Dear Jonathan-
A small correction to my first posting: "In fact, dt corresponds to the average of the random internal motion of a massive particle." must be: In fact, dx corresponds to the average of the random internal motion of a massive particle.
Hello again,
I appreciate the high praise in your comment, Ben. Since your comments were detailed and lengthy, it may take a while to respond to all. I may get to that tomorrow. I downloaded your essay, however.
Thank you for your enthusiastic response and comments Steve. I'll hunt down some good BEC links, or send you to a paper of mine that has them.
I haven't read your essay yet, Ray, but I have downloaded it. I also took a brief look at Len M's site, which looks interesting. Fractals are a connection to many things, and a special interest of mine. I spoke on 'Fractals and the Cosmos' last month, for the local astronomical association.
I agree with your comment Narendra. If we understood the way the role of gravity changes from the early universe to today, we would have a much better grasp on its true nature. Changing field strengths from then to now could account for the weakness of gravity, compared to the other forces, as they are observed today. I'll give a more detailed answer to your comments when there is time. And I'll try to read your essay soon.
All the Best,
Jonathan
I tend to agree with the overall thrust of your paper. There are a few departures, but they are comparatively minor given the philosphical nature of your essay.
My sense about whether time exist or the role of mathematics is that science is not about telling us about the existential nature of things. Science does not tell us whether time exists, but rather that we can demark time with clocks or other cyclical systems and use this information. Much the same holds for space and more complicated aspects of space. We can't really cast about trying to ask whether these exist, and this extends to fields as well. Physics does not tell us whether lines of electric force really exist which radiate from a charge. However, the measurable aspects of physics behave very much as if these lines of force are present. So these are mathematical systems we use to model or understand nature. Yet we can't address the question of whether they do exist.
Cheers LC
PS, this post was by me, where I forgot to enter my name.
Thank you Lawrence,
I appreciate your taking time to read my essay and comment. It is exactly as you say. Trying to cast about for time and space, or fields - as though they were objects - tends to lead one in circles. They are useful abstractions which help us to demark observable quantities that are real, and measurable, however. I think our concepts of such things must remain a bit flexible, as nature will utilize whatever degrees of freedom it can find, to generate observable form. It's the utilization of dimensions by entities that behave like objects or fields, which determines the dimensionality of space, for a given system or level of scale.
In a way, time, space, and fields have no well-defined meaning, apart from the relationship they have to each other, and the behavior of the objects they contain, influence, or represent. So I guess I'm saying I agree with you.
All the Best,
Jonathan
Exactly. We of course use mathematical structures to model the physical universe. We have space, time, spacetime, compactified dimensions, and so forth in physical theories. This then predict certain things which we can meausure, such as maybe a particle spectra. Yet these constructions tell us nothing about their existential aspects. That would be in effect a sort of "pulling by one's bootstraps" sort of process, or maybe related to Godel's theorem.
Cheers LC
This is a very clearly written essay and I like the idea of looking at different possiblities for unification. The one I would put most faith in is space-matter unification.
Greetings,
Thank you Phil, for your kind remarks. It is great that one of my inspirations has found value in the product thereof.
Thank you Lawrence, again. I'm glad we can be in agreement.
All the Best,
Jonathan
Hello again Ben,
I will be reviewing your comments above shortly, and may have a remark or two to share. Thanks again for the interest and food for thought.
Regards,
Jonathan
Dear Jonathan,
You are welcome .
You say
agree with your comment Narendra. If we understood the way the role of gravity changes from the early universe to today, we would have a much better grasp on its true nature.
It's logic what the gravity changes due to the incrasing of mass by weak polarisations near main centers.Thus in time the mass ,the gravity increases simply due to the evolution .The gravity is an evolutive system of complexification in spheres systems .
The early universe thus had less mass and our future will have more important mass .It's there I imagine the space which becomes mass ,I imagine this space like quantum entangled spheres without rotation,they have a code of becoming near central spheres like a star or a planet .The light has the ultim code and activates the system of gravitation .The space thus decreases ,but the lattices space increases and the mass increases too .
