Is Reality Analog or Digital by Basudeba Mishra

Basudeba,

I wrote something a many years ago regarding measurements and the transformations affecting the phenomena of nature (i.e., em-waves, etc.). You might find this interesting...

Rafael

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.

TO ALL.

It is said that mathematics is the language of physics. But most of the "mathematics" used by modern scientists fails the test of logical consistency. Thus, they are un-mathematical manipulations. Mr. Paster in his essay has used P-adic mathematics. We do not understand why mathematics should be made incomprehensible in stead of being scientific and rational. We have posted our views below his essay. Because it raises and answers some fundamental questions, here we reproduce it for consideration of the scientific community.

Numbers are a property of all substances by which we distinguish between similars. Distinguishing between similars is a matter of perception at "here-now". When there is the perception of an object without similars, it is one. Depending upon the repetition of the experience of such perception, we assign a different number to each set of such perceptions, which we call the number sequence. (We are not elaborating the exact mechanism but leaving it for a different occasion). We can differentiate between similars only if the object has a fixed structure. Thus, we do not assign numbers to fluids, though we assign numbers to the comparison of the volume with a fixed or unit volume.

Number is not directly associated with the object, but is associated with whether there are similars or not. Thus, particles, that are a composite of sub-particles, exhibit these numbers differently, because similarities in the two cases are different. The number associated with a particle can repeat itself in the case of a sub-particle also depending upon whether there are similars or not. The rational numbers are only distinctions between perceptions of two sets of numbers. For example, if a particle consists of x number of similar sub-particles and if we take away y number of such sub-particles by differentiating them from other sub-particles, both operations are fully perceptible. Thus, we call the number a rational number. But where such distinction is blurred, we call it an irrational number.

Since all perceptions are quantized, the increase or decrease in number sequence take the shape of 1,2,3,4,5,....n and n,....5,4,3,2,1 respectively. When the increase or decrease is linear, we call the operations as addition or subtraction. When it is non-linear, we call the operations as multiplication and division. By non-linear we mean only partially similar. When an object does not exist at "here-now", we call the number associated with it as zero. This only implies the absence of the object or perception at "here-now" but not its perception from our time invariant memory. Since the object is not perceived at "here-now", no number can be associated with it. Hence all linear operations involving zero leaves the number associated with the object unchanged (the use of zero as a decimal function has a different explanation. We are leaving it for a different occasion).

In the case of multiplication, since it represents an operation involving another object and since one part of the combined operation does not exist at "here-now", the result of the entire operation cannot be perceived. Thus, the result of multiplication by zero is zero. In the case of non-linear reduction (division) by zero, the non-linear part that is not perceived at "here-now" is not perceived. Since it represents an operation involving another object at here-now and since the operative part does not exist at "here-now", the perception of the entire operation remains unchanged. Thus, the result of division by zero leaves the number associated with the object unchanged. However, in modern mathematics, it is wrongly associated with infinity.

Infinity is like one - there is the perception of an object without similars. But unlike one, the dimensions of the object are not fully perceived (we have discussed it elaborately in our essay). There cannot be an infinite set of numbers - it is only a very big number. Since perception of numbers is related to "here-now", and since perception of objects with infinite dimension are not possible at "here-now", all operations involving infinity is void.

The perception of: "numbers such as the square root of 2 which cannot be written as the ratio of integers", stand in a different footing. Squaring is a non-linear operation. Square root is a non-linear operation involving a field in two Dimensions, which has a second order number. You cannot take the square root of 2 bikes. But you can take the square root of a field measuring 2 square meters. While the dimensions of the two non-linear components of "square root of 2" are perceptible (such as 2m x 1m), their individual components after a specific operation involving non-linear reduction, may not be perceptible. However, since the field, both prior to and after the operation, exist at here-now, it has a number associated with it. Thus, we restrict our description of this number to the nearest perceptible fraction (components).

All operations are conducted by an agent who has the ability to indulge in such operation. In other words, it symbolizes a kind of "ownership" over the object of operation. This ownership is indicated by the sign preceding the number explicitly or implicitly. When such "ownership" does not exist, yet the object exists, the numbers associated with such objects are called negative numbers. This absence of ownership is indicated by the - sign preceding the number explicitly. When we talk about "integers (..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ..., negative and positive, including zero)", we indicate this change of "ownership" pattern. Since it indicates a sequence, it is time variant. Operations involving numbers are carried out at "here-now". But no such operation is possible with the so-called integers. This distinguishes numbers from the so-called integers. The concept of "aleph-zero counting numbers and aleph-zero integers" is wholly erroneous.

Since rational numbers are only distinctions between perceptions of two sets of numbers, to say that: "The set of rational numbers is incomplete" is not a proper description of facts. In fact, it can be highly misleading. So is Ostrowski's theorem. There is no scientific basis for accepting his views. We need theories to explain reality by showing the correspondence between theoretical description and actual observation in a logically consistent manner. When the existing theories are sufficient to explain reality in a logically consistent manner, bringing in additional factors has only the effect of shifting away from reality. We need not assume that what we perceive is wrong and what we cannot perceive is right. This concept, couched in the language of incomprehensibility has been used by scientists to fool the gullible public for hundreds of years to lead a cozy life at public expenses. We can explain everything using ordinary mathematics derived from fundamental principles. A mature person cannot be a child, because the only difference in perception between them is that while the mature person has more "experience" (hence a bigger memory bank), the child lacks it or has it in a small measure. To invoke the inner child means to assume that one's memory is all wrong, which means one has gone mad.

