Dear Ray,

I certainly appreciate your gracious comment. There are in essence two aspects of my theory, the consciousness aspects and the purely physical aspects, both cosmological and particle physics. As I state above, the consciousness aspects can effectively be ignored at the particle physics level, therefore the problems are essentially separable.

Although I have some ideas about testing the consciousness aspects, it is premature to present them here as there may be patents involved in the instrumentation, so let me address the physical aspects of the C-field. Certain of my predictions, such as the two gamma b-to-d decay would go a long way toward falsifying or confirming my particle model,and should be easily accomplished, since the two gammas are currently simply filtered out of the data on the assumption that they represent pi-zero decays. Also, the detection of "new" particles at the LHC will falsify my theory unless I find a new mechanism of particle production that I do not now see.

But, as the measure of a theory, there are other considerations than falsification. For example, I received my 16 Oct 2009 issue of Physical Review Letters, 103 in the mail yesterday and noted a paper (162001) concerning a "hadron molecule" interpretation of X(3872). The idea is that the X(3872) particle is a hadron molecule formed from the D-zero and znti-D-zero particles. The problem is that the binding is so weak, approximately 0.25 MeV, that no one can understand how the X can appear so promptly in the high energy collision environment.

Think of a snowflake in a welding torch flame.

The Standard Model assumes that the D-zeros, produced in a !.76 TeV proton-anti-proton collision, are created separately, then must somehow bind weakly into a "molecule", almost immediately.

But my theory's particle creation model, based on the C-field vortex and described in great detail in "Chromodynamics War" easily explains the X(3872) being created in the weakly coupled state in an intuitively simple fashion.

For at least the last year I have been finding such examples in Phys Rev Lett, that is, reported results that do not make sense in the Standard Model but that are easily interpreted in my model. I have not calculated the X(3872) cross section, but the PRL paper only uses Standard Model Monte Carlo programs "tuned" to match the data, so I'm not highly impressed by their calculations.

I hope that the above somewhat addresses the issues you raised.

Thanks again for your wonderful words.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin Eugene,

My thesis involved Monte Carlo simulations, so I am familiar with their strengths and weaknesses. It is a shame that we don't have better methods to relate Experiment to Theory and vice versa.

OK - So I need to read your books to get more details...

I have the same problem. There is only so much that you can pack into a 10 page essay. I supplied another paper and a free partial preview of my book on my blog site.

Your ideas seem very radical to me, but well-presented.

Good Luck in the contest!

Ray Munroe

  • [deleted]

  • Post #83

The contest is over in the materialistic sense but the philosophical aspect continues in all our minds. It is a healthy plateform for us all nahing a variety in our mindsets. let us develop our respective ones further, in order to carry Physics further.

The report in The Phys. letters re. a particulate weakly bound structure found in high energy interations seems really like seeing a snow flake in a torch flame! What i think is important from the experimental point of view is to reduce the senser/detector response time to the smallest possible and mysteries will shine like anything. However, the problem msy continue to bedevil us as to what is actually happening at an instant, as no measurement seems possible in 'no' time. Let us work on solving this impossible appearing job!!One can also think of doing experments with extremely short burst of ion beams in an accelerator and then vary this burst furation to see how the pictures eveolve with time. it may prove significant in such difficult searches!

19 days later

Hi Edwin. How would your essay ideas account for/refute the following?

The core theoretical/actual application and manifestation of the wave/particle duality is evident when thought is more like sensory experience in general. Wave/particle duality occurs in dreams. Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general.

Reality must be understood (in varying degrees, of course) as pertaining to what is the integrated extensiveness of being, thought, and experience. Consider this carefully in relation to both astronomical/telescopic observations and dream experience. Consider that dreams and telescopic/astronomical observations are both interactive creations of thought, to a significant extent. (Importantly, my essay talks more about this.) Now consider all of this post in keeping with the fact that waking experience (including that of the stars at night) is significantly different in comparison with BOTH dream experience and astronomical/telescopic observations. Dreams have SIGNIFICANT AND VERY IMPORTANT similarities with astronomical/telescopic observations.

