Subtext: Is Reality Digital or Analog? (Our Universe, Science and Potentials in Review) by Russ W Otter

Hello Russ and thanks for your essay. I appreciate you considering "science outside the conventional box of current mathmatics" and so have an idea which I'd like to share with you. Put simply, it's a physical model for the graviton, which has both wave and particle qualities. See a dynamic represntation given here. What do you think to this modest proposal? Best wishes. Alan

Hello Alan,

Thank you for your comments... Much appreciated. As to your diagram, congratulations on the Motion based CAD: It is simplicity in action. And if you reversed the flow direction of the particle, it would be similar to my concepts of continuous energy, using a liner upward motion, with a non-liner gravity based downward motion.

Regarding the concept of it being a possible, and still hypothetical graviton. I cannot fully comment with any depth, simply based on the graphic. But I consider the notion of combining particle and wave physics into the concept you have graphically portrayed, very viable, as it does actually compliment my concepts of motion and energy, as I have described in the first paragraph. If we are on the same page and train of thought. The potential graviton would then portend well for such a motion. Which, again complements my ideas about continuous motion.

You may have read this article, but if not, look at the fqxi.org site for the article "The Myth of Gravity", which presupposes no such particle as a graviton. It may be of interest as well.

Still I think you and I maybe on similar tracks when it comes to motion and energy. Gravity being one of the most under-utilized, as it is naturally abundant and generated without destruction of matter.

I hope my thoughts may help, and once again I thank you for your thoughts and your own interest in such pursuits of the Universes yet unknown knowledge.

Thanks, Russ

A philosophical, but also factual premise for myself, as an addendum to Alan Lowey's previous post:

Physical and Material Facts, based on both knowledge and thought both of an intuitive nature, along with scientific discovery, (emotions included, whether negative or positive) will forge our hopeful futures, as we learn we are more connected and similar that separate.

All things are married. Connection is universal. The here and now, the present and the past, the finite and the infinite all connect. There is no escape from the marriage of these entities. Some are instinctive and some are shot-gun forced. But in the end, we are all one (albeit separate), but since we are of our own "integrities" (individualities), in personality or physical matter, we are married in one form or another, even whether finite or infinite.

Therefore we are binary, but unified, separate, but connected. There is no escape from this fundamental assumption, or mathematical delineation.

Wave or Particle, is a marriage of fact. Understanding and belief is often a leap of faith. And with maturity, we all grow in both fact and faith... So we are all united. A lesson, no legislature will find social cures for, or impose on the masses of individual sentient beings. They may try, and call it Socialism or Capitalism, or some "ism", but in truth we live within a hybrid of "systems", if you actually review the facts. And still we fumble and fail to unite, or cure.

But technology (or Science) will bridge our dilemma of division, along with the "Golden Rule" - as we find answers that unify us, such as universal energy, which in turn will make common our abilities to communicate. This alone will solve many a social, and poverty problems, that separate us so from so many of our ill-willed natures and selfishness's today.

Science is our Holy-Grail. History is baring this out... Honesty within ourselves and new discoveries will be our greatest hope for improving the Human Race. But to depend on answers from Kings, Potentates, or even Elected Leaders will fail, next to the hope that Science I believe will provide. If we do not kill ourselves first, by way of selfish philosophies, bent on our invented and mis-represented global host of "Us and Them" Theologies...

I suspect that your perceptions of time and space being immutable will be borne out (once again) in time. With regard to "curved space" and "time running slow" I agree that these are findings based solely upon experience (aka appearances). These too will likely be found in time to be metaphors for perceptions of reality. With respect to perpetual energy, to the best of my (limited) knowledge, the only evidence of such a phenomenon is the very strong suspicion that energy, like time and space discussed above, is infinite but not immutable. Our difficulties with this idea arise from a hide-and-seek faculty in energy evidenced by its propensities to change its state and form. You also score highly with your expression of "Universe, with a capital 'U' ". What else can "Uni" truly mean? But, yes again, you do "digress".

Hello Anonymous,

First, Thank you for the reply, and Yes I concur! I do digress, however it is all important and as I commented in a further posting, as I believe we (existence per se') are all connected, and all related. But I cannot oppose your assessment of digression. I simply hope that you might consider it encourages continued thought. As far as Energy: Given that Gravity, Electrostatics, and Magnetism, which occur naturally, not by any manner of matter destruction, hold enormous promise. I believe they offer the mathematical potential to leverage far beyond our current exploitation. I have held these ideas in mind sense I was a child, but admit some ideas have evaporated with my ageing, yet some have come along as I ponder this subject further. But I still hold to the intuitive logic they continue to rattle around in my less that admitted highly knowledgeable and less than perfect grey matter... I will acknowledge that even with the natural energies I speak of, as you state, they do and can change form, such a polarities changing on our planet, but even given those catastrophic periods in nature I offer you much thanks for your soundly considered potential objections, and respectful thoughts. Many Thanks Again, Russ

Thanks for the tip about the fqxi.org article Russ, I'll take a look. I appreciate your recognition of the helical screw simplicity, the graphic of which I hyperlinked from Wikipedia incidentally. I think we on similar trains of thought and wish you well in the competition. Alan

Yes, I share your concerns about the role of science in providing a safer route to human co-operation around the world. A t.o.e is essential in steering us away from oil and gas imo. That's the next big step hopefully. It will change world politics forever. Peace be with you Russ. Alan

Alan,

In brief: Thank you deeply for your insightful comments about the role of science, as you and I are on the same page there! Along with you other comment about the other article, coupled with your well wishes...

All the best to you... and to this human race in the world between cultures and science... We all hope science pulls it off, and we short-circuit the enormous destructive power of individuals via today's technologies, as well as much of the unnecessary suffering of the very many...

Science is closing in everyday and every moment,

Russ

Dear Russ,

I found your essay fascinating because the logic up through discussing thermodynamics closely matches my thinking. I especially am interested in exploring the reason for the laws of thermodynamics as opposed to letting those laws rule whatever theory is developed. As you suggest, what if the underlying reality produces thermodynamics? Then letting thermodynamics rule would totally block us from finding the actual reality.

I don't go as far as your suggestion that there is the possibility of finding an imbalance of forces allowing excess energy to be collected. In my exploration into the reason behind thermodynamics, there suddenly is not a concept of energy. It becomes a system of potentials and accelerations driven by a single master potential. Energy seems to be a macro effect based on what is happening inside photons, electrons, and protons. You are absolutely right, however, that the more we understand it the better we can provide energy efficient solutions which in itself would benefit humanity.

I highly encourage you in your exploration into the reasons behind thermodynamics because you are right on in looking there for the solution.

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

Digital or Analog notwithstanding, we simply we are not able to know all truth. Therefore we are binary and separate, hence digital for all conscious (or finite) purposes. Beyond our finite consciousness the subject on an infinite plane is open for endless review...

Russ,

The above shows great insight. It is a difficult topic to fathom but you make a great stab.

Jim Hoover

Dear Russell,

I am delighted with your response, and thank you for the considerate words. This is a difficult subject, and your insight is likewise obvious and again appreciated. You get very high marks for sifting out the pearls I tried to convey.

One of those pearls, of which you believe, an impossible or difficult hurdle: Is the expansion of energy from energy, not matter. I agree with thermodynamics on many levels, it is hard not to. But if I had to find an analogy I would say Thermodynamics was solely designed with Euclidian Geometry. And the world is not Flat. Therefore Thermodynamics cannot and will not allow for answers to everything. However the "energy" that I speak of generating is manifest by way of energy itself.

Thermodynamics is locked into Matter equals Energy, or visa versa.

The means I am suggesting uses matter as its architecture, such as a Teflon tube and a Glass Ball, among other augmented elements, but also in conjunction with gravity. These natural forces: Electrostatics, Magnetism, and Gravity, built using all of the 3 dimensions along with space, can in fact (I believe), augment and regenerate itself, save parts wearing out.

This would generate heat and the outcome of that is energy, without M=E or visa versa. Hence thermodynamics is by-passed for the most part. It even aligns in part with your concept of the macro-effect from the micro-world of protons or particles, etc. Those protons and electrons if based as an energy source are not solely based on the confines of thermodynamics (possibly).

Related to my ideas for energy is more of an intuitive design, than a mathematical one. But sentient "intuition" understands that a "Ball will fall down a Hill." As I mentioned I do not have the mathematical background, short of the normal masses, to define this is the terms of scientific language (Mathematics.)

But I am working on it... And I thank you once again for your encouragement.

Most Sincerely,

Russ Otter

PS... I also just read your Essay. You and I my friend are on the same track. Deep Congratulations for doing the detailed work you have accomplished primarily in the world of particle physics. Quite impressive... If you ever would like to work on that horrible idea of mine "Continuous Motion"... Let's do it. Again, all the best, Russ

Dear Russell,

I am delighted with your response, and thank you for the considerate words. This is a difficult subject, and your insight is likewise obvious and again appreciated. You get very high marks for sifting out the pearls I tried to convey.

One of those pearls, of which you believe, an impossible or difficult hurdle: Is the expansion of energy from energy, not matter. I agree with thermodynamics on many levels, it is hard not to. But if I had to find an analogy I would say Thermodynamics was solely designed with Euclidian Geometry. And the world is not Flat. Therefore Thermodynamics cannot and will not allow for answers to everything. However the "energy" that I speak of generating is manifest by way of energy itself.

Thermodynamics is locked into Matter equals Energy, or visa versa.

The means I am suggesting uses matter as its architecture, such as a Teflon tube and a Glass Ball, among other augmented elements, but also in conjunction with gravity. These natural forces: Electrostatics, Magnetism, and Gravity, built using all of the 3 dimensions along with space, can in fact (I believe), augment and regenerate itself, save parts wearing out.

This would generate heat and the outcome of that is energy, without M=E or visa versa. Hence thermodynamics is by-passed for the most part. It even aligns in part with your concept of the macro-effect from the micro-world of protons or particles, etc. Those protons and electrons if based as an energy source are not solely based on the confines of thermodynamics (possibly).

Related to my ideas for energy is more of an intuitive design, than a mathematical one. But sentient "intuition" understands that a "Ball will fall down a Hill." As I mentioned I do not have the mathematical background, short of the normal masses, to define this is the terms of scientific language (Mathematics.)

But I am working on it... And I thank you once again for your encouragement.

Most Sincerely,

Russ Otter

PS... I also just read your Essay. You and I my friend are on the same track. Deep Congratulations for doing the detailed work you have accomplished primarily in the world of particle physics. Quite impressive... If you ever would like to work on that horrible idea of mine "Continuous Motion"... Let's do it. Again, all the best, Russ

Dear Jim,

What a thoughtful and great reply! I simply appreciate and am heartened that somebody, gets me! Your insight into this subject matter is obviously more than substantial, so I deeply appreciate your comments.

Cheers always - and Thank You for taking the time to respond,

Russ

Dear Russ,

Thanks so much for your encouragement and note on my essay. Yes, people need to follow intuition and be honest to themselves.

You have a very interesting idea and I hope you will have a chance to define it further with math and units. If the idea is digital in nature, a structured sequence of rules could lead to units of measurement. I find such a process helps improve the idea and allows others to help.

Thanks for your essay. It is great to explore similar concepts!

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

Dear Sir,

We have gone through your Essay.

You have correctly asserted that "always define your mathematics and philosophical notions of Space and Time, in conjunction with all of the natural forces we are ruled by, based on their quantum roots." You are also right that "Space and Time are immutable." However, we differ from your views on infinity, which we have dealt with in our essay.

Number is a perceived property of substances by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no others with a similar perception, it is one. If there is a sequence of perception of similars, each of them is given a name, which is called the number sequence. Infinity is like one: without a similar. But whereas in the case of one the dimensions are fully perceived, in the case of infinity the dimensions are not fully perceived. It is different from a very big number.

An article in 10/2005 issue of the Notices of the American Mathematical Society shows that the mathematics used for dynamical systems that is used for planning trajectories of space crafts and the theory of transition states of chemical reactions share the same set of mathematics. We accept this and assert that both the micro and macro systems share the same mathematics and other laws of Nature.

Superposition of states and Entanglement are grossly misreported phenomena. Measurement is a process of comparison between similars. Thus the result of measurement is always a scalar quantity. Measurement processes for particles and fields are different, just like measurement processes for space, time and space-time are different. The result of measurement is the description of the state of the object measured at a designated instant. The state of the object was not the same before nor will be the same after the measurement as it continues to evolve in time independent of our observation. We freeze the description of the state at a designated instant and call it the result of measurement at subsequent times. All other unknown states together are called superposition of states.

It is said that "micro-sized particles millions of miles apart respond to one another or communicate as if they were local to each other, whereby the speed of light does not apply", whereas in reality, it tapers off after a few kilometers. We have shown in different threads in this forum that it is not a mysterious phenomenon at all and it has macro equivalents. When two objects retain their original relationship after being physically separated, such relationship is called entanglement. Suppose someone while traveling forgot to take one of the pair of socks. The individual sock of the pair is complementary to the other. They cannot be used in isolation. If someone asks, 'which of the pairs has gone with the traveler', the answer will be unknown till someone at either end finds out by physical verification. This is a macro example of entanglement. Before the verification (measurement) was done; which one went out was not known. It could have been either one (superposition of all states), but not both at the same time in all locations. After measurement the answer is conclusively known (wave function collapses). There is no need to unnecessarily sensationalize it. The quantum entanglement can be easily explained if we examine the nature of confinement and the measure the distance up to which entanglement shows up (generally, it is not infinite, but lasts up to a maximum of a few kilo meters only).

The Kaluza-Klein compactification and other "theories" relating to extra-dimensions are only figments of imagination. The term dimension is applied to solids that have fixed spread in a given direction based on their internal arrangement independent of external factors. For perception of the spread of the object, the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the object must interact with that of our eyes. Since electric and magnetic fields move perpendicular to each other and both are perpendicular to the direction of motion, we can perceive the spread only in these three directions. Measuring the spread is essentially measuring the space occupied by it. This measurement can be done only with reference to some external frame of reference. For the above reason, we use axes that are perpendicular to each other and term these as x-y-z coordinates (length-breadth-height). These are not absolute terms, but are related to the order of placement of the object in the coordinate system of the field in which the object is placed. Thus, they remain invariant under mutual transformation. If we rotate the object so that x-axis changes to y-axis or z-axis, there is no effect on the structure (spread) of the object. Based on the positive and negative (spreading out and contracting in) directions from the origin, these describe six unique positions (x,0,0), (-x,0,0), (0,y,0), (0,-y,0), (0,0,z), (0,0,-z), that remain invariant under mutual transformation. Besides these, there are four more unique positions, namely (x, y), (-x, y), (-x, -y) and (x, -y) where x = y for any value of x and y, which also remain invariant under mutual transformation. These are the ten dimensions and not the so-called mathematical structures. These are described in detail in our book. Since time does not fit in this description, it is not a dimension.

We have commented elaborately in various threads in this forum, specifically those under the essays of Mr. Castel, Mr. Granet, and others that special relativity is a wrong description of facts. Here we quote from Einstein's 30-06-1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and offer our comments:

1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.

2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.

Here clock at A is the privileged frame of reference. Yet, he tells the opposite by denying any privileged frame of reference. Further, his description of the length measurement is faulty. Here we quote from his paper and offer our views.

Einstein: Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, and imagine its length to be ascertained by the following two operations:-

(a) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest.

(b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with §1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated "the length of the rod".

In accordance with the principle of relativity the length to be discovered by the operation (a) - we will call it the length of the rod in the moving system - must be equal to the length l of the stationary rod.

The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call "the length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system". This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find that it differs from l.

Our comments: The method described at (b) is impossible to measure by the principles described by Einstein himself. Elsewhere he has described two frames: one fixed and one moving along it. First the length of the moving rod is measured in the stationary system against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then the length is measured at a different epoch in a similar way in units of velocity of light. We can do this only in two ways, out of which one is the same as (a). Alternatively, we take a photograph of the rod against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then measure its length in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:

• If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.

• If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the camera and the picture we get will be distorted due to the Doppler shift of different points of the rod. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).

Here we are reminded of an anecdote related to Sir Arthur Eddington. Once he directed two of his students to measure the wave-length of light precisely. Both students returned with different results - one resembling the accepted value and the other different. Upon enquiry, the student replied that he had also come up with the same result as the other, but since everything including the Earth and the scale on it is moving, he applied length contraction to the scale treating Betelgeuse as a reference point. This changed the result. Eddington told him to follow the operation as at (a) above and recalculate the wave-length of light again without any reference to Betelgeuse. After sometime, both the students returned to tell that the wave-length of light is infinite. To a surprised Eddington they explained that since the scale is moving with light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require an infinite number of scales to measure the wave-length of light.

Some scientists try to overcome this difficulty by pointing out that length contraction occurs only in the direction of travel. If we hold the rod in a transverse direction to the direction of travel, then there will be no length contraction for the rod. But we fail to understand how the length can be measured by holding it in a transverse direction to the direction of travel. If the light path is also transverse to the direction of motion, then the terms c+v and c-v vanish from the equation making the entire theory redundant. If the observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod while moving with it, he will not find any difference what-so-ever. Thus, the views of Einstein are contrary to observation.

Regarding energy, there is much more confusion. We treat a single field as the fundamental constituent of the Universe. Depending upon the nature of confinement, it becomes matter (locally confined) or energy (locally not confined, hence trying to regain equilibrium within the bigger confinement). This generates space with motion in it.

Confinement implies a central point (nucleus or center of mass) around which the mass concentrates due to confinement (orbitals). Thus, there is a coupling between the two mediated by a force. By a mechanism which we are not discussing here, instability in the medium leads to a chain of events giving rise to "time", as we know it. This created inertia of motion, which was opposed by the inertia of restoration (elasticity) of the medium. This interaction, according to the same mechanism led to the density variation. This also leads to local confinement, which became the particles. Generation of particles led to further density variation. The inertia of restoration then pushed the particles around, which is seen as the effect of energy on those particles. This effect is experienced at two levels: proximity or intra-particle and distance or inter-particle. Depending upon the proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance-proximity and distance-distance variables, the effects are experienced as strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and radioactive disintegration forces. Gravity is a composite force that stabilizes: the orbits of planets and stars and the orbital of atoms. Since stabilization depends on density distribution, gravity is related to mass. Since density of intervals between objects is relatively less, in a closed system like Earth-Moon or Sun-planets, the density of the medium appears homogeneous. Hence, gravity is related to distance. The inter-relationship appears as the gravitational constant. We do not require Higg's boson or the mathematics of the symmetry group of the standard model, SU(3) Ã-- SU(2) Ã-- U(1) or general relativity to explain the fundamental forces of Nature.

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Basudeba,

My congratulations to you and your colleagues, by both way of your review of my essay, and to your own out of the box sense of intuitive logic, coupled with your science to push the envelope of knowledge.

Your reply is both a personal edification and a challenge for me to explain, myself with the due respect you and your colleagues most certainly deserve.

First: I am not a physicist, nor am I a mathematician of any significance, but my suppositions are based on an A = A logic, that I have spent nearly 60 years wrestling with. Albeit, the Cosmos as I have written about is anything but A=A. It is an anomaly, as I believe it is required to be. Otherwise, I believe we would be deceiving ourselves to define an unbounded open system as one that is closed.

Actually, at times I have to get up and run to break the intuitive insights, that in a sense trap me (Claustrophobic in nature) in this absolute conundrum, we call existence, and have been and will be infinitely bound too. The philosophical question often becomes: "What's the Point?" And in fact we are Trapped, by a system of the infinitely impossible. Forever and Forever. It bears a haunting mental impression upon me from time to time.

So I am very serious about my understandings, albeit not of the stellar work you have done working out a proof you believe in. Even as I question its assumptions in the following paragraphs. In fact, if I am accurately getting my head around it, it actually proves my point: "That infinity is beyond the scope of mathematics, as you appear to have used "Time" along with measurement to validate it through an ongoing basis, which is a dynamic description, not a static definition. As a quantity you appear to make it grow or it is born anew upon extended discovery. Very respectfully that is an assumption, not a proof.

Additionally, you seem to use relativistic mathematics to assume a "Scalar" absolute for all objects. If "Entanglement" is true, then scalar mathematics is not appropriate, as the pragmatic fact of "Locality" breeches a "spectrum" if you will of length. I too believe all things are based on a spectrum or scalar foundation, but I have no concrete answer to Superposition's or Entanglements, save that they may defy our known levels of scalar measurement's. They may be 10 billions times smaller than a Planck's constant, but appear as relative objects. Who Knows?

NOTE: The type 's of mathematics we use Euclidian or Quantum Geometry, or new mathematics' of the future may change everything. But infinity is not one of them. For me, it is as immutable as Time and Space. And just as unexplainable, other than by defining it - as an ongoing process. But that to me confines it, and infinity has no boundaries. If it did what would be on the other side of it? This is an infinite loop built into a question. And it may have the brilliance of your minds to attempt to make it fit into a round hole, but it will not, and cannot. Not in the bigger scope of things we are infinitely bound by. No one can identify the Alpha, nor the Omega in Time, Space or Infinity. Is the Alpha a mere quad-trillion years hence? Or 100 to the 100th power more? It is not even a mathematical reality. It is obscure as it must be. To pin point it as otherwise is a misconception, by an infinite obsurity.

I would love to understand in better terms, what I may be missing in your wonderful reply, but I am stuck in my own Lambda = confusion. I guess? I do believe you have explained infinity and possibly it's counter-part of the Quantum continuum in a process of what I would call "ongoing discovery". That is worthy of superior note. I have no question about it. By the way, your comment about "A surprised Eddington: You even further solidify my argument, by suggesting a "scale" is moving with light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require and infinite number of scales to measure the wave-length of light. NOTE: Anytime we inject an infinite number mathematics and explanation comes to a halt, save for the meta expressions...

By the way, your response is beyond my total comprehension, but I believe I understand the core of your comments... At least I hope so.

Again I very much applaud your research, your willingness to step away from the knowledge of the past, and stand on your own shoulders, albeit with the help of history as well. But your independent out-of -the-box thinking is much appreciated, and where we need to move - as science finds its way to improve both our human knowledge and humanity itself.

Now regarding your comments about Energy. I am a little confused as I really stepped out-of-the-box to describe the use of Energy (Liner) combined with Energy (Non-Liner) to equal increased Energy, which will as normal energy does, atrophy with time. But the outcome of using natural energies, such as Electrostatics, Magnetism, and Gravity, hold a game changer for the planet. For improving communication among peoples of the world and to a better world [Period.] I have several ways I have designed this in my head over the years, and hope to find the right physicists to work with someday to pursue it.

This is not using typical "Action = Reaction" or "Like for Like" energy and matter, but changes the formula: E = E(*). Note Gravity in a non-linear mode multiples itself.

This is doable, and surprising we have not achieved it as of yet. Of course given my concepts are correct. And that is a small issue to me, but I know a heresy to a very though crowd of physicists by and large.

Again, Basudeba and your colleagues... Many Thanks. Your response was a true edification for myself.

If I can clarify anything: Ask away... Thanks very much again, Russ

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for your response. You are unnecessarily being highly differential. Like you, we are neither a scientists nor a mathematician - not even an academician. We have only some amateur interest in science among other subjects.

We find more similarities than differences in our views. Only we stretch some areas much more, which appears different at first instance. Additionally, our mode of presentation and use of language increases the appearance of difference.

You say: If Entanglement is true, then scalar mathematics is not appropriate, as the pragmatic fact of Locality breeches a spectrum if you will of length.

Possibly we are expressing the same view in a different language. Mathematics is related only to the numbers of particles (or subsystems) and not their interaction or displacement. Entanglement is related to their intrinsic relationship. As we have said earlier, particles are nothing but confined fields. Confinement implies a central point (nucleus or center of mass) around which the mass concentrates due to confinement (orbitals). Thus, there is a coupling between the two mediated by a force. Entanglement is related to this mediating force. Since energy does not have a nucleus or center of mass, it does not have a fixed structure. Hence it is always dynamic unless it is contained within some container. Here also, it interacts with the container at the surface while there is no such interaction at other places. This leads to a chain reaction leading to further destabilization. Thus, energy is always mobile. All measurements are done at "here-now", which is a fixed position in some frame of reference. Numbers are associated with it, as measurement is a comparison between similars and numbers are the characteristic of objects by which we differentiate between similars. Thus, obviously, scalar mathematics is not appropriate in the case of entanglement.

Just like a fluid flows or seeps through a porous container and not through a solid one, the energy associated with the quantum particles can flow (entanglement) or seep through (quantum tunneling) macro particles. Since all objects display a three fold structure (nucleus, orbitals or confinement and the extra-nuclear field), any release of energy in one direction will be associated with the absorption of equivalent energy in the opposite direction, which will generate chain reactions in their surrounding fields. Since particles have parallel and anti-parallel spins, the release of energy by a pair with opposite spins will induce similar reactions in opposite directions. This is known as entanglement. However, like the socks example given earlier, till one particle's spin is measured, there is no way to know about the spin of either. Thus, there is nothing extraordinary about entanglement. It has unnecessarily been sensationalized. Particles move in the field automatically (in the absence of any induced force) based on the property of the field to attain uniform density. Since the density of the medium through which the energy travels is different from the density of the released energy, it gradually tapers down after a few kilo meters. Alternatively, it loses its own identity and becomes indistinguishable from the field. In both ways, the result is the same.

Action reaction is based on the general property of Nature: inertia of motion and inertia of restoration (elasticity), which appears as stress and impedance and from which we derive all fundamental forces and particles of the Universe.

We have a completely different model by which we explain the Nature without involving complex mathematics, but deriving from fundamental principles. We will publish our work soon.

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Basudeba,

I have enjoyed your communications... And you sir as well are very respectfully differential. And -Yes, Language is a fickle road, we are confined within, and it unnecessarily leads us astray, when in fact we are often on the same journey, in the same space...

A couple of points I would like to make, related to words (language), by which we could handcuff ourselves for days, such as "scalar", "containment", and so forth.

You thoughtfully debunk or content an agreement that "scalar" is not a part of entanglement. Well if we are speaking about classical relative distances then it is scalar, but if we are proposing a unification of all matter, devoid of relative distances (as the classical world behaves), at all times ( save perhaps - or in this case of entangled particles), then no it is not scalar. * My point was to identify it as a classical relative distance and point out that it "behaved" without a scalar component, i.e., it was behaving locally.

If I understand you position, you are suggesting that you have an answer to this dilemma which would seem to bridge the larger questions of "infinity" into an understandable format or concept. If so, then congratulations, as I do not fault the ability to understand, but I will question the ability to answer such things as the "Alpha" (Beginning). It is not attainable. Nor could any computer the size of the galaxy, not exhaust itself in futility, with such a question.

That conundrum of the unknown, gives us our existence, as how else could it be otherwise. This is a puzzle which suggests we are all the same, and yet all different, all within the same space and time. A puzzle in which my mind literally bleeds!

Additionally, you mentioned "containment." I would suggest that containment is a multiple meaning word. One for the "finite" Classical Relative world, and one within "Infinity". We are contained within infinity, but that form of containment, has no center-point, that would hence not make infinity a proper definition. [Infinity is boundless and extend-less, thus no center-point]. It is incumbent that it makes no sense to a finite understanding, but it is a confinement (of its own right) all the same. And we are in it. And center-pointless.] Finite terminologies constrict us, when defining any infinity, save making us crazy trying to do it, or burning out a galaxy sized computer.

I get a sound sense I believe where you are headed, and I will be the first to acknowledge its value to help solve some fundamental unknowns, but respectfully, I can never envision it solving the largest of questions: That of: When we began, or when we end. Both of which are questions that are actually oxymoron's.

Look forward to hopefully seeing your paper someday in the future! Thank you again for your most thoughtful replies...

Cheers, Russ

Dear Sir,

You are absolutely right on your fundamental question: 'When we began, or when we end'. In absolute terms, there is no answer to this question. But then, our essay offers a partial solution to this conundrum. We are concerned about the 'present' that affect us. For us, this 'present' stretches in cycles - each cycle with a beginning and an end. These are evident in all aspects of Nature. While the cycle is one, every segment of it is subdivided into past, present and future in a relativistic manner. The number of such cycles are infinite and we can never fathom it. But we can manage without this information. All we can focus on is the present cycle, which is a digital segment of the analog infinity. If you take a bucket of water from the ocean, it is real. By this way you cannot measure the ocean. But it does not affect the reality of the bucketful of water, with which we are concerned. In general, the principle is: there is no 'many' in 'one'. But without 'one' there cannot be 'many'. Thus, in the ultimate analysis, there is no difference how you describe it. When you are referring to 'one', you are right. When you are referring to 'many', you are also right. Thus, though 'Alpha' is not attainable, it does not make any difference.

We did not 'debunk or content an agreement that "scalar" is not a part of entanglement'. What we meant is that scalar implies directionless fixedity - whereas entanglement implies a mobile relationship. Thus, they cannot be used in unison. Regarding relative distance, we had shown that Einstein's description of length contraction in moving bodies and his mathematics are both wrong. But relative distances are facts of life that do affect us. To that extent, it behaves locally.

You are absolutely correct that containment is a multiple meaning word and that there cannot be a center point in infinity. We were talking not about many, but one. The one can come out of infinity as a designated segment. This segment and not the infinite is contained and has a center. Otherwise, it would not be one. We agree that finite terminologies constrict us. But we are just that - constrained in time and space. Without these constraints, we have no existence. But this does not affect the Infinity. We are a segment of infinity. Infinity is a segment of us.

Sir,

We start from the Infinity and come to this constrained existence following Natural principles and Natural mathematics. Intentionally, we have kept ourselves away from the complex modern 'mathematics', which are really not needed to explain reality, but only manipulated to spread the cult of incomprehensibility to perpetuate one's greatness and lead a cozy life at public expenses. Such mathematics fails the test of logical consistency. Hence we call such descriptions un-mathematical. Modern system of education crams data in the minds of students and the rat race for excellence leaves no time for the students to reflect on the true meaning of what they have been taught. Thus, it makes them blindly believe what has been told to them. Modern scientists are the biggest lot of superstitious persons. But then it is they who decide the course of education and science!

Regards,

basudeba.