• [deleted]

  • Post #61

Dr. Klingman,

Thank you for those clarifications. I will back up, slow down, and study it again. Plus, I will begin to read your other publications.

James

  • [deleted]

  • Post #62

Dear Edwin

A brilliant essay that stands out, and much underrated. I would maybe have some issues with falsifiability, but I've also just read Peter Jacksons essay Perfect Symmetry, which unifies the field and conciousness in an entirely falsifiable way, you really need to read it - but get down to the real thing as the top few layers are just a test (which most have failed!) and which I don't want to spoil. (I may be doing so here, but perhaps all part of the experiment).

It seems we have a very exciting future! Best wishes.

Peter C

Hi Edwin:

You wrote:

"In my theory we begin with the gravity field. First, this *implies* space, since a field distributes energy over points in space. And second, the energy of the field itself has equivalent mass, and does not require particles. In my theory the field vortex 'condenses' into particles, but they are not there initially."

You also state that "physics must address consciousness".

I think that you will find the following to be of significant benefit and interest to you. To what extent do you see your ideas/essay as being consistent with the following post?

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Einstein

James Clerk Maxwell - "The only laws of matter are those that our minds must fabricate and the only laws of mind are fabricated for it by matter."

Schroedinger was puzzled by life enough to suggest "a new type of physical law." -- p. 258 -- See Paul Davies' book The Fifth Miracle. Also see De Duve: "Life and mind emerge...as natural manifestations of matter, written into the fabric of the universe." -- p.252 thereof. And Darwin: "The principle of life will hereafter be shown to be a part, or consequence, of some general law" -- p.252 thereof. Look at the words "GENERAL law"! --- PERFECT!

IMPORTANTLY, now consider ALL of the above with what follows:

This physical and "general" law is the known unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light. The physical (and sensory) reality/experience/basis of this law (and unification) is dream experience, whereby thought is more like sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism/light). The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sensory experience is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience -- this clearly relates to memory, art, genius, dreams, being "one with the music", and telescopic/astronomical observations.

To think that the unification of General Relativity and Maxwell's Theory of Light -- that is already mathematically PROVEN by the addition of a spatial dimension to Einstein's theory -- is not readily and significantly apparent in our experience is one of the greatest oversights or blunders of common sense that has ever occurred. I have definitively proven and demonstrated that this unification occurs in/as dream experience.

Do you agree? -- Yes or no? -- If not, then why? If I am correct (and I am), I am entitled to/deserving of the Nobel Prize in Physics.

Also, do you agree with the following?:

In relation to the increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical/telescopic observations (that makes these observations possible), is there not a uniformity of gravity/acceleration (that would provide an additional binding energy) regarding the outer stars accelerating more than they should be (in, say, spiral galaxies)? Consider this in conjunction with objects near Earth (in the invisible/transparent space/sky). Isn't the redshift consistent with/indicative of the increased transparency/invisibility of space that makes such astronomical/telescopic observations possible? Is all of this not true as well? -- Yes or no please? If not, then why, specifically please? Thanks Edwin.

Can you please rate and add comments and questions under my essay? It is the fourth from the top. It is important to also read (and closely consider) all of my posts under my essay as well.

Peter Cowburn,

Thanks for your very kind words.

You state: "I've just read Peter Jackson's essay Perfect Symmetry, which unifies the field and consciousness in an entirely falsifiable way."

Jackson states: "The one thing which almost all great physicists agreed on was that we would probably need a 'new way of thinking' to make new progress." and "The logic of claiming that all good theory will get noticed and rise to the fore is flawed in our present system. There is no proof the answer wasn't there 150 years ago and subdued.... But the greater likelihood is that the 'new' theory would be hocked around, maybe not even read, subdued again and never even become a statistic."

Elsewhere in these comments I have remarked that Rutherford, in 1929, proposed a magnetic-like character for nuclear force, but was a few years too soon. When Yukawa proposed an electric-like nuclear force, and the muon showed up and was mistaken for the pion, then physics was locked into the wrong path for 80 years.

Jackson quotes the phrase "physics won't change till the old physicists die." It was Planck that made this claim, at a time when only a few hundred physicists stood in the way of new thinking. Today the number is closer to 100,000 physicists, which means effectively that they will *never* die.