The description of Piaget's method of assimilation and accommodation itself by Mr. Paster is wrong. Hence it is no wonder that the conclusions arrived at are misleading. For example: Mr. Paster has written: "Assimilation means that we take an observation or experience and add it to our existing conceptual structure, enhancing the structure that was already in place, but not transforming that structure into a new conceptual structure". This simply means that we "learn" through experience by replacing our earlier ideas with new ideas - making structural adjustments. This "learning" is nothing but our "new concept", because, with the same input different persons will add differently to their existing concepts making it a "new concept" every time. There is no other meaning for "add it to our existing conceptual structure".

He further writes: "Accommodation, on the other hand, means that the observation or experience has been so novel or discordant that we cannot absorb it into our existing conceptual structure. Instead, we must modify our conceptual structure, accommodating our world view to incorporate the latest novel, discordant event." This simply means the same thing as assimilation, except that the magnitude of the latest structural adjustment to our memory has been comparatively much bigger than usual. Admittedly, "Piaget considered himself an epistemologist first, drawing conclusions about the nature of knowledge from his observations of human cognitive development." The above description fits his views.

Mr. Paster has used P-adic mathematics to model Piaget's processes of assimilation and accommodation. He writes: "Assimilation means one of the digits of the prior p-adic number has gotten larger, but we still have the same number of digits". This is something beyond us. Firstly, we do not see the necessity of any other ad hoc mathematics beyond simple natural mathematics. Secondly, digit is nothing but the name assigned for a certain number of perception of similar objects. For example, if we had perception of 1, then another 1 similar objects, we assign this type of perception a name, which may be two. For every such repetition, we assign different names and call these digits. Since number is only one of the perceived properties of objects and not the object proper and since larger number implies addition of similar objects, we do not see how "the prior p-adic number" can get larger, but "still have the same number of digits".

He further writes: "Accommodation in its simplest form means that we have one more digit, one more level of hierarchy. Accomodation can also take other forms: A segment of the prior p-adic number can be preserved but encapsulated within a different enclosure. Or levels of enclosure can collapse into a larger single enclosure". This is an entirely wrong description of facts. If "we have one more digit", we do not get "one more level of hierarchy." Hierarchy implies "difference in class". But if "we have one more digit", we have one more object of the "same class". If a "segment of the prior p-adic number can be preserved but encapsulated within a different enclosure," then the "addition of one more digit" is not possible, unless it interacts with the enclosure. If it interacts, then the concept of enclosure is meaningless. The concept of "levels of enclosure can collapse into a larger single enclosure" means nothing but making structural adjustments, which is again nothing but assimilation as explained earlier.

We agree with Piaget's concept of equilibration as the driving force, but we interpret it differently and much more universally. We leave it for the time being. Regarding minimum length, we had discussed elaborately in our essay. Regarding "most mainstream physicists reject out of hand a role for physics in explaining the mind" all we can say is "sour grapes". Since they have not understood the concept, they say so. As we have described repeatedly, we explain mental functions mechanically. We accept thought as the inertia of mind. Regarding dimension, we have written in various threads in this competition to show the nature of dimension, what the ten spatial dimensions are, and why time cannot be a dimension.

Finally, most of the "scientific" terms are nothing but mere words to show off one's "knowledge" through the cult of incomprehensibility. This is unfortunate, but true.

Regards,

basudeba

To All.

Mr. GENE T. YERGER has raised some interesting points in his Essay. He must be congratulated for his deep insight and high quality analysis. However, we have given our views blow his essay to give alternative explanations for the phenomena associated with spin. Because it raises and answers some fundamental questions, here we reproduce it for consideration of the scientific community.

It is said that quantum mechanical systems are completely described by its wave function? From this it would appear that quantum mechanics is fundamentally about the behavior of wave-functions. But do the scientists really believe that wave-functions describe reality? Even Schrödinger, the founder of the wave-function, found this impossible to believe! He writes (Schrödinger 1935): "That it is an abstract, unintuitive mathematical construct is a scruple that almost always surfaces against new aids to thought and that carries no great message". Rather, he was worried about the "blurring" suggested by the spread-out character of the wave-function, which he describes as, "affects macroscopically tangible and visible things, for which the term 'blurring' seems simply wrong".

Schrödinger goes on to note that it may happen in radioactive decay that "the emerging particle is described ... as a spherical wave ... that impinges continuously on a surrounding luminescent screen over its full expanse. The screen however, does not show a more or less constant uniform surface glow, but rather lights up at one instant at one spot ..." He observed further that one can easily arrange, for example by including a cat in the system, "quite ridiculous cases" with the ψ-function of the entire system having in it the living and the dead cat mixed or smeared out in equal parts. Resorting to epistemology cannot save such doctrines.

