Dear Panagiotis,

I read your interesting work about generating discrete geometry. However, in order for the geometry to represent the smooth spacetime structures it must be formulated in terms of functional analysis with analytical functions. In other words, Euclidean Polyhedron Geometry is formulated in such form that it can be regarded as discrete representation of Riemannian submanifolds. 

Kind regards,

Vu.

Given current theory, the 'maximum density' is likely the Plank Density - a Plank Mass within a Plank Volume. This would be a Plank-sized black hole!

 Dear Christian, David and Scott,

Christian, I've read your paper. It is a nice and significant work. But as far as I understand the current format of physics, phase space is a mathematical tool that is used to describe the dynamics of a physical object in the ordinary space with respect to time. You can say the introduction of the concept of the ordinary space and time for the purpose scientific investigation is also a setup of a mathematical tool, but ordinary space-time is a real part of the real physical existence. The other part is matter, which is what we are talking about. Whether the ordinary space has 3 dimensions or more is another problem. I think the ordinary space-time is a 3D spatial+3D temporal manifold, as discussed in my temporal dynamics.

David, when I talk about infinite density, most of the time I think about black holes. But if matter is made up of Higgs bosons and Higgs bosons can't pack up themselves, how can a black hole be formed?

Scott, the mathematical system 1+1=1 is in fact some form of Boolean algebra. We can hardly use it but, as shown by experiments of photons, bosons can. I think due to our limited ability as a physical object within the physical existence, there exist many things that we can't perceive. I can't see why assuming infinity, the rest is easy, because we can't even talk about those finite objects which exist right in front of our finite eyes. Unless you also see all things are infinite.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Maximum energy that can be contained within the planck length is the planck energy. If a particle acquires more energy than the planck energy, it will have to cross the limit imposed by the compton wavelength. In my theory, at this point the particle wave collapses (this has nothing to do with the collapse of the wave function). This is when the energy ceases to be energy and becomes unmanifest. My theory proposes an all pervasive unified field which is one step deeper than the zero point energy. This unmanifest feild does not have any mass gap like the zero point energy. This phenomenon can occur only beyond the planck energy level and only with bosonic particle.

Zero and infinity are poorly defined in mathematics and physics. I don't think there is absolute zero. This is why zero point energy has a mass gap. To me zero means infinitesimally small value which can be ignored and infinity means something which cannot be explained with a finite number. I define infinity as one without a second. In other words, infinity does not have a boundary that you can define second something beyond that boundary. This is absolute infinity. With same reasoning we can say that infinitesimally small something like zero cannot exist,

because you cannot define infinitesimally small without putting a boundary on it. When someone divides a finite number by zero, they get a very large number which is a pseudo infinity. There are so many pseudo infinities in physics and mathematics. In absolute infinity there is no division and therefore no relativity. This way of defining infinity is purely mathematical. You cannot define a potential infinity with pure mathematics. For defining potential infinity we must introduce physics. Examples of potentials are electric potential, gravitational potential etc. In general we can say that these kind of potentials are energy potentials. The potential associated with the unification of four forces is the greatest of all potentials. All force potentials are inherently bosonic. When one of this potential crosses the planck energy level, the particle wave (in my theory Savitons) associated with it collapses and all the energy disappear in the underlying field of infinite potential which is called the unmanifest in my theory. This infinite potential field is not energy at all because it is perfectly motionless. More details in following article.

Article Periodic quantum gravity and cosmology

My suggestion is that ,go through the literature on Black Hole .

B.Rath

Dear Vu and all other,

The usual statistical approach for the photon is the Bose-Einstein stat. It is suppose special quantum properties but this is a trick since the origin of the quantum state is not well understood.

Let us consider the condensation of a gas. When the temperature T of a gas decreases the density of probability around zero Kelvin tends to infinity. The corresponding probability tends to one. Let then Eg be the heat of vaporization or sublimation. To belong to the gas the atoms must have energy higher than Eg. The kinetic energy E of the atoms of the gas is the amount of their energy above Eg. When the corresponding mean value U tends to zero, the gas will tends to condense in a liquid or a solid. This result is natural and can be considered as a necessary condition to which corresponding statistical function has to satisfy.  You can find the way to obtain it in “Perturbations and Statistical Distribution of the Thermal Energy” on my site.

A first approach was initially proposed by Planck to describe the spectral density of the black body. To understand the difficulties of this approach one has to look at the historical context. It is Planck the first who has introduced the quantification of the light associated to the harmonic oscillator. In this way he was able to use the statistical approach of Boltzmann and to avoid the difficulties of the classical model which diverges for the high energies. In 1900 there was not yet quantum model to explain the emission of the light. One has to wait Einstein in 1905 for the hypothesis of the photon and Bohr in 1913 for the first atomic model. With the lack of a clear understanding of the emission of the photons Planck was supposing the existence of harmonic oscillators that we can easily identify with the quantum transitions of the electrons of the atoms of the solids building the black body. He was supposing that the oscillator emitted all a series of quanta of energy nhn. Now we know that the atoms emit photons of variable energy as a result of the thermal energy. Thus the remarkable approach of Planck is perfectible. Furthermore at this time it was difficult

to suppose that the quanta of energy nhn do not exchange directly energy between them, as their constant velocity allows supposing it.

Yet without exchange of energy it cannot have statistical distribution in the same meaning than that of the energy of the atoms. Since the photons are emitted by the electrons of the atoms their statistical properties must be the reflection of that of the atoms of the solids emitting them as it appears in our study of the black body. Yours Xavier

 Dear All,

Vikram, you don't think there is an absolute zero but you believe in an absolute infinity. This seems to be the other way around what we all seem to believe in. If you don't have the concept of zero in mathematics then what zero are you talking about? I don't think we have a virtual zero in mathematics.

Biswanath, what do they start with in the literature of black holes? Assume there is a black hole, is that correct? I am not very sure if they really know what they talk about, physically, except some great patched up ideas with complicated mathematical representations, such as a mathematical theory of black holes.

Scott, I think when we assume infinity, the game is not over, but we've just given up.

Xavier, it seems your way of thought is always close to mine. As I have said in other post, if something we can't work out precisely then probability is the best answer. And this is also true for quantum physics.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Vu

As Christian mentioned, any notion of density involves the notion of volume by definition.

On my side, I found that it seems possible to determine a maximum density of the kinetic energy contained in a localized photon, or massive electromagnetic elementary particle like the electron when we assume that the electromagnetic oscillation of this quantum is metaphorically immobilized into the smallest sphere possible.

 This provides this particle's absolute limit density parameters, beyond which energy density cannot possibly be increased. This is analyzed in the following paper. This volume equation is not numbered, to my own surprise and lies between equations (40i) and (40j):

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/2257

Vu,

Brahmagupta (598 CE) was the first mathematician who formulated the concept of zero and gave rules for addition and substraction using zero as a number. Before this time zero was used only as a symbol for lack of quantity. Concept of zero in mathematics is an abstract concept. But when you relate it to the reality of the world you may find some deviations. This is the reason why general relativity fails at Planck time when the size of the universe is about 10^(-35) m. It cannot go any smaller than that. Similarly zero point energy has a mass gap. In simple example, if you have one apple in a box and if you remove one apple from the box, you get zero apple. But the box remains. Similarly if you remove all the energy of the universe, from the universe, the box will remain.

Dear Vikram and Andre,

Vikram, as far as I understand mathematics, all numbers are an abstract concept which is used as a language to describe the real physical world which includes space, time and matter. How would you know that the universe will still remain if all energy is removed? We can't have a universe without energy or matter, can we?

Andre, somehow I forgot what Christian had mentioned about volume. However, by definition we can have an infinite density within a finite volume, so why does the notion of volume matter in this case?

Kind regards,

Vu.

matter, space and time accommodate each other in a way we can not comprehend ... in that (subjective) "noumena" they follow Divine Law and manifest as the physical universe (, the "phenomena") ... matter, motion, energy are among the (objective) aspects of changes (, a process of oscillation between existence and non-existence conforming the Divine Law)... science is induced/inseparable from meta-science ...

Dear Vu

Because this is the very definition of density. In the SI system, it is kg/m^3.

In SI, a density is an amount of "something in kg" per unit volume in meters cube.

In CGS it is the amount of "something in gram" per unit volume in centimetres cube (g/cm^3).

So yes, you need a finite volume different from zero for any measurement of density, even infinite, or else you don't have a density. Seems to me that if such an infinite mass or energy density really existed in any volume at all, we wouldn't be here to talk about it because it would have swallowed the whole universe a long time ago.

To speak of infinite density means the following: given that a bulk of material was compressed to a density ρ, it is possible to compress the material to a density ρ' > ρ.

So, the question is whether, no matter how big is ρ, it is possible to attain an even bigger density?

I believe that the answer is here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star]

"A neutron star is a type of compact star. Neutron stars are the smallest and densest stars known to exist in the Universe.[1] With a radius of only about 11–11.5 km (7 miles), they can, however, have a mass of about twice that of the Sun.  . . . They are supported against further collapse by the repulsive strong nuclear force (?) as well as quantum degeneracy pressure due to the phenomenon described by the Pauli exclusion principle. Neutron stars are very hot and typically have a surface temperature around 6×105 K.[2][3][4][5][a] They are so dense that a normal-sized matchbox containing neutron-star material would have a mass of approximately 13 million tonnes, or a 2500 m3 chunk of the Earth[6][7] The density of the star is comparable to that of the nucleus of an atom, both residing in the same degree of magnitude. "

I did not understand what can be repulsive strong nuclear force. If somebody understands I would be glad for an explanation.

In the following scenario of creation of the universe, the universe will remain even after all the energy is removed. Before the beginning of the creation, all the energies remained in a subtle form and without any motion. This was the extreme bosonic state consisting of only one particle without any boundary. i.e. infinite in extent and subtle like the empty space which does not interact with any form of created energies. Mathematics can do nothing with this particle because there is no second or third something at this level of existence. This means there is no relativity here. And because of no motion, there is no time either. So physics also fail here. When the creation begins, a small portion of this single particle splits into many particles without itself getting divided. So the multiplicity is apparent, not real. Now because of the wave motion of these particles, time and length come into existence in the form of wavelength and period of the wave. This is how space time and energy simultaneously pop out of the single particle described as the unmanifest in my theory, and which is the container of the universe. So all the created energies undergo accelerated expansion within the container particle. And the process is reversible so when the accelerated expansion is reversed, all the energies of the universe return back to its motionless state. Which means all the energies become the container itself. So this answers your question "How would you know that the universe will still remain if all energy is removed?"

Dear All,

Andre, I completely agree with you. What you said is exactly the subject that we are discussing about, whether there exists matter with infinite density and I gave the reasons for my NO answer.

Akramul, from my personal experience I believe that there exist some forms of existence that cannot be explained in terms of the present contents of science. It could be Divine, it could be not.

Sofia, I think the concept of infinite density can be perceived as an ability of matter to stack up without limit. And what's that meant is depended on our ability to work it out.

Mesut, I read your interesting paper. I have to admit that one thing that I don't like in physics is the so-called principles.  As I said many times before, to propose a principle is the same as to sweep the unknown under the carpet. Your relationship that leads to the uncertainty principle is similar to the relationship that I derived using a conservation law of energy given as Equation 107 in my work, attached below.

Vikram, your creation theory is somewhat similar to my idea expressed in my work on the relationship between the mass and the size of an elementary particle. However, I think despite my work is not as divine as your work, it is a physical process. Are you a Buddhist?

Kind regards,

Vu.

Research Proposal ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE MASS AND THE SIZE OF AN ELEM...

Working Paper A TEMPORAL DYNAMICS: A GENERALISED NEWTONIAN AND WAVE MECHANICS

Vu,

I follow the Vedanta philosophy as taught by Swami Vivekananda. Vedas are the scriptures of the Hindus and Vedanta constitutes the end part of the Vedas mainly consisting of three texts: Bhagawad Gita, Upanishads and Brahma Sutras. Buddha was born Hindu just as Jesus was born Jew. Many Hindu consider Buddha as the Incarnation of Vishnu. Hindus and Buddhists have a common Holy temple of Vishnu at Gaya. The main difference between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism is that the Buddhists consider ultimate reality as nothingness (zero in mathematics) where as Vedantists consider it as all pervasive formless Brahma (Spirit). But what the Buddhist experience in Nirvana is the same that a Vedantist experience in Nirvikalpa Samadhi. So the experience is the same but the descriptions are different. Accordingly, the container particle described in my theory above would be nothingness or zero to a buddhist but it will be Brahma (Spirit) to a Vedantist.

Dear Vikram,

Thanks for your explanations of the differences. Even though I prefer the western scientific method of investigation into the working on Nature, the eastern wisdom is always the perception that guides my way of doing research. I believe that existence as a whole is more than just matter, energy and interactions that can be described in terms of mathematical methods. I'm afraid that I might have become too spiritual. How the container particle was created is the question that cannot be taken off my mind. In particular, as stated in this question, it doesn't matter how extreme, bosonic particles cannot stack up to have an infinite density, therefore it is not possible to create the universe from a big bang with such a source. However, as also stated in the question, a quantum particle may be able to make copies of itself, as justified by wave mechanics, and in this case a tiny single quantum particle can become the container particle of our observable universe. Are we there yet?

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Vu,

How the container particle was created is the question that cannot be taken off my mind.

The container particle, if it is not the Brahm, the creator Spirit, becomes problematic. Because then you need to search for the cause that created it. But Brahm the Creator is the Great Cause which is self existing through eternity and has not been caused by anything else. From the Hindu point of view, this Brahm is known by many different names such as Allah, Father in Heaven, Jehova, Paramatma, Narayan, Ishvar, Bhagwan and so on. In Hinduism, this Brahm is defined as Existence-Knowledge-Bliss. So existence is fundamental to Brahm. It simply exists. It was never created. And since all the knowledge is within it, it does not perform any mathematical calculations before creating something. It just goes ahead and do it. And since blissfulness is inherent to it, it has no need to perform any action to gain something to be happy. Therefore it is perfectly motionless. But it is also capable of motion. When it begins to move, it becomes energy by (apparently) splitting into quanta of energy. And the rest can be explained by the physicists and mathematicians. When these energy particles evolve to a stage of self replicating molecules and viruses, then scientists begin to wonder, whether what they see is dead matter or living something? Even though Brahm evolves into the entire universe, it remains indivisible. And since it does not have a boundary, it is infinite and one without a second.

However, as also stated in the question, a quantum particle may be able to make copies of itself, as justified by wave mechanics, and in this case a tiny single quantum particle can become the container particle of our observable universe. Are we there yet?

There may be many such speculative arguments with no connection with reality. So this scenario is very unlikely. However the standard model of big bang does start with Inflaton field with multiple particles as described above. Then again one gets back to the same question. What caused the Inflaton? Where did it come from? And no body has an answer.

Dear Vikram,

Please forgive me, but it seems to me your theory of creation is more religious than scientific. It is acceptable to propose a principle to start a theory in order to progress because the unknown behind the principle is beyond the current knowledge, but it is not acceptable just to accept an unknown without questioning and to consider it as the ultimate knowledge of all. Any existence from a self-existing eternity is only half existence.

The idea of inflation is no more than the introduction of an unusual form of a potential energy. If the so-called Higgs bosons could not stack up to form matter with infinite density then even the Big Bang theory itself would not be viable, let alone those great patched up ideas along with it. In fact, if you look at my theory of temporal dynamics, there are more than one form of energies and there are also more forms of forces than the four forces that you mentioned. I just don't like the idea of making themselves standard for others to follow. To my opinion, only classical physics can be called standard. Quantum physics is great but it is still no more than a probabilistic theory. Do you think Brahm was a gambler?

Kind regards,

Vu. 

Vu,

The principle of Brahm in my theory is not just a theory. Brahm is experienced by thousands of people over thousands of years of history of the world. This experience of uniting with Brahm is a quale in philosophical language. Therefore person experiencing Brahm cannot communicate his experience to other people very clearly. He can only give some vague idea and nothing more. It is like taste of the sugar or honeymoon. A person has to experience it himself to verify the reality of this experience. If a person is experiencing Brahm in his mind, the guy sitting next to him would think that the person is sleeping.

Brahm is like overhead power supply cable on a railroad, which remains perfectly motionless but drives hundreds of different locomotives of different shapes and colors at different speeds. So Brahm is the innermost controller of everything in the universe, living and non-living. This is what Buddha experienced in Nirvana. Also, this word Nirvana is not original to Buddhism. It was used by Sri Krishna ~2500 years before Buddha (BG 2:72, 5:15). (bhagavad-gita).

