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 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 Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

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


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

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

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

Steve Agnew: on 5/2/17 at 3:00am UTC, wrote Somehow it is very pleasant to be at the very bottom and therefore not...

Steve Agnew: on 4/20/17 at 3:58am UTC, wrote Well I have no access to S&Z 3rd edition, but I believe you. Declaring...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 4/5/17 at 3:55am UTC, wrote Dear Sirs! New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter....

Steve Agnew: on 4/5/17 at 3:37am UTC, wrote ...ah yes, but your model is ultimately all knowable and therefore is not...

James Putnam: on 4/3/17 at 19:54pm UTC, wrote "Okay, I think that I finally have a handle on your revealed truth. Sears...

Vladimir Tamari: on 4/3/17 at 1:36am UTC, wrote Thanks Steve Forgive me for not engaging with the themes you present -my...

James Hoover: on 4/2/17 at 23:05pm UTC, wrote Steve, Your essay reads simplistic but weight heavy in meaning. Your...

Steve Agnew: on 4/2/17 at 16:31pm UTC, wrote Your comments are very welcome. My essay is about uniting the two types of...



Anthony Aguirre: "Our mission at FQXi has always been to push boundaries, and to try to focus..." in FQXi's New Large Grant...

John Cox: "Victor, I have reread your post and still find agreement. Realism vs...." in What Is...

Victor Usack: "RE John R Cox. You are quite right. Without the math we’ve got..." in What Is...

Anonymous: "hello Bob" in The Complexity Conundrum

shery williams: "Office Setup is the full suite of Microsoft productivity software that..." in Are We Merging With Our...

thuy lien: "The faction in Bannerlord: Battania King: ‘Caladog’ -partially..." in Collapsing Physics: Q&A...

thuy lien: "Good article, thanks for sharing. hell let loose metal gear survive far..." in Blurring Causal Lines

click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

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.

December 16, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Math Laws and Observer Wandering by Steve Agnew [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Steve Agnew wrote on Jan. 10, 2017 @ 21:50 GMT
Essay Abstract

An observer of a source has two really different ways to predict that source's future. This is really too bad and there should be by all rights and measures just one way to predict the future of a source. Science is really not that far away from the truth, but science really has to stop arguing about the wrong things. This essay attempts to argue about the right thing; quantum phase noise.

Author Bio

Dr Agnew is a professional but not academic scientist. He earned a Ph.D. in chemical physics from Washington State University in 1981 and has used both quantum and classical physics and chemistry his whole career. Yet he considers himself a quantum hobbyist and is simply really disappointed that mainstream science has not yet united gravity and charge he went ahead and did it himself. Aethertime is a meager ten year effort to finally unite a quantum gravity with quantum charge that seems to work, but only future more precise measurements will tell for certain...

Download Essay PDF File

Author Steve Agnew wrote on Jan. 12, 2017 @ 05:16 GMT
Please, please, please, please...keep my score at 0. Zero is a good number for me and I appreciate zero more than any other thing so let's keep my essay at zero. Thanks. Steve Agnew.

basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 14:57 GMT
Dear Sir,

Zero is something that does not exist at here-now, but exists elsewhere. So you imply that your thought is at a different level and not coinciding with the mainstream, which is evident from your post.

Best wishes and regards,


report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 16, 2017 @ 13:48 GMT

Good to see you in the forum.

Your definition for entropy as a sum of several logarithms is interesting to me ... matter and action. If you read my essay, you should think about that as I discuss 4-vectors.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew wrote on Jan. 17, 2017 @ 04:17 GMT
It is such a joy for forever remain at the very bottom of the list...please do read my essay but do not bother to vote.

My essay attempts to connect to forces way beyond those of acclaim. My essay attempts to approach truth...

Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 17, 2017 @ 17:18 GMT
Dear Dr. Agnew,

The truth about the real observable Universe am not an approximation.

Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings such as the ones you effortlessly indulge in. As I have thoughtfully pointed out in my brilliant essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY, the real Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Reality am not as complicated as theories of reality are.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew wrote on Jan. 18, 2017 @ 04:29 GMT
Ahh...yes...I remain at zero. I really like zero and so encourage all to read my essay but discourage any voting. I like to write, I like to be read, and I like to read others...the voting seems to me to be beside the point.

Thanks to all for nothing at all...

Author Steve Agnew wrote on Jan. 19, 2017 @ 05:20 GMT
The bottom is the very best place to be mon ami...

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 19, 2017 @ 09:21 GMT
Hi Steve ,

Happy to see your papper.Like said gary it is relevant.Regards

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew wrote on Jan. 20, 2017 @ 05:44 GMT
I do appreciate those who bother to read my essay. Thank-you very much. Please do not feel the need to vote since I like to remain at has much meaning for me since zero means that people comment without expecting an reciprocation. That is discourse...

Author Steve Agnew wrote on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 05:48 GMT
Oh blast it...somebody voted for my essay...

It is not that I do not want people to read what I is that my desire is to have people have pleasure in what I write and not read because it is assigned by the teacher.

I like reading and commenting on essays, but ranking them is simply without meaning for me. The Yellow Emperor essay last time still remains with me because of my knowledge of Chinese history and it had little meaning for others.

There is a way to unite physical reality...but noone seems to even care...

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 10:18 GMT
but Steve you merit good points.Accept the recognizings of people.Your works are relevant and general about aethertime and this and that.Regards

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew wrote on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 20:42 GMT
I do appreciate thoughtful comments, but rote comments seem capricious. Essay voting seems rather like a silent auction to me, especially since there are so many different ways to like one essay over another.

In the end, it is really only thoughtful comments that really count for anything from the essay effort, not some spurious vote...

Author Steve Agnew wrote on Jan. 24, 2017 @ 04:30 GMT
It is nice to see the notions of aethertime infusing into the surreality of quantum entanglement...

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 09:21 GMT
Dear Agnew,

You have nicely differentiated about the roles of classical and quantum observers

In page3 in last line, you took ” a decreasing entropy for shrinking mass and increasing entropy for expanding action”. Probably you are considering red- shifted Galaxies only. You may be knowing that the red-shifted Galaxies are only 40 percent.

I request you to reconsider your thinking and modify your equations accordingly…

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 04:20 GMT
Of course, in aethertime, it is force that expands and not space and matter shrinks just as force expands. What this means is that in a shrinking universe, galaxy light actually blue shifts due to that shrinkage.

It is expanding force that makes distant galaxies show red shifts. I don't know what you mean by 40%...

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 12:51 GMT
Dear Steve Agnew,

You considered only red shifted Galaxies only. You may be knowing that the red-shifted Galaxies are only 40 percent. In the remaining 60 percent Galaxies in the Universe; there are "Blue shifted Galaxies + Quasars (also Blue shifted)" are 40 percent and final remaining 20 percent dont show any shift....

Please see the (4 th) Book on blue shifted Galaxies from Dynamic Universe Model blog, which is available for a free down load, for further details.....

Have a look at my paper also............

So Request you to reconsider with this fundamental data.

Best Regards

=snp. gupta

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 19:05 GMT
Since I am not an astronomer, I leave interpretations of galaxy red shifts to those who do the observations. I am a spectroscopist, though, and so do know how to interpret spectra. You have taken the red shift spectral data of hundreds of thousands of galaxies and reinterpreted spectral red shifts as blue shifts.

I have looked at the same dataset and see the red shift spectra as very good spectral information. However, my expanding force and shrinking mass aethertime universe does posit a different reason for the spectral red shifts. Denying the large body of evidence for spectral redshifts of increasingly distant galaxies seems futile to me.

Measurements are key to making sense out of the observer-source quantum bond and the measurements of galaxy spectra are how science makes sense out of the universe. Since the SDSS redshift spectra data is very certain, there is no reason to change that view.

basudeba mishra wrote on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 14:54 GMT
Dear Sir,

You have made a brilliant analysis using modern views. But can we go a little out of box and analyze the facts?

What is the fundamental difference between classical physics and quantum physics? It is basically the motions of the collective versus the individual. In classical physics, the bonding of quantum particles makes the interaction non-linear. In case of quantum...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 17:43 GMT
Your comments are quite detailed and well appreciated. Your questions seem to have more classical than quantum bias and it is certainly true that the chaos of classical noise usually overwhelms any of the effects of quantum phase noise, even for science.

You mention in particular the without the hidden knowledge of an initial condition, prediction of action is of course impossible. However, this is a distinctly classical view that presumes that all causes are in principle knowable. There are quantum causes that are not knowable and that means there are things about the universe in which we must simply believe.

The double slit experiment represents one of many examples of how quantum phase noise determines the path of either a photon, electron, or indeed any particle. Recent experiments have actually shown that even large molecules show interference effects where a single molecule interferes with itself. In other words, a single particle's many possible futures represent uncertain paths and no single path is knowable.

The one big hole in mainstream science is the lack of an acceptable quantum gravity. By supposing an inherent role for quantum decoherence, aethertime posits just such a quantum gravity and that is the basis of the entropy flow noted in this essay.

basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 23:54 GMT
Dear Sir,

We find similar echoes in your reply with our views. We have also made distinctions between classical and quantum aspects. Majority people accept that these are different. But are they really different? Every micro phenomena has a macro equivalent. In 2003, we told Leggett about this. Our inability to know does not change the rule of Nature. Just like hydrogen and oxygen have properties different from water, micro world shows different behavior from macro world. But it is not random - there is order behind such coupling. Hence, theoretically, it is knowable. Can you please list a few quantum causes that are not knowable?

Regarding the double slit experiment, when you say “even large molecules show interference effects where a single molecule interferes with itself”, are you not proving my statement – the macro world is a composite of the micro world?

When you say: “a single particle's many possible futures represent uncertain paths and no single path is knowable”, are you not expressing our inability to know? The same initial conditions will lead to the same final outcome – the same future. If we accept that it has a possibility to lead to different futures, can we have science at all? All equations will have different solutions, which cannot be known? We agree that we are talking against mainstream science. But are we wrong? Should we accept majority view without proper analysis? Is majority always right?



report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 18:43 GMT
...of course, what I meant is that any particle path is not precisely knowable, but that does not mean that we do not know anything about the path. It simply means that there are limits to what we can know.

It also means that given precisely the same initial conditions, a similar but not exactly the same future occurs. Thus, science works just fine, but the quantum uncertainty principle does limit the knowledge of science and so that means that quantum phase noise is different from the chaos of classical noise.

The Schrodinger equation only admits probabilistic solutions, not the determinate solutions of the Hamilton-Jacobi action equation of gravity and relativity. However, there is a quantum Hamilton-Jacobi action equation that describes the determinism of gravity's relativity as well and the probability of quantum charge.

basudeba mishra wrote on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 02:14 GMT
Dear Sir,

As we understand, entropy is a measure of disorder in a system, whereas information is a measure of order in the system. Thus, entropy is not unidirectional. Negantropy or negative entropy is already known, though we do not fully agree with that interpretation – we believe in reversible cycles of time. You also talk of two entropies, though reversible in a different way. It is...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 18:17 GMT
You offer once again the classical notion that the future is solely determined by knowable causes. However, quantum phase noise represents a cause that is not knowable and that is the point of my essay.

You also note that there are some questions about universe expansion and my essay is based on a shrinking matter and expanding action universe. Therefore, the fact that the Andromeda galaxy...

view entire post

basudeba mishra wrote on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 03:08 GMT
Dear Sir,

You have brought in a very important aspect involving ATP etc. which we wish you could have elaborated. The same mechanism that energizes the sodium-potassium pump also energizes the senses to receive and send external impulses to the brain.

The nervous system uses electrical and chemical means to help all parts of the body to communicate with each other. The brain and...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 18:42 GMT
Neural action potentials are the chemical ion pulses that excite and inhibit action for many organisms including, of course, human consciousness. What truly surprised me was that quantum gravity would play any role at all in neural action. However, it is not really quantum gravity per se, it is rather the underlying aether exchange that defines all quantum action.

The action of ATP provides the basic energy for all of life and that includes neural life. The core concept of neural action is that a pulse-echo neural pair forms a particle of aware matter just like two atoms as observer and source form a transient bond by exchanging a photon. But there is both phase and amplitude information in a photon exchange and that is true for a neural exchange as well.

Mainstream science presumes that neural action of ion charge phase decay is much too fast for any quantum neural effects like interference or entanglement. However, with quantum aether, this statement is no longer true. While it is true that the phase decay of quantum charge is very fast for neurons, the phase decay of a neural pulse-echo pair is what defines each moment of thought.

In other words, the current loop of a neural pair results in a magnetic field that couples aware matter particles as a quantum aether into moments of thought. Science measures these neural couplings as the EEG spectra of consciousness, but there is not a theory of the mind that yet understands what EEG spectra really mean.

