Dear Sir,

You begin with a postulate "There exists a tiniest scale at which the fabric of space-time appears as a pomegranate, made of indivisible atoms, or seeds. This view is reflected in models such as Penrose's spin networks and foams, and is adopted in theories such as Loop Quantum Gravity and in the so called Causal Set Program". In physical terms what does this statement mean? None of these have ever been proved in experiments. None of these terms have been precisely defined. Most of these postulates are based on circular logic as one view is based on another unsubstantiated view that is sought to be proved by the former. Most of these views are mere words and contrary to observation and logic. All through you have not defined what is reality.

You say: "At that level, a universal computation keeps running. We do not know yet the program code, but, in accordance with a fundamental principle of minimality ('Occam razor'), we like to believe that it is small, at least initially. Perhaps it is a self-modifying program: code and manipulated data might coincide." Then how could you discuss the issue scientifically? Science is not about beliefs or suppositions. Your entire essay exhibits your beliefs and suppositions that are far from scientific descriptions. This is one of the root causes of the malaise that is endemic in scientific circles. Thus, theoretical physics is stagnating for near about a century while experimental physics is achieving marvelous results.

You say: "sometimes we identify new, unifying laws that allow us to jump one level down: laws that appeared as primitive (e.g. Newton's law of gravitation) are shown to derive from deeper laws (e.g. General Relativity)." But both have been proved wrong by Pioneer Anomaly. This has given rise to MOND, which is also not satisfactory. The reason for such chaos is that modern science has couched in the cloak of incomprehensibility that is hindering progress of science. In several comments under various essays we have shown how gravity is a different category of force that cannot be united with other fundamental forces of Nature. It is a composite force that stabilizes and not attracts.

You say: "Emergence in reality calls for abstraction in description, and implies accuracy loss. Abstraction - e.g., assuming perfectly spherical planets of uniform density - is the price we pay for keeping mathematical formalizations simple at all levels." Is it true or necessary? In our essay we have discussed this problem. One of the contributors has made a proposition relating 3:1 to the universal law. We have given a physical explanation to this view in some of our threads under various Essays. Similarly, we have described under various threads that density variation (and not uniform density) causes all movements in the fields whose effects on bodies appear as different forces.

You say: "complexity in physics = emergence in computation". This statement is true only in a limited sense. Computation is related to accumulation or reduction of numbers. Numbers are a property of all objects by which we differentiate between similars. Linear accumulation or reduction of numbers is called addition and subtraction respectively. Non-linear accumulation or reduction of numbers is called multiplication and division respectively. Non-linear accumulation or reduction of numbers is relatively complex. As you say: "the fabric of space-time appears as a pomegranate; made of indivisible atoms, or seeds." They can accumulate linearly, but mostly they accumulate non-linearly. To that extent your statement is correct. But "pattern of interacting particle trajectories" are not numbers (unless you are talking about distance or thickness etc). They are effect of various forces acting on particles. You can only compute the effect of various forces acting on particles - the more non-linear the interaction, the more complex it is to compute.

You "believe that cellular automata provide only a nice metaphor for learning about emergence, not a satisfactory choice for an actual fundamental theory of physics, due to the annoying presence of a predefined background and the costly assumption of global synchrony for cell updating". But we hold that if you understand it correctly, cellular automata can provide an effective approach to understand reality. Rule 110, which requires an infinite number of localized patterns to be embedded within an infinitely repeating background pattern, can be the basis. But unless one knows how the images are generated, one would end up disappointed. The background pattern is fourteen cells wide and repeats itself exactly every seven iterations. We have a model that explains it correctly.

Regards,

basudeba

    Sir,

    In the above thread, we had spoken of gravity as a different type of force from other fundamental forces of Nature. Here is a brief discussion on that.

    Before we discuss whether the force we were referring to was gravity, we will like to discuss something about force itself. A force is experienced only in a field (we call it rayi). Thus, it is a conjugate of the field. If something is placed in a field, it experiences something else. This something else is a kind of force. Depending upon the density variations of the field, we experience the force differently. Hence we call it by different names. While the field is one, the forces are many. Since they are conjugates, we can also say that different forces create different variations in the field.