"If the so-called Higgs bosons could not stack up to form matter with infinite density then even the Big Bang theory itself would not be viable,"

For human being to experience the presence of Brahm is not all that easy. This can be seen from the experiences of Buddha and others. Therefore those who qualify are extremely rare people with a pure mind who are able to focus their thought on Brahm with great concentration of mind. According to Swami Vivekananda, thought is a force, as is gravitation or repulsion. (The complete works, v.1, p.201)

https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=swami%20vivekanand

a%20complete%20works

Our physicists tell us that all forces are bosonic. So thought will also follow Bose-Einstein statistics. Concentrated and focused thought will follow your mathematics 1+1+1+1=1. And this concentrated thought unites with Brahm following the same mathematics. This is Nirvana.

In Hinduism, Incarnations of God like Rama and Krishna are Brahm coming to earth in human form to teach men the yoga of uniting with Brahm. In (3139 BCE) during Mahabharata war, warrior Arjuna asks Sri Krishna, "Tell me in detail about Your powers and glories (BG 10:18). Entire 10th chapter of Bhagwad Gita is devoted to this subject. In sloka 36 of this chapter (BG 10:36), Sri Krishna says: I am the prowess of the powerful, I am victory, I am effort, and I am goodness of the good. Of those who deceive, I am gambling.

So to answer your question "Do you think Brahm was a gambler?" I have to say yes.

http://www.chennaimath.org/istore/product/srimad-bhagavad-gita-sridhara-ordinary/

Dear Vikram,

Sorry, I've taken a break. You said thousands of people have experienced Brahm over the years, could these experiences be just some kind of a blind belief? I can't see a single sense of science in there. If Brahm is like a power cable then there must be something inside Brahm, what is it? So you think Brahm was a gambler, what did He/She gamble? Did He/She go to a casino, or was He/She a quantum physicist?

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Vu,

There is no such thing as belief having an eye. So how can it be blind? But as I said earlier, experiencing Brahm is a quale experience and those who have not experienced it has to believe in those who have experienced it till they are fit to have their own experience which may require long period of evolution of body mind complex spanning over many cycles of birth and death. It is just like believing LIGO scientist that they have discovered gravitational waves. How many physicists are capable of performing their own experiment to have a first hand verification? Same thing with existence of Higgs Boson. Most of the physicists are only believers in scientific truths discovered by small number of other physicists. Such is the case with Brahm also. But if you need to know how a person who has experienced Brahm behave and what kind of life he would live and how he would describe his experiences to other people then I would recommend following books. Following is what others have to say about the subject of this book.

The story of Ramakrishna’s life is a story of religion in practice. His life enables us to see God face to face.

                                                                                        -Mahatma Gandhi

You have to experience duality for a long time until you see it’s not there. In this respect I am a Hindu. Ramakrishna has the solution.

                                                                                         -Thomas Merton

He [Ramakrishna] was a wonderful mixture of God and man…

                                                                                         -F. Max Mueller

Wonderful sayings! Ramakrishna … a remarkable sage.

                                                                                         -Leo Tolstoy

"The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna." by Mahendranath Gupta, (tr.) Swami Nikhilananda.

http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Sri-Ramakrishna-Abridged-Edition/dp/0911206027

"Sri Ramakrisha The Great Master" by Swami Saradananda, (tr.) Swami Jagadananda.

http://www.chennaimath.org/istore/product/sri-ramakrishna-the-great-master/

Above books available across the world at Vedanta Society bookstores.

http://www.vedanta.org/wiv/links/centers.html

Dear Vu,

I can't see a single sense of science in there.

(BG 10:32) Sri Krishna says, of sciences I am metaphysics.

Now a days the material sciences have become so specialized, that a scholar in one branch may know very little about the other branches. Similarly there is a wide gap between physics and metaphysics. But both are sciences. Physical sciences are based on experimental verification and metaphysical sciences are based on experiencial verification. This experiencial verification depends partly on the opening of the third eye which remains dormant in case of most physicists. Lorentz invariance is based on the two eyes of the observer. What will the third eye do to

Lorentz invariance? Have you thought about that? What will that do to General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics?

From my understanding of Bhagawad Gita, I can say that this is the greatest field theory that is ever written. Brahm is perfectly motionless and when a small fraction of Brahm begins to move it becomes energy. So all the energy that you see in the universe is nothing but Brahm. Neither Brahm nor energy can ever be destroyed.

If Brahm is like a power cable then there must be something inside Brahm, what is it?

Brahma is beyond description. It can only be described by negation. So the power cable does not perfectly describe the Brahm. It is just an example to describe the connection between motionlessness and motion. What is inside Brahm is already mentioned. Existence Knowledge Bliss.

So you think Brahm was a gambler, what did He/She gamble? Did He/She go to a casino, or was He/She a quantum physicist?

If all the energy of the universe is Brahm, then all the gamblers of the world are nothing but Brahm, what they stake for gambling is also Brahm. The casino in which they gamble is also made up of Brahm and all quantum physicists are also Brahm.

Sri Sankaracharya said: "Brahm Satya Jagat Mithya." which means Brahm is real and world is unreal (illusion).

Material scientist can understand this better from following example. There was a time when surface of the earth was like that of our Sun. Out of Lava (Magma) the things of our surroundings have emerged. But we do not treat these things as one substance (magma). But we react to it in many different ways. So what is real? The magma or the things we see today?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta

I'd would like to applaud the comments of Vikram Zaveri who brings the topic of science with mysticism. Do make a note than I'm a radio engineer, a scientist as well as yogi student following tantra style yoga.

From what I've heard, it seems that many times, the Dalai Lama did visit some quantum physics laboratory and it turned out some very useful discussions mapping tantra and quantum physics.

There must be a 3rd way to go beyond many un-answered questions about actual physics, not saying the mystic is the way but in my opinion, topics such as ZERO or INFINITY are very fundamental.

Some say zero does not exist, some other say that infinity = 1 / 0 but then Cantor talks of different magnitude of infinity, how about doing the same with Zero.

Do make a note one of my work involved information theory per Claude Shannon's legacy, the encoding, the filtering and sometimes I wonder if ZPF (Zero Point Field) seems zero unless one can filter or demodulate or decode. For example with CDMA radio link, wrong filter will make you think there is just noise or zero but applying special PN decoding sequence, then signal to noise ratio output level increases.

Another expertise I've spend many years concerns error correcting block code and Galois Fields (Finite Field) with special case of GF(2^n) so fields with characteristic 2 hence 1+1=0 or 2+2=0. Not saying this type of algebra or computation mathematics is relevant here, just felt sharing some structures able to offer such property.

As for missing particles, there could be some linked with life force or consciousness or information.

There is no answer to the initial question but feel by experience and life that trying to understand what is ZERO or what is INFINITY requires special mind focus or paradigm not so easy to grasp by linear mind physics.

Dear Vikram and Albert,

I think the concepts of infinity and zero belong to mathematics, which is a language that can be used to describe the physical existence. We can use a mathematics without these two mathematical objects, however, it is obvious that such mathematics would be a very poor one and surely it will not be able to be used for the description of the real world. It should be emphasized here that energy is also a mathematical concept. How is energy defined physically? Besides Brahm, of course. What is world and why is it unreal? Isn't the world or the universe simply the physical existence? Unless everything is in your mind, of course.

Unless it is a form of mutation, the third eye is normally a draw on your forehead, isn't it? I hope each quantum physicist should draw a third eye on their forehead because quantum physics is living on borrowed time, waiting for a better chance in the world of probability. Why did Brahm determine to not create a deterministic existence?

Vikram, I think you have just proven my theory. If everything is Brahm then infinite Brahm can be converted to a single Brahm, which is what those bosonic particles are doing. How can a perfect happiness be a knowledge and a source of energy?Isn't it just a state of satisfaction? And Magma is a temporary form of existence and as we all know that all forms of existence have gone through a process we call evolution.

Consciousness is a hiding place for ignorance, very much the same as the so-called principles in physics. It is no more than a program in our head. Sooner or later we will be able to make a self-conscious computer, even the best known physicists are worrying. However, if everything is Brahm then no worries, we can escape through a worm hole, as worms themselves do every day to avoid those flying birds.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Albert,

Some say zero does not exist, some other say that infinity = 1 / 0 but then Cantor talks of different magnitude of infinity, how about doing the same with Zero.

Cantor's theorem has nothing to do with absolute infinity, because only one member of Set A is infinite which is Brahm and there are no subsets of Set A. So the cardinality of set A is 1 and there is no powerset of A. So in the absence of power set the term uncountably infinite is meaningless. Therefore Cantor's theorem is limited to the realm of multiplicity and relativity, where as infinite Brahm is beyond relativity of numbers. It is one without a second.

