microwaves, TV, radar, and X-rays. But for physicists, the advanced wave has been a nagging problem for the past century."

and

"Albert Einstein's equations in the theory of General Relativity say gravitational fields carry enough information about electromagnetism to allow Maxwell's equations to be restated in terms of these gravitational fields. This was discovered by the mathematical physicist George Yuri Rainich. (23) When a dinosaur died, the advanced gravitational and electromagnetic waves composing its particles would continue traveling back in time. By the time its bones or fossilized remains, or the surrounding rocks, were subjected to modern science's dating methods; those advanced waves might have gone so far back in time that the dating method says the dinosaur died 100 million years ago or more. Radioactive dating is thus a form of (advanced) gravitational-wave detection, just as LIGO - the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (24) - picks up (retarded) gravitational waves. Technology based on the way noise-cancelling headphones work (25) might provide a more accurate reading of when the dinosaur lived. The headphones increase the signal-to-noise ratio by incorporating a microphone that measures ambient sound (noise), generating a waveform that is the exact negative of the ambient sound, and mixing it with any audio signal the listener desires. Generating a waveform that's the exact opposite of the advanced waves emitted by the deceased dinosaur should, at least partially, neutralize the advanced waves and restrict measurement to the retarded waves associated with the animal's decay."

Thanks for saying my essay is "very well done", Peter. I much appreciate that. I don't think this contest has anything to do with aiming for the stars. The judges only seem to be interested in using the little bit known about science to make life more comfortable in the trench we're in. They apparently don't really believe there could be a science 300 years from now which proves their firmly held beliefs to be wrong (I suppose the scientists of 300 years ago - in 1720 - also imagined they knew the basic facts about the universe). People today seem to be only interested in convention, and unconventional thinking tends to be labelled as ignorance.

The judges won't give me a high score - I often wonder if they even realize my essay exists. As my swan song to FQXi, I've posted my essay here so readers like you can appreciate it. Readers born 50 years from now will appreciate it too (if the Internet isn't transformed so much that all today's posts become unreadable).

"What the spin of a particle really tells us is what the particle looks like from different directions" may turn out to be one of the most inspiring statements Stephen Hawking ever made. And it wasn't written in a science journal (never, as far as I know) but in a popular science book (which most scientists seem to regard as terrible sources for references - some will only read journals, according to their websites).

I'm having trouble with the picture and sound (and sometimes accessing) of your short video. But I don't think quantum spin can be explained in classical terms. I suspect the "spin" needs to be related to other dimensions and what I call the Mobius Matrix (explanation in the paragraphs below).

Matrix mechanics is a version of quantum mechanics discovered by Werner Heisenberg in 1925, and matrix multiplication says X multiplied by Y does not always equal Y times X. The book "Quantum" states, Max Born wrote to Albert Einstein that "Heisenberg's latest paper, soon to be published, appears rather mystifying, but is certainly true and profound." He was referring to "the strange multiplication rule" Heisenberg used in developing matrix mechanics. Born eventually realised that Heisenberg had stumbled on matrix multiplication - to which the originator of matrix mechanics replied, "I do not even know what a matrix is."

Diagrams can't be drawn in these comment sections. So grab pen and paper, and draw a diagram in which a picture of a Mobius strip is linked by an equals sign to a box whose sides are labelled a, b, d, e (with c being a y-axis between sides b and d, representing a vertical wall at 90 degrees to both b and d). By the way, a is the side on the right-hand side of the box and b, d, e are drawn clockwise.

Width a is perpendicular to the length (b or e) which is perpendicular to height c. How can a line be drawn perpendicular to c without retracing b's path? By positioning it at d, which is then parallel to (or, it could be said, at 180 degrees to) a. d is already at 90 degrees to length b and height c. d has to be at right angles to length, width and height simultaneously if it's going to include the Complex Plane's vertical "imaginary" axis in space-time (the "imaginary" realm is at a right angle to the 4 known dimensions of space-time, which all reside on the horizontal real plane). In other words, d has to also be perpendicular to (not parallel to) a. This is accomplished by a twist, like on the right side of the Mobius strip, existing in the particles of matter composing side a. In other words, matter's fundamental composition is mathematics' topological Mobius, which can be depicted in 3-dimensional space by binary digits creating a computer image). The twist needs to be exaggerated, with the upper right of the Mobius descending parallel to side "a" then turning perpendicular to it at approximately the level of the = sign, then resuming being parallel. Thus, 90+90 (the degrees between b & c added to the degrees between c & d) can equal 180, making a & d parallel. But 90+90 can also equal 90, making a & d perpendicular. (Saying 90+90=90 sounds ridiculous but it has similarities to the Matrix [of mathematics, not the action-science fiction movie] in which X multiplied by Y does not always equal Y times X. The first 90 plus the second 90 does not always equal the second 90 plus the first 90 because 90+90 can equal either 180 or 90.