Bravo!

I thank you Edwin Eugene for an insightful analysis and response. You make many good points. And it is thoughtful of you to frame your response as a comparison of your theoretical framework to the criteria I set forth in my essay. I can only commend you.

It may still be a while, before I gain a sufficient understanding of your work, so that I can make a fair assessment. You have answered my challenge, and dealt with every issue I raise in my paper, but I am one who must understand the conceptual basis for an idea fully, before I adopt it as my guide to further exploration.

Still; I would have to say your ideas have a lot to recommend themselves, and your input and insight are appreciated.

All the Best,

Jonathan

  • [deleted]

  • Post #22

Hi Jonathan. Your essay raises some interesting and needed points.

Kindly consider, and reply to, the following:

1) If we could demonstrate a balancing of scale whereby gravity and electromagnetism/light are repulsive and attractive (on balance), then that would be a big step forward in physics.

2) Balance and completeness go hand-in-hand, in theory and in life.

3) ASTRONOMICAL/TELESCOPIC OBSERVATIONS:

Astronomical observations are interactive creations of thought, to a significant extent. Astronomical observations involve a relative detachment, disintegration, and contraction of vision/visual experience as they relate to space, experience, and thought generally. Astronomical observations have significant similarities with dreams. Astronomical observations and dreams involve a narrowing/"telescoping" of vision. The redshift is indicative of increased gravity due to increased transparency/invisibility of space. Consider how the the setting Sun appears at a 90 degree angle in relation to gravity (overhead) -- red and in a transparent sky. Astronomical observations necessarily increase the size of what is seen, or nothing could be seen at all. The red shift is a reduction in energy/brightness; since an object that is farther away, and yet larger/visible, necessarily involves higher gravity.

Now consider the blackness of outer space, the position of red light on the visible light spectrum, and transparent/clear space. Consider this in relation to the black and clear/invisible spaces of the eye. Consider all of this in relation to "dark matter/"dark energy".

Dreams are visible (to the person having the dream) and yet invisible (to others). Moreover, while the body is generally or significantly absent/invisible in dreams, touch and the sight of the body may occur as well.

The body is invisible and visible -- the clear space of the eye is where vision begins, and this is of (and within) the body. Vision begins as invisible/transparent space inside the eye (and body).

5) The integrated extensiveness of being and experience not only go hand-in-hand, but also in and with time as well. You are correct on the fundamental importance of time.

I believe that the unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light occupies the center (and best) position with regard to improving our understanding of physics in general.

Kindly consider rating and commenting on my essay. My three posts under the essay are important as well. Thank you for your kind consideration.

I want us to bounce some ideas back and forth. I think that we can make some good headway. Any questions that you have regarding your essay are most welcome. Frank

  • [deleted]

  • Post #23

Hi Jonathan. Your essay might be in agreement with the following post. Is it?

Consider the nuclear strong force and gravitation in light of the following:

The unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light occupies the center (and best) position with regard to improving our understanding of physics in general. I agree with the geometrical approach -- the mathematically proven outcome in a fourth dimension of space -- as it has unified gravity and electromagnetism/light.

To unify gravity and electromagnetism/light fundamentally and comprehensively, balancing/unifying scale by demonstrating gravity as repulsive and attractive AS electromagnetic energy/light is required. It is critical to demonstrate electromagnetic energy/light as gravitational space. The unification/balancing/inclusion of both invisible and visible space is central to:

1) Balancing/unifying scale and...

2) Balancing attraction and repulsion in conjunction with space manifesting both gravititationally and electromagnetically. Think wave/particle.

These ideas need to be applied to atomic structure/interactions, and to electromagnetism/light and gravity generally. How space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is a central and very valuable physical idea.

Hello Frank,

I see there is another post here, since I last looked. I have gone to your essay page, left a brief comment, and downloaded your essay. But I will check out some of your questions here before I read it, and comment once I have thought about answers.

All the best,

Jonathan

Jonathan,

A word of appreciation for your essay and for your comments. I first became aware of you when you successfully "translated" Darryl Jay Leiter's use of "color" and thereby made sense of his essay. You clearly work at something until you understand it.

I've posted to Stefan Weckbach's essay (and replicated some on my page) and invite you to read there as follow-on to our last communication. Stefan has some interesting things to say also.

I hope that you apply the same effort and determination to understanding my essay that you did for Darryl Jay Leiter. Selfish of me, but there it is...

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hello again Frank,

Now for a point by point response (first installment). I think I may still need to say more to Edwin too, but I have no insights to offer right now.

1. - A 'balancing of scale' could refer to many things. You may be speaking of what's called renormalization, where the strengths of the forces are equalized. You could also be speaking of a situation where equivalent strengths are different in different ranges of scale. But you also seem to be hinting that you favor some version of push-push gravity here. Is any of this correct?

2. - Indubitably; I would agree that in completeness or wholeness a sense of balance may be found with the opposite approach which is reductionism. I am quite wary that there are limitations to the approach of only taking things further and further apart. The inverse of this involves how things fit together, how they can function together as a congruent whole, and so on.

I speak about this somewhat in a paper on brain lateralization available on viXra. Such issues also relate to the whole bottom up vs top down model question. I believe both additive and formant synthesis is essential for accurate perception. We need to build up knowledge of structure from things we know, and we need to skilfully carve away from the structure of knowledge with clarity of discernment.

The right brain offers insights into the wave-like view of the world, where the left brain offers more of the particle-like view, according to Jill Taylor-Bolte. But my paper suggests that the two brain halves are doing basically the same kinds of processing, but in opposite directions of time. You can guess which side of the brain is reductionistic.

So - I would say that balance and completeness go hand in hand, if we are talking about complete thinking that requires both halves of the brain, and both modalities of thought.

3. - Astronomical/Telescopic narrowing effect also occurs when zooming in on Microscopic details of form found in nature, or into the Mathematical landscape of Fractals. Field of view questions are a crucial aspect in determinations of observability. Sometimes the issue of trying to find a view or sequence of views which capture the detail you are looking to highlight becomes quite difficult, because if you zoom in or out too far the relative relationships become unclear.

I agree there is a certain dreamlike aspect to astronomical observations. That is a big part of what makes Astronomy fun! When you can see other planet up close in your eyepiece, or a far-away nebula perhaps, you tend to drift to a far-away place yourself. The same is true when you can just gaze up at the sky somewhere far away from city lights when there are few clouds. It is awe inspiring, even without any kind of eyepiece. But it's true that when you do magnify what's up there, you also lose a lot of what's in the neighborhood of the objects you are observing, or which is nearby on the route between here and there.

It would be much more fun to go there! But dreaming can carry us to places we can't go yet - sort of. I'll read more of comments above and your essay, then return here and to your essay page.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Thank you Edwin Eugene!

I am taking a bit more time, figuring out your thesis. I have taken some time already today, to review and reply to your comments - which were a response to my thoughts on your essay (on that forum page). I think there is a lot of agreement, about several important points, but there seem to be some incompatibilities to our views. It would seem we can both learn from the comparison, however, and I am going to see it through (reading and comparing notes), until I do have a genuine understanding.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Jonathan,

Thanks for investing the effort. I left a note on Stefan Weckbach's page for you, and also recommend Terry Padden's essay and the comments I just left there.

All the best to you,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hello again Frank,

I just re-read your second post above and it made a bit more sense of something you were saying in the earlier post. Your statement at the end "How space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is a central and very valuable physical idea." is right on. Perhaps the key, as you say, is to recognize that there is both an attractive and repulsive component at work - which changes the effective action at different levels of scale. This makes unification simpler.

We end up 1) Balancing/unifying scale and 2) Balancing attraction and repulsion in conjunction with space manifesting both gravitationally and electromagnetically. (Think wave/particle).

