The Impossibility for the Universe to (Not) Exist by Anton W.M. Biermans

Dear Anton,

Thanks for your post on my page.

One of the puzzling features of quantum theory which I mentioned is the presence of probabilities and the Born proabbility rule, and the related question of the collapse of the wave function during a quantum measurement. I could not figure out from your essay how you propose to resolve this puzzle, and will be grateful if you could elaborate.

Best regards,

Tejinder

Dear Sir,

We have addressed this issue in reply to a post by Mr. Biermans under our essay. You may like to refer to it.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Anton,

You have written an interesting essay. It is obvious that you have thought long and searched deeply for the unique ideas expressed in your paper. You have definite and distinctive convictions which are good as long as they don't conflict with observational evidence. It is my opinion that we will probably agree more on your concepts regarding the microscopic nature of reality as apposed to your macroscopic views. In point, you obviously do not believe that we live in a evolving universe. The observational evidence should refute this belief. It is well known in the astrophysical community that the distribution of quasars and gamma ray busters are homogeneous in space but anisotropic in time, that is, these unique objects occur only at high red shifts, which is fortunate for life as these (in particular, the GRBs) are highly energetic objects that could severely effect biospheres of planets up to 3250 ly if their beam was directed at such a planet. How does your self creating universe explain the distribution of these highly unique objects?

Also, it seems to me that a self creating universe would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Does it, or does it not, and if it doesn't, how does entropy continually increase? I saw no reference to this in your essay.

quote per Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington:

"The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations -- then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation -- well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."

I look forward to your respondence.

Best Regards,

Dan

P.S. I have left a response to some of the misunderstandings and poor definitions on my part regarding some of your comments to my essay on my forum. IMO the Evolving Steady State Multiverse explains observations, anomalous and otherwise, better than either the Standard Model, i.e. Big Bang model, or your self creating universe and it does so without abandoning the second law.

Anton,

I'm copying your reply you left for me on my forum and my response, since I believe it is important for the continuity for both of us.

You wrote:

Dear Dan,

Thank you very much for reading and even comprehending (at least partly) what I'm trying to do! What I do not, however, is saying that the universe doesn't evolve. Though things inside of it certainly evolve with respect to each other, the universe as a whole does not evolve as a whole with respect to some imaginary Outside Observer. My point is that to obey conservation laws, in a universe which creates itself out of noting the sum of everything inside the universe, including spacetime and time must remain nil. If it then cannot have any particular property as a whole, then it doesn't make sense to say that it evolves as a whole. Only a universe which is created by some Outside Intervention can evolve as a whole, with respect to Him/Her/It: only on His/Her/Its watch did He/She/It create our universe 14 billion years ago. A self-creating universe, however, doesn't evolve IN time, but produces and contains all time itself. A statement like "The mass of the Universe is 1.8x10^54 kg and its radius is 0.95x10^26 meter" doesn't mean anything. That we nevertheless cannot get rid of our habit to make just such statements shows that we regard all inside objects as pieces of furniture floating in spacetime, as completely autonomous objects the existence of which is too self-evident to even bother much about their origin, their properties independent from anything, as if they would keep existing if they wouldn't interact, exchange energy at all. However, if particles create each other, if they preserve and express their properties by continuously exchanging energy, then they would vanish if we could cut off this exchange like the image on a TV screen when we pull its plug: particles power each other's existence by this continuous exchange, at the same time forcing each other to obey the same kind of behavior, the same laws of physics. The idea that the universe can have any particular property as a whole ignores or denies this exchange because it is unobservable, because, despite quantum field theory, we dare not let go of the (classical) belief that particles only are the source of their fields and interactions, and hence keep existing even if they wouldn't interact at all, so we regard their properties to have a physical reality even outside their interactions, as if they would be observable, have a physical reality even outside the universe. However, a property like the rest energy of a particle only exist in this exchange, in its expression, and is not something which has a physical reality outside these interactions. If we consider its mass as a property which depends on nothing, then we implicitly say that the particle passively has been created by some Outside Intervention. Similarly, we cannot speak about the mass or energy content of the universe as it has no autonomous, physical existence, as all mass is tied up in the continuous energy exchange between its particles. There's nothing left of their mass to engage an imaginary outside observer in an observation interaction (and which would incorporate the observer into the universe). This is why I insist that the universe as a whole is an intellectual concept, which has no physical reality whatsoever. Without their continuous energy exchange, particles wouldn't even belong to the same universe: particles are wave phenomena because of this exchange. That macroscopic objects have lots of superfluous properties which don't affect their function at all (like the color and shine of a bullet), properties which seem to depend on nothing, does not mean that we may treat quantum particles in the same manner.

