Hi Edwin, I liked the style of your thinking very much. It's nice to see someone else with the idea of an analog-in, digital-out universe. I also think I've found the sticking point in history which is why we are having this competition in the first place. I replied to another essay, by Jarmo, which sums it up rather well I believe. He imagines asking Newton himself what he thinks of modern advances in physics:

An excellent and entertaining entrance to your essay Jarmo, congratulations on your imagination and ingeniuty. I have a burning question which I've always wanted to ask Newton though, which is this:

Q: Since he equated the ancient greek philosophy of the smallest irreducible particle, called an atom, with the motions of the planets as observed by Galileo Galilei, does he want to know what his very large unspoken logical assumption was, which has now meant that humanity has been led down the wrong scientific path?

Ans: He assumed that the cores of the planets and sun are composed of the same everyday matter which is found on the external crust. (It's not necessarily the case and so invalidates the whole of Einstein's space-time concept imo and also invalidates the results of the Cavendish experiment to 'weigh' the Earth).

    Alan,

    Thanks for the compliment. I noted that you remarked on several threads about considering "the Archimedes screw as an analogy for something with both particle and wave properties?" If you look at the static pictures at the top of page 6, and imagine them as dynamic, that is approximately what you would see.

    Your idea of gravity as the Archimedes screw is novel. As you probably know, Maxwell modeled electro-dynamics mechanically, even after he had the field equations. It was an easier sell. (I'm not buying your model, just admiring the novelty of it.)

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    • [deleted]

    • Post #143

    Hi Edwin,

    I have an idea that's probably a brain buster even for a NASA physicist. Here goes. I'm want to come up with an idea for a hyper-space that won't create any physics violations. One possible violation would be that a hyper-drive would permit someone to enter a black hole and, in effect, violate thermodynamics. The other problem is I have is that I want spaceships that can hover like they do in the movies. So here is the idea.

    Remember we agreed that if gravity is the negative energy that balances the energy of the Big Bang, then conservation of energy is protected because the net energy is zero? Well what if we try a variation of that. We have,

    [math]-E_{BB}+E_{BB}=0[/math]

    But now, we make the positive E_BB the gravity (space-time term), and the energy is negative. What happens?

    I believe that in this particular universe, accumulations of energy are gravitationally repulsive. So there are not likely to be any accumulations of mass-energy.

    But what about a gravitationally signficicant object (planet, star, blackhole), in our universe? Could we get a (negative mass-energy) in hyper-space to attract itself to a massive planet/star/black hole in our universe?

    The result would be that the hyperspace around the earth, stars, blackholes, would be gravitatationally repulsive to the (negative energy) of that universe.

    I'm not sure how you feel about manipulating space. But if we build a spaceship that can surround itself in hyperspace ...

    OK, it's getting a bit weird even for me. The idea sounded good when I thought of it, but now ...

      Yes, I see what you mean about the figures at top of page 6. Yet it's the simplicity of the mechanical screw idea which has yet to sink in to the mathematically minded I think. I have studied simulation modelling at masters degree level at Brunel University an have been addicted to solving the big mystery of everything since my older brother studied astrophysics at Leeds. I left my scientifc career so that I wouldn't be influenced by the mainstream line of thinking. I was sure that an elementary mistake had been made in the course of history. Now that I've found it, all the problems of science have revealed themselves and slowly unfolded into an image which is easily comprehendable. All without the use of mathematics. If you imagine the Archimedes screw turning, then the helical action can act as force of attraction when interacting with another particle. If this screw travelled around a wraparound universe, then it would emege on the other side as a force of repulsion i.e. dark energy. How can this simple model be so easily ignored by the science community I ask you?

      Yes, I have been posting this message on a select number of essays because I want to spark the imagination of a special someone able to take the idea forward. Thank you for the appreciation of it's novelty. You're the first!

      Jason,

      We'd all like to have a spaceship that hovers.

      In my understanding of your equation above, the -E_bb is the potential energy of the gravity field and the +E_bb is the equivalent mass of this energy 'exploding' outward with kinetic energy that balances the potential energy.

      While I've read as much sci-fi as the next guy, maybe more, I am not much of a believer in hyperspace, so I'm not much help there.

