Is Reality Analog or Digital by Basudeba Mishra

Dear Sir,

It seems we are describing the same theory in different languages. The nuances of the language make the meaning slightly dissimilar. If we follow your language, what you say is correct. Now, kindly follow it in our language. What is perception or cognition? It is a conscious function no doubt, but since it is expressed as the result of measurement, which is a purely a mechanical process of comparison between similars, cognition can be revealed through mechanical processes only. As long as the measurement has not been done, we cannot get the result. Hence we cannot "know". We have explained that we can really measure, hence "know", only in the present. But as we have shown in our essay, cognition or consciousness has infinite dimensions making it time invariant. Thus, we use the result of the measurement at "here-now" at later times, when the object has evolved temporally and is no longer the same as the result of measurement. Since these are ever changing states and we have no way of knowing its true state, we combine all such unknowable states together and call it as the superposition of states or that the object is in superposition of all possible states.

From this description you can see that:

1) We agree (we have admitted in our essay) that unless an objected is perceived as such, it is not real. However, this perception need not be individual centric. Even if we have not perceived something, but if it has been perceived by someone else, it will be real for him, though it may be unknown for us. This is the same as what you describe as "if particles only exist to each other as far and for as long as they manage to communicate their existence physically".

2) What we describe is the state of the object (may be the cat) at a given instant.

3) This state is not a static state, but is a dynamic state. Thus the result of measurement (wave function collapse) is not a fixed state, but only a fixed description of the state at a designated instant.

4) The time evolution of the object has nothing to do with the measurement (observation), as it is external to its functioning and dynamics.

5) The result of measurement is one only to the conscious agent. Unless he communicates it to someone else, the other will not perceive it as such (for him the object continues to be in the superposition of all possible states). Then the wave-function collapse would be different for each person, which is absurd. Thus, we hold that this is a wrong description of facts. It is perception (which we have described in our essay as the interaction of the field set up by the object, which moves in waves, with that of our eyes), and not collapse of wave function.

Regarding the description of the Universe as a closed system that spins, we stand by what we have said. If we admit multiverses, you will agree that all of them must be existing within something. It arises naturally in our model, about which we will write soon. However, your description is true, which we will clarify later.

What we meant by "Each body acts as one indivisible system" is that, we describe all bodies and its parts differently. To be described as such, the body must be described as a whole and not by its parts. If the body is not described as a whole, it cannot be described as such. This does not mean that they do not interact with others. In fact, we define time as that which orders the interval between events (change suggestive) and describe time as having infinite dimension, which implies that all objects are time variant. This in turn implies that everything is ever changing. Change implies displacement from the position occupied - however infinitesimal. This is possible only if the bodies interact with other bodies. In fact, we treat as one of the most fundamental necessities of creation. We fully agree with your view that: "there is no completely independent information inside any system it can hide from being expressed in its own behavior as well as in that of its neighbors. The uncertainty resides in the impossibility to draw a border between the system as the source of whatever its presence does to the environment and the system as the product of influences from that environment, from neighboring systems".

Regarding "All bodies are created from the same fundamental particles", we only clarify that it flows from our model naturally. We with-hold the details till we bring out the complete theory.

We will reply to your answer in your post.

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Sir,

Thank you for raising one of the most puzzling questions that has confounded the scientific community for over a century since 30-06-1905.

Relativity is a wrong description of facts due to the simple reason that if two frames of reference are not related by a much bigger frame of reference encompassing both, then the actions in each cannot be related to that of another. If both the frames of reference are related by a much bigger frame of reference encompassing both, then relativity vanishes. This is the A-time, B-time and C-time proposed by Einstein in his 1905 paper. Here C is the special preferred frame of reference. Thus, the relativity term simply vanishes, reducing all of his "mathematics" to logically inconsistent and manipulations of figures. We have also shown that the length measurement system advocated by Einstein is wrong as described below:

Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper: "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", which became his celebrated paper on SRT. Here we quote from his paper and offer our views.

Einstein: Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, and imagine its length to be ascertained by the following two operations:-

(a) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest.

(b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with §1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated "the length of the rod".

In accordance with the principle of relativity the length to be discovered by the operation (a) - we will call it the length of the rod in the moving system - must be equal to the length l of the stationary rod.

The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call "the length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system". This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find that it differs from l.

Our comments: The method described at (b) is impossible to measure by the principles described by Einstein himself. Elsewhere he has described two frames: one fixed and one moving along it. First the length of the moving rod is measured in the stationary system against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then the length is measured at a different epoch in a similar way in units of velocity of light. We can do this only in two ways, out of which one is the same as (a). Alternatively, we take a photograph of the rod against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then measure its length in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:

• If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.

• If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the camera and the picture we get will be distorted due to the Doppler shift of different points of the rod. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).

Here we are reminded of an anecdote related to Sir Arthur Eddington. Once he directed two of his students to measure the wave-length of light precisely. Both students returned with different results - one resembling the accepted value and the other different. Upon enquiry, the student replied that he had also come up with the same result as the other, but since everything including the Earth and the scale on it is moving, he applied length contraction to the scale treating Betelgeuse as a reference point. This changed the result. Eddington told him to follow the operation as at (a) above and recalculate the wave-length of light again without any reference to Betelgeuse. After sometime, both the students returned to tell that the wave-length of light is infinite. To a surprised Eddington they explained that since the scale is moving with light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require an infinite number of scales to measure the wave-length of light.

Some scientists try to overcome this difficulty by pointing out that length contraction occurs only in the direction of travel. If we hold the rod in a transverse direction to the direction of travel, then there will be no length contraction for the rod. But we fail to understand how the length can be measured by holding it in a transverse direction to the direction of travel. If the light path is also transverse to the direction of motion, then the terms c+v and c-v vanish from the equation making the entire theory redundant. If the observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod while moving with it, he will not find any difference what-so-ever. Thus, the views of Einstein are contrary to observation. Regarding the other points raised in your essay, we have discussed many in our essay.

The video suggested by you simply ignores the fact that for two frames of reference to be related, they must be the part of a bigger frame of reference, which is a special frame of reference for the other two frames making the relativistic term to vanish. We will be happy to offer any clarification.

Regards,

basudeba.

Thanks,

We had replied in your thread.

Regards,

basudeba

Hello dear Basudeba,

How are you fine I hope, these indian numbers vaidics are relevant. I thank you for your book about vaidic numbers. It's so spiritual.

