A Physicist\'s View of the Universe: A Philosophical Approach by Israel Omar Perez

I know I can't submit another essay. I don't plan to - these are just some comments that came to mind after thinking about my essay. They don't seem very relevant to the topic "Is Reality Digital or Analog?" but writing them has given even more satisfaction than writing the essay, and I'm in the mood to share them with the whole world. So if you've got time to read them ...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I fully realise that my essay doesn't sound like science at all. I can appreciate that many readers think it belongs to science fiction and fantasy. It does have saving graces though. I'm amazed at how well it fits in with the discoveries of the Microwave Anisotropy Probe and with string theory, culminating in the LHC's experimentally verified strings and my prediction of antistrings. Having said that, I must say this - it's very strange that the scientific world is so obsessed with mathematics (admittedly, my essay did dabble with it when offering a version of E=mc2 to suit the digital world - but I kept it very simple ... so simple it might be regarded as wrong). Math seems to be regarded as infallible, even though it leads to mistakes. The (partial) mistake I have in mind is string theory. I don't deny that there certainly is value in the theory, and in maths, but logic reveals shortcomings. Let me explain, after first writing a short section describing an unconventional approach to unveiling unification and offering an alternative to the Higgs boson that relies on gravitational waves.

ALTERNATIVE TO HIGGS BOSON

An important step might be to think of "... the grand design of the universe, a single theory that explains everything" (words used by Stephen Hawking on the American version of Amazon, when promoting his latest book "The Grand Design" - coauthored with Leonard Mlodinow, Bantam Books, 2010) in a different way than physicists who are presently working on science's holy grail of unification. The universe's underlying electronic foundation* (which makes our cosmos into a partially-complete unification, similar to 2 objects which appear billions of years or billions of light-years apart on a huge computer screen actually being unified by the strings of ones and zeros making up the computer code which is all in one small place) would make our cosmos into physics' holy grail of a complete unification if it enabled not only elimination of all distances in space and time, but also elimination of distance between (and including) the different sides of objects and particles. This last point requires the universe to not merely be a vast collection of the countless photons, electrons and other quantum particles within it; but to be a unified whole that has "particles" and "waves" built into its union of digital 1's and 0's (or its union of qubits - quantum binary digits). If we use the example of CGH (computer generated holography, these "particles" and "waves" could be elements produced by the interaction of electromagnetic and presently undiscovered gravitational waves, producing what we know as mass and forming what we know as space-time. Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves, and measurements on the Hulse-Taylor binary-star system resulted in Russell Hulse and Joe Taylor being awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1993 for their work, which was the first indirect evidence for gravitational waves. The feedback of the past and future universes into the unified cosmos's electronic foundation would ensure that both past and future could not be altered. Our brains and minds are part of this unification too - which must mean extrasensory perception and telekinetic independence from technology are possible, despite modern science's objections to these phenomena which appear to be based on non-unification.

* For more information on the universe's proposed electronic foundation, please see my article and postings at

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/814

STRINGS ARE ONLY PART OF MATTER'S BASIS

Space and time only exist in our experience. They are emergent properties, like wetness and mind. We experience wetness because it emerges from the building blocks of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms which make up water. We experience mind because it emerges from the building blocks of neurons composing the brain. And we experience space-time since it emerges from the building blocks making up the universe. These units are a combination of electromagnetic pulses (forming a cosmic computer which includes randomness and thus the potential to escape rigid preprogramming, and have a small degree of free will) as well as a cosmic hologram (this is produced by the interaction of electromagnetic plus gravitational waves and combination of the holographic aspect with the electronic aspect unifies general relativity with quantum physics). Every physical and nonphysical part of the universal hologram would be a receptor for the downloading of data from the cosmic computer which not only exists in the hyperspace of the large-scale universe but also in the hyperspace of each subatomic particle. (In other words, the holographic universe or spacetime we know is a screen for displaying data from the 5th-dimensional computer.)

It might be helpful to visualise time as the playing of a CD or video tape. The entire disc or tape obviously exists all the time. But our physical senses can only perceive a tiny part of the sound and the sights at any fraction of a second. I believe space and time are infinite, so it might be more accurate to visualise time as that HUGE number - in this case, of CDs or tapes - which some versions of string theory propose (10 exponent 500). My essay tells you exactly how to travel to the future, how to return home, and how to travel into our past. Neither future nor past can be altered (a blow to our belief that we have the free will to shape the future) and my explanation of travel to the past requires re-interpretation of the concepts of "multiverse" and "parallel universes". It also requires the ability to travel billions of light years INSTANTLY - no doubt many readers will instantly dismiss the essay because their preconceptions "know" this simply isn't possible. It indeed sounds like pure fantasy, but I outline an approach based on electrical engineering, General Relativity, and Miguel Alcubierre's 1994 proposal of "warp drive" that makes it logically possible.

My essay explains why the universe is a Mobius loop and how it is contained in, or unified with, each of its particles (relying on physical senses or 21st-century scientific instruments would make this statement ridiculous). Then each fermion and boson would also be composed of the 3 spatial dimensions, the 4th dimension of time, and the 5th dimension of hyperspace. Detectors like the Large Hadron Collider would be unable to "see" the time and hyperspace components of particles but could only see the small (maybe 5% of the whole) 3 spatial dimensions (the time component would be what we call dark matter), erroneously assuming particles are those small fractions of a Mobius loop that physics calls strings. "Dark matter" would exert a gravitational influence because time, being part of a curved Mobius loop (whether of quantum or cosmic scale), would push objects together in the same way Einstein's curved space-time pushes objects together. We can speak of the HST now - no, not the Hubble Space Telescope but Hyperspatial SpaceTime. We can visualise the Mobius loop as composed of a hyperspace computer which generates information on how things change from one presently undetectably tiny fraction of a second to the next (we call this time, and it's comparable to the frames in a movie) and transmits the data (transmits dark energy) to the insignificant portion of length, width and depth that makes up subatomic particles ... and the universe.

Preceding the Big Bang (which created this local section of the infinite, eternal universe ... or if you prefer, this subuniverse of the megauniverse) there would have been no space, matter or time in this subuniverse. No transmissions of dark energy (creating time and space/matter) would have occurred - therefore the dark-energy content of the universe would have been zero, increasing to the present 72% as more and more matter was created. How is matter created? Perhaps as cosmologist Alan Guth once suggested -

"You might even be able to start a new universe using energy equivalent to just a few pounds of matter. Provided you could find some way to compress it to a density of about 10^75 (10 exponent 75) grams per cubic centimeter, and provided you could trigger the thing ..."

At the time the Cosmic Microwave Background was emitted (less than a million years after the big bang), results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe say the dark-energy content of the universe was negligible. Space/matter has been increasing since the big bang so transmissions from hyperspace computer (dark energy) which create them are increasing while the volume of the Mobius loop occupied by time/hyperspace (dark matter) has been shrinking as a result - according to the WMAP satellite, from 63% when the CMB was emitted to 23% today. Why isn't dark energy increasing at the same rate dark matter is decreasing? It must be because, as stated earlier, both time and hyperspace exert a gravitational influence, thereby mimicking space and matter to a degree. This mimicry causes the dark matter between the start of the CMB and the present to decrease by only about 40% while dark energy increases in the same period by about 70%. If we were dealing with a simple and ordinary loop, this similarity would cause dark matter and dark energy to be more or less equal and if there was any difference in their amount of decrease/increase, it would be in the same direction. But we're talking about Mobius loops which are like strips of paper that have been twisted 180 degrees before the ends are joined. This causes their variation to go in different directions (one increases, the other decreases) and the amount of variation is quite significant (+72%, -40%). My guess is that the real-life twist occurs in the temporal segment of the loop, enabling a traveller in time to go in different directions i.e. into the future or into the past. To replenish dark matter in billions of years, we merely have to extend Guth's proposal by using the knowledge of that time to create more matter.

A real-life Mobius is by no means a featureless loop, however. If, contrary to our impressions, the universe is unified with each particle it's composed of; the WMAP satellite's findings must apply to the quantum world. The figures 72%, 23% and 5% would not only describe the present universe's content of dark energy, dark matter and ordinary matter but also any particle's content of space or ordinary matter (5%), time or dark matter (23% - time is considered to be dark matter here because dark matter is regarded as ordinary matter invisible to us since it's present in another region of the dimension we call time, just as most of a sphere is in another dimension and consequently appears as a dot when first entering Edwin Abbott's 1884 exploration of other dimensions called "Flatland"), and hyperspace (72%: the transmissions from the hyperspace computer create space and matter, cause expansion of space on cosmic scales where there are no forces to overcome the expansion as there is in matter, and are known as dark energy - creating more matter causes that matter's repelling gravity to bring about accelerating expansion).

Look at a picture of a Mobius (thanks to the repeating scales of fractal geometry, the apparently empty interior and exterior of the Mobius universe would actually be the same as the visible loop). Imagine the space/ordinary matter to be situated immediately counterclockwise (perhaps on the bottom of the loop) to the hyperspace segment and the time/dark matter portion to be immediately counterclockwise to the space/ordinary matter (time/dark matter would, moving clockwise, be next to the hyperspace segment).

The hyperspace transmissions flow directly into space/matter (all motion - "flow" and "transmissions" - are actually comparable to individual frames in a movie but are spoken of in everyday terms of motion for convenience, like saying the sun rises and sets) and are responsible for the large and unimpeded 72% increase, since the CMB was emitted, of dark energy. This flow rate of 72% also enters the time/dark matter section adjacent to hyperspace ... but the loop's twist seems to be in the time section. If we were to cut the loop lengthwise with scissors, previously varying the number of half-twists results in things such as two rings linked together or a knotted ring. So we get barriers to motion and blockages. Returning to the normal loop and twist, matters are less drastic and motion is merely slowed, resulting in a 23% flow rate.

If we lived in a non-unified universe of materialism, this is how things would remain (dark matter would have increased so today's content would be a low 23%). On p. 179 of "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow (Bantam Press, 2010) it's stated "One requirement any law of nature must satisfy is that it dictates that the energy of an isolated body surrounded by empty space is positive ..."

The only problem with that sentence, in an "everything is everywhere and everywhen" universe, is the word isolated. There can be no such thing as isolated in our cosmic-quantum unification. Page 179 also says "... if the energy of an isolated body were negative ... there would be no reason that bodies could not appear anywhere and everywhere." Does this mean you and I (plus all things in time and space) are a union of both positive and negative energy, able to display both separateness/solidity (isolation) as well as the potential to appear anywhere and everywhere? Dark matter, not being entirely positive, would be anywhere and everywhere as well as having decreased so today's content would be a low 23% (which is what WMAP says is the case).

If everything is a union of positive and negative energy, every matter particle and force-carrying particle would be too. And the strings the Large Hadron Collider might detect (being the parts of particles' Mobius loops it could see since those parts would be space/ordinary matter) might come in both positive and negative varieties. In 1928 English physicist Paul Dirac (1902-84) proposed that all negative energy states are already occupied by (then hypothetical) antiparticles (particles of antimatter). Building on this results in proposal of strings and antistrings.

My essay tells you how to travel into the future, how to return home, and how to take a trip into our past. Regarding travel beyond our start and into the past ... it can't be denied that these paragraphs imply the possibility of humans from the distant future time-travelling to the distant past and using electronics to create this particular subuniverse's computer-generated Big Bang. An accomplishment such as this would be the supreme example of "backward causality" (effects influencing causes) promoted by Yakir Aharonov, John Cramer and others. However, realising that we live in a cosmic-quantum unification with zero-separation and recalling Isaac Newton's inverse-square law and what it says about the force between two particles being infinite (does infinite mean 10 ^ 500, the HUGE number of universes proposed by some versions of string theory?) if the distance of separation goes to zero means there's still room for God (another bit of scientifically objectionable science fiction?) because God would be a pantheistic union of the megauniverse's material and mental parts, forming a union with humans in a cosmic unification.

--------------------------------------------------------

Dear Sir,

We thank you for your response.

We agree that "field is just a state of matter". But this definition is incomplete. We have spoken about two types of fields. This description of matter applies to one of the two, which is a composite field. The other field we refer to is a pure field, from which we derive all fundamental forces of Nature to confine a locality to create "matter" that forms the other field and part of which appear as mass. The pure field only can account for the observer and observation. We also agree that displacement is motion or change. Thus, we both are in agreement on this issue.

The predictions of our theory points out a different value for the electric charge of quarks, and as a consequence, that of protons, neutrons that make atoms not charge neutral, but negatively charged particles. Since negative charge flows from orbits towards the nucleus, it is not experience by us from outside the orbit, but this proves, among other things, that mass is confined field. The other prediction, which we did not publicize relates to the atomic structure, from which we derived these values. It is much more elaborate than what is known to general public. From this we also derived the value of the fine structure constant theoretically, which almost matches the measured values. The minor differences can be attributed to the mechanism of measurement. The other prediction relates to gravity. We have theoretically derived the values of pi, phi, etc. and can explain the HR-Diagram from this atomic structure. Our theory is distinctly different from other theories.

Regarding stress and strain we must point out that these are effects on the body and not the mechanism that creates these effects. You agree that gravity is related to mass that constitute the body that experiences stress or strain. Since we hold that gravity is a composite force that stabilizes, it implies that once a force is applied in a certain direction, it disturbs the medium. The elasticity of the medium (which we call the inertia of restoration, as it is generated after the application of a force and its magnitude is equal to the force - till the applied force overcomes it - but in the opposite direction), generates the opposite force. The effect of these forces appears as stress and strain. But this does not validate "attraction" or "pull". It is always a push. However, there may be different situations where they appear otherwise as described below.

Once a force is applied, the body is displaced. If the force is not moving with the body with an ever increasing velocity (positive acceleration), then the force ceases to operate on the body. The body moves in a field due to inertia. The difference between this velocity and the velocity of the field (which Einstein describes as the curvature of space) leads to the final outcome of such motion. A projectile falls to ground not because gravity pulls it down, but due to the interaction between its velocity and the velocity of the wind. When wind velocity is in the same direction, it falls at a longer distance and vice versa. The difference in velocities creates a bow-shock effect that gradually reduces the velocity of the projectile. The density difference between the field (air) and the projectile guides it in the direction of earth, with a higher density, so that it could stop the fall. We agree that we are pushing the Earth and the Earth is pushing us. But this only proves our point. There is nothing like a free fall. Solid matter (including BEC that propagate through conduction) has the special characteristic of moving through other mediums because the strong force is really strongest among all forces. The less dense fluids (including gases that propagate through convection or diffusion) cannot break its bonding and move through it without changing its state. The plasma (including photons that propagate through radiation) belongs to a class apart. This is what you describe as the resilient capacity. But still it does not prove attraction. In any case, as we have pointed out, we are an amateur (arm-chair scientist!). Hence we beg to be excused for using the non-technical language.

We do not agree with the Coulombs law, but hold the opposite view that only similars attract each other. As we have already said, the protons have a positive charge that is a little less in magnitude than that of an electron and neutrons has a little residual negative charge. Thus, the combination of a proton and an electron is slightly negative. Thus, hydrogen atom is not charge neutral, but highly reactive. The negative charge of the neutron attracts the negative charge of the proton-electron combine and the respective positive charges also attract each other because of the inertia of restoration as long as both are confined in a body. This leads to four types of interactions including proton decay, which we consider as the fourth fundamental interaction. We treat gravity as the fifth fundamental force that stabilizes. Only this way we can combine all fundamental forces of Nature and reach a Theory of Everything.

The seemingly opposite charges attracting each other can be explained as above only if we treat all objects including quarks as compounds. This is our composite field structure. The pure field is beyond this.

Regarding your interpretation of "temporally nothing", we will like to add something. The analog time cannot be perceived completely just like analog space. This leads us to two different areas. Each universe is a digital entity, which appears as analog to us. In that sense space is "created" and so is time. We refer to this time only. Even our singularity refers to this time and space. We cannot fathom analog time and space. Regarding perception, we will like to expand your ideas infinitely. Humans are not the only one's that can perceive. Even cats or for that matter, other life forms can perceive. The difference is only in degrees. While plants and primitive life forms have the capability to perceive touch, all animals and birds born out of eggs are deficient in one of the sense organs. While those born out of mother's wombs have all the sense organs, they do not function as harmoniously as those of the human beings. Additionally, the surface area of the brain to the body mass ratio is highest in the human beings. This way, we are at the apex of the animal kingdom. But what about inert objects or life forms with extra sensory perception? Unless we define consciousness, we cannot get the right answer. And that is possible only when we go beyond the quantum. We are not discussing it here as it is neither the right time nor the right forum for that.

From the above, you can see that there is no fundamental difference in our approaches. It is only fundamental inhibitions that separate us from each other. If we discuss everything with an open mind, we will easily overcome these problems. But the modern system of education, where certain statements are certified as the ultimate truth, and knowledge is measured by one's ability to memorize and reproduce those "truths", has introduced the cult of superstition among students. Added to this is the race for immediate recognition that discourages students from looking back and analyzing the validity of the statements they work on for fear of being left behind. Thus, they choose patch work over new structures. The scientific community does not want to leave the cozy life they are leading at public expenses. Hence to keep their numerous failures under the wraps, they perpetuate the cult of incomprehensibility. Thus, we here statements like "looking ahead inside the black hole, you will see the back of your mind." And since they are not able to cope with all data, they resort to reductionism. There is an anecdote relating to six blind men, who went to see one elephant. Each touched one part of it and described the elephant based on that knowledge. Though each one is correct from the reductionist's point of view, no one get a clear picture about the elephant even after combing all the statements. There is an anecdote related to Eddington, when he was explaining to Russell about relativity. He said that even if a dictator wants to control the universe, he cannot do it, because whatever orders he may send to a remote place, it will take some time to travel to those parts. To the question of Russell as to how God controls the universe, Eddington replied that it is not his subject. This mind set has not left this competition also. You will find that we have commented on the measurement problem relating to strings in one of the essays. Though he was dealing with strings, he commented that he is not concerned about measurement problem. Anyway, it is not our province either.

Thanks and regards,

basudeba.

Dear Basudeba

Thank you for your detail explanation. I think I am starting to understand your ideas. But I think that I need more background to fully understand it, for this reason I ask you for the book.

Regarding your predictions what I can notice is that your theory provides another explanation or interpretation to well known facts. By saying that the charges of quarks are not thirds but elevenths and that they add up to 10/11, that gravity is not an attractive force, the value of the structure constant, the values of pi, phi, etc. This is for me a reinterpretation, and re-estimation of the physics and values of these things. But what I meant is what new things or physics does your theory predicts? What phenomena no yet known or discovered does your theory predict? I hope you understand my questions.

Now, you claim that you have achieved a TOE. I have a very high notion of a TOE, I hold the position that knowledge has limits. And when one claims that one has a TOE, I understand that this theory explains natural phenomena completely. If this is so, mankind finally understands the mysteries of nature and life. If we totally understand nature, we can control it at will. So, I am curious about your claim. Is your theory a TOE or a theory of almost everything?

In relation to perception I agree with you that everything has a perception, a stone, plant, animal... this is the theory of Teilhard De Chardin. But these perceptions have not achieved what we humans have, in these sense we are unique. I do not know another thing that has achieved what we humans have.

I hope we can continue discussing these topics beyond this forum

Kind regards

Israel

Dear Sir,

Thanks for your comments and giving us an opportunity to explain our ideas. We had not only provided "another interpretation" to well known facts, but sitting on our chair, have derived these from fundamental principles. You will notice that the electric charge of protons and neutrons has not been measured, as it has not been possible to isolate these with the current levels of technology. Yet, indirect evidence suggests that our values are correct and those that are currently accepted are wrong. The present notion that the electric charge of protons is +1 and that of neutrons is -1 is based on the assumption that atom is charge neutral. We have proved that this assumption is wrong. The latest findings support our view. Thus, the entire concept of atoms and subatomic particles needs to be revised, because we have derived everything from only one theory, which in turn has been derived from fundamental principles.

Secondly, we do not accept G to be a universal constant. This in itself is a big enough revolution. Our view on gravity leads to the grand unified theory, which is no insignificant step. We have given an explanation for the charge interaction by proving the Coulomb's law wrong. From this we can derive the fundamental forces of Nature. Further we have derived all theories simply from inertia and avoiding all complex mathematics. In short, what we are attempting is to re-write the whole of physics. Regarding your question: "What phenomena no yet known or discovered does your theory predict?", our answer is the phenomenon of the observer is fully explained in our theory. You might have noticed our frequent reference to perception. In fact we have referred to elasticity as inertia of restoration. But left out "thought", which is the inertia of mind (along with inertia of motion, we accept three types of inertia). We are not coming out openly fully to avoid plagiarism that is rampant in scientific circles. Soon we will bring out our book, which will deal with these subjects fully.

We agree that knowledge has limits. In fact this is the essence of our theory, because it is one of the fundamental principles. Yet, our theory can explain natural phenomena completely. We do not agree that: "If we totally understand nature, we can control it at will." Knowledge is different from action that is the application of force. Both are different from the objects on which the force is applied. Application of force can be of two types: application by a conscious observer (based on his knowledge) and perpetual application of mechanical force. Knowledge is the initial condition for application of force. Incompleteness of our knowledge generates the inertia of restoration through a different mechanism that induces the conscious agent to apply force, which leads to measurement, perception of whose result is knowledge. To achieve complete knowledge, there is a continual pressure leading to the creation. If we can have full knowledge, there will be no inertia of restoration - hence no application of force, no measurement, no perception and no knowledge itself to describe anything. In the second case of perpetual action, we cannot control it because of our physical limitations, but can have knowledge about it to harmonize its effect to our desire. Lack of knowledge on this count has led to science being utilized for destructive purposes. In fact, one of the reasons for delay in publishing our book is the apprehension that this knowledge may be misused by unscrupulous elements. After all it is the age of technology and technology is guided by commerce, which is another name for maximization of short-term profit irrespective of long-term effects to remain ahead of competitors.

With Kind Regards.

basudeba.

Dear Sir,

We totally agree with your views. The velocity of light is not constant as it varies depending upon the density of the medium. Since space is not empty, it has variable densities at different localities. Thus c cannot be a constant.

Regarding your other observations, we can only say that we are more concerned regarding misuse of knowledge that propagation of knowledge. Imagine what will happen if the terrorists get the knowledge of advanced technologies in the field of missile development and atomic bombs. It is better for the world not to know these secrets than to know and then get destroyed.

Regarding your last observation, we rest for the time being. The book which we have forwarded to you contains only definitions. Our next book, when published, will deal with these questions elaborately. Incidentally, we have commented on relativity in the post of Rafael Emmanuel Castel (Discete and Continous realities according to fundamental laws of nature). You may like to go through it.

Regards,

Basudeba.

Hi Rodney and Israel,

Me also I think that time travel is so "pseudo sciences".Dear Rodney, you imagine a transfert of mass between two points of space time,it's purely not possible considering the entropy and the evolution.

You know the strings are falses and the hyperdimensions also.The real secret is far of us but we appraoch all days.In fact it's the energy the real secret and the motion,it's thus more rational to focus on the check of space between two points, here spheres for example as our planets.The contraction of this space more the rotations more a good speed and we can discover our Universe in evolution, but the time is just a constant of this evolution, harmonious and precise.PURELLY IRREVERSIBLE .

Now dear Rodney if you can convince us, let's go but I must admit you that it will be difficult.The rationalism is essential for all good extrapolations.

Best Regads

Steve

According to the Community Ratings, my essay in the 2011 Essay Contest is sliding further down the ratings each day. But I'm having more luck with a science journal called General Science Journal - comments of mine inspired by the essay (which are nearly 20,000 words long and include comments about "The Nature of Time" as well as "Is Reality Digital or Analog?") were published in the Journal on Feb. 6 and may be viewed at http://gsjournal.net/ntham/bartlett.pdf

Dear Sir,

Similarities in integrity, thought and preferences makes friends. We share it all. Thus, we are destined to be friends.

Regards,

basudeba.

Hi dear Rodney,

Don't stop,never, you are creative.You just need to improve a little your foundamentals.I wan't discourage you.But I think it's important to show you the road of rationalism.The mass, the light, the time have their properties and they are universal you know.

ps the higgs has an external cause of mass, that's why they are probably and with a big probability false,because our fractal of mass is newtonian and purely irreversible.The cause of mass is intrinsic in all gravitational systems which evolve furthermore.

Best Regards

Steve

Hi Steve,

Thanks a lot for your kind words and encouragement. I won't stop ... not ever! I often want to, because I don't enjoy controversy at all. But I always end up finding another place where I want to promote my ideas. I guess human nature makes it impossible to give up when a person has no doubt he or she is on the right track.

Sometimes, what science accepts as fundamentals have to change. People once had a fundamental belief that the world was flat - and that space and time were absolutes which could never vary - and that traveling to the moon was simply fantasy. All those fundamental beliefs changed though, understandably, not without a fight (change is never easy). Now it's time for some more fundamental beliefs - both public and scientific - to change.

I hope Israel will forgive us for taking over his page sometimes. It might be a good idea to post any more of our comments on the page for my essay ("Steps Resulting From Digital Reality" -

Please visit my FQXi page

Dear Sir,

We cannot understand why scientists have to resort to weirdness to explain physical phenomena. Confinement and Entanglement are not quantum phenomena alone, but they have macro examples also. Superposition of states arises out of the mechanism of measurement, which has been sensationalized by imputing imaginary characteristics to it.

As we have explained in our essay, every particle in the Universe is ever moving with respect to something or the other. Measurement is conducted at a designated instant called "here-now" and the result of that measurement is used at subsequent times, when the particle no longer retains those characteristics, but has temporally evolved. Thus, only its state at the said instant can be known with certainty. It's true state before and after measurement, which is not a single state, but an ever changing state, cannot be known. This unknown state, which is a composite of all possible states, is known as the superposition of states.

When two objects retain their original relationship after being physically separated, such relationship is called entanglement. Suppose someone while traveling forgot to take one of the pair of socks. The individual sock of the pair is complementary to the other. They cannot be used in isolation. If someone asks, 'which of the pairs has gone with the traveler', the answer will be unknown till someone at either end finds out by physical verification. This is a macro example of entanglement. Before the verification (measurement) was done; which one went out was not known. It could have been either one (superposition of all states). After measurement the answer is conclusively known (wave function collapses). There is no need to unnecessarily sensationalize it. The quantum entanglement can be easily explained if we examine the nature of confinement and the measure the distance up to which entanglement shows up (generally, it is not infinite, but lasts up to a maximum of a few kilo meters only).

Not only quarks, but also all particles are confined. LHC has surprised physicists / cosmologists that the early universe was a 'perfect fluid' and not an 'explosion of gases' that is the basis of all current theories. Particles are nothing but confined fluids; that is described as the primordial field. The mechanism by which this fluid is confined will be discussed separately (using simple verifiable models and without Higg's mechanism). Just like only the atoms (molecules) and their combinations exhibit definite chemical properties, only quarks are the first particles to exhibit this property of confinement. Hence if we try to break their confinement, the applied energy leads to formation of other quarks not due to uncertainty principle, but due to simple mechanism of inertia of motion and inertia of restoration (elasticity). Even within the confinement, the up quarks change to down quarks and vice versa. This property is exhibited by all particles. For every micro particle there are macro equivalents. For example, Jupiter is the macro equivalent of proton.

Confinement requires a central stable point around which the mass (confined field) accumulates and the external limit of the confinement which gives rise to the stabilized orbits. There is space between these two positions. This gives a three fold structure. Since inside the particle, it is all fluid or locally confined fluid (sub-systems), it is unstable. If some force is applied to move a smaller portion of the fluid, it generates an equal force in the opposite direction. This is exhibited as the charge of the particle. Where this force interacts with other forces, it may become non-linear. Otherwise, it behaves linearly. The linear behavior is known as quantum entanglement. Electrons and photons are special cases of this confined fluid.

Regarding Relativity, we have proved in other posts that it is a wrong description of facts and that Einstein's mathematics is wrong. Since it is very lengthy, we are not reproducing it here. Those interested may read our post below the essay of Mr. Castel and Mr. Granet.

Regards,

basudeba

Hi to both of you,

I thank you dear Basudeba, I just received your book yesterday, apparently 15 days were necessary for the travel India-Belgium.It's nice in all case.I thank you still.It's cool to have friends from all over the world.

I find your book very intersting and relevant.I see you use the word sphere, I am happy to see people focus on my theory of spherization or have some convergences, spherical.I like also the omnipresence and omnipotence.

Best regards and good luck in this contest to both of you

Steve

Dear Israel,

As to the 'epistemological coherence' of your essay, a real consistent view exposes string theory to be the product of some fundamental misconceptions. If the universe creates itself without any outside intervention, then particles have to create themselves, each other. The consequence is that fundamental particles then are as much the source as the product of their interactions. Since they obviously need to acquire some kind of backbone to prevent their properties to vary continuously as the circumstances vary, their properties, energy, the energy interval within which they are stable, must be quantified. If particles are as much the source as the product of their interactions, then so is the force between them, so a force cannot be either attractive or repulsive. This means that though particles, within the conditions they are stable, may act as if they either attract or repulse, as their energy also is the product of their interactions, they have no absolute charge or mass which can give rise to infinite interaction energies at infinitesimal distances, so there's no need for string theory. Since the mass of particles similarly is the cause as well as the effect of their interactions, of their energy exchange, we need no Higgs particles either. A universe which finds a way to create itself, can hardly stop creating: it is this continuous creation process which gives rise to the observation that masses contract, the effect of which is that spacetime between the mass concentrations expands. For details see my thread 838.

Regards, Anton

Israel,

Sorry not to have replied earlier. I'm not sure how i missed your response. I think we are largely in agree ment that Big Bang theory is a serious mistake, growing from that assumption that space and time have physical properties which would allow them to be shaped. I go into a possible explanation for how light might otherwise be redshifted in my essay.

One of the various arguments I do use against Big Bang proponents is that the idea of space expanding from the singularity is belied by the fact that the speed of light is stable. In other words, while the metric defined by the redshift is presumably expanding, the metric defined by lightspeed is not. So if it's an expansion within a stable metric of space, we would have to be at the center of the universe for it to appear as it does.