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.

Thanks for your cretive insight. The link below shows the result.

Click of this address - then click on the "to read" link (a .pdf file).

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=2266

    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.

    4 days later

    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.

    5 days later

    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."

      Dear Rodney,

      following your invitation i read your essay (not jet in every detail) but can confirm most of your ideas would cover my ideas too. Yes, there must be an quantum entaglement in solar system that is not fully understood yet. There is research needed not only for Mercurey.

      Photon becomes the Graviton in my idea.

      To make it short.. i more and more try to explain the phenomenon based on conclusions about the definition of time in the measurement system.

      It's not obvious at first hand, but considering Maxwell as theory and Hertz as experimental detaching electromagnetism from matter into space, we in fact need to deal with 3-dimensional "time".

      So speed of light in three axis of space:

      c(1) = constant (speed of light and frequency of caesium-Atom)

      and

      c(2) * c(3) * µ(0) * ε(0) = constant (properties of vacuum / ether)

      this is kind of a serious problem as following my investigation we therefore use two "times" while one is 2-dimensional (E=mc^2) and one is one-dimensional (E=hf)

      but not only this.. those both are inverse proportional so that Energy-scales of Quantum-Theory and General Relativity can't match at all.

      The only solution i see:

      - define time to be three-dimensional (seconds to be measured as "Meters" of length)

      - Investigate Solar System for three-dimensional clock (surface of earth)

      using c^3 = constant

      instead of using

      c(1) = constant and c(2)^2 * µ(0) * ε(0) = constant

      would make the µ(0) as well as the gravitational constant a variable limited to surface of earth only while not a constant for universe

      (Origin of dark matter is fixed gravitational constant in combination with fixed µ(0))

      .. so far my ideas on how to handle the funny setup between general Relativity and Quantum Theory.

      Your reasoning seem to be the right way in most aspects.

      best,

      Manfred

      (also postet to "It takes a Decision to Decide if Decidability is True or False")

      Rodney, "Unless we aim for the stars we'll never get out of this trench!" That could have been Renee as well! Nicely written essay, very interesting and fun to read. Certainly not hidebound by convention! We entirely agree it's time for a paradigm shift, and that cosmic structure can be predictable, up to a point.

      You may recall my own ftl space travel, in collimated quasar jets, but with strict practical limitations, derived again from my very foundational main theme in this years.

      I also thank you for reminding me of the bit of sense from Hawking; "What the spin of a particle really tells us is what the particle looks like from different directions.", which is consistent with the QM derivation I give in mine (& see my summary in Ronald Racicots posts).

      Very well done, marked in for a rather higher score that I suspect the judges may give it!

      Very best,

      Peter

        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.

        "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)."

        Why so pessimistic. I rate your article as State of the Art.

        Don't you believe that it could be faster than 50 years from now... ?

        Calculating the answer to life, universe and everything:

        "Sun is not center of Solar System":

        http://downloads.theoryofall.org/ManfredPohl_Problem_of_time_V.pdf

        It's time for a bit of self indulgence - a "selfie post". While some of these ideas made it into my essay, others which I'm equally proud of had to be left out because of the length restriction. I'm putting them in this post and hope you find some interesting thoughts, readers!

        The following question was asked on researchgate.net - Could our fine-tuned universe have been created from a single fine-tuned quantum particle?

        Cosmological explanations for our apparently fine-tuned universe are basically divided between a) a vastly huge multiverse of universes with varying fundamental force and mass constants, including the cosmological constant (where our apparently fine-tuned universe is just one universe in this multiverse), or b) a cosmic intelligence that fine-tuned our universe at its beginning to evolve stable galaxies, life and developed minds. In scientific terms, which explanation is preferable? Are there other options? Is a cosmic mind a viable scientific hypothesis for explaining our universe's origin?

        This is my reply Yes, there is another option - an option which seems to be the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything. Humans from the far distant future could use wormholes to "augment" space-time, the universe and life. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics says nothing can ever be created (or destroyed), so the following paragraphs will further explain augmentation which bypasses the creation attributed to the Big Bang.

        In a science TV program 'Custom Universe - Finetuned For Us?', (Australian Broadcasting Corporation's 'Catalyst', August 29 2013), Dr. Graham Phillips reported that "the physicist and writer Paul Davies thinks the universe is indeed fine-tuned for minds like ours. And who fine-tuned it? Not God but minds from the future, perhaps even our distant descendants, that have reached back through time ... and selected the very laws of physics that allow for the existence of minds in the first place. Sounds bizarre, but quantum physics actually allows that kind of thing."