It's just a thought about the gravity and the mass .We polarise all the time ,all evolves and increases its mass in fact .If all is linked in the evolution thus we can calculate some system even our brain aged of 13.7 billions years like all .It's the same with our brain we polarise ,if we can extrapolate the evolutive step of the brain thus we can extrapolate the maximum mass whre begins eternity of the physicality probably .
Best Regards
Steve
Hi Jonathan.
In reply to my prior posts, you said:
"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)."
Consider the above when reading/considering my essay, and in keeping with what dreams are/involve as well; as I have definitively demonstrated the unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light in/as dream experience (in and with time as well). Dream experience is sensory experience, and it involves/includes physics (for many other reasons as well). The dream is real. What is ultimately possible in physics (including mathematically) is necessarily tied to the integrated, interactive, and natural extensiveness of being, thought, and [sensory] experience. In fact, reality must be understood (in varying degrees, of course) as pertaining to (or involving) what is the integrated extensiveness of being and experience (including thought).
Dreams include and involve opposites, thereby adding to the integrated extensiveness of being, experience, and thought. Indeed, this is why dream experience is considerably different from waking experience. Importantly (and fundamentally) gravity and electromagnetism are understood as adding to the integrated extensiveness of being and experience (including space and thought).
Consider this:
Visually, the universal experience of the body is one of visual transparency (i.e., invisibility). Accordingly, when our bodies are visually distinguishable (or visible), then each of our visible experiences of the body (and of everything else for that matter) must necessarily be different (or unique); and individuals are then visually distinguishable as well. Since all of our bodies are visually transparent (or invisible), each of our bodies (considered individually) must necessarily be different when visible. Since the experience of the body is both visible and invisible, the visible experience of the body is necessarily changing (or inconstant), unique, and finite. The disintegration of the visual experience when an object is close to the eyes is demonstrative of the relationship between visibility and invisibility. The visible appearance of the body (including that of experience in general) is relatively unique, finite, and limited. (This conclusion is also in keeping with the fact that thought and vision are necessarily different.) The thoughtful understanding of the visible is properly understood as variable and finite in relation to the totality of experience, including that of the body.
Thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings. Our thoughts, emotions, and feelings are largely (or often) indiscernible to others in keeping with the fact that the body is transparent (or invisible inside the eye). Since the body is visually transparent (that is, the interior of the body and eye are experienced as invisible), what follows is made all the more clear. Since there is a proportionate reduction of both thought and feeling during dreams, the experience of the body is generally (or significantly) lacking; for thought is fundamentally rendered more like sensory experience in general. By involving the mid-range of feeling between thought and sense, dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general. The reduction in the range and extensiveness of feeling during dreams is why there is less memory and thought therein; and it is also significant that the unborn child is carried in the center of the body. Dreams involve a fundamental integration and spreading of being and experience at the mid-range of feeling between thought and sense. If the self did not represent, form, and experience a comprehensive approximation of experience in general, we would be incapable of growth and of becoming other than we are.
This duality (i.e., visible and invisible) of our visual experience lends itself to our concealment, the use of costumes, etc.; and it is an indispensable part of our growth and of our becoming other than we are as well. The experience of the body as being generally present (while waking), while also recollecting the body as being generally or significantly lacking (including visually) during the dream becomes more understandable. The visual experience of the body during dreams is generally variable, inconsistent, and lacking due to (that is, in part, and consistent with) the fact that the totality of the visual experience is closer when dreaming. The transparency of vision is an essential element of the totality of visual experience. Experience is not visually determinable or predictable, because experience is not visual in its essence.
Consider this sentence: "The disintegration of the visual experience when an object is close to the eyes is demonstrative of the relationship between visibility and invisibility." in relation to particle/wave; the interactive nature of thought, being, and experience; and dreams.
Thanks Jonathan.
