• [deleted]

  • Post #25

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I regret, but you makes confusion on this point. Actually, gravito-magnetic effects are well known within General Relativity, i.e. the C-field, that you claims to be real while General Relativity should be of limited application (in all honesty, I find a few arrogant this claim), is indeed a part of General Relativity, see for example the recent review published in Astrophys. Space Sci. 331:351-395, 2011. Difference of order 0.2% are NOT attributed to the C-field, or gravito-magnetic field, which is comprised in General Relativity, but to potential modifies of the gravitational action with respect to the Einstein-Hilbert action of Standard General Relativity.

Best wishes.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #26

Again, you makes confusion. Your sentence that "gravito-magnetism has been essentially ignored for 150 years" is NOT correct. Actually, there is an ENORMOUS number of papers in the literature regarding gravito-magnetism, see the recent review published in Astrophys. Space Sci. 331:351-395, 2011 and references within. Attempts to explain discrepances from General Relativity which have been found in the Phys Rev Lett paper cited above arise from potential modifies of the gravitational action with respect to the Einstein-Hilbert action of Standard General Relativity. These modifies have nothing to do with gravito-magnetism which is indeed well known within Standard General Relativity.

Best wishes

Dear Basudeba,

You are overly deferential, but I appreciate your comments. We seem to agree on many things, and even where you may think we disagree on math, I am merely contending that math arises in our universe, not as a Platonic "other".

I am uncertain as to your interpretation that the Master equation and its consequences do not derive from fundamental principles. It derives from logic, which I consider to be the most fundamental of all principles, essentially demanding physical non-contradiction. Given only one entity in the universe, the primordial field, that entity can only evolve through interaction with itself. There is nothing else to interact with or govern its interaction. This leads to a symbolic Master equation which, considered in light of real physics measurement and history can reasonably be interpreted to be the most general mathematical operator, the directional derivative or tangent vector and the field interpreted as gravity.

Each of us has to choose, from the myriad topics of physics, where to place emphasis. Many focus on special relativity, however that is not an area that unduly perturbs me. Similarly, gravitational versus inertial mass seems consistent with my theory and I have therefore not focused on this issue. The equivalence principle seems OK to me. I do not recall seeing your discussion of inertial and gravitational mass and your ratio mg/mi, so I cannot comment here. I have no current opinion on sterile neutrinos, either.

In short, I agree with a number of your statements, as you do with mine, and thank you for looking at my essay and responding.

Good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Steve,

    When I ask the question, "What is the best physical theory?" I am doing so in the framework in which the 'robot' is processing measurement data, extracting features, applying dynamical descriptions, and formulating a theory, but not necessarily a unique theory. Therefore the question relates to the use of entropy or other means of deciding between two or more theories that describe the same experiments. It is definitely not to be interpreted as my 'opinion' of what is the best theory.

    The answer that I derive is based on Gibbs theorem showing that if a hypothesis, Hj, exists such that prediction, p(Zi|Hj) coincides with the experimental frequency Ai, its credibility p(Hj|A1, A2, ...An) will exceed that of any other hypothesis. If large numbers of experiments are performed, the difference in credibility will be enhanced, leading to the selection of Hj as the most credible of the competing hypotheses.

    Its a mathematical decision of what is the best theory, not a personal one.

    Thanks for you bringing this confusion to my attention.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Darth,

    You are correct that General Relativity in the weak field limit leads to the GEM equations, and therefore implies gravito-magnetism. However it is true that Einstein failed to solve the magneto-static problem in general relativity, and more so that Maxwell and Heaviside decided that the field was too weak to be of significance.

    I have modified two of the equations in classical GEM, as indicated in my essay, and believe that very significant consequences derive from this. While a subset of physicists may be very familiar with the C-field, I think that most are not, and if they are, they do not think it generally significant. I may be wrong about that.

    I do not have access to Astrophys. Space Sci. so I cannot comment here, and I will let the Phys Rev Lett article I cited speak for itself. It is hard to derive and defend a new theory of the universe without sometimes sounding arrogant, but I try to hold these to a minimum. I also try to hold my mis-statements to a minimum, so thank you for calling me on what you view as a mis-statement.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Darth,

    I believe my previous response to you applies here also. I invite you to focus on my changes to GEM and potential consequences deriving therefrom, and forgive me for making overly general statements that certainly do not apply to a subset of physicists.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Darth,

    Re-reading your comment, you seem most offended by my statement that General Relativity is of limited application. I know this may be offensive to some, but that does not mean it is false.

    My approach to reality is that topology or connectedness is of primary significance, and distance, or metric overlay on topology is secondary. I view these as essentially separable problems. I think Doug Sweetser's diagram (reproduced in my essay) illustrates this beautifully.

    So a major question appears to me to be whether the universe is "flat" or not. I understand this to be the consensus belief today, and I do not challenge it as it fits my theory nicely. But if the universe *is* flat, then General Relativity seems to be most applicable in those local situations where a non-linear metric is most appropriate, such as black holes and neutron stars, and to have less significance where Euclidean geometry seems to apply, that is, almost everywhere. If the universe were *not* flat, then GR would be paramount. As it is (or appears to be) GR is primarily of local applicability. Again, I may be wrong.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    From a comment I made to Peter Jackson:

    I don't believe that 'empty space' exists, as I believe gravity to be a continuous field filling space everywhere. Frank Wilczek seems to say the same about 'quantum fields' everywhere in space, but I reject 'quantum fields'. If gravity is the primordial or underlying field, then it may provide the 'medium' in which E and M trade energy as the photon travels, and the C-field circulation, as explained in my essay, helps conserve the photon's inertial momentum.

    You state that "Max Planck's proposal of a compressible aether, more dense at the surface countered Lorentz's first objection...[but not] that the speed of light would be affected by density." It is along these lines that I think my equation 7 may have relevance, when the right hand side is viewed as variation of density. I haven't yet worked out the case of photons traversing a region of space, (dV =dx**3), subject to

    d(t)/dV = d(m)/dx --- (in units of Planck action, h) .

    The 'time dilation' dt, here would seem to imply that a distributed light wave/photon would 'bend' as a function of the variation in mass density, dm/dx, (where, in the most general case, dm is the change in gravitational energy with x.) This is for an extended wave front traversing a variable density region at right angles to the variation in density. If the direction of the photons is parallel to the direction of maximum variation, then we have Pound-Rebka type of dilation.

    I am very interested in applying equation 7, derived in a straightforward manner from my generalized Heisenberg principle, which in turn fell right out of my Master equation, which is essentially a fundamental statement of logic.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      • [deleted]

      • Post #33

      Very relevant !

      The Gibbs Theorem is important for the distribution of energy and informations.

      The conditions for specific series appear also like relevant.

      That permits to see the different steps as ideal gas.

      We see indeed the changement of entropy due to the number.

      The volumes always take a road of distribution.

      Do you know the result of Bridgman for the paradox.

      IN THE LIMIT.....IDENTICAL GAS.....DISCONTINUITY AS A FUNCTION ....ENTROPY STEPS.

      If the real limits of entangled spheres and their pure number aren't inserted for an universal correlation with universal entropy....the difficulties are more important at my humble opinion for the distribution of informations inside a closed system.

      The pression, the temperature, the volume are essential for all series of analyze.In all case these steps with limits permit to have some equilibriums for a stability as the memmory.

      On the other side, the volumes shall permit to polarize and to evolve in an vision of complementarity also in a digital rule including our consciousness analogic.

      That seems possible for a kind of automation.

      Relevant your ideas , you see indeed the whole,it's essential in fact the generality.That permits the best inventions,rationals.

      Regards

      Steve

      • [deleted]

      • Post #34

      Show that FM waves also violate the superposition law.

