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

[deleted]

I remembered on this occasion, the following quote:

"Everything in the future is a wave, everything in the past is a particle.(Dyson)

Regards

Yuri

[deleted]

Edwin,

I am able to get enough of the math in Chromodynamics War to follow the drift of the argument, but it's frustrating to be able to see it only through a glass darkly. I also appreciate your perspective and comments on the standard model, which I am trying to understand to the extent that a layman can understand it.

Since posting the note about Brent Herbert I found a bit of time to look into his writing. After about an hour of reading I let it go, sensing a lack of rigor in his arguments. There's so much else to look at!

After finishing your Chromodynamics war [in a week, perhaps] I'll check out the other two,and then probably return to the more technical one. Then perhaps we can have a real exchange of ideas.

John

[deleted]

Edwin

What is your opinion about Nobel laureate paper?

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903084

Yuri

Edwin Klingman

Yuri,

Although I was unaware of that particular paper, I have known that Gerard t' Hooft does not accept the current nonsense of non-real, non-local interpretations of quantum mechanics. I say nonsense not as an insult but as a fact. No one can make physical sense of reality as currently interpreted, with strings and branes, many-worlds, a multiverse, 9-to-26 dimensions, supersymmetry, over a dozen 'particles' that have not been detected (and, I predict, won't be), as well as the 'holographic principle' and literally hundreds of 'quantum fields' for which there is no support.

t' Hooft is only one of many physicists who rejects this nonsense. Last week at the Hofstadter Lecture at Stanford University several professors admitted that they had qualms about quantum mechanics. Unfortunately, while t' Hooft, and Murray Gell-Mann can afford to challenge the orthodoxy, the politico-social pressure to fall in line is greater than many can resist.

As for the specifics, t' Hooft was wrong about 'massless neutrinos', but neutrinos in my model do have mass. I do share his preference for a classical continuity underlying reality without believing, as he does, that we need to go to the Planck scale for this. t'Hooft believes that "certain versions of hidden variable theories can--and must-- be revived." Also, unlike the current religiously held beliefs that "information is never lost", he believes that "dissipation of information plays an essential role." And unlike most attempts, he begins with strictly continuous and differentiable classical field theories and shows that an effective Hilbert space emerges from a statistical description of the solutions. Quantum states are simply mathematical devices in his theory.

t' Hooft's earlier attempts led to space time and matter being discrete. In my theory only 'action' is discrete, and QM can be derived from classical physics. t' Hooft claims that in order to make information dissipate in continuous theories it may be necessary to add discrete degrees of freedom. In my theory this may correspond to Planck's constant as the 'unit' of free will to act locally.

Additionally, he models an example four-state system with a deterministic evolution law as quantum states in a manner similar to my treatment in 'The Automatic Theory of Physics'.

So I got a lot out of reviewing his paper, and thank you for the link.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

[deleted]

Can you read last comments in my essay?

To my opinion Planck's constant, only constant.

Yuri

Edwin Klingman

Yuri,

I assume that you mean: "Maybe h only dimensionful constant of Nature? Some hint give Planck mass Mp=(hc/G)^1/2 .We simultaneously can decrease or increase c and G, but Mp remains unchanged."

If you read my essay, you will see that the first constant to "fall out of" my theory is Planck's constant. That it is truly "constant" is demanded by the theory, in order to make sense. The other constants are then introduced as scale factors in my theory, and may or may not need to be truly constant, as long as relation (6) on page 3 is preserved.

Interesting point.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

[deleted]

Edwin

See John Moffat Variable Speed of Light

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Moffat_%28physicist%29

Yuri

Drew attention to

posits that G/c is constant through time

[deleted]

Edwin:

23 = 'dark matter'

72 = 'dark energy'

Yuri:

It is temporary situation in the cosmological history.

It is not eternal ratio.

Edwin:

that the curvature of space is limited

Yuri:

You are right, but 2D curvature negative or positive.

Depend ... boson or fermion

See my essay

Edwin Klingman

Yuri,

I agree that the current ratio, (23 = 'dark matter'/72 = 'dark energy') is probably a temporary situation in the cosmological history, not an eternal ratio. But that makes little difference to the C-field interpretation of dark matter and energy.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

[deleted]

Edwin,

One of your generous comments on my essay--that our ideas were not as far apart as a reading of your essay might suggest [I'm not quoting you here]--prompted me to acquire and read your The Chromodynamics War. I finished it this morning, having put some other projects on the back burner to create space for the endeavor

It's been decades since I've read a book from a library because I won't read a book I cannot engage by underlining and making marginal notes. The notes are often critical.

