• [deleted]

  • Post #18

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.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #19

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 Dan,

I admit that I haven't understood you essay completely because my knowledge of GR is very limited. I do see that your FPC in some respects is equivalent to a Self-Creating Universe. However, as in a SCU the grand total of everything in it, including space and time itself, remains nil, it cannot have a beginning as a whole, so if with cosmic time you mean the time since the bang, then you've lost me. A universe which as a whole has a beginning must have been created by some outside intervention, is a caused universe. The flaw of causality, however, is that if we understand something only if we can reduce it to a cause, and we can understand this cause only as the effect of a preceding cause etcetera, to end at some primordial cause which cannot be reduced to a previous cause, then causality ultimately cannot explain anything. For short: a universe which as a whole has a beginning cannot by definition be understood rationally, so any bigbang scenario must be wrong, however much observations seem to be in favor of it. You propose 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. [..] as it expands the mass-energy that was lost to BH's is eventually recovered in the new cycle"-

I don't believe that there's mass/energy lost to BH's. As it eats a star, the mass of the BH increases, its energy exchange with all other objects within its interaction horizon, so there's no mass lost, taken out of circulation, whereas the energy which is radiated away as the star is consumed likewise isn't lost. To explain what I mean, I'm afraid I have to sketch the mechanism of self-creation (see also the UPDATE 1 post at my thread).

If in a cloud of gas particles behave in such a manner that they always feel an equally strong force from all directions, then the force on a particle from its own cloud can only increase if it increases as much from the opposite direction, from neighboring clouds, so stars in statu nascendi only can contract in concert. The force between the particles within the stars then increases as much as it does between the stars. The result is that the energy of the particles increases, the frequency they exchange energy at, so the mass of the stars should increase as well. Though this agrees with the uncertainty principle, this is contrary to official lore according to which the mass of the cloud decreases as it contracts to a star, which agrees with the (false) assumption that the mass of particles doesn't depend on their interactions but only is their source. Whereas before contracting, the position of the mass centers of the clouds was ill-defined so the force between the clouds is weak, as they contract to stars the distance between the (mass centers of the) stars becomes less indefinite. As the force between them increases (and is as attractive as it is repulsive), their mass increases. However, if the gravitational field also increases as a cloud contracts to a stare and the field is an area of contracted spacetime, then as measured within their field, the distance between the stars in statu nascendi increases, expanding as they contract, so there's spacetime created as well as energy. So any increase, any creation of mass/energy IS a creation of a proportional quantity of spacetime: one cannot increase, be created without the other, so the contraction of matter, the creation of mass/energy powers the creation, the expansion of the universe and vice versa. However, since we calculate their distance from their positions with respect to surrounding stars, we find a smaller value than if we could measure their distance within their field, so we underestimate their mass. Though the effect of this expansion is small at the scale of stars and even galaxies, it is observable in the motion of clusters of galaxies with respect to each other, in the continuous creation of spacetime between them. This expansion then isn't a remnant of the velocity particles got at the hypothetic bigbang, but is powered by the contraction, the creation of mass/energy inside the clusters, in galaxies and stars, by the increase of the mass of more or less virtual particles to real ones as they contract to stars. This also explains why the expansion of the universe doesn't decelerate under the influence of gravity as the bigbang scenario predicts, but keeps accelerating. So in a SCU there's no need for dark energy. It is because we assume the mass of particles to be only the source of their interactions that we've come to believe that stars burn their mass, loose mass even if we ignore things like solar flares. It is the energy exchange between the particles, combined with the fact that an energy increase tends to conserve itself in time (unlike a decrease), which powers this combined contraction and expansion. Since in a SCU particles (stars, galaxies ...) move, contract in such a manner that the force they feel is equal from all directions, this automatically produces the homogeneity and isotropy we see, so here there's no need for the far-fetched cosmic inflation hypothesis the bigbang tale needs to appear to make sense itself.

