Discrete and Continuous Realities According to Fundamental Laws of Nature by Rafael Emmanuel Castel

Peter,

Please let me correct my statement. It should be:

"I've used a = g and MKS in my formulations."

The MKS is simply the standard metric system of measurement. The a is the acceleration applied on the seed mass mo for the 3D relative translation. The g is the gravitational acceleration equal to G[mo/r2], where G is the gravitational constant.

Assuming 1 kg for a 'dipstick' value in the genesis formula, the resulting total energy increase is 4.4515584 x 10-21.

Half of this total energy increase is on the high energy end of the CMBR curve. The CMBR value is adjustable depending on local mass densities and rates of expansion. The prevalent measurable energy on the CMBR should be according to the general rate of cosmic expansion.

Would you say this claim is 'falsifiable'?

Best wishes to you, too.

Rafael

P.S. I wonder what the others might say about the above - especially Butler, Klingman, Petkov, Biermans and Benedict...

Peter,

Moreover, you said "If you have time to read it carefully please tell me if you can get your head round the logical derivation f unified SR GR an QM from the explanation in my essay."

I've read your essay. However, I do not think that the conventional ideas regarding SR and GR can be unified with the conventional ideas regarding QM, even with the extraordinary ideas you've added.

I have my own interpretations of the SR, GR and QM ideas. I've winnowed out a lot from these ideas and have come up with the idea of kinematic relativity which is centered on the idea of the transformations of motion.

The idea of kinematic relativity allows a unification of relevant SR, GR and QM ideas in terms of the transformations of motion. My genesis formula describes a KR process that involves the gravitation process and a bit of the quantum process.

However, I have not yet given a clear description of the general quantum process based on the KR principles. But I am on the idea that an hierarchical cosmos is necessary for both the quantum and the gravitational processes, and such that I can see the unification in the idea of kinematic relativity.

Rafael

Dear Ray,

It actually appears that it does not matter so much what realistic mass value is plugged-in. It appears that half of the total energy increase will always fall on the CMBR curve, and perhaps more so if the correct rate of expansion is considered.

Rafael

Dear Eugene,

There seems to be the unclarified matter regarding the premise of the C-field's strength that Ray is contesting.

You've stated that "the C-field depends on local mass density ... and this can explain variation in the scale of a." This apparently implies that the accelerations of the objects are affected by local mass densities - including the mass of the objects that are themselves subject to transformations. I think this explains the variations.

In comparison, I used a 'dipstick' unity value for [mo/r2] to get the acceleration for the quantization wherein the mass-energy content of the seed mass increases. This assumes a 'local' density for the mass that has the relative 'gravitational' acceleration within 3-D space. This also assumes a 'localized' quantization (or condensation) period that is accorded by the general rate of oscillating cosmic expansion." So, not much difference, unless of course somebody can give a precise number for the general cosmic mass density...

Both of us consider the acceleration according to the local mass density.

It appears that we differ a bit in our views regarding the source of and how gravity works.

Your view seems to be that there was a single primordial field of perfect symmetry and that that perfect symmetry broke, the C-field/C-fields emerged and time began. It looks like you are saying that symmetry broke in a radial process.

In comparison, I see an all-encompassing kinematic field, infinite in time and space, comprising a hierarchical (discrete) kinematic 'cosmos' immersed in a smoothly void (analog) kinematic 'chaos'. I see a kinematic field wherein the cosmic subsystems multiply according to a generally continuous cosmic mass-energy formation process.

I assume that the hierarchical cosmos always existed and that its oscillations and many-body plurality ensures that 'true singularities' never occur, such that the cosmos maintains the order that we see. In my proponed view, every kinematic density presents a kinematic bias for the tangental vectors from the kinematic field. So, I have a clear idea where the tangental vectors effect the quantization process.

I am sure we both have our views regarding the importance of tangental vectors in the idea of the 'curvature' and in the process of quantization.

But I have difficulty finding where tangental vectors began the quantization process or broke the symmetry in your proponed 'one' primordial field of perfect symmetry. The idea of a field is founded on the idea of oriented vectors (lines of force/motion). So, perhaps your single primordial field of perfect unbroken symmetry had a concentric orientation - such that your primordial field was perhaps a singularity-oriented field. But how did the perfect symmetry of your one primordial field break?

It is clearly illogical to say that random fluctuations broke the symmetry because the idea of a single perfect symmetry implies the absence and hence impossibility of random fluctuations. So, how did the perfect symmetry of your one primordial field break?

No matter how I look at the picture that you present, I still find my idea the more logical and rational. I simply like the idea of an all-encompassing kinematic field complete with all the possible components but in a continuous quantization (cosmic mass-energy formation) process.

So, evidently I question your conclusion/proposition that - "A continuous universe evolves to discrete reality" because of your idea of the one primordial field. But the part that says - "where quantum conditions carve up the continuum, such that analog inputs occasion digital outputs or threshold crossings" is okay with me.

-

Your essay is cluttered with a lot of details but is rather unclear about the fundamental essence involved in the transformations to either the continuous or discrete realities. I hope someday you will concede regarding the idea of motion transformations, the idea of kinematic relativity and the idea of the all-encompassing kinematic field. Of course, tongue in cheek! :)

-

It is amazing how this essay contest has opened so many doors. I thought it was enough to answer the question regarding what realities are discrete and what realities are continuous. I thought it was enough to explain a unification of relativistic mechanics and quantum mechanics with the clear emphasis on the idea of motion transformations instead of the idea of spacetime transformations...

I haven't read all the essays. So, it makes me wonder if there is anyone here who clearly advocates "the idea of motion transformations" instead of "the idea of spacetime transformations" or "the idea of arbitrary transformations of space and time." If there is none, then I must be the first with the clarity.

Eugene, I hope you won't mind so much my questions and somewhat critical comments.

Kind regards,

Rafael

Dear Eugene,

I said:

[ In comparison, I see an all-encompassing kinematic field, infinite in time and space, comprising a hierarchical (discrete) kinematic 'cosmos' immersed in a smoothly void (analog) kinematic 'chaos'. I see a kinematic field wherein the cosmic subsystems multiply according to a generally continuous cosmic mass-energy formation process.

I assume that the hierarchical cosmos always existed and that its oscillations and many-body plurality ensures that 'true singularities' never occur, such that the cosmos maintains the order that we see. In my proponed view, every kinematic density presents a kinematic bias for the tangental vectors from the kinematic field. So, I have a clear idea where the tangental vectors effect the quantization process. ]

Note that my idea is that the "an all-encompassing kinematic field" already has both the discrete and the analog components, always did and always will. The kinematic field has two components. The infinite analog (chaos) supplies (always did and always will) the raw motions needed for the continually increasing infinite discrete (cosmos) and "the cosmic subsystems multiply according to a generally continuous cosmic mass-energy formation process."

So, yes, I think that the kinematic field that is infinite in time and space IS logical. I find no contradiction since I don't argue the idea that there was an analog part of the field first before there was ever the discrete part of the field. You seem to argue that there was the field first - your word is 'primordial'. My idea is that the universe never "came to be". It has always been here. All we have to discover is how it is the way it has always been and how it 'evolves' and 'grows'.

You say:

[ ... in favor of my model is the fact that the C-field (existing after symmetry breaks) explains inflation, and, even more important, the C-field provides (given the energies of the big bang) a mechanism that produces left-handed massive neutrinos, electrons, up and down quarks, their anti-particles, the W, Z, and gamma bosons,and NO HIGGS. In other words ALL of the known particles, including three generations.

If you can derive all of this from your (infinite in time and space) field, and explain current anomalies of physics, then I would be very interested in how you do it, otherwise I don't think you have the complete solution that is required to explain today's world. ]

Well, Eugene, I say - it is not always necessary that I do the derivations for us all. We have Dr Klingman for that and other people, too.