Both Laurent Nottale and Alex Mayer have elements of that idea in their theories. Nottale uses a more strictly geometric approach, where Mayer's approach combines geometry and wave mechanics. Either way, it explains how the same driving force can have a very different action or expression at different levels of scale.

Connes' approach also bears some resemblance to what you suggest using noncommutative geometry to effect a re-normalization of the forces.

All the Best,

Jonathan

  • [deleted]

  • Post #30

Hi dear Mr Jonathan J. Dickau ,

A very interesting essay ,logic and pragmatic in fact .The sciences need that .

I agree with you about the problem of perception of the reality .Some extrapolations are not necessary .The reality is simple in its universal dynamic .

You speak too about the evolution .I liked a lot the taxonomy ,in fact I class all .That's why I invented the Theory of Spherisation like a building in time and space .The fact to go towards this ultim sphere for me is a beautiful hope ,physically speaking .

With humility of course the theory of theories is this one ,rotating quantum spheres which builds spheres in a sphere ,thus the spherisation in a whole and universal point of vue .

I liked in your essay the complemenatrity with fundamentals and physicals theories where a kind of superimposings acts to harmonize our axioms .

Indeed all fundamenatls theories are linked ,fortunally ,there a balance is necessary to make the difference with math imaginaries and reals of physics.

Even the concept of infinity ,zero and negative must be adapted with the pure physicality and its thermodynamics .

Many theories are falses but some are trues ,a fundamental theory evolves and is complementary in fact ,simply.

If the confusion appears with the complexification and imaginaries thus it becomes very difficult for a pragmatic extrapolation .

Congratulations and good luck

Best Regards

Steve

Hello to all,

I just wanted to thank everyone who has expressed their appreciation for my ideas by making kindly ratings of my essay. I was looking mainly to foster understanding and to have some great on-line discussions. I am humbled by the work of many who have submitted essays here, and appreciative of the fact that your respect for my work leaves me with high ratings at this moment. You all have my gratitude.

It is my intent to read as many of the other contestant's essays as I have time for. I have three half-done now, and as many more on my immediate reading list. I have found all that I read to be fascinating. Not all the authors have left me convinced of the correctness of their theory, but all have brought me fresh perspective - even into many topics I think I know. I am pleased to see that my insights have been helpful to the understanding of others, too.

I genuinely wish to understand where each of you writing here is coming from, so that I can give your work a fair review. I have held off on making my own ratings of you, in some cases, until my opinions are settled.

It is a privilege to be highly regarded in such an esteemed group of learned souls. I wish all of you the best of luck, especially as it advances the boundaries of Science.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Greetings Steve,

Thank you for your thoughtful remarks. The 'rotating quantum spheres' idea sounds interesting, and I would suppose it appears in your essay - which I will have to look up. As I have said elsewhere on the forums, I think it would be possible to build a fundamental theory from the measurement protocol - observe, explore, compare - by which one can triangulate the dimensionality of ones surroundings. Since any viewpoint is centric, there is an arc of observation which - if completed - is a circle or a sphere. Now some theorists have the idea that the universe is 2-d near the Planck scale. So maybe circles have a deeper meaning than we imagine.

But the idea of spheres within spheres can arise from the same construction. This relates to the question "what is the definition of dimensionality?" In my view, the key is to have enough points of reference (objects or points of view) to make a clear determination of what the dimension of the space inhabited really is. Now where a solid sphere is close packed with no overlap, one imagines that because of their fuzziness quantum spheres could overlap and merge somewhat. This actually happens in a BEC.

So; this makes Bose-Einstein condensation a physical realization of your concept. Quantum spheres (ultracold atoms) in a sphere (a BEC 'Superatom'). Does this relate to what you were saying?

All the Best,

Jonathan

Jonathan,

I've responded to your last comments on my page. Thanks for the comments and congratulations on your position.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

  • [deleted]

  • Post #34

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks .

Any paper ,nada hihih ,any essay ,any contest and you know ,even my universities I stoped them in geology,medecine and agronomy ,in fact I am too much isolated like I said in others threads ,

in fact all the days I add something ,a theory evolves and optimise itself by complemenatrity and good superimposing.

