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.

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

DURGA DATTA.: on 7/1/16 at 9:29am UTC, wrote We are assuming all electrons and protons etc etc are exactly equal. We...

Joe Fisher: on 5/22/16 at 15:14pm UTC, wrote Leicester City won the Premier League Championship title for the first time...

Steve Dufourny: on 5/20/16 at 11:10am UTC, wrote Well,First if you are ok, it is Dufourny with a y and not ey like...

Steve Dufourny: on 5/20/16 at 8:49am UTC, wrote I am thanking you Georgina.You know it is very serious in fact.I am obliged...

Georgina Woodward: on 5/20/16 at 8:14am UTC, wrote Steve I have reported a number of posts as inappropriate with good...

Joe Fisher: on 5/16/16 at 14:02pm UTC, wrote Visible infinite surface always illuminated by infinite non-surface light...

Amrit Sorli: on 5/14/16 at 17:06pm UTC, wrote No progress of physics without epistemology.

Steve Dufourny: on 5/13/16 at 14:14pm UTC, wrote Dear FQXi, My net is hacked on LinkedIn, several systems try to copy and...



FQXi FORUM
December 13, 2017

ARTICLE: Dropping Schrödinger's Cat Into a Black Hole [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Joe Fisher wrote on May. 6, 2016 @ 15:22 GMT
Only real visible surface is infinite. No matter in which direction one looks with one’s surface covered eyes, one will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed flat looking varied colored surface. It does not matter if one looks through a telescope, a microscope, a periscope or a kaleidoscope, one can only ever see infinite surface. Surface is easy to spot because it is always illuminated by infinite light. Light does not have a real surface. This is another nonsensical article about an invisible cat and an invisible bomb and invisible quantum quackery.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 6, 2016 @ 17:52 GMT
"However, Bousso argues, physicists may be able to ease their calculations by combining the entanglement entropy with another quantity known as "gravitational entropy," which is proportional to the surface area of the black hole’s event horizon."

Do these entropies have rigorous definitions? Are the definitions expressed in terms of dS=dQ_rev/T, the classical definition? If not, Bousso's work is not even wrong.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on May. 7, 2016 @ 13:57 GMT
Real infinite visible surface has never had any unrealistic invisible entanglement entropy, or unrealistic invisible “ gravitational entropy” that could be finitely proportional to the unrealistic invisible surface of an imaginary black hole.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on May. 8, 2016 @ 14:56 GMT
If I hear one more word from the Scientific Community about the Catholic Church's treatment of the Italian scientist Galileo, I will scream my head off. At least the Church bored a hole in the roof of a Basilica so they could track the movement of a sunbeam to ensure Galileo was correct about the Earth going around the Sun. I have notified four heads of university physics departments, four government agencies, and fifteen professors of physics that Einstein was wrong about his Theory of (invisible) Relativity: General and Special. . I have not received one reply

My revolutionary idea that only infinite surface illuminated by infinite non-surface light that was not created by an invisible God or by an invisible big bang explosion and has always existed dare not be adopted. It would cause the end of all scientific and Christian brain washing.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on May. 9, 2016 @ 15:05 GMT
"When the atom decays spontaneously - a quantum mechanical process - it triggers a contraption that breaks the vial, killing the cat."

Oh. So that's why some atoms are radioactive. It's the cat's fault.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on May. 10, 2016 @ 14:54 GMT
Invisible atoms have never existed. Only infinite visible surface illuminated by infinite non-surface light has ever existed.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Kjetil Hustveit wrote on May. 12, 2016 @ 12:20 GMT
I think Bousso's approach is very interesting. We do need to get to the bottom of physics and must be possible to find it when we get rid of those pesky infinities. I think even one should go one step further and make the physics version of the Hilbert program - a search for the really fundamental building material of the universe. Maybe the Bousso program?

My - not entirely scientific - view, is that there are three necessary components; causality, entanglement, and chance (randomness), that compose the basis for time, energy, matter and all the wonderful higher-level phenomenon we perceive. Causality is necessary for a non-static solution and leads to what we think of as time. Entanglement is necessary for building structures. Chance is necessary together with causality and entanglement to let structures evolve.

The goal must be to find the simplest possible way to describe this. I think f.ex that it is not very productive to focus on something like quantum bits - it is the relation that makes up a structure.