    The basic nature of the field is equilibrium. The basic nature of forces is displacement. This gives rise to two different types of inertia: inertia of motion due to forces and inertia of restoration (elasticity) due to the field. This leads to both these inertia acting against a point of equilibrium. In such a scenario, the combined effect leads to confinement around the point of equilibrium. The confined structure is called particle. Thus, all particles have a central point of mass or nucleus, an extra nuclear field surrounding it and fixed orbitals confining it. This is the common feature of all particles be they quarks or the Cosmos. The confinement may also cover the field without the central point. This is caused due to non-linear interaction of the forces. We will describe the mechanism separately. In such a case the field behaves like a fluid. The latest finding of LHC is that the Universe was created from such a super-fluid and not gases. The confined field also interacts with the Universal field due to difference in density. This in turn modifies the nature of interactions at different points in the medium (Universal field).

    A force can act only between two particles as only a particle can influence the field, which in turn can be experienced by another particle. If the external force of the field is more than the confining force of the two particles, then the two particles break up and join to form a new particle. We call this "sambhuti". In the opposite case, the two particles experience the force without being internally affected. The force acts between the centers' of mass of each treating each as a point particle. We call it "bibhuti". This second category of relationship, which we call "udyaama", is known as gravity. Since it stabilizes the two bodies at the maximum permissible distance between them depending upon their respective masses, we call it "urugaaya pratisthaa". For reasons to be discussed separately, this is possible only if gravity is treated as a composite force.

    The first category of forces, which are interactions between two bodies, acts differently based on proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance - proximity and distance - distance variables. We call these relationships "antaryaama", "vahiryaama", "upayaama" and "yaatayaama" respectively. This interaction affects the field also inducing various local disturbances. These disturbances are known as "nitya gati", "yagnya gati", "samprasaada gati" and "saamparaaya gati" respectively. Any particle entering the field at those points feels these disturbances, which are known as the strong nuclear interaction, weak nuclear interaction, electromagnetic interaction and radioactive disintegration respectively. Thus, you can see that gravity belongs to a completely different group of forces and cannot be integrated with other fundamental forces of Nature in the normal process. Yet, it has a different function by which other forces can be derived from it. We will discuss that separately.

    According to our theory gravity is a composite force of seven forces that are generated based on their charge. Thus, they are related to charge interactions. But we do not accept Coulomb's law. We have a different theory for it. We derive it from fundamental principles.

    Regards,

    basudeba.

    Dear Tommasso

    Causal set of space-time is the best idea yet, but a better idea is a causal set of particles where particles exist in a background-independent setting. the fundamental entity that make up the particles then will generate all known properties like mass, charge, spin, electromagnetic force and gravity. Space and time can be looked upon as derived quantities. All in one shot. This is my theory "Quantum Statistical Automata", I derive it from one simple idea, a postulate, "reality is nothing but math literally".

    That led me to design the universe from scratch. How can you design a dynamic universe? a one axis design makes all that clear. the simplest possible is to throw random length lines on the big universe line. These lines(they are fundamentally a number) interpreted as energy(1/L) and their interaction so that when they cross(you get EM) or when they meet(you get gravity) upon subtracting these energies. This will give rise to a universe like ours.

    Try any other scheme using any other fundamental entity you like, and you will either arrive at an equivalent result or non-sense ones(typically will be highly contrived complex entities). So our reality had no choice just like you if you try to design one USING A FUNDAMENTAL ENTITY.

    qsa

    Dear Tommaso,

    Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top ten placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the top front runners btw:

    Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?

    Best wishes,

    Alan

      Dear Sir,

      You have raised a very important question. We have discussed it below the essay of Mr. Ian Durham. Here we reproduce it for you.

      The latest finding of LHC is that the Universe was created from such a super-fluid and not gases. The confined field also interacts with the Universal field due to difference in density. This in turn modifies the nature of interactions at different points in the medium (Universal field).

      A force can act only between two particles as only a particle can influence the field, which in turn can be experienced by another particle. If the external force of the field is more than the confining force of the two particles, then the two particles break up and join to form a new particle. We call this "sambhuti". In the opposite case, the two particles experience the force without being internally affected. The force acts between the centers' of mass of each treating each as a point particle. We call it "bibhuti". This second category of relationship, which we call "udyaama", is known as gravity. Since it stabilizes the two bodies at the maximum permissible distance between them depending upon their respective masses, we call it "urugaaya pratisthaa". For reasons to be discussed separately, this is possible only if gravity is treated as a composite force.

      The first category of forces, which are interactions between two bodies, acts differently based on proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance - proximity and distance - distance variables. We call these relationships "antaryaama", "vahiryaama", "upayaama" and "yaatayaama" respectively. This interaction affects the field also inducing various local disturbances. These disturbances are known as "nitya gati", "yagnya gati", "samprasaada gati" and "saamparaaya gati" respectively. Any particle entering the field at those points feels these disturbances, which are known as the strong nuclear interaction, weak nuclear interaction, electromagnetic interaction and radioactive disintegration respectively. Thus, you can see that gravity belongs to a completely different group of forces and cannot be integrated with other fundamental forces of Nature in the normal process. Yet, it has a different function by which other forces can be derived from it. We will discuss that separately.

      According to our theory, gravity is a composite force of seven forces that are generated based on their charge. Thus, they are related to charge interactions. But we do not accept Coulomb's law. We have a different theory for it. We derive it from fundamental principles. We will discuss it separately.

      According to our theory, all particles are locally confined fields. This confinement takes a three fold structure for the particle - center of mass or nucleus, extra-nuclear field and the confining orbitals. If we take into account the external field with which the particle interacts, it becomes a four-fold (3+1) structure. The particle interacts with the field in two ways. If the internal energy distribution cancels each other with a little inward pull, then it behaves as a stable particle. Thus, all particles can be described as composites that exhibit two types of charges: that which pushes out from a central point and is described as positive charge and that which confines it and is described as negative charge. Where both are balanced, it is neutral charge.

      We have derived theoretically that the charge of proton in electron units is not +1, but +10/11. Similarly, the charge of neutron is not 0, but -1/11. This makes the atom slightly negatively charged. This excess negative charge is not experienced out side as it is directed towards the nucleus. It is not detected during measurements due to the nature of calibration of the measuring instrument. But it is released during fusion and fission.

      The confinement described above takes place where the external field dominates to confine the particle. Here the particle becomes negatively charged. In the opposite case, the particle becomes positively charged. The particles are classified as positively charged or negatively charged according to whether the external field dominates over confinement or the confined force dominates over the local field. Since equilibrium is inherent in Nature, in either case, the particles search for their complements to become full. The less negative part of the proton (since it is +10/11, it has -1/11 negative charge) seeks to couple with the electron to become -1/11. This makes hydrogen atom highly reactionary.

      The combined charge of proton and electron (-1/11) seeks the neutron since it has an equal charge. Thus, the opposites do not attract and same charge does not repel. It is not the opposite either. The charge interaction can be of four types:

      positive + positive = explosive. That is seen in fusion reaction.

      Positive + negative (total interaction) = internally creative (increased atomic number)

      Positive + negative (partial interaction) = externally creative (becomes an ion and interacts with other particles.)

      Negative + negative = no reaction. They co-exist.

      For further clarification, kindly write to: mbasudeba@gmail.com.

      Regards,

      basudeba.

      Dear Sir,

      you have several comments on my work, and several pieces of information on your own approach. In particular you write:

      'Your entire essay exhibits your beliefs and suppositions that are far from scientific descriptions. This is one of the root causes of the malaise that is endemic in scientific circles. Thus, theoretical physics is stagnating for near about a century while experimental physics is achieving marvelous results'.

      I claim that the approach described in my essay has a rather strong experimental component, but, so far, the type of phenomena that emerge from the investigated models of computation (and associated causal sets) do not yet lend themselves to detailed *quantitative* comparisons with their potential, 'real'counterparts, also due to the fact that these experiments probe layers of reality that sit far below what standard experimental physics can directly observe. But the *qualitative* things that can happen in the discussed simulations are already quite remarkable and promising. For example, I show that algorithmic causal sets can account for the emergence of particle-like structures, whose existence may depend on whether one takes a local or global view at the causal set. And I have shown that these causal sets may organize themselves so that partly separated causal regions start to appear. These and other circumstances (e.g., the bizarre behaviour shown in Figure 3) strongly suggest -- at least to me! -- that it would be unwise to dismiss the digital/computational universe conjecture without having explored VERY extensively its potential.

      Dear Alan,

      you write:

      'An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't.'

      I am afraid I do not see how the screw model can explain inverse square laws.

      In a discrete, causal set approach one can count on notions of curvature, so we have at least one basic ingredient for explaining gravity.

      As for the other forces, as far as I can honestly tell, everything still needs to be done. So far I have had only one idea for trying to discriminate between gravitational and non-gravitational fields: in the context of causal sets from models of computation based on GRAPH REWRITING, one can think of two different types of emergent, moving localized structure, depending on whether or not one keeps track of the identity of the simplices in the graph being rewritten. In the first case, one has actual pieces of the graph that move around (think of polygons in a dynamic voronoi diagram, that move like water molecules), in the second case one has just patterns that move around (say a peculiar combination of pentagonal and hexagonal faces, in the case of a planar graph), like the gliders on a 2D cellular automaton, that use many different cells from the substratum for implementing their flight. Of course, these two types can happily coexist!

