I've been asked to provide a graphic depicting what I mean by the "common origin" of the 3D oscillation. Here is the best I can do for now:
I'll try to improve it when I get time, but it should be good enough to convey what is meant by the common origin of the two, reciprocal, volumes that define a true point of no spatial extent and no duration.
BTW one cycle of this motion is equivalent to 4pi rotation (something inexplicable until now.
Hello Doug,
Judging by the Abstract and some comments, your essay looks very interesting. I've explored some related ideas but I'm interested in what you have to say. It would seem that you are touching on some of the constructive basis for the 0-brane, in the comment immediately above. I have argued in the past that a true point is unobservable - or not verifiably constructable - because it has no duration.
I'll have more comments here once I finish reading. You can find my essay here, and comment there if you like.
Good Luck,
Jonathan J. Dickau
Dear Doug,
The excellent book I referred to was "Theoretical acoustics" by Philip M. Morse and Ingard, Princeton Univ. Press 1986.
The Dutch outsider was Miles Mathis, perhaps alias Oostdijk, fqxi topic 595. I thought I did give you his name already yesterday. Maybe I failed to do so.
Regards,
Eckard
Thanks Eckard,
I'll check out the book. I'm familiar a little bit with Miles. He's a prolific writer. I don't think Oostdijk is an alias, but could be. You never know.
Hi Jonathan,
I'm pleased that you are interested in my essay. Let me know if I can clarify anything for you.
I took a look at yours. It's very well written. I will comment over there, when I get a chance. I noticed a lot of familiar names in your comment section - mostly from the first contest. I didn't participate much in the second one.
Good luck to you too.
Hi to both of you,
Hihihi dear Eckard, you are surprising.
Dear Doug, Mr Baez confounds the maths and the physics as many here.He mix without real physical sense.A topos here ,new signs here...but where are the rationalities???? answer anywhere for our physics.
The problem dear Doug is when the maths want use business for a kind of pseudo recognizing.
Ps dear Eckard I THINK IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAKE UNDERSTANDING TO THEM UNFORTUNALLY.
Regards
steve
In the earlier drafts of my essay, I included a chart that showed how one cycle of the 3D oscillation is equivalent to a 4pi rotation, but I had to take it out to fit the essay into the contest space requirements.
I have posted an updated copy of the essay on my website that includes the chart here.
As far as I know, this is the first time the physical and mathematical explanation of how one cycle of oscillation "around" a point of no extent can be 4pi has been given. Bruce Schumm wrote "...a particle of no extent shouldn't possess angular momentum, and the axis about which it spins shouldn't have to be rotated through 720 degrees to return the particle to its original state. We don't really have a clue about the physical origin of [quantum] spin. To describe [quantum] spin as 'intrinsic angular momentum' is like your best buddy describing how your car's differential works by explaining 'that it employs mechanical linkage;' The only useful information contained in this statement is that its author probably knows next to nothing about how a differential actually works."
Of course, I'm not saying that, because the 3D space/time oscillation is equivalent to one cycle of 4pi rotation, it is a photon or it is an electron. It's a bit more complicated than that, but what I am saying is that the physical basis for what appears to be 4pi rotation is found in the 3D space/time oscillation. To see how this concept can be employed in a preon theory of the standard model of particle physics, see here.
However, There's another, more fundamental issue being discussed in Eckard Blumshein's forum that has to do with negative numbers. Eckard rightly asserts that negative quantities don't exist physically, in the sense that we can subtract more from a quantity of entities than that which exists. For example, it's ridiculous to think that five people can leave a room of three people.
However, when we are thinking in terms of motion, or the "order of progression," the idea of negative operations is perfectly acceptable. In the case of the swinging pendulum, for example, or 2D oscillation in general, the point at zero separates the two inherent "directions," or poles, of each of the two dimensions. In the illustration I offered Eckard, we are justified in labeling these poles as positive and negative, even though there is no such thing as negative quantities.
I have elaborated on the subject in the attachment to this post.Attachment #1: More_On_3D_Oscillation.doc
I just reread your essay. I particularly like your diagrams and the linkage to the art compositional ones in my essay.
Well done.
As an aside, what is your background in mathematics? I am looking for some one to bounch a few ideas off of relative to number theory and am curious if that would be something you are interested in. I went to the LRC page to check it out and it looks pretty interesting.
If you have the time or interest respond at my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/893
Thanks Peter.
I am strictly an amateur. I don't know how mathematicians understand their complex concepts - how they keep track of it all - it confuses me to no end! LOL.
When people ask me, I tell them that I study only the first four numbers. The interesting thing about these numbers is that they represent all that is real. Raoul Bott proved this with his periodicity theorem.
However, I do believe that there are two interpretations of numbers possible, as Hestenes explains it, and this gives us the negative numbers, because we can regard numerical comparisons three ways: where two quantities exist, one greater than another, there will be a third quantity greater than both of them, ad infinitum.
What happens is that x/y is considered a ratio, but not a ratio of natural inverses, for lack of a better term. The natural inverse of space is time, so we should be careful not to confuse the ratio of orthogonal dimensions of space, with the natural ratio of space/time. The ratio is different, as I try to show in my essay.
If we assume that space and time are simply reciprocal aspects of motion, then whenever we measure space, we are only measuring the space aspect of a past, or contemplated motion. Same thing with time. We can only measure one of the aspects of motion, by combining the reciprocal aspect with it. There is no other way to measure either without the other, because they are simply the two reciprocal aspects of one component, motion.
It follows then, that the use of the Pythagorean theorem in physics can be very misleading, since it involves a space to space ratio, which is not motion, and, since motion is the subject of physics, not space alone, like geometry, we should start off right by studying space and time together (to be clear, physics does study both space and time together, of course, but the numbers of its algebras are not so constituted, leading to ad hoc solutions that are self-defeating in the end).
The use of the Pythagorean theorem is okay when we are dealing with geometry, but we should remember Newton's observation that geometry can only work its magic, when the magnitudes and directions of its spaces are given, based on principles from without. Geometry itself has nothing to say as to the ontology of these magnitudes and "directions."
Instead of using the Pythagorean theorem to study the ratios of motion, or space and time, we need to use the points, lines, squares and cubes of algebra together with the corresponding radii, diameters, areas and volumes of geometry, to understand them.
This is because these two sets of four involve all the dimensions of reality, not just one. Then, when we recognize that these must have an inverse, as demanded by symmetry and the law of conservation, a wonderful new world of possibilities opens up to us.
The best way that I have found to illustrate this concisely is with the following definition of numbers, which is inspired by the tetraktys, or the binomial expansion, generating the first four numbers:
1) (2/2)0 = 0 := 0 magnitudes and "directions" of points
2) (1/2)1, (2/2)0, (2/1)1 = -11, 0, +11 := 2 inverse magnitudes and "directions" of lines
3) (1/2)2, (2/2)0, (2/1)2 = -12, 0, +12 := 4 inverse magnitudes and "directions" of areas
4) (1/2)3, (2/2)0, (2/1)3 = -13, 0, +13 := 8 inverse magnitudes and "directions" of volumes
Which is simply a way of defining the magnitudes and "directions" of the numbers in the tetraktys. These include the reciprocal linear, planar and volumetric magnitudes and the +, -, or 2 "directions" of 1D numbers, the ++, --, +-, -+, or 4 "directions" of 2D numbers, and the ++++, +++-, ++--, +---, ---+, --++, -+++, ----, or 8 "directions" of 3D numbers that generate them. With all these degrees of freedom, a new system of physical theory is possible, based on nothing but motion.
Of course, modern mathematics, and thus physics, has a different foundation. It only recognizes numbers as a set of points, with no "directions." All the higher dimensional numbers are based on exploiting the ad hoc invention of imaginary numbers. These then become rotational units, used according to the Lie Algebras of the different rotation groups, to generate the needed magnitudes. This leads to much confusion. For example, we have no clue as to what quantum spin is, physically, let alone isospin, even though we use these concepts, as if we understood them, because it works out analytically.
I maintain that this is the fundamental error that has caused so much trouble in algebra and physics, but there has been so much gained with the use of imaginary numbers (say all of today's technology!), that not many are willing to go back to examine the assumptions of the foundations in this manner. Only us amateurs (otherwise known as "cranks" or "crackpots" - LOL) dare to risk the folly of such an enterprise.
Regards,
Doug
Hi Doug
It was the last line of your abstract that caught my eye. The essay did not disappoint. There were some very perceptive and relevant thoughts throughout. If you like the concept of discretized space time I hope you'll read my essay, It is mathless, but be warned, it's value is in absorbing and following the logical construction so it can't be just scanned over or a magical conclusion will be missed.
Best of luck
Peter
Hi Peter,
I'm pleased you took time to read my essay. I had already read your essay and many of the abundant comments on your thread. I also have followed your discussion with Eckard.
The reason I haven't commented on it can be understood when it is recognized that I have a different mind set when it comes to theoretical physics. What I like about your essay is that it is based on both observation and reasoning. So many essays in the contest do not have both components.
As far as your conclusions go, on the one hand, I am very receptive to them, as far as I understand them, but on the other hand, the issues involved with the CSL as a measured phenomenon, and the deductions made from those measurements and procedures are most relevant to those who regard the universe as a space-time container of objects. Not only do we start with the idea of the existence of EM waves and interacting particles as given, but then we seek to reduce these particles and interactions to an elementary set, the properties of which can explain our observations.
It has to be admitted that this program of scientific research, initiated by Newton, has yielded spectacular results, since his day. But for theoreticians and philosophers, the trouble with physics goes to some profound depths, concerning the very nature of space and time. Experiments and analysis helps shed light on these contradictions, but they generally only emphasize the problems. If I can, I will try to elaborate on your essay in this context, over at your thread.
For those interested in my thinking, with regards to the theoretical and philosophical challenges that are perplexing to physicists, I will just say that I favor a change in the program of research itself; This means abandoning the notion of the universe as a space-time container of interacting particles, and the effort to reduce our understanding of it to the fewest interactions of the fewest particles, based on their relative motions.
I know how heretical this must sound, and I realize that one cannot take such a position, without first having some idea of what program could replace the current program of research. The justification for my taking this position is found in the works of the late Dewey B. Larson.
For Larson, the key to understanding the physical universe is the acceptance of the idea that it all stems from one simple relation, the relation of space and time. When we consider this idea in the three dimensions (four counting zero) that we can observe, the CSL becomes the datum of all physical activity. The logical deductions that we can draw from the idea seem endless, but compelling.
The observed fact is, Peter, space and time are expanding, from the perspective of all matter, regardless of the size of its aggregation, or the magnitude of its vectorial motion relative to another aggregate. This universal expansion is moving all galaxies and all clusters of galaxies away from each other, and, in the case of those separated by great distances, they are moving away in all directions at nearly the speed of light. The attribution of this phenomenon to the concept of an infinitely small point of infinitely dense energy, exploding outward, not into space over time, but as space-time itself, is untenable, in my mind, for many reasons.
However, the concept is firmly entrenched in the minds of the practitioners of the current program of research, by many confirmations that seem to point to it. This is unfortunate in that it prevents us from seriously considering the possibility that this theory has no basis in fact. If it is false, then what explains the space and time expansion?
If we consider the mystery of the nature of space and time, and don't take the great knowledge of its continual expansion into account, recognizing that gravity is the opposite of this type of scalar motion, within its geometric limits, our efforts cannot be fundamental enough, in my opinion.
All the best,
Doug
Doug
Interesting, and not actually that far from my basic premises! The DFM shows the big bang is probably nonsense, and also explains the space time expansion. No room in the paper for those aspects, but look here, and from the same evidence and logic led basis; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016 But remember it's quite fashionable to recycle these days.
And you may see good logical reasons there why space time may not be expanding ever faster.
I did once explore the theory that it did so - and as gravity got thinner time sped up. I even conducted a survey and over 8 out of 10 agreed it was going ever faster! but I usually look for more objective evidence!
I'll be interested in any further views on the DFM.
Best of luck
Peter
Interesting - Someone voted for my essay! Thanks to you, whoever you are. I wish I could start over. I know that I could do a much better job.
One of the things I would do is make a more explicit connection with the topic. Even though I address the most important aspect of the topic, It's not explicitly clear why the redefinition of the point is so relevant to it.
The point is, that there is no use trying to define a point in space that has any extent, or an instant of time that has some duration. This contradiction at the foundation of our science and mathematics cannot help manifest itself in terrible ways later on. Our concept of the electron is the best example, but there are many others.
A really advanced alien society would no doubt laugh at our pathetic theories that we take so seriously that we build silly machines like the LHC, going to astronomical expense to look for figments of our imaginations.
Why look for the Higgs, when we can't even understand the electron? If there is a discrete unit of space, then, by definition, it means that it cannot be subdivided. Yet, we can represent any magnitude with figure 1 of my essay. ANY geometric length magnitude whatsoever, including the so-called Planck length, can be represented by the radius of the unit circle. This means that the radius of the square root of 2 circle can be represented as well. With these two radii and the eight cubes between them, we have both digital and analog 1D, 2D and 3D geometric quantities such as circumference, area and volume, represented. So, how can we say space and time are doomed at some length, as today's leading theoreticians contend?
Just because we can't build a machine to probe that magnitude, or ever hope to generated the energy to do it, doesn't mean that we can't continue to subdivide it even further. As long as any magnitude can be squared, doubled and the square root extracted from it, the validity of the geometric construction of figure 1 stands.
Of course, when we regard it as a representation of motion, its collapse/expansion (c/e) occurs over time, so once we choose a reasonable unit, any subdivision of that unit has to have a c/e time faster than the whole, so, at the Planck length or smaller, the elapsed time for the c/e of a subdivision of a unit corresponding to the value of the speed of light c, is small indeed, relative to our scale, but that doesn't mean squat. It can still be further subdivided mathematically, ad infinitum.
What is significant is that this ability to infinitely divide the continuum in our minds compels us to pick a discrete unit to represent physical reality. A minimum unit of space and a minimum unit of time, which cannot be subdivided physically. Once this is done, then the problem of collapsing the unit to zero is solved, because such a collapse cannot continue beyond that selected unit.
Yet, this is good news, because a change in an inverse affects the ratio of the two in a compensating way. In this case, an increase in time is the equivalent of a decrease in space, so if time expands, space seems to collapse and vice-versa, providing a way out of our logical dilemma. Consequently, it's not a minimum unit of space that we should be looking for, but a minimum unit of space/time.
Clearly, we know the minimum unit of space/time: It is the speed of light, c, relative to matter. We can choose any magnitude of space, in this ratio, as long as we then choose the appropriate magnitude of time that will maintain the minimum ratio, the c ratio, we might say.
Whatever the space magnitude chosen, then the two constructions of figure 1 can be used to represent these inverse units and their ratios. When the left one collapses, the right one expands and vice-versa. Once appropriately assigned, we are left with the unit oscillation of the physical universe. Using this discrete unit of motion as a building block, we can presumably build all the physical constituents of the universe, from bosons and fermions, to their aggregates, as large as quasars and the Sloan Great Wall.
What a task that thought presents! Who knows how long it would take to complete it, but even if it means nothing more than we could obtain a working, consistent, model of the electron, in our lifetimes, it would be worth it.
Feynman would be happy, I think.
Doug.
Guilty. I thought it was definitely worth it, I'm sure you agree. A top one too, even though on a slightly different tack - we have to spend time on both tacks to get to windward.
I hope you'll return the compliment if you haven't already. Do check out Constantinos Regazas too, I think it's important he scrapes into the top 35. An do have a look at the 'Logic' message etc. in recent posts on my string.
Best of luck.
Peter
Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria - suggestions for improvement.
Sir,
We had filed a complaint to FQXi and Scienticfic American regarding Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria and giving some suggestions for improvement. Acopy of our letter is enclosed for your kind information.
"We are a non-professional and non-academic entrant to the Essay contest "Is Reality Digital or Analog". Our Essay under the same name was published on 29-12-2010. We were associated with Academic Administration as a part of our profession before retirement. From our experience, we were concerned about the problems and directions of current science. One example is the extended run and up-gradation given to LHC, (which was set up to finally prove that Standard Model and SUSY were wrong), even when Tevatron is closing down. Thus, after retirement, we were more focused on foundational works addressing, in one of its many facets, our understanding of the deep or "ultimate" nature of reality.
Specifically we were concerned about the blind acceptance of the so-called "established theories" due to the rush for immediate and easy recognition even on the face of contradictions raising questions on the very theories. One example is the questions being raised on the current theories of gravitation after the discovery of Pioneer anomaly. While most students know about MOND, they are not aware of the Pioneer anomaly. Most of the finalists of this contest have either not addressed or insufficiently addressed this question. We hold that gravity is a composite force that stabilizes. This way we can not only explain the Pioneer anomaly and the deflection of the Voyager space-craft, but also the Fly-by anomalies.
Similarly, we were concerned about the blind acceptance of some concepts, such as inertial mass increase, gravitational waves, Higg's boson, strings, extra-dimensions, etc. Some of these are either non-existent or wrongly explained. For example, we have given a different explanation for ten spatial dimensions. Similarly, we have explained the charge interactions differently from the Coulomb's law. We have defined time, space, number and infinity etc., differently and derived all out formulae from fundamental principles. There are much more, which we had discussed under various threads under different Essays. We are the only entrant who defined "reality" and all other technical terms precisely and strictly used this definition throughout our discussion.
Though our essay was on foundational concepts and we derived everything from fundamental principles, it was basically alternative physics. Moreover, we are not known in scientific circles because we did not publish our work earlier. Hence it is surprising that even we got a community rating of 3.0 and (12 ratings) and Public Rating of 2.5 (2 ratings). We have no complaints in this regard. However, we have serious reservations about the manner in which the finalists were chosen.
A set of thirty-five finalists (the "Finalists") have been chosen based on the essays with the top Community ratings that have each received at least ten ratings. The FQXi Members and approved Contest entrants rate the essays as "Community evaluators". Since many of the FQXi Members are also approved Contest entrants, this effectively makes the contestant as the judge for selection of the finalists. This process not only goes against the foundational goals of the Contest, but also leaves itself open for manipulation.
Most contestants are followers of what they call as "mainstream physics". Thus, they will not be open to encourage revolutionary new ideas because it goes against their personal beliefs either fully (like our essay) or partially (like many other essays that did not find place in the final list. One example is Ms Georgina Parry. There are many more.) The prime reason for such behavior is cultural bias and basic selfish instinct of human beings. Thus, truly foundational essays will be left out of the final list.
In support of the above, we give a few examples. While there are some really deserving contestants like Mr. Julian Barbour, who really deserve placement in the final listing, the same cannot be said for many others. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists, says that whether reality is digital or analog "refers, at least implicitly, to the 'ultimate' nature of reality, the fundamental layer." He admits that "I do not know what this could mean, nor I am at ease with thinking in these terms." Then how could he discuss the issue scientifically? Science is not about beliefs or suppositions. His entire essay exhibits his beliefs and suppositions that are far from scientific descriptions. He admits it when he talks about "speculative scenario". Yet, his essay has been rated as number one by the Community.
The correspondence between us and Mr. Efthimios Harokopos under his Essay and our comments under the various top ranking finalists show the same pattern. One example is Mr. Paul Halpern. We have raised some fundamental questions under the essay of Mr. Hector Zenil. If the answers to these questions are given, most of the finalists will be rejected. If the idea is to find out the answers to these questions, then also most of the finalists will be rejected.
The public that read and rated the essays are not just laymen, but intelligent persons following the developments of science. Their views cannot be ignored lightly. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 35th place in public rating. Mr, Tejinder Singth, who is 7th among the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 25th place in public rating. If public rating is so erroneous, it should be abolished.
Secondly, the author and interested readers (including FQXi Members, other contest entrants, and the general public) are invited to discuss and comment on the essay. Here personal relationship and lobbying plays an important role. An analysis of the correspondence between various contestants will show that there was hectic lobbying for mutual rating. For example: Eckard Blumschein (Finalist Sl. No. 15) had written on Mar. 15, 2011 to Mr. Ian Durham (Finalist Sl. No. 3) "Since you did not yet answered my question you give me an excuse for not yet voting for you." There are many such examples of open lobbying. One of the first entrants visited most contestants and lobbied for reading his essay. Thus, not only he has received the highest number of posts under his Essay, but has emerged as one of top contenders.
The above statement gets further strengthened if we look at the voting pattern. More than 100 essays were submitted between Feb.1-15. Of these 21 out of 35 are the finalists. Of these the essays of 14 contestants were published in 5 days between Feb. 14-18. Is it a mere coincidence? For some contestants, maximum rating took place on the last day. For example, on the last date alone, Mr. Paul Halpern rose from 14th place to 5th place, Mr. Donatello Dolce rose from 35th place to 14th place, and Mr. Christian Stoica came into the top 35. All these cannot be coincidental.
Thirdly, no person is allowed to submit more than one essay to the Contest, regardless if he or she is entering individually or as part of a collaborative essay. Yet, we suspect that some have indulged in such activities. For example, we commented below the essay of one contestant on March 4. We got a reply from the next contestant the same day. The correspondence continued. The original contender has not replied to us. In fact he has only replied twice in 20 posts. This is surprising.
In view of the above, we request you to kindly review your judging process and forward all essays to an independent screening committee (to which no contestant or their relatives will be empanelled), who will reject the essays that are not up to the mark and select the other essays without any strict restriction on numbers to the final judges panel. This will eliminate the problems and possibilities discussed by us. This will also have the benefit of a two tier independent evaluation.
Our sole motive for writing this letter is to improve the quality of competition. Hence it should be viewed from the same light".
Regards,
Basudeba.
Doug,
I just discovered Dewey B Larson's site (24-May-2011). I got the information there that you have an entry in the FQXi contest. I haven't read your work enough. I haven't read Larson's writings enough either. But, from the little that I've read, I think Larson's ideas and my ideas have a lot in agreement. I think I understand his 'reciprocal idea' regarding gravitation and expansion. And I agree with his idea of a universe of motion.
I've been working on the idea of an infinite kinematic continuum with space and time as 'backgrounds' for the duration transformation and the motion transformations that render the definitions on the 'instance of existence' and the 'substance of exitence'. In all these I faithfully subscribe to the idea of pure kinematics - which is I think Larson's idea, too.
I've been formulating the idea of "the revolutions of the cosmic systems in an heirarchical cosmos" as the origin of gravity. This is pretty much based on my LDS views. I've discovered that I can reconcile the idea of "the revolutions" for the origin of gravity and the cause of the how particulate mass is formed out of motion. I've presented the simple genesis formula in my FQXi essay entry. I've also presented my idea of the origin of gravity in my essay entry to the recently concluded Gravity Research Foundation essay contest.
I've considered both the idea of a "kinematic point" and the idea of a kinematic toroidal dipole configuration before. The idea of the "point" didn't work well enough. So, I focused on the idea of the "kinematic toroidal dipole", which agrees more with the current ideas regarding the fundamental particles. In terms of pure kinematics, the dipole configuration actually allows very appropriate explanations regarding what causes electromagnetism and why the magnetic force is so much stronger than the force of gravity.
If you have time, I hope you can take a look at my postings and essay entry here at FQXi in the following link: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/835
I also have a website that I've been developing whenever I can spare the time. It's at this link: http://www.kinematicrelativity.com/]
Kind regards,
Rafael
Doug,
By Dewey B Larson's site, I mean http://rstheory.org/...
Rafael