      But as I've said before, keep those new ideas flowing.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      • [deleted]

      • Post #146

      Hi Edwin,

      I'm not sure if a hyper-space exists either. However, I think there is merit in giving it a try. In my essay, I said that everything in physics can be described by photons and wave-functions. So I'm using that as a strategy. Objects like particles, waves and space-ships can be described as a wave-function,

      [math]\Psi[/math] which exists within our space-time called,

      [math]S_0[/math]

      The idea I have is to posit a surface (closed surface) that functions as an interface that surrounds object (wave-function),

      [math]\Psi[/math]

      This interface will cause cause the object to behave like an object in hyper-space (space-time S_i),

      [math]\Psi_i = T_{0i}[\Psi][/math]

      Using this setup, I want to try some round trip journeys for photons and particles that travel, first by hyper-space and return via space-time. I want to figure out what kinds of relationships exist between h and h' (Planck constant), G and G'(Gravity constant), and c' >> c. I want to require:

      1. causality, and

      2. conservation of energy (initially).

      I want to try dropping the object through hyper-space and compare it with a drop through standard space-time.

      I'm not sure if I should call the interface a wave-function or an operator. But it should permit the object obey conservation of momentum, in hyper-space, with a mass content of,

      [math]m_i = m \frac{c^2}{c_i^2}[/math]

      If the speed of light c_i is large enough, we could build a star-ship that weighs as much as a battleship in space-time, but weights only a few kilograms in hyper-space.

      I want to use the shift-photon idea to create hyper-space gravity waves.

      At the very least, I might discover a hidden relationship between c, h and G, something that fixes their values. I think this effort is worth it. Falsifiability would come from building a shift photon generator and running it at a very high repetition rate.

      Dear basudeba,

      I did not mean to offend you by my last sentence. As I had noticed that you had posted some very long comments on others threads, I simply meant to thank you for keeping your comments 'brief', there was no implication of 'dirty'. It was a poor choice of words on my behalf.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Jason,

      I've seen your comments on hyper-space before, but I've never quite figured out what it is you're talking about. I'm missing something critical.

      On another topic, I just posted to Peter the following:

      I have been looking at 'ring laser gyroscopes' and thinking that you might also be interested in these devices. They produce two counter-rotating laser beams around a closed circuit. When the circuit physically rotates, one path is effectively lengthened and the opposite shortened, with consequent interference fringes that can produce 'beats' on a photo-detector proportional to the angular rotation speed. This allows the device to function as a gyroscope for navigational purposes (used on Airbus A320 and many others). Just google "ring laser gyro".

      Also interesting is that Martin Tajmar used such a device to measure the C-field. By placing the 'ring' around a C-field dipole, one laser beam is flowing 'with' the C-field, and the other is flowing 'against' the C-field and of course the interference allows highly accurate measurement of the circulation of the field.

      Among other questions is what happens when the beams are in vacuum and one beam is effectively 'speeded up'.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Jason,

      I watched a you-tube of Tajmar explaining his experimental results to an audience. After discussing the ring laser gyro measurement of the C-field he asked:

      "What can cause a frequency shift of photons."

      Right down your alley.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      • [deleted]

      • Post #150

      Hi Edwin,

      I guess a ring laser gyroscope "would" be able to detect rotation of the ring. I think that fiber optics are effectively mirrors on the inside (along the bore of the fiber optic cable; in addition, there is glass or some kind of material with index of refraction n>1. I think it's cool that the rotating ring would almost act like mirrors that are moving towards/away from photons that bounce of the walls of the fiber optic cable. The fact that the "moving mirror effect" doesn't produce redshift or blue-shift is amazing AND something I'll need to think about.

      I've got a question for you. At the momentum of the Big Bang, why didn't the gravity associated with all that energy cause the Big Bang to become a gigantic black hole? Unless you have a better answer, consider this answer. Gravitational potential has a slow reaction time. Space-time needs time to curve space-time in response to an excitation. In other words, at the moment of the Big Bang, gravity (space-time curvature) had not yet reached the equilibrium. Gravitational potential has a 1/r dependence. But how can a curvature travel all the way out to an infinite distance r inside of a nanosecond? It can't. In effect, gravity was still putting on its boot when the Big Bang explosion was riding off at light speed.