All is the same and linked since the begining,.....we loose our ecosystems dear Basudeba, we loose our contemplations around us, how is it possible for humans to be happy if those contemplations of creations aren't a reality. Our towns are sick, ill, we pollute, we consum , we destroy .....the soils must be restabilized, the composting at big scale more the harmonious growth...more the vegetal multiplication......even the purification of waters can be made with compost. It's the solution dear basudeba, the ecosystems and their dances and sings.....the towns must rethought....locomotion,nutrition,reproduction....production, cosummation,decomposition..............I have invented several models in ecology, and I optimize my theoretical model of sphere of composting,PV=nRT...Closed system....hv H20 O2 bacterias C/N....optimization of rotations and parameters of acceleration of process of decomposition,this sphere of composting produces E with natural matters and H2O and O2 and selectedbacterias and hands and consciouss and eyes of humans...... the totipotence , vegetal is interesting also in theory we can have a system of polarization also with a kind of perpetual motion due to the universal increase of entropy.In fact the matter is created with an argilo humic complex and adds as oligo elts or mineral salts more bacterias, perlit, vermiculit..... after the creation and the dynamic continues naturally,But it's an other story.

In India you have several problems with the gange,the compiost and natural filters are essential more a turbin of acceleration of purification.....I have several models also , very cheap and natural and easy to put into practices.But for concrete resulst, the ecosystems and the vegetal and animal mass must be increased.If not it lacks a biomass and the cycle will be more difficult.Firstly the government for the well of all must implant some basic laws for ecology.Simply a town or a region must increase its mass of vegetals.It's the priority with the composting.In fact all countries must act as that...for x mass of non biological matters an y mass of vegetals and animals (all insects, unicells, pluricells,....)the soil thus is the base.The substrates of towns must be always harmonious and in evolution of complemenatrity. We can't live without our ecosystems, even for New York and others big towns.

Best Regards

Steve

Sorry dear Sir, It is a bad habit,I forget, sorry.I write too quickly without rereading sometimes.

You know I just read your post on the thread on phill, it's the first time that somebody says that of me,I am touched,humbly I thank you very much.I don't know what I must say,it's so nice. In all case it's a honor and a pleasure to know you.

Steve

Dear Sir,

In this forum we are discussing science and not philosophy, though we know something about it also. We understand human psychology, as we understand physics. Physics deals with the natural phenomena as perceived by conscious beings. Conscious actions are related to mental functions. We hold that mind functions mechanically. Hence, without a knowledge of physics, we cannot understand psychology and vice versa.

You are concerned about: "It's the solution dear basudeba, the ecosystems and their dances and sings.....the towns must rethought....locomotion,nutrition,reproduction....production,

cosummation,decomposition." So are we.

But we focus more on the basic concepts or causes than events, that are effects.

If you read history, you will find the boasting of several scientists nearly a century ago as to how man has conquered the Nature and how some eminent scientists declared about 80 years ago that science will be completely known in a few months time. But now no one talks in that language. In our analysis, we have created the present problem. It is painful, but it is true. We had a prophesy, which said that ground water will be polluted around 1900 AD. If you recollect, modern toilet pits and discharge of chemical pollutants to rivers began around the same time. This was fore told. The same prophesy says that life form as we know now will not exist by 6800 AD. We can see the effect of bio-technology, terminator genes, increased use of pesticides, etc, which will lead in that direction. Already American children are being born under-weight.

Science is now guided by commercial considerations. You are sincerely trying to stem the rut and turn the tide. There are many others who are trying like you. But for every such attempt, there are hundreds of attempts to drag us in the opposite direction. Earlier people used to die younger. Now even if they are suffering, they won't die. We prefer to die young but healthy. By this we do not want to discourage you. You are doing a noble deed. But the innumerable men doing research for commercial purposes will ensure the destruction of all. The theoretical scientists have let them down and in the process let the Society down. Even though many are aware of the defects of modern science and the need for its evaluation, they do not want to admit that for the last several decades they were fooling the public by telling them mysterious facts about the quantum world, so that they can enjoy a cozy life at public expenses. Just look at the fact that even though LHC experiment failed to find Higg's boson and Tevatron is closing down, no one is willing to admit that Standard Model is wrong. In fact, there is work going on for upgradation of LHC and running it for one more year. Think of the collosal waste of public money. And when we point out the defects of modern science and suggest an alternative model, we are being accused of deviating from "main stream physics" and "dirtying" it. How we hope in stead of criticizing us, they should guide the experimental scientists in the proper direction and prevent them fro creating Frankenstein's monsters. Compare the advancement of atomic physics and its application. The few who discovered the theories never fore-saw its misuse. Now we get energy out of it. But send the nuclear waste to other Countries for disposal as scrap so that let others die. But one day that will catch up with us also.

We believe that Nature is the best teacher. Hence we have derived a complete model to describe not only all the fundamental forces and particles, but also unite "Observer" in that theory. In many of the threads you will find that we have given different explanations for entanglement, superposition, dimensions, number and number sequences, relativity, measurement problem, etc. We are not interested whether any one reads it or not. We know after many many years people will admit the mistakes of the present generation. But then possibly it would be meaningless.

Thanks and regards,

basudeba.

Dear Sir,

All that is relevant, the sciences are the sciences and we can speak in transparence. The world chages dear Sir due to this net and transparence.

All this reveals a gentle spirituality, I congratulate you, It is rare indeed to meet real universal and humble creations. I'm sure you're a real humble rejecting the vanity and vices. Is not she the sister of pride?

The most important thing is to continue to observe the flight of a bee in the honey, sweetness of our hopes. Compassion in your hand and love in the other. This is the coronation of the humble traveller of the stars.

Trade,monney is a mistake, and his children are unconscious. It exists dear very respected brother human, good and bad everywhere in the corners of this holy land. This point of vue is important, in all countries, religions,cultures,... We are all equal in the eyes of distant winds. Borders are like money, tricks UnHoly. The weapons are like the differences, dedicated te be melted.

Psychology is a reflection of our emotions and our evolution.But we evolve fortunally.

Humans accumulate errors, some Exponential watch unfortunately....

You know dear Sir, the universal sphere has an aim, this equation is on the road of harmonization, spherization. The only thing important is to unite the real universalists, and act with sciences, the rest is vain, and important above the frontiers, the differences and monney, it's the real unification. The business team around the sciences aren't important, the most important is the real universality and humanism. They are just unconsciouss, that's all, it's like that. That's why the responsability becomes so essential. The rest is vain, we just need to help the forgotten by adapted solutions, and of course the ideas of several are better than ideas of one person,it's the universal complementarity of optimization simply.

Best Regards

Take care brother human.

Steve

We are posting below our comments on the Essay of Ms G. P. Parry. Because we are discussing some fundamental issues relating to unification of forces, we are posting it here also.

We are neither the first, last nor the only proponent of re-evaluation of modern physics. In this forum, we are dealing only with physics - discussing theories that correspond to reality in all its different manifestations - and neither philosophy nor meta-physics. You must recognize that observer has an important role in quantum physics and discussion about it is not philosophy.

We are only pointing to the blurring of the diving lines between education, knowledge and science. You can try to educate somebody. But you cannot make him learn. The purpose of education is to educate - receiving/imparting (and as a consequence also receiving) information that can be stored in the memory and retrieved as and when necessary to initiate the required mechanism for getting the desired outcome. Thus, it is related to the potential for using information efficiently and has nothing to do with knowledge or science per se (an Engineer and a mechanic can perform the same task with equal efficiency), though we use science as a tool for imparting education. Unfortunately, the present education system has degenerated to memorization and reproduction of certain facts in an expected manner and the potential for the same has been linked to knowledge.