I also employ the idea of a particulate 'donut/loopy' kinematic construct. So, I actually believe your C-field applies in my idea of a continually 'reproducing' cosmos. We need only discover in what conditions your C-field is applicable in my kinematic relativity idea.

So, if you want the mechanism that produces all the particles that you say my theory should have, then I say we have your C-field. Unless of course if your C-field is unable to produce all the particles you mentioned -- 'locally' in say a black hole? You need only the continually existing inexhaustible kinematic field to supply the kinematic vectors to the black hole that will transform the motions and spew them out as the particles you listed.

So, what do you think? Can your C-field do it? Of course, you can only answer YES -- otherwise you'd be inconsistent regarding your claims. Please forgive that sly this your friend is...

We obviously have complimentary ideas. I provide you the logical idea regarding how the symmetry is breaking with the tangental vectors applied where they are applicable (since that is what you lack in your theory), and voila, we have it all (or at least a great deal)!

Rafael

P.S. Clearly, there is a lot of baggage that we need to let go of in order to reconcile our ideas... You did have an explanation somewhere in your thread regarding why we can't readily do this...

Eugene,

Just a slight correction, it should read:

"You seem to argue that there was the ANALOG field first - your word is 'primordial'."

-

You say - "You are correct that I begin with a single field. But my only assumption at the beginning is that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE EXISTS." The suggestion is that the universe came to exist only after something happened to the analog field - "quantum conditions carve up the continuum" (you imply) into black holes, galaxies and their components, etc.

I say - "My idea is that the universe never "came to be". It has always been here. All we have to discover is how it is the way it has always been and how it 'evolves' and 'grows'." There is, continually, the genesis of new parts - e.g., new black holes, new galaxies and their grown or multiplied components, etc. - that the already existing and evolving kinematic quantum conditions generate from the kinematic continuum.

This is where we have the big difference in our opinions.

Rafael

Dear Eugene and everyone,

I think I must clarify a little bit more.

When I say that the universe has always been here, what I mean is that an infinite cosmos with the pattern or structure wherein we have the galaxies, the clusters of galaxies, the clusters of clusters of galaxies, and etc., always existed. And I believe the infinite cosmos 'evolves' and 'grows' both in the sense that it 'reproduces' as it feeds on 'raw' energy from an infinite energy reservoir.

The genesis formula that I derived suggests the interpretation that there is continuous cosmic mass formation with the accompanying cosmic energy radiation. This is because of the suggestion that in every center of gravitation (i.e., every mass) in the universe the analog gravitational field/flow is being quantized into discrete cosmic mass-energy.

According to my genesis formula, the quantization process requires seed masses. There is no concentric gravitation without the seed mass.

I view the gravitational field as a continuous (analog) flow or motion towards the mass at the center. And I've applied the principle of the relativity of motion such that I view the mass at the center as accelerating in 3-D with the acceleration a = g.

My derivation of the genesis formula is somewhat similar to Einstein's derivation of his famous formula.

Einstein's concluded that E=mc2 on account of the connection with the classical K.E.=½mv2. His derivation was of linear form because he used the Lorentz factor. But the E=mc2 is non-linear. So, it appears that he jumped to the conclusion that E=mc2, which made all of us admire his deep intuition.

On the other hand, I made my conclusion of a genesis formula because of the suggestions presented by my derivation based on the idea of pure kinematics and the idea of the 3-D relative acceleration of gravitational masses on account of their gravitational field. I used the 'full-tensor' factor in my derivation as you may see in my essay.

I have studied how the genesis formula may be applied to the cosmos as a whole. I think the galaxies facilitate the continuous cosmic mass-formation process with accompanying background energy radiations. I think the grand scale replication process begins at the galactic level - the galaxies replicate themselves by spawning protogalaxies.

