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

Cristi,

In general I agree with your discussion of 'circular reasoning' about what 'fills space'. But in my earlier essay Fundamental Physics of Consciousness I asked, Upon what must a fundamental theory of physics be based?

"This question, if asked of humans, should be formulated in terms of human reality, not abstract formu足lations. Either it is based on directly and immediately sensed reality or it is based on some abstraction that is claimed to represent reality. Current theories are based on physics abstractions such as:

Gravity, String theories, Electromagnetics, Quantum field theories, Strong and weak forces, Dark matter and energy, Extra dimensions, Extra universes, Consciousness

Of these, only two, gravity and consciousness, are immediately sensible and directly experienced by humans. I am directly aware of gravity and I am directly aware that I am conscious. I have no direct, immediate, awareness of any other physics on the list (with the exception of a small range of electromagnetic radiation)."

For this reason, that of direct perception, I move gravity from the 'abstract' level, which must in turn be justified, as you say, by a 'lower abstraction' (in the sense of a 'more fundamental' abstraction.)

This seems to me to me reasonable, and I employ this logic in my essays.

Thanks for the stimulating conversations.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi again,

I had a lot of trouble writing down an answer to what I understand by time. I think I might be able to do better than I did yesterday. So here's the last third of something I spent today writing.

My essay suggests the universe is a Mobius loop and 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%) 3 spatial dimensions (the time and hyperspace components would be what we call dark matter), erroneously assuming particles are those tiny fractions of a Mobius loop that physics calls strings. We can visualise the Mobius loop as composed of a hyperspace computer which generates information on how things change from one 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 and all would have been hyperspace. 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 (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.

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? - see previous post) if the distance of separation goes to zero means there's still room for God (as Creator) 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 Israel,

With pleasure I will try and explain hopefully more understandably my first paragraph. I just am not yet sure what paragraph you are referring to. Do you mean my essay. There the first paragraph is called 1 Realism of analog vs. merely continuous vs. digital modes. If you meant something else, tell me please the first three words.

I looked into Budko's paper and was disappointed. He wrote: "... the main body of the waveform appears to go inwards or back in time". Of course this is not new at all, and I consider it rather misleading to claim: "Budko has shown experimentally and theoretically that in the near and intermediate zones fields propagates inwards." I am fed up with Nimtz.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Sir,

We congratulate you for the brilliant essay. We fully agree that "Coherence in the physical interpretation" is very important "when we try to decode the mathematical language."

You ask "What experimental evidences support the existence of ten dimensions?" "What powerful epistemological reasons do we have to believe in extra dimensions?" We hold that incorporation of dimensions is not just a mere mathematical artifice. But the term dimension has been misused and interpreted wrongly that leads to the present problem. The term dimension is applied to solids that have fixed spread in a given direction based on their internal arrangement independent of external factors. For relating it to the external fixed coordinates, we use axes that are perpendicular to each other and term these as x-y-z coordinates (length-breadth-height). These are not absolute terms, but are related to the order of placement of the object in the coordinate system of the field in which the object is placed. Thus, they remain invariant under mutual transformation. If we rotate the object so that x-axis changes to y-axis or z-axis, there is no effect on the object. Based on the positive and negative directions from the origin, these describe six unique positions (x,0,0), (-x,0,0), (0,y,0), (0,-y,0), (0,0,z), (0,0,-z), that remain invariant under mutual transformation. Besides these, there are four more unique positions, namely (x,y), (-x,y), (-x,-y) and (x,-y) that also remain invariant under mutual transformation. These are the ten dimensions and not the so-called mathematical structures. These are described in detail in our book "Vaidic Theory of Numbers".

You discuss the statement that "thought is the result of the evolution of the universe and under this premise physical theories are created". We hold that mind functions mechanically and thought is the inertia of mind. Just like inertia takes over after an action and at the similar velocity in a field that gets modified after interaction with other forces, thought starts after an impulse acts on our organs of sensory perception and drawing from our memory field similar previous experiences moves in the same subject that get modified after interaction with other impulses. You come to a conclusion that "there are limits to knowledge", with which we fully agree. Yet, we hold that theory of everything is possible. In fact, we have such a theory.

We agree that "a field is some kind of M in certain state". We also agree that one of the properties of M is mass. But we do not agree that "mass is a source of gravitation and, at the same time, is some kind of energy". We hold the opposite view that gravitation is a composite force that has two functions: structure formation and displacement. We derive electromagnetic field from gravitational force at the micro level and derive gravitational field from the electromagnetic force at the macro level.

We do not agree that space and time are physical entities. We hold that these are mental constructs based on alternative symbolism. Both are related to sequence. Space describes the interval between (or sequence of arrangement of) objects. Time does so for events, i.e., changes in the states of objects. Since intervals are not physical entities by themselves and are not describable by themselves, they are described using the objects as their boundary conditions.

We agree that "that something cannot be created out of nothingness". We also agree that "the universe is, exists, has always been and will exist indefinitely and infinitely", but we disagree that "the universe will never become into nothingness". The term "nothingness" relates to not only its existence, but also its knowability and describability. While the first factor is eternal, the last two are not. To that extent, the universe may become "temporally nothing". We advise you to go through our essay on the subject.

We agree that the whole universe made up of one single entity and there are no arguments to propose dark matter or dark energy, as they are defined at present. Yet, they exist in some other form. We have a detailed model on the creation of the universe and evolution of various forces and fields. We will soon publish those.

basudeba

After reading your posts, I thought perhaps you guys should read my essay Discrete and Continuous Realities According to Fundamental Laws of Nature. I'd be obliged to answer your questions if you have any.

i wonder that the way we have developed our Physics thus far, based on the concepts of space and time, may have some inadequacies! I wonder if these two concepts can isolate multiverses that may well exist. Distortions in space and time are well possible, specially at the start of a new universe like ours. But then has it come out of a Big bang that may well have been an outcome of earlier universes colliding!

Physical constants and space time inhomogeneity may well pose problems. Constants may not be constants for all times and space too. If space can be expanded behind a space ship and compressed in its front, it may well propel the vehicle to exceed the speed limit of 'c'e

Dear Israel,

The paper by Christov is almost unreadable to me because I am unable to flip it into the usual position.

May I ask you once again for telling me what paragraph you were referring to?

Eckard

Dear Sir,

We are thankful to you for your response. If you can mail your postal address to mbasudeba@gmail.com, a copy of the book will reach you. In our previous post, the expressions "(x,y), (-x,y), (-x, -y) and (x, -y)" should be read as "(x=y), (-x=y), (-x,= -y) and (x,= -y)". Time is not a dimension in the sense that space has three dimensions, because, as we have pointed out in our essay, space has negative direction, but time has not. Hence there cannot be 11 dimensions.

We agree that "humans (and therefore, intelligence, mind, thought, imagination, etc.) are the consequences of the evolution of the universe". Still we stand by what we wrote. Though observer has a central role in Quantum theories, its true nature and mechanism has eluded the scientists. We define these and from this derive the other evolutionary sequences, as measurement is the perceived result of comparison between similars at any designated instant. Thus, without first defining perception and its mechanism, we cannot discuss evolution in any meaningful manner. In our TOE, we start with the pre-big-bang state (avoiding or rather explaining singularity) and using only inertia (we consider elasticity as a form of inertia) and simple laws of motion, explain first the evolution of forces and then the structures. The same physical laws give different results for macro and micro systems as a consequence of the format of evolution. We do not use renormalization, which hold as mathematically void. We do not use any complex number, as they are unphysical. In short we have a completely alternative physical theory. Though we have written about it from time to time, the complete theory will be published soon. The following are some of the testable predictions of our book.

1. The accepted value of the electric charge of quarks contains an error element of 3%. In stead of +⅔ and -⅓, it should be +7/11 and -4/11. Thus, taking the measured charge of electrons as the unit, the value of the electric charge of protons is +10/11 and that of neutrons -1/11. The residual negative charge is not apparent as negative charge always confines positive charge and flows towards the concentration of positive charge - nucleus. Hence it is not felt outside. It is not revealed in measurement due to the nature of calibration of the measuring instruments. This excess negative charge confines the positive charge (nearly 2000 times in magnitude) which is revealed in atomic explosions. Charge neutral only means the number of protons and electrons are equal.

2. The value of the gravitational constant G is not the same for all systems. Just like the value for acceleration due to gravity g varies from position to position, the value of G also varies between systems. Gravity is not a single force, but a composite force of seven that act together separately on micro and the macro systems. Only this can explain the Pioneer Anomaly, which even MOND has failed to explain. Similarly, it can explain the sudden change of direction of the Voyager space crafts after the orbit of Saturn and the Fly-by anomalies.

3. The value of the fine-structure constant α that determines the electromagnetic field strength as calculated by us theoretically from our atomic orbital theory is 7/960 (1/137) when correlated to the strong interaction (so-called zero energy level) and 7/900 (1/128) when correlated to the weak interaction (80 GeV level). There are 5 more values that determine the structure of the orbitals in the atomic spectra. Hence the physically available values of the s orbitals (principal quantum number) are restricted to n = 7, though theoretically, it can have any positive integer value.

4. There is nothing like Lorentz variant inertial mass. It has never been proved.

5. We do not subscribe to the modern view of fields. We believe in only two types of fields hinted in our essay.

All words used by us are precise and have universal meaning. By structure formation and displacement we mean formation of all structures from quarks to the universe as a whole. By displacement we mean all displacements from the decay of protons and neutrons to the apparently receding galaxies. We hold that field is the only absolute state. Matter is nothing but confined field. The confinement changes density, the effect of which on the external field is expressed as mass. This generates the charge, which in turn generates different effects of the external field. When another mass is subjected to such field, it experiences the effects, which are called the various fundamental forces of Nature.

