Search FQXi

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

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

Previous Contests

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013

Contest closed to Entries. Submit Community Votes by August 7, 2013; Public Votes by October 31, 2013.


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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
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
April 24, 2014

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2012 [back]
TOPIC: Patterns in the Fabric of Nature by Steven Weinstein [refresh]
Bookmark and Share

Author Steve Weinstein wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 12:41 GMT
Essay Abstract

From classical mechanics to quantum field theory, the physical facts at one point in space are held to be independent of those at other points in space. I propose that we can usefully challenge this orthodoxy in order to explain otherwise puzzling correlations at both cosmological and microscopic scales.

Author Bio

Steve Weinstein is an associate professor of philosophy and physics at the University of Waterloo, and an affiliate of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. He has written broadly on the foundations of quantum mechanics, on reasoning in cosmology, and on the possibility of extra time dimensions. He is also a musician and songwriter in his copious spare time.

Download Essay PDF File

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 17:48 GMT

You wrote "No in‡uences travel faster than light."

How about next cosmological picture of the Universe?

Appendix 1 Cosmological picture of one cycle

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

Author Steve Weinstein replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 18:05 GMT
Thank you, Yuri. I simply meant that the idea I am proposing doesn't involve faster than light influences.


Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 01:48 GMT
Not only faster than light, as well as slower than light.

Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 14:22 GMT
Superdeterminism and free will not contradicted itch other.

As Yakir Aharonov's says: "…is somewhat Talmudic: everything you're going to do is already known to God, but you still have the choice."

See also my essay 1413

S Halayka wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 19:11 GMT
That was a really great essay. It was very well-written. I really like your idea of extracting "hidden" variables from the potential itself.

I did something like this in my (not so serious) essay: I limited the maximum allowed energy scale of photon creation and annihilation as E_max = E_p * -2V/c^2, where V is the Newtonian gravitational potential. In this (not so serious) model, there is room for dark photons -- create a photon of energy E at a location where E E_max (the photon cannot be annihilated here). Whether or not this is how reality actually works is a whole different story, of course, but it was fun to try it out. The point was that there was a variable E_max that wasn't really hidden all along, just ignored, and recognizing it allowed for a super-simple mechanism to produce dark photons. Probably too simple to be true, but perhaps still an example of what you were trying to say?

- Shawn

S Halayka replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 19:14 GMT
Apologies. My comment came off garbled because I had typed in some less-than symbols outside of LaTeX. Anyway...

That was a really great essay. It was very well-written. I really like your idea of extracting "hidden" variables from the potential itself.

I did something like this in my (not so serious) essay: I limited the maximum allowed energy scale of photon creation and annihilation as E_max = E_p * -2V/c^2, where V is the Newtonian gravitational potential. In this (not so serious) model, there is room for dark photons -- create a photon of energy E at a location where E is less than or equal to E_max, and then let it propagate into a region where E is greater than E_max (the photon cannot be annihilated here). Whether or not this is how reality actually works is a whole different story, of course, but it was fun to try it out. The point was that there was a variable E_max that wasn't really hidden all along, just ignored, and recognizing it allowed for a super-simple mechanism to produce dark photons. Probably too simple to be true, but perhaps still an example of what you were trying to say?

- Shawn

Author Steve Weinstein replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 18:08 GMT
Thanks for the comment, Shawn. How is the zero of the potential determined, in your model?


Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 21:00 GMT
Hi Steven,

Your concluding paragraph starts with "I would conclude by reminding the reader that the sort of nonlocality under discussion in no way violates either the letter or the spirit of relativity." Why is it that you have to defend yourself and reinforce this point?

Why is the philosophical discussion "is there an underlying absolute reality versus the mere ability to model relative reality" so suppressed by the academia? What has the academia to loose? 

This exact discussion I am trying to stimulate. I really would appreciate an honest answer from you.


Anton @ (  ../topic/1458  )

Author Steve Weinstein replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 18:11 GMT
Hi Anton,

I'm simply trying to make the point that the sort of nonlocality I'm talking about is compatible with relativity. There are certainly other perspectives in which relativity is taken to be merely phenomenological (e.g., in deBroglie-Bohm pilot-wave theory), or in which it is understood in non-standard fashion (e.g. DSR: doubly-special relativity). I think that the main thing any theory needs to account for is the invariance of Maxwell's equations under Lorentz transformations.


Angel Garcés Doz wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 21:24 GMT
Excellent essay, well argued, explained

Author Steve Weinstein replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 18:11 GMT
Thank you!


Michael Silberstein wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 04:15 GMT
Hi Steven,

Just read your essay and really liked it. Once again, you gotta read our essay because we do exactly as you suggest--I know everyone says that :), though it may not be clear until the last third . In the attached pubs on dark energy the convergence will be more obvious.



attachments: FINAL_02649381_29_5_055015.pdf, Stuckey.pdf

Author Steve Weinstein replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 18:20 GMT
Thanks, Michael! I'm glad you pointed that out. Your model is an excellent example of the sort of thing I'm talking about, and I wish I'd included a reference in my essay.


Member George F. R. Ellis wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 10:33 GMT
Hi Steven

I like your emphasis on the crucial causal role of non-local constraints in physics , and the conservation of those constraints by the dynamics. Fits in well with my world view.


George Ellis

Author Steve Weinstein replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 18:26 GMT
Thank you, George. I had not thought about the connection with your top-down causation ideas, but am now going to delve back in and refamiliarize myself. I've referenced your work many times, but not (yet) in this context!


Member George F. R. Ellis replied on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 15:09 GMT
Hi, an addendum:

you state "there are correlations between spatially separate degrees of freedom," This occurs at the lower levels of structure because of the relations that exist at higher levels in the hierarchy of structure. At least that's one way of describing it.


Viraj Fernando wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 17:05 GMT
Dear Dr. Weinstein,

I read your essay on ‘Non-local Constraints’ with great interest. What you mention in your opening passage is certainly something that has been overlooked in the current theories and it is a Fundamental Problem that we definitely need to address:

You wrote: “non-relativistic and relativistic, classical and quantum - share one assumption: the features of the...

view entire post

Ted Erikson wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 17:19 GMT

Yours was an interesting and informative essay.. As a newcomer to the FQXi community, I feel few of the "community" grade, or even look at, my essay which approaches the problem very realistically, based on an internal view.. Might you look at it, comment if so inclined, and grade it?

To Seek Unknown Shores

Thank you


Author Steve Weinstein replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 13:27 GMT
I'm glad you enjoyed my essay. I did take a look at yours, and I would say that one of the reasons people may not have commented is that it seems largely metaphorical, and so it is not clear exactly whether and how current fundamental assumptions in mainstream physics are implicated.

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 17:46 GMT

"a more fundamental theory possessing nonlocal constraints that underlies our current theories."

I agree entirely, and good evidence emerges from a quantum dynamic cause presented in my essay. I also commend Robert H. McEachern's essay with some close parallels to yours. Thank you for a well written view on the constraints of Bells's theorem, consistent with mine but with a very fresh approach.

My approach more purely applies logical structures to kinetics to offer a well evidenced quantum cause (mechanism) for deterministic relativistic effects. I think this proves your view correct as it derives that systems in 'group' motion form a single inertial frame, but as in the hierarchical compound propositions of truth functional logic, within a larger frame, and including smaller local frames. Physically; as in galaxy rotation within the halo and Earth's orbit with the ionospheric shock; equivalent to the boundaries of Maxwell's fields -and down to surface electron fine structure, and single particles. AE; "Mass spatially extended" and Boscovich "Sphere of Influence". (See also Kingsley Nixey essay Fig 2.)

Do you agree with Lee Smolin's views on the limitations of abstraction and re-mapping of 'Newtonian schema' predictions? Whartons essay discusses this and again McEacherns is consistent with this from an information theory view.

In a way this redefines 'Local' as non local up to Cosmic scale. Here the anisotropic CMBR flow of the 'axis of evil' is a non local constraint, which I've found find equivalent to a smaller quasar jet of re-ionized matter from an AGN, with good evidence of it's part in galaxy recycling.

I hope you may read mine and advise if you feel the 'superdeterminism' that emerges might have any resemblance to that which you theoretically predict.

Many thanks and best of luck.


Author Steve Weinstein replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 13:28 GMT
Thanks, Peter, I'll take a look!

Don Limuti wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 20:41 GMT
Hi Steve,

Your essay questions the most fundamental foundation of physics. Forcing phenomena to be local by fiat or axiom or just plain unconsciousness, should be reconsidered.

I did have some trouble with the concept of "properties at a point".....what properties?

The following caught my attention" "it has proven difficult to construct a testable and sensible quantum theory of gravity, suggesting that the relation between gravitation and quantum phenomena might be di§erent from anything heretofore explored."

I did not write my essay to probe the classical-quantum link, but it turned out that way. The classical limit as to "mass increase with velocity" is nicely explained via unexpected limits imposed by quantum phenomena. Take a look at: ..........I believe it relates to your point above.

Thanks for your essay,

Don L.

Author Steve Weinstein replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 13:43 GMT
By "properties at a point", I mean things like the values of the electric and magnetic fields at a point in space (at a given time). Particle properties are more obviously "point" properties, because particles are by localized, pointlike objects to begin with.

Hope that makes sense.

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 15:18 GMT
Hi Steve, congratulations with your essential essay. The only thing I am strugling with is that information does not exeed the speed of light, what about entanglement ?

I would be honoured if you could read (and rate) "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION"


Steve replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 13:01 GMT
Glad you like the essay. Could you be more specific about entanglement? There's a sense in which a theory with a nonlocal constraint inevitably demonstrates entangelment, but there's no speed of entanglement.


Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 16:24 GMT
Dear Steve:


it explains the whome idea.


Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 11:15 GMT
Dear Steve,

very interesting essay. The role of nonlocality especially in quantum mechanics troubles me also for a long time. I always thought that a solution has a strong connection to the spacetime structure.

I studied very intesive the theory of manifolds (differential topology). Two linked curves in a 3-space are also a non-local phenomenon: the properties of the two curves are strongly influenced by the linking. Some of these non-local properties are discussed in my essay (but with a stronger focus to quantum gravity)



PS: I have to read your essay once again.

Steve replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 13:02 GMT
Thanks, Torsten, I'l check out your essay!


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 06:27 GMT
Dear Steven,

great piece of paper, easy to anticipate and to read, but nonetheless well-elaborated. Partly very speculative, nonetheless your approach is surely fully worth to be followed further. My own essay here gives a somewhat similar picture of the puzzles in QM. If you like, check it out. It is speculative too, but i think it's consistent with the known facts. I in any way would be happy about a comment for my QM-interpretation from a professional, be it critics or other statements.

All the best,


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 14:10 GMT
Dear Steve

What is your attitude to Gerard 't Hooft

Discreteness and Determinism in Superstrings ?

arXiv:1207.3612 (replaced) [pdf, ps, other]

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 14:14 GMT
Dr Ellis

What is your attitude to Gerard 't Hooft

Discreteness and Determinism in Superstrings ?

arXiv:1207.3612 (replaced) [pdf, ps, other]

Steve replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 02:42 GMT
I think you may have meant to send this to George Ellis?

Sean Gryb wrote on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 12:40 GMT
Hi Steve,

Nice essay! I was glad to see that you've also entered an essay into this competition. I can certainly sympathize with the possibility of non-localities lurking in the fabric of spacetime. What I'm trying to understand is what precisely you mean by "non-locality" or even "non-local constraints". For example, your opening statement, taken literally, is not true: many (or most) theories have derivatives, which couple neighbouring points in a manifold. But I assume that a finite number of derivatives is suitably "local" by your definition. However, in shape dynamics, we have a Hamiltonian that has powers of the inverse Laplacian, which is highly non-local in some sense. Yet, shape dynamics is dynamically equivalent to GR.

I've always found locality in GR a tricky issue. The field equations and the constraints can be written "locally" (i.e., with a finite number of derivatives) but observables are non-local. So how "local" is GR really? As you know, constraints can expressed locally but may have global obstructions for solving them. Would this kind of non-locality be good enough or are you looking for something deeper?



Steve replied on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 02:27 GMT
Thanks, Sean. I've just printed your essay, and am looking forward to reading it.

As for your questions, the primary concept in the paper is that of a nonlocal constraint, not about "nonlocality" in general. The Gauss Law constraints are local, by my usage, even though they are expressed in terms of derivatives. E.g., the Gauss Law for the electric field insists that the charge density at a point is equal to the divergence of the electric field at that point. What makes it local is that all the quantities we're concerned with have to do with an infinitesimal neighborhood around each point. On the other hand, if the electric field were sensitive to charges a finite distance away, we would have an example of a nonlocal constraint.

There's a somewhat more interesting example of a nonlocal constraint in the paper, in which one has a universe with timelike compactification. Spatial compactification will also do, and has in fact been studied. Either way, the periodicity one finds in these models means that the matter configuration at one point may determine completely the matter configuration at other points. That is a kind of nonlocal constraint.

In GR, I think the nonlocality is of a different sort, though I'm not sure I follow the question entirely. Offhand, I'd say that the nonlocality of the observables has to do with the diffeomorphism invariance (hence the physical meaninglessness of talking about properties "at a point"), but that the solvability of the constraints would be distinct. In any case, I'd say that GR is local in that if you're giving data on a Cauchy surface, it can be freely varied from point to point (at least as long as it's sufficiently differentiable).

Sean Gryb replied on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 14:01 GMT
Okay, I understand what you mean by non-locality. It was in the text but it didn't pop out at me right away (probably my fault)! Do you have a particular model in mind for cosmology (like the quantum graphity stuff)?

I can see that the non-locality in GR is definitely a bit different from what you're talking about so I don't want to distract too much but I would say that the FREELY specifiable data (i.e., non-gauge) on a Cauchy surface is non-local. That's because you have to solve the constraints which are partial differential equations and the inversion of a partial differential equations does depend upon data over the whole manifold. I can't tell if this is something deep or trivial.... maybe trivial?

Steve replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 15:40 GMT
Do you think that the constraints in GR are any different from the constraints in Maxwell theory with regard to nonlocality? My guess is no, and that the nonlocality you're referring to has to do with the fact that, e.g., the flux of the electric field through a boundary tells us the total charge within that boundary, but does not determine or even constrain the charge density at any particular point.

Nonlocal constraints of the sort I'm talking imply that the range of values a field can take at a point (or in the infinitesimal neighborhood around that point) is dependent on what the facts are at other (spatially separated) points.

If I'm missing something, please let me know!

Hou Ying Yau wrote on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 16:18 GMT
Dear Steve,

I cannot agree more with you about your statement: "...the possibility that there is a more fundamental theory possessing nonlocal constraints that underlies our current theories. Such a theory might account for the mysterious nonlocal effects currently described". I have a different approach that I am investigating. It appears only in the "Disuccsion and Conclusion" of my essay but hope to see if you think it is possible.

In my essay Is there really no reality beneath quantum theory?, I am able to show that the properties of a boson can be reconciled by assuming matter has vibrations in space and time. The system has an unusual propery that the vibrations are generating a probability and not real energy at the deterministic level. The Einstein's mass-energy relation is a constriant that matter field must be quantized and follow all laws of relativity at the standard model scale. However, the properties of the vibrations at the high energy level may not be local. I hope I can get your feedback.


Hou Ying Yau

Steve Weinstein replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 00:40 GMT
Thanks. Having now read your paper, I find that I'm not clear as to which of the conditions of Bell's theorem that your "sub-quantum" theory (out of which quantum theory is supposed to emerge) violates. I.e., Bell's theorem says that in a world in which the Bell inequality is violated (like ours), the theory which accounts for the phenomena must either violate the locality condition, or violate the statistical independence condition (which I discuss in my paper). Which condition does your theory violate?

Hou Ying Yau replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 15:40 GMT
Dear Steve,

The wave with space and time has an unique property. I am able to show in my essay that the wave generates probablities for quantization but with no real energy. Only the quantized oscillator carries energy. This seems to allow communication in the "sub-observational" level over distant locations through region that is "vacumm". Sudden changes e.g. wave collapse, shall not violate relativity because the wave has no energy except at the quantized locations. Although the approach seems different from your suggestion for statistical independence condition, your feedback whether this new idea is poosible will be very valuable.


Hou Yau

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 08:38 GMT
Dear Steven,

Splendidly written! You discuss many important issues from a very original perspective. A few comments and questions:

1. I am wondering what, if anything, the possibility of nonlocal constraints says about causal structure. Quite naively, it seems as if making a local change to a system involving a nonlocal constraint would “cause” suitable adjustments elsewhere to satisfy the constraint. I’m not sure if this would have any implications for signaling, etc., since the “effect” might be distributed in such a way as to prevent any conclusions from being drawn at any particular remote point.

2. I wonder if you have read Ken Wharton’s essay. I believe the type of constraints he invokes is somewhat different, but there seem to be some analogous points.

3. Have you looked at Donatello Dolce’s submission? He uses a timelike compactification. (For instance, compare his figure 4 with your figure 1).

4. Since many approaches to quantum gravity involve breakdown of manifold structure at small scales, it seems worth considering how locality should even be defined in such a context, since the definition usually involves metric structure.

5. For example, a model (such as a graph) with less structure than a manifold might have a single “short path” between two points, while every other path between them is “long.” At large scales, the two points would seem distant, and interaction over the “short path” would seem “nonlocal” when in fact the effect arises from a nonmanifold microstructure. It seems that this sort of consideration might be relevant to the horizon problem.

Thanks for the great read! Take care,

Ben Dribus

Steve Weinstein replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 16:08 GMT
Thank you, Ben, for the compliment and also for the questions and comments. Here are some brief replies.

1) This is a subtle and interesting question you raise. The short answer is that the causal structure is unaffected. The reason is that if the world operates in this way, then any local "changes" to the data at one point, corresponding to a causal intervention of some sort, are...

view entire post

Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 01:15 GMT
Dear Steve,

Thanks for the detailed replies, and I'll be sure to look up the references you suggested. By the way, I forgot to even mention my own essay On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics. I fear you may find it too radical, but I would appreciate your thoughts nonetheless. Take care,


Amanda Gefter wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 05:28 GMT
Hi Steve,

I really enjoyed your essay - it's a fascinating topic.

I'm curious how the kind of nonlocality you discuss fits in with the nonlocality that results from the holographic principle, for instance in AdS/CFT?

Thanks for a great read!

All best,


"Cosmic Solipsism"

Jin He wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 16:08 GMT
Heaven Breasts and Heaven Calculus

Since the birth of mankind, human beings have been looking for the origin of life. The fact that human history is the history of warfare and cannibalism proves that humans have not identified their origin. Humanity is still in the dark phase of lower animals. Humans can see the phenomenon of life only on Earth, and humans' vision does not exceed the one of lower animals. However, it is a fact that human beings have inherited the most advanced gene of life. Humans should be able to answer the following questions: Is the Universe hierarchical? What is Heaven? Is Heaven the origin of life? Is Heaven a higher order of life? For more than a decade, I have done an in-depth study on barred galaxy structure. Today (September 17, 2012) I suddenly discovered that the characteristic structure of barred spiral galaxies resembles the breasts of human female essentially. If the rational structure conjecture presented in the article is proved then Sun must be a mirror of the universe, and mankind is exactly the image on earth of the Heaven.

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 08:44 GMT
Dear Steve Weinstein,

Nonlocally of string-mattes in Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe, is described with the continuum of stings in that the use of simplex is more commutative and quantitative to describe the fabric of nature in entirety, whereas the holarchy of universe is expressional as its factorizability in continuum.

With best wishes


Jayakar Johnson Joseph replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 12:29 GMT
Spelling error:

continuum of ‘stings’

To be as,

continuum of ‘strings’

Member Hector Zenil wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 21:28 GMT
Dear Steve,

Interesting essay. I think you may have overlooked that all "digital physics" theories are actually of the type you discuss, the kind of theories that prescribe determinism in the universe, and no free-will at all. Stephen Wolfram, for example, has proposed on several occasions what he calls the activity of "universe hunting", the idea of mining the "computational universe" of computer programs in order to find our own universe program and reproduce it. Zuse, Fredkin and Schmidhuber have also proposed fully deterministic theories of the universe. It would have been interesting to see a discussion in the context of quantum mechanics that you cover in your essay.

Steve Weinstein replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 13:38 GMT
Thanks for the comment, Hector. Actually, I think that the sort of theory I'm proposing does not preclude free will in any meaningful sense of "free will". There's more discussion of that very issue in my paper "Nonlocality without nonlocality", which may be found at


David Thomson wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 19:34 GMT
"The divergence is a measure of the out‡ow of the fi…eld in the neighborhood of a point, and the two constraints tell us respectively that any such out‡ow of the electric …field is due to the presence of a charge at that point acting as a source, while the magnetic fi…eld can have no sources (there are no magnetic charges)."

In my work, I show there is a fundamental...

view entire post

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 18:38 GMT
Dear Stewe

About false contradiction between free will and superdeterminism i would like reminding you :

As Yakir Aharonov's says: "…is somewhat Talmudic: everything you're going to do is already known to God, but you still have the choice."

See my essay

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 02:50 GMT
Dear Steve Weinstein

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 (definition from the ABSOLUTE theory of me) - 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.

Kind Regards !


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

Member Ken Wharton wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 21:19 GMT
Hi Steve,

I read your excellent essay weeks ago, and have been meaning to write some comments... So here goes:

First off, I'm quite heartened to see you further develop this analogy you're building between Bell-inequality violations and the cosmological question of why causally-disconnected regions of the universe look so similar. I recall an off-hand mention of this point in one...

view entire post

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 17:30 GMT

did you left your comment or it was other Steve?

Member Bob Coecke wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 20:25 GMT
Hi Steve, Like the essay. Do you have any ideas on which sort of mechanism and what mathematical counterpart would account for "constraining the constraint" such that we retain (to some extend) relativistic separation. Also, do you know Aerts' constraint model for reproducing quantum correlations? In an earlier life I generalized this to arbitrary finite dim systems. quant-ph/0105093 quant-ph/0105094

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 04:22 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
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:
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.

Sergey Fedosin

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:48 GMT
The above post is on every essay today. Does that make it a pattern in the fabric of nature?

Jin He wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 11:40 GMT
You mainstreamsians controle science for over 50 years. You mainstream and Hawking failed. The bad science is because of the Top-Down controle of the people like you. Why do you need money and fame from FQXI where the authors are mostly jobless, are mostly independent researchers, are mostly authers? Do you need money and fame by controling jobless???

I want to rate you 0!

Jin He wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 19:24 GMT

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents; it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning.

Ted Erikson wrote on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 00:10 GMT
Although out of the running, I wonder if you can take the time to critique a strange conclusion that I have since made about my views. A point having no dimension, extrapolated from probabilities of geometric structure, suggests a negative dimension. It suggests to me something contained in no dimension has a negative dimension to influence growth/decay frequencies of geometric contents.

This detail is discussed and evaluated my End Notes.

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 1, 2012 @ 07:19 GMT
Dear Steve Weinstein,

You won a price. That made me curious. Is your speculation somehow falsifiable?

I question Lorentz contraction after having revealed an - as I am claiming - undeniable flaw in the expectation by Michelson that caused FitzGerald, Lorentz, Poincaré and Einstein to look for explanations. May I ask you to either correct or confirm my claim? I consider you a good representative of Perimeter Institute.


Eckard Blumschein

William Amos Carine wrote on May. 31, 2013 @ 00:41 GMT
Dr. Weinstein,

The idea or premise of descriptions of quantum mechanics having explanation does entice the forward thinker to come up with another theory which also accounts for these strange effects. From the statement near the bottom of your last page about the magnetic field having to equal zero, is this because the electric field would be compressible, if a magnet charge where to leave it? If that makes no sense, could you clear up what is meant by the word"must" in that context?

Moving on a bit farther, your constraint about periodic functions may represent the occurrence of effects (say of a G.R. gravity viewpoint) that do not model the physical Universe at at regions of space, those far removed from the planet, if this distance scale is applied to the case of gravity, with any luck. So that may be something positive to look for! Also, does the relativity of size relate in anyway to the ideas presented in this essay?


W. Amos Carine

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.