        And Carl Sagan writes, 'Many religions, from Hinduism to Gnostic Christianity to Mormon doctrine, teach that - as impious as it may sound - it is the goal of humans to become gods.' ('Pale Blue Dot - A Vision of the Human Future in Space', Headline Book (1995), p. 382)

        In relation to Quantum Spin, Wolfgang Pauli in 1924 was the first to propose a doubling of electron states due to a two-valued non-classical "hidden rotation". (Goudsmit, S.A.; translated by van der Waals, J.H. "The discovery of the electron spin" - https://ilorentz.org/history/spin/goudsmit.html) Extending the ideas of "doubling", "two-valued" and "hidden rotation" to the Mobius strip being a basic, fundamental unit of reality; it can be seen that Pauli's proposal has an analogy to this comment. The 1's and 0's of electronics' binary digit (or BIT, or base 2) system can be used to draw the two-dimensional (2D) image of a Mobius strip. Then 2 strips are combined into a 3D figure-8 Klein bottle, (Polthier, Konrad, "Imaging maths - Inside the Klein bottle", http://plus.maths.org/content/os/issue26/features/mathart/index ) and the bottle given the 4 dimensions of space-time by incorporating adaptive Wick rotation - and thus a 4th dimension of time agreeing with Special Relativity's time dilation - into its component Mobius strips. The doubled Mobius strip produced by the two-valued binary-digit system creates the figure-8 Klein bottle (plus its hidden, now identified as Wick, rotation). This not only unites the Mobius strip with the figure-8 Klein bottle but also the photon with the graviton ie electromagnetism with gravitation^ if the photon is an assembly of trillions of Mobius strips while the graviton is an assembly of trillions of figure-8 Klein bottles). It also confirms Dutch physicist Erik Verlinde's idea that gravity is an emergent property (emerging from mathematics). (E. P. Verlinde, "Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe", 7 Nov 2016, arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269)

        ^ 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. An electrical engineering 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 or gravitons of gravity/spacetime-warps (Einstein's General Relativity says gravity is the result of warps and curves in spacetime) 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. Past, present and future 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). 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.

        A model of the cosmos might be built that uses pi and imaginary time, and resides in Virtual Reality (artificial, computer-generated simulation). (If you believe in quantum mechanics' wave-particle duality, this model is sort of like a particle.) The entanglement (quantum-mechanics style) in the simulated universe is unable to remain separate from the entanglement existing in our perceived reality because computers using so-called "imaginary time" (which is defined by numbers with the property iВІ = в€'1) remove all boundaries between the two universes. This enables them to become one Augmented Reality (known now as technology that layers computer-generated enhancements onto an existing reality but seen here as the related layering of virtual reality onto other points in time and space). The poorly-named imaginary time of physics and mathematics unites with pi (both are necessary to generate a non-Big-Bang cosmos i.e. an infinite universe which, because space and time can never be separated, is eternal: alone, unbounded imaginary time is finite).

        On the subject of the calculating, deterministic nature of computers - I think we rely too much on the idea of the randomness of biological evolution. Obviously, evolution does exist - we see it all the time when we study how living things adapt. But that doesn't mean it can be extrapolated to explain everything about life (sorry, Mr. Darwin, but I can't see it explaining the origins of life). Perhaps life began when our far distant descendants travelled to a time before life existed, collected proteins and amino acids and water etc from meteorites and comets and dust etc, combined the molecules, and did some unimaginably sophisticated genetic engineering.

        So you think my essay is "State of the Art"? Thank you - I really needed to hear that. Am I being pessimistic? We'll have to wait and see if there's any mention of my essay on the prize list in June. If there is ... I was indeed pessimistic. If there isn't ... I was realistic.

        I haven't had time yet to have a good look at your "Sun is not center of Solar System" (I got distracted by my reply to that question on researchgate.net - it's posted below). But something did catch my eye when I had a quick peek: velocity of movement v:=length of space / length of time. It reminded me of something I wrote which includes v= fλ = distance/duration = space/time = c and connects that with E=mc2.

        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 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)

        well said. I think your reasoning is consitent and logic. And you understand most key aspects of the problems we face in physics.

        No we need to learn who to "explain" this to theoretical physics of the "mainstream" to understand the "impact" of the problem we talk about and about the origin of the problem.