As to the anisotropy in time, I can but speculate. If new galaxies keep being created everywhere, at all distances, but we see on average more young galaxies at larger distances, and (if and when) quasars and GRB's mainly occur in an early phase of the evolution of galaxies, then this might explain why they are more numerous at higher redshifts. Another possibility may be that if the black-hole like objects at the centers of galaxies are more massive in heavier and/or more compact clusters of galaxies, then these hole-like objects may power more violent phenomena. So perhaps the clusters in our near neighborhood as yet aren't massive enough? I don't know. I only know that the big bang scenario doesn't make any sense at all as it treats the universe as an ordinary object which evolves as a whole, at a pace determined by the watch of its creator.

In your previous reaction you wrote about a cyclical universe: I assume you mean a universe which alternates between big bangs and crunches, so we live 14 billion years after the bang, and x billion years before the next crunch. However, if there's no overarching 'Über Universe' in which a hypothetic observer may witness an alternation of big bangs and crunches, the energy liberated at the crunch being the stuff the universe starts with at the next bang, then this still doesn't answer the question as to its origin, how it was created without violating conservation laws. In my essay I sketch how a universe can create itself out of nothing without violating any conservation law, without needing any kind of bang (see for an alternative explanation for the 2.8 K background radiation my UPDATE 2 post at my thread).

As to the 2nd law of thermodynamics: if we could isolate the particles within a system completely from any interaction with the outside world, from the energy exchange by means of which they preserve and express their properties, then we would annihilate them, in which case it wouldn't make any sense to speak about the inside entropy. The same holds for the universe as a whole: as it doesn't exist, has no physical reality as a whole, it cannot have any particular entropy as a whole. The 2nd law only holds for systems which are closed to any net energy in- or outflow, but allows the energy exchange between the particles within the system and the outside world to continue. Only of a big bang universe which necessarily, implicitly must have been created by some outside intervention, which exists, has particular properties with respect to that creator, we might ask how much energy it contains, how large or how old it is and what its entropy is. The price we pay for believing in this naïve, religious view on the universe is very high: it affirms our classical, false notion that particles only are the source of their interactions. By clinging to the bigbang tale, to the idea that particle properties are independent from their interactions, we make them incomprehensible. The result is that we condemn ourselves to invent unnecessary, nonsensical hypotheses and theories like cosmic inflation, string theory and fictitious (Higgs) particles. Being the product of fundamental misconceptions, intended to solve or (weep under the carpet) the many problems and inconsistencies of the bang tale, such theories and particles are part of the problem, not of its solution. The result of these misconceptions is that one contradictory theory breeds the next inconsistent theory to appear consistent itself. As the bigbang scenario cannot explain the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe (unlike a self-creating universe which automatically, unavoidably produces this homogeneity and isotropy), it needed an inflation theory to repair this fundamental shortcoming. This theory, in turn, cannot answer fundamental questions as to its mechanism, who/what determined the time to start the inflation, its rate, and when to stop. I'm sure someone will come up with a theory to 'explain' this, a theory which in turn will prove to evoke more questions than it solves, and thus needs another theory to explain its inconsistencies away, etcetera. I like to think that my essay offers a way out of the present stalemate. As to the magnificent Maxwell laws, they certainly remain valid: it is only our present, outdated interpretation of what charge is which needs revision.

Regards, Anton

and my response was:

Dear Anton,

After reading your last comment, I don't believe you fully read my essay.

You wrote: " if particles create each other, if they preserve and express their properties by continuously exchanging energy, then they would vanish if we could cut off this exchange like the image on a TV screen when we pull its plug".

I completely agree with this statement. This is why I proposed the FPC, so that particles aren't seen as just their own source. But in that principle, I referred to the universe as a whole, and that is IMO where you must have lost my meaning. By reading the entire essay you missed the most profound part, that is of the role of the BHs in the creation cycles of the universe! The universe doesn't contract in a Big Crunch (that would violate second law), but as it expands the mass-energy that was lost to BHs is eventually recovered in the new cycle. My model actually gives your model a mechanism for self-creation!

Your statement above is exactly why I proposed that mass-energy doesn't actually "fall into" a BH, as orthodox BH theory indicates, because it ceases to have any distinguishable meaning at the event horizons. This makes it a local boundary of the cosmos. I know it's against your philosophy, that the universe can have boundaries, so how does your model deal with BHs and the mass-energy that is lost to them? The universe can have boundaries *and* can still have the self creating aspects in which you embrace.

When I was constructing my model, I asked myself, is the universe in a continual mode of creation? I came to the conclusion that it had to be cyclical due to 1) constancy of a finite velocity of light for all observers in the universe, 2) the simplest explanation for redshift is cosmic expansion, 3) the isotropic distribution of unusual astronomical objects only at high red-shift; and I determined that most of the SMBHs in the universe are in a "white hole" mode currently (as in right now), but they only reveal this mode to extremely distant observers (i.e. in the extreme distant future)! This mode is then followed by the quasar/GRB mode and a galaxy forming mode all in the subsequent cycle. This model explains a lot of phenomena. Can your model explain why there are two separate sets of empirical correlations between SMBHs and their galaxies? Does your model give an elegant alternative hypothesis for dark matter? This is what you missed if you didn't read the whole essay.

Perhaps I didn't word like you would have, but if you re-read my essay and look past the statements that you disagree with, you may just see the beauty in it.

Dan

Sir,

We are extremely grateful to you for raising some vital questions and giving us an opportunity to explain them.

In our essay we have described the meaning of "the object is in superposition of all possible states". Since all objects are continually evolving in time, and since we cannot know the true state of an object except for the instant we measured its state, we combine all other "unknown" states together and call it as "the object is in superposition of all possible states". This is different from the commonly accepted view.

You say: "Particles (and the objects they form) owe their rest energy to each other, so the energy two particles have according to each other equals the frequency of their exchange. The total energy of a particle WE measure is the sum, the superposition of all the frequencies it exchanges energy at with every other particle within its interaction horizon."

But how do you "know" or "measure" it? As we have described elsewhere, when some object is placed in a field, the object experiences something else. This something else is a kind of force. Depending upon the nature of such interaction, the force is classified into different groups. The particles don't interact with each other directly. Each interacts with the field, which, in turn gets modified locally due to such interaction. When other particles interact with this modified field, they experience a different force than that they would have experienced in the absence of the other particle. This is what we call the effect of one particle interacting with the other particle or how the particle "sees" the other particle. It is dependent on the distance between the two also (not alone). But what we measure is not observer independent. The location of the observer with reference to the particle introduces different uncertainties changing the values for the observer, though apparently it does not affect how a particle evolves in time (it affect in other subtle ways). There is no way to isolate the particles and measure their energy independently. Till now we have not been able to isolate a single proton or neutron from their environment to measure its charge directly. We have derived theoretically their charge, which shows that the magnitude of positive charge of proton is less than that of the negative charge of electron and that neutron is slightly negatively charged. This has to be experimentally verified.

Since no object is ever at rest, there is nothing as rest energy. What you describe as the rest energy is the effect of the total energy within the confinement that makes the particle stable by canceling the effect of each other. This gives the particle a particular density. When the density of the field is different from this density, the particle interacts with the field as a whole. This is known as its rest energy, which is divided by c^2 to give the rest mass. This varies from particle to particle - though apparently it is the same for similar particles as judged from their effect on other bodies in their surroundings. But then the effect will be different in different surroundings. For example, we require different amounts of force for displacing a plate kept in isolation on the table and a similar plate kept under a pile of plates. Similarly, the effect of quarks on its surrounding will be different from the effect of protons, neutrons and electron on their surroundings. If we compare their energy, we will get misleading information.