Knowledge is related to unification of the various sensory impulses to create a stable memory. None of the fundamental forces of Nature in isolation is useful for creation. Only collectively they can create stable systems. Similarly, knowledge, which unifies the different perceptions, is stable. Science is related to the opposite process of individuation - of processing or analysis of individual sensory impulses with the help of memory. Processing here is nothing but measurement, which in turn is comparison between similars. Individual sensory perceptions are not knowledge, but evolution of knowledge in limited directions, which has the potential to change the nature of the world around us in desired directions (sometimes in disastrous directions). The purpose of our writing this is to focus the discussion on the failure of theoretical scientists to lead the experimental scientists. As we can see, without theoretical guidance, the experimental scientists are creating Frankenstein's Monsters, which will gobble us all.

You have raised an important question relating to time. You say: "Time is a very complicated term as a large number of concepts are lumped together within it". This because of two reasons: reductionism and lack of an unambiguous and precise definition of time. Regarding the first point, we will quote an anecdote. Six blind persons went to "see" an elephant. They touched one of its limbs each and described the elephant based on their perception. According to reductionism, each description is scientifically proved. But even if you combine all their statements, one who has not seen an elephant can never have a complete picture of the animal. On the other hand, one who has seen the animal can easily appreciate the correctness of the statements. Something similar happens in the case of time. We do not consider all aspects of time, because we have not defined time unambiguously and precisely. Do it and see for yourself - all the anomalies vanish. We have done that and the results can be seen in our essay and various other posts by us under different threads here - specifically those of Mr. Biermans and Mr. Castel.

You discuss observed Image reality and unobserved Image reality. By this we understand directly perceptible and indirectly perceptible or inferred. You have rightly clubbed them into one group. We call this group existence.

You say: "Where and when an image appears to exist is dependent upon the observer reference frame and is not intrinsic to the object itself." We agree and only add that the external environment introduces an element of uncertainty due to its effect on perception by the observer. We have discussed this aspect elaborately in our essay. From this we infer that uncertainty is not a law of Nature. It is a result of natural laws relating to observation that reveal a kind of granularity at certain levels of existence that is related to causality.

You say: "The description of reality is affected by the methods of investigation used, the pre-existing concepts applied and mathematical modeling employed." Unless the perception (results of measurement) is described in communicable language, (or self realized) it does not make any sense. Hence, we call these as describability.

You say: "If a description requires acceptance of paradox, unreality of all things, quasi reality or supernatural agents or realms, yet is a description that fits with observation, it must be incomplete if not incorrect or non science". This shows that there is a limit on our ability to "know". Hence, we call these as knowability. We combine these aspects and define reality that satisfies these criteria.

You say: "The mathematical space-time model is a construct giving a mathematical representation that fits well with observations of Image reality but is not a complete model of reality." We have shown in our essay that Nature is mathematical only in specified ways. Regarding space, time, space-time and arrow of time, we have discussed briefly in our essay and in our comments under the threads of Mr. Biermans, Mr. Castel, etc. We have written a book in which we have discussed on this subject in detail.

We agree that: "Image reality is a means of amalgamating information that arrives together, rather than that which was generated together." But we do not agree with your description that it does not require a conscious observer. In fact we call the agency that amalgamates the information as the conscious observer. You say that this information can be amalgamated by a mechanical detector. But then the resultant information is in a superposition of all possible states, because the so-called wave function collapse can occur only after it is measured (perceived) by a conscious observer. Thus, ultimately, we have to admit the conscious observer.

You say: "The data contained in the image is not from contemporaneous origin so the image is not temporally homogeneous." We agree and have discussed it at various places. The data (result of measurement) is the description of the state at a designated instant. We do not agree that "present is a composite formed from data, experienced simultaneously". We posit that all systems are dynamical systems. Present is a designated instant in analog time that depicts the temporally evolved state of a dynamical system at that designated instant. Thus, we cannot agree that: "The Image reality becomes a manifestation when the simulation is formed from the available data. It does not exist prior to that process." It certainly existed prior to that process, though in a different state. Further this proves the existence of the conscious observer. Otherwise, your statement that it will "...becomes a manifestation" becomes meaningless.

When you differentiate between "current time" and "Uni-temporal, or Objective, Now", you are leaving out the definition of time from the above description. Both space and time are related to sequence. Time is the ordering of the interval between events just like space is the ordering of the interval between objects. Both are indirectly perceptible through events and objects only. We take a segment of this interval, which is fairly repetitive and easily intelligible, and call it the unit. We compare this unit with the interval between objects and events and call these as space and time. Since space and time are indirectly perceptible, they are described through alternative symbolism by describing the objects or events associated with these. We can choose a segment from any or all event sequences without interfering with the laws of physics. When we restrict our description to a single sequence, it is "current time". When we widen our choice to encompass the whole universe, we call it simultaneity or "Uni-temporal, or Objective, Now".

You say: "Change or potential for change can be regarded as energy." What you are describing here is the effect of energy, which you are confusing with energy proper, which is the cause. We agree that "Energy is never destroyed. So change is continual and inevitable." But what is energy? We hold the homogeneous primordial field as the back ground structure of creation. By a mechanism which we are not discussing here, instability in the medium leads to a chain of events giving rise to "time", as we know it. This created inertia of motion, which was opposed by the inertia of restoration (elasticity) of the medium. This interaction, according to the same mechanism led to the density variation. This also leads to local confinement, which became the particles. Generation of particles led to further density variation. The inertia of restoration then pushed the particles around, which is seen as the effect of energy on those particles. This effect is experienced at two levels: proximity or intra-particle and distance or inter-particle. Depending upon the proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance-proximity and distance-distance variables, the effects are experienced as strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and radioactive disintegration forces. Gravity is a composite force that stabilizes: the orbits of planets and stars and the orbital of atoms. Since stabilization depends on density distribution, gravity is related to mass. Since density of intervals between objects is relatively less, in a closed system like Earth-Moon or Sun-planets, the density of the medium appears homogeneous. Hence, gravity is related to distance. The inter-relationship appears as the gravitational constant. Thus, you are right that: "Energy is never destroyed. So change is continual and inevitable."

Your description of air traffic control hints at a few fundamental principle. If you accept space as the ordering of the interval between objects, then position becomes a function of (or relative to) the ordering you choose. But this description can be meaningful only between the two objects that are joined by the interval. Thus, they belong to a specific frame of reference. If we want to relate their relationship with that of another object, then the other object must be within the same frame of reference or the frame of reference (interval) must be enlarged to bring the other object within it. This is what Einstein describes in his 30-06-1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies":

1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.

2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.