        I tried to summarize in a post on researchgate that way:

        Light is what can be deliverd by light and at the same time what can be picked up (quantized)

        Why:

        We deal with "two" time-flows mistakenly because we let earth rotate around sun and its own axis.

        Therefore the f (1/T) in E= hf

        refelcts only ONE of those TWO time-flows and within the dopplers-shifts is missing a proper consideration of that. The information about the realtion to the second time is missing. Therefore the Lightbeam is a "relation" over a "second" time-flow and that gives quantization of energy !

        You deal with two Energy-scales (time-flows now) and you therefore are quantized with

        Energy 1 / Energy 2 per time is constant.

        E=hf.

        (E1 / E2) = constant

        Basicly this equation is the biggest mistake one can do in physics at all, because it is a plain violation of energy conservation (Energy is extensive Property)

        EInstein just mixed up physics completely by making velocity from intensive to extensive an Energy from extensive to intensive property.

        I am german native speakting and when i read the 1905 paper from Einstein on the first page already is clear that Einstein had now idea of velocity being an intense property and he just did not understand Maxwell correct therefore.

        Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, nobel prize winner for his work 1902, claimed in 1908 at international congress of mathematics in rome that E=hf must be wrong !

        in that time

        Lord Rayleigh, James Jeans und Hendrik Antoon Lorentz claimed that one must set h = 0 to equate E=hf.

        That is logical reasoning of a physicist. Of cause this is also wrong as h is not 0, but the logic demands that h must be 0 in this "eqaution" because it is impossible to set Energy proportional with frequency using an constant with no physical explantation and one must search to find the mistake.

        Furthermore : A Physicsit mus "know" that Physics is broken completely if one deals with a "dimensionless" fine structure constant.

        So today this is called new age physics and the other stuff is classical physics.

        But we should be allowed to ask more precise what "Physiys" is at all if we had reduced it to statistics and violating cause and effect as well as energy-conservation.

        What kind of concept is left beside pure probability then if not even we give up on energy conservation and on cause and effect?

        best, Manfred

        My 1st reply on this page was to John C. Hodge about Mercury's precession and the possible absence of Planet 9. I just wrote a reply to Dr Karl Kruszelnicki about his article "Putting Einstein to the test - part 2" (for Radio National and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation). Those things, plus material related to my essay, gave me a lot of ammunition for another selfie-post.

        Isaac Newton's calculations for the position of Mercury required a correction of 43 arcseconds/century, plus or minus 0.00 (University of California, Riverside, "Mercury's Orbital Precession, General Relativity, and the Solar Bulge" - http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/mercury_orbit.html) General Relativity's prediction is 42.98 seconds per century, plus or minus 0.04 of a second. ("PPN formalism" by Hajime Sotani - 01/07/2009 (minor changes made 21/06/2013): https://www.tat.physik.unituebingen.de/~kokkotas/Teaching/Experimental_Gravity_files/Hajime_PPN.pdf - "Perihelion shift of Mercury", page 11)

        So while Albert Einstein's prediction is so close to Mercury's position as to be regarded as exact by nearly everybody, it is actually not exact. This leaves room for UCR's statement that "it's too early to say the issue is completely settled" - and for Dr Karl's reference to "the breakthrough into the New Physics, that physicists so desperately want." 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. TNOs (Trans-Neptunian Objects - any object in the Solar System that orbits the Sun at a greater average distance than Neptune) must also be affected by advance, or precession, of perihelia. TNOs tend to make their closest approaches to the Sun in one sector.

        These improbable alignments suggest that an undiscovered planet may be shepherding their orbits. There may not be any Planet 9 but a shared gravitational continuum throughout the cosmos. After all, Albert Einstein said gravity results from the curves in spacetime - therefore, gravity IS spacetime (my essay shows how "advanced" plus "retarded" gravitational waves can produce quantum entanglement on a macroscopic level, and the gravitational continuum thus becomes a unified field). To make gravity a truly universal continuum, it should not only be identified with spacetime but also with the matter in spacetime. This is done in my essay with gravitational-electromagnetic interaction forming matter's particles - whether they be fermions or bosons - via VTS (vector-tensor-scalar) geometry.

