The Analog-In, Digital-Out Universe by Edwin Eugene Klingman

James,

Thank you for your very kind remarks. While we come at it from different backgrounds, we seem to have the same goal of clarifying certain basic ideas. I too am thankful that you participate here and that FQXi gives us all this opportunity.

Eckard,

I'm glad that you enjoyed the essay. My statement wasn't meant as criticism so much as a simple, short statement of how math arises naturally and physicists, including me, fall in love with its elegance, sometimes perhaps losing our perspective.

I look forward to both of your essays.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

For FQXi readers who do not realize that the C-field is real, I refer you to a paper I received yesterday, a week after submitting my essay. Had I held off, I would have included this info in my essay--I offer it now in this comment.

The 3 Dec 2010 issue of Physical Review Letters 105, 231103 ("...on Non-Newtonian Gravity") describes a 13 year study of LAGEOS satellite(s) that tracked the relativistic precession with one centimeter rms accuracy ("the most accurate measurement for the pericenter advance of a satellite orbiting the Earth ever made.") The results differ from general relativity's predictions by up to 0.2% and the difference is attributed to the C-field, or gravito-magnetic field.

The C-field is real, general relativity is of limited application, and I hope you keep this in mind while reading my essay.

Thanks,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

James,

Thanks for the above message. Can we go offline with this? My email address is on the first page of my essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Peter,

I appreciate your comments and will address several here.

Yes, the C-field is 'classic' as both Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity is a continuous field. Because Maxwell, Heaviside, Einstein, and others used gravito-electro-magnetic terminology, and apparently never assigned a 'name' to the gravito-magnetic field, I chose the letter 'C' because it was 'available', and fit with E, B, and G, and was simpatico with my first essay (in the Fundamental Limits contest).

Yours is a good question about my objection to magnetic derivation of black hole 'jets'. I don't really 'object' but there are several aspects to my thinking. First, as I understand it, many of the jets are many light years long--indicative of astonishingly strong fields. Second, I'm unaware of mechanisms that would lead to huge charge buildups in black holes. It would seem that, as elsewhere, the presence of a plasma in the neighborhood would tend, over time, to neutralize any such phenomenon, diminishing any consequent magnetic fields. And finally, the requirement for generation of an immensely powerful C-field, that is a massive rotating object, seems to be met by a black hole, de facto. So I just think that gravito-magnetic fields are more likely than electro-magnetic fields as the explanation for such jets. (I could be wrong.)

I am less sure what your 'central massive issue' is (why the field was first banished). I will read the link you gave me. As you note, it's hard to get it all in 9 pages.

As for curvature without 'matter', I think the distinction is between the 'mass equivalence' of field energy (of the primordial gravitational field (singularity or not)) versus 'particulate matter' such as baryons. My assumption is that, at the big bang, if only the gravity field exists, it's self-energy is sufficient. Apparently Calabi thought so too, and Yau 'proved' that such could exist. Of course this is a 'lift yourself by your own bootstraps'-type of situation, but almost any creation of the universe from nothing is a bootstrap situation.

You make the point that photons are not conserved. Although second quantized quantum theory was to handle the non-conservation of particles, and Einstein's boson statistics create photons, still I had not given much thought to the non-conservation of photons (which of course is not to say the non-conservation of energy and momentum). Interesting.

Finally, I am less and less inclined to grant 'virtual' particles reality. With 'point particles' and 10**120 more vacuum energy, virtual particles may have made sense. With spatially extended particles and 10**120 less available energy, I wonder. QCD has assumed, for example, a 'sea of strange quarks' in protons, etc, and this has *not* been found, much to QCDer's surprise. If you study the issue, "virtual particles" are the ideal 'fudge factor' and a case could be made that it is just this fudge factor that accounts for the (until recently) amazing accuracy of QED. The recent 4% discrepancy of QED in the case of muonic hydrogen is not reassuring. There are other issues with 'virtual' that are too long for a comment. Once one has charged mass, it is "easy" to get photons. It is much harder, in my opinion, to get mass from nothing, and this applies to 'virtual' mass as well.

After reading your linked article, I may have more comments. Thanks for your stimulating comments.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

In order to make it easier to find relevant info in one place, I will copy such info from other threads to here. The following is background I wrote on Peter's thread:

Because gravito-magnetism was initially believed to be too weak to be of any consequence, it has been essentially ignored for 150 years. In fact, the Phys Rev Lett paper cited above is possibly the first time that gravito-magnetism has 'officially' and unequivocally attributed the discrepancy with general relativity's predictions to the gravito-magnetic field (aka the 'C-field').

My premise is that gravity G, gravito-magnetic C, electric E and electro-magnetic B-fields exist, and I believe G and C are 'classical' ie, each field is a continuum. I am less sure whether E and B are continua or whether they are statistical effects of bosons. I'm thinking about it. Maxwell first wrote the GEM equations simply based on symmetry (Newton's ~ Coulomb's equation) and these were later derived as the 'weak field limit' of general relativity.

Key is that my calculations provide reason to believe that gravito-magnetism is 10**31 times stronger than was originally believed, and Martin Tajmar has experimentally found the same factor. If correct, this has very significant consequences for particle physics and cosmology.

On the surface Maxwell's EM equations and the analogous GEM look very similar. But there is a drastic essential difference. The EM fields interact strongly with charge, but are themselves uncharged, hence their self-interaction is linear and supports 'superposition' in the mathematico-physical sense of interference. But the GEM fields interact with mass and, through self-energy E=mc**2, thereby interact with themselves in a non-linear, ie, Yang-Mills manner, providing for physical phenomena that have been attributed to other fields (which physicists freely invent due to the nature of the Lagrangian technique).

If it turns out to be the case, as looks more likely every day, that the C-field is not only real, but has the strength I claim it has, and, as also looks more likely, neither the Higgs nor SUSY particles show up, then "somebody got a lot of 'splainin' to do."

I claim the C-field explains dozens of anomalies that GR, QED, and QCD cannot explain. If true, physics is much simpler than is currently believed to be the case. This, incredibly, will make a lot of people unhappy. Go figure.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Much of this comment is reproduced on Brian Whitworth's page. He begins, as many do, by denying local realism. That is the current trend, perhaps because it's 'sexy'. But one of the world's foremost experts, Anton Zeilinger, has written, Dance of the Photons, spelling out his key arguments in appendix A, where he substitutes, for quantum "properties" human properties, such as eye color, hair color, and height. He then proceeds to derive Bell's inequality and to claim that actual measurement results imply that the properties "do not exist until measured".

This is the key statement denying that local properties are real.

But changing the 'name' of the properties has absolutely no effect upon the logic of Bell's inequality, so either his logic is correct or it is not.

And here is the catch. The entire logic is based upon the assumption that the properties do not change en route to being measured! If this assumption is wrong, then the logic of Bell's inequality is wrong, and the drastic step of denying local realism is simply not justified.

Zeilinger begins with a "known" set of properties, and derives, based upon this set, Bell's inequality, and finds that measurements violate this inequality, then concludes that the properties do not exist until the measurement is made.

In Zeilinger's "user friendly" example, all that is necessary to refute this logic is to assert that one or more of the properties changed en route to the measurement. For example, one 'particle' dyes his hair, en route, thereby changing the measurement and violating Bell's inequality.

Now true believers will object, no, no, no -- you cannot equate 'hair color' with quantum properties -- but they are wrong. Bell's inequality does not depend on specific properties. All that is necessary to refute the argument is that properties change en route between the source and the detection.

As long as *both* entangled particles are treated exactly the same en route, the inequality is not violated, and there is no reason to question local realism. And this is exactly what is found experimentally. Only when the pair are interfered with in different ways en route is the inequality violated.

Therefore, one has to ask whether properties can change en route subject to differing physical interactions. And the answer is not available, because there is no rigorous analysis of photons, say in polarizing beam splitters. There is not even agreement on the (basically undefined) 'cut' or 'schnitt' that divides the quantum system being measured from the classical measuring 'apparatus'.

So the answer does not exist -- at this point only 'user preference' is involved. Some physicists are willing to give up local realism based on flimsy assumptions. I find that rather drastic, to put it mildly.

I am pursuing this here because my essay depends upon local realism and I've determined over the last few months that many FQXi'ers no longer believe in local realism.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

In the interest of keeping 'all things C-field' in one place, I copy the essence of remarks to Peter Jackson, in an attempt to harmonize our theories. In his 2020 essay, under Lorentz Transformation, page 6, he states:

"To keep the new local v below c, for momentum p=mv, the only place for the energy is in m (mass). This predicts a very strange phenomenon..."

The diagrams on page 6 in my essay, illustrate that any momentum, p=mv, gives rise to a circulating C-field, just as any charge current, qv, induces a circulating B-field, while on page 3 my equation 9 shows that dp/dt = d(circulation)/dt. Therefore 'stored energy' in the C-field generates a Lenz-law-like effect that explains conservation of linear momentum of free particles. Now consider the diagram for a massive particle. If we apply a force, F, the momentum p will change, F=dp/dt. In the diagram a larger momentum means a longer 'arrow' or vector, p, which, according to the above, would be accompanied by a greater C-field circulation (drawn as a bigger red circle around the mass.)

If one tries to 'stop' the higher momentum particle, the larger stored energy in the C-field will, Lenz-law again, 'kick harder', giving the appearance of a larger mass. A special relativistic analysis of this would be interesting.

A similar momentum argument would apply to the photon, in addition to any attendant frequency changes involved.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Peter,

A quick search on 'virtual particles' turns up:

"Virtual particles are a language invented by physicists in order to talk about processes in terms of the Feynman diagrams. These diagrams are a shorthand ..."