Here clock at C is the privileged frame of reference. Yet, he tells the opposite by denying any privileged frame of reference. Further, his description of the length measurement is faulty. Here we quote from his paper and offer our views.

Einstein: Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, and imagine its length to be ascertained by the following two operations:-

(a) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest.

(b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with §1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated "the length of the rod".

In accordance with the principle of relativity the length to be discovered by the operation (a) - we will call it the length of the rod in the moving system - must be equal to the length l of the stationary rod.

The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call "the length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system". This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find that it differs from l.

Our comments: The method described at (b) is impossible to measure by the principles described by Einstein himself. Elsewhere he has described two frames: one fixed and one moving along it. First the length of the moving rod is measured in the stationary system against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then the length is measured at a different epoch in a similar way in units of velocity of light. We can do this only in two ways, out of which one is the same as (a). Alternatively, we take a photograph of the rod against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then measure its length in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:

• If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.

• If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the camera and the picture we get will be distorted due to the Doppler shift of different points of the rod. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).

Here we are reminded of an anecdote related to Sir Arthur Eddington. Once he directed two of his students to measure the wave-length of light precisely. Both students returned with different results - one resembling the accepted value and the other different. Upon enquiry, the student replied that he had also come up with the same result as the other, but since everything including the Earth and the scale on it is moving, he applied length contraction to the scale treating Betelgeuse as a reference point. This changed the result. Eddington told him to follow the operation as at (a) above and recalculate the wave-length of light again without any reference to Betelgeuse. After sometime, both the students returned to tell that the wave-length of light is infinite. To a surprised Eddington they explained that since the scale is moving with light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require an infinite number of scales to measure the wave-length of light.

Some scientists try to overcome this difficulty by pointing out that length contraction occurs only in the direction of travel. If we hold the rod in a transverse direction to the direction of travel, then there will be no length contraction for the rod. But we fail to understand how the length can be measured by holding it in a transverse direction to the direction of travel. If the light path is also transverse to the direction of motion, then the terms c+v and c-v vanish from the equation making the entire theory redundant. If the observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod while moving with it, he will not find any difference what-so-ever. Thus, the views of Einstein are contrary to observation. Regarding the other points raised in your essay, we have discussed many in our essay. We will be happy to offer further clarification.

basudeba

Dear Sir,

You are being philosophical, while we were pointing out the plight of scientific research. The failure of theoretical scientists to admit the mistakes and re-evaluate physics leads many persons towards experimental physics. We know some eminent scientists who became frustrated about the "conformism" in physics and in disgust left theoretical physics for experimental physics. Without the backing of theoretical physics, experimental physics may lead to disastrous consequences. If you want to discuss more on this issue, you may write to us at mbasudeba@gmail.com.

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Basubeda,

You write

---"the object is in superposition of all possible states"---

Particles (and the objects they form) owe their rest energy to each other, so the energy two particles have according to each other equals the frequency of their exchange. The total energy of a particle WE measure is the sum, the superposition of all the frequencies it exchanges energy at with every other particle within its interaction horizon. The rest energy one particle has according to the other is the frequency they exchange energy at, so is smaller as they are farther apart. Whereas the mass one particle has according to the other then depends on their distance, the mass we measure and use in our equations and which is observer-independent, in some respects is an abstract quantity, differing from how one particle 'sees' the other. This is no problem until we say things like "The mass of the Universe is 1.8x10^54 kg". Such a statement takes the mass of objects for granted, as if it is a property which transcends their interactions, doesn't depend on anything, as if it only is the source of interactions. In doing so, we treat physical particle properties as mathematical quantities which are independent of the calculation they are used in. By assuming that their mass only is the source of their interactions, we make it impossible to understand what mass is. This is why I insist that the universe as a whole doesn't exist physically, but only as an abstraction we should not take for the real thing, which we do by dreaming up nonsense like the Big Bang hypothesis.

---"Then the wave-function collapse would be different for each person, which is absurd. Thus, we hold that this is a wrong description of facts. It is perception (which we have described in our essay as the interaction of the field set up by the object, which moves in waves, with that of our eyes), and not collapse of wave function."---

If the rest frequency of a particle is the sum of all frequencies it exchanges energy at with all other particles, a superposition which is described by the wave function, and the particle repeats in every cycle all possible energies (rates of change) up to its 'textbook' value, then the state an observer finds it in depends on the phase it is in at the time of the measurement. Though different observers then will, as a rule, find it in different states, if all observers repeat the same experiment over and over, they all find the same probability distribution of results. So it isn't so much a 'collapse' of the wave function, as if the particle itself doesn't 'know' what phase or state it is in before it is acted upon, but rather that any interference obviously changes the way the particle's properties are expressed. If, for example, it is accelerated from a rest state, then its continuous energy exchange with its environment is no longer spherically symmetric, its frequencies shifting to red or blue depending on its direction of motion and velocity. Since any observer usually finds the particle in a different phase, he measures a different state, though if all observers repeat the same experiment over and over, they all find the same probability distribution of results. Our amazement about the unpredictability of the result of a single experiment stems from a classical view on particles: on the misconception that a particle only is the source of its field and interactions. In that case its behavior would indeed be perfectly predictable, so we would then live in a Laplacian universe. Quantum particles, however, completely coincide with their function, their existence cannot be distinguished from their action, so they are not observable but in the effect of their existence.

---"Regarding the description of the Universe as a closed system that spins, we stand by what we have said. If we admit multiverses, you will agree that all of them must be existing within something."---

The online Oxford dictionary defines multiverse as "the universe considered as lacking order or a single ruling and guiding power" and "a hypothetical space or realm consisting of a number of universes, of which our own universe is only one." If our universe, together with other universes is embedded within a larger 'something', a "Über Universe", then this shifts the question as to the origin of our universe, its energy and matter, to that of this "Über Universe", so this solves no question at all. Another objection is that if 'lacking order' means that they don't observe the same laws of physics and/or are made out of different kinds of matter so these universes cannot interact mutually, then they don't exist to each other, so cannot be part of any common "Über universe". Saying that the universe as a whole has a definite spin doesn't make any sense at all if a different spin physically wouldn't matter in any way, if there's nothing outside of it with respect to which it can spin one way or the other. Statements about the spin, the age, dimension and energy content of the universe make no sense at all. By refusing to accept that things inside of it only exist to each other as far as they interact and have no reality outside their interactions, that particles in effect are made out of each other, such statements show a pre-Copernican view on our universe.

---"All bodies are created from the same fundamental particles"---

No. In a self-creating universe particles don't causally precede the stars and galaxies they form: here the bricks are designed and baked in the building process, their properties depending on the (part of the) building they form. For a sketch of this mechanism, see my UPDATE 1 post at my thread, about the strong nuclear force.

