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 blogger 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

micheal le: on 4/16/17 at 11:19am UTC, wrote Cong ty may photocopy hai minh - chuyen ban may photocopy chinh hang gia re...

lami leese: on 4/10/17 at 8:58am UTC, wrote Thank you for your post, There are good post! Developed the Common Rail ...

Declan Shaffer: on 4/3/17 at 11:46am UTC, wrote Thanks a lot for the post. It has helped me get some nice ideas. I hope I...

Scott uf: on 3/15/17 at 8:03am UTC, wrote I think my browser is old or not supported for the post, i cant seen any...

Steve Dufourny: on 2/25/17 at 11:40am UTC, wrote :) it is fqxi which merits these thanks, me I just share this information. ...

Bishal Banjara: on 2/25/17 at 11:09am UTC, wrote thank you once again .....thank you!!

Steve Dufourny: on 2/25/17 at 10:28am UTC, wrote You are welcome, FQXI is a transparent innovant Platform for all scientists...

Bishal Banjara: on 2/25/17 at 10:21am UTC, wrote Thank you so much Steve...thank you so much....I will as you said....


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Rajiv Singh: "Hi Lorraine, This time, before submitting, I noted that the web page did..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Anonymous: "Dear Lorraine, Thank you, not only for your responses, but also for a..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

sussan betcher: "Such ventures helping to raise public awareness and interest in theoretical..." in Multiversal Journeys —...

sabir rao: "We are looking for the ways how to hack instagram password online and..." in Purifying Physics: The...

sabir rao: "If you don't know a little bit about the free psn plus codes then here is..." in Towards a Goal — Two...

Anonymous: "From the perspective of field theory, the only difference that arises..." in Rescuing Reality

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Community, I could probably have done something better but it gets the..." in Alternative Models of...

appzoro Technologies : "Informative post and all threads. I am new here and wants to share me..." in New Podcast: A MICROSCOPE...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

Riding the Rogue Quantum Waves
Could giant sea swells help explain how the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum microworld? (Image credit: MIT News)


FQXi BLOGS
April 30, 2017

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: 2016: The Physics Year in Review [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Dec. 30, 2016 @ 23:34 GMT

Free Podcast

Counting down the biggest physics breakthroughs of 2016, with Ian Durham.



LISTEN:







Go to full podcast

Cutting things fine, but just before we say goodbye (and good riddance!) to 2016, we're taking a look back at the physics highlights of the past year.

As usual, I'm joined on the year-end podcast by quantum physicist and FQXi member Ian Durham of Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire, who has chosen his top 5 physics stories of the year, plus a couple of bonuses.

The first part of the countdown is now up, with the rest to follow soon. See if you agree with his choices, and can guess what's next on the list.

Free Podcast

Concluding our list of the top physics breakthroughs of 2016, as chosen by Ian Durham.



LISTEN:







Go to full podcast

Updated on New Year's Eve to add the second and last part of our countdown, revealing the top 4 physics breakthroughs of 2016.

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


James A Putnam wrote on Dec. 31, 2016 @ 04:35 GMT
Hi Zeeya,

I have seen your reports and your natural talent for reporting. You are good! In this most recent message, I wonder what you are referring to?

"Cutting things fine, but just before we say goodbye (and good riddance!) to 2016 ... "

Why good riddance to what?

Thank you.

report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Dec. 31, 2016 @ 04:38 GMT
Thanks James. Just seems to have been a lot of bad news in general over the year--even the last week has seen some tragic celeb deaths. But you'll have to listen to the podcast to hear the brighter side of the news! :)

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Dec. 31, 2016 @ 06:44 GMT
Thank you.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 31, 2016 @ 10:14 GMT
The biggest breakthrough of 2016 is the realization that quantum gravity in its present understanding is impossible since it tries to combine two incompatible concepts of time: Newton's absolute time and Einstein's relative time, the absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161201-quantum-gr
avitys-time-problem/

"The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a four-dimensional "space-time" fabric."

Soon scientists will have to say goodbye to the more than a century old money-spinner called "Einstein's relativity".

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 2, 2017 @ 23:11 GMT
Einsteinians attack Einstein's idiotic relative time (spacetime) but continue to worship the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

"That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 4, 2017 @ 23:17 GMT
Debates over climate change, genome editing, and... Einstein's relativity in 2017

Debates over climate change and genome editing present the need for researchers to venture beyond their comfort zones to engage with citizens — and they should receive credit for doing so. “Liberal elites tell us that ‘the science is settled’, and that people must have faith in their predictions. But science is never settled.”

In my comments in Nature I added Einstein's relativity. The doublethink in Einstein's schizophrenic world has become unbearable. Nowadays it is almost universally accepted that spacetime is a wrong concept that should be "retired", but, knowing that the end of Einstein's relativity would mark the end of physics as a whole, scientists continue to worship spacetime's underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 6, 2017 @ 00:02 GMT
Why do you think the end of Einstein's Relativity would mark the end of physics as a whole?

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 7, 2017 @ 15:17 GMT
"Why do you think the end of Einstein's Relativity would mark the end of physics as a whole?"

Everybody knows that:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0305/0305457v3.p
df

"In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 7, 2017 @ 22:26 GMT
A tiny correction as will be the necessary abandoning of Einstein's Relativity of time will certainly not mark the end of physics as a whole but will rather be a relief.

I agree on that constant speed of light in vacuum WITH RESPECT TO ANY OBSERVER is nonsense. However, you did not yet deal with my utterly simple

definition in sci.physics.relativity .

++++

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 13, 2017 @ 22:00 GMT
Can Vacuum Slow Down Light?



The idea that vacuum constituents can slow down light is largely discussed, but only in a quantum gravity context:

http://backreaction.blogspot.fr/2017/01/what-burst-fresh-att
empt-to-see-space.html

Sabine Hossenfelder: "It’s an old story: Quantum fluctuations of space-time might change the travel-time of light. Light of higher frequencies would be a little faster than that of lower frequencies. Or slower, depending on the sign of an unknown constant. Either way, the spectral colors of light would run apart, or ‘disperse’ as they say if they don’t want you to understand what they say. Such quantum gravitational effects are miniscule, but added up over long distances they can become observable. Gamma ray bursts are therefore ideal to search for evidence of such an energy-dependent speed of light."

I think it is time to start discussing the parallel idea: that slowing down light by vacuum constituents produces the Hubble redshift (in a STATIC universe):

http://www.nature.com/news/superfluid-spacetime-points-to-un
ification-of-physics-1.15437

Nature: "As waves travel through a medium, they lose energy over time. This dampening effect would also happen to photons traveling through spacetime, the researchers found."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 17, 2017 @ 17:52 GMT
Lorentz Invariance Violation: What Is It?

Alexey Fedotov: "Can you please explain the difference betwen broken Lorentz-invariance and deformed Lorentz-invariance?" Sabine Hossenfelder: "Alexey, if Lorentz-invariance is broken, you have a preferred frame. If it's deformed, you don't."

No. If Lorenz-invariance is incorrect - call it violated, broken or deformed - then at least one of Einstein's 1905 two postulates is false. Hossenfelder, a true Einsteinian, can only think of the possible falsehood of the first postulate - because it is not false. She is unable to think of the possible falsehood of the second (constant-speed-of-light) postulate - because it is false:

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jan. 18, 2017 @ 16:05 GMT
Time is of essence in the Black Hole Horizon. GR may break down simply because it is not complete. Time density as theoretically treated may reach an exponential threshold in proportion to mass/space and a laminar flow result rather than a 'firewall'.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 19, 2017 @ 22:35 GMT
Einstein's Greatest Idiocy

Einstein informs the gullible world that, as the traveling clock turns around, a gravitational field appears and this gravitational field is... homogeneous:

"Clock U2 is accerated by an external force acting in the negative direction of the x-axis until it has reached velocity v in the negative x-direction. U1 remains at rest. [...] A homogenous gravitational field appears..."

Einsteinians, Divine Albert says that the turning-around acceleration is equivalent to a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field. Do you agree?

Einsteinians do agree - if they didn't, that would be the end of Divine Albert's Divine Theory and theoretical physics as a whole.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 23:15 GMT
What Was The Worst Mistake Ever Made In Theoretical Physics?

My reply in Forbes:

The worst mistake in theoretical physics is undoubtedly Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate. Of the following two statements one is absolutely true, the other is false:

(A) The speed of light depends on the speed of the light source.

(B) The speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source.

Einstein hesitated between A (a tenet of Newton's emission theory of light) and B (a tenet of the ether theory) and finally chose B, the false one, as his 1905 second postulate. As a result, science became insane (died).

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 22, 2017 @ 02:44 GMT
Pentcho, though the speed of the source will affect the spatial distribution of the light as it is being emitted into the environment, it is not imparting extra momentum to the massless photons.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 22, 2017 @ 22:45 GMT
Georgina, in a gravitational field photons accelerate like ordinary falling bodies, so at least in this sense they are not massless:

"If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

The postulate that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source is false but sounds reasonable, insofar as it is valid for all other waves. However, combined with the principle of relativity, this postulate entails that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer as well, which is obviously absurd. The observer starts moving towards the light source, the wavecrests start hitting him more frequently (that is, the frequency he measures increases), and yet the speed of the wavecrests relative to him must remain unchanged!!! This is so absurd that scientists sometimes inadvertently refute Einstein's relativity by claiming that, if the speed of the observer is v, the speed of the wavecrests relative to him shifts from c to c' = c+v.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 23, 2017 @ 02:53 GMT
Hi Pentcho, it is necessary to separate what is happening regardless of observation from what is seen, as they are not the same. As the language used is not precise, 'the light' might be referring to the phenomenon occurring unseen in Object reality or the phenomenon that is seen, Image reality. If the observer moves towards the source the EM waves will be received more rapidly, increasing frequency of the seen product generated from the input. Yet the unseen EM waves, still in the environment, will be unaffected by what the observer does and so their frequency is unchanged. Another observer could be moving away from the source and so receiving the waves less rapidly, producing a lower frequency product from processing of the input. The two observers because of their different relations to the light in the environment from the same source, are seeing it differently.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 23, 2017 @ 23:31 GMT
'Black holes' reveal that gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 23, 2017 @ 23:39 GMT
Gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance, as gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Accordingly, a given planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times. So, inertia/inertial resistance is proportional to (or balanced with/as) gravitational force/energy; as this balances and unifies ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy AND gravity. This explains F=ma AND E=mc2, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The speed of light is inertial resistance.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 27, 2017 @ 19:45 GMT
Physicists: Rational or Schizophrenic?

"We need scientists and engineers not just because of their technical expertise but because of their analytical nature, their ability to sift through a lot of different types of information and evidence and weigh them in a rational way," says Tom Wang, director of the AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy in Washington DC."

My comment in...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 30, 2017 @ 16:35 GMT
Spacetime Confusion in Einstein's Schizophrenic World

Carlo Rovelli: "We study in school that fixed space is like a table over which things happen and time just passes. We have this quantitative view from Newton. With Einstein we understand that this container is in fact an active thing in the universe. Space and time, as Einstein said, is like a big jellyfish in which we're immersed. This...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 16:00 GMT
Spacetime Confusion in Einstein's Schizophrenic World (2)

Einstein's spacetime (Lorentz transformation equations) entails symmetrical time dilation - either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system. This is not even wrong - the readings of the two clocks are incommensurable. If Einstein had honestly derived this in 1905, his paper would not even have been published. Einstein...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 3, 2017 @ 16:20 GMT
Spacetime is an "immediate consequence" of Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate. In logic, when the consequence is wrong, the postulate is false - the combination "true postulate, wrong consequence" is forbidden. Unfortunately logic has no place in Einstein's schizophrenic world:

"Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."

