Dear All,

The winning essay of this contest concludes that nature is digital (discrete).

And now, I wonder following;

Isnt the photon the Nature most elementary particle, and the Light its Gravitational interaction?

Hasnt the nature same fundamentals?. Particles?

I have tried to explore a broad area in physical science in different aspect and compare to existing known scientific theories. There are no remarkable contradictions with accepted theories (except the term of mass-less Particle). I have tried to interpret a better Unified theory.

Gravity is the basic interaction (force).

Photon is the ultimate elementary particle that every thing is made of.

Sphere/cal shape is dominating shape of the Nature.

In my opinion toward particle theory in both astrophysical and subatomic particles including even the Dark matter (WIMPs and MACHOs), are based on the quantum (quantity) of the most elementary particles.

The characteristics of the Natures Elementary charge is significant in the charged subatomic particles , such as Proton, Electrons, while it is trivial in the other Neutral particles, such as Neutron, Neutrino, and Neutron star, this phenomena is seemingly based on quantum of what may called ultimate elementary particles.

It is about ODD and EVEN numbers. Our conclusion of particle system hierarchy is that there are two main categories due to quantity of Photons.

For more explanation see my essay;

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/794

So far, I noticed many confirmations with this simple Idea, but more complex and advanced explanations (partial view), while loosing the main picture.

I dont really understand why most people try most complex and abstract way to explain a simple question/s.

Nevertheless our physical reality has a limit that depends on validity of unit measurements (Mass, Space and Time). How far these three (minimum requirement) most fundamental unit are valid we may discuss the reality, other wise not.

If my interpretation is wrong I could suspect the information I received (current Physics).

I dont feel funny repeating the terms of I, My, the same time we trying some universal things and the other hand cant be happy seeing the people ignoring what I think to be more important truth without any satisfactory answer.

Collective thinking is very important for tracing the reality. Therefore I think that the best way is to gather all new real things in all essays and to integrate in a overall and more profound edition to ensure that we don%u2019t miss any truth. The Reality is more worth than what we can pay for it, In other words we should not only think about prize and who wins but also think what is there.

I also believe that there is enough information regarding the question toward physical reality but our view (imagination) is important to compile (integrate our information). Our decision is based on discrete information (data) that we integrate.

Here are some of my favorite quotes from Richard P. Feynman;

"I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something."

"Well, Mr. Frankel, who started this program, began to suffer from the computer disease that anybody who works with computers now knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is you *play* with them. They are so wonderful. You have these switches - if it's an even number you do this, if it's an odd number you do that - and pretty soon you can do more and more elaborate things if you are clever enough, on one machine"

Best wishes

Bashir

Dear Tom,

I have just downloaded your preprint "time Barrier", It seems thoughtful, although I am still reading it.

I also think that it relates to may essay, and would like that you check it, since I think you may probably understand the most.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/794

Best wishes,

Bashir

Bashir,

Are photon really particles, or the smallest measurable quantity of light? It seems this idea of entanglement really means that two quantities of the same element are being added together, rather than actual particles. It would make much more sense in the biological context as well.

Dear John, dear physicists,

I am a bit disappointed because I cannot see how the discussion relates to the article. Also, I did not get responses to my direct questions e.g. to DLB, RLO and concerning Hubble.

In principle, I share your critical view. What about particles and waves, I would like like to know from physicists to what extent my naive engineer's wave view needs corrections.

May I translate spin-up and spin-down into the two opposed to each other polarization or circular polarization with left and right chirality? If so then how.

Doesn't a field similar to the the transversal field of a dipole antenna extend symmetrical or anti-symmetrical to the left and the right half-sphere? May I imagine these two halves entangled? May I consider PET based on such pairs?

Couldn't I conclude from such coherence that decoherence is a phenomenon that cannot be ascribed to the single pair of particles but to interaction with its surrounding molecules?

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard,

I'm not the best qualified to answer. I do think the conceptual structure will have to change though. I think the idea of coherence vs. decoherence might also be considered in terms of linearity, vs non-linearity. Linearity is energy in the sense that lines of force/coherence line up, while decoherence is mass, where they all lock up and stabilize.

    Hello dear friends.

    John, you see he doesn't change, "Science is an entirely rationalist enterprise" you are surprising Tom, but don't change ,Lol he rebegins Tom, John you see he rebegins :)

    re :)

    Friendly

    Steve and SPHERICALLY YOURS OF COURSE

    Hi all,

    Dear Eckard, Happy to see your posts. I speak a little on APS linkedin, there are several interstings articles. With a person I discussed about the climat. Could you come on Aps please or could you say me why the simulations utilize a system incompressible as liquid and the mathematical serie is correlated at this incompressiblility. It's not possible in this line of reasoning to simulate correctly the chaotics parameters. I have some ideas but that seems so difficult and complexs for the encoding of mass and then the encoding of all rotations.But in logic we can predict but we are youngs also at the universal scale,I said on APS it's for the future.

    "May I translate spin-up and spin-down into the two opposed to each other polarization or circular polarization with left and right chirality? If so then how." SPINING SPHERES ALWAYS dear Eckard lol

    It could be cool if you come on APS linkedin also.

    Regards

    Steve

    Dear John, Eckard, and Steve

    A photon is a particle elementary of the Nature. The Photon is the lightest/smallest particle type, which every thing (whole universe matter) is made of. And the Light is its effect (gravitational force interaction).

    Terminology confusion;

    The term "Atom" which we still use, had meaning of the Natures fundamental particle as the word origin was 'indivisible" and latter became divisible for several time and still seems to be

    The term of "elementary particles", is still in a situation of undetermined stage, which may give bit confusing meanings.

    I have been facing problem with terms, and realized that, we should be always aware with the change of term, time to time and its usage in different fields (even the native one).

    What I means is that from the beginning (just after Big Bang moment) there was only extremely large number free photons (elementary particles) latter they clustered into bigger spheres due to gravitational force, and these resulted bigger spheres clustered also into bigger spheres and .... The phenomenon of the Gravitational force at this chain of clusters seems now to be scalar. In other words photons Gravitational force (influence) is what we know as Light and it is the smallest scale of the G force, and its also a mirror image the effect that a photon may have

    There is something like "kissing spheres" at initial moment of each spherical clustering. One may also think that this spherical Lattice-like may be two forms, namely "Body Centered" (BC) and "Face Centered" (FC) due the quantity of sphere kissing initial moment. Note that some numerical characteristics here such us Odd and Even numbers of spheres, Charged and Neutral because of number of clustered photons.

    The elementary particle is that which responses the elementary charge and that is the photon. Since Light is (Gravitational) wave the photons/particle can interact by influencing. In general the overall particles interactions in both statically and dynamically creates complex systems

    I think the best way to get a good insight is to ask; What combinations/sequence are possible if one throw large number spherical and homogeneous balls that have attracting force at empty free space?.

    Eckard

    the attachment is some previous question I have tried. I think there is something relevant to your question think your question under the title "charge and the Nature of Gravity" If not, we will take a closer look and descuss.

    best wishes

    BashirAttachment #1: 1_Bashir_Quantum_Mech_and_Relativity_Theory.pdf

    Lol I am laughing of course, I like them you know, Lawrence, Tom and Ray even if I don't agree with some of their conclusions. I recognize that they are simply skillings and that they like sciences and that they like what they do simply,I respect that, I am just a little baby sometimes :)

    Surprising this platform, surprising.

    Steve

    John,

    Regarding the question particle and the duality, there also an ariticle that is realated this case,(attached file) and entitled;

    "Einstein's Hidden Variables: Part A - The Elementary Quantum of Light and Quantum Chemistry" J. Brooks

    In page 3 the following statement;

    E = hv where Planck's proportionality constant "h" is equal to 6.626 X 10-34 J sec. This fundamental formula is the foundational basis for all of quantum theory. Interestingly, Planck simply assumed this formula and did not derive or prove it. His arbitrary quantum formula yielded a proportionality constant ("h") equal to the product of energy and time, which Planck referred to as the ultimate "quantum of action".

    ."I see no reason why energy shouldn't also be regarded as divided atomically." L. Boltzmann, 1891,

    "it is quite conceivable...that the [wave] theory of light...leads to contradictions when applied to the phenomena of emission and transformation of light". He proposed that the interactions of light and matter "appear more readily understood if one assumes that the energy of light is discontinuously distributed in space [in particles]". Albert Einstein.

    In page 4...

    In 1922, Louis-Victor de Broglie proposed that light waves possess momentum (just like particles), and that particles are "waves" with measurable wavelengths.

    What I wonder is the conceptual meaning of which De Broglie proposed, in Physical Reality, How particles can be Wave? could one explain such terminology,in a better form?

    Best wishes

    Bashir

    Bashir,

    I did read through it, but haven't had the time to fully unravel the relationships. Eventually the relationships between the attraction of gravity and the expansion of light will be better understood. My problem isn't with the basic science, but the flights of fancy which have grown up in the gaps in our knowledge.

    Hi Bashir,

    Happy to see you on the blogs and forums, it's cool that.

    I read your post and as you know I like spheres. Logic lol that said, i have a question? do you consider a photon as a single particle or a entanglement ?

    ps after the BB .....first fractalization of the main sphere with a pure finite number and a serie of correlated volumes ...implying a finite serie of spheres(a photon in logic Bashir and then it's not a single particle) after this step it's a multiplication in my line of reasoning of this ultim entanglement and its number, finite implying in a simplistic vue the space.after the rotations make the rest and permit to differenciate hv and mass but they have the same quantic number in my line of reasoning. What do you think Bashir? and what is this number(it's my headache that lol all days i search a serie to calculate this number the same for hv, m and the cosmological number of spheres(moons,stars, planets, BH....and the UNIVERSAL CENTER the serie you see Bashir id between 1 and 1 but between wawww it's the rock and roll of sciences jimmy hendrix and led zep in the physics lol?

    Regards

    steve