Furthermore I must stabilize me and create too this sciences center ,I like the name ,Sphere Institute .Or Unified Sphere.

How can I resume my theory,perhaps with a spherical tree of taxonomy .All must be correlated with a real quantization .I have classed many systems ,animals ,vegetals ,minerals ,atoms,molecules ,proteins....my only link is the mass .When I have had the eureka if I can say it was when I classed and searched some mass links with the brains , the stars ,planets ,...I say me oh my god ,all goes to the sphere and is built by spheres .Thus I try to understand why a mass ,that's why with the evolution point of vue ,I insert the rotation of the quantum and cosmological spheres like the direct link with mass .The rotationg spheres are the cause of the mass .

It's super what you say about the B E condensate,it's very interesting ,I am going to see more about that .I try to know the number of physial spheres .How can we know the ultim fractal of spheres in fact .We begin with the main central sphere and thus its volume ,but for the volume ,after ,it's already difficult like that in fact hihihih .I am crazzy to want find this specific number of spheres .I am persuaded what our quantum entanglement is like a code , a foto of our Universal sphere and its cosmological spheres.Thus they have the same finite number with a specific oscillation ,serie in time evolution in a spherical space.

The quantization is primordial .It seems to me that The restrictive relativity is different for a rotating sphere around itself ,perhaps it's the only system which goes more speed than the light spherical linearity .On the other side if the mv link is restrictive thus an other parameter must be inserted in the m1v1 = m2v2 .

you imagine my difficulty to publish .I prefer continue my work .After all ,what is the most important in sciences .

Could you tell me more about BEC please ,I am very interested to learn more .The thermodynamic is important .You speak about the temperature ,perhaps the rotations is proportionaly linked with the variability of temperature ,pression ,volume....thus changes the mass in fact thus pehaps what the rotations which are synchronized in the system ,thus have a different comportment about the polarity and its synchronizations .Attraction repulsion ,between fourth interactions with the evolution point of vue and the encoded informations .The main centers are fasciatings ,like our main universal central sphere where all has begun .

Best Regards

Steve

  • [deleted]

  • Post #35

Dear Jonathan,

You mention Laurent Nottale and the possiblity of a geometrical approach towards a GUT/ TOE. Have you read my essay or Len Malinowski's ideas? I see that you have also corresponded with Steve Dufourny, and Steve has about a thousand page mega-thesis on Spherical GUT (he did not enter the contest - English is his fourth language behind French, Dutch and Spanish - I offered to proof-read for him, but he didn't take me up on it). My own essay is based on lattices which could be formed from close-packing spheres (or circles or multi-dimensional spheres - different branes require different applications). There are similarities between my K12' lattice and Mohamed El Naschie's E-Infinity - the biggest difference may be fractals. Perhaps fractals are the connection between a finite model such as my K12' lattice and the infinite Universe.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

  • [deleted]

  • Post #36

how to harmonize various force /fields is the main job left in Physics, as gravity appears to play a central role and still defies unification with the other three fields. Perhaps we have still to know what part gravity played in the early universe as the other fields evolved sequentially, as per the demands of nature. The mysteries of dark matter/energy appear to contain such data that we are unable to decipher today. Precise and accurate cosmological data around 1/2 billion years old universe holds the key. Also, the nature of primordial matter originally created has given rise to both the visible and dark components. There has to be changing field strengths at the start of the universe, in place of the constants relative strengths we observe today for the four different fields. The non-baryonic dark matter is a frozen form of primordial matter while the visible matter is the derived form of the same. Lack of free quarks in the visible universe indicates that the dark matter may be just that got frozen with changing field strengths and sequential emergence of strong nuclear, electromegnetic and weak nuclear force. The gravity played a mysterious background role as the first field to emerge at the birth of the universe.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #37

Hi all ,

Dear Ray ,

yes indeed ,this theory is going to make me crazzy ,already I am it ...

At this moment Ray ,I must stabilise my economic situation ,it's difficult .

I have asked for a credit ,to create a society ,I wait ,it's not a big sum ,just 100 000 euros ,I have a house with my mother ,its value is about 140 000 euros ,my debts are about 50 000 ,thus normally it's ok but it's difficult here in Belgium to have a loan .With this monney I improve the hous ,30 000 euros and 50 000 for loans ,and 20 000 for my little enterprise .A little society for begining .If I don't stabilise my economy ,it will be difficult to evolve correctly .I have made several errors in my past and I must be pragmatic with my situation now for me and my mother .

I am tired in fact ,but I continue .

Happy to have known you Ray ,and don't forget you are welcome for the sciences center ,If I arrive to create it of course .I will arrive .This center is more important than my situation or my works .

Good luck for the contest .

Regards

Steve

  • [deleted]

  • Post #38

Dear Jonathan (part 1),

I very much enjoyed reading your essay, which is one of the best in the whole set. I would like to provide some feedback based on Quantum Field Mechanics (QFM) - see my essay, which confirms many of your thoughts and provides refinements with respect to statement made by the people you quoted. More details of QFM can be found in my essay (which took a number of artificial postulating shortcuts to limit content - I'm working on a much expanded version with full background included instead of relying on references), extra notes on the page where you can find my essay, and in a slide deck on my website.

Please don't consider my large volume of comments as critique, because that's definitely not my intention.

Page 1: I fully agree with your statement that a broader framework is needed to reconcile Relativity and Quantum Theory, instead of Quantum Gravity Theory.

Page 2: "many physicists treat equations as though they are facts". I fully agree and, in addition, I maintain that theory should follow from reality (nature) and not the other way around.

Page 2: "it may be more fruitful to acknowledge that there are fundamental incompatibilities in how these two theories are framed, and to find the connecting pieces". It is more subtle than that. I agree with the framing part, but you are almost suggesting to use a reductionist approach to fill in gaps. According to QFM, a holistic approach is needed where all four fundamental interactions need to be considered together in order to describe nature coherently.

Page 2: "it may be more fruitful to work at it through a stepwise approach, as with Electroweak theory being a tangible step toward a GUT, and then proceed to ultimate unification only once we have discovered and explicated additional fundamental unities." The stepwise approach suggests again that we can construct a unified theory by adding pieces to it. According to QFM this does not lead to a unified theory, since a holistic approach is required which considers all interactions together.

Page 3: "This manifests in the form of pairs of virtual particles which appear to pervade space." Virtual particles are theoretical constructs and have never been observed. It is very shaky to use them to construct a unified theory of physics.

Page 3/4: On page 3 you suggest "My new approach involves pairing up other quantities, and likewise asserting that they are two faces of the same thing." and on page 4 "This continues for each combination uniting two of the four quantities - matter, energy, space, and time. Each unifying concept is made more meaningful when considered in relation to the others. So to matter-energy (or mass-energy) and space-time, we can add matter-space, matter-time, space-energy, and energy-time - making six fundamental unities, identities, or pillars in all." Mass and energy are in fact equivalent.

I think you are very close to the correct set of quantities. According to QFM (see eq (2.2) in my essay), the unified relation between quantities is the quantum condition -h = -E dt pdx, where h is Planck's constant, dt is discrete time, and dx is displacement of the massive particle over dt. In fact, dt corresponds to the average of the random internal motion of a massive particle. (see also David Bohm's book: Wholeness and the Implicate Order, page 101, where he states a similar expression, but with a different interpretation of dt and dx).

Page 5: "once we admit the possibility that a broader framework is what's needed to create a more nearly encompassing understanding." Yes, QFM takes a holistic approach for the four fundamental interactions as the broader framework. This framework is mathematically represented in terms of state equation (2.1) in my essay.

Page 5: Time is indeed not an illusionary property of nature and I strongly concur with you on that. In fact, time is an essential element of a unified theory of physics. You can already see that from the stated quantum condition.