The situation was further made complicated by Bohr with his interpretation of quantum mechanics. But how many scientists truly believe in his interpretation? Apart from the issues relating to the observer and observation, it usually is believed to address the measurement problem. Some say that Quantum mechanics is fundamentally about the micro-particles such as quarks and strings etc, and not the macroscopic regularities associated with measurement of their various properties. But if these entities are somehow not to be identified with the wave-function itself, and if the description is not about measurements, then where is their place in the quantum description? Where is the quantum description of the objects that quantum mechanics should be describing? This question has led to the issues raised in the EPR argument.

The Schrödinger equation and the equations describing the probability waves, which travel, like photons, at the speed of light, actually have two sets of solutions: one equivalent to a positive wave flowing into the future (a "retarded" wave), and the other describing a negative wave flowing into the past (an "advanced" wave). The full version of the wave equation has two sets of solutions (one corresponding to the familiar simple Schrödinger equation, and the other to a kind of mirror image Schrödinger equation describing the flow of negative energy into the past). The proper mathematical description of the wave function actually includes a mixture of both ordinary ("real") numbers and imaginary numbers (those numbers involving i, the square root of -1). Such a mixture is called a complex variable. It is written down as a real part plus (or minus) an imaginary part. The probability calculations needed to work out the chance of finding an electron (say) in a particular place at a particular time actually depend on calculating the square of the complex number corresponding to that particular state of the electron. But calculating the square of a complex variable does not simply mean multiplying it by itself since it is not the same as a real number. Instead, you have to make another variable, a mirror image version called the complex conjugate, by changing the sign in front of the imaginary part (if it was + it becomes - and vice versa). The two complex numbers are then multiplied together to give the probability. This shows that, truly it is not squaring, but a multiplication by manipulation as the negative sign implies non-existence of the second term like that of a mirror image. The mirror image does not make two objects, but only one real object and the other physically non-existent image.

For equations that describe how a system changes as time passes, this process of changing the sign of the imaginary part and finding the complex conjugate is said to be equivalent to reversing the direction of time! The basic probability equation, developed by Max Born back in 1926, itself contains an explicit reference to the nature of time, and to the possibility of two kinds of Schrödinger equations described above. The remarkable implication is that ever since 1926, every time a physicist has taken the complex conjugate of the simple Schrödinger equation and combined it with this equation to calculate a quantum probability, he or she has actually been taking account of the influence of waves that travel backwards in time, without knowing it. There is no problem with the mathematics of the followers of this view point with others. The difference is only in the interpretation that the wave flowing backward in time is real and should be taken seriously, not ignored. A typical quantum "transaction" is in terms of a particle "shaking hands" with another particle somewhere else in space and time. The difficulties with any such description in ordinary language - how to treat interactions that are going both ways in time simultaneously, and are therefore occurring instantaneously as far as clocks in the everyday world are concerned - is waved off as inherent fuzziness of quantum physics.

Some scientists try to solve this problem by effectively standing outside of time, and using the semantic device of a description in terms of some kind of pseudo-time. This is no more than a semantic device. When an electron vibrates, it is assumed that it attempts to radiate by producing a field which is a time-symmetric mixture of a retarded wave propagating into the future and an advanced wave propagating into the past. The retarded wave heads off into the future until it encounters an electron which can absorb the energy being carried by the field. The process of absorption involves making the electron that is doing the absorbing vibrate, and this vibration produces a new retarded field which exactly cancels out the first retarded field. So in the future of the absorber, the net effect is that there is no retarded field. But the absorber also produces a negative energy advanced wave traveling backwards in time to the emitter, down the track of the original retarded wave. At the emitter, this advanced wave is absorbed, making the original electron recoil in such a way that it radiates a second advanced wave back into the past. This "new" advanced wave exactly cancels out the "original" advanced wave, so that there is no effective radiation going back in the past before the moment when the original emission occurred. All that is left is a double wave linking the emitter and the absorber, made up half of a retarded wave carrying positive energy into the future and half of an advanced wave carrying negative energy into the past (in the direction of negative time). Because two negatives make a positive, this advanced wave adds to the original retarded wave as if it too were a retarded wave traveling from the emitter to the absorber.

In Cramer's words: The emitter can be considered to produce an "offer" wave which travels to the absorber. The absorber then returns a "confirmation" wave to the emitter, and the transaction is completed with a "handshake" across space-time. But this is only the sequence of events from the point of view of pseudo-time. In reality, this process can be said to be a-temporal; it happens all at once. This is because, according to the special theory of relativity, signals that travel at the speed of light take no time at all to complete any journey. As Einstein puts it:

1

β = ----------------

√ 1 - (υ/V)^2

Since for light β becomes meaningless or infinite, τ also becomes meaningless or infinite. Thus, effectively for light signals every point in the Universe is next door to every other point in the Universe. Whether the signals are traveling backwards or forwards in time doesn't matter, since they take zero time (in their own frame of reference), and +0 is the same as -0 and all the quantum probability waves do travel at the speed of light. The situation is more complicated in three dimensions, but the conclusions are exactly the same. This interpretation makes no predictions that are different from those of conventional quantum mechanics, but it provides a conceptual model which helps many people to think clearly about what is going on in the quantum world. It means that when an electron is faced with a choice of two holes to go through, the offer goes through both but the handshake only comes back through one, so it knows where to go; and in Renninger's experiment, the particle setting out from the radioactive nucleus has already made its handshake and knows which hemisphere it will end up on. There is no more mystery about the quantum mysteries at all; provided you can live with waves that go backwards in time. But as we have shown in our essay, this concept is entirely wrong.

