• [deleted]

Dear Edwin,

I was reading your essay when I noticed that you said,

"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"."

Well, it gave me this idea. The quantum vacuum is more than happy to provide an energy content E_BB. It provides this according to the equation,

[math]E_{BB} (-E_{BB})=0[/math]

Now, if you're God or at least profoundly more powerful mere mortals, you can take the -E_BB, and perform the following operation,

[math]U_{GR}=W[-E_{BB}][/math]

You see,

[math]WW^{-1}=1[/math]

W is the operator "The Word", and the word was with God, or something like that, I don't count myself as a Christian although I do believe in God. I think that means that

[math]U_{GR}=W^{-1}[-E_{BB}][/math]

So God has the matching Word-key to our universe's W^-1 anti-word. That gives the God the power to violate conservation of energy, and to interface with our universe.

Don't panic! I'm not a religious crazy! Accept these thoughts with a dose of humor that someone can actually do shocking things with a little knowledge of quantum mechanics.

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

  • [deleted]

By the way, maybe I didn't define my terms. E_BB is the energy of the Big Bang. The theory is that the quantum aether permits violations to conservation of energy within certain symmetric relationships. Virtual particles can exist for a period of time no greater than Delta E/h. In the case of the Big Bang, the energy had to come from somewhere. I propose that E_BB produced and energy debt -E_BB. We don't observe -E_BB, but we do observe gravity. So I describe gravity as the anti-energy U_GR. But I was just playing around with the

[math]W^{-1}W=1[/math]

idea.I hope I didn't offend you.

Dear Ed, Basudeba and Steve,

Have you been following the discussions on this blog site?

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/820

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

  • [deleted]

Hi all,

Dear Dr Cosmic Ray, indeed it's relevant this "820 topic thread".

until soon thus for the nice war SPHERE VS MULISPHERES OR IF YOU PREFER THE NICE WAR SPHERES VS STRINGS........Let's have fun.

Dear Ed,

each person has his own point of vue, the logic as the torch of all things.

We have our walls and they are so far of us.

Best to both of you.

Steve the humble arrogant.hihih I take my meds ok hihih

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

  • [deleted]

Hi Ed,

I've been travelling this week, and I'm trying to catch up. I overlooked this post on your blog site earlier this week. Following are some responses that I've already posted on my blog site. I believe that we are close in what we are saying, but we are using different approaches and mathematics. Your approach is closer to a legitimate extension of Maxwell's Equations that have existed for a century. My approach is closer to the S-Duality of String theory that has existed for a couple of decades.

On Jan 24 @ 14:58 GMT , Ray said "Hi Ed,

I apologize for my ignorance. Are these other research papers using the same GEM model as you? I need to read those papers. Also, I had planned to reread your essay, which is why I haven't scored your essay yet. Yes - mass exists and I wouldn't be surpised if magnetic gravity exists. In fact, Coldea et al imply a relation between mass and the golden ratio (in a magnetic quasiparticle application). Check out:

R. Coldea, et al., "Quantum Criticality in an Ising Chain: Experimental Evidence for Emergent E8 Symmetry", Science 327, 177 (2010).

IMHO, the golden ratio emerges from the 5-fold "pentality" symmetry (please see my essay's Appendix Figure) of E8."

On Jan 25 @ 01:10 GMT, Ray said "Hi Ed,

I need to read up on this correction factor of 10^31. In my book, I make a big deal about the fact that there must be more to Gravity. Is it GEM? Is it WIMP-Gravity? Are they all related and mixed up? What symmetries do they imply? My understanding of scales is that you cannot make up 31 orders of magnitude unless you have a strong energy or mass dependance on the coupling (for instance, the Weak force has a mass-squared dependance on coupling which allows it to range from a multiple of the fine-structure constant down to 10^(-13)).

I think the Gravity symmetries from Quaternion and Octonion algebras imply a tetrahedral (4-fold) symmetry SO(4)xSO(5) ~ SO(6)xU(1) ~ SU(4)xU(1), but you have a triangular (3-fold G2-like) symmetry. Somehow this tetrahedron is decomposing - perhaps into a triangle of Space and a broken symmetry of Time. As I've previously said, I think you are addressing the reason for 3 generations (CKM and PMNS matrices), but there may also be an S-duality relationship with QCD (which I consider a 4-fold symmetry: red, green, blue and violet/white).

Fields and Particles are interrelated. I fully expect a "new" field to introduce "new particles"."

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Hi Edwin,

I put up a post at my paper in which I make some brief comments on your new and interesting paper.

Willard Mittelman

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

    • [deleted]

    Hi Edwin,

    I just defeated two opponents in battle over at http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=28869&st=60

    In doing so, I've streamlined my argument for the shift photon.

    1. What does frequency shift require? A time dilation between two reference frames A and B.

    2. How does one get two inertial reference frames to have a time dilation between them. By assuring a gravitational potential energy difference between A and B.

    Shift photons are expected to carry a gravitational potential energy

    [math]U = -h\Delta f[/math]

    Let's just do the experiment and see if it works.

    • [deleted]

    hihihi poof .....POOF!

    Steve

    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

      More C-field summary in response to other's comments and questions:

      The 'gravity', G, that I mention is the one we are all familiar with, from Newton to Einstein to Hawking.

      The electro-magnetic fields, E and B, we are also familiar with, from Maxwell to Einstein, etc.

      The C-field, which I never heard of in my academic career, is the aspect of gravity that has the same relationship to G as the magnetic field has to B in electrodynamics.

      E and B can be considered as 'two' fields, or B can be considered as the relativistic aspect of the 'one' E field. The choice, as far as I can tell, is one of convenience.

      Now Maxwell, noticing that Newton's equation and Coulomb's equation had identical form, if we replace G by E and mass by charge, postulated that one could perfom this replacement in ALL of Maxwell's field equations. But this left a 'hole'. What was the analog of the magnetic field? This is the C-field, which he called the gravito-magnetic field. It is either a 4th field or the relativistic aspect of the gravity field. I treat it as a fourth field, because it simplifies things.

      So, the short story is: We start with G, which has perfect symmetry. When this 'breaks' we now have G and C **and nothing else**. But the C-field self-interacting vortex will spiral to an infinitely dense point or else something else will happen. I describe the case in which something else happens: electric charge appears at the v=c horizon of the shrinking vortex. Now that we have electric charge, we have the electric and magnetic fields, E and B.

      So we now have four fields, G and C, that interact with mass (and hence each other) and E and B, which interact with charge, but are themselves uncharged.

      When the term 'electro-magnetic' is applied to gravity, it is an analogy. It is not an equivalence. The G-C mass-based fields are ultimately different from the E-B charge-based fields.

      I hope this is getting clearer. G and C follow from Einstein's general relativity, I didn't make them up. E and B follow from Maxwell's field equations.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      • [deleted]

      Wouldn't photons be the most fundamental carrier of information? Is there anything else that can carry information that cannot be decomposed into photons?

        Jason,

        Yes, photons are the probably the most fundamental carriers of information, in the sense that they convey descriptive information about their source [or last reflection, etc]. Gravity and the C-field would also seem to carry information about the location and quantity of mass, but it may be more coarse-grained, or diffuse, than photons. Photons are probably the winner there. Many things carry info, for example in a sense the tides carry info about the moon, jets at the LHC carry info about the collision, etc.

        This is completely different from the current [misguided imho] idea that info 'piles up' on the "surface of a black hole" and somehow 'reaches' to the 'particle' that carried that info into the black hole. This is doubly nuts, since the surface area relation can be completely derived from an energy treatment that has nothing to do with information.

        There are so many people taking the descriptive 'maps' we've drawn from our study of the territory, and trying to use them as the basis of deriving the physical 'territory', that one understands why Korzybski titled his opus magnum "Science and Sanity". The inability to distinguish between the maps and the territory they represent is definitely linked to insanity, and pushing science in this direction is going to revive all kinds of other religions, once science becomes just another religion, based on non-testable,non-perceivable, outside of this world, concepts. Then it will be too late to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

        By the way, on your idea about red-shift as loss of information: see my paper GEM and the Constant Speed of Light that I addressed to Peter Jackson, and you'll see how this info can be preserved in the C-field.

        Also, Dan T Benedict posted on Chaos, Consciousness, and the Cosmos a remark from a conversation with you that is very interesting.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        • [deleted]

        Hi Edwin,

        I'll read the Benedict article and make another pass over the GEM paper.

        BTW, here is my take on information and gravity. Photons carry information by virtue of there frequency. But gravity is a time dilation field that can change the frequency. Gravity doesn't transmit information so much as it focuses/unfocuses the information. Or another analogy, when you're looking out the window of a plane, you can see the mountains, but you can't count the ants on an anthill/make out the details.

        • [deleted]

        Hi Edwin,

        Just one comment. The predicted circular drag of the electron reminds me of another feature of shift photons. If, with each shift to the next frequency, the polarization rotates a little faster in the same direction, the overall result could be a torque or corkscrew force. It happens because the polarizations of each frequency shift result in a torque.

        • [deleted]

        Edwin,

        You have written interesting and beautifully illustrated essay. I'm still digesting the details after a second read, but I applaud your approach. It seems that instead of adding on another layer, your attempting something truly fundamental in your "start from scratch" method toward a simple TOE. I have used a similar approach in my essay in developing a new cosmology without a priori use of General Relativity (as with all other modern cosmologies) and have made some interesting conclusions. I hope you will have a chance to read and comment on it, as I'd value your opinion.

        I also thought you would be interested in a new forum discussion started recently re. Bell's Inequality. The forum was started by FQXI's member Joy Christian from Oxford Univ. She is discussing a preprint paper she wrote entitled "What Really Sets the Upper Bound on Quantum Correlations?" in which she uses division algebras and topological arguments to falsify quantum non-locality. One of her concluding remarks is:

        "By contrast, our topologically sensitive analysis of the set of all possible measurement results allows us to complete the accountings by Bell, and leads us to conclude that there are no incompatibilities between local-realism and the predictions of quantum mechanics." Her forum can be found here

        Dan

          Dan,

          Thanks for the kind words, and thanks for the information that you keep providing me. I was interested in PEAR and very much so in Bell's inequality.

          I've read your essay the first time and have read the exchange between you and Tom. I hope to have some comments for you later.

          As you know, and will continue to find out, it's tough to step outside the orthodoxies.

          Good luck in the contest.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman