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

Dear Perez

As I haven't explicitly described a creation mechanism in my essay, I try to do so now: One of the uses of the uncertainty principle is to describe how the energy of a particle varies as the bosons it emits to express its properties only on average equals the number it absorbs, so its energy varies in time. Instead of interpreting the uncertainty principle as saying that a temporary deviation of its textbook energy lasts shorter as the deviation is larger, I propose that fundamental particles borrow and lend ALL of their energy from and to each other. So if a virtual particle by popping up with a positive energy, creates an identical particle with a negative energy, then they don't borrow energy from the universe, but from each other. However, as soon as their time is up, they'll disappear to randomly pop up elsewhere, unless in the time they exist, they can set up an energy exchange with other particles which find themselves in a similar quandary. By alternately borrowing and lending each other (part of) the energy they need to exist, particles can force each other to reappear after every disappearance again and again at about the same position. As the energy, the frequency they exchange energy at (the frequency they pop up, disappear and pop up again) is higher as their distance is smaller, they can increase each other's energy by contracting. So this is a scenario by means of which virtual particles may promote each other to real ones. Unlike a battery which only is a source of energy, the energy of particles then is as much the source as the product of their exchange. By regarding the energy of fundamental particles to be much like that of a battery, as if it only is the cause of interactions, we implicitly assert that they have passively been created by some intervention from outside the universe, thereby corrupting physics to metaphysics. If particles, their energy and properties are as much the source as the product of their interactions, then so is the force between them, so in a self-creating universe where particles have to create one another, a force (at least at quantum level) never can be either attractive or repulsive. As particles contract, the frequency of their exchange increases as does the gravitational field of the particle cluster. As the field slows down in time events inside of it, an energy increase tends to preserve itself above a decrease, which is why gravity seems an attractive force. I hope this may help to understand my tale.

Kind regards, Anton

Israel,

These are awesome links:

"Eq.(12)showsthataninitialdistributionoftheenergyasfunctionofkwillchangeintimeinthesensethatthe

amplitudesoftheshorterwaveswilldiminishfasterintimethantheamplitudesofthelongerwaves.Thiswilllead

toredistributionoftheamplitudesandtoachangeoftheapodizationfunctionofawavepacketthatissubjectto

evolutionaccordingtoJeffrey'sequation.Thereforeageneralshiftofthecentralwavenumbertowardslonger

waves(smallerwavenumbersk)istobeexpected.Inthecaseoflight,thisiscalled''redshift''."

"Physically speaking, the effect is related to the fact that dissipation damps the higher

frequencies stronger and causes the maximal frequency of the packet to shift to lower

frequencies (longer wave lengths). The redshifting is a property of the packet. No actual

dilation of the different harmonics is needed as in Doppler effect. This means that even a

shghtest dissipation in the interstellar medium will result in a persistent (cosmological)

redshift of the light propagating throughout the Universe.

The important trait of the new model is that the Hubble constant depends on the initial

width of the spectral line investigated. Then, two sources, that are in a close proximity

in cosmological sense, can have different redshifts depending on the width, d, of the

spectral line (as represented by the parameter fi °^ d^^). A more active (hotter) source

(smaller /3 or wider spectral line) will appear to the observer as much more redshifted

than a more quieter (cooler) source (larger /3 or thinner spectral line). This conclusion is

in very good qualitative agreement with the actual experimental observations."

It makes me really scratch my head as to why the entire cosmological community is out chasing multiverses, when they need to be reviewing the details.

An interesting link Dan Benedict posted in his footnotes:

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2007/9/modern-cosmology-science-or-folktale/1

Dear Israel,

I must have been a bit absentminded when I addressed you with your surname- my apologies. What I meant to say with my previous reaction is that we've always assumed a particle to be like a battery, its energy and voltage in this case varying about the value specified by the manufacturer (implying particles to have been created). We've always assumed that the cause of this fluctuation in its energy is that the battery-particle, to communicate its existence, emits energy, which if it is to preserve its own existence must be repleted by absorbing as much energy from its environment, so you'd expect its energy to fluctuate about the specified 'voltage'. However, fundamental particles aren't like this classical battery-particle. The real McCoy is a quantum object which, in battery-speak, alternately discharges and recharges completely. Unlike a classical battery which keeps existing even if it is empty, the quantum-battery reappears and disappears at the pace its energy 'swells and fades'. A quantum particle only exists in its action and cannot be distinguished from its effect: for a particle 'to be' is a verb, not a noun, a continuous action rather than a state. This is unlike macroscopic, classical objects, where we can distinguish between an object and its properties, its effects. The discharge in this case is equivalent to, indistinguishable from recharging with an opposite charge, the energy of the particle equal to the frequency of this alternation. The energy it alternately emits and absorbs is absorbed and supplied by every particle within its interaction horizon, so all particles by continuously exchanging 'charge', keep creating and un-creating each other, possibly repeating (to some extent) every phase of their evolution over and over again. This would be a quite effective way of preparing the environment physically for their reappearance, to enforce the laws of physics to apply on the area where they are to reappear. If the indefiniteness in the position of a particle in this context may be regarded as a measure of its dimensions, then in the phase its (rate of change of) energy is minimal, it is everywhere, so it is itself part of the spacetime it is to reappear in, and in doing so, helps preserving (the properties of) spacetime itself.

