Tejinder,

My approach is that you can never fully know reality in spite of models that simulate discrete points in time, but my support for this seems meager after reading your impressive essay.

Jim Hoover

Dear Tejinder,

I found your essay, with its idea of multiple layers, most fascinating! I enjoyed your discussion of quantum measurement theory and the role of stochastic fluctuations.

Best wishes,

Paul

Paul Halpern, The Discreet Charm of the Discrete

6 days later

  • [deleted]

  • Post #34

Dear Dr. Singh,

Congrats for being in top 5. It seems that winning prizes is easy and efforless for you because of your indepth knowledge and vast experience of the subject with which you skilfully deal.

Sincerely,

Sreenath.

    Dear Tejinder,

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

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

    Best wishes,

    Alan

      Thanks for your kindness Sreenath. But I am also embarrassed by what you say! We just do our bit ...

      Best regards,

      Tejinder

      Dear Alan,

      Thank you for your kind remarks.

      I would not rule out the possibility of unification via a generalized geometry - a noncommutative geometry for example. This has been developed beautifully by Alan Connes, though the connection with quantum theory remains to be achieved.

      We talked a bit about your helical screw idea earlier, if I recall right. I do not know how this can be fitted with the existing mathematical framework in physics, nor I understand why you would like to think overwhelmingly from the viewpoint of just the screw idea alone.

      Best wishes,

      Tejinder

      Thanks for the reply Tejinder. I need to do more w.r.t a simulation model of the proton and neutron in action I think.

      Best wishes,

      Alan

      3 months later

      • [deleted]

      • Post #39

      Dear Tejinder,

      Congratulations on winning a prize. I did think your multilevel consideration of reality was very interesting. Wish I could have grasped more of what you were presenting. I am glad though that the judges found what they were looking for in your essay. Well done.

        Thank you for your good wishes Georgina. It was a pleasure discussing with you.

        Cheers,

        Tejinder

        • [deleted]

        • Post #43

        Dear Tejinder,

        Congratulations. Several layers of dynamics you have put forth are similar to our levels of consciousness. Sometimes we feel we are separate from the universe and at times we will realize we are one with it. Duality is on one side of the event horizon of a black hole and singularity is inside of it. So is reality, digital from one perspective and anolog from another and semi-digital-analog as well.

        S=BM^2

        Love,

        Sridattadev.

        Write a Reply...