You are absolutely correct that "By assuming that their mass only is the source of their interactions, we make it impossible to understand what mass is." Properties depend upon the composite structure of the particle. These are exhibited independently or through interactions (like mass and weight). They should not be considered ib isolation for judging their effect. While considering their effect, we have to consider the totality of all effects. But then if one description is defective, that does not make the whole object non-existent. Big bang is not a proper theory. But explained properly, it has some basis.

A wave is a disturbance created due to the interaction of various forces acting on the field. We do not accept the wave function or its collapse, as there is no proof to accept such theories and the interactions can be explained by simpler methods. It is not true that the particle repeats in every cycle all possible energies. The particle either retains its position in the field while the wave passes by (planets in the solar system) or the particle moves with the field (planets move with the Sun in the galaxy). You are absolutely correct that "Though different observers then will, as a rule, find it in different states, if all observers repeat the same experiment over and over, they all find the same probability distribution of results." We treat planetary orbits as ellipses. But in reality, these are circular with the center (Sun) shifting continuously giving it an elliptical appearance. In effect, the ellipse is never closed. Thus, though the Kepler's laws give the proper position of planets, if we check back on the data collected by Tycho Brahe, which was used by Kepler to formulate his laws, we will find that the data do not match the theoretical prediction of the planets for those epochs.

You are correct that "Quantum particles, however, completely coincide with their function, their existence cannot be distinguished from their action, so they are not observable but in the effect of their existence." But then this is the difference between quantum particles and macro particles. Quantum particles are not small particles, but particles that unite with other particles to submerge their independent identity and create a particle of entirely different characteristics. Macro particles are a mixture of the atoms and molecules that retain their independent identity while creating new substances by various combinations. You confirm this when you say: "QED treats the proton as a fundamental, rather than a composite particle, but nonetheless can predict experimental results to an extreme accuracy, indicates that quark properties are not separately observed."

When the colliding energy is high enough, the reverse process starts and the quarks separate out, which shows their individual properties. You have correctly told that "If a particle only exist if and when its presence is expressed in identifiable interactions, can be observed or inferred from effects." But you have put it in the wrong sequence. When a particle exists its presence is expressed in identifiable interactions and can be observed or inferred from its effects on other bodies. The creation of a new particle can be in two ways as explained by you: "at high energy collisions and other violent events like supernovae explosions." These are opposite processes. At high energy collisions, the confinement of some objects is broken partially or fully leading to release of some energy. This leads to formation of a particle with higher mass or breaking up of the particles to its constituents. In the case of supernova, the confinement of all particles are broken and the entire energy is released till the interaction with the local medium slows them down and the inertia of restoration keeps the remnants intact. This does not prove that: "In that case we cannot say that baryons are built out of quarks."

Regarding multiverses, we agree with the definition "a hypothetical space or realm consisting of a number of universes, of which our own universe is only one." In our theory, the origin of our Universe necessitates the origin of multiverses. We will discuss it separately. It is true that they cannot communicate with each other. Only if our Universe exists, it follows that other Universes must exist. But the mechanism of their creation makes them incommunicado with each other. We accept that "things inside of it only exist to each other as far as they interact and have no reality outside their interactions" because that is how the objects are perceived - through their interactions that is intelligible and communicable. This is our definition of reality in our Essay. Regarding spin, we will discuss separately.

We stand by our statement that: "All bodies are created from the same fundamental particles." We have discussed it partly above to show that your inference may not be correct. You say: "If particles have to create themselves out of nothing, without any outside assistance, and have nothing to know with how to go about creating one another, then they'd hardly pop up in a flash with all properties fine-tuned to the last detail as the Big Bang tale has it. Instead, we may expect a trial-and-error process: whatever combination of particles, properties, exchange frequencies, mass ratio's, spins and kinds of behavior works in certain circumstances survives, as long as these circumstances last."

You have correctly answered this problem: "Though as particles create each other, they also create the environment to prosper in, once they master the trick to keep existing, they cannot but keep contracting, evolving in steps, through many detours, eventually to objects of ever-increasing mass density. Every step towards a denser particle configuration further reduces their freedom to act as they like: if particle properties, exchange frequencies are to survive, then destructively interfering frequencies (or associated virtual particles) must be got rid of, radiated away." But your conclusions are not fully correct. We have a detailed theory for this, which we will discuss separately.

