Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Anonymous: on 10/6/12 at 0:18am UTC, wrote Dear Fedosin, Thank you very much. I read through your essay. However, I...

Anonymous: on 10/6/12 at 0:15am UTC, wrote Dear Hou Yau, Thanks for your reply. I believe, only matter can provide...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/5/12 at 14:46pm UTC, wrote Dear Nainan, I quite agree with yours: < Only one fundamental...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 9:47am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Hou Ying Yau: on 10/4/12 at 0:21am UTC, wrote Dear Nainan, Thanks for taking time to read my essay. The particle is...

Nainan Varghese: on 10/3/12 at 22:47pm UTC, wrote Dear Hou Yau, Thank you very much for compliments. If you are interested...

Hou Ying Yau: on 10/3/12 at 5:16am UTC, wrote Dear Nainan, I cannot agree with you more about your statement "Substance...

Nainan Varghese: on 9/28/12 at 1:29am UTC, wrote Dear Peter, Thank you very much for compliments. As you have rightly...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

thuy lien: "9 THINGS WE WERE SEEN FROM RED DEAD REDEMPTION 2 TRAILER ROCKSTAR HAVE US..." in Collapsing Physics: Q&A...

Anthony Aguirre: "Our mission at FQXi has always been to push boundaries, and to try to focus..." in FQXi's New Large Grant...

John Cox: "Victor, I have reread your post and still find agreement. Realism vs...." in What Is...

Victor Usack: "RE John R Cox. You are quite right. Without the math we’ve got..." in What Is...

Anonymous: "hello Bob" in The Complexity Conundrum

shery williams: "Office Setup is the full suite of Microsoft productivity software that..." in Are We Merging With Our...

thuy lien: "The faction in Bannerlord: Battania King: ‘Caladog’ -partially..." in Collapsing Physics: Q&A...

thuy lien: "Good article, thanks for sharing. hell let loose metal gear survive far..." in Blurring Causal Lines


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.


FQXi FORUM
December 16, 2017

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Basic Assumption in Physics by Nainan K. Varghese [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Nainan K. Varghese wrote on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 12:24 GMT
Essay Abstract

Lack of fundamental set of assumptions in physics encourages or often compels physicists to conceive different sets of assumptions (often unrelated) for different phenomena. When taken together they often contradict each other. Because of numerous contemporary assumptions, physics is no more an exact science. This affair can be remedied only by sorting existing assumptions out and tabulating one basic set of fundamental assumptions, on which explanations to every physical phenomenon should depend. If any assumption in physics is ripe for re-thinking, I will suggest ‘actions at a distance through empty space’ as the first candidate. All real entities are made of matter. Existence of matter is the solitary phenomenon without prior cause. Therefore, original set of assumptions should be only with respect to matter. Further development of physics, in all spheres, should be based on these original set of assumptions. To add to or modify original assumptions, whenever certain phenomenon is not readily explainable, is incorrect practise. Multitude of assumptions, currently used in physics, may be substituted by a single and basic assumption that ‘Substance is fundamental and matter alone provides substance to all physical entities’. Although conclusions may diverge from current beliefs, reasoning based on this single fundamental assumption can logically explain all physical phenomena.

Author Bio

Nainan K Varghese is a retired Electrical Engineer. Result of his independent research in fundamental questions in Physics is self-published in a book, ‘Hypothesis on MATTER’. It is a revolutionary concept that logically explains all physical phenomena, based on just one type of postulated matter particles – the quanta of matter. This alternative concept explains all complex physical phenomena with simple cause and effect relationships and without actions at a distance.

Download Essay PDF File




Alan Lowey wrote on Jun. 21, 2012 @ 11:15 GMT
Dear Nainan,

I liked the back-to-basics style of your essay. Very enjoyable. You talk a lot of sense about the very fundamentals of assumptions in physics which many seem to gloss over. Well done.

report post as inappropriate


Roger Schlafly wrote on Jun. 29, 2012 @ 19:19 GMT
Are you saying that things might not be made of matter? If so, what does that mean? Are they made of something other than protons and electrons?

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 11:25 GMT
His abstract states "All real entities are made of matter. Existence of matter is the solitary phenomenon without prior cause. Therefore, original set of assumptions should be only with respect to matter."