Regards, Anton

Dear Sir,

You make an interesting point about the mathematical description of sensory experience and emotional response. It is true that these experiences are far more qualitative than quantitative. Which makes it harder to mathematically define. Though "describe on a scale of 1 to10" is sometimes used for the intensity of an experience such as physical pain or emotional hurt. The numbers do not describe the sensation though. Levels of certain chemicals in the body could also be used to analyze the likely experience.I have had to admit that both the experience of reality and the foundational reality that exists without its experience are both real and are facets of a greater reality.It is imo most important to know which is being considered.

You said "reality is the perception that remains invariant under similar conditions during proper perception at all times." I have said similar things in my blog forum posts but have come to the conclusion that although experience has to be considered as real it is only a reconstructed image reality and is not as real as the foundational reality that exists without observation. I am aware of others who say only that which is observed is real. Where does this put magical illusion? If performed well the perception will be "invariant under similar conditions during proper perception at all times." The only thing that allows the illusion to work is lack of complete information. Human perception is full of incomplete information and the interpretation of what is real is made internally. There is filtering, amplification, comparison, filling of gaps.We are not passive recipients of reality but co-create of it from received data.

You say "something exists that can be known and described." I think something can be known by its description but that does not make it real. Something can be real even if it is indescribable. Being tangible or being named is not quite the same as being real. The mirage that you mentioned has a name. It will be perceived by the mentally well and healthy under similar conditions but does not seem to be as real as the other objects around it. Such as the scorpion or the rock. You have put the mirage in the unreal category. However I think it could be argued that they are all image reality formed from the input of data and processing of the sensory and CNS of the human organism, and so share the same level of reality.It is just not what it appears to be, so there is potential confusion about its identity.I agree we have to compare what we perceive with previous experience to "know" what it is.

Sir, I could continue to pick through your essay and debate numerous points. However I do not think it would be constructive to do so. I have read it though several times. You have said many sensible and thought provoking things. I have found it to be rather content rich and to jump from idea to idea.I can not follow a clear chain of thought, which makes it a little difficult for the reader. I appreciate that there is a huge amount that you wish to communicate and I agree that some of these are ideas are very important and ought to be heard.

I hope you do not mind me saying that I find your use of the Royal "we" rather distracting and irritating. I understand that you probably intend your communication to sound impersonal. You need to do this by leaving out a personal subject entirely. For example you say "First we will define the ultimate nature of reality....."It would be better to say "First the ultimate nature of reality will be defined...." This is something that has to be taught and takes practice and discipline, as it does not come naturally to speakers of everyday English. "We" is only properly used by Her Royal Highness or when talking about a collective or group to which one belongs. Hopefully you will not be offended by my pointing this out and it will be helpful for your future writing. It does of course not effect -what- you were saying but as it is an essay competition how it is said is also important.

I wish you good luck and hope that many more people take the time to read the many interesting things you have to say.

We can also be used for you and I, (a group of two). It has occurred to me that it might also be appropriate to use the word "we" if the narrator is taking the reader through a process step by step. Rather than saying "Now this can be done", he might say "Now we can do this", meaning me the narrator and you the reader. It is less formal though.

Perhaps as a retired government official you have been used to speaking on behalf of departments or offices and are used to expressing opinions as a plural identity. Anyway you are not the only entrant to have done so. Others might find it easier to overlook.

Regards Georgina.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Mr. Emmanuel Moulay and some others in their essays have referred to the expression: δE.δt ≥ ħ/2, involving time and energy. Time is not an observable property of a system in the normal sense. It is a parameter used to mark the interval between an epoch marking the beginning of measurement process and another marking its termination. Some scientists say that there is no such limitation. They can measure the energy and look at their watch. Then they know both energy and time. However, other scientists differ from this view. According to them, the equation places a limit on the accuracy with which one can specify the amount of energy transferred together with the knowledge of the time at which the transfer took place.

We have discussed the Uncertainty relation in our essay and shown that it is not a fundamental law of Nature, but arises as a consequence of natural laws relating to observation that reveal a kind of granularity at certain levels of existence that is related to causality. We have also shown that the mathematical format of the Uncertainty relation is wrong. Heisenberg postulated this relationship which he thought as corresponding to, as he claimed, the "well-known" relation tE - Et = iħ. However, the status of time variable in his illustrations is not clear. He also formulated the inequality δw . δJ ≥ ħ, where w is the angle and J is the action based on the "well-known" relation wJ - Jw = iħ. However, these "well-known" relations are actually false if energy E and action J are to be positive operators (Jordan 1927). In that case, self-adjoint operators t and w do not exist and inequalities analogous to Δψp Δψq ≥ ħ/2 cannot be derived. Also, these inequalities do not hold for angle and angular momentum (Uffink 1990). These obstacles have led to a quite extensive literature on time-energy and angle-action uncertainty relations (Muga et al. 2002, Hilgevoord 2005).

Heisenberg summarized his findings in a general conclusion: all concepts used in classical mechanics are also well-defined in the realm of atomic processes. But, as a pure fact of experience ("rein erfahrungsgemäß"), experiments that serve to provide such a definition for one quantity are subject to particular indeterminacies, obeying the relations δp . δq ≥ ħ,

δt . δE ≥ ħ, and

δw . δJ ≥ ħ

which prohibit them from providing a simultaneous definition of two canonically conjugate quantities. It may be noted that in this formulation the emphasis has slightly shifted. He now speaks of a limit on the definition of concepts, i.e. not merely on what we can know, but what we can meaningfully say about a particle.

In his Como lecture, published in 1928, Bohr gave his own version of a derivation of the uncertainty relations between position and momentum and between time and energy. He started from the relations: E = hν and p = h/λ, which connects the notions of energy E and momentum p from the particle picture with those of frequency ν and wavelength λ from the wave picture. He noticed that a wave packet of limited extension in space and time can only be built up by the superposition of a number of elementary waves with a large range of wave numbers and frequencies. Denoting the spatial and temporal extensions of the wave packet by Δx and Δt, and the extensions in the wave number σ := 1/λ and frequency by Δσ and Δν, it follows from Fourier analysis that in the most favorable case Δx Δσ ≈ Δt Δν ≈ 1, and, using E = hν and p = h/λ, one obtains the relations:

Δt ΔE ≈ Δx Δp ≈ h.

It may be noted that Δx, Δσ, etc., are not standard deviations but unspecified measures of the size of a wave packet. These equations determine, according to Bohr: "the highest possible accuracy in the definition of the energy and momentum of the individuals associated with the wave field" (Bohr 1928, p. 571). He noted, "This circumstance may be regarded as a simple symbolic expression of the complementary nature of the space-time description and the claims of causality" (ibid).

Bohr does not refer to discontinuous changes in the relevant quantities during the measurement process. Rather, he emphasizes the possibility of defining these quantities. This view is markedly different from Heisenberg's. A draft version of the Como lecture is even more explicit on the difference between Bohr and Heisenberg: "These reciprocal uncertainty relations were given in a recent paper of Heisenberg as the expression of the statistical element which, due to the feature of discontinuity implied in the quantum postulate, characterizes any interpretation of observations by means of classical concepts. It must be remembered, however, that the uncertainty in question is not simply a consequence of a discontinuous change of energy and momentum say during an interaction between radiation and material particles employed in measuring the space-time coordinates of the individuals. According to the above considerations the question is rather that of the impossibility of defining rigorously such a change when the space-time coordination of the individuals is also considered" (Bohr, 1985 p. 93).