      Darth,

      The gravito-magnetic field in the GEM theory is not the same as the frame dragging or Lense-Thirring effect in general relativity. This is a very different idea about an intertwining between gravity and electromagnetism.

      Cheers LC

      • [deleted]

      • Post #36

      Hi Ed,

      We had been talking about GEM on Philip's site, and I thought it was appropriate to move here. This is a copy of my latest post on Philip's site:

      Dear Friends,

      I think that Chiao and Podkletnov are doing similar things in that they are using electromagntic fields and charges on superconducting materials to try to generate gravity. The idea goes back to DeWitt's idea that a spinning electron might couple to spacetime curvature. Chiao is using interferometer techniques that might be more accurate than Podkletnov's. In my Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory, photons and gravitons are different quantum occupation states of the Grand Unified Mediating (GUM) boson. The question then arises "How does a GUM boson transition from photon-like properties to graviton-like properties?"

      From what I have read of Ed's ideas, I really thought that GEM was a rotational gravitational effect. And though this concept might couple to generational effects and/or QCD, I don't think it is directly coupled with Electromagnetism, but magnetism is a great analogy.

      Should we move these conversations to Ed's site?

      Have Fun!

      • [deleted]

      • Post #37

      "But there is a simple alternative to [Zeilinger's] analysis. If one or more twins dyes his hair enroute, Bell's inequality will be violated, yet local realism exists."

      This of course refers to macroworld Bell tests, where the original EPR locality and realism assumptions do indeed hold. In fact I've never known Bell to be violated in the macroworld (i.e., using macroscopic objects) unless entanglement is somehow simulated (as in Diederik Aert's twin-vessels-connected-by-a-tube gedanken). I'm not disputing the possibility but could you construct a table showing how it could happen in the case of Zeilinger's twins, with one changing his hair color? You certainly can't fool Bell with Venn diagrams, since the Inequality is also fundamental classical macroworld logic. Nor with containers of food pulled out of a kitchen cabinet, nor with collections of keys, coins and so forth.

      "Solar neutrinos change enroute from the sun; why not photons?"

      Have Bell tests been conducted using neutrinos? What neutrino properties change?

      What about Leggett-Garg experimental tests (conducted by both the Zeilinger and Gisin groups to Leggett's specifications, and resulting in violation of realism in all nonlocal realistic theories except Bohm's -- which itself is challenged by the before-before experiments)? What about Charles Tresser's conclusion that Bell tests specifically disprove microworld realism, with the locality assumption Occamizable out of the picture?

      • [deleted]

      • Post #38

      nikman,

      Most of the Phys Rev Letters papers on entanglement (my main source) are difficult to understand or argue with, unless one is a specialist in that area. I read many of them, but am no expert. However I believe that when world-class experts write a 'popular' book, one can learn something. After reading Gilder's intro to "The Age of Entanglement" I then read Zeilinger's "Dance of the Photons" and was impressed by the clarity of his presentation. In particular, he presents an appendix (A) that translates the argument to more familiar terms. One advantage of this is that assumptions that we perhaps unknowingly carry in the QM world are not so easy to carry into the translation.

      As a result, his 'user-friendly' explanation argued using 'macro' examples as I described above. I do *not* believe that the character of the examples in any way affects the logic, and I believe that Zeilinger indicates this to be so. Bell's logic is Bell's logic, and the quantum measurements violate it, causing people to look for the 'hole in the logic'. I believe that the hole in the quantum logic is assuming that the properties, (which I believe to be real) change en route to the detector. If they do, then the inequality will be violated by the measurements without in any way leading to the conclusions that are normally drawn from such violations. This has nothing to do with 'macroworld' tests. It applies to *all* such Bell tests, as far as I can see.

      I mentioned that neutrino's change, not to claim that the same occurs for photon's, but simply to point out that only a decade or so ago, neutrino's were not assumed to change, and then they were found to change (or at least that's the current interpretation.)