I underlined your book a lot. Most of the notes are simple, either "Yes." Or "Yes!"

Perhaps my knowledge of math and physics is not sufficient to identify the places where I should have written "No." I found my mind racing to accept your ideas. A number of the authors you cited, Wilczek, Smolin and Woit, for example, represent recent additions to my layman's library of books on physics.

The intuitive nature and the physicality of your model made the math much easier for a layman to deal with. Refreshing view of the Standard Model and symmetry, and the sociology of academia!

I hope you get some of the low-hanging fruit! I'm watching the news out of Geneva!

I don't think you quoted Bernard Haish, but I'm sure you must be familiar with his work. Any comment on his The God Theory? How about Lisa Randall's popular work, Warped Passages?

John

Edwin Klingman

Dear John,

Your's is the kind of comment every author hopes to receive. It sounds like you read the way I do. I read as if I owned stock in a company that makes yellow liners.

It was a considerable investment of time and effort to write the book, and I know it takes time and effort to read the book, so I'm very glad you found it worthwhile. Because I try to put the theory in the context of current theory and history, there's a lot of info to absorb. The math is there for those who require such, but as you indicated, the theory is 'physical' enough to grasp it from discussions and diagrams. A few nuclear physicists accept my model but few professionals are ready to commit to a new theory from one outside the academy, so I'm biding my time and extending the theory. This latest fqxi essay competition has stimulated a number of new realizations, and I'm in process of working out the details.

Thanks for your wish on the low-hanging fruit. I too am watching Geneva (have been for years!)

I have not read Lisa Randall, as I am not a subscriber to strings, branes, or extra dimensions. And I haven't yet checked out Bernard Haisch. I get enough flack from writing about consciousness, and the use of the word God is so loaded for so many physicists, I simply avoid it. Those who take consciousness seriously (as opposed to believing it just 'happened' when the Lego blocks fell together in the right order) have their own understanding of God, so I focus on consciousness. An Amazon review of Haisch's book says "He believes that consciousness is our connection to God, who, or which, is the source of all consciousness". Who could argue with that?

I look forward to further exchanges with you.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

[deleted]

Edwin,

As you might guess from a careful reading of my essay, for years I have been trying to formulate something I call the Perfect Anthropic Principle in a way that would withstand the scrutiny of professional physicists. Hence my library of books on physics by physicists for non physicists. Your book has helped me sort through the material enormously. After finishing it I picked up several of the ones I have been reading recently, notably Wilczek's The Lightness of Being, to see what I had underlined and what kinds of comments and questions I had noted in the margins. I quickly found his several uses of the word 'threatening' you point out and found it significant that the strangeness of this word choice had not occurred to me--no underling or comments. If I were he, and if I did not have the protective armor of the Nobel, after your comments, I would be squirming!

For decades I have been promising a book exploring what I call the moral foundations of physical reality, making many false starts. After reading The Chromodynamics War I re-wrote an introduction in a new voice that is much more my own. The central thesis is that will is a real physical force that we project onto the world and to which the world responds. I do not expect physicists and cosmologists to be able to incorporate this force into their models of the universe very soon, but acknowledging that the force exists would be a place to start.

My gut feeling, nourished by reading Smolin and others, is that string theory is a dead end as far as a description of reality. As to Haish, I surely understand your reluctance to put up the lightening rod of "God" in your discussions of consciousness. At one point Bernard describes our minds as a kind of filter that shields us from the blinding force of divine consciousness, using the example of people suffering from mental development disorders who exhibit the savant syndrome, like the man portrayed by Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man. He points out that the exceptional abilities of these people could be explained as the result of a crack or defect in the filter that lets more of the divine consciousness penetrate our more limited experience. I found this idea congenial. My cultural background is Roman Catholicism [like both Wilczek and Haish, by the way]. The doctrine of original sin had always bothered me. Some years ago I realized that a traditional view of "sin" is a turning away from God. But if we are to develop our own consciousness, if we are to become independent entities capable of participating in genuine love relationships, we would have to be temporarily shielded from the blinding light of His consciousness. That is what is hinted at in that most wonderful of creation myths, the temptation of Adam by Eve to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That is a wonderful attempt to comprehend the awakening of self consciousness in mankind. Upon turning away from God, Adam first notices his own nakedness, he becomes self-conscious. As in the most captivating drama, the best lines are often given to the villain: By acquiring the knowledge of good and evil Adam does, in the modest way available to us, become godlike, as the serpent predicted. Anticipating the break-through New Testament view of God, Adam suffers.

I think you understand that I do not believe in supernatural explanations of earthly phenomena. I believe that natural explanations suffice. It's just that Nature is, well, super.

Edwin Klingman

Dear John,

I encourage you to continue your work on consciousness. We learn best by writing and teaching. You mention interest or belief in a 'force of will' that is a real physical force to which the world responds. I began with just such an assumption; either one separates consciousness entirely from the physical world, or else consciousness must interact with the physical world. It was this idea that led me to my basic force equations, although I later discovered that others had derived the same equations from other starting points. As mentioned elsewhere, 'Gene Man's World' is the story of the search for the equations and their interpretation and significance for physics, and 'Atheist and God Particle' is largely an equation-free comparison of the reductionist world view with a holistic world view.

We live in exciting times. Times in which I think the reductionist world view is self-destructing.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin Klingman

Yesterday morning I received my latest Phys Rev Lett in the mail. The following quotes from Physical Review Letters 106 (1 April 2011) tend to agree with the theory or predictions of the C-field theory summarized in my essay:

#130503 ENTANGLEMENT

"Indeed, most results we have at present about entanglement resource theory rely on two unrealistic (and very strong) assumptions."

#131302 DARK MATTER

"We report results from a reanalysis of data from the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS II). ...These estimates indicate that we can claim no evidence for a WIMP signal." [and "exclude interpretations of the DAMA/LIBRA signal..." and "are also incompatible with a low-mass WIMP explanation for low-energy events see in CoGENT"]

#131802 SUPERSYMMETRY

"[In the first LHC search for supersymmetry] no excess above the Standard Model background expectation is observed" and "These ATLAS results exceed previous limits set by other experiments."

#132501 NUCLEONS

"After decades of experimental and theoretical efforts, the internal structure of the nucleon remains one of the defining problems of nuclear physics."

To summarize, based upon the above peer-reviewed statements, my theory claims a new model for nucleon structure, as the decades old model is problematical. My theory claims no SUSY exists, and that agrees with the latest LHC search and all previous searches. The latest report on Dark Matter finds nothing, as predicted by my essay, and entanglement is seen to rely on two very strong but unrealistic assumptions. Week by week, things keep going as my model predicts.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

[deleted]

It seems to me very interesting

http://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~oliver/Nature_article.pdf

Yuri

[deleted]

Dr. Klingman,

I am reading your essay for a third time this morning as a very interested non-expert.

I think what originally got me interested in quantum physics back in the early 1980s was reading--or reading about--David Bohm. When I hear the phrase 'pilot wave' I think of him, but on page 6, where you talk about Local Realty, you mention by name only DeBroglie, Schrödinger, Einstein and Dirac. I understand they were all realist, opposed to the Bohr/Heisenberg Cophenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, but what about Bohm? How does your theory, which I find most interesting, relate to his pilot wave?

[deleted]

Dear John Gadway,

First let me thank you for reading it a third time. I have found for decades that to understand any really complex paper I had to read it again and again and...

And each time through I learned something new.

You are correct that 'pilot wave' is often referred to as 'deBroglie-Bohm'. But I referred to it in this manner on another blog thread (Florin's latest) and it basically stirred up a hornet's nest. To the physicists who responded, Bohm carries a lot of baggage and they attempted to place some of this baggage on my back. I am becoming more aware that many ideas that have been fought out over decades will trigger so many false associations that it is better to avoid them, sadly. I had hoped to use the reference as a 'summary overview' of what is meant by 'pilot wave' but instead it was treated as implying all of Bohm's ideas, and subsequent 'disprovals'. I was even told that "Their disgrace rubs onto your theory as well and does your idea a diservice..."

But despite such foolishness, I think that Bohm implied a non-local [end-to-end?] 'quantum field' [whatever a 'quantum field' is] while the C-field is a real classical field that is locally induced by the particle (and hence inseparable from the particle) and that happens to be described by a QM-compatible wavefunction [top of page 6].

Please continue to comment on any matter you deem appropriate.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin Klingman

To all,

In a response to Tom on another thread, I noted that the "facts" that were used to argue with me were highly selective and that "The anomalies addressed at the end of my essay don't seem to bother you or other physicists."

Today I need to modify that. I received the 15 April 2011 issue of Physical Review Letters, Vol 106 in which letter 153001 appears, titled "Proton Size Anomaly", which is one of the anomalies I listed in my essay as support for my theory.

Recall the problem is that the 'dozen place accuracy' of quantum electrodynamics (QED) is threatened by the 'one place accuracy' resulting from a measurement of muonic hydrogen, which is the atom formed by replacing the electron in hydrogen by a muon. The QED calculation of the radius of the proton, based on energy measurements, differs by 4 per cent from electronic hydrogen, a severe anomaly.

In "Proton Size Anomaly" the authors postulate the existence of a new interaction between muons and nucleons and study its nature. This exploration is done in terms of "new scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, and tensor-conserving non-universal interactions [that] may be responsible for the discrepancy." They consider exotic particles that, among leptons, "couple preferable to muons and mediate an attractive nucleon-muon interaction." In doing so they find that the many constraints from low energy data "disfavor new spin-0, spin-1, and spin-2 particles as an explanation." although "there are ways to relax some of the bounds at the expense of introducing complication." [Aren't there always?]

To summarize, the first published analysis of the 'proton size anomaly' finds no explanation in terms of standard QED approaches to the problem. This leaves my C-field explanation as a potential solution to this very important problem.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin Klingman

Some Phys Rev Letters are almost a waste of time, but some are jewels.

The 15 April 2011 issue, Vol 106 also contains an article, #151101, on "Frame-Dragging Vortexes .. [and] the Curvature of Space-time". Note that 'Frame-dragging" is another name for gravito-magnetism, aka the C-field. To quote:

"When one splits spacetime into space plus time, the spacetime curvature (Weyl tensor) gets split into an "electric" part, epsilon(jk) and a "magnetic" part, beta(jk), that describes differential dragging of inertial frames."

The authors report simulations of these effects in colliding, spinning, black holes, and then remark that "Making this heuristic description quantitative, or disproving it, is an important challenge." They conclude that "...the nonlinear dynamics of curved spacetime appears to be dominated by (i) the transfer of spin-induced frame-drag vortexes [aka C-field vortices] from the initial holes to the final merged hole...".

They state, "We conjecture that there is no other important dynamics in the merger and ringdown of BBH."

Slowly, slowly, the C-field is being recognized as central to relativity.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin Klingman

One more proof of C-field:

"The longest-running project in NASA's history has completed its mission. Gravity Probe B has finally confirmed that the Earth drags spacetime around as it rotates like a spoon twisting in a jar of honey, mission scientist announced at a May 4 NASA press briefing."

"Other experiments had already confirmed this "frame-dragging" effect, predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity."

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin Klingman

On May. 13, 2011 @ 08:07 on another thread Eckard Blumschein wrote:

Dear Edwin,

While you called my essay refreshing, I am not sure whether or not you carefully checked my arguments and arrived at the same admittedly heretical conclusions.

What about my attempt to understand your gravito-magnetic field and Peter Jackson's claims, I have to admit that only the latter is not trustworthy to me. Admittedly I did not take the effort to read all of the nearly 400 related posts, and I am pretty sure you didn't read the 400 concerning my essay.

Maybe, we can nonetheless support each other by critical remarks. I was a bit deterred by the title of your essay and the introductory figures. Maybe, you shoehorned an alternative to theories that are leading from mere speculations to even more unbelievable speculations into the given topic.

Can you please guide non-physicists like me to an easily understandable explanation of your idea? It could begin with revelations where and why accepted theories might be wrong or at least incomplete, and it should end with at least exemplary indication of consequences. Most important to me is a compelling chain of logic arguments, if necessary supported by means of convincing figures.

It might be exciting for you if newly reported results of scientific research fit into your argumentation. However, those like me who are not familiar with the matter cannot decide whether the offered interpretation is correct. Almost anything could be turned into a confirming evidence for God, Lorentz contraction, or the final victories of Wehrmacht and communism.

Regards,

Eckard

As Eckard notes, there are at least a thousand comments scattered around on my theory and on his theory, both in our own threads and on others. I will try to respond to his suggestion in a meaningful way, and I thank him for the above comments.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

« Previous Page Next Page »