      Remember that gravitational potential can only propagate at the speed of light. Photons move at the speed of light, and were laughing at gravity which couldn't get its act together quickly enough to produce a black hole. Gravitational potential is NOT instantaneous. However, it's expected to induce a proper gravity field instantaneously. Poor gravity; expectations exceed capability.

      Why do I belabor this point? Because it means that the Einstein equations can't keep up with a rapid enough change in energy. If true, then the Einstein equations are no longer carved in stone. The Einstein equations are mortal and they can be defeated. Space-time will try to conserve energy. But if it's response time is too slow, then energy conservation can be violated. Eventually, gravity will catch up and plug up the leakage of energy; in doing so, space-time will curve to compensate for the additional energy (after it's gotten its boots on). Space-time curvature has to clean up the mess by achieving the proper gravity. Gravity complains and mutters with irritation that it has to go out to r = infinity to achieve a balance between energy and gravity. Gravity calls energy (photons) irresponsible and inconsiderate of consequences.

      What's my point? Gravity is obligated to uphold the Einstein equations. I'm tempted to call it a mandate of God, but that would be a distraction. Control systems describe how a system will try to dampen out an excitation. What is gravity's control system in order to re-achieve the Einstein Equations? I don't know either, but I think we should look for poles and zeroes of gravitational space-time. In electronics (and control systems), the system has a transfer function of the form,

      [math]H(s) = \frac{K(s-z_1)}{(s-p_1)}[/math]

      H(s) = \frac{K(s-z_1)}{(s-p_1)}

      I'm willing to bet that the shift photon is such a pole. I think its frequency will be the repetition rate of the shift photon.

      If I'm right, then we just jumped ahead 500 years technologically.

      Jason,

      Yes, and the most interesting thing to me is that a static ring laser gyro detects the circulating C-field (the rotational aspect of gravity.)

      Your next question is tricky. If we agree on a Free Lunch Universe, then the outward kinetic energy of motion must equal the inward potential energy of gravitational attraction. I never understood how the universe was supposed to inflate much faster than the speed of light, but I think that falls within the 'scale invariance' discussed in my essay. As Ray Munroe made me aware, Nottale shows that 'scale invariance' is the same as 'motion invariance'. As I conceive of this the 'shape' of the potential is preserved whatever the scale, so that a rapidly expanding universe that is independent of scale is also independent of motion and hence the speed of light. This seems to be what you are talking about: "gravity was still putting on its boot when the Big Bang explosion was riding off at light speed."

      It's difficult to grasp these special conditions intuitively, but they seem to be implied by the Free Lunch assumption, and my Master equation is definitely scale invariant.

      I understand control theory and transfer functions, but not all systems try to damp out excitations. I don't quite see how the shift photon does this.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      • [deleted]

      • Post #152

      Hi Edwin,

      I'm just not getting the scale invariance idea.

      This is a little frustrating for me, but I figured out the Big Bang/gravity potential thing. In the first few minutes of the Big Bang, the energy density is homogeneous, therefore, the negative gravitational potential is negative and and flat (no gravity fields yet). The effects of gravity are irrelevant because there is no slope. However, the poor SOB on the outside of the Big Bang who didn't see it coming, he suddenly gets (1) severely irradiated with energy and (2) falls into a precipitously steep gravitational slope at the outer edge of the Big bang; suddenly that poor SOB is part of universe universe now. As the universe expands, the energy density gets less and less. The gravitational potential also gets less and less. The gravitational potential remains flat until matter forms and starts to clump. Eventually, the negative flat gravitational potential energy inside of the universe gets less and less negative until it equalizes with the space-time that was already here. So, in a way, the Big Bang created a whole new universe, but it quickly became part of the old universe that was already here. The Big Bang didn't become a black hole because the gravity well was flat, not sloping inwards; well, the slope was vertical with the old universe; equilibrium had not been reached. At one point, maybe in the first pico-second, the energy density was high enough to be a black hole. FTL phenomena is permitted inside of black holes.

      This is really frustrating for me because I want to explain how the Einstein equations can only respond at the speed of light. Unfortunately, the Big Bang has to hide this fact by maintaining constant density.