"Spacetime is any mathematical model used in physics to explain physical phenomenas of the universe by combining space and time in one continuum. [...] Arkani-Hamed said."Because of the existence of gravity and quantum mechanics, we believe that the concept of spacetime is doomed and there are many simple thought experiments that tell us that space time is doomed."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 5, 2017 @ 17:20 GMT
Life on Earth in Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Either the second law of thermodynamics is false or life on Earth did not emerge spontaneously, by an evolutionary process (or both). That is what this article quite convincingly suggests:

Granville Sewell: The Common Sense Law of Physics

In a recent publication Granville Sewell develops his views and makes an...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 6, 2017 @ 16:10 GMT
Thermodynamicists Are More Insane Than Einsteinians

"While investigating how efficiently the brain can learn new information, physicists have found that, at the neuronal level, learning efficiency is ultimately limited by the laws of thermodynamics - the same principles that limit the efficiency of many other familiar processes. "The greatest significance of our work is that we bring the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 21:05 GMT
The Two Fundamental Lies in Einstein's Schizophrenic World

On The Frontiers Of Astronomy 09 Einstein's Relativity. Alex Filippenko Lecture

My comment on YouTube:

Alex Filippenko teaches the two fundamental lies on which Einstein's relativity is based:

1. Maxwell's 19th century theory showed that the speed of light is the same for all observers.

2. The...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Bishal Banjara wrote on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 11:36 GMT
I am totally new to this site but I regard this site as a place to discuss the new ideas (for me specifically the areas Physics). So,I am here to take a reactive and responsive comments of the book 'Unique Perceptions on Physics: Commentaries with solutions papers on Physics'. The basic outlines of the book:

Chapter one deals with the derivation of tangential acceleration being based on...

view entire post


this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 19:15 GMT
Hi Mr Banjara,

Welcome on this wonderful Platform,transparent, innovant and relevant.Thanks for sharing your works.

All the best from Belgium for,human on earth, this sphere turning around the sun sphere turning around the central supermassive BH of our milky way turning around the central cosm singularity Inside the UNiversal sphere

universally and altruistically yours so :)

report post as inappropriate

Bishal Banjara replied on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 01:44 GMT
hi, Steve

thank you for your appreciation....

but I don't believe in the kind of black hole which we are regarding in accordance to the GR....

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 07:03 GMT
You are welcome,

They are important our BHs you know, LIGO has found the signal of the coalescece of two BHs in the past implying the proof of this general relativity.

What is your medium, a luminiferouys aether ? because the aether does not seem to be luminiferous but gravitational.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 15:34 GMT
so far the matter of light propagation is concerned, it doesn't require medium as light how QED treats.....it move not in the wavy nature rather like projected particle....it is clearly stayed in my book....

....the matter of how I am claiming that Newtonian laws are wrong will be clear when you read the 1st and 2 nd chapters.....fortunately ch1 is freely available to preview in the website I have listed above...... the main thing there is the presence of tangential acceleration which is the resultant form or say any motion on earth surface we see is actually the resultant due to other two forces....I think you didn't view it....

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 19:18 GMT
Hi,

put the équations and the line of reasonings,we shall see clearer with équations and your methods.Why these tangential accélérations and newtonian modified laws are correct ? please explain me.How are you arrived at this conclusion and what are so the new newtonian laws? It is not rational and dterminsitic like reasoning.Put the équations here,it is easier for the readers to look at your works.explain in détails these broken newtonian laws please.

Best

report post as inappropriate

Bishal Banjara replied on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 06:35 GMT
hello,

the foremost thing we need to keep in mind is that how we are referring the inertia...it is not because of zero force acting on the body rather with the constant force (in gravitational field for massive particles)or say, if we see a body moving with uniform magnitude of velocity in our surroundings (earth surface), it is according to the inertia (we assumed) but in reality there is...

view entire post


this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Bishal Banjara replied on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 06:54 GMT
the best MOND we have is referenced in chapter 3 as '12.Milgrom, M.: A Modification of the Newtonian Dynamics as a possible Alternative to the Hidden Mass Hypothesis: The Astrophysical Journal vol. 270, pp. 365-370 (1983)' to fit the Tally-Fisher observation...but though i am not 100% certain, i believe that we insert the above relation (in prevoius post) there, we could probably solve the issue of missing mass and there is no dark matter...we need to aasume such missing mass due to discrepancy in Newton's second law...a way to measure force more isolately but the accleration i have stated is of relative sense.....

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.