So your question doesn't seem to make sense.

It's only Newton's initial idea of Isotropy and Equivalence which gives us the notion that all matter *must be* baryonic, i.e. everyday matter that we are all used to. The centre of stars and planets can't be cut in half for us to have a look unfortunately. It's the biggest assumption of them all imo.

I don't quite understand the sentence "Existence of matter is the solitary phenomenon without prior cause." It still needs an explanation of where it came from and how it was created.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 03:38 GMT
Alan, you wrote - "It still needs an explanation of where it came from and how it was created".With respect: Does it? Why must it have been somewhere else first and why must it have been something else first; or have come from nothing? In what way is having a working concept of that prior different existence, or miraculous creation from nothing, helpful or necessary?

report post as inappropriate


Author Nainan K. Varghese wrote on Jul. 1, 2012 @ 13:52 GMT
I understand that topic of essay competition is ‘assumptions in physics’ rather than any particular physical phenomenon.

Alan Lowey,

Thanks for compliments.

All concepts have to be based on certain definite preconceived ideas, which we call assumptions. These may be results of our past experience or axioms which are widely believed to be true. In physics, an assumption is...

view entire post




Alan Lowey replied on Jul. 3, 2012 @ 09:20 GMT
Yes, I agree with everything that you say Nainan. In your abstract you say "I will suggest ‘actions at a distance through empty space’ as the first candidate." Again, I'm willing to agree with you, but what is your alternative to this unwieldy "action at a distance"? Do you have one?

report post as inappropriate

Author Nainan K. Varghese replied on Jul. 4, 2012 @ 15:49 GMT
Alan Lowey,

Of course, I have one simple concept. But, this is not a forum to discuss it. You may kindly visit my website or contact me directly.

Thanks,

Nainan



Alan Lowey replied on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 09:17 GMT
Goodo. It'd be very interesting to compare. I saw your website but will also contact you via email. Thanks.

report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 05:26 GMT
Nainan,

Interesting ideas. Where do dark matter and dark energy fit in your theory?

Jim

report post as inappropriate


Dirk Pons wrote on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 10:36 GMT
Nainan

So as I understand it, the central idea is that physics is currently founded on an ad-hoc set of assumptions that are poorly integrated together. Furthermore mathematical analysis without conceptual reasoning may lead to irrelevant or illogical conclusions. The current paradigm of physics is identified as deficient in its treatment of matter, since existing mathematical methods only use one of its attributes - mass. Hence, if we can find an appropriate set of assumptions about matter, then 'it should be possible to explain all other physical phenomena' in a way that is logical and comprehensive. So the essay identifies that incorrect premises about matter are holding physics back.

I thought that that was a perceptive analysis. You made a good case, and I think you have a valid point.

There may be some commonality between your work and ours (essay here).

Your essay identifies the problem, and then suggests the starting point. In a way our essay continues the narrative, in that it develops a candidate solution based on fresh assumptions about matter. Another commonality is that we also believe in being clear about our assumptions, which we state as a set of lemmas. (These do not appear in our essay, but can instead be found in our other papers). This ensures a logical coherence all the way through. As you said, 'Original assumption(s) should be logical, consistent and without contradictions. They would require no change, addition or modification as our knowledge increases.'

Whether or not the core idea in our essay is on the right track, it confirms that the approach that you suggest in your essay is useful, because it can indeed be taken forward to generate logical solutions.

Thank you

Dirk

report post as inappropriate

Author Nainan K. Varghese replied on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 16:51 GMT
Dear James,

If assumption of ‘existence of matter’ alone can explain all physical phenomena, why do we need undefined ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’.

Nainan

Dear Dirk,

Thank you very much. You have indeed summarized essential points in my essay, very beautifully.

Subject of contest is ‘Questioning the Foundations: Which of our Basic Physical assumptions are Wrong’. Rules of contest specifically forbid pet theories by authors. Hence, I omitted mentioning anything about my concept and concentrated on general state of assumptions (currently used in physics) with ‘actions at a distance’ as most illogical assumption. Only one acceptable basic assumption, required in physics according to my concept, is mentioned in last paragraph, to replace all other contemporary assumptions.