I believe that the best chance for new thinking will occur when the LHC has been in operation a year or so without finding the Higgs, the axion, WIMPs, CHAMPS, SUSY, or three right handed neutrinos, or a fourth quark family -- that is *no new particles*. And even then, the professors of the major paradigm will simply look for a 'fix' rather than a new theory. They have too much invested to do otherwise.

You mention falsifiability -- the appearance of any of these particles will falsify my theory!

In addition to such 'negative' predictions, my theory makes specific 'positive' predictions, such as that the decay of the b quark to the d quark is accompanied by two gammas, rather than the single gamma currently reported.

There are also cosmological consequences of my theory, but I have focused more closely on particle physics because I have more faith in the reported particle values. I am constantly reading that "our galaxy is twice as 'thick' as believed" and since I have no way of knowing which numbers to trust, I am hesitant to go too far out on a limb with my own predictions in this area.

Finally, I have some ideas for testing the consciousness aspects of the theory, but I am not ready to announce them.

In short, the LHC offers the best immediate test of my predictions, so that's what I am focusing on.

Thanks again,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Frank,

I admit that I do not understand your theory. I find some of your description poetic and beautiful, but I don't understand all of your physics.

You ask if i agree with the following?:

"In relation to the increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical/telescopic observations (that makes these observations possible), is there not a uniformity of gravity/acceleration (that would provide an additional binding energy) regarding the outer stars accelerating more than they should be (in, say, spiral galaxies)?"

If I understand what you are talking about, then it is Fritz Zwicky's "flat rotation curves" wherein the outer stars in spiral galaxies travel too fast for Newton's gravity, leading to MOND and other attempts to modify Newton's theory. I have, in "Gene Man's World" worked out the application of the C-field to this problem and find that the behavior is exactly as predicted by my theory, since the Lorentz-like force of the (axial) C-field augments the gravitational pull holding the stars in orbit. In addition, it works out that the velocity is independent of distance (the meaning of "flat" rotation curves). Therefore, since my theory explains these effects perfectly, I've little incentive to try hard to understand how your theory applies to this.

That is why, specifically, I respond in this way.

I do enjoy your comments.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

  • [deleted]

  • Post #66

Dear Dr. Klingman

1. One difference between our theories is that I think that consciousness is QM and QM is everywhere. You defined special field for consciousness, so it is not everywhere.

2. Let us concentrate on your 3. and 4. equations (Lorentz force equation and

'GEM' force equation). For instance, symmetry between electrostatic and gravitational force. But, in quantum world, these two forces are not symmetric. Gravity describe space, electrostatic force is important at photon and charged particles (not absolutely true). Screening of charge is different than screening of gravitational mass.

It also seems to me that your theory does not describe how the space emerge from nothing.

Key for this description is hidden in (dimensionless) gravitational coupling constants.

About my point 5:

All physical quantities should be connected between themselves and explained. Even space, matter and consciusness. This I thought in point 5.

»Foundations of physics are close to our reach«

I thought that TOE should be short and clear. Every step to much is disturbing.

Your wrote:

»I am conscious of space, and I'm not convinced that there is any more basic approach to spacetime than that.«

F. Markopoulou has approach where space is emergent (fqxi contest from last year). I support it. Number of three dimensions is consequence of some logic, Brukner (my reference) wrote about this.

Space-time also do not exist without matter. This can be visible also in 0-dimensionality of gravitational coupling constants. If all particles would be twice heavier, but gravitational coupling constants stay the same, the physics would stay the same.

What is sense of space and time. Sense of time is consciousness, sense of distance is time used for it.

You wrote:

»I do not believe that you have understood the key points of my theory yet.«

I concentrated on equations 3 and 4, but we can go further.

So for now.

Regards Janko

Dear Janko,

You say: "1. One difference between our theories is that I think that consciousness is QM and QM is everywhere. You defined special field for consciousness, so it is not everywhere."

I don't understand your "consciousness is QM" or why you think that the gravitational field is not everywhere. The C-field is everywhere that there is moving mass (or changing gravity), and has little significance elsewhere. As I say in my essay, the C-field provides a "hidden variable"-like interpretation of QM based on the volition aspect of the C-field. So perhaps this is what you mean by "consciousness is QM".

and "2. Let us concentrate on your Lorentz force and 'GEM' force equations. For instance, symmetry between electrostatic and gravitational force. But, in quantum world, these two forces are not symmetric. Gravity describe space, electrostatic force is important at photon and charged particles (not absolutely true). Screening of charge is different than screening of gravitational mass."