      I believe that it is far more feasible that photons, when operated by complex apparatus such as polarizers and beam splitters, can reasonably be expected to be affected. If this is so, then violation of Bell's inequality will prove nothing about local realism and non-locality. And it is far less radical (and I mean FAR) to assume that photons interacting with crystals and molecules undergo a change of state, than to believe that real properties don't exist until measured, and then, upon measurement, somehow (and I mean *somehow*, since we have no idea how) immediately (ie, via 'no media') cause properties **anywhere else in the universe** to come into existence. I know physicists love 'spooky' and 'weird' but this is (imho) borderline insane (given a reasonable alternative interpretation).

      If real particles (and that is what my theory produces) have real properties (I believe they do) and these properties are subject to conservation laws (I believe they are) then there is simply no mystery involved. The particles are 'born' with real properties, traverse space (with accompanying 'pilot wave') conserving these properties, and when one is found out, the other is immediately known. And that is exactly what we see *unless* we do different things to the particles en route (the quantum equivalent of 'dye your hair').

      Where is the fault in this argument?

      As for your last questions, you are more knowledgeable than me.

      Thanks for your comment. I believe this is one of the most important questions facing physics, and certainly applies to my theory and Brian Whitworth's VR conjecture. We can't both be right. I would be happy to continue this based on logic, but I have little to contribute (at this time) on the specific experimental tests that you refer to. Unless they are based on some significant variation of Bell's logic, then I would expect the above arguments to apply.

      Ray,

      Thanks for visiting my thread. I very much want to answer your question. I have been stimulated (by Peter Jackson's 20-20 essay) to look much more closely at the C-field interaction with electromagnetic fields, and am quite pleased with what I am finding. I hope to answer you soon.

      Best to you all,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Darth and Lawrence,

        I am probably responsible for some of the confusion. If Lawrence is interpreting my version of the gravito-electro-magnetic field to be the same as Sweetser's GEM, then I have mislead him. I show Sweetser's diagrams because I believe they are relevant to understanding significant aspects of 'metric' vs 'potential' approaches to physics. I do NOT accept all of his approach to GEM. Part of the confusion is that I have been using the abbreviation 'GEM' for years before knowing about Sweetser, and neither he nor I have a monopoly on this term. It often refers to Maxwell's original invention, based on symmetry, of the gravito-electro-magnetic equations analogous to his electro-magnetic field equations. I don't know a way around this confusion. I often refer to the 'Gene Man' theory, which is more specific, but also more self-referential.

        My field equations (see my essay) are neither Maxwell's nor Sweetser's.

        I regret the confusion.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        • [deleted]

        • Post #40

        Dear Ed,

        Lawrence and I have corresponded quite a bit, and our approaches are more similar than you might realize. Certainly, he is more mathematical than I am, and his attack is more concentrated on Black Holes, whereas I'm attacking fundamental particles. The more that I study these TOE ideas, the more I think we are all tackling different parts of the same thing. I think that the TOE is a union of Strings and Kissing Spheres (CDT) all at the same time, as I present in my upcoming essay.

        Your GEM is a triality. I interpret Color as a quartality (leptons carry the neutral color "white" [in my Hyperflavor theory] or "violet" [in Pati-Salam theory] - you will see these ideas in Garrett Lisi's Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything, and in my 2009 FQXi essay) and Generations as the only true trialty. I have studied this G2 triality of generations since 2008 (Lawrence and I have corresponded at length about this symmetry), and I think this is related to the 3x3 CKM and 3x3 PMNS matrices (and a Unified CKM-PMNS matrix). I honestly think that this is the part of the puzzle that you may be addressing with GEM. I agree that there should be more to gravity than what we know via Relativity - whether "more" is quantum and/or "magnetic" rotational gravity.

        Good Luck and Have Fun!

        Ray,

        A brief reply to your first comment above. Until recently I had not given much consideration to the coupling of the GEM field to the electromagnetic field. It is trivially coupled via charged particles through the two Lorentz force equations. EM couples to charge and GEM couples to mass, and since all charged particles have mass (if not vice-versa) then all charged particles couple these fields through their very existence. Interestingly, the only common term to all of the 'magnetic' Lorentz forces is the particle's velocity.