Hello again Jonathan. Kindly consider the importance, as well, of the increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical/telescopic observations. What are your thoughts on this? Thanks. Frank
Thank you Frank,
You make some intriguing points. The key to what you said in the longer post above seems to be that we need to integrate the visible and the invisible. You suggest that we examine the possibility of both visible and invisible space, in a similar way to how we approach light and dark matter. There is certainly a shift of emphasis, during dreams, such that the function of the visual sense may be inverted from its role in the waking state, as you suggest. But I'm not sure I get the connection.
Are you saying that we attune to the invisible, during dreams, in a similar way to the way we tune in to the visible universe, in the waking state? I suppose that a body must respond to that aspect of the universe every bit as much as the visible part, and our sensory apparatus might need time to process that. Perhaps that happens during dreams. That insight would certainly make some of your ideas make better sense.
I just hope you know that part of the the theoretical framework you have have adopted with Kaluza-Klein was a brilliant step forward when first proposed, but has been superseded for mostly good reasons. If there was some essential insight they missed, which would adapt their framework to be more nearly conformal with what we observe, you have not made that clear.
But I thank you for giving me a reason to dream, and to take dreams a bit more seriously. I have enjoyed our conversation greatly, even if it offers only a small chance to significantly advance Science.
All the Best,
Jonathan
Jonathan,
I like the way you clearly outlined the differences between QM and Relativity.
Both QM and Relativity are so entrenched that no professional physicist questions their correctness (except of course physicists who participate in FQXi contests:). It is only the disparity between QM and Relativity that is questioned and it is generally felt that something is missing.
From my viewpoint both QM and Relativity need a little restructuring:
1. Mass not only "curves" space time it causes it.
2. Quantum Mechanics has observables of space and time, however the observables of velocity and energy are not observable they are calculated.
Consider this as food for thought.
Don L.
Dear Don ,
It's a beautiful food of thought .
Personally,I think only what Mass curves space ,only that ,and this curvature complexificates due to the increasing of mass correlated with the evolution pointof vue .The space time needs relativity I think ,we can't interpret the time like that I think .
Regards
Steve
Thanks Don,
I think you are right, that both relativity theory and quantum mechanics will need to be re-thought somewhat, rather than simply making one fit with the other. My essay basically points out that the two ends of the spectrum for each need to be handled differently, for this to take place.
I also basically agree with the comment on Mass causing (or delineating) space. In a way, by stretching space, it causes it to be extended. I think this conceptual link is missed too often. That's sort of implied in my essay too. As Phil said above, the Matter-Space unification is relevant. And it's often overlooked.
The comment about QM observables is also relevant to this discussion.
Thanks for reading the essay, and commenting here in the forum.
All the Best,
Jonathan
To all my readers,
I'll be away from my computer, for the most part, this coming week. I will check in when I can, but may not get the chance. I will reply to any comments left here as soon as I am able. Please be patient as I value your interest in my essay and your commentary.
All the Best,
Jonathan
Hi Jonathan.
The reduction in the range and extensiveness of feeling (of the body) while dreaming/sleeping is very relevant. The completion and balancing that dreams/sleep give to the unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light is consistent with the 90 degree angle of the two experiences/states (waking and dreaming). (Gravity is fairly constant at/near the surface of the Earth.)
The extremes of distance/scale and speed point up the connection involving electromagnetic/gravitational space (e.g., the Sun and photons).
I am saying that the dream combines (and includes) invisible and visible space in conjunction with exhibiting wave/particle duality.
The unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light occupies the center (and best) position with regard to improving our understanding of physics in general.
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. Note that the repulsive and attractive aspect is manifest in the variable distances of space/distance in the dream (think of this in relation to touch and feeling as well).
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. Do you see how this post and my essay cover/include: space, time, matter, energy, wave/particle, balancing/varying scale, repulsive/attractive,
and visible/invisible.
