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

To all,

This is written to explain my final equation for those who do not speak partial differential equations or are not comfortable with such. It's obvious that I think it is a beautiful equation, and do not wish to limits its appreciation to only those familiar with PDEs.

The equation reads phonetically: partial-sub-rho(time) = partial-sub-x(mass)

What is shown in the derivation (in an appendix), but not explicitly shown in the final equation, is that the units are inverse Planck's constant, that is, the right hand side is "per unit of action".

Now partial-sub-rho(time), where rho stands for volume, means "the change of time in a region of space".

and partial-sub-x(mass), where x stands for distance, means "the change of mass with distance" (across the region of space).

The result is a simple equation that represents space, time, distance, and mass in quantum units of action.

Now this probably won't make much sense if you think of solid mass, like a chunk of lead, but if you think that a gravitational field (in a volume of space) has energy (proportional to the field squared, like all fields, according to Maxwell) and use Einstein's E=mc**2, then we can think of the change in the gravity (across the region) where the distance x is the 'width' of the region in the direction of maximum gravitational change. It usually helps to draw a picture at this point where each side is represented.

So we have a change in time (time dilation) in a region where we have a change in the gravitational field energy/mass and the two are related. This simple (and beautiful) equation fell right out of my generalized Heisenberg quantum relation, which fell right out of my Master equation that claims that if we start with one field, and nothing else in the universe, the field can only evolve by interacting with itself.

For those interested in time dilation, I think this is a unique equation that expresses a quantum way of looking at it.

Even experts in partial differential equations are never hurt by simple explanations, and I hope this helps some by explaining time dilation in a simpler way than it is typically explained.

Regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Cristi,

I find your answers enlightening. Thanks for the explanations. You do have an excellent grasp of the issues. Interested readers should follow the link provided to your answers.

Dear Ray,

Part of a response I gave to Cristi Stoica relates to your statement that, "satisfying the Coleman-Mandula theorem is the crux of that balance."

Cristi made the point that, "in Quantum Theory the time evolution is unitary, hence the information is preserved." I agree but think the following relevant:

Martinus Veltman notes that Feynman rules are derived using the U-matrix, even though formal proofs exist that the U-matrix does not exist. (Diagrammatica, p.183). The U-matrix is unitary by construction, and implies conservation of probability, probability being "the link between the formalism and observed data." In my mind, this leaves some room for 'free will' in the universe, (with consequences for information) but I have not pursued the U-matrix much farther than that. Veltman claims the U-matrix and the equations of motion are to be replaced with the S-matrix, in which the interaction Hamiltonian determines the vertex structure.

The Coleman-Mandula theorem, (according to Wikipedia) states that "the only conserved quantities in a "realistic" theory with a mass gap, apart from the generators of the Poincare group, must be Lorentz scalars." But this seems to constrain only symmetries of the S-matrix itself, not "spontaneously broken symmetries which don't show up directly on the S-matrix limit."

As the 'scattering' matrix is used to make sense of particle collisions, this seems reasonable, but 'scattering' of particles is a very artificial (if necessary) way of studying particles, that may attach undue importance to symmetry and, as I've noted in my essay, leads to a Lagrangian that is based on inventing fields, whether or not those fields actually exist in nature. If they can be solved for then they are considered in some way 'real', and this leads, IMHO, to much of the confusion today.

Veltman states that "unitarity, Lorentz invariance, locality, etc, are in some sense interchangeable." This seems problematical in light of today's push to banish locality from QM.

I don't claim to understand the solution to these problems, just to note that there seems to be some circular logic going on, and I'm not sure that logic is preserved around a complete loop of the circle.

This is part of the reason I start with the logic of one field, and work from there, ignoring, for the most part, the established formalism's of QM and GR if they don't map 100 percent into my model in a way that will satisfy experts in either field.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Ray,

I agree that information seems to be playing a large role in these essays. I'm not opposed to that, but as I've stated numerous times, I don't really believe that any one 'understands' information, other than in a superficial, mathematical fashion. There are far too many attempts to treat information (or a 'bit' of information) as a particle, which I take to be wholly misplaced. Information is not a particle and a bit of information is not a particle. Information may not even be physical, in the way normally meant, unless 'physical' incorporates consciousness in some manner as indicated in my previous essay. The fact that information relates to the physical world, but also to learning, intelligence, and wisdom, let alone both computation and communications bandwidth, tells me that information is a very complex thing to understand. Reductionists may believe that 'wisdom' is an abstraction, but I doubt that you do.

There are treatments of information as relating to the area of a black hole that, in addition to treating info as particles, are not even necessary. I believe that I have derived the exact same results (ie equations) without even introducing the concept of information. More on this later. In some ways I hope that a future fqxi contest may focus on 'holographic' physics, as I have much to say on this topic. I also believe that 'entanglement' is a major source of confusion, as I've indicated in other remarks.

Ray, I don't have strong opinions on the 'big numbers'. My theory starts with Newton's gravitational constant (set to one) and then demands Planck's constant, and then a maximum speed of light, which leads to charge and the fine structure constant, and then a new constant kappa (~ 10**31). That's about it. As I mentioned, I can explain relative mass order of all charged particles, but I cannot derive the actual mass spectrum (yet).

I can see how a lattice-based approach may need more numbers, including large numbers, but I haven't needed them and don't have opinions. Physics theories clearly need numbers, but also need to avoid 'numerology'. I'll try to pay more attention to these issues.