Again, I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. The equations are 'formally' symmetric and therefore 'beautiful', but I am not a worshiper of symmetry, and would not want a pure symmetric universe, as I believe symmetry is a limiting factor. In fact, QED and QCD do *not* have symmetry, but only "approximate" symmetry in *all* cases. For full symmetry to hold, the particles must have the same mass, and this is not the case. And the Higgs that is needed for mass and to 'break symmetry' is unneeded since the G/C-field explains mass and breaks chiral symmetry, as required.

And the 'screening' you mention depends upon pos and neg charge. There can be no screening with single-valued mass. So what? There are other questions about screening that go beyond the scope of a comment.

"It also seems to me that your theory does not describe how the space emerge from nothing."

That is correct, and I do not believe that any theory really describes how space emerges from nothing, nor ever will -- perhaps poetically, but not physically. A field implies space, (and you state above that gravity describes space) but how fields or space arise from nothing is unanswerable, and possibly not even a meaningful question.

You say: "Markopoulou has approach where space is emergent (fqxi contest from last year). I support it. Number of three dimensions is consequence of some logic,"

I have been surprised at the number of Platonists who have argued in this forum, but I do not believe that physics comes from math or from logic (a subset of math). This is a religious belief that I do not subscribe to. Arguing about God preceding the universe or about math preceding the universe is the same metaphysical exercise. I've addressed this extensively elsewhere in these comments. And my essay begins by explaining how the 'laws of physics' are not 'outside of physics', something that Platonists apparently do not believe.

You say "Space-time also do not exist without matter."

Another belief that seems to make sense, but cannot be proved. My theory assumes that the G/C-field exists at the big bang, and the field energy has mass equivalence, so I guess this satisfies your statement.

and "All physical quantities should be connected between themselves and explained. Even space, matter and consciousness." I believe that my theory is the only one that connects all of the physical quantities, to such an extent that it predicts no new particles will be found at the Large Hadron Collider. What does your theory predict?

Thanks for the above arguments. I hope I've addressed some of them.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

  • [deleted]

  • Post #68

Edwin, in reply to your last post to me:

1) My explanation as to dreams unifying gravity and electromagnetism/light is simple and clear.

2) When considering the blackness of outer space, the space must be increasingly transparent/invisible in order for astronomical/telescopic observations to be possible (to see farther). DID YOU KNOW THIS? -- YES OR NO EDWIN?

Dear Dr. Klingman,

I read your essay, which is interesting, and makes courageous connections. It seems that much of the arguments and explanations required to understand your essay can be find in your books.

Regarding the idea of postulating another force, which plays in relation to the gravity the same role the magnetic force plays in relation to electric force, I first remember reading this in another courageous book Gravitation (in fact I red the 1982 Romanian original version). The author of that book named the other force "vortex", and the combined force "gravitovortex". His idea tried, among other things, to explain the galactic rotations.

Congratulations and good luck with your research,

Cristi

Dear Christi,

Thanks for reading the essay and commenting.

Your information on "gravi-vortex" is new to me and very interesting. Rather than explaining galactic rotations, I find that the C-field explains "flat rotation curves", the fact that the outer stars in galaxies (and galaxies in clusters) travel faster than allowed by Newton's gravity and with speed independent of distance from the center (the 'flatness'). The key is that the strength of the field is stronger than Maxwell and others believed, since they derived the equations based purely on symmetry, with no logical or physical reason for assuming such, only aesthetic.

Based on other reasoning, I assumed that the force *must* be non-trivial, and then worked to find the implications of such. When Martin Tajmar claimed to have measured the thirty-one order of magnitude stronger force than expected, and this agreed with my calculations, I began taking the theory seriously. And the farther I looked, the more was explained, from the force of inflation to particle families and particle decay paths. That's why I feel confident in making predictions that no one else is making.

Thanks again for your comment.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hello again,

I thank you E.E. for your detailed and thoughtful replies to my questions and/or comments above. It is worthwhile to read your comments, and the perspective is helpful. The fact that you have taken the time to understand and made the effort to reply thoughtfully, is noted.

Sadly; not everyone in this contest has displayed respect and decorum, but you have dealt with every objector in a forthright and respectful manner. That is to be appreciated. I believe we do have a lot to agree on, and plenty to discuss, so I will look forward to continuing some level of correspondence even after the contest is completed.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Jonathan,

I've enjoyed all your comments, and your general attitude, and look forward to continuing conversations.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

  • [deleted]

  • Post #73

i Kam again at your site, a bit surprised that the community has yet to appreciate the depth of your essay. First impression i got was that you consider consciousness field as fundamentally arising from movement of masses. I also note that lately you are equating it to Quantum field. Physics currently is finding difficulty in associating gravity with quantum mechanics. The latter is centred on uncertainties in measurement of conjugate physical quantities like space/mometum, time/energy. Also, it is based on degree of coherence in a process. I do not envisage 'consciousness' to possess such limitations at all. May be i do not understand your presentation in some fundamental way. Kindly elucidate, if you have time! My voting on your essay is already over in a positive way.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #74

Dear Narendra Nath,

Thanks for your very kind remarks. The highest score essay may denote the emotional appeal to a group of physicists who are perhaps disturbed by the fact that no new particles are showing up.

But I'm not surprised at my own ranking. Four years ago I would not have granted much credit to a "Fundamental Physics of Consciousness" that claimed equations relating the effects of the consciousness field to interactions with matter. I'm sure than many authors do not get past the title of my paper. And those that do will have difficulty adjusting to new concepts.

As for your questions on the consciousness field, I will try to clarify things somewhat:

Ask yourself how the gravitational field 'acts' on matter to attract it. Of course many envision a rubber sheet, where things 'roll downhill' but even this implies something like gravity is pulling things 'downhill'! The fact that one can mathematically map a tensor mesh over space-time does not produce an actual physical "pull".

It may take a little thought to realize that the 'act' of gravitational attraction is a mystery. Equations describe the behavior of gravity, not the essence of gravity that produces the actual physical behavior.

It is in this sense that I am proposing that consciousness, defined as awareness plus volition is the essence of the consciousness field. That is, it is the field itself that is aware, and that acts. And this is important -- the equations I have presented do not describe either awareness or volition but only the interaction with mass of these fundamental properties.

Because moving mass (current) gives rise to a circulation (curl C) in the consciousness field, the field becomes 'aware of' the mass. I do not mean this metaphysically. I mean actually. And the Lorentz-like GEM force of the field acting on moving mass describes the ability of the field to act.

Now, difficult to grasp, this ability to act is volition or free will. If free will exists (it does!) it must come from somewhere. It comes from the consciousness field. It does not arise from any arrangement of Lego blocks. It is innate in the universe, not emergent from structure.

And if free will exists then it is inherently unpredictable, but this is not to say random. Random implies 'no reason at all', while an act of free will is by reason of awareness.

Of course, at the particle level, awareness must not be interpreted as 'human' level of awareness, but as the essence of awareness. Feynman pointed out that arrangement of material can give rise to a magnetic field 10,000 times stronger than the magnetic field in free space. In similar fashion, the proper arrangement of material (the brain) can enhance a consciousness field 10,000 (or more?) times stronger than the consciousness field in free space. The essence of awareness does not change, only the strength of the local field.

Because the mass flows (ions, proteins, vesicles, blood) in the brain create topological circuits, these become the 'objects' of awareness, the models, ideas, maps or thoughts of which we are aware. By defining intelligence as consciousness plus logic we bring conscious awareness of the material, that is, the hardware upon which are based the 'computations' with all of the capabilities of information storage, retrieval, and processing that we are familiar with.

But the actual awareness is a property of the field not the material structure. And the fact that the energy of the field has mass and the field itself interacts with mass means that the field becomes aware of itself ...self-awareness.

What is harder to grasp is that the field possesses the ability to act, volition, or free will. The gravity field acts deterministically (except perhaps at Planck scale) while the consciousness field is not deterministic (nor random!).

Once one grasps that it is the field itself that is acting, then one can ask what action the field performs on a moving particle. It is neither pre-determined nor random, but nevertheless is probabilistic, in that it is related to the energy of the local system. This is the essence of "quantum behavior" and the best description we have of this behavior is Schrodinger's equation, which, with enough hand waving, falls out of my Master equation.