Though a galaxy contracts in the sense that its stars slowly spiral towards its central BH, it is not that it starts out with a definite, finite quantity of matter as the bigbang tale has it. As stars go down the galaxy's 'drain', new particles 'crystallize' (UPDATE 1) where the gravitational field is strong enough to separate real particles from their more virtual siblings, restricting their behavior, forcing them to assume more discreet properties, energies. Whereas virtual particles have much freedom to act as they like, making their position and behavior less definite so they only interact weakly, keeping their mass small, to become real particles, to increase their rest energy to the required level, they must coordinate their behavior, limit their energy exchange to certain discrete values. By radiating the associated, disorderly frequencies, they loose much of the freedom they had as virtual particles. The same happens in as their star implodes to a neutron star or BH, though as their freedom of behavior then becomes much more limited, they'll radiate away much more energy at the supernova, in much higher frequencies.

So it is not that a part of the mass which disappears into a hole is converted to energy: this radiation actually destroys order elsewhere, while the mass of the hole increases, its energy exchange with all other masses. In the water-drain picture of a galaxy, real particles (water) then are created, separated from virtual particles (vapor) where the field is strong enough, contracting to stars, forming a 'head of foam' circling around the drain, new ones appearing as old ones go down the drain.

Whereas the rest energy of particles increases as they subsequently are part of a star, neutron star, BH, IMBH and SMBH, there's an equal energy flow in the opposite direction as in every subsequent step they radiate more disorder away. This radiation keeps empty space empty, restoring its potencies. So we have a spectrum with SMBH's at one end, where the rest energy of particles increases towards its center, the energy difference between neighboring particles smaller as their density is greater, without ever becoming zero as the hole keeps absorbing mass, at the same time by radiating disorder away, keeping empty spacetime empty. As the oscillation of the particles in a BH is more stringently coordinated as its mass is greater, it may behave in many respect as a Bose Einstein condensate. Anyhow, as far as I can see, there's no need for a cycle in this perpetuum-mobile like self-creation process. A cycle suggests (bigbang) that there's a finite quantity to go around, which it is not in a SCU which cannot stop creating itself.

The problem of black holes is that they are the product of our belief that particles have been created, that they only are the cause, the source of their interactions, which they would be in a bigbang universe: only then the force between them can become infinite. As in a SCU the force between them also is the product of their interactions, it never can become infinite, so there's no singularity at the center of what for this reason I've called Black-Hole Like Objects (BHLO's) in my essay. So there also is no infinite curvature of spacetime: though there's no limit to the curvature, to the mass and mass density of a BHLO, it always is finite: there are no singularities in a SCU. Black holes then are the product of our naïve belief that the mass of particles depends on nothing, that it only is the source of the force between them, and hence becomes infinite at infinitesimal distances.

If (as I argued in the UPDATE 2 post at my thread), the speed of light isn't a velocity but rather a property of spacetime, then we cannot say that photons cannot escape from behind the 'event horizon' of the BH, so it cannot have such a horizon either. If it would have a horizon, then gravitons similarly wouldn't be able to escape the hole and express the mass inside of it as gravity outside of it, implying a zero horizon radius. Another objection is that if the hole's field contains mass (as I argue in my essay), then the Schwarzschild equation for the horizon radius should contain a term for the distance the hole is observed from, which it doesn't. Perhaps this field mass of objects, consisting of the more or less virtual (that is: non-baryonic) particles discussed above causes the effects we summarize as dark matter?

So to me terms like 'black/white hole', 'dark energy/matter' and 'singularities' belong to the language of fairy tales, not physics. A problem with calling a quantity infinite(simal) is that this requires the speaker to omit to state with respect to what that quantity is infinite(simal). As any measurement is a comparison to some arbitrarily chosen unit, we should abstain from using these terms in physics. If they pop up in a text, then you know for sure that you've entered wonderland.

Our present confusion comes from the assumption that the mass of an object is an objective, interaction-independent property, that we treat it like a mathematical quantity, a number the size of which is undisputed, that is, doesn't depend on the 'calculation' it is used in. Though we can use the mass 'number' of an object in our equations, we too easily forget that the physical quantity mass only exists in its expression, in the interactions between objects and not as something which has a reality on its own. This is why I insist that the universe as a whole has no physical reality, why a statement like "The mass of the Universe is 1.8x10^54 kg" doesn't mean anything. As to your question

-"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"-

As indicated above, the speed of light is not a velocity (see UPDATE 2). As to the redshift argument, I have argued above that this doesn't necessarily prove any expansion (other arguments can be found in the (short) chapter 1.2 'Mass: a quantum mechanical definition' at my Quantumgravity.nl site). As to 3) and "the two separate sets of empirical correlations between SMBHs and their galaxies", I have no idea as yet. As a universe in which particles have to create each other paints a totally different picture of the universe, many phenomena (CMB, BH's, quasars, GRB's, dark energy and matter) need to be rethought before we may accept observations as proof for one hypothesis or the other.