It is true that particles, which are nothing but confined fields, move in waves, which are nothing but the motion of the field that contains the particles. This can be easily derived from fundamental principles. We treat both this wave and its intensity as real. Once we accept this description, the measurement problem vanishes. Wave function describes the movement of the field that contains the particle. Thus, knowing the specific wave function, we can precisely locate a particle in that field, because the particle also has a role in regulating the movement of the wave. Since measurement is taken at "here-now", it is real. We freeze this value and use it at other times when the system is no longer the same as it has evolved temporally. Regarding the superposition of states, we have described in our essay that it is only the combined unknown states of a temporally evolving system at moments other than the moment when measurement is taken. We can know the precise description of the system only at the moment of measurement. At all other times, it could have evolved with time. Knowing the inputs, we can only describe the probability of its state. We cannot precisely describe its state at any other moment. As we have pointed out in our essay, uncertainty in describing the precise state is not due to the laws 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.

Regarding the mysteries of spin behavior, we can explain it easily. As you have pointed out, the electron has a magnetic moment, which is a magnetic field associated with it. If the electron is moving along the z-axis, then the electric and magnetic fields associated with it move along x-axes and y-axes respectively. Since measurement is a process of comparison between similars, any experimental set up to measure the spin properties must use one such field. Thus, while comparing with this field (co-ordinate system), the magnetic moment of the electron will show only two expected values. During other times, it is aligned to the local field. This makes it's spin vector unknown. There is no mystery here.

Regarding the second characteristic of spin - when an electron is rotated through a full 360 degrees, its spin does not return to its original position, but takes an additional 360 degrees to come to its original position, the explanation is simple. If you look at the magnetic field lines of Earth, you will notice that they flow from South Pole sideways in a closed loop towards North Pole, where it closes the loop. When the same field line comes out, due to the movement of Earth, it will come out in the opposite orientation making a figure of 8. After one more rotation, it will regain its original orientation. There is no mystery here also. There is no need to unnecessarily mystify the simple natural phenomena.

We have shown elsewhere that the concept of "light cone" is fallacious as light pulse either propagates in a straight line or in all directions (spheres). There is no reason to assume that it takes a selective direction to validate the imaginative views of some who call themselves scientists. Thus, time evolution of a light pulse will be a set of concentric spheres and not a "light cone". As a consequence, the concept of event horizon is also a hoax.

The basic problem here is not the mysteries of the quantum world, but our way of looking at it and describing it. We know all about the electron and how it behaves except that most do not know what an electron is? This lack of knowledge leads to generation of incomprehensible theories to retain the high position and the perks that come with it at public expenses.

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Basudeba,

We measure the rest energy of a particle as its inertia, as the opposition it offers to the force we apply to accelerate it. In its opposition we feel the force with which the particle is anchored to all particles it owes (shares) its energy to (with). By accelerating it we change all frequencies of every exchange it maintains with these particles, the change depending on its acceleration and direction of motion. I agree that

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

If with 'observer' we mean a particle, then to this observer the state of the observed particle, the frequency they exchange at depends on their distance and motion with respect to each other. If the observed particle exchanges energy in many different frequencies with all other particles then "all possible states" refers to all these different observers. So when we manipulate the whole particle, we bring to expression all the states it is a superposition of, a superposition which to us looks like a single state.

"The particles don't interact with each other directly. Each interacts with the field, which, in turn gets modified locally due to such interaction"

Though it's very handy for our theories, our equations to regard a particle as a source of its field, its interactions, as if one is the cause of the other, as if the source precedes its field, if it actually is as much the product as the source of its field, then there's no distinction between the particle and its field, even though the particle 'dissolves' into its environment where its field decreases. So we might as well say that particles interact directly. Though the particle we observe isn't observer-independent as an observation interaction affects the expression of its properties, we affect their expression rather than its properties. That said, there is indeed "no way to isolate the particles and measure their energy independently" since they owe their energy to each other, expressing and preserving their energy by exchanging it. As to

"Since no object is ever at rest, there is nothing as rest energy."

Indeed, but we can define what we mean with the rest energy of a particle. In Chapter 1.2 'Mass, a quantum mechanical definition' of my www.quantumgravity.nl site, the rest mass of a particle is defined as greater as its position is less indefinite, as it remains longer within the area corresponding to that indefiniteness, that is, as the probability to find it in a smaller area is greater. This definition contains no statement about whether or not it moves inside that area.

"It is not true that the particle repeats in every cycle all possible energies."