Regards, Anton

Perez,

Your brain works perfectly and you ask all the right questions. Now, you could be open to the right answers (imho). If so,read and understand my essay. ..If understanding is what you want.... There may be a price for understanding ...

Let know if ... in my thread.

LeBel

Dear Lebel,

Thank you for your interest in my essay. I would like to be honest and concrete with you, please do not get me wrong and I apologize in advance if I am tough or rude in my writing. I have read your essay which appears very interesting, I can see that we have several points in common, like the laws of logic, but there are some issues that remain obscure to me. You propose time as the primordial substance but I couldn't get a clear idea of what you understand by time. I would like to know your notion of time in few sentences, I would really appreciate it. I could grasp some of your ideas, but some times the provided information is not enough to understand what you mean.Sentences like this: "...requires that all terms be of the same nature i.e no apples and oranges (the Teacher was right!)" leave much to think about it. You should keep in mind that the reader does not have the background that you have and it is not easy to figure out what you are referring to. To understand much of your essay I had to read your previous essay from where these sentences arose. I could see that you have good ideas but I did not understand them at all. May be I am not smart enough to understand them or perhaps you are not smart enough to express yours. This may be the price for understanding.

In due time, I am going to read it once more, and if I have something more to say, I would let you know.

Kind regards

Israel

In a previous post on this page I said "I hope Israel will forgive us for taking over his page sometimes. To which he replied, "It's OK, you can post anything you wish, no problem." Thanks, Israel - so here I go again.

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

I have more conclusions derived from my essay, this time regarding General Relativity's mass increase and Lorentz contraction and time dilation. To make things more easily readable (if anybody ever reads this), I'll post most of my conclusions (including today's and those posted on my own page yesterday) in one essay instead of referring readers to different places.

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

I fully realise that my entry in FOXY's 2011 essay contest (I have trouble remembering the initials FQXi so I call this website FOXY) 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 negative-energy 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 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 (or by creating more hyperspace which creates more space and more time).

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 into the space/ordinary matter section.

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).

Acceleration (due to either approaching an appreciable fraction of light's velocity or experiencing massive gravitation, such as from a black hole) mimics the universe's expansion, no doubt because matter and space are both made of "space-time bits" i.e. they're both produced by the binary digits emanating from the hyperspace computer. There would inevitably be mass increase as some of the "dark energy" expanding the universe naturally becomes, according to mass-energy equivalence, particles of matter. More precisely, the increase in dark energy as our subuniverse expands (due to increased transmissions from hyperspace "creating" more space and time) is responsible for the extra particles. There would also be relative length (and volume) contraction since each particle would occupy a smaller proportion of our subuniverse's length/volume as expansion continues (and accelerates). We've seen that spacetime can be twisted into a Mobius strip - picturing spacetime as a length of paper in somebody's hands, it'd be twisted by applying forces in opposite directions viz. by turning one hand away from the body while simultaneously turning the other hand towards the body. In truth, twisting space-time would be a movie-like "special effect" accomplished by the hyperspatial computer. Though there would be an initial increase in time (as noted earlier in this paragraph), this would only be obvious in the so-called "dark matter" portion of the Mobius. The previous paragraph points out that if we lived in a non-unified universe of materialism, increase of time would be the norm but the twist - affecting all parts of a unified universe - means dark matter (time) decreases by the time it reaches the 5% of the Mobius that is the materialism our physical senses perceive (this "decrease of time" may also be termed "time dilation").

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 - mathematics has positive and negative quantities, and computers (whether in hyperspace or not) generate maths, causing reality to be both positive and negative; and unconventional cosmologist Max Tegmark is correct when he says mathematical formulas create reality. So when matter and antimatter meet, the positive and negative quantities form zero and neutralise (destroy) each other; and the positive/negative components of everything must avoid direct contact - this separation can either be in space or in time because all things are able to display both separateness/solidity (isolation in space) as well as the potential to appear anywhere and everywhere (in time as well as space). Pauli's exclusion principle - which was discovered in 1925 and says 2 matter particles cannot have both the same position and the same velocity - does not apply to separation of matter/antimatter since it only applies in an objective, non-unified universe ... though programming in the "cosmic computer" does include it as applicable to the reality we perceive since that appears objective to us; and presents separation and solidity to our physical senses and their extensions, scientific instruments.

Building on Mobius loops and negative energy also explains why electrons don't spiral into the nucleus of the atom when orbiting it like planets around a star would, according to the theories of Newton and Maxwell, cause the electrons to continuously emit electromagnetic radiation and this loss of energy would result in their crashing into the nucleus. As we've noted, fractal geometry tells us that what is outside or inside a Mobius loop is the same as the loop itself. So we can visualise an atom as a Mobius loop (the outside could be the universe and the inside could be a subatomic particle - with those two being One because of unification). We can imagine a 72% flow rate into the "dark matter" part of the atomic Mobius becoming not merely a 23% flow into the ordinary matter but, as discussed above, becoming a negative 23% flow. That is, energy is of course radiated - even from those special orbits or stationary states which Danish physicist Niels Bohr (1885-1962) said radiation would not be continuously emitted and wouldn't contribute to an electron-nucleus collision. But it isn't energy as we know it. There is no positive radiation emitted - the energy is "less than nothing" i.e. negative - according to the previous paragraph, mathematics has positive and negative quantities, and computers (whether in hyperspace or not) generate maths. Therefore, Bohr was correct to introduce the quantum into the atom and to "quantise" electron orbits - the "quantum jump" or "quantum leap" in which an electron's transition between orbits or energy levels occurs instantaneously without occupying the space between orbits is also explicable by computers in hyperspace generating mathematics and making electrons disappear from one orbit and instantly reappear in another orbit. Since E=mc2 means energy must contain particles and negative energy must contain antiparticles (e.g. electromagnetic energy is composed of photons), anti-photons are emitted from the electrons which are consequently not radiating energy and do not spiral into the nucleus. In his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking says on p. 68 that "In the case of the force-carrying particles (like the photon), the antiparticles are the same as the particles themselves." Thus, the "photons" which are emitted during the quantum leaps of electrons from higher to lower energy levels could actually be antiphotons. (thanks to "QUANTUM: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate About the Nature of Reality" by Manjit Kumar - Icon Books, 2008)

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.

I found a few inconsistencies and unclear sentences which I corrected this afternoon. I know submissions to FOXY (FQXi) have closed - and anyway, I can only make one - but my curiosity about nature's workings is still alive and well. This article addresses Einstein's Relativities (GR + SR), Bohr's Atomic Model, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Negative Energy And Modern String Theory/Unification In The Light Of The Concept of an Electronic and Holographic Universe Shaped Like A Mobius Loop. It has its beginnings in cellular automata (in mathematics and computer science, collections of cells on a grid that evolve through a number of discrete time steps according to a set of rules based on the states of neighbouring cells) and grew into a belief that the universe (electromagnetism, gravitation, space-time and, as we'll see, 5th dimensional hyperspace) has a digital (electronic) foundation. 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 possible verification of strings. It begins with 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 which appear to be based on non-unification.

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 the hyperspace computer (dark energy) which create them are increasing. Time is also created by hyperspace and is thus also increasing but (see the next 3 paragraphs) the amount of time being transmitted to our material 5% of the universe is decreasing - according to the WMAP satellite, dark matter has reduced 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 future time to create more hyperspace (with its associated extra space, extra matter and extra time).

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 into the space/ordinary matter section.

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).

Acceleration (due to either approaching an appreciable fraction of light's velocity or experiencing massive gravitation, such as from a black hole) mimics the universe's expansion, no doubt because matter and space are both made of "space-time bits" i.e. they're both produced by the binary digits emanating from the hyperspace computer. There would inevitably be mass increase as some of the "dark energy" expanding the universe naturally becomes, according to mass-energy equivalence, particles of matter. More precisely, the increase in dark energy as our subuniverse expands (due to increased transmissions from hyperspace "creating" more space and time) is responsible for the extra particles. There would also be relative length (and volume) contraction since each particle would occupy a smaller proportion of our subuniverse's length/volume as expansion continues (and accelerates). We've seen that spacetime can be twisted into a Mobius strip - picturing spacetime as a length of paper in somebody's hands, it'd be twisted by applying forces in opposite directions viz. by turning one hand away from the body while simultaneously turning the other hand towards the body. In truth, twisting space-time would be a movie-like "special effect" accomplished by the hyperspatial computer. Though there would be an initial increase in time (as noted earlier in this paragraph), this would only be obvious in the so-called "dark matter" portion of the Mobius. The previous paragraph points out that if we lived in a non-unified universe of materialism, increase of time would be the norm but the twist - affecting all parts of a unified universe - means dark matter (time) decreases by the time it reaches the 5% of the Mobius that is the materialism our physical senses perceive (this "decrease of time" may also be termed "time dilation").