Indeed, Bohr not only rejected Heisenberg's argument that these relations are due to discontinuous disturbances implied by the act of measurement, but also emphasized his view that the measurement process creates a definite result: "The unaccustomed features of the situation with which we are confronted in quantum theory necessitate the greatest caution as regard all questions of terminology. Speaking, as it is often done of disturbing a phenomenon by observation, or even of creating physical attributes to objects by measuring processes is liable to be confusing, since all such sentences imply a departure from conventions of basic language which even though it can be practical for the sake of brevity, can never be unambiguous" (Bohr, 1939, p. 24).

Nor did Bohr approve of an epistemological formulation or one in terms of experimental inaccuracies: "...a sentence like 'we cannot know both the momentum and the position of an atomic object' raises at once questions as to the physical reality of two such attributes of the object, which can be answered only by referring to the mutual exclusive conditions for an unambiguous use of space-time concepts, on the one hand, and dynamical conservation laws on the other hand" (Bohr, 1948, p. 315; also Bohr 1949, p. 211). It would in particular not be out of place in this connection to warn against a misunderstanding likely to arise when one tries to express the content of Heisenberg's well-known indeterminacy relation by such a statement as "the position and momentum of a particle cannot simultaneously be measured with arbitrary accuracy". According to such a formulation it would appear as though we had to do with some arbitrary renunciation of the measurement of either the one or the other of two well-defined attributes of the object, which would not preclude the possibility of a future theory taking both attributes into account on the lines of the classical physics. (Bohr 1937, p. 292)

Instead, Bohr always stressed that the uncertainty relations are first and foremost an expression of complementarity. This may seem odd since complementarity is a dichotomic relation between two types of description whereas the uncertainty relations allow for intermediate situations between two extremes. They "express" the dichotomy in the sense that if we take the energy and momentum to be perfectly well-defined, symbolically ΔE = Δp = 0, the position and the time variables are completely undefined, Δx = Δt = ∞, and vice versa. But they also allow intermediate situations in which the mentioned uncertainties are all non-zero and finite. It must here be remembered that even in the indeterminacy relation (Δq Δp ≈ h) we are dealing with an implication of the formalism which defies unambiguous expression in words suited to describe classical pictures. Thus a sentence like "we cannot know both the momentum and the position of an atomic object" raises at once questions as to the physical reality of two such attributes of the object, which can be answered only by referring to the conditions for an unambiguous use of space-time concepts, on the one hand, and dynamical conservation laws on the other hand (Bohr, 1949, p. 211).

The above expression means, if the change in energy is zero, momentum, which involves velocity that requires energy, also becomes zero. This is an idealistic situation, which is "un-physical", as nothing in this universe is ever stationary. Some may argue that even in such a situation, the particle may move due to inertia. But that will lead to interaction with at least the field, which will lead to non-zero energy exchange. In an idealistic situation, there is no movement. Thus, the concept of space and time are not applicable and become indeterminate, as perception is possible only during transition from one state to another and time is the interval between two perceptible events.

On a more formal level, it may be noted that Bohr's derivation does not rely on the commutation relations qp - pq = iħ and tE - Et = iħ, but on Fourier analysis. As far as the relationship between position and momentum is concerned, these two approaches are equivalent. But since most physical systems do not have a time operator, this is not so for time and energy. Indeed, in his discussion with Einstein (Bohr, 1949), Bohr considered time as a simple classical variable. This even holds for his famous discussion of the "clock-in-the-box" thought-experiment where the time, as defined by the clock in the box, is treated from the point of view of classical general relativity. Thus, in an approach based on commutation relations, the position-momentum and time-energy uncertainty relations are not on equal footing, which is contrary to Bohr's approach in terms of Fourier analysis (Hilgevoord 1996 and 1998).

There is also another interpretation of the said equation δt.δE ≥ ħ. According to the quantum mechanical dogma, the above equation implies that the so-called empty space is not actually empty, but is full of virtual particles. These virtual particles with opposite charge are postulated to have been created in pairs drawing energy ΔE at a point over a very short period of time Δt, which are then immediately annihilated. The apparently empty space is thus said to be capable of producing particles. This state is described by a quantum state with the lowest possible energy: thus called the zero-point energy state. This implies that there is an underlying "veiled reality" layer present, determining the quantum states of the system even when apparently there are no particles. However, the layer is completely undetectable to our sense organs and measuring instruments (we have to accept the words of the scientists blindly) - all of which are made up of particles. This is said to "prove" the probabilistic nature of the wave-function! It has been suggested that at the Planck scale, i.e., 10^-35 m, quantum fluctuations become powerful enough to twist and turn the geometry of the Universe. Space and time break down to quantum foam. Like the non-existent Higgs boson that has misled the scientific community for close to half a century, this is also another red herring.

Regarding the time cone and event horizon, we have separately shown that these are also wrong and misleading concepts. The light cone is said to be an imaginary surface associated with a point in space-time comprising the paths of all possible light rays that pass through that point. If this description is right, then there cannot be any "cone". If light moves in straight lines through one point, then it will comprise rays from "all" directions and not select directions to prove the theory right (unless someone claims that Nature does not follow its own law, but follows his laws).

The other explanation of drawing the world lines is also wrong. The trick is first to take two spatial dimensions and one time dimension and show the evolution of the light pulse as a conic section. Then the third spatial dimension is added to show the picture of the light cone. It is surprising that till date no scientist has challenged this. Light moves in straight lines (unless it is subjected to other effects). Thus, a photon will move in time in a straight line only and a light pulse will evolve in time spherically with the starting point as the origin. In both cases there cannot be any "cone". If two space dimensions are taken, it would be a chain of concentric circles. If the third spatial dimension is added, then it will be a chain of concentric circles. If the concept of light cone and event horizon are wrong, then the entire edifice built upon such wrong foundation is also wrong. It is surprising that till now, this wrong concept has gone unchallenged.

We request to be corrected if our description is wrong. But we request for a sincere debate on the issue to find the truth.

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Madam,

There is one more reason for using the word "we" instead of "I". If we leave aside our persona and communicate with each others intellect, we will find that we are communicating at one level. Because though the objects of knowledge are different, the "I know" part is common to all such descriptions. Hence it is not appropriate to talk as "I" while addressing to other people's intellects, because "I" stands for a small fraction of "we", which makes it tune in at a different plane. Thus, it is the general practice to use the plural term in communication involving Teacher, Nature and Self.

Thanks and regards,

basudeba.

