Our Analog Universe by James A Putnam

James,

It's good to see you here. I agree with you that continuity and unity are the reality.

You say that "scientific understanding of the universe requires analyzing the universe as a unified whole." I agree and attempt to do so in my essay by assuming that the universe 'began' as a single continuous field that evolved only through awareness of itself, since in my theory there was nothing else in existence to be aware of or influence the evolution.

You both begin and end your essay with a focus on 'control': "To vary or not to vary both require control" and "Its means of control is omnipresent and is evidence of universal control." You end up noting "...universal control unquestionably exists..."

It's interesting that the key equation (8) in my theory describes the circulation of the C-field [Maxwell/Einstein 'gravito-magnetic field] induced by either local momentum or change in gravity or both. Obviously these three terms must have the same dimensional units and of course they do--each term ends up being expressed as L/T^3, Length over Time cubed.

Physicists are quite used to terms such as M = mass, L/T = velocity, ML/T = momentum, ML^2/T^2 = energy, and L/T^2 = acceleration, but physicists don't normally use L/T^3.

But engineers often use this term. They call it 'control'.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

I made some points that I think do not rely upon theoretical physics. The point about control, I think, eliminates any possibility of true separation. So, any discontinuity is only apparent because of lack of complete information or because of the method of derivation conducted by theoretical physicists.

I felt that one should be well versed in quantum theory in order to answer the contest question from strictly a theoretical physics point of view. I can't do that yet, so, I elected to take the opportunity to introduce a few more of my own ideas and base my conclusion partly on them.

One point I made by inferrence I think is very important. It is that the use of the same energy equation for both particles of matter and photons is a theoretical error. I didn't actually state that directly, but, did take a different and I think corrective approach when deriving my energy equation for photons.

I did introduce other ideas in my first contest essay such as indicting that electric charge does not exist as a true fundamental property, and, included the equation h=kec in my second essay. None of these ideas attract serious attention. I keep feeding them out there because, they are part of a fundamentally unified theory. There is more to come in the future.

I printed off your essay to read it again. Needless to say I don't know enough to easily understand it. Its takes time for me to figure out the meaning of both words and symbols. I do that slowly, but, well enough. I will try to comment on it soon. It is a tribute to fqxi.org that someone like myself can participate, but, it is of great importance that you are here to explain your work.

James

James,

you have written a very readable and interesting essay. This competition is a useful opportunity for all of us, whatever our backgrounds, to express our ideas more fully than piecemeal comments on the blog pages. Though I could debate some of the ideas you present at length it would not be constructive to do so here.I am in no doubt that you would put up a good defense as usual. Thank you for this opportunity to understand your points of view more fully.

Dear Georgina,

In the words of Elvis Presley (This is in an artificially low tone): Thaank yuu verrry mucsh!

James

Hi James, I liked your imagery of the mechanics of structure. I've had the idea of an Archimedes screw analogy to explain the particle/wave duality paradox. Is this viable in your opinion?

Hi Alan,

The way I think about a photon is not a particle or a wave or a bundle of energy. It also is not a piece of wire; however, I think that the piece of wire models the properties of a photon very well. A photon, during its travels is affecting all other charged particles, theoretically speaking, and all charged particles are affecting the photon. A photon traveling uninterrupted through space is being changed and causing change.

In other words, I see the photon as something that exists at any point in time in a form that was determined by all of its experiences during its travel. The photon needs flexibility, either as stored information in the computer sense or as with my mechanically simple wire model.

That wire can stretch, shrink, bend, twist, even form a spiral if necessary or simply take the shape of a wavelength or part of a wavelength. For wavelengths shorter than the radius of the hydrogen atom the wire can take on the shape of a complete cycle of a wave or more. Those are the kinds of thoughts that guided me when I chose my model.

I think that anything rigid and unpliable is probably not suitable. However, I am not a physicist. So, perhaps others will weigh in and share their ideas with you.

James

I think I should say more about 'bundles of energy'. There are no bundles of energy. The reason I say this that the word 'bundles' communicates that something physical has been enveloped. There is nothing physical about energy as a fundamental property. There is force and there is resistance to force. There is time and distance. Energy began and still is the sum total of multiplying force times the distance across which it is applied. Energy is not fundamental, force is fundamental. The first question to be answered is: What is force? Without force there are no effects. That is what I think about the big E.

James

You seem to almost agree with me w.r.t the straight wire reprensenting the photon. I imagine this as the 'unravelling' of a helical structure. The thread or wire therefore has structural properties of 'bendiness', pliability, strength etc.

As to "what is force?", I think that it's simply mechanical. Look at the [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes'_screw]Archimedes screw[/link] diagram and see that the red ball represents the direction of force. Now imagine that the whole Archimedes screw is travelling towards the botton right of the screen. This then models a graviton. See what I mean?

Archimedes screw

Hi James

A nice essay, but one of two parts. I'm pleased to be able to agree entirely with the first part as it's wholly equivalent to the core concept of the Discrete Field Model, which is a releif after the frustration of all our blog discussions, and it's nice to see some maths applied to it. You'll see Don Limuti also has the same basis, and it's consistent with Edwin, Willard, Georgina etc.

This is very important as 'dissident' theories are notorious for being disparate. Each new theory in the same vein can add exponentially to the power and influence of it, so one day mainstream may take notice and Stokes (he was the first) will get the credit he deserved.

The second part I think went off in another seemingly unrelated and unfalsified direction, which you already know I'm not a strong supporter of, but I always keep an open mind, and do indeed have a slightly consistent theory about imprinting on particles pre- reionisation not being completely wiped, which i've mentioned in strings here(or was it a blog string?).

Anyway, well done, and do keep developing it, but it would be nice to see if we can stay co-ordinated.

I look forward to your comments on mine, though I gather it's too crammed with wide 'evidence' rather than expounding the core concept. Let me know what you think.

Alan;

Ref spirals; You'll find the black hole form in my essay is a Tokamak, which is a toroid with intrinsic rotation, and scaleable from atomic to above super massive, in fact I recently posted a paper which also applied it to universes! This has twin continuous counter rotating helixes, around the torus body, very analageous to archimedes screws, but unfalsifiable at that scale of course. I do however have a photo of one at Stellar mass scale (Chandra IR Core of crab Nebula). I hope that may encourage you.

Besr regards

peter

Hi Alan,

I do not follow your conclusion based upon the Archemedes screw:

"...see that the red ball represents the direction of force. Now imagine that the whole Archimedes screw is travelling towards the botton right of the screen. This then models a graviton. See what I mean?"

No I don't. I went ahead and read your essay in order to find clarification. Your essay needed much more detail and explanation. You are free here to enter the Blog's section of FQXi.org and explain your ideas in greater detail. The detail does matter. That which you see in your mind, you need to make clear to others, and, that requires detailed explanation with repetition. The repetition is not due to the lack of intelligence of others, but, rather to the necessity to fill-out your theory. Detail does matter. Mathematics does matter. Why don't you explain more at your essay forum what your view of the graviton is. Keep trying.

James

Thanks James, I appreciate your well founded comments. I know my essay is lacking in many areas, so I'm not offended by the lack of interest. It's the shear simplicity of what I'm saying which needs to be understood by simply playing with a wood screw or a cork screw. Tactileness is essential in understanding my point, rather than cerebral thinking. It's the structure of the helix which allows a force of attaction to be applied. How can a force carrying particle which moves away from fundamental partcile A and interacts with fundamental particle B be anything other than a helix configuration? It's the visualisation of the interaction at the smallest scale which can be modelled by the helical screw. Newton missed a trick imo. Einstein would never have thought of the spacetime contiuum if Newton had clicked w.r.t the graviton particle being an Archimedes screw analogy! Agghhhh..

James,

just wanted to say thank you for the tweet. I just accidentally stumbled upon it. I think that may have been what you were referring to when you said I had made the front page. (I thought you meant the blog conversation.) Anyway I really do appreciate it.

I am a little surprised by your current position. I would expect you to be higher than some of those above. (Joe Fisher's position must be an anti-establishment protest vote.) Still a month to go so things can change in that time. Though I would like to stay up with the "big boys" I do not know how long it can last. I will try to send along some more readers likely to be interested in reading your essay, if I can. Thanks again, Georgina.

James,

but how can people know if it is interesting or important to them if they do not first look? That is also how I feel about my own essay. I do not have an enticing biography to highly educated specialists. You can't sell something if you can't get the customers through the door. Well nowadays you can, but it is meant as an analogy for the competition.

I think that those who like something that is not too technical but which also looks for alternatives to current theory, developing other ways of thinking about physics, might find yours interesting. Even if they don't agree. Those that want to use only the current tool box in the prescribed manner or are more interested reporting historical development of our current understanding than developing new understanding may be less likely to want to read it.I think it is about finding -your- audience.

I think it is sensible not to be too concerned about the ratings. I certainly also feel free to speak my mind. Though I am also bearing in mind that the comments are meant to be constructive. So I do not want to be overly pedantic or nit picking. There is a huge variety of presentation styles and content, and all of the essays have some merit.

James,

I see similarities in the conclusions of our essays but I admire the detail you use in showing an analogue nature of reality.

My view of models is of representing discrete views of reality not the flow of reality itself.

Jim Hoover