Before reacting too strongly to this idea of the consciousness field affecting the particle 'state', one should remember that most physicists have a mental picture of a particle somehow dissociating into a set of 'ghost-like' states, of which only one becomes real upon observation. Others believe that every possible transition brings into being another world (complete with, I assume, clouds, buildings, mountains, moons, music, love, etc.).

Is conscious action weirder than this?

It should be noted that the goal of 'hidden variable' theories was to find some hidden deterministic field that would explain the probabilistic behavior of the particles. But the consciousness field is not deterministic, it is possessed of (energy constrained) 'free will' and it is this 'hidden volition' that provides the basic nature of quantum physics. The particle does not dissociate, nor are new worlds created. The particle is simply subject to the unpredictable action of the C-field.

Edwin Eugene Klingman - Comment continues --

Continuation of Edwin Eugene Klingman Comment ---

Perhaps I should have shown the intermediate step in deriving the Quantum Flow Principle (the generalized Heisenberg relation) from the Master equation. The solution to the Master equation is G = 1/r and hence ( G r )**2 = 1. When the time derivative of this is taken, and the energy of the field replaces G**2 and then mass replaces the energy, the quantum relation falls out.

At the big bang the energy, hence mass, of the gravity field obeys this quantum condition. And soon thereafter the perfect radial symmetry breaks and the inflationary action (seen in the GEM force equation) will dominate.

The turbulent C-field will support vortices, but the self-interaction of the field will cause the vortices to shrink to an infinitely dense point unless a limit to curvature exists, at which point a left-handed neutrino will condense from the field. This is why there are no 'spin zero' particles. A vortex cannot produce them. The further interaction of a neutrino with another vortex will produce charged electrons, but the treatment is too mathematical for a comment.

(For the mathematical treatment see "The Chromodynamics War". Please note that the Chromodynamics War does not just present my theory but it analyzes problems with QCD, gauge theory, strings, SUSY, lattice-QCD, and other relevant aspects of today's theory. Christi Stoica has noted that many are trying to retain the Standard Model even without a Higgs, but this is simply a rearguard action, based on the existence of two generations of troops trained in QCD. As Terry Padden says, they are fighting the last war.)

The C-field vortex is the Z boson and as charged particles 'condense' the Z transforms into a W boson. This mass flow process is responsible for all electroweak interactions, and the C-field flux tube confines the quarks in a solenoidal matter that is much more straight forward than QCD's 'strong force'.

It is because the C-field so easily explains the creation of all the known particles, their interactions and decays, and does not appear to offer a mechanism for any other particles that I predict no new particles at LHC. If fundamental particles derive from the limit of curvature of space-time, then higher energies will not produce new types of particles, only more of the 'old' particles in the jet.

Narendra, when you say that you do not envisage 'consciousness' to possess such limitations at all, I am unsure exactly of what you mean.

The consciousness of the 'bare field' in space is minimal, but, as David Chalmers says, we cannot for this reason simply stipulate it away. The consciousness of a single particle in the field is such that the action of the field, while energy constrained, is subject to the quantum flow principle we derived. This unpredictability is the essence of quantum physics, as opposed to the deterministic predictability of classical physics.

When you state that I am equating the consciousness field to a quantum field, I think it best to point out that there are way too many "fields" floating around in current physics. As Herbert Goldtein pointed out in 1950 in his classical text, "Classical Mechanics", the Lagrangian is a tool that handles "invented" fields, and physicists have been in the business of "inventing" fields for every new phenomenon that appears. Ask your self how many of these fields have been seen, or measured. Then ask, why, other than mathematical sophistication, they should be taken seriously. It turns out that the consciousness field can do the work of many of today's conjectured fields with far simpler equations and with more physically intuitive concepts.

When local mass currents associated with fifty trillion cells, each cell constructed from at least a billion particles, interact with the field, then we are aware of images, maps, models, ideas, thoughts, in a way that is largely constrained by the circuitry we have grown and trained. That's why we 'study math' -- to train the circuits in our mind. There is no "Platonic World" of math to which consciousness directly "couples".

Narendra, I have written two thousand pages in the last three years, and am working on the next thousand. It all makes sense, even to the point of deriving the fine structure constant (un-derived otherwise) and of interpreting both particle physics and cosmological mysteries.

Finally, Narendra, as I mentioned on your page, I did not start out looking for a theory of everything. I had decided that consciousness was best understood as a field, and began searching for possible equations describing the interaction of the field with physical reality. The results simply continued to expand, explaining more and more physics that is either mysterious or poorly understood.