        This has implications for the Four Forces that control everything in our Universe -- the Gravity Force, the Electromagnetic Force, the Weak Force, and the Strong Force. The geometry blends gravitational-electromagnetic interaction with the Weak and Strong nuclear forces characteristic of matter's atoms. Dark Matter and Dark Energy could be Inter-Dimensional Polarisation Modulation (IDPM) of gravitational and electromagnetic waves, caused by their rotation from the x-axis containing ordinary matter and its associated energy towards the y-axis containing "dark" matter and "dark" energy. ~5.5 increments, each of ~65.45 degrees, in the 360 degree rotation gives the Planck satellite's figures of the universe being composed of 4.9% ordinary matter and 27% dark matter. The dark energy content of 68% is reached by assuming different dimensions vary from E=mc^2, and may have greater amounts of energy available.

          5 days later

          you wrote "To make gravity a truly universal continuum, it should not only be identified with spacetime but also with the matter in spacetime."

          This makes it impossible. As we first must define what we want to measure, it is impossible to indentifie spacetime with matter.

          11 days later

          Message to EVERYBODY - all members of the public, contestants, judges, those born countless millions of years from now ... everyone! For many months, a thought from some lines in my essay has been growing in my brain. Those lines are -

          "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. Past, present and future 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)."

          My thoughts -

          The world - indeed, entire universe - I see in the far distant future is so good in every possible way that "perfect" is the only word that can describe it properly. When a movie is recorded on a DVD, the DVD ends up being the way it is because of decisions made by the actors, writers, directors, etc. Similarly, the future Cosmic DVD my essay refers to is the way it is (perfect) because of what happens in our present and past i.e. decisions made by you, me, scientists, religious figures, politicians ... everybody! The world is therefore always unfolding as it should, however good or bad events appear to our limited perspective.

          Right now, the 1960's song "Years may come, years may go" by Herman's Hermits is playing on the radio station I'm listening to. It says "Some are good, some are bad - For each one, just be glad". This is a timely reminder that the universe is unfolding as it should if it's to attain perfection. It's also good to remember that the German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716 - he developed calculus at the same time as Isaac Newton) believed this is the "best of all possible worlds".

          What should you do next time you find yourself drowning in worry about anything at all e.g. climate change or Nazi Germany or this latest strain of coronavirus or being ignored in this FQXi contest? Remember how limited human perspective is, and that all these things are necessary for the universe to unfold as it should. Only time will tell if that last example is relevant. Whether you win 1st prize or really are ignored, it's part of the universe unfolding as it should, and already written in the Cosmic DVD - your consciousness will catch up to that knowledge months from now.

          Dear Rodney Bartlett,

          FQXi.org has allowed me to upload an updated version of my essay because of the change in the competition submission date. I would appreciate it if you could find the time to read my updated version and perhaps leave a comment about it.

          Joe Fisher

          THE DOCTORS AND THE CORONAVIRUS - A TALE OF SCIENCE FICTION?

          INTRODUCTION

          Since diagrams can't be included in these posts, I'll also add this as an attachment.

          The Doctor from "Star Trek - Voyager" and 4 other doctors were having a TeleHealth video conference. The other attendees, in alphabetical order by surname, were Julian Bashir from "Star Trek - Deep Space Nine", Beverly Crusher from "Star Trek - The Next Generation", "Bones" McCoy from the Original "Star Trek", and Dr. Who in the TARDIS. Prior to the conference, Bones and Dr. Who had concluded that the world was overreacting and hitting the panic button needlessly. They pointed out that this strain of the coronavirus, with a death rate of about 2% or 3%, was a greater problem than influenza - but it was nothing compared to the Plague or viruses like Ebola. Voyager's Doctor knew their opinion but complimented them on being wise enough to organize the video meeting. After all, he said, it was their duty as physicians to alleviate suffering, whether the distress be of an emotional or physical nature. With the added insights of Doctors Crusher and Bashir, plus those of an online essay titled 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), the Doctor was convinced the five of them could find a cure for the coronavirus COVID-19 ... today.

          STEP 1 - THE VIRUS IS MADE OF GRAVITY AND LIGHT

          FIGURE 1: The Basics of Vector-Tensor-Scalar Geometry

          Two adjoining sides of a parallelogram represent the vectors of the photon's spin 1 and the graviton's spin 2. The resultant diagonal represents the interaction of the sides/vectors (1÷2 = the spin ½ of every matter particle). Tensor calculus changes the coordinates of the sides into the coordinates of a position on a line (a single point on the diagonal). This scalar point is associated with particles of spin 0. If the mass produced during the 1÷2 interaction - the energy and momentum of the photons and presently hypothetical gravitons exert a pressure we call mass - happens to be 125 GeV/c2, its union with spin 0 produces the Higgs boson. 125 GeV/c2 united with spin 0 means the central scalar point of the Higgs boson is related to the vector of the graviton's spin 2, and the Higgs field is therefore united with the supposedly unrelated gravitational field (together with the latter's constant interaction with the electromagnetic field - the many types of electromagnetism include visible light, radio waves, UV or ultraviolet light, and X-rays).