      So just imagine that a giant neutron star just pops up from out of nowhere. It doesn't explode at the speed of light because it has a constant diameter. However, its gravity field expands outward at the speed of light. As the gravity field expands outward, there will be longitudinal gravitational ripples in space-time. These ripples get damped out very quickly.

      Yes, I know this has never happened before. It's a thought experiment. Yes, I understand that the neutron star would probably explode anyway because of the gravity waves. How about a gigantic ball of Pb (lead)? Along the radii of the giant sphere made out of lead (Pb), the gravity waves would radiate outwards as attraction and repulsion. Time would slow down and than speed up again. There would be spherical wave-fronts of attraction and then repulsion. You could model these gravity waves with a sinusoid...

      [math]g(t) = g_0 cos (\omega t)[/math]

      g(t) = g_0 cos (\omega t)

      Shift photons have a constant potential energy slope; yes, it's repeating, but at a high repetition rate, it looks like a constant gravity field in one direction.

      Work with me...

      • [deleted]

      • Post #153

      Dear Sir,

      your essay was very interseting to read! Congratulations!

      As I am not an expert in these theories I have a (possibly trivial) question.

      You mentioned at pg.5 a final assumption for deriving real particles, distinguishable from real fields: That the curvature of space is limited. And as consequences of this, that electrons and quarks and also black holes appear as limits.

      My question is: If you have a limit for the curvature: is this a natural constant or could you also chose a half or a quarter of this number and guarantees also a limited curvature?

      Best regards

      Niklaus Buehlmann

        Niklaus,

        Thank you for your comment and for an interesting question.

        While the process effectively provides a 'limit to curvature' the term itself may be more metaphorical than accurate. What happens is this:

        The equivalent mass of the vortex wall, interacting with itself, produces a solenoidal C-field, just as an electric charge current produces a solenoidal magnetic field. But the increased C-field has the effect of forcing the vortex wall toward the central axis, while conservation of angular momentum increases the speed of the vortex wall. Where does this end? If an ice skater could pull her arms in all the way to a zero radius, how fast would she spin?

        This is not a 'boost' situation, such as occurs in relativistic linear acceleration, so there is no natural limit, and no reason to assume that the vortex wall velocity will not reach the speed of light. If it does, what happens? I conjecture that electric charge is created at the v=c point in the process. As it turns out, the equations show that the point where this occurs is the Compton radius of the electron, that is, the 'size' of the electron as observed by electromagnetic radiation. This does not stop the vortex wall from shrinking to a point, but now there is a 'braking force' at play, since the self-repulsion of the charge increasingly resists the shrinking.

        You ask about a 'natural constant' associated with this process. If one sets the C-field inward force equal to the charge self-repulsion outward force, then the point at which they are equal (and presumed stable) yields the fine structure constant, which is currently derived in no other theory.

        And this 'stable' size is of the order of 10^-18 meters, a thousand time less than Compton wavelength. So the electro-magnetic field sees one size, that is associated with the v=c wall velocity, while particle collisions see a much smaller size that is associated with the final stable radius of the particle. Note that all electrons are 'identical' since one cannot even in theory observe a 'mark' on one, as the mark would move away faster than c.

        This conjecture as to how charge comes into the picture is the weakest point of my theory, but compare it to string theory in which each 'winding' of the string through a 'hole' in an 11-dimensional Calabi-Yau manifold produces one unit of charge, and it doesn't appear so unreasonable. And QED simply conjectures that quantum fields, operating at a point, produce charge, but without mass, which requires a Higgs field.

        I hope that explanation gives you a better picture of the process that I metaphorically described as 'limit of curvature'. It actually does limit the curvature of the C-field vortex wall, but it is due to the self-repulsion of the charge equaling the inward force of the C-field on the vortex wall.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Jason,

        Look at the first figure on page two and again at the figure on page 7. The red curve is the (2D graph of) the G-field potential. Note that it has a 1/r distribution. What this means is that the energy density is NOT homogeneous, but peaks at the r=0 (singularity?) and decreases as one moves away from this.

        Since you state that "In the first few minutes of the Big Bang, the energy density is homogeneous," then any conclusions that you draw from this will not apply to my theory, but, as seen on page 7, will apply to the FLRW solutions to Einstein's General Relativity 'dust' equations that do assume homogeneity.