Vu,

When Brahm begins to move, it creates waves. These waves are associated with apparently independent quanta of Brahm (spirit) which we call energy. The period of these waves creates the illusion of time and the wavelength of these waves creates the illusion of space. As the ocean and the waves both contains water, such is also the case with Brahm and energy. So energy is defined by space time and motion. Energy can never be motionless.

Human body and mind are also made up of energy and therefore they interact with energies of the world. In that sense the world has real existence. But Brahm does not interact.

Within Hinduism, Sankaracharya (788 - 820 CE) is the great proponent of the Advaita Vedanta philosophy which holds that God alone is real (satya) and the world is a unreal (mithya). When written in sanskrit, it goes like:Brahma (all pervasive formless Spirit) satya (true, real) Jagat (world, universe) mithya (unreal).

                            Repeat: Brahma satya jagat mithya.

When he declared his philosophy in the holy city of Varanashi (Banaras) in India, it became a very controversial subject of debate amongst the pandits of Varnashi. And every one was talking about it.

One day Sri Sankaracharya was passing through a very narrow street of Varanashi and suddenly he heard shouts of a Mahut riding an elephant. Run away, run away, a mad elephant is coming. And Snakaracharya ran to save his life. There were few pandits standing at the corner watching this spectacle. One of them taunted Sankaracharya and asked. Sir, the elephant that ran through the street, was it satya or mithya? And Sankaracharya replied. It was mithya. So the pandit asked: Then why did you run? Sankaracharya replied. When the elephant ran, it was mithya

and when I ran it became satya? How is that possible? My running was also mithya.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta

Those who know the science of third eye, they talk about pineal gland and there is also a deeper center inside the brain from where the third eye functions and it may be using a different light and looking into different space which may be filled with the dark energy. Those who actually have the third eye, they don't know much about the science of the third eye. They just know how to use it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland

In quantum physics, Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty and the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function are pointing towards the illusion theory. According to the String Theory, the universe is a consciousness hologram and reality is projected illusion within the hologram.

Namaskar Vikran,

Since you're both yoga meditator and quantum physics, do you consider that what some call "dark energy" or "dark matter" or "Zero Point Field" or "Zero Point Energy" to be linked to chakra system ?

No.

Dear Vikram and Otto,

Vikram, I am getting a bit confused here. In other posts you said Brahm was motionless like a supply power cable which has an inside power to drive whatever it needs to drive. As far as I know power cables can never start to move by themselves, unless there is a wind. I am sorry but I need to ask you, how did Brahm begin to move? Did Brahm create some kind of internal energy for Himself/Herself first in forms of waves? Actually, according to my theory on temporal dynamics, a particle manifests as a wave when it is inside a quantum system and as a particle when it is emitted, and a quantum of energy is no more than the total energy that a quantum system, or Brahm if you like, has transferred to a quantum particle.  At least we have some common features here. We are getting closer, but not quite.

If you answer my questions by typing words on your computer, are they real? Or they only become real when I receive them? This is the philosophy of no hear no see therefore no nothing exists. I myself like philosophy, but to my opinion, philosophy has become more like a religion than science. Whatever you said one thing for sure for me is I will always run away from a charging elephant.

Otto, a No is a perfect answer for nothingness and, in turns, nothingness is a perfect answer for the question of how the Big Bang started. The best answer to this question is also nothing but a mathematical theory of black holes.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Working Paper A TEMPORAL DYNAMICS: A GENERALISED NEWTONIAN AND WAVE MECHANICS

Dear Vu,

You wrote "Vikram, I think you have just proven my theory. If everything is Brahm then infinite Brahm can be converted to a single Brahm, which is what those bosonic particles are doing."

Sorry but I'm not sure really that is correct so I recommend you study tantrik meditation to eventually check it is more complex than just theory. Otherwise as I suggested before, try get reports of Dalai Lama many visits of Quantum physics laboratories. These scientists were amazed to discover some quantum physics principle within old tantrik scriptures except more can be found.

By the way, not sure who started in this thread writing Brahm but it should be Brahma.

I doubt one will come with mathematical theory describing the complete universe laws, it cannot be done by external observer. Maybe think in terms of self-organized chaos wether energies, particles where the key thing, the observer is part of the experience he is observing.

Albert,

do you consider that what some call "dark energy" or "dark matter" or "Zero Point Field" or "Zero Point Energy" to be linked to chakra system ?

Most physicist do not recognize the existence of spiritual energy. From my point of view there is no dividing line between material energy and spiritual energy. Spiritual energy has more life in it. Jesus has described it as living waters. In tantra it is described as Kundalini Sakti (Sakti = energy). This Kundalini Sakti resides at the base of the spinal chord in the lowest chakra called Muladhara. The person whose time has come to get spiritual awakening, in him, this Kundalini Sakti becomes active and it tries to rise through the seven chakras located on the spinal chord. When a Hindu Guru initiates (Diksha) his student or when a christian prophet baptize his follower, they are basically transmitting their spiritual energy to give push to this Kundalini sakti of their follower.

So to answer your question, I will say that energy of chakra system may not have anything to do with dark matter and zero point energy which are very gross form of material energy. Kundalini Sakti may fall in the category of dark energy but what percentage of total dark energy is hard to guess. Because approx. 70 % of total energy of universe is estimated to be dark energy.

Sri Ramakrishna gave following description of rising of Kundalini Sakti through various chakra along spinal chord which is based on his own experience. But one should not attempt this without proper guidance from an experienced person (Guru). You can spend your entire life on this and experience nothing.

-------quote

"The various states of the Brahmajnani's mind are described in the Vedas. The path of knowledge is extremely difficult. One cannot obtain jnana (knowledge of God) if one has the least trace of worldliness and the slightest attachment to 'woman' and 'gold' (lust and greed are meant). This is not the path for the Kaliyuga (present times).

"The Vedas speak of seven planes where the mind can dwell. When the mind is immersed in worldliness it dwells in the three lower planes-----at the navel, the organ of generation, and the organ of evacuation. In that state the mind loses all its higher visions-----it broods only on 'woman' and 'gold' (lust and greed are meant). The fourth plane of the mind is at the heart. When the mind dwells there, one has the first glimpse of spiritual consciousness. One sees light all around. Such a man, perceiving the divine light, becomes speechless with wonder and says: 'Ah!

What is this?' His mind does not go downward to the objects of the world. "The fifth plane of the mind is at the throat. When the mind reaches this, the aspirant becomes free from all ignorance and illusion. He does not enjoy talking or hearing about anything but God. If people talk about worldly things he leaves the place at once. "The sixth plane is at the forehead. When the mind dwells there, the aspirant sees the form of God day and night. But even then a little trace of ego remains. At the sight of that incomparable beauty of God's form, one becomes intoxicated and rushes forth to touch and embrace it. But one doesn't succeed. It is like the light inside a lantern. One feels as if one could touch the light; but one canot on account of the glass."In the top of the head is the seventh plane. When the mind rises there, one goes into samadhi (trance). Then the Brahmajnani (knower of Brahman) directly perceives Brahman (infinite formless God). But in that state his body does not last many days. He remains unconscious of the outer world. If milk is poured into his mouth, it runs out. Dwelling on this plane of consciousness, he gives up his body in twenty one days. That is the condition of the Brahmajnani. But (to a devotee) yours is the path of devotion. That is a very good and easy path.

"The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna." by Mahendranath Gupta, (tr.) Swami Nikhilananda, p.212, 1974,

N.Y.:Ramakrishna Vivekananda Center.

http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Sri-Ramakrishna-Abridged-Edition/dp/0911206027

Albert,

By the way, not sure who started in this thread writing Brahm but it should be Brahma.

There is a difference between Brahm and Brahma. Brahm can also be written as Brahman but not as Brahma. Brahm is all pervasive infinite indivisible formless God where as Brahma is the first born of Narayana who is same as Brahm. So Brahma the creator is himself created and also gets destroyed at the end of the cycle of creation but Brahm is eternal.

Dear Albert and Vikram,

Albert, thanks for your information. I checked and this is what I found: 

Brahm, a Sanscrit word, originally meant earnest, intense prayer, but now used as the name of the eternal self-existent Being, of whose powers the gods of the Indian triads Brahma, Vishnu and Siva are personifications. His image is the outward universe. 

Amazingly, this fits perfectly into my theory 1+1+1+1=1.

Vikram, according to the above information now I know Brahm is a He. 

Kind regards,

Vu.

Vu,

I am sorry but I need to ask you, how did Brahm begin to move? Did Brahm create some kind of internal energy for Himself/Herself first in forms of waves?

When motionless Brahm begins to move, it does not create energy, but it becomes energy. So when motionless Brahm begins to move, it oscillates and becomes energy waves. This first oscillations are symbolically represented by sound OM. In christianity it is called the Word. (in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. -John 1.1). This energy is more like living energy comparbale to human thoughts. This kind of energy accumulates in a small region similar to one described by General Relativity at the Planck time. Then follows the inflation.

Those who have experienced Nirvana or Nirvikalpa Samadhi have claimed that they heard this subtle sound OM before entering into ultimate experience of ecstasy. The sound OM uttered thru the medium of the air is just an imitation sound.

Dear Vu,

I've looked on web but not easy find specific texts mentioning Brahm but maybe best then to stick to what Vikram explained, namely rather use Brahman.

In that line then, one can not put a He or She on Brahma because based on non-duality or advaita or nameless description. From the perspective of 1+1+1+... +1=1 this requires special mathematics or algebra, not sure they're boolean either but I know that mystic path do offer special awareness or method to describe or count what is countless or paradox.

Do make a note that I practice some yoga (tantra style) as well as radio-engineer and scientist on self-organized chaos oscillatory systems: many times, I wonder if there could a mapping between unresolved physics experiments or questions with meditation. For sure, the actual algebras and logical linear mind used in mathematics, physics cannot describe everything otherwise we'd have found the universal theory or theory of everything and nothing.

Now about some missing particles or particles to be found, they might obey special counting methods as you mentioned in your thread.

Where is the truth I have no idea, sorry for the rambling where one point of interest concerns vacuum and dark matter engineering if feasible.

Dear Vikram and Albert,

Vikram, how to become if there isn't any kind of creation, either self-creation or unself-creation? It seems there is a quantum jump here. And how could you hear a subtle sound OM if the energy was supposed to be an electromagnetic wave? I think Albert is a radio engineer so he can help.

Albert, you can find information about Brahm and Brahma in the book The Universal Dictionary of Biography and Mythology by Joseph Thomas. I thought about the problem of He/She as well. Based on this problem alone I can conclude that most of philosophical thoughts were thought out by men and despite they represent wisdom of human existence, they are no more than primitive science. Meditation is a mere work-out of our brain cells and even though it can map out some form of physical processes, because of our limited physical ability we can't have a one to one mapping. For the problem on the creation of elementary particles you can look at my work on the relationship between the mass and the size of an elementary particle. Even though it is a simple work it does provide some thoughts. 

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Vu,

As I mentioned, Brahm is Existence Knowledge Bliss. Existence means He/She /It exists (through eternity). When this motionless Brahm moves it oscillates and creates waves. What is contained in these waves is nothing but Brahm. When you have waves in the ocean, what is contained in the waves is just the water. Brahm is beyond life and death. But it has power to give life and death to the entire universe. So the energy in the early universe was of the nature of life. This is called Prana. In India, when a person dies, they say his Prana is gone. This Prana is the one that makes the heart of the man beat. It is this Prana that expands and contracts the lungs of the man. And you know that it happens in a cyclic motion. When this Prana depart the man dies. So the energies created in the early universe were spiritual energies. There were no electromagnetic waves then. Even modern science has recognized this. When the electromagnetic and weak force unite, the photons disappear. This is discussed in following thread.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_electroweak_force_transfer_heat

When two friends go to the outer space and try to communicate, they cannot hear each other because there is no air there. But they can clearly hear their own thoughts. This is the kind of sound, that is comparable to sound Om.

Dear Vikram,

According to my temporal dynamics, when an elementary particle is inside a quantum system it behaves like wave, but when it is emitted from the quantum system it behaves like a particle. And this can be used to explained the wave-particle duality. Do you think the Brahm's system of Existence Knowledge Bliss would enhance this same physical process to life and death? In other words, would a particle be a dead object from its life as a wave?

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Vu,

Answer is no. All particles have life. There for in quantum physics you talk about half life and decay life and so on. But the degree of manifestation of life in quantum particle is so low that it appears as if it is dead. So the differences between particle, virus, cell, bacteria, fish, bird, monkey and man is in the degree of manifestation of this Brahm (life). Wave particle duality imply indivisibility of Brahm. Particles act as though they are independent entities but they are not. Like the water in the wave.

Dear Vikram,

Actually the problem of life and death is the main reason that led me to do research in philosophy and science to search for an answer. When I was a young boy during the Vietnam war I witnessed few times the phenomenon called spiritual possession. In particular, one the those possessions happened right in my house. Because I knew the young boy who was possessed, therefore I knew the differences when he was possessed and when he was not. He did not retain his own character when he was possessed. And from his behaviours after being possessed, I think I knew the dead person who possessed him as well. It seems to me the spiritual possession is a physical process that only takes control of the brain, but in what physical form and how it exists is still a mystery. Brahm must be the cause, do you agree? Could spirit be a form of dark matter whose physical existence follows the Boolean mathematics of infinity to one and one to infinity?

Life in half-life is not a normal life.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Hi All,

It seems Brahm had gambled and lost. It was a pity that poor Brahm had only spirits left for Him to drink to swallow the bad night. 

As I said in other post, the belief that spiritual possession is purely religious is a pure belief. Such belief contains in it a form of religion that we have never realised.

On the other hand, my theory of temporal dynamics shows that there exists a form of dark matter that plays the same role as that of inertial mass in Newtonian physics. Therefore it is reasonable to suggest that it may produce some form of biological structure whose existence has been vaguely interpreted as spirits.

Cheers,

Vu.

Dear Vu:

Your last two posts shows you really do not know what you believe in and what you believe not.Brahm is the most difficult thing in the universe to understand. It is not given to everyone to understand Brahm unless He Himself allows. You know how a business man distributes money and gets all his work done? In the same way Brahm distributes different joys of the world to different creatures and gets his job of creation accomplished.

Regarding the incident of spiritual possession, there are several such incidents recorded in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. How he cured such people. How he made dead people to become alive again. How he himself rose from the dead after 3 days from crucifiction.

In Hinduism, there are three layers of human existence. The first layer is the Gross Body that we see with two eyes. Second layer is the subtle body. In this subtle body subtle aspects of all the five senses and the mind survive. When the Gross body die, the subtle body detach from it like the lunar module. It is this subtle body that goes to heaven or hell. Meritts and good works are the currency to get to heaven. If a person don't have it, he cann't get the ticket. After their currency is exhausted they have to come back to earth and be born again in new body. And this cycle keeps repeating as long as person is happy to shuttle back and forth. There are some who have no access to heaven or hell, they hang around the earth like ghosts and some time take possession of other people with weak mind.

You are right in saying that the spiritual possession is a physical process that only takes control of the brain, but in what physical form and how it exists is still a mystery.

Brahm is in the background of all these phenomenon, but it is far more deeper than what you can imagine. Because Brahm is perfectly motionless. These subtle bodies moving here and there and all the heavens and earth and also the hell is projected on this motionless screen called Brahm. It is like a solid sphere without any circumference.

Beyond the subtle body there is third layer called Causal Body. It is with this Causal body that the knower of Brahm enjoys communion with Brahm, which is the Great Cause.

Dear Vikram,

Sorry about Brahm. Actually it was me who had lost at a casino, not Him. I don't believe in anything, except for what I can see by my own eyes. But my own eyes can also be deceived, so only Brahm would know what I am believing in. 

I like the idea of being shuttled back and forth, just make sure to get richer from each cycle to enjoy more on this tiny little thing called Earth. However, according to your judgement, will I go to hell or heaven when I die?

Have you ever communicated with Brahm? I guess you have. Otherwise you would not be able to talk about things that you have talked about. Physically, how do you communicate with Brahm? But Brahm is motionless therefore boring, how would you enjoy being with Him?

I'd like to let you know that I've posted a paper on temporal atoms entitled A TEMPORAL HYDROGEN-LIKE ATOM on RG.  

Kind regards,

Vu.

However, according to your judgement, will I go to hell or heaven when I die?

People go to heaven or hell depending on their Karma. The law of Karma is infallible in the world of spirit. This law is comparabale to Newton's law of motion which states: To every action there is equal and opposite reaction. In physics most of action and reaction occur instantly without any time delay. But in some physical phenomenon also the dimension of time plays a role. e.g. if from Bangkok you call someone in US, there will be a time delay between the spoken word and what is heard. Similarly, the law of Karma operates on four dimensions. A person can commit a murder and then get hangged after 20 years. A person can commit a crime in this life and the reaction can come in the next life. Or it may come even after two, three or seven lives. A person can hide his karma from police or judge but he cannot hide them fron himself. All his Karma get registered in complete detail within his own subtle body. This stored Karma become the fuel for the future birth and futur life. Till all these Karma are worked out the man has no chance of getting out of the cycle of birth and death. Whether a person goes to heaven or hell after death depends on these Karma registered in the subtle body.

Have you ever communicated with Brahm?

My answer is no. This requires great deal of spiritual practice which everyone is not capable of performing. Intellectual discussion about Brahm, scriptural study on Brahm, hearing about Brahm from others, giving lectures on Brahm, all this is very insignificant compared to spiritual practice. Person desiring to know Brahm withdraws from the world and spends all his time in spiritual practice. Perhaps it is million times more difficult to be able to commune with Brahm than to win a Nobel Prize in Science.

If what I mentioned about Brahm appealed to you then it is because of the teachings of those who practised very hard spiritual disciplines in order to acquire the first hand knowledge of Brahm. Over thousands of years of the history of India, such teachings have accummulated in various scriptures. Teachings coming out of these scriptures are timeless and infallible.

But Brahm is motionless therefore boring, how would you enjoy being with Him?

Sri Ramakrishna, the knower of Brahm, used to tell following story.

A young girl once asked her friend: "Well, friend, your husband is here. What sort of pleasure do you enjoy with him?" The friend answered: "My dear, you will know it for yourself when you get a husband. How can I explain it to you.?"

One cannot describe in words the joy of play and communion with Satchidananada (Brahm).

Dear Vikram,

How is Karma being registered in my subtle body? What is the difference between a body and a subtle body? If I know how it is registered then I can change it because in the end the body is my body.

What you have explained so far about Brahm are from what you learnt, not from what you yourselves witnessed, therefore, is it possible that your belief is just a blind belief, very much the same way people believing in the Big Bang? I don't deny there are some truth about these forms of thoughts and theories, but just make sure they are in no means the ultimate thoughts and theories of all.

Kind regards,

Vu. 

Dear Vu:

How do you store 4GB data on your pen drive? Few years ago no body would have believed that this can be done. Materials of subtle body are far more subtle then anything that a physicist can imagine. More details about Annamayakosha (Gross Body made of food), Vignyanmayakosha (Subtle body characterised by knowledge, intelligence, sense perception) and anandamayakosha (Causal body, the innermost blissful sheath which experiences joys and happinesss), are given in Vivekachudamani of Sankaracharya. If you take a little trouble to read this book, you would know more about it. Sanakaracharya was the foremost knower of Brahm.

http://www.chennaimath.org/istore/product/vivekachudamani-of-sri-sankaracarya/

You cannot even change the color of your hair from grey to black, then How do you aspire to change the records of subtle memory? Yogis have the power to recall this subtle memory which is stored birth after birth. This is well recorded in case Buddha. There is book of Buddha on this subject called Jatak Katha (Jataka Tales).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jataka_tales

If you are convinced that my belief is a blind belief then why do you want waste your precious time on such matters. You can do something better with your time. Like gambling in a casino.

"because in the end the body is my body."

This is the biggest delusion of all that everyone suffers. When Moses asked God, who are you? What is your name? He replied, "I am what I am." This "I" exists in everybody. At the time of birth because of the experience of duality and pair of opposites, people start superimposing qualities of mother nature upon this "I". I am hot, I am cold. I am young. I am rich, I am man, I am woman. This is my body, this is my wife, these are my children. and so on. Spiritual disciplines are meant to remove this delusion covering the "I".

Sankara the knower Brahm, "I", constructed following Six Stanzas on Nirvana.

http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_4/writings_poems/nirvanashaktam.htm

Dear Vikram,

It would be more helpful if the foremost knowers of the universe had written down its laws in terms of physical laws instead of bibles and religious tales, don't you think? But how could they?

Do you see yourselves as a delusion? I think quantum physics definitely is a delusion, or rather just a bubble in the head. As Einstein had said, playing with quantum physics is gambling. The only problem is it is less fun than in a casino. When you are playing with real money, you become more real than the most real of reals. 

Are religious thoughts just delusions, or simply just too primitive to be scientific? It's a pity that our physical abilities are simply too limited, including possible spiritual existence which, according to my view, is no more than a physical possibility.

My time is a 3D continuum, so I can afford to waste a bit. I feel sorry for those who can only live their life through  a narrow 1D temporal thread. Are you one of them?

Kind regards,

Vu. 

Dear Vu:

Many good things of the life come for free to all mankind. Like air, water, light, spiritual knowledge etc. We should not take these things very lightly. I think our discussion has reached a saturation point. Anything beyond this will only deteriorate the quality of discussion. Therefore best thing is to stop here.

With regards,

Dear Vikram,

Thanks for your kind participation. I always respect people's beliefs, regardless of what type of religions. However, if some one who wants to talk about religious beliefs as a scientist or a philosopher then I may ask them questions that are definitely offensive. If you are a purely religious believer then I apologize if my questions are offensive to you, otherwise I don't mind if you've copped a bit. People have even asked me to quit physics because I don't believe blindly in quantum physics. I could see from beginning that we had different views on this subject. Thanks again and may Brahm bless you.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Vikram,

To be honest, I was not very serious when we talked about Brahm because I thought it was more religious than scientific. However, when I tried to unify space and time to form a single physical state I realised that this state must be a pre-dynamic state in which there is no movement. I think, probably and scientifically, your Brahm is no other than a pre-dynamic state of space-time.

Kind regards,

Vu.

As to the main question:

Infinite-density matter cannot exist because black hole horizons are never finished in finite outer universe time (as is well known since Opppenheimer and Snyder's 1939 paper but for some reason fell into oblivion).

Dear Vu B Ho , I do not think so. Thanks

Dear All,

Scott, according to the experiment that I referred to individual bosons can stack up to form a single boson which is identical to those individual ones. This result can be represented mathematically as 1+1=1, which is a form of Boolean algebra. I agree with you that the concept of infinity is useful and necessary, but the one problem is that we don't really understand it at all.

Otto, I think we can have a state of infinite density of matter which has nothing to do with black holes. 

Sarwan, you do not think what, because we have many issues here.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Vu:

Can you specify?

Take care,

Otto

Dear Otto,

Nowadays, whenever we mention black holes our thoughts are on black holes that are associated with general relativity. This kind of associations normally leads to more fanciful mathematical descriptions such as horizons that arise from the singularities of solutions of the field equations of general relativity. These in fact have nothing to do with the normal definition of black holes as defined in Newtonian gravity. In Newtonian gravity, if matter stacks up with high enough density then nothing can escape, even light, and this object is termed a black hole and it also has nothing to do with time as you mentioned. I think your black holes are associated with general relativity.

In fact the concept of black holes is the end of thoughts so they again invent black holes that can evaporate, also mathematically. There would be no black holes that are associated with general relativity in the first place. Even though general relativity is more like a potential theory, it may last, but, quantum physics is living on borrowed time. Quantum physics is a useful mathematical tool for statistical accounts of physical phenomena but it can not be a fundamental theory. Trying to build an ultimate theory of everything on these theories will surely be an ultimate failure. Space-time has a deterministic dynamics which is far more subtle than what have been described in physics.

Kind regards, 

Vu.

Dear All,

After more than 50 years, I finally confirmed what I had learnt as a young boy born in a war-torn village in Vietnam. All physical manifestations arose from the source of Darkness and creation came into being from the Void in a deterministic manner.

When my village was destroyed by bullets and bombs in one afternoon, I left my village and went through living in orphanages. I did not attend school much in those times but somehow I managed to learn about Newton deterministic physics and Eastern philosophies from books that I could borrow. They formed the basis of my scientific thinking from a very young age.

The only difference now is that I understand that the source of Darkness and the Void could be determined scientifically as a pre-dynamic state of physical existence. What does it look like? Perhaps, only the Creator alone would know, unless He does not know.

Cheers,

Vu.

Dear All,

I’d like to let you know that I’ve posted a short work entitled AN INTERPRETATION OF WAVE MECHANICS on RG. It is suggested that there is a possibility to interpret wave mechanics as a result of continuous creation and destruction of elementary particles at a quantum scale. It is also suggested that both space and time are quantised at the quantum level. Even though these may be regarded as purely speculative, at least they may provide a way to comprehend the almost incomprehensible, which is the pre-dynamic state of matter, space and time.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear All,

It seems space-time itself is a biological system in the sense that, like all other biological systems, it is growing and expanding by creating, destroying and replacing new spatial-temporal quantum cells continuously. As a result, space-time also possesses the wave-particle duality as manifested by quantum particles in quantum physics. Please refer to my article entitled THE WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY OF SPACETIME posted on RG for more details.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Matter of infinite density does not exist because the interior solution of black holes is unphysical.

Dear Otto,

You are entitled to keep hold of your beliefs, but I think science is about trying to find out the unknowns, not to assume them. If the interior solution of the equations of a physical theory is unphysical then we should look back to see if theory itself is physical or not. Or at least whether it is complete.

I've been re-examining and revising my recent work on the structure of space-time. It shows that the space-time structure at the microscopic scale may not be the same as that at the macroscopic level, and there is a continuous change of the structure of space-time from the microscopic scale to the macroscopic one. This may be the reason why quantum objects behave so differently. I will post my work on RG when I finish it. 

Thanks for your kind considerations of my posts.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear All,

After examining further my recent work entitled THE WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY OF SPACETIME, I found that there are profound differences between the structure of spacetime at the macroscopic scale and the structure of spacetime at the microscopic scale. At the macroscopic scale, space and time can be described in the conventional way in which space has three dimensions and time has one dimension. However, at the microscopic scale, space can be seen to have only one dimension but time to have 3 dimensions. Probably, this is the reason why a three-dimensional time could not be observed at the macroscopic scale and the microscopic objects that occupy these quanta of spacetime can be described as string-like objects. Please refer to my revised article entitled A QUANTUM STRUCTURE OF SPACETIME for more details.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Vu:

I appreciate your sentence "You are entitled to keep hold of your beliefs, but I think science is about trying to find out the unknowns, not to assume them."

I appreciate it more than any other answer I got in recent months. Why? Because it is aggressive. This is science: Really doubting what another scientist says. So he or she is forced to reply as best as possible. Thank you for giving me this unique chance in public.

I had said: "Matter of infinite density does not exist because the interior solution of black holes is unphysical." Now I am forced to give the evidence.

My oldest proof is in my paper "Abraham-like return to constant c in general relativity…” ( http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/chaos.pdf ) which belatedly appeared in a Chinese journal in 2012.

The most recent proof of c-global is in the equivalence principle, that is at the beginnings of relativistic gravitation theories, in my paper “The c-global revival in physics” in Progress in Physics last year ( http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-43-09.PDF ).

I admit that it is a major operation in physics to go back to the roots. I should therefore give a very short excuse. I hereby only use general relativity as everyone knows it: The famous in-fall of an astronaut described by Oppenheimr and Snyder in 1939. It takes (say) two days. Assume, as is allowed to do in theory, that a trampoline had been erected right above the horizon without plunging-in with its downwards excursion. The astronaut will then return as if under time reversal after another two days’ proper time. Right?

Now the zillion-dollar question: When will the astronaut be back in the outside world at the height level of the outside-waiting crew: four days?

The correct answer is; twice almost infinitely many days.

This fact is a slap in the face of every general relativist’s fixed knowledge. Specifically, it excludes the existence of any “interior solution.”

I hope you, unlike my friend and age-mate Kip Thorne, will – and can – contradict me.

Thank you once more for your seeming rudeness which is the only sign of real friendship in science. 

Take care,

Otto

Dear Otto,

As you realise, in order to give an answer to the in-fall problem we need assumptions. Therefore there would be no one-and-for-all ultimate correct answer but only correct answers according to a particular set of assumptions. You get what you assume.  For example, if Hawking was right then there would be no black holes in the first place for us to talk about, and Kip Thorn had seemed to assume a lot.  Mathematics is a language that can be used usefully to describe the physical world, but mathematics is no physics. Patterns of natural chaotic behaviours are no difference to patterns of natural existences, and we don’t have only one particular type of patterns of existences, do we?  Another example is, according to my temporal dynamics, Einstein’s general relativity is a special case of a more general model of a six-dimensional space-time and Einstein’s model seems to be unphysical, or at least only approximate, because it requires the quantum cells of space-time to expand with an infinite speed to form such space-time. I’ve read and found your works interesting, but again, if space-time is expanding universally with the speed of light then according to my temporal dynamics the whole space-time is simply a wave. I apologise if you find my wordings rude. I just simply wanted to make them simple.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Remi,

Thanks for your invitations. I’ve been working on a similar problem that also poses the question of whether there is some form of interaction between photons, but so far I still have no answers. However, I believe that if there was an interaction between photons then this interaction would be very different from those that have been known in physics, because photons, like all other elementary particles, may follow a different type of mathematics, such as Boolean algebra.

Kind regards,

Vu.

I know, Vu.

And I realize that you do not object to the principle of maximum simplicity: The theory which explains the phenomena with the smallest number of assumptions wins the palm.

This was my poin5 -- that I have that theory as far as I see. It would be great if you could contradict me. Please, try.

Very cordially yours,

Otto

Dear Otto,

I’ve just deleted my recent post because I’m afraid that it might be misunderstood and offended to you. It wasn’t meant anything but just a tongue in cheek talk to a friend. I went through your works carefully and I think they are logically sound.

For my situation, I have come to the point that I’m now facing with the problem of chicken and egg. According to my dynamics, negative masses create matter, space and time. But to our perceptions of physical existence, in order to do so they have to be in space and time. I’m thinking about how to formulate an evolutionary hypothesis that would go all the way beyond matter, space and time to overcome this problem. Oh, dear!

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Yu:

What you deleted might have been the most important unfinished insight. You should take it very seriously (can I wish to have it back? - but of course I do not want to press you).

Discussion is vital. It is the only real guarantee towards progress.

I admire you. At age 76 this is perhaps nothing special. Take care,Otto

Infinities are not found in nature. Planck density is the most compact mass that our science can describe. In this regard GR needs a correction of discrete quantum effects in the high energy range where density is approaching Planck scale.

Dear Otto,

Sorry, I've been away. As you requested I've put my (tongue in cheek) post back. 

"As I said, you get what you assume. Your starting point is a postulation of a new local size change factor, in addition to a jungle of conjectures and assumptions. Mathematically, we can obtain whatsoever results that we intended to show by devising a set of axioms. By the way, I don’t really understand why your paper was dedicated to a guy who I think was one of the worst presidents of the US ever. I will look more carefully into your works to see if I can take up the challenge".

Another problem is, like you, I don't like LHC, but not because I am worried about them to produce mini black holes to destroy this tiny planet, I just think it is just a waste of money and resources. We don't need to hammer a lock to open it, do we? We all know what we would need to do.

Kind regards,

Vu.

PS: I've been wondering about the equivalence principle for more than 30 years and I think your size change factor might be helpful if we want to see how they are equivalent physically.

Dear Jerry,

Infinities have not been found and probably will never be, but Planck density is a result of the present formulation of quantum physics which I myself regard not as a fundamental theory of nature. However, until it is proven otherwise, I agree with you that what you have said is one of the crucial problems that modern physics needs to deal with.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Scott,

I agree with you that we can not perceive infinity without self-contradiction. However, we can always compose self-contradicted arguments of any kind, therefore the real problem belongs to whether we are actually highly intellectual as we may have thought, due to the limited ability of our physical existence. As you know ambient light can be natural or artificial.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Vu:

Thank you for your encouraging reply.

Forgive me though that I did not get the meaning of your sentence at the beginning (I quote):

"in addition to a jungle of conjectures and assumptions "

I wonder because I made no single assumption except validity of the special theory of relativity. This exactly was my trick.

Everyone believes to date that it is okay to introduce new assumptions. But a single unnecessary assumption turns everything that follows into pseudo-science, right?

Your kind P.S. points in the same direction, I feel.

Dear Otto,

Sorry, I was just kidding, because you challenged me. On the other hand, my P.S was a serious talk that is related to what I have been thinking for a long time. I think both gravity and motion caused by an accelerating frame are due to a real change of the structure of space, and the change may be formulated by a size change factor (which is the result of a physical process, and what this physical process might be is another problem). However, I think the whole problem is way more subtle because first we need to know what is the real structure of space-time and how physical objects manage to change their position in it. 

Kind regards,

Vu.

