Respected Sir,
We are highly embarrassed by your invitation to an amateur in the field like us to comment on your highly respected work. Yet, finding many similarities between our views and the fact that you are associated with an organization that is a pioneer in the field of research to understand most of the mysteries of the universe has emboldened us to respond. Kindly forgive our impertinence if our comments appear to be so.
We agree that: "Analog and digital mathematical treatments can be shown to be equivalent, so the answer does not lie in math but in physics. At root is the nature of particles and fields. The simplest possible physical model, one field, will be analyzed and physical experiments proposed to show an analog reality with digital consequences. There are implications for the view of reality currently associated with entanglement and violation of Bell's inequality".
It is ultimately one analog field that transforms itself to a locally digital format by a deterministic mechanism. This makes for two types of fields. The mechanism is nothing but simple inertia (provided we interpret it properly). But there is a difference between our understanding and description of fields. Since we describe the primordial field as deterministic, we describe everything in terms of cause and effect. We have already shown in our essay the nature of uncertainty to show that it is not contradictory to causality, but a logical outcome of our measurement system. Since the primordial field is deterministic, all quantum effects have macro equivalents. We accept entanglement in both systems, but the effects of both are different. As you know Sir, the effect of entanglement is known to fade off after some distance - may be a few kilometers.
We broadly agree (in essence, but not on the process) that: "An appropriately isolated object system, measured by an appropriate number generator, produces a measurement space upon which clustering transformations can be performed--by either neural or silicon networks--to create a feature space that can be represented1 in either continuous or discrete formalisms".
Also we agree that: "Thus analog or digital reality questions can't be answered mathematically--the answer must be found in a physical universe. The simplest possible universe would consist of one primordial field". However, we hold that physics is mathematical in specified ways only.
You say: "Physics should never accept anything "outside time and space", such as: God, a mathematical universe, a multiverse, laws of physics, more than 4 dimensions. If physics does not grant God legitimacy, it should reject all other appeals to "the beyond". If only a primordial field exists initially, then any law of physics must derive from the field itself". We agree with you partially. While we accept that: "Physics should never accept anything "outside time and space", we do not accept the generally accepted concept of God. But if someone describes the single source of creation as God, we have no quarrels with such description. We accept: "a mathematical universe, a multiverse, laws of physics", because they are nothing but the mechanism through which the analog field becomes digitized. We do not accept the modern concept of extra large or compact 10 spatial dimensions. But we describe 10 unique projections of the three spatial dimensions. We have discussed it elaborately in our book.
We note with interest: "Finally the 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.
But we disagree with your comments that: "Our Master equation describes a perfect fluid, a G-C-field yielding the most complete explanation of our universe for all known particles and cosmological phenomena--that is compatible with SU(n), Yang-Mills, Calabi-Yau, 3D space and time, and local realism". This is because we do not accept anything that could not be derived from fundamental principles. Though the G-C-field is a gravito-magnetic field, our description of gravity is different from your description.
For example, we have derived gravity from fundamental principles as a composite force (of seven) that works similarly on macro and macro objects, though the results are apparent differently. For the macro effect, we can derive it from the electromagnetic force. For the micro effect, we can derive the electromagnetic force from it. With this theory, we can explain the Pioneer Anomaly, the Voyager deflection beyond the orbit of Saturn and the Fly-by anomalies. We had predicted the failure of Chandrayan 1 on 23rd May, three months before it actually failed. For us gravity is a composite force that stabilizes. Only this way we can explain the fixed ratio of the gravitational mass mg and the inertial mass, mi.
You have admitted that 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. In the force equation, the masses that are used are the gravitational masses, mg. The acceleration, derived from Newton's second law, is proportional to the inertial mass, mi, which describes a different property of a body: how it reacts to a force to acquire its acceleration. Now, it is found experimentally that all bodies have the same ratio mg/mi. This only proves what we have derived theoretically long ego.
Lot of talk is going on regarding the Sterile neutrinos. This is a part of our theory, from which we have theoretically derived not only the value of pi (22/7) and the fine structure constant (7/960 at zero energy level, and 7/900 at 80 GeV level), but also the charge of protons (+10/11) and neutrons (-1/11) in electron units (-1). Atoms interact: hence cannot be charge neutral. The excess negative charge is not revealed as it flows inwards (towards the nucleus), but is revealed in nuclear explosions. In all these, we have used simple mathematics that can be easily verified.
Once again thanks and regards,
Yours sincerely,
basudeba
