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

From my perspective: Randomness is nothing. If it can be identified as action, then it is not randomness. The reason I say this is that action requires reason in order to be described. My point is that there is no action in the universe that is random. Randomness is a hiding place for lack of knowledge. That is what I think. I apologize to Dr. Klingman for interjecting my non-professional opinion; however, he is invited to reason it away. I am interested in learning. I learn every day, usually too late to remove my remarks, but, not too late to learn.

James

Dear Sir,

We have watched your comments at various threads. Here is our comment below the Essay of Ms. Georgina Parry. We thought you may be interested in this because we have discussed some issues relating to unification of forces.

You discuss observed Image reality and unobserved Image reality. By this we understand directly perceptible and indirectly perceptible or inferred. You have rightly clubbed them into one group. We call this group existence.

You say: "Where and when an image appears to exist is dependent upon the observer reference frame and is not intrinsic to the object itself." We agree and only add that the external environment introduces an element of uncertainty due to its effect on perception by the observer. We have discussed this aspect elaborately in our essay. From this we infer that uncertainty is not a law of Nature. It is a result of natural laws relating to observation that reveal a kind of granularity at certain levels of existence that is related to causality.

You say: "The description of reality is affected by the methods of investigation used, the pre-existing concepts applied and mathematical modeling employed." Unless the perception (results of measurement) is described in communicable language, (or self realized) it does not make any sense. Hence, we call these as describability.

You say: "If a description requires acceptance of paradox, unreality of all things, quasi reality or supernatural agents or realms, yet is a description that fits with observation, it must be incomplete if not incorrect or non science". This shows that there is a limit on our ability to "know". Hence, we call these as knowability. We combine these aspects and define reality that satisfies these criteria.

You say: "The mathematical space-time model is a construct giving a mathematical representation that fits well with observations of Image reality but is not a complete model of reality." We have shown in our essay that Nature is mathematical only in specified ways. Regarding space, time, space-time and arrow of time, we have discussed briefly in our essay and in our comments under the threads of Mr. Biermans, Mr. Castel, etc. We have written a book in which we have discussed on this subject in detail.

We agree that: "Image reality is a means of amalgamating information that arrives together, rather than that which was generated together." But we do not agree with your description that it does not require a conscious observer. In fact we call the agency that amalgamates the information as the conscious observer. You say that this information can be amalgamated by a mechanical detector. But then the resultant information is in a superposition of all possible states, because the so-called wave function collapse can occur only after it is measured (perceived) by a conscious observer. Thus, ultimately, we have to admit the conscious observer.

You say: "The data contained in the image is not from contemporaneous origin so the image is not temporally homogeneous." We agree and have discussed it at various places. The data (result of measurement) is the description of the state at a designated instant. We do not agree that "present is a composite formed from data, experienced simultaneously". We posit that all systems are dynamical systems. Present is a designated instant in analog time that depicts the temporally evolved state of a dynamical system at that designated instant. Thus, we cannot agree that: "The Image reality becomes a manifestation when the simulation is formed from the available data. It does not exist prior to that process." It certainly existed prior to that process, though in a different state. Further this proves the existence of the conscious observer. Otherwise, your statement that it will "...becomes a manifestation" becomes meaningless.

When you differentiate between "current time" and "Uni-temporal, or Objective, Now", you are leaving out the definition of time from the above description. Both space and time are related to sequence. Time is the ordering of the interval between events just like space is the ordering of the interval between objects. Both are indirectly perceptible through events and objects only. We take a segment of this interval, which is fairly repetitive and easily intelligible, and call it the unit. We compare this unit with the interval between objects and events and call these as space and time. Since space and time are indirectly perceptible, they are described through alternative symbolism by describing the objects or events associated with these. We can choose a segment from any or all event sequences without interfering with the laws of physics. When we restrict our description to a single sequence, it is "current time". When we widen our choice to encompass the whole universe, we call it simultaneity or "Uni-temporal, or Objective, Now".

You say: "Change or potential for change can be regarded as energy." What you are describing here is the effect of energy, which you are confusing with energy proper, which is the cause. We agree that "Energy is never destroyed. So change is continual and inevitable." But what is energy? We hold the homogeneous primordial field as the back ground structure of creation. By a mechanism which we are not discussing here, instability in the medium leads to a chain of events giving rise to "time", as we know it. This created inertia of motion, which was opposed by the inertia of restoration (elasticity) of the medium. This interaction, according to the same mechanism led to the density variation. This also leads to local confinement, which became the particles. Generation of particles led to further density variation. The inertia of restoration then pushed the particles around, which is seen as the effect of energy on those particles. This effect is experienced at two levels: proximity or intra-particle and distance or inter-particle. Depending upon the proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance-proximity and distance-distance variables, the effects are experienced as strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and radioactive disintegration forces. Gravity is a composite force that stabilizes: the orbits of planets and stars and the orbital of atoms. Since stabilization depends on density distribution, gravity is related to mass. Since density of intervals between objects is relatively less, in a closed system like Earth-Moon or Sun-planets, the density of the medium appears homogeneous. Hence, gravity is related to distance. The inter-relationship appears as the gravitational constant. Thus, you are right that: "Energy is never destroyed. So change is continual and inevitable."

Your description of air traffic control hints at a few fundamental principle. If you accept space as the ordering of the interval between objects, then position becomes a function of (or relative to) the ordering you choose. But this description can be meaningful only between the two objects that are joined by the interval. Thus, they belong to a specific frame of reference. If we want to relate their relationship with that of another object, then the other object must be within the same frame of reference or the frame of reference (interval) must be enlarged to bring the other object within it. This is what Einstein describes in his 30-06-1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies":

1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.

2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.

Here clock at C is the privileged frame of reference. Yet, he tells the opposite by denying any privileged frame of reference. Further, his description of the length measurement is faulty. Here we quote from his paper and offer our views.

Einstein: Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, and imagine its length to be ascertained by the following two operations:-

(a) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest.

(b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with §1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated "the length of the rod".

In accordance with the principle of relativity the length to be discovered by the operation (a) - we will call it the length of the rod in the moving system - must be equal to the length l of the stationary rod.

The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call "the length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system". This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find that it differs from l.

Our comments: The method described at (b) is impossible to measure by the principles described by Einstein himself. Elsewhere he has described two frames: one fixed and one moving along it. First the length of the moving rod is measured in the stationary system against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then the length is measured at a different epoch in a similar way in units of velocity of light. We can do this only in two ways, out of which one is the same as (a). Alternatively, we take a photograph of the rod against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then measure its length in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:

• If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.

• If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the camera and the picture we get will be distorted due to the Doppler shift of different points of the rod. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).

Here we are reminded of an anecdote related to Sir Arthur Eddington. Once he directed two of his students to measure the wave-length of light precisely. Both students returned with different results - one resembling the accepted value and the other different. Upon enquiry, the student replied that he had also come up with the same result as the other, but since everything including the Earth and the scale on it is moving, he applied length contraction to the scale treating Betelgeuse as a reference point. This changed the result. Eddington told him to follow the operation as at (a) above and recalculate the wave-length of light again without any reference to Betelgeuse. After sometime, both the students returned to tell that the wave-length of light is infinite. To a surprised Eddington they explained that since the scale is moving with light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require an infinite number of scales to measure the wave-length of light.

Some scientists try to overcome this difficulty by pointing out that length contraction occurs only in the direction of travel. If we hold the rod in a transverse direction to the direction of travel, then there will be no length contraction for the rod. But we fail to understand how the length can be measured by holding it in a transverse direction to the direction of travel. If the light path is also transverse to the direction of motion, then the terms c+v and c-v vanish from the equation making the entire theory redundant. If the observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod while moving with it, he will not find any difference what-so-ever. Thus, the views of Einstein are contrary to observation. Regarding the other points raised in your essay, we have discussed many in our essay. We will be happy to offer further clarification.

Regards,

basudeba.

Edwin,

Wonderful essay!! (Trying to get caught up reading others since mine posted four days ago.)

With regard to your interest in the local vs. nonlocal issue: I attempt to hypothesize in my essay, if there would be any measurable difference between expected interference patterns for Copenhagen Interpretation vs. a De Broglie-Bohm type model in the double slit experiment. For instance, Bohm described the "wave" as an active Schrodinger type wave and the electron would be attracted to the parts of the wave that would ultimately correspond with areas of measurement on the detector wall. To me this means that the electron could begin its journey anywhere on the leading edge of the wave front, but might have to shift or jump positions if it is headed for destructive interference (since we know the electron won't dissapear).

Since the electron would have to jump in that model and not in the Copenhagen model - I propose that the final expected distributions for the interference pattern may possibly be different. In the end, each simulation may turn out to be identical, but if someone someday were willing to do the painstaking work, a discrepancy might turn up that would allow us to accept or reject the role of the wave as being more of a "pilot" as opposed to representing the electron itself.

Any thoughts?

Chris

Edwin,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I see now from your note and looking at the essay once more that the gravitational field is the primordial field. At first I was thinking your ideas were very close to my own but now I see they are fairly different. The similarities must come because we are all looking at the same features in nature with different approaches.

Thanks also for describing the units. I see how the math is used to emphasize the points.

Overall a very interesting essay to make me think and ponder.

Kind Regards, Russell Jurgensen

Hello Edwin,

I have been re-reading your post to me under my essay concerning the C-field. I decided to continue that conversation under your essay posts.

You write,

"As for the C-field, Maxwell first noted that if mass replaced charge, and gravity replaced the electric field, then Coulomb's law and Newton's law are identical. He decided, based on this symmetry, to use G and mass in place of E and charge in all of Maxwell's equations. But since there is an (electro-)magnetic field, he needed an analogous (gravito-)magnetic field to complete the equations. The C-field is my name for what Maxwell and others refer to simply as the gravito-magnetic field. It has nothing to do with the magnetic field, it is the gravity analog thereof."

O.K. So now I know what you mean by C-field. To tell the truth, I am still having trouble understanding the electro-magnetic field in 'physical terms' (which has been my aim in physics). We know that Maxwell's Eqs. mathematically describe ('model') the behavior of electromagnetism. But as I stated in my previous posts, 'description' is not the same as 'explanation'. What physically is electromagnetism and what is the physical explanation between electric current and magnetic fields and visa versa? How does one physically derive from the other?

Because I have no answers to these questions, discussions on mass and charge and gravity are missing in my essay . What I seek to avoid is 'more math' with 'no physics'. And who would know that better than someone 'outside of the faith'!

We agree that physical space cannot be 'empty' (a self-contradiction!). You fill space with the C-field while in my essay I fill space with the quantity 'eta'. Since space is filled by 'space', regardless of what we say, could it be the two are connected? If so, than you are in a better position to make that connection.

You also write,

"... the laws[of the universe] must evolve from the universe itself. "

Yes, we may agree on that point! But 'how' do these laws evolve from the universe? Through some mathematical equation that aims to 'describe' that universe? That would imply perhaps fixed and eternal and unchangeable laws. If so, than we differ. I can't go that far in my faith on Man to know such mysteries of 'what is'. The best and only think we can have is to know our 'measurements' of 'what is'. What I mean when I say that 'measurement' if the essence of Physics.

Constantinos

Dear Edwin,

I am sorry for not commenting on your essay sooner. It was amongst the very first that I have read, and I have read more than I have commented upon. I wanted to carefully re read it to understand as much as I could.

I think you make some really excellent points at the very outset. The first is that everything should be made as simple as possible. You have demonstrated in one of your comments in the thread how very few assumption are required to produce the observed physics with this model.That has to be important. It is a very striking comparison with Verlinde's list. (Not sure he'd be happy about that.) Why have a highly complex explanation when a simpler one explains the evidence just as well? Perhaps because having constructed a mathematical monstrosity it is hard to walk away from it and start on a new fresh path.I consider you a brave pioneer. I appreciate that it is not easy for qualified and highly experienced physicist to walk against the tide.

You also point out that physics should not be attributed to causes outside of space and time. We have both argued for this in our own way. A very, very important point in my opinion.I can see a real split between those that want metaphysical explanations and those that want realism.The discussion of the map not being the territory is also important. I liked the list of particles that are mathematically shown to exist but have not been "seen". The quote by Godwin was good too. I had not heard it before but it is well said.

I also think it was good to answer a selection of questions posed by FQXi. It shows you are keeping it real and foundational and relevant. I have not seen that done elsewhere but there are now more essays than I can possibly read.

Though you do explain the C-field in the essay , your explanation of the c-field given to Constantinos is helpful. Edwin I can't comment on the mathematics. You know more than me and since there has been no negative feedback on the mathematics itself only the theoretical reasons for using it I assume it is well done. I agree that the bosons are most likely not particles as such but manifestations of what is occurring in the (very possibly continuous) medium or as you like to think field.I like the way you have made a neutino. It is neat but like Constantinos I will have to sit on the fence and say just because it is neat and simple it is not necessarily so...but it could be.

I think because you are talking about a single field as cause and I am talking about a single medium, we are referring to the same thing. So this is another overlap in our thinking.In space-time "received reality" as you say, fields are experienced but in foundational reality it will not be just the effect but the cause that is present. In space-time a medium is not necessary as fields can be used instead and as the medium is inert and undetectable it does not form a part of that space-time reality...but there has to be a reason for the field.

Constantinos asks about the magnetic field.I have thought it might be the alignment of many electrons that causes the magnetic effect. Perhaps it is the orientation of electron spin in a magnet or travel along a wire that is able to set up a disturbance (of a medium) experienced as a field which is then able to disturb materials containing free electrons with same or different spin. Perhaps that is naive, but there does currently seem to be a lack of scientific explanation. We just have no way of seeing what is there.

It is clearly written,enjoyable for both specialists and non specialists, and the diagrams are a nice addition.I really hope you get lots of interested and open minded readers. You have clearly said a lot of things that need saying and will hopefully be influential in the development of a new realism in physics.

Edwin,

Thank you for your kind words on my essay. I just found out about Joy Christian's paper through reading your thread yesterday. I will try to read it over the next couple of days. I will also think about your C-field propagation mechanism relating to electrons and photons alike. With regard to page 5 of your essay: Could we say that the G-field is a variation or manifestation of the C-field? I ask because you suggest the commonality of each field experiencing a curvature, as well as relating electrons and quarks as a limit for one, and a black hole (also made of electrons and quarks) as a limit for the other. So are the fields curving while space is curving too, or not necessarily? Or do these fields for all practical purposes represent space?

I also share your concern about cheeseburgers spontaneously appearing, although I have a friend who can make several disappear in less than a minute.

Good luck to you as well!

Chris

Edwin,

Your last post clarifies a lot. We may have more agreement here than I previously thought. And what disagreements there may be could also be cleared up with further discussion.

You write,

" ... the physical interpretations [to] make sense, ... is that Planck's constant of "action" be physically "real" in some sense. That is one reason that I like your 'accumulation of energy' approach, although you seem to view it as strictly mathematical, I view it as a real threshold below which no transitions occur."

Though you are right that most all of my results can be thought of as purely mathematical with physical adaptations, the one quantity that ties all this to the physical world is the 'prime physis quantity eta'. This quantity is left 'undefined and undefinable'. But it really can be considered to be the 'what is'! I don't believe that we can 'know' what this is. Being fundamental, it seems logical that it should be undefinable by any more fundamental concepts.

But this quantity 'eta' can be characterized by what is more familiar to us -- like energy and momentum. Something like describing a 'point' by its properties that 'two straight lines intersect at one point', etc. And so it is with 'eta'. It is both 'accumulation of energy' as well as 'action'. That is, it is the 'time-integral of energy' but also the 'space-integral of momentum'. Interestingly, this formulation (as I present briefly in my essay ) may perhaps combine both Hamiltonian mechanics and Lagrangian mechanics. At least it feels so in my non-physicist intuition on this. And Planck's constant h is just such a quantity 'eta'. But whereas h is constant, the quantity 'eta' is a variable. It may be possible that when 'eta' is given to be a specific function of 'space and time', than we may be able to get more physics out of this - including the C-field you use. This may get us all the physics that I leave out in my essay (including gravity and charge and mass).

Furthermore, Edwin, the only condition that I apply in my essay that can be considered an 'imposition by physics', is the idea of 'equilibrium' that is needed to make the unmanifested 'accumulation of energy' manifested! This is the same as what you say about needing h, this being the minimum accumulation of energy that can be manifested. This condition of 'equilibrium' makes the 'quantity eta' real. In fact I view it as 'filling physical space'. I also argue in my essay that 'eta' is the 'wavefunction'! Giving this rather curious concept physical reality that currently it lacks! I think we are in more agreement than either of us may realize!

You may be interested to know that Hayrani Oz, Prof. of Aerospace Engineering at Ohio State University, and coauthor with me of a chapter in a book on Thermodynamics out this July, has been using similar ideas very successfully for many years in his work and teaching. The quantity 'eta' (time integral of energy) he calls 'enerxaction'. If you wish I can put you in touch with him. Engineers and PhD students I find are much more accepting of this approach than established professional physicists.

Thank you for your good wishes for the contest! But the only motivation that compelled me to enter this contest is the exposure that this gives to my ideas and the possibility that these may be considered by the 'panel of experts' - if my essay ever gets to that final round.

Constantinos

Hello dear Edwin,

Thank you very much for this friendship.It is cool. It's fascinating, I have some ideas of superimposings. You make me crazzy, it's fascinating in fact if the rational logic is inserted with sortings and synchros.

Ps I become crazzy, I see evrywher people which copy my theory, on linkedin, and this and that....I become totally parano.I take my meds but I am totally parano dear Edwin,my health is bad at this moment.Thus don't attach importance to some of my posts sometimes.

ps2 I beleive indeed that the biological mass are different than mineral mass.They are composed by the same essence but they are as tools.the biology is more as a catyzer of evolution.....

Friendly

Steve