        But as I indicated above, I have recently been working on the coupling of the fields without charged mass, and think I have some exciting results. I hope to say more soon.

        Thanks again,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        • [deleted]

        • Post #42

        Edwin,

        I reading through various of the conversations, you have made comments which suggest you think of space as fundamentally flat, yet you mention to me that Big Bang/Inflationary cosmology is necessary to your theory. The problem is that curved space is integral to this view of the universe, because if it is an expansion in otherwise flat space, then we would have to be at the center of the universe, given that redshift is directly proportional to distance and there is no lateral motion to match that implied by redshift. The only way to describe every point as appearing as the center of an expanding universe, is if space is fundamentally curved within the bubble of the universe.

        As I've raised the point, probably not so clearly in my essay, since it is supposed to focus on digital vs. analog, one way to have overall flat space, with every point appearing as the center, is for the outward curvature between galaxies to be balanced by the inward curvature within them. Thus every point is the center of its own horizon of how far light that doesn't curve into gravity can travel across the outward curvature of intergalactic space before being completely redshifted off the spectrum. The problem is that this yields an overall stable universe, so any material properties currently attributed to the initial singularity would have to be explained by the possibilities of an infinite and eternal universe.

        Given the issues I recently raised in the New Year, New Universe blog posting, about a recently discovered galaxy cluster at 12.6 billion light years, I do think it worth considering.

        http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/802

        Not that I think of space as being fundamentally curved, since it has no physical properties and so cannot be curved, expanded, bounded, etc.

          The N-qubit entanglements of states and black holes is equivalent to states in the AdS_7. In fact as you mention triality, this does involve a triality with the SO(8). This means the qubits have an equivalency with the ∂AdS_7 = E^6 = CY^6, where CY are Calabi-Yau spaces. The triality with the SO(8) is induced by a G_2 holonomy with a 3-form that on the boundary is the CY-3 form. So the qubits on a black hole (or AdS) are identified with the spectrum of elementary particles.

          Cheers LC

          John, as stated on another thread, my theory depends upon a big bang in order to, first, have sufficiently strong C-fields to create the particles we find in the universe, and second, to reach a point where such particle creation 'stops'. There are also symmetry breaking issues here that seem necessary to me to match our current universe.

          In addition, as difficult as it is to comprehend the big bang, as an event in which 'something' proceeds from a state of 'nothing', it is even more difficult (I would say impossible) for me to imagine an everlasting infinite space in which we still need to evolve in some reasonable manner the physical universe we find ourselves in. That may simply be my problem?

          Also, I don't really understand "the outward curvature between galaxies to be balanced by the inward curvature within them". It may make sense, but I don't understand it.

          In short, with an almost infinitely variable physical universe one has to pick and choose the problems to be solved. I have chosen what I consider the most significant aspects of reality and the most logical 'initial assumption' (that is, one field and one field only as the starting point) and attempted to evolve in a physically reasonable way the current state of the universe. I consider myself successful in this endeavor, but that leaves room for a very large number of specific instances and interpretations that I have not covered. I believe that this is inherent in the very process of such theorizing, since no one person can hope to solve every problem that others are concerned with.

          Again, as stated elsewhere, I consider the solution and or explanation of real physical anomalies, that everyone seems to agree are real, but no one has an explanation for, to be a better approach than to concern myself with Planck energies and multi-verses, that will probably never be available for inspection, and at best will be exceedingly indirectly implied. That, to me, is mathematics, whereas explaining real physical anomalies that are known to exist, is physics.

          Finally, I make predictions, about Higgs, SUSY, axions, and other possible LHC results, so that in only a very few years my theory will look better or worse.

          I am not downplaying your concerns, and I don't have immediate answers to them, I am just trying to explain why I am taking the approach that I do.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman