Dear Sir,

We are not interested in the prize. We are concerned the way science is heading. It is not a question of being sportsman-like when spot-fixing is ruining the game. It is not a question of being magnanimous when fraudulent activities are condoned. We believe not opposing a wrong is equal to committing a wrong. Kindly point out if we have written anything wrong. If not, please join us in protesting wrong doing.

Regards,

basudeba.

Michael ,

it is very interesting to hear your point of view. As you have said "there are many ways to skin a cat". Which has now given me the wonderful mental picture of the FQXi judges surveying the suspended skins and naked cat bodies to select the final winners. Are they looking for a neat dissection using formal, traditional technique or informal enthusiasm demonstrating creative flare and style or raw unconventional talent; perhaps the fur already shaped into mittens and a pile of mince? It is clear that some contestants merely managed to give their cats a nasty surprise. (If the contestants have also escaped unharmed is yet to be ascertained.)

There is another saying, "Horses for courses". One would not expect a champion steeple chaser to also perform as an excellent trotting horse or vice versa. It is not logical to say that because the trotting horse does not perform well at the hurdles he is incapable of being the very best trotting horse possible. If a stable of top performing race horses are required then ponies, heavy horses, 3 day eventing and trotting horses have no place. But if all round excellence is sought then the scope for choice is much greater.

4 days later

You don't even seem to realize that we are all oon the same side here, thru purest billigerence..

Even if I could point to an error of yours, sir, it would have naught to do with any sort of frauduleTnt activites due to the Community. There is certainly no position-fixing.

!

Please read the Rules carefully, sir, for there you shall be illumined as to the other portion of the Position-number you speak of. And that is RElevance. That is yet to be Judged! How relevent is your Essay and your Threads as a Body of work entire?

We are of Peace Always,

T

lol

Hello Russel,

Sandy Denny's beautiful voice is a hard act to follow. Though I do like "We have all the time there is." It works on many levels. Thank you. I can also think of many occasions when it would be useful to remember it.

Perhaps time has just been too baffling, and so has not been given as much thought as it has deserved over the last 100 years. Many people just seem to give up and say "we can't understand it, so why bother thinking about it?"

It does not seem to be any -thing- at all of itself. Even aging is being gradually deciphered as various structural material changes rather than inevitable, irreversible, process linked to time. Which seems to make time a very valuable, irreplaceable, nothing, which is still not as generally thought provoking as it ought to be...

Kind regards, Georgina.

That is an incredible song! It communicates that our true reality may be in the relationships with those around us. Thank you for posting the link! And, good points about aging not being purely linked to time.

What actually produces time is a different kind of reality. No one knows for sure, but there is an interesting idea worth exploring. Perhaps in the last 100 years we have had the data to define time all along, and there may be yet another angle that can help figure it out. I'm thinking specifically of the well-known mass-energy equation, E = mc2. If we look at the units of c2, they are length2/time2 -- the units of motion. The mass could be considered a scalar modifying a maximum possible motion.

Now if we change our view a little more, we might consider c2 to be a potential within the quantum vacuum that actually drives the motion of mass, which is made of particles with internal motion, to produce energy. If this is an accurate viewpoint, the potential then defines length and time.

Surprisingly, Einstein's equation could help explain quantum mechanics after all as the potential drives internal particle motion. What defines the potential? That could possibly be the limitation of what can be known in physics.

Well, I don't know, but that gives a simplified idea. There are so many aspects of how to look at reality. Your link to the song provides a great example of that.

Kind regards, Russell

I am posting this here as I put it in the wrong place on the Digital or Analogue thread and do not want it just getting lost. I think it might be useful. I would appreciate any constructive feedback.

Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 3, 2011 @ 20:51 GMT

Talking of terminology past, present, and future are insufficient and confusing as terms in physics imo. They refer to space time experience which can be different for each observer, according to reference frame. The relative quality of those terms is often not fully appreciated and the present may be assumed to be and used as if singular and absolute when it is not. How can this be improved. My current thoughts are ...

There needs to be the equivalent of a future which is nothing but potential and probability, nothing existing that has been actualized, P.stage (Potential, probability). Then there needs to be actualising reality. This is where spatial material changes occur sequentially, the causality front, or unitemporal time. A.Stage,(Actualisation). Then comes the receipt of the data from the actualised reality, giving a manifest appearance. This is the equivalent of the present, which is different for each observer due to different transmissions delays for each reference frame and position, M stage(Manifestation); and then the stage of storage of events in memories or data banks etc. The equivalent of the past. R stage,(Records).

Quantum physics is dealing more with P and A stage but trying to relate it to M stage. Relativity is dealing with M stage and R stage and does not assume any P stage or A stage , as everything, past, present and future is modeled to co exist in space-time.As it is using individual observer experience of manifest reality for the model.

The sequence is P, A , M, R. Potential, Actualisation, Manifestation, Records. As data accumulates in R it can be seen to build up but is not building up -from- there. The only place where material spatial change is occurring is at A, the receipt of data giving M stage is also occurring within A.

To tie in with John's point, does tomorrow become yesterday? Yes because tomorrow is first potential and probability, then actualized events, then manifest events and then records of events. Does yesterday become today -no not really. What still exists from yesterday is part of today. It was actualised and has remained actualized so it is a continuation rather than a becoming.It may exist both in R and at A because it was formerly actualised and manifest and is still actualised.

    Actualisation has to come before manifestation because data must be transmitted to the detector, (which is not instantaneous) and then the manifest reality must be formed by the observer from the received data, (which is not instantaneous). The manifestaion that is observed is created by the observer from the received data and does not prexist that occurrence.(Cf. wave function collapse.) The actualised but unobserved reality must preexists the observed manifestation enabling data to be available from which the manifestation of reality is formed.

    Relativity is only concerned with the manifestation of reality, so can not account for such things as causality, non determinism, it does not have an open future.Quantum physics is concerned with probabilities becoming actualized and manifest reality and does not fit with space time. It is dealing with P stage becoming A stage and attempting unsuccessfully to fit with space-time M stage.

    Having the whole sequence of stages P, A , M, R, allows the relationship between QM and relativity to be seen in a new way. What is happing at the P to A stage of reality will not fit observation of the M stage, because it is not the same phenomenon at all.Sequential actualization allows passage of time. There is no passage of time in relativity as such only observer perspective giving the manifest reality.

    Russel,

    thank you so much. I am so glad to hear the words "I agree".It is a rare treat.

    Re keeping it going, a few thoughts. The expanding universe, and its cold death are ideas that have come from observation of the manifestation of reality (image reality) rather than being the object-universe at unitemporal Now. So it is a giant conceptual error imo.

    In nature the rotation of the earth, affect of the sun and moon lead to currents of air and water that give heat flows that would not be predicted for an isolated system without those inputs. Likewise in nature small changes can build into much larger ones as seen in weather systems, which might seem to be working against increase in entropy. This sort of thing makes me think that the whole object-universe may be a giant feedback loop and to abuse Newtons first law -A universe in motion continues in motion (unless acted upon by universe stopping force!)I don't think anyone is turning the handle.

    I am also interested in hearing where your wondering may have taken you.

    Dear Georgina,

    We need more agreement on the good points don't we!

    Your Potential, Actualisation, Manifestation, Records sequence makes good sense and makes a nice framework. In particular the Potential and Actualisation aspects are where my wondering has taken me. Roger Penrose is suggesting we look at existing data from new angles to see if new results natuarally fall out. It seems like that is what you are doing as well. Very interesting stuff!

    Kind regards, Russell

    Dear Russel,

    I see that your whole essay is about a preliminary theory of what "keeps it going." I am sorry I have not read it earlier. There were just too many essays to read all of them. Now that the community voting stage of the competition is over I have lost the motivation to keep on reading essays, though I know there are lots of good ideas in them.

    I will comment on your essay, on your thread, when I have had time to read it thoroughly. For now, I liked the fan analogy and the diagrams make it very clear. I have talked about a 4th dimension on this web site quite a bit, so I understand exactly why you are talking about it and why you have considered it necessary. Though my opinion has changed slightly over time. I now think it has to do with relative perspective and the 3 dimensional framework not allowing for continuous spatial change that is not directly observed. So it is quite probably a representational problem rather than an actual extra spatial dimension,imo. Anyway give me some time to carefully read and think and I will get back to you.

    Kind regards, Georgina.

    5 days later

    Thanks Georgina again for your words

    ....I am reminded of very ancient fairy tales where there is a competition for the golden apple and the winner competes with three different horses; a red one, black one and white one. The champion also gets wounded during the competition.

    Well, anyway, I look heartily towards another contest riding a horse of another color.....

    I'll leave the mince and take the mittens. Feel free to email me directly if you wish to correspond further or please suggest good essays to read etc.

    John Barrow has a very good lecture on his new book of universes, a book of hours for our times at Gresham's website. I never knew that Hubble was such a snob......and his meagre technician assistant was such a talented individual. Barrow is so interesting in that he looks into the people this way.

    Michael

    mjeub@visi.com

    I am going to try to attach a diagram which sets out the explanatory model of reality under discussion in my essay and shows how QM and relativity are related to it.It is a useful summary and helps to clarify the relationship of the ideas.

    I hope this demonstrates more clearly that this is not at all woolly or unclear thinking, or entirely abstract and irrelevant to QM or relativity.It clearly shows how the two physics models are looking at different aspects of reality and therefore can co-exist without being contradictory.

    Please excuse the homemade quality of the diagram. I could have spent longer on making a beautiful professional quality graphic but it would not convey any more information.Attachment #1: diagram002.jpg

    Dear Georgina,

    This is in response to your comments on the "Standard Model Begger" blog.

    I had posted the following statements:

    1. In a complete theory there is an element corresponding to each element of reality.

    2. QM has ONE element of reality, the wavefunction.

    3. QM addresses 'particle/wave' physics, which has ONE element of reality.

    4. 'Particle plus wave' physics has TWO elements of reality.

    5. QM cannot address BOTH elements, 'particle plus wave', with the wavefunction.

    6. If reality consists of 'particle plus wave', then QM is incomplete.

    7. If reality is 'particle plus wave', then QM arguments against it are irrelevant.

    Notes:

    a. Florin has rejected the logic of step 1, but step 1 is not a statement of logic, it is a definition.

    b. Florin claims 'particle plus wave' means Bohm's theory, but my essay describes a theory of particle plus wave and it is *not* Bohm's theory.

    c. I am sincerely interested in the above logic, which I believe to be correct. Can anyone argue these points without descending into irrelevant history or polemics. Each statement seems to stand alone. Which statement, if any, is incorrect?

    You then commented:

    Dear Edwin,

    I don't disagree with any of those statements.I have added a diagram to explain how I see QM and relativity being related to the entirety of reality, on my essay competition thread. It is easy to follow so might be accessible to the mathematically minded who dislike long verbal descriptive ramblings.

    It shows how QM relates to one facet of reality and relativity the other. The particle idea belonging with the structure of the relativity model, which is a model of the observed manifestation of reality and the wave function belonging to QM , which is a model of the unobserved reality becoming manifest. It shows how wave function collapse is related to observation. The diagram shows that both models are part of a fuller description of reality and neither is sufficient on its own.

    I think it is relevant to the discussion you are having with Florin, and would also appreciate any feedback on its structure.

    My response:

    Without reviewing all of the above discussion, I may misinterpret something, but here goes:

    It would appear that the QM wave functions in your diagram are the 'outer layer' of reality. There are many who interpret this to be true. But David Berlinski has remarked that "The wavefunction of the universe is designed to represent the behavior of the universe--all of it... Physicists have found it remarkable easy to pass from speculation *about* the wave function of the universe to the conviction that there *is* a wave function of the universe."

    He concludes that 'quantum cosmology' is a branch of 'mathematical metaphysics'.

    That fairly accurately represents my own thinking.

    From my essay you may recall that I begin with the gravitational field and attempt to derive all physics from it. The evolution of this field leads to the circulational aspect (the C-field) condensing into local particles (the particles of the Standard Model). Each particle in motion induces a gravito-magnetic circulation analogous to the way in which electric charge in motion induces an electromagnetic circulation.

    This leads to each locally real particle being inescapably accompanied by a local field with wave-like character, hence "particle plus wave". This is essentially different from the dualistic 'particle/wave' of the Copenhagen interpretation.

    Because quantum mechanics is based on the 'wavefunction' it does not describe the local particle, and must use a 'superposition' of wave functions in order to model or describe the local particle. This is only partially successful, as this wavepacket does not hold together but disperses. And when the local particle is detected in one place, it is necessary for the wavepacket to 'collapse'. Belief in this 'fictitious particle' then leads to non-locality and other 'weird' ideas. And because QM does not have an element that corresponds to the local particle, QM is incomplete. And the current reigning ideas are those that have been developed based upon this incomplete theory, but are believed by the practitioners of the QM school of faith.

    The relevance of this to your diagram, at first glance, is that the local particle plus (C-field) wave are the "Object reality" that exhibits mass, energy, charge and spin and interacts with the gravitic and electromagnetic fields. The QM wave-functions are the incomplete descriptions, interpreted as probabilities, and mistakenly assigned an objective reality by some.

    The rest of your diagram, to the extent I have studied it, appears reasonable and realistic. I may have more to say after I've had a chance to study your work in more detail.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman