Search FQXi


If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Contests Home


Previous Contests

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

Juan Ramón González Álvarez: on 11/28/12 at 19:28pm UTC, wrote Dear Jayakar Johnson Joseph, Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Regards

Jayakar Joseph: on 11/24/12 at 13:01pm UTC, wrote Dear Juan Ramón González Álvarez, The basic arena that is considered...

Juan Ramón González Álvarez: on 10/25/12 at 9:52am UTC, wrote Dear Georgina Parry, Thank you for your kindly evaluation. I am glad that...

Georgina Parry: on 10/18/12 at 20:12pm UTC, wrote Dear Juan Ramón González Álvarez, Your essay was a pleasure to read. It...

Juan Ramón González Álvarez: on 10/6/12 at 17:03pm UTC, wrote Matt, Thank you for both the compliments and the invitation to further...

Juan Ramón González Álvarez: on 10/6/12 at 16:54pm UTC, wrote Richard, Thank you for the kindly support.

Matthew Jackson: on 10/5/12 at 19:33pm UTC, wrote Juan Nicely written and argued, if needing to be evolved to match...

Richard Kingsley-Nixey: on 10/5/12 at 17:57pm UTC, wrote Juan I noted your praise of Peter's essay, and now see why you understood...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Agnew: "Distance is simply time...even our intuition is fine with using time for..." in Black Holes Do Not Exist,...

Steve Agnew: "Yes, space is a very useful concept for more than just temperature. Our..." in Black Holes Do Not Exist,...

Steve Agnew: "When I calculate the coherent forward scattering of a plasma at 100/m3, I..." in The Quantum Pet Store:...

Peter Jackson: "Akinbo, Galilean relativity is only given 'reality' and a non-linear..." in Faster than Light


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Life's Quantum Crystal Ball
Does the ability to predict the future—perhaps with quantum help—define the fundamental difference between living and inanimate matter?

The Quantum Truth Seeker
Watching particles fly through an interferometer might help to unveil higher-order weirdness behind quantum theory.

Quantifying Occam
Is the simplest answer always the best? Connecting Medieval monks to computational complexity, using the branch of mathematics known as category theory.

Heart of Darkness
An intrepid physicist attempts to climb into the core of black hole.

Why Quantum?
Entropy could explain why nature chose to play by quantum rules.


FQXi FORUM
October 21, 2014

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2012 [back]
TOPIC: Eight Assumptions of Modern Physics Which Are Not Fundamental by Juan Ramón González Álvarez [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 14:46 GMT
Essay Abstract

This essay considers eight basic physical assumptions which are not fundamental: (i) spacetime as the arena for physics, (ii) unitarity of the dynamics, (iii) microscopic time-reversibility, (iv) the need for black hole thermodynamics, (v) state vectors as the general description of quantum states, (vi) general relativity as a field theory, (vii) dark matter as real matter, (viii) and cosmological homogeneity. This selection ranges from micro-physics to cosmology, but is not exhaustive.

Author Bio

The author studied physics and chemistry at the University of Vigo. He worked on scientific bodies as the Ilustre Colegio de Químicos de Galicia and was a CSIC research assistant in biogeochemistry and hydrodynamics of Rias, participating in several conferences, reports, and monographs. The author founded juanrga and the project knowledge (an open academic encyclopedia), and is working in a unified formulation of physics, chemistry, and biology.

Download Essay PDF File




Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 04:17 GMT
Dear Juan Ramón González Álvarez,

Your choice of assumptions to challenge is quite good. Unitarity seems a good place to start. You note that the Schrodinger equation describes the unitary evolution of an isolated system but fails to describe non-unitary evolution during measurement. You discuss a generalization of Schrodinger, noting that this allows abandonment of philosophical determinism in favor of probabilistic nature.

I also agree with your rejection of the time reversibility assumption. I have my own approach to the 'arrow of time' but in any case the assumption is clearly wrong.

Only my intuition tells me that 'black hole thermodynamics' is unfounded. That plus some silly conclusions that otherwise competent physicists reach regarding holography. Jonathan Dickau's essay points to some new interpretations of entropy that I intend to check out.

I strongly agree that quantum state vectors are not fundamental. For my approach to this please read my current essay, The Nature of the Wave Function.

