The Analog-In, Digital-Out Universe by 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,

It seems that we agree on a few things. Everyone seems to have their own idea of time. Of course I know that forces and fields are not the same.

As you see if you have studied my essay, I attempt to explain everything from one primordial field. The field that seems to make the most sense and leads to an explanation of 'everything' is the gravity field. In my mind I am quite certain that gravity is not a composite of (3, 5, 7 and 11 varieties). Nor do I wish to contemplate "all physical interactions classifying it to 122 categories".

We probably will not be able to resolve these differences such that both of our theories are compatible, but thank you for the observations.

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

To All,

In the above comments, and also on others' pages, there is expressed the belief that Peter Jackson's essay on "the Constant Speed of Light" has some very significant ideas, but still needs a few details worked out. I've been working on these details.

I've finally posted a brief pdf that relates to Jackson's essay (while being based on the ideas in my essay.)

GEM and the Constant Speed of Light

Those interested in the physics of the Constant Speed of Light may wish to consult Jackson's essay and my above effort.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

This response was posted on Linde's article, "Chaos, Consciousness, and the Cosmos" which is outside of this essay contest. Yet is is relevant to comments made here and on Ray's thread, so I'm repeating it here.

Ray,

Let me hit you with a far-out proposition (not so to me, but to current physicists).

The C-field is a Yang-Mills Calabi-Yau solution to Einstein's equations, and, as I repeat, ad nauseam, is capable of producing all known particles, sans Higgs and sans SUSY. It is capable of explaining the weak force interactions between particles and also of explaining quark confinement and asymptotic symmetry and three generations. It also explains the mass-ordering of all charged particles. No other theory does that. It explains why the 6-quarks in deuterium don't collapse to a 'spherical' distribution. In fact, it explains a dozen or so anomalies that are simply not explained by QCD.

Ray, if this is true, then there is no need for 'QCD color'. The C-field flux tube supplies the 'gluons' that hold the quarks together, and provide the jet dynamics. By the way, you do realize that 'QCD color' has never been seen, don't you. It's an article of faith in the community. In 1929 Rutherford suggested that the strong force was 'magnetic' in nature, but it was too soon. When, about 5 years later Yukawa proposed a radial force and the 'pion', the 'muon' showed up instead, but everyone mistook it for the pion. Anyway, 70 years or so later, and 40 years after QCD, we still can't calculate QCD problems or explain generations, and most of what goes on at LHC seems to be running Monte Carlo codes (PYTHIA and others). The Lattice-QCD models look pretty absurd to me, and Frank Wilczek says that Yukawa doesn't work at hard core distances. And nothing predicted by anyone has been found for decades.

So, faithful QCD-physikers keep on keepin' on, but some day it may become clear that this is getting nowhere. (By the way my model predicted the 'perfect fluids' that have shown up at RHIC and LHC, while QCD predicted a 'quark gas'.)

And, in addition, the initial reason (Pauli exclusion) for even proposing color is easily met by the anti-symmetric wave function for the C-field proton and neutron, under exchange of quarks, AND, my proton-proton collisions predict the same 'string-like' formula that Veneziano found in 1970 that Nambu and others used to initially propose string theory.

What does this mean? It means that IF my theory were correct, it meets Rutherford's proposal, while satisfying every problem that brought QCD and string theory into existence.

And what would that mean? It would mean that the 'extra particles' you expect for a new field are already here. You just have to subtract the 'old fields' of QCD and electro-weak. And I've already shown that the strengths work out. So you aren't counting your particles right in this case, you're double counting.

Also, note that the "reason" that the Calabi-Yau manifold has 11 (or so) dimensions, is that [and I quote] "they can't get the QCD and Weak forces into only 4-space-time dimensions." But ALL Calabi-Yau manifolds can be factored into a torus plus higher dimensions, and my model for particles is the torus. Don't need the higher dimensions.

So the justification for 11-dimension just disappears. Evaporates. Vanishes. Poof!

But Wait! It's those silly 'string windings' on the higher dimensional Calabi-Yau that give rise to the 10^500 vacua, and are the basis of the silly multi-verse.

So if my theory is correct, ALL that crap goes away. Think about it.

And if your theories are correct, I'm sure the Higgs and SUSY will be showing up "real soon now".

I guess we'll have to wait and see, won't we.

It's a fun game. But please do me a favor. Look over the above comments a few times and try to grasp what I'm saying, because I have to keep making these points again and again, as if they are dismissed without being read. They are important points, Ray, and the facts are on my side. The faith is on the QCD'ers side. I can explain the 4% anomaly for muonic-hydrogen, QED can't.

This is significant, but those who even admit that it's a problem deny that it's serious. When a theory that claims dozen place accuracy is reduced to 1 place accuracy in the simplest possible atom, it's a problem!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

In my continuing effort to keep 'all things C-field' in one spot, I copy from a response on Willard Mittelman's page to questions about the electromagnetic field:

The primordial field, in my theory, is gravity. It satisfies the Calabi conjecture and deSitter space, where gravity extends over (defines?) all space, and is generated by its own self energy. This bootstrap is mathematically justified, and since no one knows WHY the universe came into being, I simply assume it existed as one field. The Master equation is perfectly symmetrical and motion invariant, but the formal time derivative makes sense only if a new constant (Planck's constant) appears. The perfect radial symmetry remains until a 'quantum fluctuation' [my second assumption] occurs in an 'off-radial' direction, unlocking the energy of the C-field--which had been suppressed by the perfect symmetry-- and initiating inflation.

We now have the full gravitational field with radial and circulatory aspects.

The fact that both directly interact with mass and both have energy, hence equivalent mass, and the interaction is non-linear (Yang-Mills), means that a C-field vortex will establish a 'solenoidal' C-field dipole, which strengthens the vortex, which strengthens the dipole, which strengthens the vortex, with the process ending in an infinitely dense point. UNLESS THERE IS A LIMITING CONDITION. I next assume that a limiting condition exists [otherwise the universe would be nothing but one [or more?] infinitely dense points, which doesn't seem to be the case. The condition I impose is a 'limit to the curvature of the C-field. That is, the C-field vortex has a 'minimum radius' that prevents collapse to an infinitely dense point.

But where does that lead? Picture a spinning skater who pulls her arms in. How fast can she spin if she can pull her arms into zero radius? Got that? Is there an answer? On the way to 'zero radius' can her fingertips reach the speed of light? We are not 'boosting' her in any way that requires infinite energy, we're just conserving angular momentum.

Since there is nothing stopping the non-linear vortex-dipole-vortex-dipole--- feedback process, in which the energy-mass of the vortex wall serves as a 'mass current' (momentum) that induces a solenoidal C-field dipole, then the radius of the vortex keeps shrinking and the velocity of the vortex wall continues to speedup to conserve angular momentum. Where does this end? Will the vortex wall reach the speed of light? If it does, then how is it connected to the rest of the world, since, if there was an electromagnetic field, we could not 'look at' the the vortex, because, moving faster than the speed of light, it would have 'moved on'. And, unable to see a 'mark' on the particle, all particles are identical.

Now, if we work out the equations, this radius is basically the Compton wavelength, and I make my next assumption, which is that at this point, electric charge comes into existence. It's probably my weakest assumption in my whole theory, but, I now have mass, charge, gravity and electro-magnetics.

And obviously the charge that is on the vortex 'wall' will resist shrinking to an infinitely dense point through self-repulsion. So now a true limiting force exists to prevent infinitely dense points of C-field energy.

If one takes the simple equation of the mass of the vortex wall being forced into a smaller orbit, and sets it equal to the self-repulsive force of the electron, then one would hope to find the equilibrium where the inward C-field force and the outward electric force are equal and the particle is stable. And when this equation is worked out, the fine structure constant (1/137) falls out! I put the exclamation sign because I don't believe that there exists another theory that can calculate the fine structure constant.

By the way, the v=c radius is the Compton wavelength of the particle, but the radius where the charge repulsion equals the inward force is about 10^-18 meters which agrees with the best measurements. So the electromagnetic field can see only to the v=c radius, but collision data can see all the way down to the 'real' radius. I find that nice.

So now we have a Z-boson (the C-field vortex) that produces a charged particle and, if charge is conserved, then the remaining vortex (outside of the Compton wavelength radius) has acquired a charge, and become a W-boson, ready to produce an 'anti-particle'.

There's more, but I'll stop here.

The question arose, where are these derivations? Having left both academia and the government years ago to run my companies, I am not in the loop, and my submissions to Phys Rev Lett were immediately rejected with "don't darken our door again". So, I had the choice of 'start with inconsequential journals and work my way up' (which at my age is not appealing) or simply put this into books and hope someone reads them. Although I have presented the above in several factual books, the most complete presentation is in "The Chromodynamics War", which has the format of a scifi novel, in the hope that graduate physics students, upon reading a scifi novel that explained things better than their QCD textbooks might be induced to look further. Then fqxi came along and gave me another outlet.

Each book has worked out more details and corrected earlier typos and mistakes, but the most complete treatment of particle physics is "The Chromodynamics War". A version that drops the scifi narrative and simply presents this in straight form is in process, to be titled, "Physics of the Chromodynamics War".

Sorry this can't all fit into 9 pages, but it just can't.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

A note on the assumptions in Verlinde's theory of gravity:

1. introduces an 'effective' force, the entropic force [conservative macroscopically]

2. assume space is...literally just a storage space for information.

3. assume that information is stored on surfaces.

4. imagine that info about particle location is stored in discrete bits on screen.

5. dynamics on each screen given by unknown rules.

6. [info processing] doesn't have to be by local field theory or anything familiar.

7. assume [like AdS/CFT] one special direction for course graining variables.

8. assume well defined notion of time [microscopic].

9. assume Bekenstein's argument [about] Compton wavelength.

10. postulate change of energy associated with info on boundary.

11. assume entropy proportialnal to mass [and additive]

12. use osmosis to analogize an effective force of entropy.

13. assume Unruh's temperature proportional to acceleration.

14. forget Unruh for Newton, don't need.

15 Think of boundary as storage for info, assume holographic principle.

16. assume number of bits proportional to area.

17. introduce new constant, G.

18. assume energy divided evenly over N-bits.

19. assume [invisible] mass is noticed through its energy.

20 Voila -- Newton's law, "practically from first principles".

.

Contrast with my assumptions:

1. Assume only one field, G, that can interact only with itself: del dot G = G dot G.

2. apply Maxwell: E=G^2 & Einstein: E=mc^2 --yielding Newton's law: del dot G = -m.

.

And compare the things that fall out of the Master equation in my essay.

Verlinde says that he has just 'reversed' the logic that led from Newton's law to black hole thermodynamics in order to instead go from black hole thermodynamics to Newton's law.

But is this the equivalent of "drawing a map from territory" [Korzybski] and then trying to derive territory from a map? Do all reversals make physical sense?

Finally, I believe that the 'energy/area' relations for the black hole can be derived *exactly* without ever invoking the concept of information. So why, if the relation is simply dependent on energy, would one insist that information be brought into the picture in such an artificial fashion dependent on so many assumptions, some quite questionable?

I don't believe information is a 'thing'. It is 'about' things, and thus dependent on a representation. 'Things' do not depend on representations, they are real.

This is, I believe, related to the excursion of physics from reality that I see in full swing.

Thanks for your consideration,

Edwin Eugene Klingman