The reason why I think this is so is because it appears that the galaxies have the appropriate kinds of seed-masses for the production of the elementary particles. It appears that black holes inhabit the periphery and the centers of the galaxies - appropriately where black holes should be if protogalactic spawning actually occurs.

It appears that the black holes at the centers of galaxies rhythmitically condense their gravitational fields. The 'quantized gravity fields' are then periodically spewed out by the black holes, in their periodic polar jets, as condensed kinematic constructs (particles).

( Eugene, this is why I am interested in your C-field formulation. The resultant energy presented by the genesis formula applied to black holes appears to be sufficient for the energy requirements of mass formation processes that may be described by your C-field. Compared to the "genesis from a big bang" idea, the "genesis from a black hole" idea is also more palatable since black holes are more empirically obvious than the big bang. )

The galaxies feed on the condensed particles spewed out from the black holes. The galaxies grow and, in their due time, eventually spawn protogalaxies with younger black holes at their centers. The suggestion is that this is an established process in the infinite universe.

( Incidentally, the idea of protogalaxies appears to be a valid explanation regarding the peculiar quasars near mature galaxies that the astronomer Halton Arp studied. )

It appears that the increasing 'orbital' momenta of the galaxies because of their increasing masses facilitate the expansion of the universe with the accompanying background radiation from the mass formation process. So, both the expansion of the universe and the CMBR are accounted for in my proposed theory.

It does not appear that gravitational fields eventually get exhausted. Gravitational fields exist for as long as there are particulate masses. So, evidently there is an exhaustible source of 'raw' energy that gets condensed into mass by the facility of the seed masses. The gravitational fields are together the infinite energy reservoir for the continuous cosmic mass-energy genesis.

This whole perspective is based on the idea of kinematic relativity and the idea of the transformations of motion that I propone (instead of the arbitrary transformations of space and time that Einstein proponed).

Although Milne advanced the idea of kinematic relativity, it appears that nobody ever advanced the idea of the transformations of motion that I now propone with emphasis, especially with the genesis formula that I've put forth with my novel interpretations.

I can't say I have sufficiently studied Milne, Hoyle, Burbidge, Narlikar, Brans-Dicke, Barber, Hawking (who recently presented a cosmology advocating spontaneous creation due to gravity), and others who have put forth the various flavors of cosmic formation and creation ideas. The bits and pieces that I've read about the ideas of these people have encouraged me regarding my idea of motion transformations instead of space-time transformations - because, among other reasons, this superb idea is clearly absent in their proposed theories.

-

Actually, I also begin with "the conception of 'one thing'" so that I can get started with the work of understanding the cosmic complexity. I've recognized a rather simple idea and appreciated its value in the face of the complex. I begin with my idea of 'motion transformations'...

But, although it is indeed beautiful that FQXi encourages the attempts and provides this accessible online venue for the presentation of ideas, I do not know if the FQXi community will foster the examination of this idea and the other ideas derived from this main idea.

As far as I know, the "idea of motion transformations", with the offshoot 'genesis formula' and the interpretation I am presenting, is a novel idea.

I have been trying to impart this idea for around 20 years now. But my letters and papers have all been rejected, primarily because I am so alone with this idea. I've tried the various online fora, but I've been rejected and been called many 'names' so many times.

I am encouraged when I read essays such as Butler's and Petkov's here. But judging from the last rating that downgraded my 8.9 to 8.2, the trend of rejection for whatever reason has not changed much.

I'm not losing hope yet. And I hope FQXi will be a catalyst for at least the appropriate examination of my ideas.

Rafael

Ray,

I'd like to know how you fit the idea of self-similarity at the level of the galaxies. I'd like to know what components you see at that scale and what you don't see and where they should be located 'physically'.

How does your scales look like for the effective local values for the gravitational "constant" that can be 'attached' to the various masses in a galaxy? What do you see in terms of the outputs with the gravity fields as inputs?

Also, it would be nice if you can comment regarding the Jordan frame and the Einstein frame in the light of my genesis formula - I am not sure how they may relate according to the conventions.

Rafael