Edwin, did you know that....

since dreams make thought more like sensory experience (including gravity and electromagnetism/light) in general, the idea of "how space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy" is not only demonstrated in dreams (as I have shown), but this idea is then ALSO understood to be NECESSARILY central to an improved understanding of physics/experience in general.

Consider this closely in keeping with my prior post.

According to Jonathan Dickau, my idea of "how space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy" is "right on" as a central and valuable idea/concept in physics.

I am looking forward to your fully responsive reply. Thanks.

17 days later

  • [deleted]

  • Post #86

Hi Edwin. How do you account for the following fundamental physics of consciousness? Please reply to my prior post as well. Thanks.

Do you understand the GIGANTIC significance of the following three statements taken together?:

1) The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

2) Dreams involve a fundamental integration AND spreading of being, experience, and thought at the [gravitational and electromagnetic] MID-RANGE of feeling BETWEEN thought AND sense.

3) Dreams make thought more like sensory experience IN GENERAL (including gravity and electromagnetism).

Now, also consider the following:

These are the essential parameters/requirements regarding the demonstration/proof of what is ultimately possible in physics.

1) Making thought more like sensory experience in general.

2) Space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic energy.

3) Balancing/uniting scale.

4) Exhibiting/demonstrating particle/wave.

5) Repulsive/attractive.

What is ultimately possible in physics cannot (and should not) be properly/fully understood apart from this great truth:

The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

14 days later

Hi Edwin: How would your essay ideas account for/address the following?

This goes to the core of cosmology. Indeed, this cuts to the very core of human experience/thought/physics. Thanks. Frank

The increased invisibility/transparency of space is a requirement of these astronomical/telescopic observations. Importantly, there is a "telescoping"/narrowing of vision in dreams too. (Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general, including gravity and electromagnetism/light.) Astronomical/telescopic observations have significant similarities with dream vision. Dream vision is constantly active/shifting/variable. Similarly, telescopic/astronomical observations are "activating " what would otherwise be the [basically] unmoving stars at night (as seen by the unaided eye). Astronomical/telescopic observations are interactive creations of thought to a significant extent. Red borders black and transparent. Supernovas and the red sun both only last so long, as well. Witness the clear space around the red [larger] setting sun. Telescopes are known to function as a sort of "big eye". Note the clear and black parts of the eye. Astronomical/telescopic observations make objects larger, or they could not be seen. Yet they are in a smaller space, and dreams are in/involve a smaller space. The earth may also be considered to be in a smaller (and transparent) space. THINK! Dreams involve how a larger space is made smaller, and also how a smaller space is made larger.

Essay Author Frank Martin DiMeglio

9 days later

Dear All,

I posted this on Ray Munroe's thread as part of an ongoing conversation. I copy it here for convenience of my readers.

Ray, thanks for the additional material on the genesis of your book, "New Approaches Towards A Grand Unified Theory". I hope you do release a third edition with the additional explanatory introduction and overview. That would significantly expand the audience.

I note that in your comment to Cristi you say that you are dissatisfied with the Standard Model as it stands. I too am unhappy with QCD as it stands. Chapter 13 in my book, "The Chromodynamics War" is titled "QCD can't explain..." and details the fact that:

QCD can't explain why the 'sea of particles' is not as expected.

QCD can't explain why there is so little vacuum energy.

QCD can't explain why the forces don't seem to converge.

QCD can't explain the most basic particles of the theory (3 generations)

QCD can't explain the internal structure of the most basic constituents.

QCD can't explain why Yukawa's model doesn't work.

QCD can't explain why 'bound quark systems' models don't match reality.

QCD can't explain the nucleon spin structure.

QCD can't explain why 'quark matter' is a 'perfect fluid' not a 'weak gas'.

QCD can't explain why it is a billion times less accurate than QED.

QCD can't explain halo neutrons.

QCD can't explain hadron molecules.

QCD can't explain why the Higgs is hiding.

QCD can't explain, with pictures, physical reality.

While various papers deal with each of these problems, I believe that chapter 13 is the only treatment of all of these problems looked at in one place. Those who have not realized just how many serious problems QCD has may be in for a shock!

This is the background for my comment that "It is part of my theory that QCD has ten more free parameters than is generally recognized...". I phrased that poorly. My theory does not have ten more parameters, it has ten less parameters than QCD. QCD has ten more than needed by my theory.

I found some of Ray's remarks enlightening. For example: "...a complicated GUT may introduce more complexity than the data it is trying to explain..." is reminiscent of Fermi's remark that:

"With five free parameters, an equation may be made to represent data points resembling an elephant."

So QCD should be able, according to Fermi, to match an elephant squared!

Of course QCD'ers will resist this all the way. That is why my book is titled "The Chromodynamics War" and not "The Mild Chromodynamics Disagreement".

My theory explains all of the things that "QCD can't explain..." listed above and does so with ten less free parameters than QCD. My contention is that Yukawa's "electric-analog" strong force was a mistake. QCD should have been based on Rutherford's "magnetic analog" strong force. Of course lattice-QCD has, of necessity, come to a rough approximation of this with "flux tube" formulations, but, not surprisingly, these approximations are poor, based as they are on the 'dual' of a mistaken formulation.

Today QCD'ers form a proud and happy fraternity, in spite of all the problems outlined in chapter 13. They claim that "things are just too complicated" to get good computational results (they're correct!). As I've said elsewhere, my theory predicts that no new particles will be found at the LHC -- no Higgs, no nothing. (The theory also predicts that the recent "dark matter" indications are spurious.) Without the Higgs, QCD is nonsense, although it will take a while for the community to admit this. When they do, there's a better theory available.

Still having fun,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear All,

I have left the following comments on Marcel-Marie LeBel's thread. I am much impressed by his essay, and wish to relate it to mine as follows:

I recently saw some of Marcel's comments on Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe" thread, that caused me to study his essay, which naturally divides into two parts: natural philosophy and physics.

The treatment of natural philosophy is masterful. I have never seen that perspective on truth before, and I found it very enlightening!

The essay is extraordinary. The first half is so clear but the second half is more confused. To the unbiased observer, this would seem to indicate that the first half is 'true' while the second half was based on a false choice. I believe that this is because of the choice of 'time' as the 'fluid substance' that the first half implies as the basis of the universe. But I am not an unbiased observer -- because I believe that the 'fluid substance' that is the basis of our universe is gravity, or more properly the gravito-magnetic field.

In my essay I claim that this field is sufficient to account for the physical universe, as we know it. I go further to attach an interpretation to the 'magnetic' part of the gravity field, that of consciousness, but even if this interpretation is rejected, the theory still accounts for all of the known particles, the basic universal constants, the inflationary force, the logical character of this substance, and much more (everything else!).

Marcel, because the first thing you pull into your theory (after time) is gravity, I ask you to 'willingly suspend your disbelief' and consider that the gravitational field is the 'fluid substance' from which the universe is built. The field has energy (Maxwell) and hence mass (Einstein) and the self-interacting vortices in the field essentially condense into particles, from which the rest of our universe has evolved.

If possible, I would have taken your first five pages and appended my essay to it. The metaphysical reasoning is superb and of course I believe that my physics answers more fundamental questions than other essays.

As is illustrated many times in these comments, by the time someone develops their ideas sufficiently to be able to submit a qualified, original, essay to a contest like this, they are pretty much wedded to their ideas. That's quite natural.

But I hope that you will consider my argument with the choice of 'time' in the as the substance, to attempt a fresh look at the problem. I invite you to study my essay (and associated comment thread) as a logical extension of your wonderful metaphysics.

Because the first thing you do after your choice of time is to incorporate gravity, you may be amenable to consider starting with the gravity field, and choosing it as the difference between 'something exists and nothing exists'.

You also state that it is postulation of an impossibility, or a 'limit' that revolutionizes physics. In my essay it is the limit to the curvature of a gravitational vortex in space-time that brings about a new phenomenon, the electromagnetic field, and establishes the basis of charged particles. Everything else depends from these constituents, ALL of which are simply 'phases' of the primordial monistic substance.

For an exposition of this, see my essay.

For example, from the Quantum Flow Principle, I derive three compatible physical possibilities. If, according to your exposition, these are to be found in a single truth system, they must be self-consistent. Since the term defines a value in each system, the value must be the same. This turns out to be Planck's constant (in reality) and the relation specializes to Heisenberg's uncertainty relations in addition to other consequences, such as the quantization of angular momentum, mvr = h.

Elsewhere I show how logic arises from physical construction; silicon, protein, neural (or other) and the fact that such logic, regardless of implementation or instantiation, gives no choice in its operation clearly defines a central character of the physical universe, ie, it supports logic.

Marcel, I find your discussion of gravity and time very interesting, and wonder if, from a monistic gravito-magnetic substance, you could not derive similar, but perhaps new and insightful relations. Else you seem to be faced with the problem of explaining particles, inflation, etc, etc. I would love to hear your thinking on this.

As you state, we make choices in order to proceed with a new theory, whatever the reasons for our choices. For example, I had decided, after long consideration, that consciousness was best represented by a field, and, since my consciousness interacts with the physical universe, I decided there must be a force equation (no matter how unlikely this has always seemed to me!). It did not take long to find a reasonable, or at least interesting guess for the form of this equation, which I did 3 Jan 06, exactly 4 years ago. Since then it has been cornucopia! No end of results and explanations of current mysteries have flowed from this choice, and not one contradiction in four years.

Thank you for such a clear exposition of truth as the absence of choice. I will quote you and paraphrase you in the future. You have made a major contribution to my thinking.

With my compliments,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

6 days later

  • [deleted]

  • Post #90

Dr Klingman,

I have read your essay. Maybe its me, but there is like too much in it. One or two aspects driven and demonstrated could have been enough for now. I am not familiar with quite a few concepts in there, so it makes the reading difficult. I still think you have something good going here. You end by saying that we will never know gravity. Yes, this is the limit of physics, but it is also the beginning of metaphysics. Magnetic, electric and gravitation are all aspect of a single substance; the explosive passage of time. No matters how true my metaphysics is, we will have to use it to formulate some physics of equivalence if we want to make something useful out of it. Your theory/approach is possibly such a principle of equivalence.

Thanks,

Marcel,

Dear Marcel-Marie LeBel,

Thanks for reading and commenting. As I've said elsewhere, it is very difficult for those rare individuals who have developed a unique way of seeing things, to see things in a new way. This affects all of us in the essay contest. That is why I find it so rewarding that many here make the effort to understand others theories. So thanks again. I will continue to review yours.

I have not found your email address yet. If you're interested in further details that far exceed the essay's ten page limit, let me know at klingman@geneman.com

Edwin Eugene Klingman

7 days later

  • [deleted]

  • Post #92

Dr.Klingman,

Thank you for the message you posted last in my forum. I did not see it until today; because, I neglected to check my forum in weeks. I looked for the possible reference you mentioned with regard to Tegmark's paper but did not find it. I will stay in touch.

James

Dear James,

Tegmark's paper was not one of the recent essays; it's at:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/42

Ed

a month later

  • [deleted]

  • Post #94

You want $99.00 for The Gene Man Theory from Amazon ,, OUCH !

    5 days later

    Thom,

    Thanks for looking it up. "Gene Man Theory" is the first presentation of the theory, targeted at PhD physicists, who normally pay more than this for a technical book. (And normally don't use their own money.) Pricing is also a way to discourage broad sales of a very specialized book, that will appeal to only a narrow market.

    For the best treatment of consciousness in physics (the topic of my essay) I recommend: "Gene Man's World: A Theory of Everything"

    For the best treatment of particle physics in this framework, presented in a narrative format with Socratic dialogue, I recommend "The Chromodynamics War".