Not quite right in  point iv, dear N.U.M., if I may express my opinion. Otto

Dear Akramul,

I always respect all forms of religious beliefs because they have provided us with wisdom and given us values for our own existence. Watching news everyday from Middle East reminds me what had happened to me more than 50 years ago. I only hope the Law-Giver will also give us peace to live with.

Kind regards,

Vu.

This has interesting connection with entanglement perhaps; in some ways one could say that in a super-position both the spin up particle and the spin down particle are present. That is, as if, in some, cases the probability is given only by the moduli of the amplitude, whereupon it appears to operate via the multiplicative (definiton/axiom) of probability. Although I doubt this suggestion would work in general.

Likewise one can downward convert/parameterise spin 1/2 particles into two bi-spin 1/2 particles in a maximally entangled singlet state. I presume one can likewise upward convert things.

Incidentally have you read the paper by Aarranov et all (I am not sure how related it is to what I have just said or your work but it might be interesting to you):

Aharonov, Y., Albert, D. Z. and Vaidman, L. (1988). How the result

of a measurement of a component of the spin of a spin-1/2 particle

can turn out to be 100. Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1351.

Or some of the other articles by these authors on hardy's paradox, where there multiple particles present in the box but average out to being one particle being present; due to negative particle. a

William, a interesting analysis of Aharonov's paper is given here:

Article How the Result of a Single Coin Toss Can Turn Out to be 100 Heads

 Dear William and Thiery,

Thanks for analyses and references. I don't know what's wrong with me but I could not stand the probabilistic interpretation of modern physics. And spin is one of the most annoying concepts. I think it has something to do with the topological structure of an elementary particle. For example, as I said somewhere before, protons can be described topologically as a sphere with pointed handles in order to interpret their scattering measurements rather than to say that they contain quarks. (Sorry if it sounds offended).

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Vu, the example I gave is about the weakness of indirect measurements.

Imagine tricked dices: statistically, one could find out the measuring results as giving a preference for the outcome ::: but nobody knows why exactly that is so.

Are the dots very heavy little balls? Is the dice's matter density non-isotropic? However, the statistics are valid.

In QM, there are many local forces between particles that have not been calculated, behind the known statistics.

For instance, when one calculates the gravity field in our solar system, we find Lagrange points between the Sun and the planets, and between the planets. In these points, the gravity forces are canceling each-other.

When one would distribute matter in the solar system, and whereof some have different speeds, a certain quantity of matter will get trapped in these Lagrange points and other matter will follow more active forces. The flow of the distributed matter would give a pattern that could be analysed statistically, and attribute even a very "physical" content to the Lagrange points.

If we wouldn't know the calculus of the Lagrange points, and we knew only the statistical results, even gravity would be like QM.

Imagine the dipole field of a spinning positively charged sphere. Imagine that we put randomly spread orbits of electrons about it. It can be proven that at certain angles, the electric field is allowing the orbits to be unstable and at a very few angles, there are quite stable. This situation is even more complex than the gravity example I gave. Very stable angle is 0°, 180° gives an unstable equilibrium, and 45° and 135° as well give an unstable equilibrium. This is a hint to the angular quanta in QM!

When you do that with stacked spheres, causing a multi-pole, the number of orbits with unstable equilibrium angles augments.

This is what the basis of QM is about.

However, the theoretical deductions of deductions of deductions in QM, based upon statistics are not necessarily valid. Remember the Lagrange points....

All the best!

Interesting discussion.

Dear Thierry and Otto,

According to your analyses, in short, quantum physics is the result of not enough knowledge and imprecise measurements. In fact that's exactly the reason why I invented my temporal dynamics to compensate for it. Thank you for proving my point. Please jump on the bandwagon and you will see less deductions on the way.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Vu:

Quantum mechanics is a Maxwellian phenomenon. I call it "endophysical." Just like Maxwell's demon describes things that cannot be done from the inside of the universe. Only when you have a whole molecular-dynamics universe in the computer can you play Maxwell's demon trivially.

Agreed?

Dear Otto,

Congratulations! I’ve just found out you are the founder of the so-called Endophysics, which is in contrast to the Exophysics. What is the main difference between your endophysics and the interpretation of quantum mechanics by the Copenhagen school? I think the new terms look and sound better than the old terms of quantum physics and classical physics. It would be grateful if you could coin a new term that could be used to describe physics as a whole, no outside and no inside. That is the purpose of the implementation of my temporal dynamics into spatial dynamics to form a more unified and complete physics. Or we just simply call it physics. What is the physics between you and me talking on the internet?

I think Maxwell’s demon is a demonstration that physical laws are only up-to-date laws, which means they are laws that are perceived and devised up to their knowledge by scientists of the time. With time, all physical laws must be contradicted in order to advance. There are no eternal physical laws, unless we want to turn science into a form of religion. But religion itself is also a never-ending story. So just be it.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Otto,

Thanks for your challenge that I’ve been able to show, and can be verified by the Michelson-Morley experiment, that the speed of light in vacuum, even in special relativity, is not universal. Please refer to my post on RG entitled A REMARK ON THE UNIVERSAL SPEED IN RELATIVITY for more details.

Kind regards,

Vu

Dear Otto,

If we let cg equal to the square root of 1/K then it is seen from Equation (19) in my work entitled A REMARK ON THE UNIVERSAL SPEED IN RELATIVITY (REVISED VERSION) that cg is greater than c even with a tiny fringe shift considered as a null result obtained by the Michelson-Morley experiment. The speed cg is a universal speed. It is interesting to note that, according to the historical development of Einstein’s theory of relativity, general relativity, which is a theory about the gravitational field, was developed after the special relativity had been formulated. When the theory of special relativity was developed, the speed of light in vacuum was considered to be the ultimate speed of all physical movements, therefore when the gravitational interaction was formulated in terms of general relativity, the speed of the gravitational interaction was also assumed to be that ultimate speed. However, in our present situation, we have shown that there exists an ultimate speed cg  that is greater than the speed of light in vacuum, and as a consequence, there is no reason why it cannot be suggested that this universal speed is the speed of gravitational interaction. Moreover, this assumption can be verified from experiments that show that photons are in fact massive particles.

For clarity I have changed few words and added the above note to my work entitled A REMARK ON THE UNIVERSAL SPEED IN RELATIVITY (REVISED VERSION) and I think your works on c-global are still sound if c-global is changed to cg -global.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Allow me to return to the main question:

There can be no infinite density in nature if as I proved, c is globally valid.

Hello Otto,

It’s nice to hear from you again. No one can deny your remarkable works (except me, because I don’t believe in anything, even my own works. They might turn out to be just crap!). By the way, if you are so insisting on the non-existence of infinite densities why you worried about people to produce mini black holes to destroy our beloved mother earth (to be honest, I am not very sure if I love her).

Cheers,

Vu.

Dear All,

To continue with my adventure, I have developed differential equations that can be used to construct line elements of spacetime structures of elementary particles. If you are still interested in these problems then please refer to my work entitled ON THE SPACETIME STRUCTURES OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES posted on RG for more details. Otherwise, thanks.

Kind regards,

Vu.

I proved that black hole horizons are never finished in finite outer time. Hence the conjectured internal "singularity" of Hawking and Penrose is, unfortunately, a figment of the imagination -- not a scientific issue any more.

Dear Otto,

I think your works are sound and solid and they proved that existence exists as a whole, no inner physics and no outer physics. It is just in vain to criticise that their works are just a figment of the imagination because Hawking himself said that he was not able to distinguish between reality and imagination when he defended the so-called imaginary time (I'm not sure if he was serious about it). I have been trying to figure out how imaginary objects in mathematics can be represented in terms of real mathematical objects. Complex mathematics is no more than a mathematical method therefore it is not a physical reality, even though it can be used to describe physical laws. And this is true for any form of mathematics. You speak in German and I speak in Vietnamese at home, and now we are speaking to each other by typing English on computers about what form of existence might exist out there. Please don't tell me that your language is more real than mine. Maybe the foundations of the existing mathematics are not as sound as we may have thought. There may exist unknown mathematical objects that can be used to represent physical existence and have not been discovered.

Kind regards,

Vu.

>………. There may exist unknown mathematical objects       that can be used to represent physical existence        and have not been discovered….

Dear Panagiotis,

I read your interesting work about generating discrete geometry. However, in order for the geometry to represent the smooth spacetime structures it must be formulated in terms of functional analysis with analytical functions. In other words, Euclidean Polyhedron Geometry is formulated in such form that it can be regarded as discrete representation of Riemannian submanifolds. 

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Vu,

I thank you very much for your kind reply, with the relevant comments.

Regards,

Panagiotis