The case for GR not being an ordinary field theory is more open, and I look forward to reading your viXra paper on this topic.

Your dark matter assumption also seems correct to me. While I don't accept MOND, there are other possibilities. As you point out, direct evidence is skimpy to non-existent.

I think you convincingly argue, as do many other current authors, that modern physics is chock full of incorrect, or at least highly questionable assumptions.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 15:07 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman, thank you for the nice comments.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Makinson wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 16:54 GMT
Juan,

I note that you submitted your essay to viXra yesterday (Aug-7-2012). Even if you have arXiv credentials, I doubt any criticism of the generally accepted assumptions, some essentially taught as facts, would stay in arXiv very long.

report post as inappropriate

Author Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 09:25 GMT
Frank,

let me quote here to Max Planck:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 02:22 GMT
Dear Juan

I read your paper negating eight 'fundamental' assumptions of physics. I agree in principle with your choices but your treatment is highly technical and is mostly beyond my mathematical knowledge. For a more descriptive paper giving my seven questions about fundamental assumptions, please read my fqxi essay Fix Physics! . It is based on my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory which I would be honored if you also look at. As you see I have high hopes that Nature operates on principles simple enough for me to understand!

Best wishes

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 18:05 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I am going to read all the essays and, thus, yours is in my reading list too!

Regarding your hopes about Nature, as once Einstein said: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler".

Best regards.

report post as inappropriate


ervin goldfain wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 22:47 GMT
I believe that challenging many of the orthodox views of contemporary theoretical physics is fully justified and ought to be encouraged. Your essay is far from being a comprehensive and decisive rebuttal of these deeply ingrained assumptions, yet is a step in the right direction.

Your essay resonates well with ideas that I've published over the years concerning the relevance of nonlinear dynamics, chaos and fractals in quantum field theory.

Ervin Goldfain

report post as inappropriate

Author Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 13:49 GMT
Dear Ervin,

I agree on that there is still much room for the improvement of our understanding of nature. Unfortunately, the size constraints for this contest impede a detailed discussion of the topics considered in my essay or even to enumerate other topics which I could not mention.

Thank you for sharing the resonance with your own ideas.

report post as inappropriate


Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 13:59 GMT
Dear Juan,

I like your excellent essay and totally agree with your viewpoint. I wish you good luck in the contest.

As you know, our community ratings will be used for selecting top 35 essays as 'Finalists' for further evaluation by a select panel of experts. There is a possibility of existence of a biased group which promotes the essays of that group by rating them all 'High' and jointly demotes some other essays by rating them all 'Low'. Therefore, any biased group should not be permitted to corner all top 'Finalists' positions for their select group.

In order to ensure fair play in this selection, each participants in this contest should select about 50 essays for entry in the finalists list and RATE them 'High'. Next they should select bottom 50 essays and rate them 'Low'. Remaining essays may be rated as usual, if time permits. If all the participants rate at least 100 essays this way then the negative influence of any bias group will certainly get mitigated.

You are requested to read and rate my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space".

Finally I wish to see your excellent essay reach the list of finalists.

Best Regards

G S Sandhu

report post as inappropriate

Author Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 14:02 GMT
Dear Gurcharn,

Thank you for the comments and good desires.

I plan to read and rate all the essays. Therefore, yours is in my list too.

I have given the highest rate to several essays that I like either because they resonate well with my own ideas or because I did learn something important from them. My surprise is that three of those essays are not currently among the finalists.

Regards

report post as inappropriate


Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 23:29 GMT
Dear Juan,

I really enjoyed your essay. It is one of the few submissions that covers a broad range of physical phenomena rather than focusing on a particular assumption. One question: how does the Liouville space approach that you mention in several of the sections fit together with the extended gravity theory you mention in section 8? In particular, does the spacetime approximation in section 1 yield Minkowski space only, or is it more general? Thanks, and take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Author Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 14:37 GMT
Dear Dribus,

It is a delight to me to know that you enjoyed it!

I decided to cover the broadest possible range of assumptions for emphasizing that science, and physics in particular, is very far from being a discipline close to the end.

The Liouville space approach is independent of the details of the potentials involved in the generator of time translations. As a consequence, the generalized gravitational potentials mentioned in [11] and the associated generalized electromagnetic potentials mentioned in the Phys. Rev. E papers cited in [11] fit perfectly in the Liouvillian approach.

The spacetime approximation mentioned in section 1 gives Minkowski spacetime if you start from ordinary coordinates xi. I prefer to derive Minkowski spacetime because of its fundamental role in Maxwellian electrodynamics, non-geometric gravity, quantum field theory, and others. But if you apply a canonical transformation to generalized coordinates qi you can derive other spacetimes using the same procedure.

Precisely, the last two weeks I have been working in a new formulation/interpretation of quantum mechanics, based in a Liouvillian approach, that eliminates all the paradoxes/limitations of the usual formulations/interpretations. For instance, we obtain a generalized kind of quantum states without the deficiencies and limitations of the Wigner quasi-probability distributions of the ordinary phase space formulation of quantum mechanics. I wait this new paper to be finished the next week and I will link to it when ready.

report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 13:59 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.

Regard !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

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

report post as inappropriate

Author Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 18:34 GMT
Dear hoang cao hai,

thank you for your interest. Unfortunately I do not understand most of your post. Moreover, I do not know why you make some of your claims. For instance, you say that "the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon" but the ordinary concept of mass that particle physicists use and denote by m is an invariant. Regarding weight, I use the ISO definition W = mg.

Regards.

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 13:50 GMT
Many thanks for your reply.

"m is an invariant" is a conventional mandatory or based on the actual status?

Let Smile (whether sniggered) before answering me.

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 14:00 GMT
Sorry for not yet comment on your essay.

I agree completely with eight false assumption that you mentioned and appreciate that.

report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 20:55 GMT
Juan,

"General relativity is derived as a geometrical approximation to the field theory of gravity."

How do we get beyond the approximation when so little is known about the properties of gravity. I look at observation and the existence of dark energy in my essay.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 18:36 GMT
Jim,

We can go beyond general relativity somewhat as Einstein went beyond Newtonian theory. We use our physical intuition and available theoretical tools and propose some generalization, which is later checked.

The generalization described in my essay has been confronted with astrophysical data and we found excellent agreement, with data from hundred photometry and kinematics observations. I have also studied the confrontation with cosmological data and it seems that we also found a good concordance. I will wrote something about dark energy in your forum.

Regards

report post as inappropriate


Author Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 18:38 GMT
I have just finished a work Positive Definite Phase Space Quantum Mechanics, where I offer details on the Liouvillian formulation of quantum mechanics, which I mentioned in my essay. This is the abstract:

Still today the discussion about the foundations, physical interpretation, and real scope of quantum mechanics has never ceased. It would be wrong to dismiss these issues as mere philosophical problems, because questions of consistency and interpretation are not devoid of practical utility. We present the foundations and main properties of a positive definite phase space quantum mechanics. A new quantization procedure is proposed as well. This new interpretation/formulation eliminates conceptual and technical difficulties from quantum mechanics: (i) many paradoxes typical of the wave-particle duality, EPR experiments, macroscopic superpositions, and collapse of wavefunctions disappear; (ii) the elimination of the wavefunctions from quantum theory is in line with the procedure inaugurated by Einstein with the elimination of the ether in the theory of electromagnetism; (iii) it is useful in considering the classical limit, can treat mixed states with ease, and brings certain conceptual issues to the fore; (iv) confirms the ensemble interpretation of the wavefunctions, derives its statistical interpretation, corrects the temporal dependence of the old wavefunctions, and considers pure classical states --localizable states-- beyond the Hilbert space; (v) the quantum equation of motion is of the Liouville kind and star-products are not needed, simplifying the formalism; and (vi) eliminates the hypothetical external quantum field of the pilot wave interpretation, solving its problems on the status of probability, and correcting well-known inconsistencies of the Bohm potential. Finally, we offer some perspectives on future developments and research in progress.

report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 17:30 GMT
Dear Juan,

I agree with you that Time reversibility is not fundamental. We use very simple microscopic time-reversible equations but in reality in every process take place dissipation of energy and interaction of numerous particles. If we include dissipation in equation of motion the processes will have known final and the arrow of time appears. In the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter which is the subject of my essay black holes are impossible. Also I am sure that at the level of particles is Strong gravitation. Instead of general relativity may be used Lorentz-invariant theory of gravitation (LITG). LITG is similar to electromagnetism which already has quantum form. I suppose the dark matter is due to nuons which are similar to white dwarfs by their properties but have such mass as nucleons. More about it in the article: Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. Galilean Electrodynamics, Spring 2012, Vol. 23, Special Issues No. 1, P. 3 - 13.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Author Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 18:48 GMT
Dear Sergey,

You are absolutely right. Time reversibility is not fundamental. The recent XXI Solvay Conference on Physics has been devoted to fundamental irreversibilities in Nature. The proceedings have been published in the volume 122 of Advances In Chemical Physics. The section four, titled "Extension Of Quantum Theory And Field Theory" contains irreversible extensions of the simple time-reversible equations. For instance, an extension of quantum field theory to study unstable particles in quantum states outside of Hilbert space was presented. My own work on the arrow of time must be considered a generalization of the dynamics of correlations developed by the Brussels-Austin School (pages 261-276 of the proceedings).

I am happy to find in this contest so many people that agrees that black holes are only a mathematical idealization. The idea behind strong gravitation is particularly interesting to me. I have read something about the analogies between strong gravity and QCD, but my knowledge of this topic is very superficial. Your remark of that it is related to a Lorentz-invariant theory of gravitation has increased my curiosity and I wait to learn more about this subject in brief. Thank you for the link.

Regards

report post as inappropriate


David Thomson wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 19:11 GMT
Juan, I enjoyed reading your paper. Your insights into the assumptions of what is fundamental science run parallel to my own.

In respect to time, I show that forward, linear time is actually a *pulsed*, forward, linear time. I show that spacetime, itself, has quantum structure and is precisely quantified as a quantum rotating magnetic field (Aether unit), which has two-spin structure. ...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 18:50 GMT
Dear David,

Thank you for the kindly words. It is really fascinating that we run parallel starting from different foundations and following different ways. I do not consider the proton a fundamental particle, because I am using the Wigner classification. I may confess that I use the ordinary matrix model of the spin and that I have not advanced in the search of a more fundamental model. If it exists I could not find it! Therefore, I am glad to read what others have done.

Regards.

report post as inappropriate

David Thomson replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 13:20 GMT
Hi Juan, I specifically voted as a community member and used my code. I took note of your public rating and number of votes before and after I voted. I have no idea why your public rating was changed instead of your community rating. I wonder if this is a bug.

I'm sure there is a log of site activity that the moderators can check on to see what happened. If you know who to contact, maybe you could contact them and explain the situation. I will vouch for it.

report post as inappropriate

Author Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 14:53 GMT
Hi David, thank you for informing me of this important problem. I have contacted with administrators informing them of the situation.

Please check this administrators link.

Regards

report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 18:47 GMT
Dear Juan,

Lorentz-invariant theory of gravitation (LITG) may be used only in weak field approximation and for simple version of quantum gravity. Yes, in the LITG Lagrangian used in Strong gravity after substituting the gravitational constant by \Gamma. In common case instead of LITG must be used Covariant theory of gravitation (CTG). The CTG has Lagrangian where contribution of gravitational and electromagnetic fields has similar form including field tensors. Thanks for the references. By the way what does mean V` in the equation (1) of your paper `Modified Newtonian Dynamics and Dark Matter from a Generalized Gravitational Theory` at viXra.org ? Is it the velocity of massive source m` ? I do not found there decision of 4/3 problem. As it is known the 4/3 problem is difference of mass-energy of field in energy and in momentum of field of a body in motion.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Author Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 18:44 GMT
I answered this in Sergey Fedosin forum.

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 11:35 GMT
Hola Juan

This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 00:46 GMT
Juan,

For this contest, I decided to go through and comment on essays of interest and see what responses I got to my own essay. There are over 250 entries, so I narrowed down my evaluations. For only those who responded, I decided to reread and provide my evaluations before time expired, not making it a popularity contest but keeping in mind that I entered for an exchange of interesting ideas, whether I agree or not. Some concepts are superior and more persuasively supported.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 13:29 GMT
James,

thank you for your interest!

As I wrote with some detail in my message of day 23 in your own forum, you are completely right when asking for the attractive aspect of gravity. Asking such questions provides a fundamental picture about our universe. It was a pleasure to me to read your essay and found this resonance with my ideas.

Regards

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 20:53 GMT
Juan

I don't agree entirely with your proposals, but a very well written and argued essay, and one of the few, like mine, remaining on theme. Interestingly both of ours have 8 identified assumptions.

I do agree most, but I think Dark Matter remains an open question. I do have a preference for the Yukawa or 'screened Coulomb' potential over the Newtonian curve, but argue that as ions have a refractive index of n=1, are 'self focussing' of light (as in lasers) are otherwise invisible, may arise from pair production due to relative motion, are consistent with gravitational mapping and lensing, and are actually found at high densities where we have explored,.. then they may contribute significantly.

The last point is supported by the excellent Cluster graph and analysis in Richard Kinsley-Nixey's essay (Fig.2.) I'd be very interested in your views on that aspect of my essay, which derives not only CSL and the SR postulates but curved space-time from the quantum mechanism of coupling interaction (Raman scattering).

Thanks for an interesting read. I confirm I think you deserve a good score despite any differences of view. I hope you think similarly of mine. Being close should not mean adversarial scoring, so very best of luck in the results.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 13:41 GMT
Peter,

I really enjoyed your beautiful and relevant essay, which deserves evaluation by the judges without any doubt. I already stated my opinion about Dark Matter in my essay, but I will answer your specific question in your forum.

report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 16:35 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 07:42 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


Author Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 15:14 GMT
I managed to obtain a copy of an email sent from a member of the FQXi Technical Support (his identity will be disclosed if needed) that confirms that some authors were allowed unlimited voting of others essays. This must explain why some people, including myself, dropped 50-100 positions in about 15 minutes, when all were in the top ranking during one or more weeks.

The email has date of the day 3 and says "This problem was temporary, and has been corrected." Well, it seems that the problem was not corrected.

At the same time, I have seen a pair of essays ascending lots of positions (more than 260 positions in one very suspicious case that everyone has noticed) in the same time span.

Moreover, I have also noticed that my public rating and that of people around me has dropped by someone giving us a "1".

More info at the contest blog

report post as inappropriate


Richard William Kingsley-Nixey wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 17:57 GMT
Juan

I noted your praise of Peter's essay, and now see why you understood it, you were half way there. A good score coming. Well done.

Rich

report post as inappropriate

Author Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 16:54 GMT
Richard,

Thank you for the kindly support.

report post as inappropriate


Matthew Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 19:33 GMT
Juan

Nicely written and argued, if needing to be evolved to match consistently with a real set of mechanisms. Congrats. I hope reading mine may allow consideration of the real measurement problem.

Regards

Matt

report post as inappropriate

Author Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 17:03 GMT
Matt,

Thank you for both the compliments and the invitation to further research.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 20:12 GMT
Dear Juan Ramón González Álvarez,

Your essay was a pleasure to read. It deals directly and unambiguously with the topic of the essay question and is set out in a very clear and matter of fact way. This is wrong and this is why, eight times and no nonsense. You challenge some very big assumptions and I think it was brave to put space-time right up there at the beginning. It could have scared some readers away, though you can probably say that directly and up front because of your biography, whereas others might be given a harder time.

I see from your biography that you are "working in a unified formulation of physics, chemistry, and biology". It would have been interesting to hear if you have a preliminary unified model or related ideas that could account for all of the mentioned wrong assumptions together and still give the observations that are made. There was no need for it in the essay, which is wonderful because of its simplicity and clarity. It would just have been particularly interesting to me. Well done and Good luck, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Author Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 09:52 GMT
Dear Georgina Parry,

Thank you for your kindly evaluation. I am glad that reading my essay was a pleasure for you. I have been a bit busy with changes in juanrga, including redesign of our site.

Let me emphasize that I only used the word "wrong" once and it was when referring to Laplace incorrect view of nature. When referring to the assumptions analysed I use other terms; indeed,...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Nov. 24, 2012 @ 13:01 GMT
Dear Juan Ramón González Álvarez,

The basic arena that is considered differently in Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe is the consistency of the matters of universe and its holarchy, in that the scenario of dimensionality of matters is imperative. Thus the following are the comparisons that are analysed with this paradigm:

1. As per this paradigm, space-time is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Nov. 28, 2012 @ 19:28 GMT
Dear Jayakar Johnson Joseph,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Regards

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.