This is however only possible if the universe is finite. If the definition - "A universe is a collection with information that has a non-zero chance of interacting." - holds, the universe must be finite. (I really hope some other than me will prove it or prove it false and maybe it is enough with a variant of the associative law)

Anyway - no matter how this is solved, it should be valuable to combat all the "mysticism" that sneaks in when there a concept we humans don't understand.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on May. 12, 2016 @ 15:01 GMT
Dear Hustveit,

Nobody has ever seen any (invisible) “higher level phenomena.” Everybody has always seen surface, no matter in which direction they have looked. Only surface is infinite. There is no invisible space. Infinite surface is easy to spot, because infinite surface is always illuminated by infinite light. Light does not have a surface.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 12, 2016 @ 18:21 GMT
Hello to both of you,

Mr Hustveit,

Hilbert thought that maths can explain all.I agree.Godel is in a kind of opposite reasoning implying the incompletness.It is a big question in fact.I beleive simply that we have our limits of understanding about the gravitational superimposed aethers correlated with Spherical BH.In the two scales, quant and cosm,we must admit that we are limited.The maths are a tool,invented by humans.Can we affirm that Hilbert is right considering these said limits.About the finite Universe, I agree,that said it is evolutif.And that said we have a singularity at this wall separating physicality and infinite entropy.The finite systemsindeed can be explained with good reccurrences.That said how can we superimpose the good mathematical methods.How can we sure ?Ignorabimus or completeness.The mysticism is not the problem but our limits of understanding Inside this physicality yes.We are limited in our methods, our physics, our technologies, our sciences simply.The gravitation is the real light and we are just at the begining of its understanding.Intuition,imagination, objectivity, determinism,subjectivity.....All these things have its intrinsic limits.Best Regards

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on May. 13, 2016 @ 14:14 GMT
Dear FQXi,

My net is hacked on LinkedIn, several systems try to copy and plagiate my works with academic formalism and geometrical algebras.Not one you know.I have also psychologicalstrategies on me on linkedoin and Facebook.It is not acceptable.I know that my theory is revolutionary but frankly there it becomes totally ironical.Help me please.I have put my theory on net more than 10 years ago on several platforms.And now people becomes crazzy.It is sad.The hooks are everywhere ,newton helps us oh my god

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 20, 2016 @ 08:14 GMT
Steve I have reported a number of posts as inappropriate with good intentions. I can read that you are very upset at present. Writing in detail about it here is not good for your own credibility. If LinkedIn and Facebook are causing you distress stop using them, at least for a while. You don't have to converse with anyone just because they are posting messages.Nor do you need to pay any attention to what they say.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 20, 2016 @ 08:49 GMT
I am thanking you Georgina.You know it is very serious in fact.I am obliged to record and to go at télévisions to assume my works.I cannot laugh.I am confident in FQXi and the future of lifesinstitute.I am going to go at new York this year and if I am obliged to speak at télévisons in a total transparence, I will make it.I just wait to solve some personal problems due to succession of my mother dead more than 2 years ago.My parano is logic simpky,I have had always bad people having caused me serious problems.A bankrupcy, 2 pc destroyed,disciminaions, psychological hacking,menaces of death and tortures.It is not acceptable in fact simply.You know Georgina, perhaps that for you the life is easy but me you know I have not a job, I have difficulties to finish the ends of months.I have lost all due to bad persons, I am alone without familly and my health is tired.You see why I answer simply.I cannot accept this strategy simply, it is logic.I must assume my theory.And I am not there to critic theworks of people for their notoriety.I just want to evolve, learn more and imrprove my works with good persons and mentors.Mr Tyson ,Mr Tegmark,Mr Aguirre and Mr Freeman are real universalists.I will be honored if Mr Tyson d make a televison show COSMOS about the spherisation .I have always dreamt to live in USA.Regards ,thanks for the advices Georgina,but you must understand that this planet is bizare and that bad systems, teams or persons exist unfortunaly.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 20, 2016 @ 11:10 GMT
Well,First if you are ok, it is Dufourny with a y and not ey like mickey,thanks.

Mr Barkholz,I have nothing asked me.It is Mr Raisudin who said me on LinkedIn that you had an important thing to say me.So I have simply accepted the connections.The first message that I have received was bizare simply.You know I know the potential of my discovery.It is simply an universal logic qith quantum...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on May. 14, 2016 @ 17:06 GMT
No progress of physics without epistemology.

attachments: The_Foundations_of_the_Epistemology_and_the_Methodology_of_Physics_-_FINAL.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on May. 16, 2016 @ 14:02 GMT
Visible infinite surface always illuminated by infinite non-surface light am real. Invisible progressive physic is unrealistic codswallop.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on May. 22, 2016 @ 15:14 GMT
Leicester City won the Premier League Championship title for the first time in 132 years. Hibernians won the Scottish Football Association Scottish Cup for the first time in 114 years. Perhaps my infinite surface assertion will replace the Einstein utterly unrealistic Theory of Relativity: General and Special that is now 107 years old. I hope so.

report post as inappropriate


DURGA DAS DATTA. wrote on Jul. 1, 2016 @ 09:29 GMT
We are assuming all electrons and protons etc etc are exactly equal. We assume radioactive decay is just statistical average. We cannot specify which but we can give a statistical average. We think of cat may be alive or dead at the same time until we observe. Because we do not know if any decay of radio activity taken place. These are all our probabilistic quantum physics and we say there is no cause and effect . The biggest mistake in quantum physics that we treat all elementary particles are exactly same and as such same rules will apply . The fact of nature is we do not know exactly the inputs for any individual outcome. We have to be happy with statistical understanding but we can not say that cause and effect has vanished.

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.