Energy is a quantity which is greater as its rate of change is greater, so if a particle is to preserve its energy, it has to keep changing, which it does by 'waving', by alternately borrowing and lending all of its energy from and to all particles with respect to which it exists. So if we define an increasing energy (rate of change) as the phase the energy sign of the particle is positive, and a decreasing energy as the phase its sign is negative, then the energy sign of a particle alternates at a frequency equal to its energy. Its energy, its rate of change (E = v = dE/dt = d²E/dt² except for a phase shift) keeps changing from 0 up to the level corresponding to its rest energy. So if the rate of change changes within every cycle, which is repeated in every next cycle as long as its energy remains constant, alternately borrowing and lending all of its energy, then the indefiniteness in its position also varies in time, at the same frequency. As I argue in my UPDATE 1 post at my forum (topic/838) about the strong nuclear force, this implies that in every cycle it repeats the identities of all lower-energy particles, so a neutron periodically is a proton as well as an electron. As to electric charge, if there would be only one single electron in the universe so it wouldn't be able to express its charge, then it couldn't be charged itself. If to have charge requires the existence of other charged particles, then charge, or any property, only exists as far it is shared, in its exchange. In my essay I propose that the charge sign of a particle just refers to their energy sign, oscillating at a frequency equal to its energy. If the properties of particles ultimately are as much the product as the source of their interactions, then like there's "no way to isolate the particles and measure their energy independently", there's no way to isolate the particles and measure their charge independently, so "Till now we have not been able to isolate a single proton or neutron from their environment to measure its charge directly" ignores the fact that we cannot measure it directly as, like energy, it only exists within their energy exchange and interactions. That is: what we consider to be a mass-independent electric charge, in my book just refers to the energy sign of particles, so as the frequency this sign oscillates at determines its rest energy, there is no separate charge contribution to its mass. So it doesn't make any sense to measure the charge of a particle or theorize about its exact value: we can only measure its (rest) energy. The Maxwell equations of course remain as important and relevant as ever: it is only our outdated idea of charge which needs to be revised.

"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."

I strongly object to the clause "their independent identity": as I try to make clear in my essay, there is no such thing if particles create one another, if their properties are as much the product as the source of their interactions. This means that their identity, their properties change as soon as the conditions they find themselves in become to extreme to survive, at a high enough temperature, pressure or violent collision. Instead of saying that they fall apart in their component particles (quarks), I argue that there are no such components even though we can create for a short time quark pairs and triplets. Whereas it is true enough that the properties of atomic nuclei don't change very much as they form different molecules, we cannot say that hadrons likewise are built out of quarks, that quarks causally precede hadrons. It is the other way around: quarks are created only when we destruct hadrons and only exist for the short time this high-energy disequilibrium situation exists. As in a nova the explosion is the result of a preceding series of high-energy particle collision as the star implodes, we can expect quark pairs and trio's to escape. So there is no "breaking up of the particles to its constituents": instead new debris particles are created at the collision, particles which certainly must have properties if they are to carry the collision energy until it finds a way to radiate excess energy away to allow the rest to slip in the familiar baryon form. Though there certainly are a limited number of different particles, by saying that

"All bodies are created from the same fundamental particles"

you say that particles have had no say in their properties, that they were passively created by some outside intervention, in which case you practice metaphysics even if you think you don't. In a self-creating universe the bricks of any building, are designed and baked in the building process, depending on the type of building which is erected, an edifice the form and dimensions of which in turn depend on the amount of clay which is available, on the neighborhood. This means that we cannot say that hadrons or neutrons stars and black-hole like objects ultimately are built out of quarks.

"In our theory, the origin of our Universe necessitates the origin of multiverses."

Indeed, as long as you insist that the universe must have an origin, a beginning, that is: a cause, which is to say: a Creator. A self-creating universe by definition has no cause. The fatal flaw of causality is that if we understand something only if we can reduce it to a cause, and we can understand this cause only as the effect of a preceding cause etc, to end at some primordial cause which cannot be reduced to a previous cause, then causality ultimately cannot explain anything. In other words, we should acknowledge that a self-creating universe can have no beginning as a whole, that it has no origin but itself. As to virtual particles, I have defined (in the above mentioned chapter 1.2) particles to be more virtual as their position, and hence their energy is less definite, that is, as their mass is smaller: as their behavior is less stringently subjected to the laws of physics as the 'real' particles are, or subject each other to. As to the H - He reaction, this of course must be a 4 H= He.

Regards, Anton

Dear Sir,

We are extremely thankful to you for raising some very important questions and giving us a chance to explain it.

The fundamental difference between matter particles (fermions) and energy particles (bosons) is that, while the former accumulates around a central point (center of mass or nucleus), there is no such central point for energy. Thus, they obey what is known as the exclusion principle and the superposition principle respectively. Thus, energy cannot be at rest. Even when the energy is confined in some matter, it will spread out to attain equilibrium. After it nears equilibrium, the energy near the periphery will interact with the boundary, which will start another chain reaction. What you call as rest energy is the state when the internal energy distribution of the particle is such that there is a little excess of negative charge over positive charge. It is well known that the charge of protons is not equal to +1, but a little less. Similarly, the charge of neutrons is not zero, but slightly negative. We have theoretically derived the charge of proton as +10/11 and that of neutron as -1/11. This negative charge is not apparent as negative charge always confines positive charge and flows towards the concentration of positive charge - nucleus. Hence it is not felt outside. It is not revealed in measurements due to the nature of calibration of the measuring instruments. This excess negative charge confines the positive charge (nearly 2000 times in magnitude) which is revealed in atomic explosions. Thus, the atoms other than hydrogen have limited number of neutrons in their nucleus. Even hydrogen atoms mostly do not exist in free state, but exist only as molecules. These negatively charged particles can stay isolated from others, as long as the difference of charge is within a thresh-hold limit. Since in that state it does not react with external bodies (but reacts to the external field as a single stable body), it can be called its rest energy.