I hope this has clarified things for you or inspired you to read one of my books. Pure particle physics is detailed in "Chromodynamics War"; particles, cosmology, and consciousness in "Gene Man's World".

I am heartened that so many entrants have chosen to focus on consciousness as a supreme problem in physics. It is not at all surprising that those who are struggling to compete in academic institutions are afraid to venture into those waters and thereby risk being labeled 'non-conformist'. I expect this to change and believe that FQXi will be instrumental in the change.

Thank you for pushing this change.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Greetings,

I have just read the author's comments to Narendra. I must say that I'm impressed with what has been said, and that it does make sense. I'm not exactly sure how this will fit with or displace other thoughts I have about what is real, but it should be interesting exploring.

All the Best,

Jonathan

  • [deleted]

  • Post #77

What a beautiful narration you have provided to my query on consciousness as a real field. It is related to our awareness, intelligence and what not? I believe that consciousness is a property that helps the entire range of capabilities a human being can demonstarte utilizing his body, of which brain in just an organ. In our ancient literature there exists a mention that one can fly in air with a vehicle run by the power of consciousness field. But that 'technology'/ methodology, rare to some enlightened humans stands lost, as it was never put into narration/ language. It was just attained and then experienced and even demonstrated to one and all!

At this stage i will not like to go into further thoughts but would prefer to contemplate further on your detailed narration, i thank you most sincerely for the same. Kindly do go through the additional post on my site that attaches a mss ' Relevance of Consciousness in Sciences'. i do not remember now if you have already read and commented on it!

  • [deleted]

  • Post #78

i just a further addition to my last posting. Perhaps, i wantede to come soon without giving myself the time. It was wrong to desire such a thing and so universal consciousnss has made that posting go. i need to live with it for now.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #79

Dr. Klingman,

I might mention that I find your conversations here very worthwhile. I read and print them and save them for further study.

James

This was posted on Frank DiMeglio's and Edwin Eugene Klingman's blog sites.

Dear Frank,

I know that you are familiar with Edwin Eugene Klingman's essay that unites Gravity and Consciousness. His ideas are as original as yours that unify the Dream, Gravity and Electromagnetism. In my opinion, you are both appealing to a Consciousness/ Dream/ Mind/ Soul that may actually be more complicated and less understood than the Gravitational phenomena you are trying to describe. The important distinction is that EE is using models and mathematics to build a framework to support his ideas. On originality of concept, you both deserve an "A". On follow-though and model-building, EE deserves a "Nobel effort". This is where your idea lacks detail. The problem with both ideas is that falsification does not seem possible. How do we measure EE's "C" consciousness field? How do we analyze the Dream? With new theories/ models/ ideas there is a higher probability that the model is incorrect rather than correct. If a theory/ model/ idea cannot be proven or disproven, then it is really difficult to call it science.

I consider myself a physicist and a mathematician. Admittedly, I try to keep my philosophy as separate as possible (although I agree with Petkov's essay that the two must be integrated), and I don't normally put psychology in the same category, but I understand your background and emphasis. My TOE model may also have problems with falsification. I would appeal to two expectations: 1) my model uses existing lattice symmetries such as tetrahedral (FCC), octahedral, icosahedral, Gosset and Leech, and 2) I expect a new class of particles at the 10 4 TeV scale that cosmic rays may be able to analyze (see my book).

The advantage of a contest like this is that we have the opportunity to read other intelligent and interesting people's ideas and build relationships and alliances with those people. Lawrence Crowell and I have been sharing ideas for the past few months. I expect it to be mutually beneficial. You could learn a lot from people such as EE...

Dear Edwin Eugene,

I also once worked with NASA as an American Society for Engineering Education Summer Faculty Fellow at the Marshall Space Flight Center (NASA - Huntsville, Alabama) during the Summers of '97 and '98. I ran GEANT event simulation studies on their Scintillating Optical Fiber Calorimeter (SOFCAL) Cosmic Ray detector - thus my nickname "Dr. Cosmic Ray". These days, I am more of a business man than a physicist. At least I get to play with physics as a hobby.

Your ideas are probably too original. I like your modeling and mathematics, but ultimately, don't know if your ideas can be falsified. Thus, I don't know how to score your paper. Do you have any responses that may help me in my deliberation?

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray