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

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.

Dear Mr. Barkat Ram,

We thank you for raised a very important point that is befitting the Foundational Questions Institute Forum. Most scientists running after name and fame and the benefits of Office ignore foundational questions and run after patch work. For example, though there are various interpretations of quantum physics that sometimes contradict each other, most quote general quantum theory without naming the specific interpretation and resolving the differences with other interpretations, but drawing from different theories what suits them to justify their view. Ultimately they end up in some conjecture like the flowers of the sky. They discuss everything about it such as structure, texture and smell etc. without proving its existence, but only assuring that one day it will be found. So we have big projects like LHC at public expenses with which the scientists can make merry.

We recommend you to read our essay and our comments here in earlier posts in answer to Mr.Perez and those of Mr. Buehlman, Mr. Akerlund, Mr. Biermans, Mr. Castel, Mr. Granel, etc.

Regards,

basudeba.

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.