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


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

Yuri Danoyan: on 3/25/13 at 21:01pm UTC, wrote http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1589#post_73113

Benjamin Dribus: on 10/5/12 at 5:13am UTC, wrote Dear George, Nice essay! I agree that there is nothing to be lost (for...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 6:13am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

George: on 10/3/12 at 10:59am UTC, wrote Yes, dear Paul. We have defining our = rules of game= i.e. we have...

Paul Reed: on 10/3/12 at 9:02am UTC, wrote George Thanks for your comment. At the risk of appearing pedantic, and as...

George: on 10/2/12 at 13:11pm UTC, wrote Spasibo! Jelayu udachi!

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/2/12 at 9:32am UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

George: on 10/2/12 at 6:24am UTC, wrote Dorogoy Yury! Chto ya delal be bez Vas! Spasibo za informaciu. Izuchayu...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Lorraine, No visible finite “Multi-cellular organisms have ever..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Lorraine, No visible finite “Multi-cellular organisms have ever..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

Nitina oania: "http://freerobuxgenerator.net" in Quantum Replicants:...

Nitina oania: "We below at Chikara Video Game" understand exactly what it resembles to..." in Quantum Replicants:...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi John, I don't know what you just said but it sounds a lot more..." in Sounding the Drums to...

John Cox: "Georgi, I would say that designing an 'interface'; from a nexus of..." in Sounding the Drums to...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.


FQXi FORUM
August 18, 2017

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Rethinking the Formal Methodology (I): Wave-Vortex Essence of the Substance by George Kirakosyan [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 17:10 GMT
Essay Abstract

An approach/methodology proposed to basic problems, alternative to standard formalism. Elm particles physical essence and types of interactions interpreted within Wave-field peculiarities. The problems with de Broglie wave and particles double slit interference discussed. The possibility to a causal representation of quantum phenomena is shown. Physical models of basic hadrons, their internal structure and static fields’ configurations proposed. The values of mass, spin, magnetic moments of n, p hadrons defined within modeling. Causal interpretation to β decay presented. The tremendous penetrating peculiarity of neutrino discussed. Structural schemas to He(4), C(12) nucleons are proposed.

Author Bio

George (Gevorg) Kirakosyan was born 1950, in Armenia. Manager of engineering group in private company, Dubai, UAE. Associate specialist, Physics Department, State Engineering University, Yerevan, Armenia

Download Essay PDF File




Frank Makinson wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 09:05 GMT
Gevorg,

You use the undefined term "elm' throughout your essay, and I assume it is a contraction of "electromagnetic" (elm). I use EM as the acronym, or contraction, for electromagnetic.

Please read the essay of Jarek Duda, topic 1416. Jarek uses the term "twist-like wave" and you use the term "wave-vortex". I prefer to describe EM waves with a spin type spatial field structure using the term "helical".

report post as inappropriate


George wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 10:36 GMT
To: Frank Makinson

Sorry! "Elm"- means "elementary", and "elmag." - "electromagnetic".

"Twist-like wave","helical" terms are fully acceptable for me.

report post as inappropriate


Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 14:18 GMT
Dear George Kirakosyan,

I have read your essay and I agree with your viewpoint. I share most of your concerns regarding current state of Physics.

Of course, all authors in this contest cannot agree on any one point of view. I believe various contributions from many like-minded authors can definitely make a difference in the emergence of a consolidated un-orthodox viewpoint needed to remove some of the major weaknesses, contradictions and fantasies from current Physics.

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 and comment my essay titled "Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space".

Best Wishes

G S Sandhu

report post as inappropriate


George wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 05:57 GMT
Dear Sandhu,

Your work is interesting; mostly I agree with your critics. There are some points as well (on SR), on which I have some different view (particularly, I see M-r Minkowski more “guilty” than Einstein) Nevertheless, it seems just impossible to discuss it right here because the deal is about “so heavy” theme that requires pages and time.

On W=mc^2. It is more important for me that Einstein have realized/interpreted right cognitive meaning of it (in mine opinion). Who have deduced it first – there are different views that I cannot exclude.



Regards,



George

report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 17:05 GMT
Dear Gevork

I hope it would be interesting for you.

http://www.fairpoint.net/~kia/pubs/0503161.pdf

All the best

Yuri

report post as inappropriate


George wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 18:19 GMT
Dear Yury! Thanks for favorable for me article.

It confirms mine point: alpa is really a constant. Its observed variations should have some other explanations!

report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 19:38 GMT
To my opinion:

Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch

c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10

G=10^12; G=10^-8; G=10^-28

h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28

alfa =10^-3; 1/ 137; 1

e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12

report post as inappropriate


Frank Makinson wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 23:15 GMT
George,

Pg 4 "However, it becomes verbal/psychological declaration only, since the QM allows presenting/describing one kind of object, and not two types together ("wave" and "particle") as it is in reality. I.e. the QM accepts two kinds of objects, existing together at the same time, and it allows describing one of them only (?)"

I believe "wave" and "particle" should first be...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

George replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 05:26 GMT
Frank!

=I believe "wave" and "particle" should first be...=

-----------------------------------------------------

Is it a question? I will try to answer if you will formulate it clearly.

report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 16:29 GMT
George,

I did formulate it clearly. Did you click on read entire post?

report post as inappropriate

George replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 17:29 GMT
Just now i saw the link! Give me some time ...

report post as inappropriate


Paul Reed wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 15:42 GMT
George

As per your request on my blog of 29 Aug, my comments on your essay would be as follows:

1 Your opening sentence is the start point, only the issue is not philosophical, but physical. We are part of a physical reality. The evolution of sensory systems enables us (and other organisms) to detect it. So, within that confine, the physical question is, what constitutes this and...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

George replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 06:56 GMT
Thanks for response and for support with some of mine approaches.

I am explaining some of your kindly comments due to in the work are not presented most of initial definitions (I think, it may be justified technically).

I have just believed that there should be common view on the basic things, for example, on what we mean under term of “physical reality”, “material point” etc. Unfortunately, the modern physics is far from his mother science – philosophy. It ignores such “trifles” as the ordinary logic, methodological principles as well as the initial definitions. We have that which we have now in result – the formal/abstract actions and political declarations, that offered to us as a “Leading science”! I think the situation is very dramatic actually; however, it has also the positive aspect. I mean, the physics have definitly reached to a wall and every serious thinker realizes it. So, the deeper revision just is inevitable!

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 08:08 GMT
George

Indeed so. The basic logic is very easy to discern (especially if one does not have all the 'baggage'). But then it gets more difficult(!), ie just what can constitute a pysically existent state, which is my phrase to denote that which exists as at any given point in time. We know it is a sequence, because 'it' exists and there is alteration, but what constitutes the 'it'. While that can be generically established (probably with more knowledge), I doubt if we would ever be able to detect it in any given circumstance, because of the speed at which alteration occurs, and the complexity involved in any given circumstance. That is, it is probably impossible to differentiate physical reality to the point where we could defined what occurred as at a point in time, ie the point where there no form of alteration occurred. But that inability should not result in the ditching/overriding of the principles which define how physical reality occurs.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

George replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 12:35 GMT
Your judgment is nice! I would like only remembering you about ,,hiding parameters,, (Einstein, Rosen etc.) We must care that there are natural limits for ours measuring/controlling capability (due to any measuring process assumes transformation some of minimal quantity of energy restricted by nature. The same for sizes) Thus, the ,,material point,, and ,,exactly location,, become here the idealized categories. We just must be ready that in the ,,border,, we will lose any possibility to make real experiments. What we can do then? I suggest building the mental descriptions, by using imaginary objects/actions and causal=logical universal laws (on example of process absorption/radiation of photons in mine work). We will believe that ours models are right (somewhat) if ours conclusions will corresponding with reality (for example, I get the right energy values and closely action times). Moreover, if this system becomes universal and it works in other cases as well (on elementary particles description etc), then we can say that we have understood what is going on actually.

report post as inappropriate


George wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 06:47 GMT
To Paul,

Thanks for response and for support with some of mine approaches.

I am explaining some of your kindly comments due to in the work are not presented most of initial definitions (I think, it may be justified technically).

I have just believed that there should be common view on the basic things, for example, on what we mean under term of ,,physical reality,, , ,,material point,, etc. Unfortunately, the modern physics is far from his mother science = philosophy. It ignores such ,,trifles,, as the ordinary logic, methodological principles as well as the initial definitions. We have that which we have now in result = the formal/abstract actions and political declarations, that offered to us as ,,Leading science,,! I think the situation is very dramatic actually; however, it has also the positive aspect. I mean, the physics have definitly reached to a wall and every serious thinker realizes it. So, the deeper revision just is inevitable!

report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 17:13 GMT
Dear George,

Thanks for your essay, I agree fully with the part 1. Here is a reference about spin of electron in the book The physical theories and infinite nesting of matter. Perm, 2009-2012, 858 p. ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0. I red your article in vixra.org and agree that < interpretation clarifies the physical meaning of de Broglies wave as Doppler Effect arising from movement of Comptons standing wave (elementary particle).> The same is in my book Fizika i filosofiia podobiia ot preonov do metagalaktik. Perm, 1999, 544 pages. ISBN 5-8131-0012-1. You can see also my description of photon model in 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


George wrote on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 11:10 GMT
Dear Sergey!

Thank you for Responce.

I have open yours articles in VIXRA and I find these intrseting for me.

I fill that we are on the same way. (There are some peuple thinking on the same direction). I will read your works slowly as per find time.

Ya oceniwayu vash trud. Unfortunatelly we are in minority. I hope we will continue talks after.

Best whishes

report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 09:08 GMT
Hi George,

I found interesting your Essay. I am going to give you an high score.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

George replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 13:32 GMT
Thank you very much dear Christian,

Your essay (and many of articles as well as) are impressing by professional level. I have appraised yours work as high with clean hearts.

Best wishes,

George

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 09:19 GMT
Hi Dr. Corda. Fundamental inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing fundamentally demonstrates F=ma as well. What are your thoughts on this please?My essay (in this contest) proves this.

report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 19:01 GMT
http://www.polit.ru/news/2012/10/01/fundamentalphysicsprize/


report post as inappropriate

George replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 06:24 GMT
Dorogoy Yury!

Chto ya delal be bez Vas! Spasibo za informaciu. Izuchayu site.

report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 19:03 GMT
Dear Gevork

Ya postavil tebe 10 ballov

report post as inappropriate


Ed Unverricht wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 20:20 GMT
Hi George,

Just read and enjoyed your essay. Modelling the properties of fundamental particles leads to much better understanding and insights into how they work. Thank you for your ref, "Modeling the Electron as a Stable Quantum Wave-Vortex", I also enjoyed that.

Regards and I hope you get a chance to look at my animated models at essay #1306, and I would appreciate any comments.

Ed

report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 09:32 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

George replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 13:11 GMT
Spasibo!

Jelayu udachi!

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 09:02 GMT
George

Thanks for your comment. At the risk of appearing pedantic, and as I tried to convey to Sergey recently, the point is not so much "experiment, logic and quantitative analyze", as such, as this is obvious. It is about what that can be, given our existential circumstance. Reality is manifest, so we are trapped in a loop. But it is manifest independently of the mechanism whereby we know of it, so we can attain objectivity within that loop. And can know of nothing outwith that loop.

The questions then become, given that confine, a) how can reality occur (what must be its essential properties), b) what is the process of detection. Answers, at the generic level, reveal the 'rules of the game'. Reality exists, it has definite form, it is not an abstract concept, and conceptualisations of it need to correspond with it, as manifest, not on the basis of assertion/ belief.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

George replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 10:59 GMT
Yes, dear Paul.

We have defining our = rules of game= i.e. we have building same system of study, and attempting to include into it the known facts/events. The appeasement of our system we defining by its workability, i.e. how many facts and results may be explained in frame of our system (because there is no other criterion of significance). The whole series of results and new opportunities are presented in mine work. Did you read it to end (44 pages)?

Or, did you find any of concretely results (as deduced foundational numbers) in any of work? If yes, kindly let me known.

Regards

report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:13 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


Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 05:13 GMT
Dear George,

Nice essay! I agree that there is nothing to be lost (for the science community as a whole) by returning to first principles. There may be something to be lost by the brave researcher who takes this path, but that's a risk that must be taken! I also like your "causal" approach. A few other remarks:

1. You have a good discussion of problems with point particles on pages 4-5.

2. Regarding the "deep confusion of modern physics," I think that a major reason for this is beginning with convenient mathematical models with no obvious relation to physical reality instead of beginning with simple, well-motivated physical principles. I don't mind difficult math; I'm a mathematician myself. But the cart should not come before the horse. The physical principles should come first, and then the math should be whatever is required to do the job!

3. I think your QEF approach is interesting, though it's entirely different from my own attempts... I prefer not to assume a manifold spacetime structure (I see this as a mathematically convenient but physically doubtful assumption). But that's a long story...

I enjoyed reading your paper! Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Mar. 25, 2013 @ 21:01 GMT
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1589#post_73113

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.