The Advaitha ( Non-Dualism ) Of Digital & Analog Nature Of Reality by Sreenath B N

Dear Paul Halpern,

In your intriguing essay,you have argued for the existence of a fundamental particle called,Holon.It is really good if such a particle exists as all of our knowledge of elementary particles can based on it.But you have not mentioned holon's mass and wave-length.I hope you will soon do it as it gives limits to our understanding of the physics.

Best regards and good luck.

Sreenath B N.

Sreenath

Thank you for your pertinent response above on my string, In answer I posted the note below. In checking I also note I hadn't rated your essay yet, and will do so now reflecting my very favourable comments above. I hope you will do the same by the deadline if you haven't as I'm just outside the ones to be for journal attention, which is important for the model.

Thank you again and very best wishes.

Peter

RESPONSE (Edited)

You noted I gave no 'conclusion'. Hmmm. Perhaps my English understatement Sreenath, I explain what may be a paradigm shifting discovery, (which I hope you haven't missed!) which gives two distinct solutions;

1) The 'continuous' condensate must become discrete (ions) to implement change, and

2) Space itself is divided into discrete 'blocks' or perhaps 'causal sets' of volume surrounding condensed matter and limited by diffractive boundaries.

So without either one, the other could not exist. So not only is nature both, but I describe how and why, which unveils the problem and derives SR via a quantum mechanism. Did you read the logical analysis in the post above?

You need to be able to manipulate multiple dynamic spaces and diffracting waves in your mind to make it intuitive, which it quickly then becomes. It is difficult! If it was easy it would have been seen 100 years ago. And then thinking through the implications... they are very substantial!

I hope you have another go.

Or once you are ready, look at the quite stunning logical conclusions in the short preprint here; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

The Photograph? - The previous analysis is (I believe) incomplete. It is a Quasar, with just the 'approaching' jet visible as the receding jet is red shifted to radio frequencies (but both jet heads are visible. A Quasar is a toroid black hole (see the other paper for a photo of another) with the jets perpendicular to the 'disk' (as our own smbh). The gravity is so intense there is much lensing or 'microlensing'. If you look around the source of the jet you will see lensed (enlarged and curved) light from stars behind, outlining the toroid curvature. It is rather large! M87's jets are many millions of light years long.

I feel we must better use observation and empirical evidence to support theory wherever we can.

Very best of luck.

Peter

Dear Sreenath,

I have just read your essay and the corresponding paper on your website. Unfortunately, the essay length restrictions has limited the information the you where able to convey. The paper on your website, IHMO, seems rigorous enough to be sent to an international review journal to get feedback from an expert. The fact we have reached similar conclusions regarding galaxy growth from BHs (even though we reached this conclusion from totally different approaches) gives me great hope that both your theory of QG and my model of the cosmos are more than coincidence. I believe your theory has great promise and admire your technical skill. I would recommend correcting the few grammar and spelling mistakes as well as creating an inclusive reference page. The only concern regarding the content of your paper is your conclusion regarding small BHs, that seems to contradict the conclusions of Hawking. He predicts that smaller BHs should radiate more intensely than larger BHs.

I don't know if you have had a chance to read Christian Corda's essay but he is Editor in Chief of two different peer review journals. Please see his correspondence with me on his forum for the information if you are interested in submitting your paper. I think you should, since your work seems very important. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, as I've tried to read a many essays as possible, but have not been able to read them all.

Wishing you the best,

Dan

Dear Dan,

Thanks for your positive response.The moment I saw your essay last night I called on you because of intimate relationship between our ideas.If you base your views on the basis of QG field,it would be enthralling.

Regarding why I cannot admit BHs of smaller size than,R= 10^5 cm is because of the intrinsic relationship between micro (quantum) and macro (classical) world according to the relation r/R = 2πGβ/c2 .If the radius of BH is 10^2 cm,then the value of 'r'(Interaction-range) becomes 10^-33 cm,that is the Planck's length.That is why BHs of size smaller than 10^2 cm cannot be admitted (but I commit myself to 10^5 cm).Similarly you cannot go on increasing the gravitational radius above 10^30 cm (in my article I have restricted it to 10^30 cm),because then the value of Interaction-range 'r' correspondingly increases.For example,if R= 10^30 cm then 'r'=10^-5 cm; if R= 10^33 cm then 'r' = 10^-2 cm.Now you see the reason.If this conclusion contradicts (it will) Hawking's idea of 'Baby-BHs',it is natural.It is because his theory does n't limit the size of BHs and that is the flaw of all existing theories on BHs.

Thanks for your suggestions on my web-article.On your suggestion, I would like to contact "Corda'.I would be glad if you too participate in this.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best regards and good luck.

Sreenath.

Dear Sreenath,

Thank you for clarifying the small BH issue. I new that you had a reason within your theory, but I meant that since Hawking is seen as the authority, that this might be an issue for a journal. Since your theory seems to be consistent, can you suggest any experiments or observations that would be able to support it if they were conducted? This is another important step to getting acceptance from the mainstream physics community. Since your theory doesn't admit gravity waves (I have had doubts about them, myself), it may be difficult to get any experiment support, due to scale at which QG acts. Nevertheless, I'm glad you have considered my suggestion.

I had always suspected that there must be some connection between my model and the quantum world, but had never made any connections of my own. You can imagine my surprise, when I read your paper. All of my ideas came from contemplation of the nature of time and from the limited knowledge that I have on GR.

I plan to reread your paper and will assist you however I am able.

Sincerely,

Dan

Dear Dan,

Thanks for your response.Regarding suggesting any experiments or observations that would be able to support my theory,I want to make the following clarification.

There are two ways which allow you to verify my theory.One in the classical world by observing phenomena going on in BHs by observing their dynamics.A BH,according to me,is a Hole of 'perfect vacuum' and contains 'no' matter inside it but the mass surrounding this Hole determines its 'radius',according to the well known equation R = 2GM/C^2. This Hole is characterised by Temparature and Pressure inside it.It is the presence of this Hole (which we call BH) prevents matter from falling into Singularity, thro' the force of QG.It is the violent interaction between the crushing matter and the resistance offered by the BH results in the emission of Jets by the BH with enormous power.The jet of mass gains energy of the order of 10^14 times the initial energy with which it enters the BH at its 'event-horizon'.This is nothing but the ratio of QG energy to self (or free) energy available to particles as a result of intense gravitational interaction taking place at the 'event-horizon'.

The second way of verification is much easier. Remember that classical world is related to the micro (quantum) world by the relation r/R =2πGβ/c2 .According to this relation,the role played by QG can be seen 'directly' in explaining the energy possessed by micro-particles in the quantum-world thro' the 'Interaction-Table' (IT).To know this,please,go thro' IT and make yourself thorough with it.IT is also 'Chart of Elementary Particles' with their 'Decay-Times'.

More on this after your response.

Sincerely

Sreenath.

Sreenath

I was waiting for a response to my post above before re-posting. I wasn't overly impressed you'd missed the black hole picked out by lensing in the HH34 photo. But Dan mentioned his support for you, (not by name but I guessed) and I respect Dan, so I looked and considered more closely and he's right. Your essay was much underrated on content. I'd like to accept your offer re input on black holes, but also discuss a few more points;

Quantised acceleration. I missed the link before, and I think you have too. Refraction (/diffraction) DOES form a bridge between classical SR/GR and QM. Indeed this is at the heart of my essay. The quantization of acceleration is the basic quanta of condensed matter, the ion, this not only implements SR by slowing light scattered from a co-moving particle to the 'c' of the ion, but the diffraction IS curved space time (in the plasma medium) so the ions ARE dark matter, and the mass of the ions gives Equivalence - inertial mass = gravitational mass. The greater the difference between in speed between scattered particles the more ions condense, so the higher the inertial mass! The references in my paper provide all the basic empirical evidence required to support the hypothesis. The discrete field model is mostly entirely equivalent to your own, just viewed from different cerebral hemispheres. It essentially explains CSL conceptually without needing the LT, simplifying all physics.

Black holes. > The evidence is now quite overwhelming that they are toroid. (atomic tokamak), and I deal with conical spirals at length empirically in the paper I posted above. I believe your radius viewpoint should cope with this but it will need further thought. They rotate on the macro as well as sectional axis (em field).

I mentioned to Dan I've been invited to write/edit a GUT chapter in an EBook publication. I'd definitely like to at least mention your work, and if you'd like to contribute all the better, but I would like to hear your considered views on the above.

Best wishes.

Peter

PS. Dan; > Any views also very welcome.

Dear Peter,

Congrats for making it to the top ten! This is because of your relentless effort and innovative essay.I saw in your essay your visiualization of reality,as you said,from different cerebral hemispheres.It is good that you have tried to connect it to my theme of the essay and I gladly welcome it.Iam extremely sorry for not expressing my congrats before you posted your response to me.

Iam delighted to know how you have connected the idea of 'quantization of acceleration' to condensed matter physics thro' your imaginative article.

Regarding BHs,their existence for me was presumptuous.For this,please, go to my web-site "http://www.sreenath.webs.com".

Iam glad to hear that you have been invited to write/edit a GUT chapter in an EBook publication.I want to participate in this if you are willing by contributing an article.

Thanking you.

Sincerely

Sreenath.

Dear Sreenath,

I apologize for my tardy response to the request you left on my site. I started reading your 71 page paper. I noticed similarities with your essay. There are parts of your ideas that I like, and parts that bother me. I need to read more of your paper and try to give some feedback.

Good Luck!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Dear Dr. Ray,

Thanks for your response.If you need any (you definitely need) clarification,please, inform me.Iam obliged to respond.The paper is surely long, for it has got to be, as in it I have tried to bridge the gap between GR and QM on entirely new concepts and this takes a little bit of time to assimilate them.Merging GR and QM, which leads to the theory of QG, also means formulating a TOE. The theme of the paper is,' by distorting GR how it is made to comply with all the forces of the quantum world'. QM, in the paper, is understood on entirely different grounds as it is to comply with the dictates of QG but is in complete agreement with its current interpretation.So this is an additional 'angle' from which you view QM.

Looking forward to hear more discussion on this.

Regards

Sreenath.