Dear Madam,

Madam,

You are absolutely right that numbers do not describe the sensation (of the intensity of an experience such as physical pain or emotional hurt). It is because measurement of result only is called as experience ('this' is like 'that') and measurement is the comparison between similars. Since there is no universal yardstick for emotional experience (one may feel pain while another experience from the same event. We can discuss the theory separately.), such experiences of one cannot be compared with the other. Secondly, numbers are associated with objects and "experiences of physical pain or emotional hurt" are after effects of interaction with objects or statements reminding the effects of association of objects. Hence numbers, which are associated with the cause, cannot be used to describe effects.

Both of us do not object to the statement that whatever observed is real. We only qualify this statement with some caveats to avoid its misrepresentation. Mirages are also observed. But they are not real, as they do not remains "invariant under similar conditions during proper perception at all times". For example, if we send a person to soak a piece of cloth in the flowing water and he brings it back after putting it in the spot where we see the flowing water, we will see that it is not wet. Thus, what we "see" is not a "proper perception" of the objects we describe proving that our perception was subjected to the uncertainties induced by the external factors present. This is what you call as "filtering, amplification, comparison, filling of gaps". The same principle applies to magical illusion. We know that the magician plays some tricks to give us some wrong feed back. But if we scientifically investigate, the results can be explained otherwise. Thus, the perception does not remain invariant under similar conditions.

We have noted your concept of "foundational reality that exists without its experience". We accept such a state and can describe it fully. This has a vital role in our model of the creation. But this is something that cannot be used in our description of reality. If we assume invariance of perception under similar conditions, it means we are in a position to judge the similarities between the results of various measurements done at different times. This, in turn, means that the results of each measurement must be communicated, which is possible only after its experience.

When we talk of "being named", as you put it, what we mean is that; for describing one particular object in its entirety, we use some alternative symbolism as nomenclature, which is a word. Thus, unless the object exists, it cannot have alternative symbolism - hence no name or no word.

You are absolutely correct that we have jumped from subject o subject. Though there is a link, due to space constraints we could not write the whole thing. Thus, it appears patchy. But we will only be too glad to discuss any point raised by any one on any subject provided, these are related to foundational questions. My email id is mbasudeba@gmail.com.

Regards,

basudeba

Thanks you very much dear Sir,I will write you soon.

Best Regards

Steve

Sir,

We are extremely grateful to you for raising some vital questions and giving us an opportunity to explain them.

In our essay we have described the meaning of "the object is in superposition of all possible states". Since all objects are continually evolving in time, and since we cannot know the true state of an object except for the instant we measured its state, we combine all other "unknown" states together and call it as "the object is in superposition of all possible states". This is different from the commonly accepted view.

You say: "Particles (and the objects they form) owe their rest energy to each other, so the energy two particles have according to each other equals the frequency of their exchange. The total energy of a particle WE measure is the sum, the superposition of all the frequencies it exchanges energy at with every other particle within its interaction horizon."

But how do you "know" or "measure" it? As we have described elsewhere, when some object is placed in a field, the object experiences something else. This something else is a kind of force. Depending upon the nature of such interaction, the force is classified into different groups. The particles don't interact with each other directly. Each interacts with the field, which, in turn gets modified locally due to such interaction. When other particles interact with this modified field, they experience a different force than that they would have experienced in the absence of the other particle. This is what we call the effect of one particle interacting with the other particle or how the particle "sees" the other particle. It is dependent on the distance between the two also (not alone). But what we measure is not observer independent. The location of the observer with reference to the particle introduces different uncertainties changing the values for the observer, though apparently it does not affect how a particle evolves in time (it affect in other subtle ways). There is no way to isolate the particles and measure their energy independently. Till now we have not been able to isolate a single proton or neutron from their environment to measure its charge directly. We have derived theoretically their charge, which shows that the magnitude of positive charge of proton is less than that of the negative charge of electron and that neutron is slightly negatively charged. This has to be experimentally verified.

Since no object is ever at rest, there is nothing as rest energy. What you describe as the rest energy is the effect of the total energy within the confinement that makes the particle stable by canceling the effect of each other. This gives the particle a particular density. When the density of the field is different from this density, the particle interacts with the field as a whole. This is known as its rest energy, which is divided by c^2 to give the rest mass. This varies from particle to particle - though apparently it is the same for similar particles as judged from their effect on other bodies in their surroundings. But then the effect will be different in different surroundings. For example, we require different amounts of force for displacing a plate kept in isolation on the table and a similar plate kept under a pile of plates. Similarly, the effect of quarks on its surrounding will be different from the effect of protons, neutrons and electron on their surroundings. If we compare their energy, we will get misleading information.

You are absolutely correct that "By assuming that their mass only is the source of their interactions, we make it impossible to understand what mass is." Properties depend upon the composite structure of the particle. These are exhibited independently or through interactions (like mass and weight). They should not be considered ib isolation for judging their effect. While considering their effect, we have to consider the totality of all effects. But then if one description is defective, that does not make the whole object non-existent. Big bang is not a proper theory. But explained properly, it has some basis.

A wave is a disturbance created due to the interaction of various forces acting on the field. We do not accept the wave function or its collapse, as there is no proof to accept such theories and the interactions can be explained by simpler methods. It is not true that the particle repeats in every cycle all possible energies. The particle either retains its position in the field while the wave passes by (planets in the solar system) or the particle moves with the field (planets move with the Sun in the galaxy). You are absolutely correct that "Though different observers then will, as a rule, find it in different states, if all observers repeat the same experiment over and over, they all find the same probability distribution of results." We treat planetary orbits as ellipses. But in reality, these are circular with the center (Sun) shifting continuously giving it an elliptical appearance. In effect, the ellipse is never closed. Thus, though the Kepler's laws give the proper position of planets, if we check back on the data collected by Tycho Brahe, which was used by Kepler to formulate his laws, we will find that the data do not match the theoretical prediction of the planets for those epochs.

You are correct that "Quantum particles, however, completely coincide with their function, their existence cannot be distinguished from their action, so they are not observable but in the effect of their existence." But then this is the difference between quantum particles and macro particles. Quantum particles are not small particles, but particles that unite with other particles to submerge their independent identity and create a particle of entirely different characteristics. Macro particles are a mixture of the atoms and molecules that retain their independent identity while creating new substances by various combinations. You confirm this when you say: "QED treats the proton as a fundamental, rather than a composite particle, but nonetheless can predict experimental results to an extreme accuracy, indicates that quark properties are not separately observed."

When the colliding energy is high enough, the reverse process starts and the quarks separate out, which shows their individual properties. You have correctly told that "If a particle only exist if and when its presence is expressed in identifiable interactions, can be observed or inferred from effects." But you have put it in the wrong sequence. When a particle exists its presence is expressed in identifiable interactions and can be observed or inferred from its effects on other bodies. The creation of a new particle can be in two ways as explained by you: "at high energy collisions and other violent events like supernovae explosions." These are opposite processes. At high energy collisions, the confinement of some objects is broken partially or fully leading to release of some energy. This leads to formation of a particle with higher mass or breaking up of the particles to its constituents. In the case of supernova, the confinement of all particles are broken and the entire energy is released till the interaction with the local medium slows them down and the inertia of restoration keeps the remnants intact. This does not prove that: "In that case we cannot say that baryons are built out of quarks."