What we call as attractive force is a wrong description of facts, because it implies "pull", which is physically impossible. We can only push and wrongly describe negative push as pull. Thus, gravity is not an attractive force, but only a stabilizing force that stabilizes bodies in their respective orbits, be it atomic orbits or planetary orbits or galactic orbits. The distance between the two stable bodies is determined not only by their respective masses, but also by the intensity of the field containing both, which appears as the gravitational constant. But this constant is not universal, as was discovered by Dirac way back in 1937. For stabilizing, the force must be a composite one. Thus, gravitational force is a composite force. It stabilizes not only the orbit, but also shapes the stable structures by stabilizing its various sub-systems. Thus, we said that gravity is responsible for structure formation.

Since gravity is a composite force that is experienced through the external field and since the external field is subject to fluctuation due to the interaction with different bodies, the equilibrium is continuously disturbed. This disturbance leads to currents in the field, which flows in different directions. Any particle entering that field will experience that current and will drift in that direction. In the Solar system, these currents are called Inter-Planetary Super Highways and are often used by space scientists for propelling space crafts. This shows that gravity also displaces.

There is no contradiction between our views regarding space and time. What we wrote was about digital space. What you are talking about is analog space. Space is nothing but the analog field that contains all objects that are locally confined fields. The same goes for time also. Since analog space and time cannot be measured, we wrote about digitized space and time.

What we meant by "temporally nothing" is that beyond singularity, there is no one to describe the state. Without perception, everything is non-existent. Since digitized time ceases, we used the words "temporally nothing". It only implies that the state is undescribable. But it is different from absolute nothingness. To understand the issue you must look at one off-shoot of quantum gravity, which predicts "big bounce". It has been interpreted to imply colliding galaxies. But we interpret it differently. According to our theory, the universe after reaching singularity bounces back by a mechanism described in our book. In the interregnum, there is no way to describe that state. This state is thus called "temporally nothing".

We thank you again for your well wishes for us in the contest. We are not keen on the result. All we want is that the scientific community should take their work seriously and abandon the cults of reductionism, superstition and incomprehensibity. The Scientists who evolved the present theories were eminent persons, but they were not blessed with the modern technological innovations. Thus, what they achieved by their limited data is commendable. But when we find that in extreme cases these theories do not work, we have to come out of the old confinement and build a new structure. No amount of pack work will help as the differences are too glaring. Thus, the cosmological constant has made a come back along with many previously discarded theories. We were surprised to find that most students know about MOND, but even many teachers do not know about Pioneer Anomaly that led to it. Similarly, as we have pointed out in our essay, there is no unanimity among scientists as to what constitutes reality. Since their views are different, no one view can be taken as the correct view till we reconcile the differences. Thus, we should move towards a grand unified theory only after we reconcile our inherent contradictions. As long as this goal is achieved, we will be satisfied. That will be our greatest prize as it will save a huge amount of public money that is wasted in the name of scientific research.

With kind Regards,

basudeba

Dear Eckard

Yes it is easier to think that space and time started with the Big Bang and the question "what was before the Big Bang?" makes no sense. But the question "What caused the Big Bang?" does make sense. So, if one asks for a cause one is asking for something that preceded the Big Bang, and therefore one is talking about a past event. Think about this and you will realize that there is something strange with the principle of causality.

You: I'm still confused about your item 17, and your comments about it.

It is not clear to me in what sense you are confused. In that paragraph a new philosophy and a new paradigm is put forward. By analogy with string theory in which the fundamental blocks of nature are not the particles but the strings; thus in this new paradigm the notion of both waves and particles no longer exist, but only solitons which move over the material space. From here wave mechanics is derived. This approach also resolves the wave-particle duality, and the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. A charge within this new context can be seen as a state of a soliton. A positive amplitude of a soliton represents what in current theories is seen as matter and negative amplitudes are seen as antimatter. Also when solitons move they shorten, this explains the Lorentz contraction and time dilation. Maxwell equations as well as the Biot-Savart Law and Lorentz Force are derived. And the law of gravitation. Since in this theory space is seen as something material, there is no need to introduce dark matter to fill the Newtonian or the Einsteinian space. The effect of dark energy can be seen as a deformation of the material space. This is a theory that was developed based on the theory of fluid mechanics and elastic waves in media.

You: Isn't it amazing that two people who think that they may be in agreement still have trouble deciding. [Except that we probably don't agree on the 'everlasting' universe...]

Yes it is amazing, and I can justify this coincidence by the following. If mind is the result of the universe' evolution and the laws of nature are laws of logic, that one that applies logical and coherent statements should coincide with others that do the same; otherwise nature would be incoherent.

Best regards

Israel

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.