    All of the above books are highly mathematical. For a non-mathematical treatment of consciousness, see "The Atheist and the God Particle"

    Thanks again for your interest.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    4 months later

    • [deleted]

    • Post #96

    Dr. Klingman,

    For a while now, I've regarded two things in the universe as fundamental, beyond any deeper explanation for what actually consitutues either. Those two being gravity and consciousness. An offhand search last evening lead me here. I never suspected anyone would have thought along these lines enough to formulate reasonable physical theory. I've been a computer programmer for a decade, and am just now starting a degree in mathematics with an eye towards physics/cosmology or cognitive science. The details of your theory will elude me until I further my education, but the principles are enough to get me excited that such things are even being considered. I've thoroughly enjoyed reading the posts on this forum as well. I look forward to future insights and potential experiments along these lines.

    Adam,

    Thanks for your comment. Your intuition agrees completely with my conclusion, and I am happy that you enjoyed my essay. With your background, you might find 'Gene Man's World' to be of interest. I wish you well in your career.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    • [deleted]

    • Post #98

    Thanks for the reply. I wasn't sure if you were still present on this forum. I have a few questions on my mind if you'll humor them.

    To people who have reduced consciousness to an emergent property of brains and perhaps other sufficiently complex information processing systems, how do you convince them that awareness volition are vital properties of the c-field. If the mathematics present the c-field in such a way that it's an unpredictable (but non-random) force acting upon mass, why are aspects of consciousness necessary to describe it?

    If it's possible to determine the way the c-field interacts with matter, should it not be possible to create an experiment arranging matter in such a way that it is especially sensitive to c-field forces? I could be completely off the mark here to the point of sounding ridiculous, but perhaps something like a physical cellular automation composed of an ultrathin fluid and bits of interacting particles cascading in collapse from superposition.

    Do the details of your theory have anything to say about the recent measurement of protons turning out to be 4% smaller than the expected amount? A bit of a problem for QED.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #99

    Adam,

    You ask: "... how do you convince (people who have reduced consciousness to an emergent property of brains) that awareness and volition are vital properties of the c-field. If the mathematics present the c-field in such a way that it's an unpredictable (but non-random) force acting upon mass, why are aspects of consciousness necessary to describe it?"

    An excellent question. In general, it's impossible to convince people who *believe* that consciousness is an emergent property. The fact that over a century of effort has failed to propose any credible explanation is not sufficient to dispel their belief. That's one reason "Chromodynamics War" doesn't mention consciousness. At the particle level the aspects of awareness and volition are minimal, while other significant effects can be understood based on the field equations alone. Non-random but unpredictable volition *is* needed to re-interpret the alternative to the Copenhagen 'collapse of the wave function'. At the non-quark level, the Schrodinger equation is the same for all theories -- only the interpretation differs. The C-field is more necessary for understanding entanglement phenomena, but I haven't written much on that yet. For a consistent C-field re-interpretation of the wave-function, volition is needed.

    The C-field theory of flux tube quark confinement does not really require a consciousness interpretation -- wave-functions are not the primary focus of QCD.

    Because the C-field interacts with mass, the interaction with proteins and cells is millions and trillions of time greater than with electrons, and hence the consciousness effects should be far more significant. And for the brain, even more so.

    I am in process of filing a few patents for C-field experimentation, but they differ from what you have suggested above (mine are simpler). I am sure that there are many such approaches to experimentation that I have not thought of and I encourage you to think in this manner. There is almost certainly much "low-hanging" fruit to be harvested in C-field theory and experiment.

    As for the 4% difference in proton size, the calculations for the C-field quark model are non-linear and I can not yet reach that level of accuracy. (Neither can QCD after 40 years of effort.)

    Thanks for the questions. If you have more, we can continue here or, if you would like to continue this offline, my email address is in the essay.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    • [deleted]

    • Post #100

    Hello.

    This essay is a very difficult read for the layman. Could there be anything to this outside of the mainstream ambitious posit? One's confidence is diminished somewhat by the author's misspelling of "minuscule".