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

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss

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

Kamilla Kamilla: on 4/10/16 at 17:08pm UTC, wrote Wow, cool post. I’d like to write like this too – taking time and real...

Anton Vrba: on 1/26/13 at 12:25pm UTC, wrote I now have launched the website http://absolutivity.org/ detailing various...

Benjamin Dribus: on 10/2/12 at 22:18pm UTC, wrote Dear Anton, You have some interesting ideas here. A few thoughts come to...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/2/12 at 8:41am UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

James Hoover: on 9/28/12 at 22:59pm UTC, wrote Anton, For this contest, I decided to go through and comment on essays of...

Peter Jackson: on 9/21/12 at 18:30pm UTC, wrote Anton So Zaphod isn't the dropout I thought he was! Good fun read and...

Hoang Hai: on 9/19/12 at 14:59pm UTC, wrote Dear Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us are convinced...

Anton Biermans: on 9/18/12 at 2:02am UTC, wrote Anton, Well, I just wanted to point out that in saying things like ...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

John Cox: "OH! OH! Ms. Woodward Ms. Woodward! I know Iknow! It's to keep you..." in Quantum Dream Time

Georgina Woodward: "Dear Joe, if reality has nothing to do with what you think it might be, why..." in Quantum Dream Time

alice paul: "All data here is unfamiliar to me. I think Really weird. I think you have..." in Hyung Choi and the nature...

alice paul: "your link text" in Hyung Choi and the nature...

alice paul: "All data here is unfamiliar to me. I think Really weird. I think you have..." in Are We Merging With Our...

shery williams: "Kaspersky technical errors that are harming your device and its..." in Are We Merging With Our...

Lena Smith: "Though every Canon printer is manufactured with utmost proficiency, but it..." in Conjuring a Neutron Star...

Jaybee Demeester: "Cleo has proven how a skilled but beginner specialist can have an benefits..." in Plasma Tubes in the Sky


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

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?


FQXi FORUM
November 23, 2017

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Rethinking Geometry and Experience by Anton Lorenz Vrba [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 12:08 GMT
Essay Abstract

According to H. Poincaré, only the purport of physical laws (P) and the geometry (G) combined as a whole can describe nature (N). Equally well, the expression (N)=(G)+(P) symbolically describes the paradigm. Using the premise "a universe as a whole cannot change its finite energy content", this essay questions the contemporary scientific paradigm by investigating the 19th century assumptions that defined (P) that have affected the 20th century choice of (G).

Author Bio

Anton Lorenz Vrba obtained in 1974 a B.Sc (Elec. Eng.) from the University of Pretoria. He pursued a career of R&D, manufacturing and construction project management.

Download Essay PDF File




Jeff Baugher wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 19:39 GMT
Anton,

Interesting way of getting a concept across! I had thought of trying the same, and may still in another essay contest.

I haven't gone through your math in detail yet, but you state:"In hyper-space, a particle, which is a wave, always has to propagate at the speed of light in some direction defined by a vector v; however, in the observable three dimensions that particle can have any velocity between zero and the speed of light, depending on the orientation of v."

This sounds quite a bit like Brian Greene's "speed through time". Comments on it?

Thanks

Jeff Baugher

report post as inappropriate

Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 19:42 GMT
And I don't mean to imply this was Brian Greene's idea (Google "Everything travels at the speed of light"). I am not sure who first noticed it. If you could explain the differences between that concept and your theory, it might help speed people along.

Thanks

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 21:24 GMT
Jeff,

Thanks for your comments.

I have not read any of Brian Greene's works and googled as you suggested. After a brief familiarisation of his idea, (mainly through physicsforums.com) I can comment that Greene's idea and the idea presented in my essay may, at first on the surface, seem similar; however the basic concept and developments that follow from it, both are vastly different to Greene.

I use the concept of "every thing travels at the speed of light" to derive the "relativistic mass dilation" in a Euclidean multi-dimensional geometry without resorting to the special relativity's space-time continuum.




James Lee Hoover wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 17:31 GMT
Anton,

You end with an Einstein quote that deifies math. To me math is a tool to aid the modeling of processes we don't understand, based on a hypothesis we set out to prove.

I am not a mathematician, so perhaps my understanding is flawed but I have done my share of models.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 10:46 GMT
Jim,

However, our aim is to find the mathematical laws of nature and not merely to create models. (Please, no disrespect to your past experience)

Regards

Anton




Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 03:14 GMT
Dear Anton,

I enjoyed reading your paper immensely. The first thing that struck me about it was the superb typography and attention to details such as fonts and layout. The pdf says you used the font Palladio (designed by the Einstein of typography Herman Zapf). Excellent choice.

The second thing I enjoyed was your reference to Poincaré's ideas. I found new respect for him after reading how Poincaré's book influenced both Einstein and Picosso's thinking . Try to read Miller's book it is fascinating and very well researched.

Your essay itself was lucid and enjoyable - I enjoyed reading Douglas Adams' the Hitchhiker's Guide series and your presentation of Betelgeusian physics was made even more credible by the fictional narrative. Yes Special Relativity should be replaced by another paradigm. Yes space and time are absolute, yes the speed of light is not constant. I am unable to judge P_b or G_b without further study of your paper, but I feel that while the quadrature force concept might lead to the right results, it may be an unnecessary complication if a better understanding of the basic elements of space be discovered one day. I agree with you however that the interaction of elements making up space should provide a full explanation of electromagnetism and gravity.

With best wishes and good luck,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 10:35 GMT
Thanks Vladimir,

Pleasing to note that my efforts in readability and presentation is appreciated. However, in the end it is the content that is judged.

My primary aim with this essay is a wakeup call; in my opinion, the time is right to start a serious discussion on the validity of our basic fundamental principles. The new geometry (G_b) and purport of physical laws (P_b), which were (with the benefit of hindsight ) constructed in a few evenings, are incidental and have the purpose of showing that alternate solutions to describe nature do exist. We just need to define the right ones.

Regards

Anton




Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 07:39 GMT
Dear Anton Lorenz Vrba,

As the circumsphere of tetrahedron is imperative to attribute the quantization of tetrahedral-brane, the 3-sphere conjectures the homeomorphism of compound tetrahedral-branes in, Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter universe model.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 10:38 GMT
Noted




Anonymous wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 08:37 GMT
I like your style. :) That essay was written well.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Makinson wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 16:13 GMT
Anton,

I appreciate you taking the time to read my essay, topic 1294, and replying thereon. I am surprised that not one mathematician has remarked about the concept presented by the IEEE paper cited in the essay, as it represents a fundamentally different way to apply mathematics to physical law.

From your Introduction:

"The first thing to say is how bleak the present situation is. In foundational studies of mathematics and physics we have been stuck for seventy years; despite numerous books, articles, and meetings, there has been no real progress. Edward Nelson [9] (2002)"

There is a good reason why real scientific progress has stagnated. For over a century, all those that pursue advanced degrees in mathematics and physics have attended what is essentially the "Bernie Madoff University of Physics and Economics", where the attendees have been taught to believe everything that is presented to them without question, and if you were brazen enough to question, you were expelled, no dissidents allowed.

I noted how you defined the speed of light, "where c is the speed of light in empty space."

You might appreciate the utter simplicity of how a slight change in the orientation of the propagating electric and magnetic fields will result in an attractant only force. Helical Electromagnetic Gravity

report post as inappropriate


Peter Dutton wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 22:16 GMT
Anton,

I am not a participant of this contest, however I found your essay most stimulating.

It raises many arguments, possibly the most important with profound implications is what you term the Michelson Morley Einstein Information Paradox. This needs to be discussed openly, it cannot be ignored. You may have found a crack in the Einstein theory.

Can anyone explain this paradox away?

good luck

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 00:15 GMT
Peter,

Thanks for stopping by. I too would be interested in an explanation for the raised paradox.

Regards



Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 07:17 GMT
Hi Peter and Anton,

You might have a look at Fig. 5 in my fourth essay and if necessary at the additional explanation I gave right now in the discussion in reply to Pentcho Valev.

Curious,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Viraj Fernando replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 22:10 GMT
Dear Anton,

You wrote: “ ‘Sub specie aeterni Poincaré, in my opinion, is correct. . . .’ Really? I beg to differ’.

Are you differing with Poincare or Einstein?

What does “Sub specie aeterni” mean in the context Einstein used it? I think it means ‘superficially’.

I quote an extract from your reference (3):...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 18:02 GMT
Dear Anton,

I do not understand how gravitational constant appear in (37) ?

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate


Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 09:40 GMT
Dear Anton,

You say ''This universe has an energy content of E = (M + m)c²''

Well, that would be right if your universe, your particles have been created by some outside intervention, by some Creator. Since I prefer to live in a universe which creates itself out of nothing, without any outside intervention, in a universe which can be understood rationally, that is, which obeys the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 13:52 GMT
Hi Anton

I note your comments, but that is not what my essay is about.

The essay essentially reduces to the question of an underlying absolute reality versus merely the ability to model relative reality.

Once that question is answered only then can one think about explaining "something from nothing"

Regards

Anton



Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 02:02 GMT
Anton,

Well, I just wanted to point out that in saying things like

''When the particles are a distance r apart, the total energy of the universe remains unchanged''

''In a universe as a whole, the sum of these three energy forms is always constant.''

you don't specify with respect to what that universe has energy: if this is impossible, then such statements have no significance. You consider objects and events within the universe from an imaginary observation post outside of it, as if you are looking over God's shoulders at his creation, which, scientifically speaking, is illegitimate.

Anton

report post as inappropriate


Viraj Fernando wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 15:07 GMT
Dear Anton,

(It seems that you have not seen the post copied below, so I repeat)

You wrote: “ ‘Sub specie aeterni Poincaré, in my opinion, is correct. . . .’ Really? I beg to differ’.

Are you differing with Poincare or Einstein?

What does “Sub specie aeterni” mean in the context Einstein used it? I think it means ‘superficially’.

I quote an...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 20:19 GMT
Hi Viraj,

My essay raises the deep philosophical question of an underlying absolute reality

To your question What does “Sub specie aeterni” mean in the context Einstein used it? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_specie_aeternitatis and your interpretation of superficial I cannot agree.

In my opinion Einstein agreed with Poincare's view and uses the point G+P to support his special relativity.

I do not agree with either Einstein or Poincare as G and P cannot be chosen arbitrary, ultimately there is only one G and only one P.

You then quote a later paragraph of Einstein  "The question whether the structure of this continuum is Euclidean, ...." here Einstein is referring to his  four-dimensional continuum of space-time (which he has chosen arbitrary) and when he says " properly speaking a physical question which must be answered by experience" he refers to the experience of the isotropy of light propagation, E=mc^2 and results from general relativity, light bending, planetary orbits etc. all in his space time continuum.

My essay, by very simple example demonstrates the same using an absolute geometry.

Regards

Anton




Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:59 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.

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. 21, 2012 @ 18:30 GMT
Anton

So Zaphod isn't the dropout I thought he was! Good fun read and original ideas, though I preferred Bragg's original; "The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them."

I also both discuss Krauss and develop the concept that "further particles are produced carrying away the excess energy with zero nett momentum" (see my last years essay, suggesting that is what the photoelectrons -now called virtual- in the LHC are all about).

But my hearties congratulations lie in the central theme of reconsidering geometry. As motion is an invalid concept in geometry. I've proposed it is thus also invalid in algebraic vector space, ergo Cartesian systems. This 'created our problem so can't resolve it'. The alternative structures I explore are of logic (truth propositional, and dynamic), and interesting results emerge.

Well done for an original and well written work with some pertinent quotes. There are a few suggestions I'm not convinced by, but I hope you'll read mine, derive why, judge for yourself and comment. However, I think scoring certainly shouldn't be about how much we may or may not agree with, and I liked your original style.

You may also find mine a little theatrical as the top layer to a set of 'self build' components making an ontology for deriving classical observation from the quanta. I look forward to your comments.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 22:59 GMT
Anton,

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


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 08:41 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


Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 22:18 GMT
Dear Anton,

You have some interesting ideas here. A few thoughts come to mind.

1. The idea that gravitation becomes repulsive at small distances is interesting because it mirrors what seems to happen at large distances with the dark energy. Personally, I think that scale-dependence in physics is still underappreciated. Different effects seem to dominate on different scales, and...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 12:25 GMT
I now have launched the website http://absolutivity.org/ detailing various aspects of my essay




Kamilla Kamilla wrote on Apr. 10, 2016 @ 17:08 GMT
Wow, cool post. I’d like to write like this too – taking time and real hard work to make a great article… but I put things off too much and never seem to get started. Thanks though.

192.168.1.254

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.