What we call as rest is the state when all external forces acting on a body cancel out each other. Inertia is the response of the body to its environment (external field), when this equilibrium is disturbed by the application of external forces. Thereafter, since the body moves with the field, it moves at constant velocity till it is disturbed by some other force. There is no other explanation for this phenomenon. Inertia is not acceleration, since the body moves under inertia at constant velocity. If you take the rest energy as inertia due to "the opposition it offers to the force we apply to accelerate it", you will land in the following paradox:

The force applied to accelerate a body can vary depending upon the external circumstances. For example, if a body is placed in a balanced position on a cliff, it will require very little force to accelerate it. You can call it the magnitude of the inertia of rest. The same body placed on a flat surface will require a much bigger force to accelerate it. Thus, the magnitude of the inertia of rest can vary depending upon the external circumstances. The same principle should apply to the magnitude of inertia of motion. Since both these types of inertia are inherent properties of the body and are independent of each other, if we want to measure the total inertia of the body, we have to multiply inertia of rest with inertia of motion: I = Ir x Im.

This is because for any particular value of Ir, the Im can have any value. Now, since rest and motion are mutually exclusive, if Ir has a non-zero value, then Im should be zero and vice versa. Thus, the result will always be zero - which is absurd.

Regarding the interaction of the particle with its field, we must remind you our earlier statement that we treat the nature of confinement as the only distinction between the particle and the field. The confinement makes the net energy non-linear. Since only linear forces interact with each other and non-linear forces co-exist without interaction, the particles retain their individual identity from the field. Thus, we said "Each (particle) interacts with the field, which, in turn gets modified locally due to such interaction".

When you say: "the rest mass of a particle is defined as greater as its position is less indefinite", what it means is that your energy account is balanced: i.e., you are in a position to measure all the forces acting on it to bring it to equilibrium. Mass is also experienced as a force. The more you experience this force, the higher it is. Thus, while your theory is correct, its explanation needs a review.

Regarding energy we feel we are talking about the same theory in different languages. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. We do not accept that mass and energy are convertible. They are inseparable conjugates. Only their distribution in any concentration may change. What is meant by energy conversion is that this distribution has changed. Since energy cannot be perceived directly, but is perceived through its effect on mass, in a dynamical state where interactions are rapidly changing the local field, we will experience energy of different magnitude. This is what you describe as phase change. If the concentration of mass is more, a negative field will be felt surrounding it and vice versa. You are absolutely correct that "it doesn't make any sense to measure the charge of a particle or theorize about its exact value: we can only measure its (rest) energy." The values we had derived theoretically are the rest energy values.

Regarding the independent identity of particles, we feel that there is a communication gap. What we have always held - that particles are locally confined fields and that the nature of confinement differentiates between particles - perhaps needs elaboration. We identify each particle based on some of its exhibited characteristics. This is their identity. When they are coupled to form a quantum particle, they lose their exhibited characteristics and exhibit new characteristics. We give a loose example of water (it is strictly not an appropriate example, but it serves to high light our point). Hydrogen and Oxygen in a specific proportion combine to form water. But the characteristics of neither hydrogen nor oxygen are exhibited by water. They merge their identity in water. We also agree with you that the reverse process can take place. Water can lose its identity to become hydrogen and oxygen. These are reversible processes.

When we say: "All bodies are created from the same fundamental particles", what we meant is that initially there was only one primordial field. Recently LHC has surprised physicists / cosmologists that the early universe was a 'perfect fluid', not an 'explosion of gases' that is the basis of all current theories. This has been our theory all along. We have a detailed mechanism to show how space, time, different forces and subsequently structure formation evolved from this field. The present confusion arises because we have not yet published that theory. We will be publishing it soon. Thus, it is not metaphysics, but physics.

Regarding multiverses, all we can say that it flows from our theory. We do not believe in a superman called God. We only believe in the mechanism. If you want to call the mechanism as Creator, we have no objection except that it will be a wrong description. The Creator has to create something outside of it. If there was something outside the Creator, then the question arises: who created that and the Creator himself? Since it is a self-sustained mechanism, there is no reason to presume that the mechanism exists only here and is not present elsewhere. This gives rise to the concept of multiverses.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Basudeba,

I liked your originality in desribing various issues in physics.But as far as I know,both theories of Relativity are tested in various experiments to precision.So I dont want to comment on your views on them.

In fourth para from bottom,you are saying that 'since other particles are subject to different forces in the local field, they move differently'.Is the force you are reffering to gravitation? Here I want to make my stand clear.In gravitational field,particles (quantum) of different masses are subjected to different forces but their 'acceleration' is the same.So according to the second law of QG,which I have stated,all particles will have the same 'energy' (kinetic) which implies that their velocities vary according to their masses.Although,this is not the case with macroscopic test masses.It is this difference in the behaviour of quantum particles and test masses in uniform accelerated field which I have repeatedly stressed in my essay.

In the penultimate para,you have identified 'Dual nature of velocity'with acceleration and deceleration.I dont know on what basis you done so.Nor do I understand how do you identify velocity with Non-Duality.

In the final para,the spirit in which I have used the word 'Advaitha' is misunderstood by you.According to Advaitha,'Brahman'is the ultimate reality and like-wise QG field is the ultimate reality in the physical universe.

Thanks for your comments on my essay and I will go thro' your essay soon and express my views on it.

Best regards and good luck.

Sreenath B N.

Dear Sir,

Truth has no variants and palatable benevolence is a rarity. Blind acceptance of something in the face of apparent contradictions is nothing but superstitions. Running away from something when faced with a challenge is cowardice. Hence kindly do not discredit yourself by refusing to face the truth. This is harming the cause of science. There are many manipulated experiments to verify the statements of relativity. One of them is the verification of time dilation using atomic clocks. The documents still available in the archives prove our statement. Then there are many other concepts like gravity waves, which have not been detected even after about a century, but billions of dollars are spent in research to locate it and thousands of people using this concept in their research work including doctoral thesis. We consciously use the word manipulated and challenge anyone to prove us wrong. We are not the only one to hold this view. There are plenty of other scientists who hold the same view. In fact there are some sites exclusively devoted to this topic. Taking an ostrich like view to those findings is nothing but superstition. We have given our views above. If you can, please go ahead and prove us wrong.

However, we profusely thank you for raising a very important question and giving us a chance to prove it. This is relating to gravity and acceleration.

Before we discuss whether the force we were referring to was gravity, we will like to discuss something about force itself. A force is experienced only in a field (we call it rayi). Thus, it is a conjugate of the field. If something is placed in a field, it experiences something else. This something else is a kind of force. Depending upon the density variations of the field, we experience the force differently. Hence we call it by different names. While the field is one, the forces are many. Since they are conjugates, we can also say that different forces create different variations in the field.

The basic nature of the field is equilibrium. The basic nature of forces is displacement. This gives rise to two different types of inertia: inertia of motion due to forces and inertia of restoration (elasticity) due to the field. This leads to both these inertia acting against a point of equilibrium. In such a scenario, the combined effect leads to confinement around the point of equilibrium. The confined structure is called particle. Thus, all particles have a central point of mass or nucleus, an extra nuclear field surrounding it and fixed orbitals confining it. This is the common feature of all particles be they quarks or the Cosmos. The confinement may also cover the field without the central point. This is caused due to non-linear interaction of the forces. We will describe the mechanism separately. In such a case the field behaves like a fluid. The latest finding of LHC is that the Universe was created from such a super-fluid and not gases. The confined field also interacts with the Universal field due to difference in density. This in turn modifies the nature of interactions at different points in the medium (Universal field).

A force can act only between two particles as only a particle can influence the field, which in turn can be experienced by another particle. If the external force of the field is more than the confining force of the two particles, then the two particles break up and join to form a new particle. We call this "sambhuti". In the opposite case, the two particles experience the force without being internally affected. The force acts between the centers' of mass of each treating each as a point particle. We call it "bibhuti". This second category of relationship, which we call "udyaama", is known as gravity. Since it stabilizes the two bodies at the maximum permissible distance between them depending upon their respective masses, we call it "urugaaya pratisthaa". For reasons to be discussed separately, this is possible only if gravity is treated as a composite force.

The first category of forces, which are interactions between two bodies, acts differently based on proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance - proximity and distance - distance variables. We call these relationships "antaryaama", "vahiryaama", "upayaama" and "yaatayaama" respectively. This interaction affects the field also inducing various local disturbances. These disturbances are known as "nitya gati", "yagnya gati", "samprasaada gati" and "saamparaaya gati" respectively. Any particle entering the field at those points feels these disturbances, which are known as the strong nuclear interaction, weak nuclear interaction, electromagnetic interaction and radioactive disintegration respectively. Thus, you can see that gravity belongs to a completely different group of forces and cannot be integrated with other fundamental forces of Nature in the normal process. Yet, it has a different function by which other forces can be derived from it. We will discuss that separately.

Ever since Newton propagated his second law, acceleration has been highly misunderstood by the scientific community. Before we give a proper explanation for the mechanism of acceleration, let us analyze the equation F = ma.

Without any qualifying word, F here is to be understood as any imprest force. The function of a force is to displace bodies from their position. The force can be impressed by a source only. After the force is impressed, the body is displaced. Thereafter, its contact with the source is cut off. Now the body moves with inertia, which remains constant in the absence of any other force. Thus, the equation should have been F = mv.

There may be occasions where the source impressing the force moves with the body. One example is an engine pushing a train or a cab. Here after the initial displacement, inertia takes over. But, the friction with the rail or the road retards the velocity. The force, which is moving in the same direction, again comes in contact with the body and again pushes it. This leads to a continuous change of velocity, the rate of which is called acceleration. But as can be seen, another force of friction is acting to generate acceleration, which has not been included in the equation. Thus, the mathematical form of Newton's second law is wrong.

