INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY

INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY.

“At the heart of everything is a question, not an answer” – Wheeler.

Or is it the opposite?

The answer is staring at us with all its glory, but its glare blinds us!

            Why of all the number systems in use, binary systems dominate the information sector? What reality stands for? How virtual particles pop out and vanish in the so-called vacuum states? By which mechanism information (thought) pops out of memory in response to some external stimuli and vanishes again? What is an electron or a photon? What will happen if proton or neutron is used in the double slit experiment? Does Big bang imply ex-nihilo? What is nothingness? Is there an all encompassing background structure? Can energy be non-interacting (dark)? As Jesus says, let those who have eyes see.

THE ITS & THE BITS:

            Information Theory is based on the concept of writing instructions that will make the computer follow and run a program based on those instructions or matching perceptions of the transmitter with the receiver. Perception is the processing of the result of measurements of different but related fields of something with some stored data to convey a combined form “it is like that”, where “it” refers to an object (constituted of bits) and “that” refers to a concept signified by the object (self-contained representation). Measurement returns restricted information related to only one field at a time. To understand all aspects, we have to take multiple readings of all aspects. Hence in addition to encryption (language phrased in terms of algorithms executed on certain computing machines - sequence of symbols), compression (quantification and reduction of complexity - grammar) and data transmission (sound, signals), there is a necessity of mixing information (mass of text, volume of intermediate data, time over which such process will be executed) related to different aspects (readings generated from different fields), with a common code (data structure - strings) to bring it to a format “it is like that”.

In communication technology, the mixing is done through data, text, spread-sheets, pictures, voice and video. Data are discretely defined fields. What the user sees is controlled by software - a collection of computer programs. What the hardware sees is bytes and bits. In perception, these tasks are done by the brain. Data are the response of our sense organs to individual external stimuli. Text is the excitation of the neural network in specific regions of the brain. Spreadsheets are the memories of earlier perception. Pictures are the inertia of motion generated in memory (thought) after a fresh impulse, linking related past experiences. Voice is the disturbance created due to the disharmony between the present thought and the stored image (this or that, yes or no). Video is the net thought that emerges out of such interaction. Software is the memory. Hardware includes the neural network. Bytes and bits are the changing interactions of the sense organs (string) with their respective fields generated by the objects evolving in time.

The result of measurement is always related to a time t, and is frozen for use at later times t₁, t₂, etc, when the object has evolved further. All other unknown states are combined together and are called superposition of states. Hence there is an uncertainty inherent in it, which Shannon calls entropy. In perception, the concept remains in a superposition of states and collapses in response to some stimuli. In information technology, the updating is done by an agent. In perception, it is done by the neural network and memory. All information has a source rate (complexity) that can be measured in bits per second (speed) and requires a transmission channel (mode) with a capacity equal to or greater than the source rate (intelligence or memory level). In perception, these are the intelligence level and mind.

Nature follows this principle for storing and processing information. The nature of energy is to displace, which leads to transformation. Objects are perceived only during such transition. Such transitions involve standing waves, which also generate sound. Thus, perception includes audio-visual aspects or e.m. and sound waves. A wave, by definition, is continuous. A particle is discrete. Hence something can be described both as a wave and a particle only at a point - the interface of two waves. The photon consists of two standing waves of force - one an expansive electro force and the other the contractive magnetic force. When these waves intersect each other perpendicularly, it is called an electromagnetic particle. The particle vanishes as the forces separate in their continuation as standing waves. Photon is the locus of this interface in a direction perpendicular to both. Hence it is called the carrier of e.m. energy and has no rest mass. A wave always requires a medium. Since density plays an important role in momentum transfer and since density of space is the minimum, the velocity of photon in space is maximum.

            A sound wave is perturbations of density, pressure and velocity, where sites of maximum density alternate with sites of minimum density to generate and propagate the vibrations. They are distributed periodically and propagate in the medium with the velocity of sound. The wavelength is a weak perturbation, where the relative values of the density amplitude (i.e., the greatest value of density, divided by the average density of the medium) is small as compared to unity. If we take a sound wave of large amplitude, the pressure and temperature in the maxima of density prove to be noticeably greater than their average values. The velocity of sound at these maxima is also greater.

Figure 1.

Evolution of a sound wave. Density profiles are shown in four successive instants.

The arrows show the direction of the wave propagation.

            Due to the above reason, the crests of the wave propagate in the environment faster than the wave as a whole. Similarly, the velocity of sound at the minima of density is less than the average velocity. Hence the troughs move slower than the whole wave and the crests tend to overtake the troughs. When a crest gets closer to a trough, the layer of the density drop becomes narrower and the wave front becomes steeper. If the crest could catch up and overtake the trough, the wave front would turn over like those in the sea. This causes background noise in communication and confusion in perception.

MECHANISM OF PERCEPTION:

To understand or solve something is to predict its behavior in a given situation, when such prediction matches observed behavior. Something makes meaning only if the description remains invariant under multiple perceptions or measurements under similar conditions through a proper measurement system. In communication, as in perception, it is the class or form that remains invariant as a concept. The sequence of sound in a word or signal ceases to exist, but the meaning remains as a concept. In Nature, same atoms (or numbers signifying objects) may combine differently to produce different objects. The concept arising out of each combination acquires a name (word, message) that remains invariant through all material changes and even when they cease to exist.

This also defines reality. Reality must be invariant under similar conditions at all times. The validity of a physical theory is judged by its correspondence to reality. In a mirage, what one sees is a visual misrepresentation caused by the differential air density due to temperature gradient. All invariant information consistent with physical laws, i.e. effect of distance, angle, temperature, etc, is real. Since the perception of mirage is not invariant from different distances, it is not real.

The concept of measurement changed with the problem of measuring the length of a moving rod. Two possibilities suggested by Einstein were either to move with the rod and measure its length or take a photograph of the two ends of the moving rod and measure the length in the scale at rest frame. However, the second method, advocated by Einstein, is faulty because if the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to his formula. 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 recording device and the picture we get will be distorted due to different Doppler shift.

Length contraction is only apparent from the stationary frame and cannot be real for the moving frame. What the man on the platform sees cannot affect the train. The passenger on the train will not notice any length contraction. However, time dilation is real in a different sense. All experiments conducted to prove time dilation are defective. Data from the first experiment available in US naval archives proves that it was fudged. Time dilation has meaning only in relative terms of cyclic evolutionary sequences. The evolutionary cycles are different for different categories or different species of the same category. Their evolution over universal time (Einstein’s clock at C) can lead to comparative time dilation.

            In communication, length contraction or time dilation has no direct bearing on the final outcome. Yet, the individual letters in a word or the individual words in a sentence submerge their sovereignty to the final meaning. Further, the same concept can be communicated by using long or short words or sentences that take different time to pronounce or write. When the compiler translates the code into assembly language or the assembler converts the assembly language into computer code or the computer executes them into a series of ‘on’s and ‘off’s, the effect of these concepts are evident.

Writing a code means writing a bunch of relatively simple instructions and allowing the computer to run millions of instructions in a second. Individually, each code line does very little. The programmer not only focuses on what the end product looks like, but also on how each little piece runs, and then being able to write all of the little lines of code that enable the whole program to run. Finally, the program objective is broken up into different chunks. Only the chunk that is needed is worked on at a time and those that are not needed are pushed off to be done at a different time. This enabled writing more complex codes, but made it more readable and easy to program.

The inherent uncertainty induced by the environment necessitates error-correcting codes. This is done by introducing redundancy into the digital representation to protect against corruption (syntax error). Compilation of information (pool) is bound by physical rules and all combinations are not permitted (eigenvalues). Inside an atom, the number of neutrons cannot exceed a specific ratio. This is the difference of wakeful state from the dream state, where, in the absence of external stimuli, no such restrictions (compiler) apply to the stored information in memory. Hence valid source coding is necessary.

In the mechanism of perception, each sense organ perceives different kind of impulses related to the fundamental forces of Nature. Eyes see by comparing the electromagnetic field set up by the object with that of the electrons in our cornea, which is the unit. Thus, we cannot see in total darkness because there is nothing comparable to this unit. Tongue perceives when the object dissolves in the mouth, which is macro equivalent of the weak nuclear interaction. Nose perceives when the finer parts of an object are brought in close contact with the smell buds, which is macro equivalent of the strong nuclear interaction. Skin perceives when there is motion that is macro equivalent of the gravitational interaction. Individually the perception has no meaning. They become information and acquire meaning only when they are pooled in our memory.

In the perception “this (object) is like that (the concept)”, one can describe “that” only if one has perceived it earlier. Perception requires prior measurement of multiple aspects or fields and storing the result of measurement in a centralized system (memory) to be retrieved when needed. To understand a certain aspect, we just refer to the data bank and see whether it matches with any of the previous readings or not. The answer is either yes or no. Number is a perceived property of all substances by which we differentiate between similars. Hence they are most suited for describing messages concerning everything. Since the higher or lower numbers are perceived in a sequence of one at a time, it can be accumulated or reduced by one at each step making it equivalent to binary systems.

The probabilities on which Shannon based his theory were based on objective counting of relative frequencies of definite outcomes. Physics uses an elementary, indivisible entity - quantum - defined by the act of its observation, to build everything. So does information theory.  Its quantum is the binary unit, or bit, which is a message representing one of two choices: 1 or 0 – on or off – yes or no. The ‘on’s are coded (written in programming language) with 1 and the ‘off’s with 0.

CLASSIFICATION OF INFORMATION:

Information is specific data reporting the state of something based on observation (measurements), organized and summarized for a purpose within a context that gives it meaning and relevance and can lead to either an increase in understanding or decrease in uncertainty. Information is not tied to one’s specific knowledge of how particles are created and their early interactions, just like the concepts signifying objects are not known to all. But it should be tied to universal and widely accessible properties. Information theory tries to make the concepts opaque to the less privileged. Two widely used theories are the Shannon’s mathematical theory and Chaitin's algorithmic theory.

Chaitin used a version of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. Using an information theoretic approach based on the size of computer programs, he found regions in which mathematical truth has no discernible structure or pattern and appears to be completely random. Hence he used statistical laws to build computable strategies. We dispute his undecidability theorems which equates very small to zero. We are not discussing it now.

Shannon dealt with Channel Capacity & the Noisy Channel Coding Theorem, Digital Representation instead of electromagnetic waveform, Efficiency of Representation - Source Coding (data compression) and Entropy & Information Content. The channel capacity can be approached by using appropriate encoding and decoding systems. The noisy channel coding theorem gave rise to the entire field of error-correcting codes by introducing redundancy into the digital representation to protect against corruption below certain threshold – Shannon limit. Digital representation ensured that once data was represented digitally, it could be regenerated and transmitted with minimal error. Source Coding removed redundancy in the information to make the message compact. Shannon showed that information could be sent using high power and low bandwidth (brevity), or high bandwidth and low power (expressiveness).

            The traditional low bandwidth radio focused all their power into a small range of frequencies. With increasing number of users, the number of channels used increased and so was interference. Since too much power was confined to a small portion of the spectrum, even a single interfering signal in the frequency range could disrupt the communication. Shannon redefined the relationship between information, noise and power. He quantified the amount of information in a signal as the amount of unexpected data the message contains. He called the information content of message ‘entropy’ or uncertainty.

In digital communication, a stream of unexpected bits is just random noise. Shannon showed that the more a transmission resembles random noise (common usage), the more information it can hold, as long as it is modulated to an appropriate carrier - a low entropy carrier can carry a high entropy message. He could send a message with low power spread over a high band width by spreading its power over a wide band of frequencies. One problem with his model that differentiates it from intelligent models like perception is that, it does not consider message importance or meaning that concerns quality of data.

The second category of information is factual information, which is the content. The Shannon information involves messages represented by symbols (usually binary numbers) and probabilities of their being chosen. But what is the content of the messages? All sounds do not convey a message. When we say “pen” – a sound symbolizing three letters (symbols) arranged in a particular pattern, what is the content of the message for the receiver? To someone who can’t hear or does not know English or have not seen a pen or knows the pen by some other name, the word “pen” or the object does not make any sense. If he has come across this word earlier and has known to relate the sound to the object, only then he can think that “It is like the one I had seen earlier, which was called a pen. Hence it is a pen”. Thus the actual content of any word is the concept of a known object.

The particular structured configurations of letters are words that convey a fixed meaning. The binary symbols only conform or deny whether the perception of the object matches the concept or not, but not the probabilities of their sequence or occurrence. Shannon followed the Morse code, which worked on the probabilities of their sequence or occurrence. Several words can be formed with the same set of letters. A particular configuration conveyed a particular meaning. The same object may be associated with different words by different receivers. The same word may convey different meanings in different contexts. The probability of any specific word being chosen over others rests with the understanding level of the receiver and depending upon the environment. This is determined by experience and not due to uncertainty.

Just like the result of measurement is preserved for future requirement, the fixed meaning assigned to words (concepts) is also preserved in Nature. For example, inertia of motion starts after an impulse, which makes a body move in a field imparting energy to it at the point of contact. It gradually diminishes when other opposing force components act upon it. Since energy cannot be destroyed, the energy of the body in motion is transferred to others. Similarly, when we perceive something due to an impulse, it starts inertia in our mind by generating a chain of thoughts drawing from memory. This chain ceases if we get the object of our desire or know all about it or experience some pain due to another stronger impulse. In this process, the energy that generated thought is transferred to the field that gave rise to the perception.

Our thoughts consist of words with etymological or fixed meanings (variables and constants), which are preserved in Nature. Thus, along different cultures, we find similarities in the words signifying similar concepts like mother, father, brother, five, seven, etc. When perceptions of such words (sounds) or symbols (visuals) are mixed (array) with the perception of the object, the message is complete. When we see a person singing in a TV program, we perceive it as “the person my eyes see is the person whose songs my ears hear”. This is due to the mix of the two different perceptions in our brain.

The third category of information is intrinsic semantic information. Semantic means pertaining to different meanings of words or other symbols. It relates to configuration that carries intrinsic information in the sense that different persons can, in principle, deduce the law or process that explains the observed structure. Here, the grammatical meaning has been discarded fully or partially for a different meaning because of similarities associated with the concept. It is popular usage or special programs that may or may not follow general logic, but follows a law of its own.

The fourth category is the control statement. The computer is programmed to go straight from the first line of code to the last. But if we want it to run some code only on some conditions, it changes control to read from a different line of code, instead of the next. We can even put one control statement inside another or use a pseudo code.

The last category belongs to some axiomatic postulates (operations and operands) that are accepted as evidently proven (primitive) in communication. This is essential for programming. For example, unless we accept the concept of numbers and the binary system as self-evident truths, we cannot start writing a program.

Classically, we used grammar, dictionary, synonyms, public usage and adages respectively for these categories of information.

WHAT HAPPENS IN NATURE?

            According to the Church-Turing principle, every piece of physical reality can be perfectly simulated by a quantum computer. But there is difference between Reality and its simulation. Formulating a Theory of the observed (or potentially observable) events means building up a network of input-output connections between them. In a causal theory, these connections are causal links. In computer-programming language, the events are the subroutines and the causal links are the registers where information is written and read. In physical terms, the links are the systems and the events are the transformations. The computer does not function naturally, but we design and write the algorithm for the computer to function. Hence it will be a creature of our ideas and limitations – GIGO. The notion of Information cannot become the new big paradigm for Physics.

Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiment is a variation of the two-slit experiment, where the experimenter decides whether to leave both slits open or to close one off - after the electrons have already passed through the barrier. The electrons are said to know in advance how the physicist will choose to observe them. This experiment was carried out in the early 1990s and is said to confirm Wheeler’s prediction. But has anyone ever tried to do the experiment with protons and neutrons, which are also quantum particles?

While conducting experiments, most people exclude the properties of the measuring instrument that affect the outcome. If you throw a pebble to the surface of a pond, the pebble goes down, but the waves spread perpendicular to its direction. If we throw another pebble a little away from the first pebble, the pebble will sink below, but the new waves on water will show interference pattern. Something similar happens in two-slit experiment. A moving electron generates a magnetic field that moves perpendicular to it. We have conducted some experiments in a water body with separated channels. Interference pattern was seen when the waves had access to both channels, but not seen when one channel was blocked. Our experience also links the interference pattern to the distance of the barrier from the slits. An experiment using protons and neutrons will show similar behavior.

In a recent experiment of two-slit experiment, a gold-coated silicon membrane with two slits each 62 nm wide and 4 μm long with a separation of 272 nm was used. To block one slit at a time, a tiny mask controlled by a piezoelectric actuator was slid back and forth across the double slits. Piezoelectric effect is the generation of an electric charge in certain non-conducting materials, such as quartz crystals and ceramics, when they are subjected to mechanical stress. Piezoelectric materials exposed to a fairly constant electric field tend to vibrate at a precise frequency with very little variation. Since the electrons were created at a tungsten filament and accelerated across 600 V and collimated into a beam and the intensity of the electron source was set so low that only about one electron per second was detected, the mask that controlled the barrier was interfering with the results. Hence the entire set up is faulty.

Till date no one has described “what an electron is”. To understand it, we have to look at the Solar system as reported by Voyager 1. The solar radiation moves out in all directions gradually reducing in energy with the passage of different planetary orbits to face resistance at the termination shock. After passing through the heliosheath and heliopause, it meets a transition region before crossing the heliosphere. In an atom, these are equivalent to the electron orbits. The electrons are the locus of the nucleic radiation at the resistance points of the nucleic field, confined by the negative charge band of the field. Thus, they behave like waves in the sea till they hit the shore. When they pass or are directed through only one slit, they show one pattern. When the two slits are open, if the distances in both sides are right, they show interference pattern. Elsewhere we have explained entanglement with macro examples. There is no quantum weirdness.

How do atoms get instructions about the laws they must obey? Density variation in the field generates different strings that are revealed as the fundamental forces of Nature, just like the sequence of letters create words with specific concepts. Most of the “instructions” are really interactions (mechanical reaction or as induced by a conscious agent, which again are reduced to mechanical reactions). The second law of thermodynamics proves this. The information lives in the Universe as the physical counterpart of a background structure – maintaining a state of equilibrium. When disturbed, the tendency for maintaining equilibrium generates two complementary forces: inertia of motion and inertia of restoration (elasticity). These forces can act linearly or through a point in the field at equilibrium. This creates non-linear behavior that leads to different confinements which are experienced as different forces of Nature.

What is the substrate within which space and time are encoded in this description? Matter itself is patterns of fields in space and time. Particles are nothing but locally confined fields of different densities. Both space and time are related to the order of arrangement in the field, i.e., sequence of objects and changes in them (events) as they evolve. The interval between objects is space and that between events is time. Both space and time co-exist like the fundamental forces of Nature. Similarly, the sequential arrangements of letters form words with different concepts conveying fixed meanings.

Application of force can be of two types: application by a conscious agent or perpetual application of mechanical force, i.e., temporal evolution. Knowledge is the initial condition for application of force by a conscious agent. Incompleteness of our knowledge brings in instability that generates the inertia of motion and inertia of restoration to induce the conscious agent to apply force. The reaction, when compared with previous data, becomes knowledge – real or imaginary. Since result of measurement is fixed, knowledge is in a state of equilibrium. There is a continual pressure starting from the creation event to achieve complete knowledge. If we can have full knowledge, there will be no inertia of motion or restoration – hence no application of force, no measurement, no perception and no knowledge to describe anything. This incompleteness propels creation.

In the case of perpetual motion, which forms the background in which all natural information is stored and physical objects evolve, we can’t control it as it does not interact, but we can have indirect knowledge about it. Big bang did not imply ex-nihilo. If there was no background, what the Universe is expanding in to? When we deny the existence of something, we only deny its physical existence at here-now. We cannot deny the existence of the very concept.

            Quantum states give only probabilities, which are determined by observation. The probability is related to the observer’s inefficiency to control the environment and not to the way the quantum world behaves. They pop out and vanish following general rules of momentum transfer. The hidden variables are the characteristics of the background structure on which the fields rest. These are equivalent to etymological meanings and fixed meanings of words. A field, which is a continuum, cannot exist in void – nothingness. Even the interacting quantum systems - a quantum computer - need a base to exist.

Cosmologists count the number of super-clusters of galaxies in volumes of 300 Mpc or more in size, to find their average concentration in space. Knowing galactic masses, they estimate the average density of matter in such volumes. This density is the same 3 x 10^-31 g/cm³ or about one hydrogen atom per 30m³, wherever we take a volume in space. Can they exist in a void? The huge range of temperatures found in different locations in the Universe and the consistency of background radiation at 2.73k shows the universal background structure. This is the real dark matter. We have discussed the galaxy rotation problem elsewhere. The galactic clusters spinning around a center appear to be temporarily moving away like planets sometimes appear to move away from each other to close in later. The galaxies are not receding due to dark energy as the effect is not seen in galactic scales or less. They are not expanding. Energy is perceived only through its interactions. Hence it cannot be dark (non-interacting). Similarly, information cannot be dark (without answers). It shines in full glory blinding us. We should have the eyes to see it.

DARK MATTER AND DARK ENERGY EXPLAINED

All perceptions are basically results of measurement. Measurement is a process of comparison between similars. Thus, the result of measurement is always expressed in scalar quantities, i.e., numbers. Number is a characteristic of confined objects that differentiates between similars – if there are no similars, it is one; otherwise many. Infinity is like one – without similars, but whereas the dimensions (differential perception of “inner space” from “outer space”) of one are fully perceptible, the dimensions of infinity are not fully perceptible. When everything belongs to the same category like the primordial soup, there are no numbers (it can only be accumulated or reduced in density due to some force that also causes ripples). If there are no similars in an infinite expanse, there can be no measurement, hence no perception. That is the true interpretation of singularity, because both the perceptions of space and time rest on differential perception of sequence – order of arrangement of objects and events respectively, both of which are confined.

All particles are dense objects with confined energy. From the present state to the primordial state can be reached only through the reverse process of disintegration like the stellar nebulae. The spawn out material in supernova explosions is recycled within the galactic space, which leads to further structure formation. At the micro level, it is like the protons changing into neutrons and vice versa, where the quarks disintegrate to reintegrate in a new combination. The quark-gluons plasma here is no different from those in the primordial state. It is also like plants coming out of Earth and again being assimilated in it to reappear differently. If we apply the principle of symmetry to the creation event, it will point to final dissolution (not the “big crunch”), which will be similar to the primordial soup. Here mass and energy are not reduced infinitely to a point called singularity, but redistribute to achieve local equilibrium everywhere.

Inertia is the expression of conservation laws – the conservation of state or resistance to change. When the imparted energy fully displaces the object, it acquires a new state of motion and tries to conserve it after the initial force ceases to operate on it. When the object is partially displaced, it tries to conserve its earlier state. This is generally called elasticity. We call it inertia of restoration. In the case of big bounce, the interaction between the inertia of motion leading to the final dissolution and the inertia of restoration both operated simultaneously. But ultimately, both did not match – otherwise there would have been no creation event.

Dark matter is the reality, because all matters are essentially dark – not non-interacting, but devoid of the radiation that makes them luminous. When we “see” matter, which consists of protons, neutrons and electrons, we do not “see” the nucleus or the extra-nucleic part that constitutes its mass. All that happens is the radiations released through the external electrons interacts with similar radiation in our eyes and gets compared (measured). Since the radiation moves out through the background structure (whatever it may be, because there is no true void), it generates a magnetic field and becomes electromagnetic radiation. Since electric and magnetic fields move perpendicular to each other and both move perpendicular to their direction of motion, we “see” this as three mutually perpendicular dimensions. But in this perception, mass is missing. All that we “see” is radiation. But when we touch an object, we cut down the radiation and directly “touch” the mass that we cannot “see”. Thus, all matters are essentially dark. Has anyone ever tried to conduct the double slit experiment using protons instead of photons and electrons? It will prove our interpretation.

Dark energy is an oxymoron, because we perceive energy only through its interaction, If it is dark meaning non-interacting, it cannot be energy. If it is smooth and persistent, it must be a background structure. If space “expands”, it must expand into something. That something must be a universal background structure. If we treat each “loop” not as infinitely small, but as big as the universe, then it will mean infinite closed universes. The “big bounce” can then be explained as the macro equivalent of proton-neutron conversion. The “ripples” will be a natural consequence of these conversions, which will travel in the background structure due to inertia. This will generate a bow shock effect, which will slow it down to create a fixed boundary, from which the ripples will bounce back. It will lead to another “big bounce” and the process goes on repeating, albeit increasingly slowly, so that if we take the current rate of expansion, it will appear as the “inflation”. Structure formation takes place during such interaction. We have a detailed theory for this. The background structure is dark matter and its interaction (spinning universe) with large scale structures are dark energy.

There are a large number of different approaches to the foundations of Quantum Mechanics (QM). Each approach is a modification of the theory that introduces some new aspect with new equations which need to be interpreted. Thus there are many interpretations of QM. Every theory has its own model of reality. There is no unanimity regarding what constitutes reality. Unlike super-gravity, string theory is said to be a consistent and well-defined theory of quantum gravity, and therefore calculating the value of the cosmological constant from it should, at least in principle, be possible. On the other hand, the number of vacuum states associated with it seems to be quite large, and none of these features three large spatial dimensions, broken super-symmetry, and a small cosmological constant. The features of string theory which are at least potentially testable - such as the existence of super-symmetry and cosmic strings - are not specific to string theory. In addition, the features that are specific to string theory - the existence of strings - either do not lead to precise predictions or lead to predictions that are impossible to test with current levels of technology.

There are many unexplained questions relating to the strings. For example, given the measurement problem of quantum mechanics, what happens when a string is measured? Does the uncertainty principle apply to the whole string? Or does it apply only to some section of the string being measured? Does string theory modify the uncertainty principle? If we measure its position, do we get only the average position of the string? If the position of a string is measured with arbitrarily high accuracy, what happens to the momentum of the string? Does the momentum become undefined as opposed to simply unknown? What about the location of an end-point? If the measurement returns an end-point, then which end-point? Does the measurement return the position of some point along the string? (The string is said to be a Two dimensional object extended in space. Hence its position cannot be described by a finite set of numbers and thus, cannot be described by a finite set of measurements.) How do the Bell’s inequalities apply to string theory? We must get answers to these questions first before we probe more and spend (waste!) more money in such research. These questions should not be put under the carpet as inconvenient or on the ground that some day we will find the answers. That someday has been a very long period indeed!

KINDLY RESCUE SCIENCE FROM THE SUPERSTITIOUS GENTLEMEN WHO SHUN ORIGINAL WORK AND BLINDLY FOLLOW THE “ESTABLISHED THEORIES” THROUGH REDUCTIONISM TO LOOK SELECTIVELY AND NARROWLY AT EVERYTHING AND PERPETUATE A CULT OF INCOMPREHENSIBILITY TO ESTABLISH THEIR NOTION OF SUPERIORITY TO ENJOY AT PUBLIC EXPENSES.

INERTIAL MASS IS ONLY APPARENT AND NOT REAL

We could not find any experiment that directly proves inertial mass increase, though it has been inferred from some experiments. But there are alternative explanations for those observations. Like other forces, we experience mass through the effect it produces on others. This is the difference between the body (dimension) and it’s mass. While energy creates temperature variation, mass creates pressure variation. Both are related to the body. Inertial mass is a mass parameter giving the inertial resistance to acceleration of the body as determined by its momentum, when it is subjected to a force that is not due to gravity. It is found by applying a known force to an unknown mass, measuring the acceleration, and applying Newton's Second Law, m = F/a. If the same body with the same mass is displaced with application of different energy, its effect (a) would appear as different in proportion to the applied force (F), i.e., with mass constant, F varies with a. Thus, in principle, it need not be mass variation, but can appear so due to energy variation.

Switching over from Cyclotron to Synchrotron is not based on observational necessity, but based on difference between relativistic and non-relativistic theories. They are two different theories independent of each other. The variation factor γ proposed in SR is a mathematical structure apparent to the observer and not real to the physical structure being observed. This difference is generally not recognized - mostly by the brane-world proponents. Unlike three dimensional physical structures, mathematical structures are two dimensional. The graph may represent space, but it is not space itself. The drawings of a circle, a square, a vector or any other physical representation, are similar abstractions. The circle represents only a two dimensional cross section of a three dimensional sphere. The square represents a surface of a cube. Without the cube or similar structure (including the paper), it has no physical existence. An ellipse may represent an orbit (a circle with a moving center), but it is not the dynamical orbit itself. The vector is a fixed representation of velocity; it is not the dynamical velocity itself, and so on.

The so-called simplification or scaling up or down of the drawing does not make these structures abstract. The basic abstraction is due to the fact that the mathematics that is applied to solve physical problems actually applies to the two dimensional diagram, and not to the three dimensional space. The numbers are assigned to points on the piece of paper or in the Cartesian graph, and not to points in space. If one assigns a number to a point in space, what one really means is that it is at a certain distance from an arbitrarily chosen origin. Thus, by assigning a number to a point in space, what one really does is assign an origin, which is another point in space leading to circular logic. The point in space can exist by itself as the equilibrium position of various forces. But a point on a paper exists only with reference to the arbitrarily assigned origin. If additional force is applied, the locus of the point in space resolves into two equal but oppositely directed field lines. But the locus of a point on a graph is always unidirectional and depicts distance – linear or non-linear, but not force. Thus, a physical structure is different from its mathematical representation. Hence, the basic assumptions of all topologies, including symplectic topology, linear and vector algebra and the tensor calculus, all representations of vector spaces, whether they are abstract or physical, real or complex, composed of whatever combination of scalars, vectors, quaternions, or tensors, and the current definition of the point, line, and derivative are necessarily at least one dimension less from physical space.

Perception is related to physical structures. The field created by the content of our eye interacts with similar fields created by other objects measuring those in the process. They are not two dimensional like the impressions on a photographic plate, but three dimensional like a mould, i.e., a shaped cavity that is used to give a definite form to fluid or plastic material including radiation that behave like fluids. Thus, we see three dimensional objects. The photographic plate on the other hand represents the mathematical structure in two dimensions. Thus, it is an abstraction, which is not physical.

While there is no direct evidence of increase in inertial mass, there are many experiments to conclusively show that the ratio of gravitational mass to inertial mass is constant. Gravity is said to be an attractive force, i.e., the force applied by one body brings the other body towards it, i.e., towards the direction of the applied force. Inertia displaces the body in the direction opposite to the direction of the applied force. Since both the displacements in opposite directions are known to be equivalent, this implies that the concept of inertial mass is only apparent like a mirage and can not be real.

SR, GR, EXTRA DIMENSIONS & BLACK HOLES & MORE

SR, GR, EXTRA DIMENSIONS, BLACK HOLES & MORE

CORRESPONDENCE WITH DR. H. WEHRLI

There are lot of talk about indiscernibles.The propositional logic A = A is still valid, because A is not the same as the object, but the defining characteristic of the object. More than one object can have the same characteristic. Otherwise the number sequence would be impossible, as it defines more than one similar object. If the As are always distinct, temporally or spatially, they would not be different, but the same. Yet, chirality, which is a distinctly different characteristic, is also true.

It is true that infinity is not perceivable fully. It is like one – without similars, with the exception that while the dimensions of one are fully perceptible, the dimensions of infinity are not fully perceptible. Space and time are examples of infinity. They are perceptible as without similars. If infinity is not perceptible, you would not have even mentioned it. Einstein never defined anything conclusively. He always gave an operational definition that suited him. Your examples of pi, e, sqrt(2) have characteristics of infinity in a limited way, because while we cannot know their precise value, we know that it lies between two known values – hence not infinite. Thus, we chose a value of these as precise as we require. However, a similar argument is not possible for space and time at the universal scale.

Event is a type of interaction involving mass and energy and reality includes objects with matter. Thus, the usual four entities in physics, i.e. space, time, matter and interactions cannot be replaced by the term event alone. Process is a chain of events.

MILKY-WAY MASS: The paper uses two assumptions: the dark-matter hallow and the gravitational effect of Milky Way on Leo I, both of which can be misleading. Firstly, there is no clear cut view regarding what constitutes dark matter. The galaxy-rotation problem may actually be a questionable concept – especially with the discovery of the “axis of evil” which shows that the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the so-called afterglow of the big bang, is not perfectly smooth and hot and cold spots speckle the sky. These spots are not quite as randomly distributed as they first appeared - they align in a pattern that point out a special direction in space.

The so-called “huge hallow of dark matter” could be something else like the “magnetic highway” that is expected to lead Voyager-1 out of the heliosphere.

The gravitational effect of Milky Way on Leo I may be as misleading as the others. The planets in the solar system are also gravitationally affecting each other and sometimes appear to move away and at other times coming closer to each other while orbiting the Sun. We have repeatedly asserted that this explains both dark matter and dark energy: the rotation problem and the expanding universe problem. The galaxies are orbiting the galactic center and appear to move away from each other at the present juncture. We must not forget that this 83 year old observation is insignificant in cosmic time scales and there is a possibility that both in the past and in future, an apparently reverse motion may be observed. Further, the expansion is restricted to large galactic clusters only and not at all perceptible in local scales. This puts a question mark on the assumption that the universe is expanding – especially when we do not know the contours of the universe. Thus, there is no need to sensationalize it. Scientists should be down to Earth and objective.

You are right that time is independent of observers. However, for any particular space, time may or may not be at now, because the designation of time as “now” depends on the observer. When the observer perceives, it is now for him. Since the observer has a fixed position at any given instant, the now is also related to position. But it is true for all positions making now a variable. Hence you are correct that everyone's consciousness is at now regardless of the space they are at. However, unlike position, which is static, time is dynamic – flowing continuously from now to future relegating now to past continuously. Only past and future have longer duration than now. Now is instantaneous. Hence it may not be proper to say that for any particular space, time is at now. Further, space and time are intrinsically related as space orders the arrangement of objects and time orders the changes in objects in space. Yet, both are independent of each other as they show different characteristics. Unlike time-evolution, there is no spatial evolution: it can only be accumulation or reduction of objects (not space) in time. Further unlike space, we cannot move backwards in time. The bull enters a china shop and breaks everything. The broken pieces do not assemble and arranged as the bull goes backwards.

You are right that “space time is not instantaneous with regard to light or sound”. It is because light and sound are different kinds of waves moving in space in time. Without motion, neither light nor sound would be perceptible. Thus they cannot be instantaneous. 

Time travel, as it is commonly understood, is not possible because all motions in time are forward temporal motions only. Yet, all measurements show the state of objects as they were in a designated past. Thus, it describes the position and its state of temporal evolution of the past. In a sense it is also traveling backwards in time.

Space describes the order of arrangement of objects and time describes the order of arrangement of events, i.e., the changes in objects. Both co-exist independent of each other. An object placed in space does not change the space or its space in time. It only gets transformed in time. That is temporal evolution, which does not depend on the space. An object will evolve in the same manner irrespective of the space it occupies. Yet, both space and time being infinite, cannot be separated from each other as no mathematics is possible with infinities. The manipulations called renormalization are not mathematically valid, as it fails the test of logical consistency. Thus, while the space-time fabric is true, motion has nothing to do with it. Motion comes into existence with the application of force, which generates a chain reaction (which may appear as evolution), which may affect time evolution. However, it is different from time evolution, which can occur even while the object is relatively at rest in its space.

When you are describing “space as the sum of all points and the point as an infinitely small place in space”, you must consider whether you are talking about mathematical space or physical space. The time evolutions depict rate of change. When such change is related to motion; like velocity, acceleration, etc, it implies total displacement from the position occupied by the body in space and moving to the adjacent position. This process is repeated due to inertia till it is modified by the introduction of other forces. Thus, these are discrete steps in space that can be related to three dimensional structures only. Mathematics measures only the numbers of these steps, the distances involved including amplitude, wave length, etc and the quanta of energy applied etc. Mathematics is related also to the measurement of area or curves on a graph – the so-called mathematical structures, which are two dimensional structures. Thus, the basic assumptions of all topologies, including symplectic topology, linear and vector algebra and the tensor calculus, all representations of vector spaces, whether they are abstract or physical, real or complex, composed of whatever combination of scalars, vectors, quaternions, or tensors, and the current definition of the point, line, and derivative are necessarily at least one dimension less from physical space as described below.

The graph may represent space, but it is not space itself. The drawings of a circle, a square, a vector or any other physical representation, are similar abstractions. The circle represents only a two dimensional cross section of a three dimensional sphere. The square represents a surface of a cube. Without the cube or similar structure (including the paper), it has no physical existence. An ellipse may represent an orbit, but it is not the dynamical orbit itself. The vector is a fixed representation of velocity; it is not the dynamical velocity itself, and so on. The so-called simplification or scaling up or down of the drawing does not make it abstract. The basic abstraction is due to the fact that the mathematics that is applied to solve physical problems actually applies to the two dimensional diagram, and not to the three dimensional space. The numbers are assigned to points on the piece of paper or in the Cartesian graph, and not to points in space. If one assigns a number to a point in space, what one really means is that it is at a certain distance from an arbitrarily chosen origin. Thus, by assigning a number to a point in space, what one really does is assign an origin, which is another point in space leading to a contradiction. The point in space can exist by itself as the equilibrium position of various forces. But a point on a paper exists only with reference to the arbitrarily assigned origin. If additional force is applied, the locus of the point in space resolves into two equal but oppositely directed field lines. But the locus of a point on a graph is always unidirectional and depicts distance – linear or non-linear, but not force. Thus, a physical structure is different from its mathematical representation.

There is no fundamental difference between our concepts of physics and mathematics. Only you have used different words to express the same idea. However, we beg to differ on the meaning of definition. We define an object or a concept by observing some intrinsic characteristics of the objects related to the concept. These descriptions can be proper (the same at all times and places under similar conditions) or improper. If it is improper, then it is a wrong definition. Otherwise it is the correct definition. For example, if you define space as “the sum of all points and the point as an infinitely small place in space”, the definition is circular – hence unclear. Further, if the space is the sum of all points, then points are fundamental. In that case, you must define how they are held together. If you define a point as “an infinitely small place in space”, you must admit that space is more fundamental than points and all pervasive. We agree with this part of your definition. Hence we define space as the universal base, which orders the interval between objects. These intervals can be called vacuum, but one has to be careful.

The word vacuum has always been used to mean “the thing that is not material or particulate”. By definition, the vacuum is supposed to be nothing, but often it is used to mean something. This is a contradiction because it begs the paradox of Parmenides: If the vacuum is composed of virtual particle pairs, then it no longer is the vacuum: it is matter. If everything is matter, then we have a plenum in which motion is impossible. Calling this matter “virtual” is camouflage. When required to be transparent, treat it as nothing and when it is required to have physical characteristics (like polarity), treat it as something! Defining something as both x and non-x is not physics.

There is no surprise that the equations of QCD remain unsolved at energy scales relevant for describing atomic nuclei! The various terms of QCD like “color”, “flavor”, the strangeness number (S) and the baryon number (B) etc, are not precisely defined and cannot be mechanically assigned. Even spin cannot be mechanically assigned for quarks except assigning a number. The quantum spin is said to be not real since quarks are point like and cannot spin. If quarks cannot spin, how does chirality and symmetry apply to them at this level? How can a point express chirality and how can a point be either symmetrical or non-symmetrical? If W bosons that fleetingly mediate particles have been claimed to leave their foot-prints, quarks should be more stable! But single quarks have never been seen in bubble chambers, ionization chambers, or any other experiments. We will explain the mechanism of spin (1/6 for quarks) to show that it has macro equivalents and that spin zero means absence of spin – which implies only mass-less energy transfer.

Your observation that: “space, time, mass (substance, energy) and interaction are never directly perceivable as such and therefore not real” are interesting. We agree that space and time are only intervals between objects that arise due to our perception of comparative sequence (far and near or former and later) and thus, have no physical presence. They are described only by the alternative symbolism of the objects (space) and events (time) respectively through an easily intelligible and repetitive cross section that is called the scaling constant or the unit. Mass is also not perceived directly because our brain has different regions dedicated exclusively to different forms of sensory perception, such as sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. In the past three decades studies in psychology and neuroscience have revealed that the brain is an extensively multi-sensory organ that constantly melds information from the various senses. When we “see” an object, what actually happens is that the field set up by our eyes interacts with the field set up by the object emitting electromagnetic radiation. These radiations emanate from the object, but they are not the same as the mass of the object. Thus, we cannot “see” mass. We can only “touch” it, where the radiation emanated by it is totally cut off. Since these two perceptions by themselves are different, we have two different perceptions of color and hardness. Since we can only perceive multi-sensory functions, we cannot perceive these individually. Thus, what we “see” is not what we “touch” and vice versa. To this extent, mass is not directly perceptible. Energy does not have colors nor fixed dimensions. Hence we cannot “see” energy directly. We can only feel its effect by “touch” or “see” its effects on objects with mass. To this extent, energy is not directly perceptible. Interactions are effect of energy on mass. Hence it is also not directly perceptible.

Earlier we have discussed space and time to show that they are perceptible only through an alternative symbolism of the objects (space) and events (time) respectively. The alternative symbolism of the objects and changes in them (events) are physical descriptions. These are not mathematical models because the concepts of space and time are infinite, which, like one, is perceived, but its full extent is not perceived, so that no number can be assigned to it. However, their different aspects or digitized segments are measured mathematically.

All sensory perceptions are not conveyed by photons – only ocular perceptions are done so. In fact, the so-called photon is also described using alternative symbolism. What we describe as the photon is the background structure of space disturbed by the energy traveling through it by transfer of momentum. Thus, the speed of light is background variant – it slows down in denser mediums. We follow the trajectory of the momentum transfer and call it photon through alternative symbolism of position. That is how the photon is said to have zero rest mass. If there is no momentum transfer, the background structure is undisturbed and is not perceptible, as perception is possible only during transition. Also, the objects entering that space do not experience any force. This is zero energy, which is said to be zero mass. The color depends upon the density of the background structure, which affects the wave length of the so-called photon like the color of water and ice. We see the contrasting colors through the interaction with similar fields only in our eyes. Thus, a born blind has no sense of color. The double-slit experiment conforms this description of photon, as what travels is not a particle which cannot travel through both slits, but only momentum transfer in a background structure through two slits. The background structure spreads in both sides of the partition like water flowing through two channels and the films record the interactions that travel through different slits.

Regarding SR, we have already pointed out that the problem with Einstein and others is that they do not give precise scientific definitions of the terms used by them, but always give operational definitions, which can be manipulated to suit one’s convenience. For example, in his SR paper of 30-06-1905, he used clock A as a reference clock to synchronize the clocks at B and C. Yet, immediately thereafter, he denied the existence of any privileged frame of reference. A similar proposition can be seen in his method of measurement of a moving rod. We quote Einstein:

“(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”, or

(b) “By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing with a clock in the moving frame, 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 the length of the rod”

The method described at (b) is misleading. We can do this only by setting up a measuring device to record the emissions from both ends of the rod at the designated time, (which is the same as taking a photograph of the moving rod) and then measure the distance between the two points on the recording device 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 recording device and the picture we get will be distorted due to different Doppler shift.Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).

The same goes for his statement: "space and time are not aspects of reality but at most, questionable mathematical models in which we think." He has not precisely defined reality. We have already sent you our definition of reality.

Relativity is an operational concept, but not an existential concept. The equations apply to data and not to particles. When we approach a mountain from a distance, its volume appears to increase. What this means is that the visual perception of volume (scaling up of the angle of incoming radiation) changes at a particular rate. But locally, there is no such impact on the mountain. It exists as it was. The same principle applies to the perception of objects with high velocities. The changing volume is perceived at different times depending upon our relative velocity. If we move fast, it appears earlier. If we move slowly, it appears later. Our differential perception is related to changing angles of radiation and not the changing states of the object. It does not apply to locality. Einstein has also admitted this. But the Standard model treats these as absolute changes that not only change the perceptions, but change the particle also! For all these reasons, SR, the concept of length contraction and inertial mass are all wrong. The equation e=mc^2 that was first postulated by Poincare mathematically is valid to the extent that if mass varies, energy density also varies proportionately. They are not interchangeable. You can try it with one gram of carbon. The equation fails.

Your concept of information flow is valid and chirality is inherent in it. However, your statement “the information flow is ordered in the direction from the object to the subject”, has to be treated cautiously for two reasons. First, being uni-directional, it goes against the concept of chirality. Second, the information flow is a two-way affair. First the observer wants to “know” some aspect of the observable, for which he directs the field generated by the concerned sense organs; (eyes for color and form perception, ear for sound perception, etc.) or measuring instruments, towards the object. If it interacts with the field generated by the observable, the information is relayed back to the observer. When the various information received from all sense organs are compiled in the brain, it is compared with the stored memory, which leads to perception. Lot of information is lost in the process, which brings in the uncertainty (not chaos). Unfortunately, the multidisciplinary approach has been abandoned for reductionism, which has increased the uncertainty considerably hindering progress of science.

There is a general misconception about dimensions. Scientists often confuse direction with dimension. Dimension is the perception of differentiation of the "outer space" of an object from its "inner space". This describes the "form" of the object. Since "form" is perceived through electromagnetic radiation where the electric field and the magnetic field move perpendicular to each other, which is perpendicular to the direction of motion, we have three mutually perpendicular dimensions. The extra-dimensions, which have remained elusive for over a century, are a myth. One dimension implies length, two dimension area and three dimensions volume. One dimension implies right-left, two dimension include forward-backward in addition (clockwise and counter-clockwise included) and three dimensions include up-down. Since time is not "space – inner or outer", it cannot have “form” and hence cannot be a dimension.

Though the positive and negative charges show chiral symmetry, it cannot be clubbed with dimensions, as dimension refers to fixed “forms”, whereas charge always tries to distribute itself uniformly, which tends to bring uniformity – not symmetry. Symmetry provides the chirality of objects and not forces.  When you talk about mirror image, you are referring to objects and not forces, as energy does not have chirality, but equilibrium.  The apparent chiral symmetry of the positive and negative charges comes from their complimentary nature: positive charges always remain at the center (nucleus) and accumulate; whereas negative charges always stay outside the center and confine the positive charges. To do so, the negative charge has to be slightly higher. This has been proved in many recent findings. However, being directed towards the nucleus, it is not experienced outside. If you look at a container, the contained is the positive charge and the container itself is the negative charge. The only difference from ordinary containers is that, it is always full – the container changes according to the contained. They are always entangled and conjugate. One cannot have any meaning without the other. This conjugation and not chirality, brings in the duality and the symmetry. The reason for such conjugation is different. Chirality is only one of the manifestations of that conjugation, which plays the most fundamental and all pervasive role you ascribe to chirality.

The CPT symmetry, though true, is also much misunderstood. Parity is absolutely essential for balancing or bringing in equilibrium, which is the outcome of the conservation laws. Time evolution, and not time proper, is symmetric. But this symmetry is different from other symmetries. It is not a mirror image, but it is more of an equation – a mathematical model. Given a state of an object at a given time, we can normally predict the past and future states, which come out to be true within the constraints of uncertainty. We agree with your statement that “A mathematical structure changes, whilst something else remains unchanged”. We have already explained that all mathematical structures are al least one dimension less than physical structures. Category theory tries to bridge this gap. But mostly it overdoes it.

Regarding your: “4. To measure is to count”, we generally agree with you and have discussed elaborately in our paper on reality. Your statement: “Every kind of length unit can be derived from a time unit”, may be misleading. To measure length, which is a space component, we move in space, which takes time. However, we cannot derive space from time. Your question: “whether length of time and distance are concepts suited to physics” is valid, as these (being absolute background structures and intervals of objects and events) are strictly not physical objects, but mental constructs of alternative symbolism or mathematical modeling.

Your question: “whether physics is formulated better and simpler by a theory about counted events”, is correct. Because “knowledge” is the same as the result of measurement and measurement is nothing but the conscious process of comparison between similars. We measure length with unit length (measuring instrument), area with unit area, volume with unit volume and density with unit density, etc. Thus, the result of measurement is always counted numbers or scalar quantities. Unfortunately, measurement has been associated with many weird concepts such as collapse leading to complications. As we have told earlier, all unknown states are combined together and named as superposition of states. Only the known state after measurement at here-now gives us a value. This does not mean that collapse brings the object into a fixed state, because by the time we know the result of measurement, the object has further evolved in time bringing in uncertainty. This has been misunderstood and often it is said that each information transfer from one object to another changes both objects.

The concept of the “chronometric convention” is a misleading interpretation of time evolution and the “geometric convention” is an arbitrary arrangement based on easily intelligible and repetitive characteristic. Thus, it is true that the length of a distance is independent of the location. The real problem with measurement can be seen from the following paradox.

Once a famous scientist directed two of his students to precisely measure the wave-length of sodium light. Both students returned with different results – one resembling the normally accepted value and the other a different value. Upon enquiry, the other student replied that he had also come up with the same result as the accepted value, but since everything including the Earth and the scale on it is moving, for precision measurement he applied length contraction to the scale treating the star Betelgeuse as a reference point. This changed the result. The scientist told him to treat the scale and the object to be measured as moving with the same velocity 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 sodium light is infinite. To a surprised scientist, 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 sodium light!

You have equated chirality to “the duality of all being”. This may be highly misleading. While chiral symmetry is the mirror image, it may be different from complimentarity or duality. Space and time are inseparable conjugates. But they are not chiral.

Regarding curvature of space, we remind you of our definition of space. Newton thought that the Earth, the tree with the apple and the intermediate space are fixed. Gravity pulls the apple down over space. Einstein said, the Earth and the tree with the apple are fixed, but the intermediate space “curved”, so that the space between the apple and Earth are reduced with a complimentary expansion of the space between the apple and the tree. He got the idea while observing his teacher trying to solve the problem of the curvature of metal sheets when heated. However, the analogy is totally misplaced. The metal sheets curved when subjected to the external agency of heat. In the case of the apple, what is the agency? Further, if the space curved, why did it pull down only the apple and not everything near it? Thirdly, it increased the space between the apple and the tree. This makes gravity a conjugate force of two equal but oppositely directed forces. We agree with the third description. Since the interaction involves three different agencies: the Earth, the apple and the tree, we hold dual interaction in each position, making gravity a force with 3 complementary parts. With the initial force that started the interaction, we treat gravity as a composite force of seven.

Equivalence is not a first principle of physics, as is often stated, but merely an ad hoc metaphysical concept designed to induce the uninitiated to imagine that gravity has magical non-local powers of infinite reach. We have an ancient text, which discussed the equivalence principle and discarded it as wrong description of facts. It is surprisingly similar to the Russell’s paradox in Set Theory: If S is the set of all sets which do not have themselves as a member, is S a member of itself?

Inside a spacecraft in deep space, objects behave like suspended particles in a fluid or like the asteroids in the asteroid belt. Usually, they are relatively stationary in the medium unless some other force acts upon them. This is because of the relative distribution of mass inside the spacecraft and its dimensional volume that determines the average density at each point inside the spacecraft. Further the average density of the local medium of space is factored into in this calculation. The light ray from outside can be related to the space craft only if we consider the bigger frame of reference containing both the space emitting light and the spacecraft. If the passengers could observe the scene outside the space-craft, they will notice this difference and know that the space craft is moving. In that case, the reasons for the apparent curvature will be known. If we consider outside space as a separate frame of reference unrelated to the space craft, the ray emitted by it cannot be considered inside the space craft. The emission of the ray will be restricted to those emanating from within the spacecraft. In that case, the ray will move straight inside the space craft. In either case, the description of Einstein is faulty. Thus, both SR and GR including the principles of equivalence are wrong descriptions of reality. Hence all mathematical derivatives built upon these wrong descriptions are also wrong. We will explain all so-called experimental verifications of the SR and GR by alternative mechanisms or other verifiable explanations.

We have already explained in our earlier post that mathematical structures are at least one dimension less than physical structures and that a point in mathematics is not the same as a point in space. You are correct that there is no space to provide a background for the point. But that is true for mathematical point. Physically we can always describe any point in space. Whitehead’s definition of point is an oxymoron: if it has no geometrical element in it, it cannot be a geometrical element. A geometrical element must have geometrical characteristics. It is absurd to say that an atom has no atomic characteristic. When you describe a non-zero distance as number 1, you are referring to the scaling constant that is treated as a unit. Obviously, the distance scale does not include direction. However, if you take three points x, y and z, then direction automatically comes in. We have done some work in this area and have published a book. You may get it free of cost by sending your full postal address.

When you say: “If no point lies between the other two, the three points form a triangle, whose sides all have the length 1”, you describe the area between an equilateral triangle. Otherwise, the three points indicate three unrelated points in three dimensional physical space or two dimensional mathematical space on a paper. When you impute direction to the sides, you imply the locus of one point or the other, which is possible and proportional to an applied force. Your further arguments have to be viewed in this light along with the source and magnitude of the applied force.

Regarding neutrino and antineutrino, the symmetry is clear: antineutrino comes in and absorbed while neutrinos go out. The path reversal explains their chirality. Their so-called mass difference is actually energy difference, which can be explained by the temperature differential between the particles they interact with. These particles are evident only at different energy levels.

We have already explained that dimension describes the "form", which is perceived through electromagnetic radiation where the electric field and the magnetic field move perpendicular to each other, which is perpendicular to the direction of motion. Thus, we have three mutually perpendicular dimensions.

Black holes are marked by their signature release of x-ray radiation. Unlike gamma rays, x-rays are released from the negatively charged part of the object. Thus, the abundance of x-rays indicates abundance of negatively charged component. Since negative charge flows from periphery towards the center, they are not visible outside the periphery – hence black. Since it moves inwards, it is a hole. Thus, black hole! GR has nothing to do with it.

ORIGIN OF MOON THEORIES

Recently, there has been much discussion regarding the theory of the origin of the Moon. The dominant theory emerging is the giant collision theory. But there are many problems with this theory also. We show that all these theories are wrong.

If we look at the chemical composition of the Sun’s surface, we find the dominant element is hydrogen – 71 percent. In the case of Earth’s crust, it is oxygen – 46.6 percent. But what about the Moon? Yes; it is covered with silicate like Earth. But what about hydrogen, helium and oxygen? It is totally different. The Earth’s core is composed of mostly molten iron. The Moon a small iron core perhaps 300 km in radius, with a temperature of about 1500 K, too cool to melt the rock, surrounded by a soft asthenosphere that do not permit S-waves, implying it must be plastic. The Mare covers of the moon are less reflective than the “highlands” as a result of their iron-rich compositions, and hence appear dark to the naked eye. The maria cover about 16 percent of the lunar surface, mostly on the near-side visible from Earth. The few maria on the far-side are much smaller, residing mostly in very large craters. The Near side has more mare: 32% of its surface is mare covered compared with 2% of the far side (globally mare cover 17%).

There is interesting similarities between the Moon and the Mercury. If the crust of Moon is heated enough, it will resemble the crust of Mercury. There are many other similarities between the two like only one side of their surface is always faced towards their principal body, strength of magnetosphere, etc. Thus, the theories of the origin of Moon are all wrong. The origin of Mercury is linked to the origin of Moon. Both were formed neither due to impact of two bodies (it will impossible for Mercury), not due to collision or split. Their formation should be linked to the conservation laws. While the cosmic background temperature is very low, it is very high at the stars and galaxies. Thus, the accumulation of high temperature bodies are linked to a corresponding process of evolution of low temperature bodies following the conservation laws. Both have the same source of origin – cosmic nebulae.