What I would like to propose is that in a materialistic universe, existence of matter is an undeniable fact. Presuming this to be true, ‘existence of matter’ has to be part of the basic assumption in physics, which I stated as ‘Substance is fundamental and matter alone provides substance to all real entities’. All other explanations have to be based on it and derived from it. For details on how this is done may be gathered from my website/book.

Thank you again, for link to your essay. I think it is quite scholarly. Unfortunately, it is slightly above my standard of understanding. As I understand, you identified zero-dimensional particles in QM as a wrong physical assumption. To rectify this mistake you have proposed a special type of particle as a new assumption, while retaining almost all of current assumptions used in physics. As QM itself is based on many other assumptions in physics, assumptions used solely in QM may not qualify to be basic assumption in physics.

Thanking you and with regards,

Nainan




Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 19:07 GMT
Dear naina,

I agree with your conclusion;

Only one fundamental assumption that ‘Substance is fundamental and matter alone provides substance (stuff) to all physical entities’ can provide basis for logical explanations to all physical phenomena in universe.

In PicoPhysics we give matter another name Knergy. One statement called unary law 'Space contains Knergy' presents universe as five dimensional reality .

Thanks and Regards,

Vijay Gupta

report post as inappropriate

Author Nainan K. Varghese replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 20:35 GMT
Dear Gupta,

Thanks for comments.

Your essay is quite thought provoking on many points. However, I shall limit my opinion only on dimensions.

You define dimension as: “Dimension is an observable parent of a reality. The object is said to have as many dimensions as number of such realities composing the object.” And space as “Contemporary space is a residual concept of...

view entire post





Jose P. Koshy wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 09:21 GMT
Dear Ninan,

I agree with you that there should be a fundamental assumption. However,there is no way to know that the assumption is correct. For that we have to wait till the whole thing has been explained. Till that time we have to accommodate wrong assumptions.

Anyway, I have the same opinion that everything should start with the definition of matter and its properties.Here we can have different assumptions which may be wrong or right, and try to decipher the whole thing.Once it is completed, we will know whether the initial assumptions are wrong or right.

I have submitted my essay today only, and expect it to be available shortly in this site.I will be contacting you directly.

report post as inappropriate

Author Nainan K. Varghese replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 20:37 GMT
Dear Jose,

You are welcome to contact me directly, if you wish.

An assumption is a statement, which is believed to be true. Hence, you cannot question its correctness unless further developments of theories on various physical phenomena do not contradict the assumption. At any stage of development of these theories, an inconsistency is noticed; assumption is proved incorrect. More than one basic assumption is likely to lead towards contradictions. Having numerous sets of assumptions (used in different theories) can only lead towards chaos in theoretical physics.

As long as we believe in material world, existence of matter cannot be denied. Hence, having ‘existence of matter’ as the basic and only assumption is not likely to go wrong. Challenge is to develop theories on various phenomena on this basis, instead of subscribing numerous assumptions, whenever theorists are struck on their way.

Thanks and with regards,

Nainan.



Jose P. Koshy replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 13:01 GMT
I have gone through your essay and also I have visited your website.The existence of matter is a fact and not an assumption. Regarding its properties (other than mass and volume) we require assumptions.Whether it is made up of one type of fundamental particles or as many as 18 types is an assumption.Whether it can be converted into energy or not is another assumption.So we require many, if not multitudes of assumptions.

report post as inappropriate

Author Nainan K. Varghese replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 14:49 GMT
Dear Jose,

If existence of matter can be considered as a fact, rather than an assumption, I would say that no assumptions are required in physics. All physical phenomena can be logically explained on the basis of this ‘fact’ (of existence of matter) alone.

However, a fact (I believe) is nothing but a statement that is believed to be true. An assumption is also defined in same terms. Once you know matter for a fact, why assume its properties. Properties will be self-evident in definition of matter.

[Mass is a measure of inertia or it is a mathematical relation between matter-content and change of state of motion of a matter-body. Matter, being a single type of entity, a matter-body cannot have different natures for its most-fundamental particles. There is no unambiguous definition for ‘energy’. Whatever energy means, it has to be distinct from matter and hence, they cannot be converted/reverted into each other.]

I think you presented a brilliant analysis, in your essay, of current affairs in physics and your suggestions on ways out of present dilemmas are very practical. Nevertheless, who will bell the cat?

With regards,

Nainan




Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 17:22 GMT
Dear Nainan,

I read your essay and found it very interesting and well written. I highly appreciate and share your viewpoint.

All authors in this contest have presented their viewpoints in different styles. In the grand maze of the unknown it is important to consider all possible alternatives and different viewpoints for building a consolidated common approach.

As you know, with arbitrary assumptions we can build wonderful fantasies. But to come close to building a model of reality, we must use barest minimum of assumptions and such assumptions that are used must be plausible and compatible with physical reality. For this reason I think FQXi has chosen a most appropriate topic for this contest.

You are also requested to read my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space". Kindly do let me know if you don't get convinced about the invalidity of the founding assumptions of Relativity or regarding the efficacy of the proposed simple experiments for detection of absolute motion. However, you are welcome to disagree with me regarding my proposal for fundamental research in 'Physical Space' because, possibly, that idea may be still ahead of its time!

Best Wishes

G S Sandhu

report post as inappropriate

Author Nainan K. Varghese replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 14:50 GMT
Dear Sandhu,

Thank you very much for compliments.

I share your view about role played by FQXi towards better understanding of fundamental physics.

Relativistic ideas were formulated much later in the history of development of physics. They gave physics a mystical aura, reserving rights of contemplation to very few, with knowledge of advanced mathematics. Many lesser scientists were attracted to it due to its mysterious ideas and incredible possibilities for imagination. Academics stick to relativity theories only because it is their bread. Your arguments would certainly influence, at least a minority, who will read them.

It should not go unnoticed that irrational and baseless assumptions were used in physics even much earlier without much ado. ‘Action at a distance through empty space’ is an example. No person with little common sense will argue about its irrationality. Yet, physicists accept this assumption with occasional and mild protests. Many a time, their protests appear in the form of use of equally illogical and undefined fields, fluxes, imaginary particles, distortions of form-less structures, etc. On the other hand, anyone who tries to suggest an ‘all-encompassing medium of action’ is venomously opposed from every quarter. Repeated failures of such ideas, in the past, prompt serious scientists to beware of new ideas. They think it is better to snuff out such attempts early than hope for a logical idea of a universal medium of actions.

My argument is that a single basic assumption related to materialistic nature of its existence can provide logical explanations to all physical phenomena in universe, including a universal medium of actions. All illogical assumptions, you enumerated in your essay, and others currently used in physics can be replaced by a single and basic assumption that ‘Substance is fundamental and matter alone provides substance to all real entities’.

With regards,

Nainan




Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:58 GMT
Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 22:22 GMT
Nainan

I agree we must review from scratch when anomalies arise. I've found in Architecture, the slightest change late on means a fundamental re-appraisal of assumptions and the decision making process is essential. In Astronomy, poor theory is buried under multi layer patches on patches. Excellent essay, deserving of a far higher position, which I'll be pleased to help with.

In applying this I think I've come across a very important finding about matter. If all, including space, is a 'medium', even of very diffuse matter then all old physics is nonsense, and nature is really far simpler. As you say the “cause and effect relations” mean that interactions of fluctuations with matter in motion, over time, at a quantum level produces the effects we call relativity including local CSL.

I hope you'll read my essay and see if you can put together the 'kit of parts' emerging from dropping a bunch of old assumptions into the ontological construction apparently unifying physics. That, or tell me where I've gone wrong! I look forward to your views (and hope you're ok at kinetic visualisation.)

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Author Nainan K. Varghese wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 01:29 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you very much for compliments.

As you have rightly pointed out, contemporary physics is developed on the basis of layers and layers of irrational and false assumptions. In any sphere of physics, it has no idea what a phenomenon is but it has many theories and explanations on all its properties and actions.

Nature is simple and logical. It cannot work on contradictory principles/theories. All phenomena have to develop from a basic reason, in logical steps. Everything, except original existence of matter, has to have ‘cause and effect’ relation. Even space, structured by real matter and acts as a medium, has to have a real existence, structure, form, ability to act and ability to be acted upon.

Dropping few assumptions at a time can only help to increase confusion. Instead, a new basic assumption or a new set of (non-contradictory) fundamental assumptions should be derived and all further theories should be based strictly on it/them.

I am obliged for your offer to help. Kindly read one or few of my articles (links are provided at my website) before deciding to encourage with my “silly” ideas.

I will read your essay and try to understand ideas expressed in it, with comments in appropriate forum. Thanks.

With regards,

Nainan




Hou Ying Yau wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 05:16 GMT
Dear Nainan,

I cannot agree with you more about your statement "Substance is fundamental and matter alone provides substance (stuff) to all physical entities’ can provide basis for logical explanations to all physical phenomena in universe.' It is a wonderful essay. Very easy to read and up to the point. It points out the basic problems of how we tackle physics problems.

I am also an engineer and spent last 15 years self studying physics. I think I finally struggled through some of the mathematical and abstract ideas in physics which I found very difficult to understand at the beginning. The essay I presented Is there really no reality underneath quantum theory is also to search for reality for matter that a deterministic model can generate a bosonic field. Although our approaches are different, I hope you will find it interesting. Like you, I hope non-professional like us can make a contribution to the physics community one day.

Sincerely

Hou Yau

report post as inappropriate

Author Nainan K. Varghese replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 22:47 GMT
Dear Hou Yau,

Thank you very much for compliments. If you are interested to see how my claim is substantiated, kindly read few articles, links for which are provided at my website.

I read your essay. I am not comfortable with imaginary particles and mathematical supports propping them up. If ordinary physical entities and simple mechanical interactions between them can explain all physical phenomena, why do we need mysterious particles and exotic theories behind them?

With regards,

Nainan



Hou Ying Yau replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 00:21 GMT
Dear Nainan,

Thanks for taking time to read my essay. The particle is actually real and not imaginary. The idea is that the amplitude of matter wave actually can be interpreated as vibrations in space and time which are real physical quantities. (The probabilitistic interpretation of the Bohr' postulate is the root of the difficulties of understanding quantum mechanics.) By taking this assumption, we can show that the system has the same properties of a quantum field. The underlying system is fully deterministic and the amplitude of wave is real. The probablistic nature of quantum theory emerges after "information loss". The idea of information loss is proposed by 't Hooft from the holographic prinicple which is widely used in Emergent Quantum Mechancis.

In this model, a rest particle has fluctuating time rate. Because of this fluctuation, the particle can affect the surrounding space-time. The geometry can be calculated and compare with a rest mass in general relativity. In addition, unlike the majority of theories proposed nowadays, the new model has propteis that are not predicted by quantum mechancis and can surface to the lower energy level. (e.g. string theory has no prediction beyond the Planck level.) As an engineer, I also try to use real physical entities to describe a deterministic system. However, in order to show proof to the community, mathematical supports are needed to show how the idea can be related to the sophisticated caluclations in quantum theory. My attempt is return reality back to quantum mechanics. It is a very brief summary and hope it clarify your questions. I will also take a look at your web site.

Sincerely,

Hou Yau

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 00:15 GMT
Dear Hou Yau,

Thanks for your reply.

I believe, only matter can provide a particle with objective reality in space. As it is made of pure matter, it will have an integral body. Hence, rest-particles with wave nature are imaginary particles. Imaginary particles include all those, which are not perceivable by senses (instruments are extensions of senses). For them, conceptual reasoning fails and mathematics take over. You may be right mathematically. That will not substitute for conceptual understanding, without which mathematics become nothing but pure science.

With regards, Nainan.

report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:47 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 14:46 GMT
Dear Nainan,

I quite agree with yours: < Only one fundamental assumption that `Substance is fundamental and matter alone provides substance (stuff) to all physical entities` can provide basis for logical explanations to all physical phenomena in universe.> The same is in the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter which is the subject of my essay. I rated your essay in good way.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 00:18 GMT
Dear Fedosin,

Thank you very much.

I read through your essay. However, I could not did quite see where the said assumption is adhered to. Instead, many other contemporary assumptions are used liberally, to advance further improvements in various theories. May be I missed the point. I will try to read other papers, mentioned in references, to see where our concepts have something in common.

With regards, Nainan.

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.