Peter, I will look at the links you sent. On a side note, I don't want in any way to appear to be 'double teaming' Brian Whitworth. You dumped a dozen or so points on him. I'm trying to focus on the key point, local realism, as the rest of his essay depends on it.

  • [deleted]

Respected Sir,

We are highly embarrassed by your invitation to an amateur in the field like us to comment on your highly respected work. Yet, finding many similarities between our views and the fact that you are associated with an organization that is a pioneer in the field of research to understand most of the mysteries of the universe has emboldened us to respond. Kindly forgive our impertinence if our comments appear to be so.

We agree that: "Analog and digital mathematical treatments can be shown to be equivalent, so the answer does not lie in math but in physics. At root is the nature of particles and fields. The simplest possible physical model, one field, will be analyzed and physical experiments proposed to show an analog reality with digital consequences. There are implications for the view of reality currently associated with entanglement and violation of Bell's inequality".

It is ultimately one analog field that transforms itself to a locally digital format by a deterministic mechanism. This makes for two types of fields. The mechanism is nothing but simple inertia (provided we interpret it properly). But there is a difference between our understanding and description of fields. Since we describe the primordial field as deterministic, we describe everything in terms of cause and effect. We have already shown in our essay the nature of uncertainty to show that it is not contradictory to causality, but a logical outcome of our measurement system. Since the primordial field is deterministic, all quantum effects have macro equivalents. We accept entanglement in both systems, but the effects of both are different. As you know Sir, the effect of entanglement is known to fade off after some distance - may be a few kilometers.

We broadly agree (in essence, but not on the process) that: "An appropriately isolated object system, measured by an appropriate number generator, produces a measurement space upon which clustering transformations can be performed--by either neural or silicon networks--to create a feature space that can be represented1 in either continuous or discrete formalisms".

Also we agree that: "Thus analog or digital reality questions can't be answered mathematically--the answer must be found in a physical universe. The simplest possible universe would consist of one primordial field". However, we hold that physics is mathematical in specified ways only.

You say: "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". If only a primordial field exists initially, then any law of physics must derive from the field itself". We agree with you partially. While we accept that: "Physics should never accept anything "outside time and space", we do not accept the generally accepted concept of God. But if someone describes the single source of creation as God, we have no quarrels with such description. We accept: "a mathematical universe, a multiverse, laws of physics", because they are nothing but the mechanism through which the analog field becomes digitized. We do not accept the modern concept of extra large or compact 10 spatial dimensions. But we describe 10 unique projections of the three spatial dimensions. We have discussed it elaborately in our book.

We note with interest: "Finally the LHC has surprised physicists / cosmologists that the early universe was a 'perfect fluid', not an 'explosion of gases' that is the basis of all current theories". This has been our theory all along.

But we disagree with your comments that: "Our Master equation describes a perfect fluid, a G-C-field yielding the most complete explanation of our universe for all known particles and cosmological phenomena--that is compatible with SU(n), Yang-Mills, Calabi-Yau, 3D space and time, and local realism". This is because we do not accept anything that could not be derived from fundamental principles. Though the G-C-field is a gravito-magnetic field, our description of gravity is different from your description.

For example, we have derived gravity from fundamental principles as a composite force (of seven) that works similarly on macro and macro objects, though the results are apparent differently. For the macro effect, we can derive it from the electromagnetic force. For the micro effect, we can derive the electromagnetic force from it. With this theory, we can explain the Pioneer Anomaly, the Voyager deflection beyond the orbit of Saturn and the Fly-by anomalies. We had predicted the failure of Chandrayan 1 on 23rd May, three months before it actually failed. For us gravity is a composite force that stabilizes. Only this way we can explain the fixed ratio of the gravitational mass mg and the inertial mass, mi.

You have admitted that the 3 Dec 2010 issue of Physical Review Letters 105, 231103 ("...on Non-Newtonian Gravity") 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. In the force equation, the masses that are used are the gravitational masses, mg. The acceleration, derived from Newton's second law, is proportional to the inertial mass, mi, which describes a different property of a body: how it reacts to a force to acquire its acceleration. Now, it is found experimentally that all bodies have the same ratio mg/mi. This only proves what we have derived theoretically long ego.

Lot of talk is going on regarding the Sterile neutrinos. This is a part of our theory, from which we have theoretically derived not only the value of pi (22/7) and the fine structure constant (7/960 at zero energy level, and 7/900 at 80 GeV level), but also the charge of protons (+10/11) and neutrons (-1/11) in electron units (-1). Atoms interact: hence cannot be charge neutral. The excess negative charge is not revealed as it flows inwards (towards the nucleus), but is revealed in nuclear explosions. In all these, we have used simple mathematics that can be easily verified.

Once again thanks and regards,

Yours sincerely,

basudeba

  • [deleted]

Hello,

Beautiful answer.

It's clearer for me now.

You know I have a big problem with languages.

In fact I study only words in English and spanish and italian(latin language)

I study dutch also(second language of my country,germanic language)

My aim is to speak chinese and indian soon also.And arab.It's difficult the chinese you know,more than 4000 signs.The japanese is easier for the number of signs.

Thus of course you imagine why I mix .But I love studying a little of all.

At this momment I restudy my maths and I search a serie for the number of spheres.The algebras sing with the geometry of sphere.

It's difficult also for me to be more quiet due to my past and my parano.

For my theory, I must be serious, it's not a fun for me but it's all my life.

For your essay.....very interesting and relevant.Good luck.

Your friend also

Steve

  • [deleted]

With humility and I am sure.

you ask

"Q5 What is the best physical theory?"

Simply it's the Theory of spherization, quantum spheres ....build....cosmological spheres and its lifes and cosnciousness and they turn around the universal center, the biggest volume of sphere(different than the universal sphere and its membran limiting the physicality and the unknown.....and ALL THAT INSIDE A BEAUTIFUL SPHERE IN OPTIMIZATION AND IMPROVEMENT.

It was only simple like that but to see this evidence, a lot of studyings in all centers of interest is essential.We see in the details the generality of our laws.

Regards

Steve

  • [deleted]

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I regret, but you makes confusion on this point. Actually, gravito-magnetic effects are well known within General Relativity, i.e. the C-field, that you claims to be real while General Relativity should be of limited application (in all honesty, I find a few arrogant this claim), is indeed a part of General Relativity, see for example the recent review published in Astrophys. Space Sci. 331:351-395, 2011. Difference of order 0.2% are NOT attributed to the C-field, or gravito-magnetic field, which is comprised in General Relativity, but to potential modifies of the gravitational action with respect to the Einstein-Hilbert action of Standard General Relativity.

Best wishes.

  • [deleted]

Again, you makes confusion. Your sentence that "gravito-magnetism has been essentially ignored for 150 years" is NOT correct. Actually, there is an ENORMOUS number of papers in the literature regarding gravito-magnetism, see the recent review published in Astrophys. Space Sci. 331:351-395, 2011 and references within. Attempts to explain discrepances from General Relativity which have been found in the Phys Rev Lett paper cited above arise from potential modifies of the gravitational action with respect to the Einstein-Hilbert action of Standard General Relativity. These modifies have nothing to do with gravito-magnetism which is indeed well known within Standard General Relativity.

Best wishes

Dear Basudeba,

You are overly deferential, but I appreciate your comments. We seem to agree on many things, and even where you may think we disagree on math, I am merely contending that math arises in our universe, not as a Platonic "other".

I am uncertain as to your interpretation that the Master equation and its consequences do not derive from fundamental principles. It derives from logic, which I consider to be the most fundamental of all principles, essentially demanding physical non-contradiction. Given only one entity in the universe, the primordial field, that entity can only evolve through interaction with itself. There is nothing else to interact with or govern its interaction. This leads to a symbolic Master equation which, considered in light of real physics measurement and history can reasonably be interpreted to be the most general mathematical operator, the directional derivative or tangent vector and the field interpreted as gravity.

Each of us has to choose, from the myriad topics of physics, where to place emphasis. Many focus on special relativity, however that is not an area that unduly perturbs me. Similarly, gravitational versus inertial mass seems consistent with my theory and I have therefore not focused on this issue. The equivalence principle seems OK to me. I do not recall seeing your discussion of inertial and gravitational mass and your ratio mg/mi, so I cannot comment here. I have no current opinion on sterile neutrinos, either.

In short, I agree with a number of your statements, as you do with mine, and thank you for looking at my essay and responding.

Good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Steve,

    When I ask the question, "What is the best physical theory?" I am doing so in the framework in which the 'robot' is processing measurement data, extracting features, applying dynamical descriptions, and formulating a theory, but not necessarily a unique theory. Therefore the question relates to the use of entropy or other means of deciding between two or more theories that describe the same experiments. It is definitely not to be interpreted as my 'opinion' of what is the best theory.

    The answer that I derive is based on Gibbs theorem showing that if a hypothesis, Hj, exists such that prediction, p(Zi|Hj) coincides with the experimental frequency Ai, its credibility p(Hj|A1, A2, ...An) will exceed that of any other hypothesis. If large numbers of experiments are performed, the difference in credibility will be enhanced, leading to the selection of Hj as the most credible of the competing hypotheses.

    Its a mathematical decision of what is the best theory, not a personal one.

    Thanks for you bringing this confusion to my attention.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Darth,

    You are correct that General Relativity in the weak field limit leads to the GEM equations, and therefore implies gravito-magnetism. However it is true that Einstein failed to solve the magneto-static problem in general relativity, and more so that Maxwell and Heaviside decided that the field was too weak to be of significance.

    I have modified two of the equations in classical GEM, as indicated in my essay, and believe that very significant consequences derive from this. While a subset of physicists may be very familiar with the C-field, I think that most are not, and if they are, they do not think it generally significant. I may be wrong about that.

    I do not have access to Astrophys. Space Sci. so I cannot comment here, and I will let the Phys Rev Lett article I cited speak for itself. It is hard to derive and defend a new theory of the universe without sometimes sounding arrogant, but I try to hold these to a minimum. I also try to hold my mis-statements to a minimum, so thank you for calling me on what you view as a mis-statement.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Darth,

    I believe my previous response to you applies here also. I invite you to focus on my changes to GEM and potential consequences deriving therefrom, and forgive me for making overly general statements that certainly do not apply to a subset of physicists.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Darth,

    Re-reading your comment, you seem most offended by my statement that General Relativity is of limited application. I know this may be offensive to some, but that does not mean it is false.

    My approach to reality is that topology or connectedness is of primary significance, and distance, or metric overlay on topology is secondary. I view these as essentially separable problems. I think Doug Sweetser's diagram (reproduced in my essay) illustrates this beautifully.

    So a major question appears to me to be whether the universe is "flat" or not. I understand this to be the consensus belief today, and I do not challenge it as it fits my theory nicely. But if the universe *is* flat, then General Relativity seems to be most applicable in those local situations where a non-linear metric is most appropriate, such as black holes and neutron stars, and to have less significance where Euclidean geometry seems to apply, that is, almost everywhere. If the universe were *not* flat, then GR would be paramount. As it is (or appears to be) GR is primarily of local applicability. Again, I may be wrong.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    From a comment I made to Peter Jackson:

    I don't believe that 'empty space' exists, as I believe gravity to be a continuous field filling space everywhere. Frank Wilczek seems to say the same about 'quantum fields' everywhere in space, but I reject 'quantum fields'. If gravity is the primordial or underlying field, then it may provide the 'medium' in which E and M trade energy as the photon travels, and the C-field circulation, as explained in my essay, helps conserve the photon's inertial momentum.

    You state that "Max Planck's proposal of a compressible aether, more dense at the surface countered Lorentz's first objection...[but not] that the speed of light would be affected by density." It is along these lines that I think my equation 7 may have relevance, when the right hand side is viewed as variation of density. I haven't yet worked out the case of photons traversing a region of space, (dV =dx**3), subject to

    d(t)/dV = d(m)/dx --- (in units of Planck action, h) .

    The 'time dilation' dt, here would seem to imply that a distributed light wave/photon would 'bend' as a function of the variation in mass density, dm/dx, (where, in the most general case, dm is the change in gravitational energy with x.) This is for an extended wave front traversing a variable density region at right angles to the variation in density. If the direction of the photons is parallel to the direction of maximum variation, then we have Pound-Rebka type of dilation.

    I am very interested in applying equation 7, derived in a straightforward manner from my generalized Heisenberg principle, which in turn fell right out of my Master equation, which is essentially a fundamental statement of logic.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      • [deleted]

      Very relevant !

      The Gibbs Theorem is important for the distribution of energy and informations.

      The conditions for specific series appear also like relevant.

      That permits to see the different steps as ideal gas.

      We see indeed the changement of entropy due to the number.

      The volumes always take a road of distribution.

      Do you know the result of Bridgman for the paradox.

      IN THE LIMIT.....IDENTICAL GAS.....DISCONTINUITY AS A FUNCTION ....ENTROPY STEPS.

      If the real limits of entangled spheres and their pure number aren't inserted for an universal correlation with universal entropy....the difficulties are more important at my humble opinion for the distribution of informations inside a closed system.

      The pression, the temperature, the volume are essential for all series of analyze.In all case these steps with limits permit to have some equilibriums for a stability as the memmory.

      On the other side, the volumes shall permit to polarize and to evolve in an vision of complementarity also in a digital rule including our consciousness analogic.

      That seems possible for a kind of automation.

      Relevant your ideas , you see indeed the whole,it's essential in fact the generality.That permits the best inventions,rationals.

      Regards

      Steve

      • [deleted]

      Show that FM waves also violate the superposition law.

      Darth,

      The gravito-magnetic field in the GEM theory is not the same as the frame dragging or Lense-Thirring effect in general relativity. This is a very different idea about an intertwining between gravity and electromagnetism.

      Cheers LC

      • [deleted]

      Hi Ed,

      We had been talking about GEM on Philip's site, and I thought it was appropriate to move here. This is a copy of my latest post on Philip's site:

      Dear Friends,

      I think that Chiao and Podkletnov are doing similar things in that they are using electromagntic fields and charges on superconducting materials to try to generate gravity. The idea goes back to DeWitt's idea that a spinning electron might couple to spacetime curvature. Chiao is using interferometer techniques that might be more accurate than Podkletnov's. In my Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory, photons and gravitons are different quantum occupation states of the Grand Unified Mediating (GUM) boson. The question then arises "How does a GUM boson transition from photon-like properties to graviton-like properties?"

      From what I have read of Ed's ideas, I really thought that GEM was a rotational gravitational effect. And though this concept might couple to generational effects and/or QCD, I don't think it is directly coupled with Electromagnetism, but magnetism is a great analogy.

      Should we move these conversations to Ed's site?

      Have Fun!

      • [deleted]

      "But there is a simple alternative to [Zeilinger's] analysis. If one or more twins dyes his hair enroute, Bell's inequality will be violated, yet local realism exists."

      This of course refers to macroworld Bell tests, where the original EPR locality and realism assumptions do indeed hold. In fact I've never known Bell to be violated in the macroworld (i.e., using macroscopic objects) unless entanglement is somehow simulated (as in Diederik Aert's twin-vessels-connected-by-a-tube gedanken). I'm not disputing the possibility but could you construct a table showing how it could happen in the case of Zeilinger's twins, with one changing his hair color? You certainly can't fool Bell with Venn diagrams, since the Inequality is also fundamental classical macroworld logic. Nor with containers of food pulled out of a kitchen cabinet, nor with collections of keys, coins and so forth.

      "Solar neutrinos change enroute from the sun; why not photons?"

      Have Bell tests been conducted using neutrinos? What neutrino properties change?

      What about Leggett-Garg experimental tests (conducted by both the Zeilinger and Gisin groups to Leggett's specifications, and resulting in violation of realism in all nonlocal realistic theories except Bohm's -- which itself is challenged by the before-before experiments)? What about Charles Tresser's conclusion that Bell tests specifically disprove microworld realism, with the locality assumption Occamizable out of the picture?

      • [deleted]

      nikman,

      Most of the Phys Rev Letters papers on entanglement (my main source) are difficult to understand or argue with, unless one is a specialist in that area. I read many of them, but am no expert. However I believe that when world-class experts write a 'popular' book, one can learn something. After reading Gilder's intro to "The Age of Entanglement" I then read Zeilinger's "Dance of the Photons" and was impressed by the clarity of his presentation. In particular, he presents an appendix (A) that translates the argument to more familiar terms. One advantage of this is that assumptions that we perhaps unknowingly carry in the QM world are not so easy to carry into the translation.

      As a result, his 'user-friendly' explanation argued using 'macro' examples as I described above. I do *not* believe that the character of the examples in any way affects the logic, and I believe that Zeilinger indicates this to be so. Bell's logic is Bell's logic, and the quantum measurements violate it, causing people to look for the 'hole in the logic'. I believe that the hole in the quantum logic is assuming that the properties, (which I believe to be real) change en route to the detector. If they do, then the inequality will be violated by the measurements without in any way leading to the conclusions that are normally drawn from such violations. This has nothing to do with 'macroworld' tests. It applies to *all* such Bell tests, as far as I can see.

      I mentioned that neutrino's change, not to claim that the same occurs for photon's, but simply to point out that only a decade or so ago, neutrino's were not assumed to change, and then they were found to change (or at least that's the current interpretation.)

      I believe that it is far more feasible that photons, when operated by complex apparatus such as polarizers and beam splitters, can reasonably be expected to be affected. If this is so, then violation of Bell's inequality will prove nothing about local realism and non-locality. And it is far less radical (and I mean FAR) to assume that photons interacting with crystals and molecules undergo a change of state, than to believe that real properties don't exist until measured, and then, upon measurement, somehow (and I mean *somehow*, since we have no idea how) immediately (ie, via 'no media') cause properties **anywhere else in the universe** to come into existence. I know physicists love 'spooky' and 'weird' but this is (imho) borderline insane (given a reasonable alternative interpretation).

      If real particles (and that is what my theory produces) have real properties (I believe they do) and these properties are subject to conservation laws (I believe they are) then there is simply no mystery involved. The particles are 'born' with real properties, traverse space (with accompanying 'pilot wave') conserving these properties, and when one is found out, the other is immediately known. And that is exactly what we see *unless* we do different things to the particles en route (the quantum equivalent of 'dye your hair').

      Where is the fault in this argument?

      As for your last questions, you are more knowledgeable than me.

      Thanks for your comment. I believe this is one of the most important questions facing physics, and certainly applies to my theory and Brian Whitworth's VR conjecture. We can't both be right. I would be happy to continue this based on logic, but I have little to contribute (at this time) on the specific experimental tests that you refer to. Unless they are based on some significant variation of Bell's logic, then I would expect the above arguments to apply.

      Ray,

      Thanks for visiting my thread. I very much want to answer your question. I have been stimulated (by Peter Jackson's 20-20 essay) to look much more closely at the C-field interaction with electromagnetic fields, and am quite pleased with what I am finding. I hope to answer you soon.

      Best to you all,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Darth and Lawrence,

        I am probably responsible for some of the confusion. If Lawrence is interpreting my version of the gravito-electro-magnetic field to be the same as Sweetser's GEM, then I have mislead him. I show Sweetser's diagrams because I believe they are relevant to understanding significant aspects of 'metric' vs 'potential' approaches to physics. I do NOT accept all of his approach to GEM. Part of the confusion is that I have been using the abbreviation 'GEM' for years before knowing about Sweetser, and neither he nor I have a monopoly on this term. It often refers to Maxwell's original invention, based on symmetry, of the gravito-electro-magnetic equations analogous to his electro-magnetic field equations. I don't know a way around this confusion. I often refer to the 'Gene Man' theory, which is more specific, but also more self-referential.

        My field equations (see my essay) are neither Maxwell's nor Sweetser's.

        I regret the confusion.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        • [deleted]

        Dear Ed,

        Lawrence and I have corresponded quite a bit, and our approaches are more similar than you might realize. Certainly, he is more mathematical than I am, and his attack is more concentrated on Black Holes, whereas I'm attacking fundamental particles. The more that I study these TOE ideas, the more I think we are all tackling different parts of the same thing. I think that the TOE is a union of Strings and Kissing Spheres (CDT) all at the same time, as I present in my upcoming essay.

        Your GEM is a triality. I interpret Color as a quartality (leptons carry the neutral color "white" [in my Hyperflavor theory] or "violet" [in Pati-Salam theory] - you will see these ideas in Garrett Lisi's Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything, and in my 2009 FQXi essay) and Generations as the only true trialty. I have studied this G2 triality of generations since 2008 (Lawrence and I have corresponded at length about this symmetry), and I think this is related to the 3x3 CKM and 3x3 PMNS matrices (and a Unified CKM-PMNS matrix). I honestly think that this is the part of the puzzle that you may be addressing with GEM. I agree that there should be more to gravity than what we know via Relativity - whether "more" is quantum and/or "magnetic" rotational gravity.

        Good Luck and Have Fun!