You can see how the aspect of cylindrical space also applies to/is manifest in dream experience. Schroedinger was perplexed enough by life to suggest a new type of physical law. This new physical law is the known mathematical union of Einstein's theory of gravity and Maxwell's theory of light in a fourth spatial dimension. It is common sense (and obvious) that this unification must be (and is) present in our experience. The physical reality of said unification is dream experience. I have proven this definitively (in detail and with specifics). Note that I have demonstrated how time and space are both balanced in a fourth dimension. (I am not so concerned with what is the Kaluza-Klein interpretation of the unification as I am with the unification itself.) Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism/light).
Reductionist thinkers tend to pick apart my essay, as they lack [what is a greater] integrated extensiveness in their thinking.
The increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical/telescopic observations is very important/relevant as well.
Dear Jonathan Dickau,
I have responded to your last comment on my essay page.
But I see interesting comments continuing here so that I will respond here as well.
For example, in response to Frank Martin DiMeglio you state: "I just hope you know that part of the theoretical framework you have have adopted with Kaluza-Klein was a brilliant step forward when first proposed, but has been superseded for mostly good reasons."
I would like to point out that, according to Lee Smolin, "Kaluza-Klein applied Einstein's relativity to a 5-dimensional world and found electromagnetism." such that "the charge of the electron is related to the radius of the little circle" in this dimension. In my theory of the gravito-magnetic field, the self-interacting vortex in the field shrinks until the limit of curvature is reached, an event that brings charge and the electromagnetic field into existence. Thus the field would seem to be equivalent to another dimension. But note the following: the Kaluza-Klein dimension is too symmetric, whereas my field solution breaks symmetry as required for nature
Smolin has also remarked: "A property of an extra dimension -- the radius of the extra circle in Kaluza-Klein theory -- can be interpreted as a field varying over the other dimensions." So my construction is, apparently, not fanciful, but feasible. And the field has been shown by Martin Tajmar to exist (and by ongoing NASA experiments.)
So Kaluza-Klein linked the charge of the electron to the radius of the circle in the fifth dimension, whereas my theory links the charge of the electron to the radius of the circle at which the shrinking vortex reaches the limit of curvature of spacetime, just as a black hole is the point at which the gravitational field reaches the limit of curvature of spacetime. But the major difference is that my theory agrees with the reality of broken chiral symmetry, whereas Kaluza-Klein does not.
I've said elsewhere, but I'll repeat here, since it's becoming harder and harder to keep up with all comments in this forum, that my approach to consciousness is based on the interpretation of a real field, initially proposed by Maxwell on the basis of symmetry, and later investigated by Heaviside, Lorentz, and Einstein. They all missed a critical fact, that the field interacts with its own mass-energy and eventually dropped the field as physically insignificant. My recent interpretation of this field as the "carrier of consciousness" and Tajmar's measurement of unexpected strength of field, should bring the field back to the forefront of physics. Further, I would point out that the field has physical significance at the particle level of physics, as explained above, where, for all practical purposes, the consciousness aspects can be ignored. But at the biological, and apparently cosmological levels of reality, the consciousness aspects are paramount.
Thanks for bringing up Kaluza-Klein and thus providing me with such a clean entry point for this comment.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Dear Jonathan
You wrote: Perhaps the greatest challenge of all is the matter of distinguishing facts and the knowledge of facts from conjectures, theories, or concepts we label as natural law. Alfred Korzybski, father of General Semantics, said "The word is not the thing" and "the map is not the territory." For Physics, we can add to this "The equation is not the phenomenon we are using Math to model." Instead; an equation is a convenient
abstraction, or shorthand for the understanding represented by our model or theory, and not the physical reality itself. It is a mathematical model - no more.
Yes, this the case with space-time and gravity waves. Both are only math models (maps) and do not have correspondence in physical world (territory). With waking up the observer in physics he/she becomes aware of what is model and what is physical reality.
yours Amrit
about that subject you can read more here in my essay !Awakening of the Observer in Physics" or in my articles on vixra - quantum physics