        I don't know how to explain 'scale invariance' other than that if one multiplies the solution by a scale factor, it is still a solution of the same field equation. This is worked out in my appendix C. The Nottale references (thank you Ray) are in my list of references.

        You also say: "This is really frustrating for me because I want to explain how the Einstein equations can only respond at the speed of light. Unfortunately, the Big Bang has to hide this fact by maintaining constant density. "

        Again, there is no 'constant density' in my model.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        • [deleted]

        • Post #156

        Hi Edwin,

        After the inflationary epoch, quarks and gluons start to form; that throws a monkey wrench into the model. Quarks and gluons make up protons and neutrons (which are matter), which can't keep up with light. So gravity is an issue now.

        I'm trying to understand what you mean by low entropy. Since it might be the case that hadrons can't keep up with photons, then hadrons fall behind. If the explosion is outwards (like a grenade), then the gravity and light lead ahead of the particles (outwards), and a gravity field can develop.

        However, if there is no center because the Big Bang is a 4D space-time hypersphere (subtle sarcastic use of the word hypersphere), then the gravity field and photons are moving faster, but are not leaving particles behind. It's like bringing 50 obnoxious ADHD kids to a nursing home and locking the doors. The kids move really fast, the old people move really slow, but the kids never move away from the old people because the doors are locked. If the Big Bang is such a 4D hypersphere, then the energy density IS the same everywhere in space.

        Your figure on page 2 suggests geodesics that I can't even imagine. Yet I think you are suggesting that there is no geodesic caused by the expansion of space-time. In your paper, you said, "Yet most field-energy-mass of our G field is near the singularity, thereby achieving the required minimal entropy:"

        It sounds like we both prefer the grenade effect where the center (r=0), is somewhere rather than everywhere (for those who like hyper-spheres).

        There are quite a few points of discussion. I don't know if there was a pre-existing universe or a gravity discontinuity moving out at the speed of light from the Big Bang center. It's a thought experiment worth considering. What I'm after is whether or not gravity/space-time has a resonant frequency and a transfer function that I can use to overcome gravity. Call me crazy, but I'm looking for an H(s) that is the quotient of the output divided by the input. The input is a sinusoidally changing frequency (like FM radio with a sinusoid input). The output is a gravitational disturbance. Obviously, this resonant frequency is not 88 to 108 MHz or we would have noticed. Tunable lasers look more hopeful, but 5000 repetitions per second is apparently not fast enough.

        By the way, the frequency is

        [math]f= \frac{d \theta}{dt}[/math] f= \frac{d \theta}{dt}

        So what should I call df/dt? Chi?

        [math]\chi = \frac{df}{dt}[/math] \chi = \frac{df}{dt}

        Jason,

        Willard has made me want to recheck my statements about entropy, and I have not yet had a chance to do so. But regardless of this you are correct in your statement that "hadrons can't keep up with photons, then hadrons fall behind".

        You say: "If the explosion is outwards (like a grenade), then the gravity and light lead ahead of the particles (outwards), and a gravity field can develop." But the gravity field is already developed. Gravity is the one and only primordial entity in my model. The rotational aspect of gravity (the C-field) appears only after symmetry is broken, then neutrinos appear, then neutrinos interact with the boson/vortices and produce electrons and quarks. These particles bring charge into the picture and then photons appear. It may not be the order that you want things to happen, but it's what my model predicts. At that point we have every particle that is known today, as well as forces that explain the current phenomena and the exceptions/anomalies to other theories.

        You then say: "then the gravity field and photons are moving faster, but are not leaving particles behind." But I would expect the gravity and photons to leave the particles behind (although the neutrinos will be moving almost light speed.)

        As for "Your figure on page 2 suggests geodesics that I can't even imagine. Yet I think you are suggesting that there is no geodesic caused by the expansion of space-time. In your paper, you said, "Yet most field-energy-mass of our G field is near the singularity, thereby achieving the required minimal entropy:"

        This is a 2D representation of the gravitational field strength before symmetry breaks. Think of it as very highly stressed space in which almost all of the gravitational field strength (and hence equivalent mass) is at or near the origin, r~0. I interpreted this to imply low entropy, but I need to study that statement.