Finally, I tend to agree with your statements about Cristi's essay, but read his answers to me. I think he explains his position very well.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear basudeba,

I tried to make clear to Steve above that, as you say: "The framework in which the 'robot' is processing measurement data is a mechanical process and not a conscious process."

That is why I said the following: 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)."

For a brief presentation of my view of consciousness, please review my previous essay, in the 'Ultimite Limits' contest. It is found at

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/561

and is titled: "Fundamental Physics of Consciousness" by Edwin Eugene Klingman

You may find that you agree with me. I regret that my answer to Steve did not clear up the misunderstanding.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear basudeba mishra,

I am not a fan of big bounces or multiverses, or any other attempts to go beyond the physical limits of our universe. I also believe that the simplest possible solution is the best solution, and I can conceive of nothing simpler than 'one field'.

While the LHC may be a waste of money, nevertheless it is necessary to distinguish between the many theories that have arisen, many of which make different predictions. If absolutely no new particles are found (as has more or less been the case for forty years now) then, given current economics, it will be exponentially harder to justify an expensive 'follow-on' collider. This is one reason I expect the LHC to stretch things out as long as possible.

But because we are able, with our wonderful imaginations, to think up many explanations, it will always be necessary for physical experiments to be performed, and when that is no longer feasible, physics will be dead.

My belief is that a simple theory (such as my own), which accounts for all known particles, and would likely be disrupted by new particles (other than resonances) will only be accepted after other particles are not found. This will simply move the action to cosmology and material physics.

We are a long way from resolving the issues, but fqxi is to be thanked for allowing us to present our ideas.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Cristi, I will try to recommend the best places to start in a day or so. Thanks for the interest.

**** Special note to all ******

I was surprised by a comment from my friend Ray, who has communicated with me for years now on our theories. Ray said:

"Aren't we both guilty of creating symmetries or fields that haven't yet been observed? My approach anticipates a symmetry between Fermions and Bosons. Your approach anticipates a symmetry between electric-like and magnetic-like charges. Sure - your approach has already been observed in Electromagnetism, and it is a reasonable expectation for Gravitation, but that has not yet been observed."

I simply must answer this, as loudly as possible. It is one thing to challenge my theory. It is quite another to challenge the existence of the C-field, which was first proposed by Maxwell, then treated by Heaviside, Lorentz and Einstein, among others.

First, mine is not a symmetry between 'electric-like and magnetic-like charges'.

It is based on translating Maxwell's equation (first done by Maxwell) from an electric-charge-based set of equations to a mass-based set of almost identical equations. It also derives from the weak field approximation of General Relativity. The analogy is as follows:

.

....(Charge)-------(radial field)-------(current)---------(circulating field)

....electric.......Electric(E)field....charge x velocity....electro-magnetic(B)field

....mass..........Gravity(G)field....mass x velocity.....gravito-magnetic(C)field

.

To make it simple: the gravito-magnetic field *has* been observed.

Two days after I submitted my essay I received the 3 Dec 2010 issue of Physical Review Letters 105, 231103 ("...on Non-Newtonian Gravity") which 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.

Darth Sidious scolded me (above) for saying that the gravito-magnetic field is not well known: "I regret, but you makes confusion on this point. Actually, gravito-magnetic effects are well known within General Relativity, i.e. the C-field...is indeed a part of General Relativity, see for example the recent review published in Astrophys. Space Sci. 331:351-395, 2011." [Thank you Darth.]

Probably the best detection of the C-field is the experiment performed by Martin Tajmar, with, I believe, some confirmation from experiments in Japan and New Zealand. A good paper is one where he notes the results 10**31 orders of magnitude higher than expected:

Martin Tajmar, et al, http://lanl.arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0603/0603033.pdf 'Experimental Detection of the Gravitomagnetic London Moment'. [ His measurements stand, his interpretation of the London moment has changed.]

So I don't think it's accurate to say that the C-field hasn't been observed. It's been observed on earth, and in space, and is implicated in the 'flyby' anomalies, (see Grumiller, 'Model for Gravity at Large Distances', PRL 105, 211303, 19 Nov 2010.) Grumiller provides numbers needed for quantitative analysis and he reports the scale of observed anomalous accelerations which are compatible with my calculations.

And there is, for most of us, little doubt that the "gravito-magnetic charges" exist. The gravito-magnetic charge is simply 'mass' (which I believe exists whether or not a Higgs is found) and the analogy to "charge current, qv" is simply "mass current, mv", also known as momentum.

I invite everyone to read my essay again. As we all know, complex things cannot be digested in one reading. I try to read every essay that I am interested in two or three times. And each time I learn something new, often in conjunction with the comments that have transpired.

A look at some of the above references may help those still not convinced.

I was very surprised by the statement that mass (the gravitomagnetic 'charge') does not exist.

The fact that I am the only person who has applied the Yang-Mills non-linearity of the C-field to particle physics has nothing to do with the existence of the field. It has more to do with habits of thinking that are based in linearity and the (always surprising) effects that derive from non-linear interactions.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Steve,

I definitely do not believe that "The consciousness is a result of evolution, correlated with an increase of mass and a complexifications of interactions implying an intelligent cosnsciousness."

Consciousness, defined as awareness and free will cannot 'evolve', regardless of any consensus to the contrary. Intelligence, defined as consciousness plus logic can evolve, as the logic is based on physical 'circuitry' of one form or another.

But my previous essay, and all of the accompanying arguments are in the last essay contest, and I don't wish to re-fight those battles in this thread.

Edwin Eugene Klingman