      Dear Tommaso Bolognesi,

      Having looked into http://pirsa.org/05090001, I am sure your essay is a much more proficient presentation of something I am still not yet a fan of. Do you know the nice book by LaMettrie "The Man - a Machine" written at the time of Laplace in French language? Today he would perhaps write something like "The Man - a Computer Program" or "Spacetime - a Lattice Computing itself".

      I understand that the PI rather than you are responsible for such progress. Should we merely adapt our wording accordingly and speak instead of twin, grandfather, Ehrenfest, barn, Andromeda, etc. paradoxes of twin, grandfather, etc. bugs? No. There are certainly new bugs to be found and to be removed, e.g.:

      - an Adam and Eve bug: For reasons of genetic repair, a causal set must not begin with just one male and one female primordial individual if it aims to mimic or even be reality instead of bible.

      - Steven Dufourny's bug: There must not be a starting point in space and time at all. While this seems to preclude the application of all so far imaginable methods of programming, this does not matter. With a friendly grin we may declare the programs not yet debugged.

      - a missing clock bug: If the program outputs the whole spacetime including past and future then it needs an additional clock as to mark out the border between past and future here and now.

      - a smallest step-width or smallest CA bug: Division by (almost) zero is to be excluded as usual.

      Presumably there are many more bugs. Bugs tend to be unseen. Do never loose hope.

      Regards,

      Eckard

        Dear Eckard,

        I expected your post to terminate with a satanic 'hihihihi' grin. Should I take the fact that it doesn't as an indication that you expect a serious answer from me? I am not sure. In any case, since you wrote that you are not YET a fan of causal sets, I feel encouraged to comment at least on one point.

        I am aware of the idea, discussed for example by M. Tegmark, that the program might output the whole spacetime (past and future, so to speak) in one shot, thus raising a question whether we need a clock that points to, and marks the progress of the present inside the whole structure.

        My view is different; the universal computation is really unfolding step by step, in the sense that the future is not available until it is actually computed, and this is because, following Wolfram, the computation is irreducible: no shortcut is possible. The only fundamental 'clock', in this picture, is the one that counts the steps at the front of the computation as they happen -- in my favourite setting, the steps of the ant walking on a graph.

        Regards

        Tommaso

        Dear Tommaso,

        While I consider the truth not negotiable, I appreciate the realism of you, Steven Wolfram, and other followers of Dedekind. Please read my essay carefully as to get aware that to me the present moment here and now is the only fix point in the whole entity that we are calling universe. I do not deny the possibility to pre-calculate partial pictures of future with the caveat we are unable to include all possible influences.

        Those who are modeling the world with finite elements, CAs and the like do usually not need extended, in particular imaginary numbers for that. This is one more view we have in common.

        As I pointed out in my third essay analog models were forced to be even closer to reality because they were bound to integrations. I am right now dealing with premetric electrodynamics. While it is appealing to me in so far, it begins with directed quantities and its metric enters as late as possible, I doubt that differential forms are close enough to reality.

        What about preferences for a discrete or continuous world, I see several rather superficial reasons for both and also a lot of possible mistakes. While to me the difference between analog and merely continuous is more important, I do not yet see a discontinuous analog computing. If the world is digital then analog models should also be digital. Shouldn't they?

        Regards,

        Eckard

        Dear Sir,

        We had given a different theory for charge interactions by showing that Coulomb's law is wrong. We repeat it again.

        According to our theory, gravity is a composite force of seven forces that are generated based on their charge. Thus, they are related to charge interactions. But we do not accept Coulomb's law. We have a different theory for it. We derive it from fundamental principles. In Coulomb's law, F = k Q1 x Q2 /d^2. In a charge neutral object, either Q1 or Q2 will be zero reducing the whole equation to zero. This implies that no interaction is possible between a charged object and a charge neutral object. But this is contrary to experience. Hence the format of Coulomb's law is wrong.