        "It sounds like we both prefer the grenade effect where the center (r=0), is somewhere rather than everywhere (for those who like hyper-spheres)." Yes, I definitely have a 'center', not a hypersphere.

        As for "There are quite a few points of discussion. I don't know if there was a pre-existing universe or a gravity discontinuity moving out at the speed of light from the Big Bang center. It's a thought experiment worth considering." I'm not really sure that it's a thought experiment worth considering. Many men that were smarter than you and I have discussed what came before the universe, and no one has answered the question. Certainly the bouncing universes I see today make no sense. They only push the problem back before the first bounce. John Merryman's (and others) eternal universe is no easier for me to understand, and does not produce the various ingredients that my model produces ( or if it does, he doesn't tell us how.)

        "What I'm after is whether or not gravity/space-time has a resonant frequency and a transfer function that I can use to overcome gravity. Call me crazy, but I'm looking for an H(s) that is the quotient of the output divided by the input. " I don't think you're crazy. You're one of the most imaginative guys around. And all ideas sound crazy initially, at least to those who believe in the current consensus. Yet there really does seem to be a physical reality (though some here think there's only math or virtual reality) and at some point our theories and new ideas must match the reality. I think your question about the resonant frequency of space is a wonderful question, but I suspect that, since the big bang provided the 'mother-of-all-impulses' that the system would already have been driven into resonance, and we should at least see some remnant of that behavior, assuming that it damped out due to inflation (or something).

        I like the way you hold on to your idea like a bulldog. That's the only way to reach the end. Of course the end is likely to be a disappointment, but you never know until you get there.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        • [deleted]

        • Post #158

        Hi Edwin,

        I wrote a story on

        http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/647

        It's about the planet Maldek that built a Big Bang bomb energy weapon and, well, you can just read the story. I describe how the bomb was made.

        The oscillating universe (expanding/contracting) just sounds too contrived to me. A pre-existing universe with a very rare Big Bang event seems more natural. Did God cause the Big Bang, was it a natural phenomena or the ultimate weapon? It's left to everyone's imagination and preference. But the idea solves the conservation of energy dilemma.

        "The rotational aspect of gravity (the C-field) appears only after symmetry is broken, then neutrinos appear, then neutrinos interact with the boson/vortices and produce electrons and quarks. These particles bring charge into the picture and then photons appear. "

        I want to applaud you for taking a stand on C-field gravity physics. Making specific predictions exposes a theory to attack; only the correct theory survives. All the rest of us get to experience the anguish of seeing our prized and beloved theory die. Lots of theorists hide their ideas in 10 dimension string theory space because they can't endure the pain. In a way, it's like robot wars.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Wars_%28TV_series%29

        The trick to building a good theory is to use as few parts as possible; and work with the parts of the theory that survived the last battle.

        And if C-field theory survives and photon theory dies, I will cry first, and then quickly adopt C-field theory. I just want to be right going into the next battle.

        I'm taking a closer look at Frequency Modulation as a solution to a gravity field Transfer function. My instincts tell me that the fastest repetition rate possible is the answer. When I can write down the transfer function, input and output, I'll post it.

        Congratulations Edwin! You made the front page. Just click on HOME to see it. Well done.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #160

        Hi Edwin,

        I need to draw a picture to show you this. The Big Bang was an energy conserved event because a gravitational potential (negative energy) and an explosion of light (positive energy) both exploded outward at the speed of light. Both add to zero.

        But there is another energy conserved event. Photon Theory says that everything in physics can be decomposed into photons and wave-functions. Here is an example of a gravity wave-function.

        A space-ship produces

        (1) a negative energy gravity wave that travels to the left, and

        (2) a positive energy gravity wave that travels to the right.

        The spaceship is supposed to ride the negative energy gravity wave. If it rides the positive energy gravity wave, it falls off and gets left behind.

        If the space-ship is too big, the gravity wave leaves it behind. If the space-ship rides inside the negative energy gravity wave, it will literally travel at the speed of light for as long as the space-ship remains inside.

        It's not a hyper-drive, but the speed of light is still pretty quick.

        I need help with the the details. What do you think?