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/virtual.html: "Particle physicists talk about these processes as if the particles exchanged in the intermediate stages of a diagram are actually there, but they are really only part of a quantum probability calculation. It is meaningless to argue whether they are or are not there, as they cannot be observed."

On the other hand, Gordon Kane says: "Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways."

Whereas a search on "what are photoelectrons": "photoelectron - an electron that is emitted from an atom or molecule by an incident photon." or "an electron that has gained kinetic energy from a photon."

So Peter, I have no problem with photoelectrons. Virtual particles are more tentative with me.

I'm still trying to get through your other writing, but have gotten sidetracked with Brian Whitworth's fascinating essay, which I think follows current theories to (perhaps) their natural conclusion.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

My essay deals with 'local realism' and Brian Whitworth has written a wonderful essay based on taking the failure of local realism to its (perhaps) logical conclusion. The following summarizes points that I've made on Brian's thread.

He responded by saying: "If the properties of a photon can change en route, without physical intervention... isn't the objective reality hypothesis conceded?"

But I do not propose "without physical intervention", in which case there is no violation of Bell's inequality. It's only violated when photons are treated differently by polarizers or beam splitters, and this *is* physical intervention. If the choice is to give up local realism or to believe that a beam splitter has a physical effect on a photon, the choice is easy.

Since the C-field described in my essay accompanies every 'object' with momentum (fig on page 6), there is definitely a 'mass-sensitive' field involved passing through the polarizing beam splitter. Recent experiments (discussed in other comments) lend credibility to the gravito-magentic (C) field, whereas, after 80 years, we still don't know what a 'quantum field' is. He is "letting the quantum fields be real, not just mathematical fictions" I suggest that the C-field is at least as reasonable as a quantum field.

Brian says "the VR conjecture moves the word "physical" from the realism to the locality definitions." I will spend some time trying to absorb this.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

A brief summary:

Entanglement experiments imply that local realism is false because they violate Bell's inequality based on D'Espagnat's 3 assumptions: local realism, Einstein locality, and logical induction, as Brian points out. But if properties change en route (due to interaction with the apparatus) then violation of Bell's inequality does not imply that properties don't exist until measured.

And if properties do exist, then all relevant properties are expected to conserve momentum and energy. (Brian says: "ensure a constant spin zero" or "Keep one black if the other is white.") But then there is no necessary 'non-localism' since the existence of conserved properties means that if one is known, then the other is known. There's no need for 'spooky' communications between Bob and Alice's locations.

Why is this not obvious? Because Copenhagen 'superposition of states' inherently does away with realism in favor of mysticism, claiming quantum objects are 'ghostly' until measured. More than anything, this probably derives from two-slit experiments, but the same C-field 'pilot wave' that I claim interacts with beam splitters would also interact with two slit apparatus, potentially explaining interference observed by experiment.

Brian's point 8: "Superposition. Objective entities cannot spin in two directions at once as quantum entities do...". The physical fact is that a magnetic field can only measure along one axis at once, and this has been distorted by probabilistic representation into spinning in two directions at once.

There seems to be inconsistency here. On the one hand, "properties cannot change en route without physical intervention" while on the other hand, "properties are in a 'state of superposition' described only statistically by a probability wave function. If only probability applies, why can't things change? One assumes that they are changing until the superposed wave function is measured, 'collapsing' the wave function (ie, the in-transit object) into a real, albeit unpredictable state.

The necessity for probability implies an essential randomness, to which I'll return later, but if things can't change, then they are predictable, and if they are only statistically predictable, who's to say they can't change? (This is only a logical point as I contend they do change upon contact with the apparatus.)

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Steve,

Your self-taught English far exceeds my self-taught French, but you need to read more closely. Nowhere do I claim to have designed a conscious robot. I define consciousness as awareness plus volition (free will) and no robot will ever have awareness or free will (although guided randomness may simulate free will). What my bio states is that I designed robotic experiments of the kind King describes in the most recent Scientific American magazine and as described in Science in 2009. (Automating Science, Science Vol 324 3 Apr 2009 ) and also described in my book "Automatic Theory of Physics" (Amazon).

I also answered these question listed in Appendix A of my essay:

Q1 How to reduce an indefinite number of measurements to finite number of features.

Q2 What is the criterion for "best" feature set?

Q3 How can we obtain the best feature set?

Q4 How will we describe the dynamical behavior of the object?

Q5 What is the best physical theory?

Steve ask yourself how you would design and program a robot to make measurements, say of visual data, and derive rules of behavior of the observed entities (ie, physics) after extracting features through clustering operations on the data. If you can do this (I did and others did in 2009) then you will have a "robot physicist" who made observations and derived a theory. It is 'automated' or 'automatic' theorization, but the robot is never aware and never has free will, so is never conscious.

As a side point, I left NASA decades ago and founded companies, not societies. Finally Steve, if you compare your recent messages to those of two years ago, you will find that your messages were much clearer then. Try to slow down and not take things too seriously.

Your friend,

Edwin Eugene Klingman