Regarding multiverses, we agree with the definition "a hypothetical space or realm consisting of a number of universes, of which our own universe is only one." In our theory, the origin of our Universe necessitates the origin of multiverses. We will discuss it separately. It is true that they cannot communicate with each other. Only if our Universe exists, it follows that other Universes must exist. But the mechanism of their creation makes them incommunicado with each other. We accept that "things inside of it only exist to each other as far as they interact and have no reality outside their interactions" because that is how the objects are perceived - through their interactions that is intelligible and communicable. This is our definition of reality in our Essay. Regarding spin, we will discuss separately.

We stand by our statement that: "All bodies are created from the same fundamental particles." We have discussed it partly above to show that your inference may not be correct. You say: "If particles have to create themselves out of nothing, without any outside assistance, and have nothing to know with how to go about creating one another, then they'd hardly pop up in a flash with all properties fine-tuned to the last detail as the Big Bang tale has it. Instead, we may expect a trial-and-error process: whatever combination of particles, properties, exchange frequencies, mass ratio's, spins and kinds of behavior works in certain circumstances survives, as long as these circumstances last."

You have correctly answered this problem: "Though as particles create each other, they also create the environment to prosper in, once they master the trick to keep existing, they cannot but keep contracting, evolving in steps, through many detours, eventually to objects of ever-increasing mass density. Every step towards a denser particle configuration further reduces their freedom to act as they like: if particle properties, exchange frequencies are to survive, then destructively interfering frequencies (or associated virtual particles) must be got rid of, radiated away." But your conclusions are not fully correct. We have a detailed theory for this, which we will discuss separately.

We do not accept virtual particles. We have a name for what may be its equivalent, but is real. We call it "Rayi". We interpret your statement "their transition to real ones doesn't leave a recognizable footprint radiation, unlike the H H = He reaction, which likewise is an equilibrium reaction." differently. The H H = He reaction is not an equilibrium reaction like H H = 2H, because He has two additional neutrons over and above the two Hydrogen atoms. However, we can derive He from H H with "Rayi".

We agree with you that: "Neutrons and protons then can knit each other to atomic nuclei by exchanging electrons, by alternating their identity, their distance, spin and motion adjusted in such a manner that, within a large but limited temperature scale, their resonance is preserved." The problem with modern science is their total acceptance of the Coulomb's law. As we have hinted elsewhere, we do not accept it and explain charge behavior differently. In our model, the apparent attraction of opposite charges and repulsion of similar charges are explained differently. This also explains how protons and quarks of similar charge co-exist without invoking any additional binding energy. We will discuss about it separately.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

We heartily congratulate you for your brilliant deduction. With your approach of light rays moving in straight lines, you have indirectly validated our assertions that there is nothing as a "light cone", and as a consequence, the "event horizon". Now we move on to your description.

The very fact that the velocity of light in different mediums have been found to be different means that it is not a universal constant. The cosmic background radiation is known to have a universal temperature of about 2.7k, implies that on an Universal scale, the density of "free space" is uniform. Thus, the velocity of light in free space appears uniform. Obviously, it is the highest achievable velocity for any particle - more so for the photons or all other e.m. radiation, that are constituted of the smallest perceptible confined blocks. This constancy is revealed with respect to the source. Thus, we have terms like c+v and c-v. Hence the deductions [(c-v)+(c+v)]t=2x and c=x/t are correct. Since the experiment is conducted within a specific frame of reference without involving anything outside it, your conclusion that with -v and +v canceling out, it could not be concluded that there is no aether.

Though you have arrived at the value of v using tensors, the same can be achieved by simpler methods. Since the observer is conducting measurements using timed flashes of light emitted from the center of the spaceship to determine their velocity relative to the aether, he must be aware of the value of the unit used by him: the velocity of light. Thus, without going into complex mathematics, he can simply use the distance x between two points and the formula c=x/t, to find the value of v per second, by comparing the theoretical time needed for light to cover the distance and the actual time taken by it.

We have a different explanation for the acceleration g and a tensor translation v2= [gt]2. We hold that gravity is a stabilizing force. When two confined bodies are close to each other, the mutual force between them is related to the distance between their respective centers of mass. The constant of proportionality is represented by g. Thus, it is not acceleration, but a constant of proportionality that changes with height. For falling bodies, the density variation between the bodies and the intervening space brings in another factor. Since the intervening space is a field and the field is described by second order factors, your explanation is also correct.

Though we accept Eo=moc2, we do not accept that mass and energy are convertible. We hold that they are different states of "Rayi", which appears as mass and energy under different situations. We will discuss about "Rayi" separately. We agree with your conclusions and that the arbitrary transformations of space and time advocated by Einstein is wrong.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

I have read your reply with interest. I am glad to find that we are both thinking about things in a similar way on these points. There does not seem to be any misunderstanding.

With regard to the mirage: A volunteer standing at the same position on a day with similar temperature and atmospheric conditions would see a similar thing. This would give verification of the observation making it a consensus reality. It is -only- by varying the conditions of the investigation such as walking towards the mirage that it will be seen to change its appearance. Then it can be known to be other than it first appeared.

I am very familiar with this phenomenon, as there is a long tar road near to my home which has spectacular heat haze during the summer months.It is seen on most hot days when the sky is clear. From the end of the road it looks as though it is flooded but on proceeding down the road the image gradually shrinks to puddle size before vanishing when it is reached. Anyone standing at the end of the road will see its flooded appearance.

Likewise with the magical illusion it is necessary to conduct other investigations to uncover the trick. Rather than just rely upon numerous repeated observation of the same thing under the same conditions, which is the standard scientific method.If the normal perception is invariant, IE. always the same, it will always see the same thing and will always be deceived.

I accept that external factors can affect perception but when talking of filtering, amplification, comparison and gap filling I was referring to the internal process of handling and interpreting received data. It is after those processes that the experience is formed. That unique personal experience does not exist prior to completion of those processes. The experience is the interpretation of the data, it is not the data and it is not the source of the data. The object source is not the same as the image experience. The experienced red of the apple is an interpretation of the received data , it is not the same as wavelength of light reflected (which is the data) and is not possessed by the apple itself.

Thank you for explaining your use of "we." It is unfamiliar and still irritating to me, as I am used to communicating informally. My intellect is somewhat intertwined with my persona which is also somewhat intertwined with my internal and external biological nature. I was taught that when formal scientific communication is conducted it is done without any use of personal subject. That is what I have, in turn, taught to my students. You can speak however you feel is most appropriate of course.

I agree that the character limit did put constraint on what could be included. I too had to leave out things I would have liked to have said. You have been able to give readers a good overview of the breadth of your considerations and plenty of food for thought.

Regards Georgina.