          STEP 2 - GRAVITY AND LIGHT CAN TRAVEL BACK IN TIME

          This begins with 19th-century scientist Michael Faraday's experiments with electricity and magnetism (which, later that century, James Clerk Maxwell mathematically unified into a theory of electromagnetism that includes light). (1) The existence of both advanced waves (which travel backwards in time) and retarded waves (which travel forwards in time) as admissible solutions to Maxwell's equations was explored in the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (TIQM). (2) The waves are seen as physically real, rather than a mere mathematical device. And 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." (3)

          FIG. 2 - WICK ROTATION, OR CIRCLE OF i

          There are vastly increased numbers of gravitational energy's gravitons near the intense gravity of black holes, and there is increased effect on electromagnetic energy's photons when speed-of-light travel includes vast numbers of photons in the traveller's sphere of influence. "Advanced" waves travel back in time (to the left of Wick rotation's origin or centre). "Retarded" waves go forwards in time (to the right of Wick rotation's centre). Imagine a gravitational or electromagnetic wave as a retarded wave proceeding to the right and also rotating around the origin in an anticlockwise direction. As it occupies coordinates proceeding to the left of the origin, its crests become troughs and troughs become crests. In this way, the crests and troughs cancel each other and cancellation produces quantum mechanics' entanglement. In other words, a wave interferes with itself (and a particle - whether boson or fermion - formed from gravitational and electromagnetic waves interacts with itself).

          FIG. 3 - TROUGHS AND CRESTS IN TIME PRODUCE ENTANGLEMENT

          As well, an effect of gravitational and electromagnetic waves following Wick rotation is to cause more and more cancelling crests and troughs (in the increased numbers of gravitons and photons) to interfere with themselves and produce Special Relativity's time dilation (slowing - with eventual stoppage at the speed of light) near the intense gravity of black holes, and near light speed. They also move the idea of waves travelling back in time into accepted science.

          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. (4) So gravitational waves, like electromagnetic waves, also have retarded and advanced phases or components. 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 (5) - picks up (retarded) gravitational waves. Technology based on the way noise-cancelling headphones work (6) 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 opposite 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.

          STEP 3 - QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT KILLS EVERY VIRUS

          Suppose the coronavirus is treated differently from a dinosaur. Suppose the retarded gravitational and electromagnetic waves it emits are neutralized. Then the virus continuously travels farther and farther into the past, never stopping to infect any ancestor and eventually arriving at a time when Earth's environment is so hostile to it that the lifeform is obliterated. This kills one virus but what about the countless trillions of others invading our bodies and our atmosphere? The previous step's quantum entanglement means that single virus is permanently joined to every virus ... and they all suffer the same deadly fate.

          The doctors threw a private party in Doctor Who's blue police box, the Time And Relative Dimensions In Space. They were grinning and shouting "Congratulations, doctor!" and "Well done, doctor!" They appreciated that this first draft would need ironing out before they could publish it, and that nothing ever works quite as well in practice as it does on paper. But they knew they were on to something here. Somewhere in the background, an unknown doctor wondered aloud, "Maybe this means every type of virus and bacteria that exists will soon stop existing. What other problems can we send to their doom in the remote past?"

          REFERENCES OUTSIDE INTRODUCTION

          (1) Maxwell, James Clerk (1865). "A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. 155: 459-512

          (2) Cramer, John G. (July 1986). "The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics". Reviews of Modern Physics. 58 (3): 647-688. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.58.647

          (3) Michio Kaku, "Physics of the Impossible" (Penguin Books, 2009) - p. 276

          (4) George Yuri Rainich - "Transactions of the American Mathematical Society" 27, 106 - Rainich, G. Y. (1925)

          (5) Barry C. Barish, Rainer Weiss, (October 1999). "LIGO and the Detection of Gravitational Waves". Physics Today. 52 (10): 44. doi:10.1063/1.882861

          (6) William Harris, "How Noise-canceling Headphones Work" - https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/audio-music/noise-cancelingheadphone3.htm

          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Attachment #1: THE_DOCTORS_AND_THE_CORONAVIRUS_-_A_TALE_OF_SCIENCE_FICTION.docx