        As we have repeatedly described, the atoms can be stable only when they are slightly negatively charged which makes the force directed towards the nucleus dominate the opposite force, but is not apparent from outside. Hence we do not experience it. We have theoretically derived the value of the electric charge of protons, neutrons and electrons as +10/11, -1/11 and -1. The negative sign indicates that the net force is directed towards the nucleus. Charge interaction takes place when a particle tries to attain equilibrium by coupling with another particle having similar charge. The proton has +10/11 charge means it is deficient in -1/11 charge. The general principle is same charge attracts. Thus, it interacts with the negative charge of electrons. The resultant hydrogen atom has a net charge of -1/11. Thus, it is highly reactionary. This -1/11 charge interacts with that of the neutron to form stable particles. These interactions can be of four types.

        Positive + positive = explosive. By this, what we mean is the fusion reaction that leads to unleashing of huge amounts of energy. It's opposite is also true in the case of fission, but since it is reduction, there is less energy release.

        Positive + negative (total interaction) = internally creative (increased atomic number.) This means that if one proton and one electron is added to the atom, the atomic number goes up.

        Positive + negative (partial interaction) = externally creative (becomes an ion.) This means that if one proton or one electron is added to the atom, the atom becomes ionic.

        Negative + negative = no reaction. What it actually means is that though there will be no reaction between the two negatively charged particles; they will appear to repel each other as their nature is confinement. Like two pots that confine water cannot occupy the same place and if one is placed near another with some areas overlapping, then both repel each other. This is shown in the "Wheeler's Aharonov-Bohm experiment".

        We had also commented on many other aspects of your essay.

        Can we expect a clarification on the points raised by us?

        Regards,

        basudeba.

        Hi Eckard,

        is it too much to ask you to briefly summarize what you mean by 'the difference between analog and merely continuous', without having me try and spot it somewhere in you essay? I personally consider 'analog' and 'continuous' as the same thing, at least w.r.t. the theme of this FQXi contest. I am happy of the clear distinction between the fundamental concepts of continuous and discrete, and regard with some suspicion any theory that claims to be fundamental, while providing, at the same time, some hybrid mix of these two ingredients. Thanks.

        Tommaso

          Dear Tommaso,

          If something is an analogue of something else, the two things are similar to each other. Each analog computer used the analogy between a real composition of lumped electric components and an real object with similar properties as to model that object.

          Usually, the modeled object was considered to behave continuous. Therefore analog is often equated with continuous.

          While I share your suspicion concerning some mixes between continuous and discrete, e.g. Donatello Dolce's sweet donation of a cyclic space-time, and in particular in mathematics Cantor's paradise, it happens indeed that e.g. a measured spectrum has both continuous and discrete components at a time.

          Hopefully you will not take it too much amiss that I do not focus on the question discrete or continuous. Old engineers like me tend to have no problem with easily switching back and forth between these two rather equivalent worlds.

          I am deliberately focusing on analog (in the sense of performed with means that are as real as the object itself) vs. digital (in the sense of mathematical which gets rid of this usually unwelcome immediate link to reality).

          The question "analog vs. digital" is of course prone to be (mis?)read as continuous vs. discrete. Perhaps, "analog vs. digital" was chosen because digital signal processing undoubtedly proved superior as to support those who feel entitled to fight for CA and the like. Being perhaps the only lonely one who emphasizes the aspect that analogy to reality implies realism, I am perhaps also the only one who arrived at hurting and rather unbelievable conclusions that were punished mainly in my public rates. I hope for rehabilitation by more prudent readers.

          We may also switch from reality to its model and return. However, reality has some peculiarities: Any measured quantity belongs to positive values of elapsed time, and primary measured quantities do not contain imaginary values. In other words, in principle reality could always be expressed within R.

          Analog models are bound to reality. Hence they automatically obey these restrictions, no matter whether they work continuous or discrete.

          Regards,

          Eckard

          Dear Sir,

          Your reply shows the inadequacy of the present experimental approach. But it did not negate our contentions.

          Will you please clearly say what we have written is wrong? If so, where it is wrong, what is wrong and how it is wrong.

          We had shown specific examples where your views are different from our views. Both us cannot be correct. Hence kindly prove us wrong to save your view.

          Regards,

          basudeba.

          Science is not only objective (which by the way you are far from it with all kind of personal remarks about people all the time) but it is also about a human enterprise where people have to be open and listen each other. You must go first read and learn before writing gibberish in this contest.

            'All kinds of personal remarks about people all the time'?

            Where would these be? Are you referring to this thread, to my answers, and to my contribution?

            In case this was really your intention, I suggest you to be more polite and constructive here, in case you are sincerely interested in interacting (which I doubt).