-"The SMC views the CMB as the signature remnant of the expansion at the beginning of time, but has not adequately been able to explain the events leading to this expansion, especially the singularity. Our model incorporates the singularity as a limit in cosmic time of the previous cycle. " -

As to the CMB, this indeed is no fossil, remnant radiation but is produced at present (see UPDATE 2) As to the origin of the CMB, it obviously cannot explain any singularity if there are none. As to "not adequately been able to explain the events leading to this expansion", this seems an understatement as the bigbang model doesn't explain anything at all: it only tries to infer the state we get if we extrapolate back in time. That is, if we assume that the particles have been created at the bang with all their properties they have today, if they only are the source of their interactions.

However, if we extrapolate back in time assuming that particles create each other and don't causally precede stars and galaxies, then we get a completely different scenario, along the lines sketched above. As far as it makes sense to speak of a beginning in a SCU, this would be an indefinite state where particle masses are extremely small, their position ill defined, as would be spacetime itself.

-"Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using GR yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity."- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang 28-2-2011 In a SCU there's no break down of spacetime nor of the laws of physics: they always apply. Spacetime only is ill-defined until the energy of particles begins to increase as they contract to form more massive objects, as their mass increases, objects which in their field make positions physically different, defining, creating, expanding spacetime.

Regards, Anton

    • [deleted]

    • Post #21

    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

      • [deleted]

      • Post #22

      Author Dan T Benedict replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 19:32 GMT

      Dear Anton,

      I believe we have made much progress in understanding each others positions, and I think we are much closer in agreement than I first thought, although we still have our differences.

      You wrote: "so if with cosmic time you mean the time since the bang, then you've lost me."

      No, cosmic time only means that all mass-energy, all spacetime, everything that we define...

      view entire post

      Dear Anton,

      I believe we have made much progress in understanding each others positions, and I think we are much closer in agreement than I first thought, although we still have our differences.

      You wrote: "so if with cosmic time you mean the time since the bang, then you've lost me."

      No, cosmic time only means that all mass-energy, all spacetime, everything that we define as the universe expands and evolves together, regardless of time dilation differences due to motion or gravity, (i.e.regardless of local time).

      You quoted me: "the mass-energy that was lost to BH's is eventually recovered in the new cycle"

      This is poor wording by me. By "mass-energy that was lost", I don't mean that it was actually destroyed. As you stated, the mass of the BH increases. Agreed. More about this later, because BHs are the key to my model.

      You wrote: "Though the effect of this expansion is small at the scale of stars and even galaxies, it is observable in the motion of clusters of galaxies with respect to each other, in the continuous creation of spacetime between them."

      Agreed.

      You wrote: "... the expansion of the universe doesn't decelerate under the influence of gravity as the bigbang scenario predicts, but keeps accelerating."

      Agreed

      You wrote: "So to me terms like 'black/white hole', 'dark energy/matter' and 'singularities' belong to the language of fairy tales, not physics."

      If you want to be taken seriously, IMO you must work within the incorrect paradigm, with the given terminology, and explain why your theory/model/paradigm is better than the status quo. The burden is on us to convince those who accept the Standard Model that a better model exits. My understanding of the 'black/white hole', 'dark energy/matter' and 'singularities' is different the Standard Model, but I'm going to rejected, without any consideration, if I refer to them as "fairy tales, not physics".

      Let's return to BHs, because they are fundamental. This how I explained it to a friend on the "time travelers" blog: "What do you think the expansion of the universe is? It's a form of anti-gravity. Gravity is not the major influence on the universe on the large scale, expansion is. Think in terms of your frequency shifted photons, how long does it take for them to cross the event horizon for a observer outside of the BH's sphere of influence? It takes until the end of the universe! Now, if the universe is undergoing an accelerated expansion, what is happening to the frequency of the photons that are waiting to cross the event horizon for a observer outside of the BH's sphere of influence? The photons are having their frequency shifted in opposition to the gravity of the BH! If you wait long enough BH's will no longer be perfect sinks, but perfect sources, that is until they receive the feedback from other BHs (that are in the same state) which will transition them all back once again to perfect sinks. This is the mechanism for a eternally expanding cyclical universe."

      As for what I refer to as the singularity, it is a time in the history of the universe, when viewed from a long distance, therefore in the extreme distant future, the universe (if we were able to observe it at its most distant past), appears point-like. It never was a point in the mathematical sense (as in the BBT), it would only appear point-like compared to the vastly expanded universe we presently inhabit. This has a very different meaning than that of the BBT.

      You wrote: "As to the CMB, this indeed is no fossil, remnant radiation but is produced at present (see UPDATE 2)"

      I'm sure I will have to disagree with you on this, but before I respond I will read your update.

      Finally, you admitted: "I admit that I haven't understood your essay completely because my knowledge of GR is very limited."

      Even the experts have difficultly with the mathematics of Einstein's Equations, because they are very difficult to solve and obtain exact solutions! That doesn't mean that you can't learn the concepts of GR and then use them against those who prefer the status quo. Those of us who would like to see the Standard Model replaced could always use another ally, but as I stated previously, IMO you won't be taken seriously, unless you work within the incorrect paradigm to change it.

      Dan

      • [deleted]

      • Post #23

      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

      • [deleted]

      • Post #24

      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 Leshan,

      ''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.''

      We can only speak about the velocity of an object with respect to objects if and when it interacts with them as it moves. 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. This is why to the photon itself its transmission is instantaneous: it bridges a spacetime distance in no time at all even though an observer measures a time equal to that space distance. (All interactions the photon is supposed to be involved in as travels, all Feynman diagrams of all possible interactions with virtual electrons, positrons and photons, are actually taken care off at the photon source and receiver.) The idea of a photon as some kind of bullet buzzing from a light source to some random target across spacetime is a classical notion of what in actually is a purely quantum mechanic phenomenon. 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.

      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. (That is, unless B after absorbing the photon sends back a message to A to confirm the receipt of the photon, a thank-you-note saying that A can from this moment start to see B in its new state). Whereas according to A and B the transmission is instantaneous, having no mass, to the photon there's no space nor time distance between A and B so to the photon its transmission also is instantaneous. Since to a massive observer A and B are separated in space and thus in time, he measures a transmission time equal to their distance. So if there's no time, no clock outside the universe to determine what in an absolute sense precedes what, then we cannot say that either A or B is the cause of the transmission, which is a requisite to be able to speak about a velocity. We can, therefore, only speak about a velocity if it is smaller than c. The difference is that at velocities < c, a bullet may miss the intended target, whereas at the 'speed' of light, the bullet only can be shot if and when it hits the target. For a photon to be emitted, transmitted requires the cooperation of the receiver, so quantum mechanics at heart is non-causal, which is why it seems so strange. The flaw of causality, however, is that if we understand something only if we can reduce it to a cause, and we can understand this cause only as the effect of a preceding cause etcetera, to end at some primordial cause which by definition cannot be understood, then causality ultimately cannot explain anything. More over time and causality you can find in my UPDATE 2 post above (Feb. 8).

      Regards, Anton

        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

        Dear Dan,

        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.

        "Gravity is not the major influence on the universe on the large scale, expansion is."

        As to fairy tales, in my essay (and posts to your forum) I try to show that gravity is responsible for both the contraction of masses, the creation of energy at one scale and the simultaneous creation, the expansion of spacetime between the mass concentrations: they are the two sides of the same coin. In my view (weak) gravity powers or is powered by this expansion so we need no dark energy to explain why that expansion doesn't slow down. It is only the bigbang tale which needs inflation and dark energy to keep standing.

        As to paradigm's, I think that a lot of theories have been built upon some fundamental misconceptions, theories on which have been built more theories, the latter theories granting the former ones a false respectability nobody dares to doubt anymore. So I find it hard to learn and use the lingo of the present paradigm without succumbing to the same errors. If to dispute the present paradigm requires me to learn it, to believe in assumptions which to me are misconceptions, then I cannot from within that paradigm attack it: I can only ignore it or point to the many contradictions it contains. As I've become suspicious about many statements of present physics, 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. I find it easier to start afresh, to try a different approach since following the beaten path apparently hasn't led to any useful idea. As far as I'm concerned, string theory and the Higgs boson are useless as the problems they are supposed to solve are based on some fundamental misconceptions. To study, to learn all the intricacies of these theories knowing that they won't solve anything but are part of the problem, to me seems a waste of time.

        Regards, Anton

        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

        Dear Constantin,

        As to the eclipse, it is not light which bends around the Sun but spacetime itself which is curved and affects the physical relation between the distant star and the observer. To the photon itself, its path would be perfectly straight if not for the fact that to the photon there is no path, no spacetime distance between the points it is transmitted. If to the photon itself it doesn't interact as it is transmitted, then we cannot insist that it does. Its transmission doesn't consist of three separate, independent events, its emission, its voyage and its (accidental) absorption somewhere else, but is a single event. If 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. Though to us the moment when A sees B change and when B sees A change don't coincide in time, it nevertheless it is a single event taking no time at all. To A its own change doesn't precede that of B, nor sees B change itself before or after it sees A change. Only if we assume that there is a God-Clock, an Absolute Time we can determine in an absolute sense what precedes what, is cause of what, and only then can we interpret the speed of light as a velocity. Without such a clock it is just a property of spacetime, how many meters correspond to how many seconds. In my essay I have repeatedly emphasized that there is no such clock.

        As to a photon curving spacetime: according to GR energy only is a source of gravity if and when it can be assigned a position, like I argued in my essay: the energy of a (massive) particle likewise depends on the definiteness in its position. Since the speed of light can be defined as that 'velocity' at which the position of a particle is completely indefinite so it cannot express its energy in interactions, act upon anything, a photon cannot curve spacetime. Another reason why photons cannot, should not interact, is that for photons to be able to transmit force between two particles, they must be impervious to influences which may affect that force, which is why it has no mass, why it isn't delayed by interactions as goes about its business, why it has the 'speed' of light. We should reserve the term 'velocity' for motions proceeding at v < c, for classical situations where causally applies. Though we can describe the propagation of light as if it has a velocity, we should keep in mind that it is a non-causal QM phenomenon. Spacetime is curved by mass, by the continuous energy exchange by means of which particles express and preserve each other's energy, not by photons. This, by the way, is not to say that we cannot predict where and when we can intercept a photon, that is, make the source produce photons for our detector. We should not think about photons as some kind of bullets buzzing through spacetime, as if the state of the source particles can change before that of the absorbing particles, 'before' according to the God-Clock. Unfortunately causality itself cannot exist without such clock, so if we reject Absolute Time (as we must if we are to practice physics instead of metaphysics), then we should discard causality. Though events certainly are related, we shouldn't waste time on irrelevant questions as to what is cause of what. So to say that ''there are some problems with causality in quantum mechanics'' seems to me a gross understatement. I'm well aware that what I propose is completely different from the present consensus about what photons are, so I can imagine your confusion.

        I do not describe the EPR paradox with the above AB sketch. In an EPR experiment (like those of Anton Zeilinger) which entangles two photons, the light source (the particles to emit the photons) at all times is informed about the direction of the polarisation filter in the detector as it continuously exchanges energy with all particles of the setup. So if the source keeps producing pairs of entangled photons, then any photon with the right polarisation to pass the detector filter and be detected is produced together with a photon with the opposite polarisation. As the information about the detector already is present at the source at the time of the emission, there's no need for signals traveling instantaneously from the detector to the other photon which then is thought to assume the appropriate polarisation. It already is produced at the source with that polarisation, so no info is transmitted faster than light and there's no teleportation of Q states. The idea of teleportation originates in the belief that there is a God Clock, in the outdated, 19th century idea that speed of light is a velocity.

        Regards, Anton

        6 days later

        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

        8 days later

        • [deleted]

        • Post #31

        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.

        10 months later

        As a last remark, I am surprised that nobody (as far as I know) ever remarked that adding a decimal to the Planck constant and subsequently settimg it equal to 1 in our equations, actually comes down increasing the magnification power of our 'microscope' with a factot 10, so if the Planck length would be an absolute minimum length (which I argue it is not), then with every new decimal we add to it, we decrease this 'minimum' distance.

        If there is no reason why there ever should come an end to the number of decimals we can add to the Planck constant, then there can be no minimum distance.

        Write a Reply...