To understand the true nature of acceleration, we have to understand wave motion. A wave is a disturbance in a fluid medium where the particles transfer the momentum only. This implies that the particles in a field are displaced temporarily and due to inertia of restoration (elasticity), regain their position and are subjected to the same force. Since fluid mediums do not have a strong confinement like solids, each particle pushes the others over a field leading to a chain reaction, which goes on repeating. The pushed particle, which was at rest, pushes the first particle back canceling half of its impact and transferring the other half to the next particle. We call this motion as "kampa". Since this transfer of energy involves over a field covering the amplitude of the wave and is further modified by the density (which is related to mass per unit volume) of the medium, the equation for momentum is ½ mv^2 at every point (most text books give a wrong explanation of this phenomenon).

Now, imagine a situation where the impressed force overcomes the inertia of restoration. The particle is displaced fully and in turn it displaces the next particle. There will be a reaction as above, but the rate of change of velocity will be reduced gradually. The particle will come to rest after sometime. Since the original particle will be going back to the source after sometime, the end particle will be subjected to a similar force in a chain repeatedly. We call this phenomenon "chiti". This last particle in a "chiti" then acts as a center of mass for other interactions. This finally leads to the formation of a structure because, as we have explained earlier, all structures have a center of mass surrounded by the extra-nuclear field and confined by orbits.

When you say: "In gravitational field, particles (quantum) of different masses are subjected to different forces but their 'acceleration' is the same", what it means is that if particles of different masses float on a river, irrespective of their mass, their velocity remains the same. Similarly, if people of different mass board a flight or a train, irrespective of their mass, their velocity remains the same. The explanation is that with reference to their frame of reference, they are all at rest. We posit that it is the field that is moving and what we see as the uniform velocity is the relative rest position of the particles of different mass in the same frame of reference like the different pebbles that show through a running wave in a sea beach. You cannot describe these phenomena as "all particles will have the same 'energy'", because it is the energy of the field and not the particle that you are describing.

Reference to the "'Dual nature of velocity' with acceleration and deceleration" can be understood in the context of "sambhuti" and its opposite mechanism, which we call "vinaash", where the particle experience the force that internally affect it to break up into its constituents. It is different from "bibhuti", where the two particles experience the force without being internally affected.

Regards,

basudeba

Hi dear Sir,

Very interesting all that, the spherization of the spheres by spheres inside a beautiful sphere and these spheres turning around spheres and the sphere.That is the reality so simple and so evident.

The world changes and the spherization continues its road towards the pure equilibrium between spheres(quant.and cosm.)as a torch of harmony.They build these spheres of mass and these spheres of light.What if find so incredible is the center of our Universe, this central sphere where all turns around.

It's wondeful this universal sphere in evolution, and the word is weak.

Best Regards

Steve

Dear Basudeba,

I have read your essay and analysis and interpretation of vedic sciences. I want to congratulate you on your enlightening work and I salute to your determination in explaining the true nature of the universe to several of us in this contest. I would like to say that what I had to convey is very similar to what you have outlayed, the field or rayi that you speak of is with in us and I termed it as singularity or conscience or I. Please see the blog that I put together last year after a decade long quest of self realization.

who am I?

I have also read several other essays and I have realized we are all trying to convey the truth in our own words. These essays are like different flowers in the garden and each has its own beauty and flavor. I am thankful for being able to enjoy in this garden of thoughts.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear Sir,

We do not agree with your understanding of consciousness and gravity as consciousness is non-reactive and pulling is physically impossible - it is always a push from the opposite direction. Consciousness cannot create gravity. There is nothing as absolute downward direction. Thus, what you call downward can be upward for others. We do not agree that "Space is defined by the circumference of the dimple and time is defined by the depth of the dimple". As we have explained earlier, both space and time are related to sequence (paratwa), the order of arrangement of objects and events respectively. Thus, the interval between objects is space and that between events is time. Since measurement is comparison between similars, we take a fairly repetitive interval that is easily cognizable and treat it or its sub-divisions as the unit to measure space and time.

Consciousness cannot be differentiated. We may have knowledge of various objects, but as "I know this", the knowledge content is same for all such perceptions, though the "this" content is different. Hence super consciousness is a wrong description of facts.

There is no proof regarding your assertion that "I or singularity or conscience holds the universe together with the gravity of love and that is why gravity seems to be a weaker force in the relativistic universe. Gravity of love is the strongest force in absolute universe." In fact, according to Naarada and Shaandilya, love is "para prema roopa", which contradicts your contention.

Your statements ""I" is the equation for nothing and everything and can only be represented but not contained by n-sphere also", is self contradictory since nothing cannot be everything and there cannot be something called n-sphere. Since the electric and magnetic fields move perpendicular to each other and both move perpendicular to the direction of motion, and since these are responsible for visual perception, there can be only three dimensions of every object that can be resolved to 10 dimensions described by us.

This is a forum of science. Hence kindly discuss science only and do not bring in spirituality. As we had seen, you do not have a proper understanding of the Shastras. Your claim about self realization or your quest for who am I is going in the wrong direction. In case you want further discussion on this issue, please write to us at mbasudeba@gmail.com. But please do not discredit Shastras by showing off your limited knowledge.

Regards,

basudeba