Page 5: "space emerges as a manifestation of the extended nature of time" and "The gist here is that time may be more primal than space, energy, or matter, being a sort of prerequisite - a precursor or antecedent - to the existence of these quantities." In QFM, space and time dynamically emerge together, without space there is no time and v.v. Time is not a background parameter.

Page 5: "one can assert that the existence of energy and the laws of electrodynamics proceed from geometry and the properties of space or spacetime". The laws of electromagnetism/Maxwell's equation follows from considerations involving quantum condition -h = -E dt pdx, see my essay and reports on my website for the complete derivation. No "monogenic functions in 5-d spacetime" (purely theoretical constructs) are needed.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #39

Dear Jonathan (part 2),

Page 6: Alex Mayer's quote: "Nor was he of the opinion that Physics flows from Math, as he actively champions the opposite view. However; he appears convinced that the underlying geometry is the story, or a very large part of it."

Indeed: nature should drive theory. The "underlying geometry" is not present in QFM, but interacting (structureless) protofields do exist.

Page 6: Alex Mayer's quote: "the nuclear strong force and gravitation are the identical phenomena (operating at different length scales." Yes, this is exactly how QFM considers their relation and these interactions are facilitated by a single fundamental field called gravitational protofield. Similarly, the long-range electromagnetic interaction and the weak interaction are facilitated by the electromagnetic protofield. In this way, the four fundamental interactions are facilitated by two protofields and particles, space, time, energy and momentum of particles dynamically emerges in a unified (holistic) fashion from the attractive interaction between the two protofields.

Page 6: "Einstein asserted that this effect arose because mass bearing objects deform the fabric of space-time. In other words, objects with mass cause space-time to curve, creating a gravimetric potential well, and this curvature has the effect of drawing objects together." In QFM, curved space-time does not exist. The dynamic behavior (quantum beat process) of a massive particle results in discrete space and time and all four fundamental interactions, one of them being gravity.

Page 7: In QFM, mass in E=mc^2 is relegated to a mere definition and the factor c^2 can be motivated follows from the dispersion relation Ev=pc^2 (E = Energy, v is speed, p is momentum and c the speed of light of a massive particle), which is derived in QFM.

Page 7: In QFM, the wave function of a free particle does not collapse, but the internal quantum beat oscillation can be viewed as an unceasing collapsing process. Decoherence, requiring environmental influences to collapse the wave function, is absent.

Page 7: For your information, only massive particles and photons exist in QFM (no non-observed virtual particles).

Page 7: Branes do not exist in QFM, physically motivated protofields do exist.

Page 8: I agree that reductionism is indeed as you state "plainly wrong", since it does not provide true insight in nature and has led to the current impasse in physics. This does not mean that the currently developed physics models have no utility. They have provided the ability to predict the existence of real particles. I would characterize the current models as 'sheet theories' which span a mountain range and in which parameters are used to follow the shape of the mountain. They do not provide insight into the behavior underneath the sheet, i.e. what really occurs in the valleys and on the slopes of the mountain range. The holistic approach (QFM) requires a whole new way of thinking about physics, which is unlikely to be adopted anytime soon.

Page 8: In QFM, entropy and information are 'defined' in terms of the quantum beat process characteristics and thus inseparable from physical behavior, unlike other definitions which are guessed and completely mathematical in nature.

Page 9: The issue of multiple universes is, in my opinion, completely speculative and is likely unprovable despite the intellectually interesting discussions one can have about this issue.

I gather that you'll be participating in the Frontiers of Fundamental Physics conference and I hope you'll be able to convince some participants of your thoughts.

Thanks again for the well-written essay.

Regards, Ben Baten

Checking in,

Thank you Edwin, Steve, Ray, Narendra, and Ben. I appreciate your interest in my essay and in this conversation. It looks from a glance like I have lots of cool stuff to respond to. I shall review your comments shortly, and comment myself when I can.

All the Best,

Jonathan