We do not accept virtual particles. We have a name for what may be its equivalent, but is real. We call it "Rayi". We interpret your statement "their transition to real ones doesn't leave a recognizable footprint radiation, unlike the H H = He reaction, which likewise is an equilibrium reaction." differently. The H H = He reaction is not an equilibrium reaction like H H = 2H, because He has two additional neutrons over and above the two Hydrogen atoms. However, we can derive He from H H with "Rayi".

We agree with you that: "Neutrons and protons then can knit each other to atomic nuclei by exchanging electrons, by alternating their identity, their distance, spin and motion adjusted in such a manner that, within a large but limited temperature scale, their resonance is preserved." The problem with modern science is their total acceptance of the Coulomb's law. As we have hinted elsewhere, we do not accept it and explain charge behavior differently. In our model, the apparent attraction of opposite charges and repulsion of similar charges are explained differently. This also explains how protons and quarks of similar charge co-exist without invoking any additional binding energy. We will discuss about it separately.

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Dan and Anton,

Your discussion is quite interesting.

Perhaps you guys will find my essay interesting in relation to the ideas you are discussing. My essay is about the idea of motion transformations instead of the idea of space-time transformations.

I treat particles and waves, mass and fields as motion constructs. In my discussions I've explained a genesis formula that I derived according to the idea of motion transformations.

Rafael

Dear Readers,

There are three kinds of essays in our contest: 1) the essays with original physics research where all physics' information was created by their authors. Often such papers contain some errors or unclear propositions because it is very difficult to create a NEW physical theory (information). 2) There are essays-stories about physics which contain physics' information copied from the physics' textbooks or papers (for example authors Jarmo Makela, Singh, Durham, Funakoshi and so on). The author's commentaries like ''this theory is good, or not'' is neither original physics research nor new physics' research. These essays-stories cannot have any errors by definition because all physics' information was copied from the textbooks and other papers. 3) There are essays of mixed type containing mixed information (original research physics' information copied from the textbooks and papers). It is clear that the authors of the essays-stories have advantages because their essays never contain errors since all Physics' information was copied from the textbooks or other published papers. However, it does not mean these essays-stories are better than essays with original research.

What kind of the essay must FQXi community support? If we support the essays-stories then we'll transform FQXi community into the entertainment community. For example, instead of my ''interpretation of quantum mechanics'' I could send the anecdotes about Bohr, Einstein or stories like Gamov's ''Mr.Tompkins in paperback''. It would be very interesting and fun. Another option is to create essays-discussions with Einstein, Bohr, or Aristotle following the example of Jarmo Makela. In this context, the next logical step is to organize a banquet for the authors of essays where we tell jokes and funny stories about physics. What is Our Purpose?

However, since the goals of the FQXi (the "Contest") are to: Encourage and support rigorous, innovative, and influential thinking about foundational questions in physics and cosmology; Identify and reward top thinkers in foundational questions, therefore I ask readers to vote for essays with original physics research rather than for essays-stories even if the first may contain some unclear information. In this way we'll encourage the fundamental physics research but not entertainment essays.

Sincerely,

Constantin

Costantin,

I would say that I completely agree. I admit to enjoying the essays of which you are referring, but I haven't rated any essays yet, because I wanted to read them all, which is quite a chore, and then determine the "most qualified" to get the highest scores. Since reading all of the essays is so time consuming, I'll wager that a good number of the community hasn't and won't read them. So is the community rating system appropriate since an essay needs to be within the top 35 to be presented to the judges? Many of the essays that provide fundamentally novel ideas are typically more difficult to fully understand than with just "a brief look". Thank you for helping me determine which essays deserve the best scores. I only hope that those in the community that haven't rated essays yet will read your comments before doing so.

Best Regards,

Dan

Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 10:00 GMT

Dear Anton,

Probably you mean the ''Black Holes'' by the word ''holes'', since I don't found any mention about my vacuum holes in your thread. There is a considerable difference between the orthodox notion of the Black Holes and my vacuum holes.

You wrote in this post ''the speed of light isn't a velocity but rather a property of spacetime''.

By definition, the velocity is the rate and direction of the change in the position of an object. For example, since light travels a distance ct during the time t, it is in agreement with the definition of the velocity.

I can add another flaw in the Black Hole theory: according to the theory, the magnetic field is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. Since the light (virtual photons) cannot escape from a black hole, therefore the Black Holes cannot have the magnetic fields.

Sincerely,

Constantin

Dear Anton,

We can speak about the velocity of the photon with respect to its source and receiver. For example, if the photons were emitted by a star and then hit our detector, then we can speak about the velocity of the photons with respect to the star and detector.

Since the photon has no mass or charge, it cannot express its presence to the objects with respect to which it is supposed to move: having no mass, it cannot have a position. If it doesn't interact, exist to these objects nor the environment to the photon, then it makes no sense to speak about its velocity as there's nothing with respect to which it moves.

The photon has ENERGY, and therefore it curves the spacetime, according to GR. Therefore, a beam of photons curve the spacetime and interact gravitationally with the objects with respect to which it is supposed to move. You see during a solar eclipse that the stars along the same line of sight as the Sun are shifted. It is because the light from the star behind the Sun is bent toward the Sun and the Earth.

Since we assume that the universe evolves as a whole with respect to some clock outside of it, we assume the emission of the photon to (causally) precede its absorption elsewhere, according to that clock.

1) There is neither matter nor clocks outside of the Universe. 2) You try to introduce the Absolute Time measured by God-like clocks placed outside of the Universe. Remember, the Universe has no Absolute Time, no absolute frame of reference, and no absolute space. All is relative.

If particle A emits a photon which is absorbed by B, a transmission changing the state of both A and B, then A sees the state of B change at the time it emits the photon, whereas B sees the state of A change as it absorbs the photon.

''If particle A emits a photon which is absorbed by B...'' if you describe the EPR paradox then this description is not correct; Also, Quantum teleportation transmits quantum state only but not photons or energy, and this teleportation is not instantaneous. The initial photon is destroyed and then is recreated in the finish place.

I agree with you in sense that there are some problems with causality in quantum mechanics, in consequence of its inability to provide descriptions of the causes of all actually observed effects.

Sincerely,

Constantin

Anton,

"If I understand your term 'cosmic time' correctly, then black holes are much older than the 14 billion years of light-emitting objects: the heavier, the older they are."

In general I would agree with this statement. There is no method to actually determine the age of a BH. For example, an IMBH could have a recent origin from the merging of two or more less massive BHs or it could be quite old. I would say that most SMBHs are old.

"As to fairy tales..."

You should read the third reference from my essay, I think you would really enjoy it. Here a copy of the reference and the link: [3] American Scientist, September-October 2007, Volume 95, Number 5, Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale?, by Michael J. Disney, http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2007/9/modern-cosmology-science-or-folktale

"So I find it hard to learn and use the lingo of the present paradigm without succumbing to the same errors."

I meant that in response to your statement: "I admit that I haven't understood you essay completely because my knowledge of GR is very limited."

GR is fundamental. IMO, it has some misinterpretations that have lead to incorrect understanding in cosmology and BH theory. These misinterpretations are what I'm exposing in my theories.

"I had no other choice but to try to re-invent physics, starting from the assumption that QM and relativity theory describe the engineering principles of a self-creating universe."

You've done a more than admirable job in presenting an alternative. But, my essay would be more comprehendible with a better understanding of GR. How do you know if your lack of GR knowledge hasn't caused you to omit something from your theory? That's all I was implying.

Dan

Anton

Brilliant essay! Absolutely the right approach, ..to science as well. Reality is essential, and it's about time we left wonderland. 10 points doesn't say it!

I've found a door.... It's near where you envisaged it would be, ...it's astonishing, and proves you correct. It's all in my essay, which has masses conceptually in common with yours. You may enjoy the string too, including identifying particular departures from reality at fault (i.e. the real 'body' x,y and z were once attached to!).

I'm doing very well so far, and consistent with Edwins leading 'Cfield' and Regazas real maths which you should like, also Georgina P (Reality) and others.

Best of luck

Peter

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.