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 - mathematics has positive and negative quantities, and computers (whether in hyperspace or not) generate maths, causing reality to be both positive and negative; and unconventional cosmologist Max Tegmark is correct when he says mathematical formulas create reality. So when matter and antimatter meet, the positive and negative quantities form zero and neutralise (destroy) each other; and the positive/negative components of everything must avoid direct contact - this separation can either be in space or in time because all things are able to display both separateness/solidity (isolation in space) as well as the potential to appear anywhere and everywhere (in time as well as space). Pauli's exclusion principle - which was discovered in 1925 and says 2 matter particles cannot have both the same position and the same velocity - does not apply to separation of matter/antimatter since it only applies in an objective, non-unified universe ... though programming in the "cosmic computer" does include it as applicable to the reality we perceive since that appears objective to us; and presents separation and solidity to our physical senses and their extensions, scientific instruments.

Building on Mobius loops and negative energy also explains why electrons don't spiral into the nucleus of the atom when orbiting it like planets around a star would, according to the theories of Newton and Maxwell, cause the electrons to continuously emit electromagnetic radiation and this loss of energy would result in their crashing into the nucleus. As we've noted, fractal geometry tells us that what is outside or inside a Mobius loop is the same as the loop itself. So we can visualise an atom as a Mobius loop (the outside could be the universe and the inside could be a subatomic particle - with those two being One because of unification). We can imagine a 72% flow rate into the "dark matter" part of the atomic Mobius becoming not merely a 23% flow into the ordinary matter but becoming a negative 23% flow (the variation in different directions caused by the twist need not be an increase and decrease of positive energy but may be the radiation of negative and positive energy). That is, energy is of course radiated - into atoms and from those special orbits or stationary states which Danish physicist Niels Bohr (1885-1962) said radiation would not be continuously emitted, and wouldn't contribute to an electron-nucleus collision. But it isn't energy as we know it. There is no exclusively positive radiation emitted - the energy is predominantly "less than nothing" i.e. negative - according to the previous paragraph, mathematics has positive and negative quantities, and computers (whether in hyperspace or not) generate maths. Therefore, Bohr was correct to introduce the quantum into the atom and to "quantise" electron orbits - the "quantum jump" or "quantum leap" in which an electron's transition between orbits or energy levels occurs instantaneously without occupying the space between orbits is also explicable by computers in hyperspace generating mathematics and making electrons disappear from one orbit and instantly reappear in another orbit. Since E=mc2 means energy must contain particles and negative energy must contain antiparticles (e.g. electromagnetic energy is composed of photons), anti-photons are emitted from the electrons which are consequently not radiating energy and do not spiral into the nucleus. In his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking says on p. 68 that "In the case of the force-carrying particles (like the photon), the antiparticles are the same as the particles themselves." Thus, the "photons" which are emitted during the quantum leaps of electrons from higher to lower energy levels could actually be antiphotons. (thanks to "QUANTUM: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate About the Nature of Reality" by Manjit Kumar - Icon Books, 2008 for inspiring these thoughts)

My essay "Humans and their Universes" 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 Israel ,

I wanted to let you know that I have read your essay. It is very clearly written, presented and easy to follow your thinking. This kind of philosophical consideration of scientific ideas is useful. You are right that such ideas do need careful consideration. You were brave to approach the essay in this way as there are some physicists who regard philosophy as irrelevant.

We are in agreement that space is not empty and that there is continuous change, giving passage of time. We can not know the composition of the "medium" of space at all. As it is entirely inert and provides no information by which it can be known. I would not have used the term matter as I understand matter to be composed of atoms or particles.

You are discussing many important foundational issues. So its content is also relevant. Thank you for directing my attention to your essay.

Good luck. Georgina.

Dear Israel,

Your interesting essay offers an important call for physicists to examine their suppositions in a rigorous manner. It provides a valuable way for thinkers to revisit the underlying assumptions of cosmology. Very well organized and presented!

Best wishes,

Paul

Paul Halpern, The Discreet Charm of the Discrete

Hi to both of you,

Indeed dear Israel, it is bizare this lack of rationalism and the lack of objectivity. You know I think it's just a play of maths or for a kind of confusions or a kind of business sometimes,I don't know it's sad for rationalists, these things named sciences are irrational and irrealistic. So many illogisms.Bizare is a weak word .

Good luck to both of you

Steve

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

Sir,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Basudeba.

Dear Israel,

I have read your essay and agree to your point of absolute universe.

I have conveyed similar thoughts in "Theory of everything" that I submitted in this contest and I hope you will have a chance to review it.

Conscience is the cosmological constant.

Love,

Sridattadev.