• [deleted]

  • Post #21

Willard,

I really appreciate your efforts to understand my theory, and I'll try to answer.

The primordial field, in my theory, is gravity. It satisfies the Calabi conjecture and, as I understand it, deSitter space, where gravity extends over (defines?) all space, and is generated by its own self energy. This bootstrap is mathematically justified, and since no one knows WHY the universe came into being, I simply assume it existed as one field. The Master equation is perfectly symmetrical and motion invariant, but the formal time derivative makes sense only if a new constant (Planck's constant) appears. Thus the perfect radial symmetry remains until a 'quantum fluctuation' [my second assumption] occurs in an 'off-radial' direction, unlocking the energy of the C-field, which had been suppressed by the perfect symmetry.

We now have the full gravitational field with radial and circulatory aspects.

The fact that both directly interact with mass and both have energy, hence equivalent mass, and the interaction is non-linear, means that a C-field vortex will establish a 'solenoidal' C-field dipole, which strengthens the vortex, which strengthens the dipole, which strengthens the vortex, with the process ending in an infinitely dense point. UNLESS THERE IS A LIMITING CONDITION. I next assume that a limiting condition exists [otherwise the universe would be nothing but one [or more?] infinitely dense points, which doesn't seem to be the case. The condition I impose is a 'limit to the curvature of the C-field. That is, the C-field vortex has a 'minimum radius' that prevents collapse to an infinitely dense point.

But where does that lead? Picture a spinning skater who pulls her arms in. How fast can she spin if she can pull her arms into zero radius? Got that? Is there an answer? On the way to 'zero radius' can her fingertips reach the speed of light? We are not 'boosting' her in any way that requires infinite energy, we're just conserving angular momentum.

Since there is nothing stopping the non-linear vortex-dipole-vortex-dipole--- feedback process, in which the energy-mass of the vortex wall serves as a 'mass current' (momentum) that induces a solenoidal C-field dipole, then the radius of the vortex keeps shrinking and the velocity of the vortex wall continues to speedup to conserve angular momentum. Where does this end? Will the vortex wall reach the speed of light? If it does, then how is it connected to the rest of the world, since, if there was an electromagnetic field, we could not 'look at' the the vortex, because, moving faster than the speed of light, it would have 'moved on'.

I hope you're still with me.

Now, if you work out the equations, it turns out that this radius is basically the Compton wavelength, and I make my next assumption, which is that at this point, electric charge comes into existence. It's probably my weakest assumption in my whole theory, but, I now have mass, charge, gravity and electro-magnetics.

And obviously the charge that is on the vortex 'wall' will resist the shrinking to an infinitely dense point through self-repulsion. So now a true limiting force exists to prevent infinitely dense points of C-field energy.

If one takes the simple equation of the mass of the vortex wall being forced into a smaller orbit, and sets it equal to the self-repulsive force of the electron, then one would hope to find the equilibrium where the inward C-field force and the outward electric force are equal and the particle is stable. And when this equation is worked out, the fine structure constant (1/137) falls out! I put the exclamation sign because I don't believe that there exists another theory that can calculate the fine structure constant.

By the way, the v=c radius is the Compton wavelength of the particle, but the radius where the charge repulsion equals the inward force is about 10^-18 meters which agrees with the best measurements. So the electromagnetic field can see only to the v=c radius, but collision data can see all the way down to the 'real' radius. I find that nice.

So now we have a Z-boson (the C-field vortex) that produces a charged particle and, if charge is conserved, then the remaining vortex (outside of the Compton wavelength radius) has acquired a charge, and become a W-boson, ready to produce an 'anti-particle'.

There's more, but I'll stop here to let you put the picture together in your own mind.

By the way, having left both academia and the government years ago to run my companies, I am not in the loop, and my submissions to Phys Rev Lett were immediately rejected with "don't darken our door again". So, I had the choice of 'start with inconsequential journals and work my way up' (which at my age is not appealing) or simply put this into books and hope someone reads them. Although I have presented the above in several factual books, the most complete presentation is in "The Chromodynamics War", which has the format of a scifi novel, in the hope that graduate physics students, upon reading a scifi novel that explained things better than their QCD textbooks might be induced to look further. Then fqxi came along and gave me another outlet.

Each book has worked out more details and corrected earlier typos and mistakes, but the most complete treatment of particle physics is "The Chromodynamics War". A version that drops the scifi narrative and simply presents this in straight form is in process, to be titled, "Physics of the Chromodynamics War".

Willard, sorry this can't all fit into 9 pages, but it just can't. I do appreciate your interest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Willard,

Upon re-reading your last post, I want to be sure that I answered your question completely.

The 'gravity', G, that i mention is the one you are familiar with, from Newton to Einstein to Hawking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Edwin,

Thanks very much for both of your posts; I think I'm beginning to get a handle on your ideas now! The second post was especially helpful in getting me to understand the motivation for the C-field. I don't have any more comments or questions at present; I do plan to read some of your other papers and books, though. I don't know how you feel about viXra.org, but I think it would be worthwhile to have your writings archived there. In any case, good luck with your continued efforts!

Best Wishes,

Willard

    Willard, thanks for the effort you have put into my theory and for any that you intend to do. I only recently became aware of viXra, and will look into it. I appreciate your suggestion, and your comments, and hope we have occasion to continue this conversation at a time of your choosing.

    Good luck in the contest, and thanks again.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Edwin

    I posted back to you on my string.

    The above was also very helpful, and rang a steeple full of bells.

    In my latest paper (which haven't yet got accepted either) I identify tokamacs as the geometrical solution, which I think is analageous to your field relationships.

    The rotation and forces are not only dual axis but helical. It is a torus, with a plasmasphere of 'extended space' translating at rest with it, which spins round it's 'ring' axis, with a force also round it's sectional circumference, giving and endless helix. This is from nuclear physics, but the whole angular momentum of a galaxy is concentrated into one (though not quite ALL at once, hence blazars) because black holes are toroid. (also stellar mass bh's - you must know the Chandra crab nebula core photo). Tokamaks have 'intrinsic' rotational motion. If scaling works how it should quasars even become a prime candidate as a big bang process, which means big 'crunch', and before it was our predecessor galaxy. Then that's the sort of thinking that gets papers rejected of course. Peer review editors will have a lot to answer for come the revolution!

    40] J.E. Rice et al 2007 Nucl. Fusion 47 1618 IOP Inter-machine comparison of intrinsic toroidal rotation in tokamaks. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/47/11/025

    And re your note about the vortex wall = a little over 7 x c, which is the max ejection velocity we've found from our frame (but 'c' locally in the 'incentric' graduated stream).

    I'm trying to work out precisely how the FSC emerges at 1/137th. I have it increasing with motion, and the fine structure itself as the diffractive medium. (all receivers measure em at c because the receivers fine structure makes it so). Ergo inertial frames.

    I'm doing some further revisions to my current paper (on galaxy evolution) and would like to cite something of yours. I'm not quite sure what and where yet but would need to do it quickly, and it would need to be concise - any ideas? peter.jackson53@ymail.com

    I really must find one your books!

    Any harmonious oscillations there?

    Best wishes

    Peter

    Willard

    Sorry about the above for Edwin -I was re-appreciating your paper, then catching up with posts, and forgot it wasn't Edwin's string.

    I've also just caught up with Joy Christian blog on her disproof of Bells inequity, and mentioned your essay as well as mine and Edwins. You may like to see it and her papers if you haven't yet.

    Best wishes

    Peter

    Willard,

    You may have noted my comments that others should check out Joy Christian's new work here.

    This work is relevant to my essay, which is based on a theory of local realism that goes against the grain of the 50 year old 'non-local', 'non-real' entanglement interpretations. These interpretations have flowed from so-called 'violations' of Bell's inequality, which, if Christian is correct, are based on Bell's faulty calculation of 2 instead of the correctly calculated 2*sqrt(2).

    As a consequence of Bell's result, 'local realism' fell into disfavor. On another thread Florin remarked that something "has the smell of local realism", even though I pointed out many current quotes from Phys Rev Lett that clearly stated that these issues had not been proved beyond a doubt [for reasons that may no longer be relevant.] As a further consequence, any theory, such as mine, that *is* based on local realism starts off with three strikes against it. For this reason, I am happy that Christian has shown Bell's calculations to be in error, thereby rescuing local realism from near death.

    I have placed some further comments summarizing Christian's results on my page, and don't wish to clutter up your page with such.

    I hope that, in judging my essay, you take these new results on realism into account, as they are extremely significant, if correct. I look forward to any comments you might have.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    10 days later

    • [deleted]

    • Post #28

    Dear Willard Mittelman,

    Since your admittedly impressive work is based on causal set theory, I cannot expect you to welcome my rather contrary essay. Please do not reject my arguments without an attempt to reveal possible flaws in my reasoning.

    Regards,

    Eckard

    • [deleted]

    • Post #29

    Dear Willard,

    Maybe this is just a bad luck. I chose some essays at random (looking for an interestig title). You know, there is probably more than 100. The first one was quite easy to get (with some help from the Internet). The next impossible. Yours is the third and it is also too hard to understand and evaluate. Too much equations and professional jargon. For example:

    "The expression for the quantum potential is obtained by substituting the Madelung representation of ψ into the Schrodinger equation, a substitution that yields two equations, one of which is the Quantum Hamilton-Jacobi Equation (QHJE); writing "R" for √ρ, the quantum potential is given by the term "[(-ħ2/2m)(ΔR/R)]" occurring in the QHJE, which has the following form [7, 8]:

    ∂S/∂t (∇S)2/2m V - [(ħ2/2m)(ΔR/R)] = 0."

    I am not a professional physicist. I am only Scientific American reader for years. According to FXQi: the essays shall be accessible to a diverse, well-educated but non-specialist audience, aiming in the range between the level of Scientific American and a review article in Science or Nature.

    Anyway I wish you good luck!

    Walter John

      Hello Walter,

      I may have misunderstood the meaning of "non-specialist." The equation that you reference involves basic calculus concepts and elementary quantum theory. As such, one doesn't need to be a professional physicist to understand it. It may be, nonetheless, that my essay is unsuitable for non-specialists; unfortuantely, I'm just not sure how to define what constitutes a "non-specialist" here. Granted, I could have added more explanatory remarks, but it's difficult to know just how much to add, and I didn't want to make the paper too long. At any rate, I wish someone from FQXi had said something when the essay was originally submitted; I could have either tried to rewrite it or simply withdrawn it altogether. I would rather have had the essay rejected as unsuitable than have it cause problems and frustrations for readers.

      With Sincere Apologies,

      Willard Mittelman

      Hello Willard,

      Good to see you in this contest. I look forward to reading your essay. I got my submission in at the last minute, but it is here now. I daresay that mine is less technical, and therefore better suited to the non-specialist reader, but I have generally found reading your papers fun. So I wish you the best of luck!

      Regards,

      Jonathan J. Dickau

        • [deleted]

        • Post #32

        amen dear gentlemen , so politness hihiihi irriting this belgian.

        But don't kill me dear friends, I am nice you know never I have crushed an insect, and you , perhaps during the night with moskitoes after all.Thus you aren't real universalists, hihihihi LOL

        15 days later

        Willard

        Just re-reading the essays that gelled with me. I still appreciate yours and can't imagine why your community score is not better, I'm posting the top score I think it's worth now. (I hope you may also score mine if you haven't yet). I also hope you may agree your viewpoint is consistent with mine and the similarly based concept for which Edwin is currently carrying the flag, and Constantinos Regaza has done some excellent consistent maths work on.

        Best wishes

        Peter

        Hi Peter,

        Thanks for your kind remarks. Personally, I'm not very concerned about the community score; the important thing is to have been able to communicate fruitfully with at least a few individuals, such as you and Edwin. (For what it's worth, though, I did rate both your and Edwin's papers some time ago and gave them very high marks.) At any rate, I apologize for not posting very much; unfortunately, I've been preoccupied lately with a lot of mundane matters. I do agree that our viewpoints are fundamentally consistent. One possible sticking point, as I said to Edwin awhile ago, is that I am inclined toward a Machian/nonlocal view of the universe, of the sort that has been advanced in a number of papers by Merab Gogberashvili. However, there is an interesting article (on arXiv) by Khoury and Parikh, entitled "Mach's Holographic Principle," that makes the case that nonlocal and local accounts of reality (in particular, of gravity) are in fact basically compatible. So, I don't actually see a serious tension between our different viewpoints.

        Thanks also, by the way, for the reference to Constantinos Ragazas; his papers look interesting!

        Best Wishes,

        Willard

        Willard

        I see local and non local as purely relative! In fact I've just derived that there are multiple universes in both the time ans space dimensions!! If you have a mo check this out; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

        Or if you want to escape the mundane look at Tommy Gilbertson's!

        Very best wishes

        Peter

        12 days later

        • [deleted]

        • Post #36

        Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria - suggestions for improvement.

        Sir,

        We had filed a complaint to FQXi and Scienticfic American regarding Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria and giving some suggestions for improvement. Acopy of our letter is enclosed for your kind information.

        "We are a non-professional and non-academic entrant to the Essay contest "Is Reality Digital or Analog". Our Essay under the same name was published on 29-12-2010. We were associated with Academic Administration as a part of our profession before retirement. From our experience, we were concerned about the problems and directions of current science. One example is the extended run and up-gradation given to LHC, (which was set up to finally prove that Standard Model and SUSY were wrong), even when Tevatron is closing down. Thus, after retirement, we were more focused on foundational works addressing, in one of its many facets, our understanding of the deep or "ultimate" nature of reality.

        Specifically we were concerned about the blind acceptance of the so-called "established theories" due to the rush for immediate and easy recognition even on the face of contradictions raising questions on the very theories. One example is the questions being raised on the current theories of gravitation after the discovery of Pioneer anomaly. While most students know about MOND, they are not aware of the Pioneer anomaly. Most of the finalists of this contest have either not addressed or insufficiently addressed this question. We hold that gravity is a composite force that stabilizes. This way we can not only explain the Pioneer anomaly and the deflection of the Voyager space-craft, but also the Fly-by anomalies.

        Similarly, we were concerned about the blind acceptance of some concepts, such as inertial mass increase, gravitational waves, Higg's boson, strings, extra-dimensions, etc. Some of these are either non-existent or wrongly explained. For example, we have given a different explanation for ten spatial dimensions. Similarly, we have explained the charge interactions differently from the Coulomb's law. We have defined time, space, number and infinity etc., differently and derived all out formulae from fundamental principles. There are much more, which we had discussed under various threads under different Essays. We are the only entrant who defined "reality" and all other technical terms precisely and strictly used this definition throughout our discussion.

        Though our essay was on foundational concepts and we derived everything from fundamental principles, it was basically alternative physics. Moreover, we are not known in scientific circles because we did not publish our work earlier. Hence it is surprising that even we got a community rating of 3.0 and (12 ratings) and Public Rating of 2.5 (2 ratings). We have no complaints in this regard. However, we have serious reservations about the manner in which the finalists were chosen.

        A set of thirty-five finalists (the "Finalists") have been chosen based on the essays with the top Community ratings that have each received at least ten ratings. The FQXi Members and approved Contest entrants rate the essays as "Community evaluators". Since many of the FQXi Members are also approved Contest entrants, this effectively makes the contestant as the judge for selection of the finalists. This process not only goes against the foundational goals of the Contest, but also leaves itself open for manipulation.

        Most contestants are followers of what they call as "mainstream physics". Thus, they will not be open to encourage revolutionary new ideas because it goes against their personal beliefs either fully (like our essay) or partially (like many other essays that did not find place in the final list. One example is Ms Georgina Parry. There are many more.) The prime reason for such behavior is cultural bias and basic selfish instinct of human beings. Thus, truly foundational essays will be left out of the final list.

        In support of the above, we give a few examples. While there are some really deserving contestants like Mr. Julian Barbour, who really deserve placement in the final listing, the same cannot be said for many others. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists, says that whether reality is digital or analog "refers, at least implicitly, to the 'ultimate' nature of reality, the fundamental layer." He admits that "I do not know what this could mean, nor I am at ease with thinking in these terms." Then how could he discuss the issue scientifically? Science is not about beliefs or suppositions. His entire essay exhibits his beliefs and suppositions that are far from scientific descriptions. He admits it when he talks about "speculative scenario". Yet, his essay has been rated as number one by the Community.

        The correspondence between us and Mr. Efthimios Harokopos under his Essay and our comments under the various top ranking finalists show the same pattern. One example is Mr. Paul Halpern. We have raised some fundamental questions under the essay of Mr. Hector Zenil. If the answers to these questions are given, most of the finalists will be rejected. If the idea is to find out the answers to these questions, then also most of the finalists will be rejected.

        The public that read and rated the essays are not just laymen, but intelligent persons following the developments of science. Their views cannot be ignored lightly. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 35th place in public rating. Mr, Tejinder Singth, who is 7th among the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 25th place in public rating. If public rating is so erroneous, it should be abolished.

        Secondly, the author and interested readers (including FQXi Members, other contest entrants, and the general public) are invited to discuss and comment on the essay. Here personal relationship and lobbying plays an important role. An analysis of the correspondence between various contestants will show that there was hectic lobbying for mutual rating. For example: Eckard Blumschein (Finalist Sl. No. 15) had written on Mar. 15, 2011 to Mr. Ian Durham (Finalist Sl. No. 3) "Since you did not yet answered my question you give me an excuse for not yet voting for you." There are many such examples of open lobbying. One of the first entrants visited most contestants and lobbied for reading his essay. Thus, not only he has received the highest number of posts under his Essay, but has emerged as one of top contenders.

        The above statement gets further strengthened if we look at the voting pattern. More than 100 essays were submitted between Feb.1-15. Of these 21 out of 35 are the finalists. Of these the essays of 14 contestants were published in 5 days between Feb. 14-18. Is it a mere coincidence? For some contestants, maximum rating took place on the last day. For example, on the last date alone, Mr. Paul Halpern rose from 14th place to 5th place, Mr. Donatello Dolce rose from 35th place to 14th place, and Mr. Christian Stoica came into the top 35. All these cannot be coincidental.

        Thirdly, no person is allowed to submit more than one essay to the Contest, regardless if he or she is entering individually or as part of a collaborative essay. Yet, we suspect that some have indulged in such activities. For example, we commented below the essay of one contestant on March 4. We got a reply from the next contestant the same day. The correspondence continued. The original contender has not replied to us. In fact he has only replied twice in 20 posts. This is surprising.

        In view of the above, we request you to kindly review your judging process and forward all essays to an independent screening committee (to which no contestant or their relatives will be empanelled), who will reject the essays that are not up to the mark and select the other essays without any strict restriction on numbers to the final judges panel. This will eliminate the problems and possibilities discussed by us. This will also have the benefit of a two tier independent evaluation.

        Our sole motive for writing this letter is to improve the quality of competition. Hence it should be viewed from the same light".

        Regards,

        Basudeba.

        Write a Reply...