Once again, thanks for your thoughtful comments.

basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 00:57 GMT
Dear Sir,

Modern scientists bring in many imaginary concepts without properly understanding it. One is extra-dimensions, which is used for over a century, even though it has never been observed. In our paper we have proved all modern notions in this regard as wrong and given physical explanations of 10 dimensions. Similarly, complex numbers, or quaternions, etc. are wrong mathematics, because square of i is treated as -1, whereas, mathematically, square of any positive or negative number is always positive. It can never be -1. After writing a beautiful essay, you are leading towards the trap. While other fundamental forces are intra-body forces, gravity is an inter-body polygamous force that acts throughout the universe. This implies that it cannot be quantized. Hence graviton will never be found. So why bring in absurd concepts like quantum gravity, when you can explain life mechanism without it? What you have missed is equating the process of observation with the observer. Life mechanism is different from consciousness. The same mechanism continues during life time, but ceases to operate at death. This implies the mechanism is not consciousness, but only a process. We can observe the same process in all objects, except that there is freewill in conscious beings. So your search should be directed towards freewill and consciousness – not quantum gravity.



report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 05:09 GMT
Obviously you have thought a lot about quantum physics and that I like. You mention complex numbers and then disparage them, but complex numbers are just a convenient way to keep track of quantum phase coherence.

So using the Euler method, sqrt(-1) is just a phase shift of pi and so what is the big deal? My quantavangelism is to make both gravity and charge quantum aether and so far, that...

view entire post

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 22:30 GMT
Interesting essay Steve...

I like the way you contrast the effects of classical and quantum noise. In any confined sample of a gas, at room temperature, we note the increase of thermodynamic entropy and a co-existence of quantum and classical chaos. I have wondered if whether the formulation of entropy involving microstates is inherently quantum mechanical - given its dependency on n, the number of gas molecules - or is it just statistical mechanics? I think we see both a superposition of states, and the presence of alternate paths, so it gets complicated. You might want to check out J. Miguel Rubi, as his work offers some interesting insights.

I examined a question related to the decoherence issues you bring up, for my presentation at FFP10. I thought that perhaps QM non-locality and Thermodynamic Entropy might have a common basis. Erich Joos was pretty emphatic in correspondence that decoherence is not dissipation, and it would appear that you take the view it contributes to self-organizing dynamics instead of disorder; is this correct? Finally; I see some connection of your work with the Continuous Spontaneous Localization folks. I had some correspondence years ago with Philip Pearle, regarding Statevector Reduction. But it would appear that you are saying the wavefunction collapse brings order out of chaos. Care to comment?

All the Best,


report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 22:21 GMT
What a really nice comment...indeed, it would appear that wavefunction collapse brings order out of chaos, but it is important to stipulate: When quantum phase noise drives wavefunction collapse, that is distinct from the wavefunction collapes driven by the noise of classical chaos.

Of course, an isolated compressed gas does not change classical entropy unless heat or mass exchanges with...

view entire post

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 23:50 GMT
Hi Steve,

I just wanted you to know I read your thoughtful and detailed reply. I do agree that it is likely dark matter and dark energy will go away (or be seen as far less pervasive), because indeed quantum gravity will explain those effects. Verlinde's recent work appears to have cleared the first hurdle. We'll see.

All the Best,


report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 05:31 GMT
The notions of continuous spontaneous localization are very intriguing. First of all, it is remarkable that Singh's essay used CSL constants that evidently have been kicking around awhile, but are very similar to the constants of aethertime...which of course are just restatements of current constants. Singh notes a CSL collapse rate of 1.0e-11 s-1 and aether decays at 0.81e-7 s-1. Singh notes a CSL radius of 1.0e-5 cm and the dispersion to gravity radius is 0.7 e-5 cm.

Of course, the aether constants are not new constants...they just restate currently accepted constants in the context of quantum phase noise decay. The jostling of CSL seems to be simply arbitrarily chosen to work while the jostling of aether is the gravity jostling linked to charge motion. The motion of quantum charge results in a pervasive quantum gravity phase noise that only becomes important out beyond where dispersive dipole-induced-dipole noise drops below quantum gravity noise.

The nice thing about the CSL theory is that it already has a nice Hamiltonian and so represents a really nice starting point for quantum gravity. However, it is important to use conjugates like matter and action and avoid space and time. Space and time are simply too limited to ever represent quantum gravity. Only discrete matter and action can handle the limitations of the very small as well as the very large.

What this means is that every wavefunction is a composite of both the slow changes of gravity phase decay as well as the fast changes of charge motion.

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 17:26 GMT
Hi Steve, Good essay.

As we tend to come at things from different angles I was pleasantly surprised about how much I was fundamentally in agreement with. In particular I agree your P4 recycling description as very consistent with my published paper on the subject, identifying a pattern reproduced at CMB scale so extending to the universe.

But of course scores anyway shouldn't be based on 'agreement with' content, and we do need all disparate viewpoints. Yours was well written, organized and argued so should be far higher than it presently is.

I hope you may also enjoy reading mine and look forward to your response. In particular I wonder if your 'quantum phase noise' is as similar as I suspect to the squared sine curve distribution I show can be derived classically.

Very best of luck


report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 12:57 GMT
Thanks. I have really been encouraging a null vote even though I appreciate thoughtful comments. I do not know how to rate the very different notions in all of the essays so I do no bother to.

I do differentiate between classical and quantum with the notion of quantum phase noise. Although there are many ways to generate the chaos of classical noise, quantum phase noise shows superposition, entanglement, and interference. Classical noise does not show these effects.

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 22:35 GMT

If you check the scoring criteria they exclude rating 'notions' or whether or not you like or agree with actual content. It seems most people have (again) entirely missed the point on that! That should make valid scoring a lot easier.

Thanks for confirming my understanding of your QFN. I asked because my essay describes a logical Classical explanation for each of the effects you describe, all from the very simplest mechanism we know; a spinning sphere. It's too important and 'simple' (elephant in the room) for most here to even 'see' but I did have you marked down as one who may.

I hope you get a chance to read it as I'd value you thoughts.

Very Best


report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 04:33 GMT
I must admit that I do like many aspects of the DFM approach...but quantum stuff does trump classical stuff and so quantum owns the issue today. Maybe that will change, but right not, quantum owns the day...

Author Steve Agnew wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 18:21 GMT
I do enjoy the essays and am sorry that I do not vote nor do I expect votes. The banter about the unfairness is part of the reason and it is not clear how such a simple-minded vote can ever have any meaning.

My essay continues to evolve into even lower entropy... for those who are interested...

Akinbo Ojo wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 13:16 GMT
Hi Steve,

You argue your point of view quite well, even though opposed to mine concerning expansion/contraction of the universe. Let experiment be the final arbiter.

I find your description of how early life could have begun quite revealing and interesting. While describing this you touched on the role of the sun. Do you share the views of the late Carl Sagan concerning the ‘faint yellow sun’ paradox? How much life can such a young sun drive on earth’s surface if this paradox is true? Or what is your own proposed resolution?

Lastly, you use the term, ‘action’ a lot in your writings. Matter we know is measured in kilograms, time in seconds… what is the unit of measure of action (i.e. the fundamental units)?

Best regards,


report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 22:17 GMT
You always ask very insightful questions. I am aware of the faint sun paradox, but the snowball earth periods are equally perplexing to me.

Since mass decays and force grows over time, there are different interpretations of the past. Gravity and charge scale differently with time since gravity goes as Gm^2 and charge goes as q^2c^2 over time. This means that the effects of gravity and charge vary in different ways over time and that will occur for any theory where mass and force vary over time.

What this means for the sun is that convection, which heat and gravity drive, varies differently from fusion, which quantum charge drives. The current models of the sun over time simply do not allow for changes in mass or c and so the faint sun paradox is simply a result of fixed constants of nature. The sunspot cycle seems to be a result of this effect and the variability of many types of stars is likely related to quantum gravity linked to charge.

Action is a very well known term in physics and is a result of the integration of energy (or equivalent mass) over time or space or spacetime. Thus the units of action are kg s or kg m depending on whether the integration is over time or space. Note that Planck constant/c^2 has the action units of kg s and represents the quantum of action.

Thus, space, time, or even spacetime all emerge from the differential of action with respect to mass. This means that the whole universe of space and time emerges from the simple duality of the conjugates matter and action. This means that all quantum wavefunctions are a product of both very slow gravity as well as very fast charge oscillations that have a pure matter and action basis.

Once an observer of a source tries to make sense out of matter and action, that is when space and time emerge as a way to keep track of source mass and source action.

Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 22:43 GMT
Dear Steve Agnew

I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.

How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as “Time” definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,… a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander…..

6) ….worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn’t a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time “existence” is exclusive as a “measuring system”, its physical existence can’t be proved by science, as the “time system” is. Experimentally “time” is “movement”, we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure “constant and uniform” movement and not “the so called Time”.

12)The original “time manuscript” has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in “time” and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.


report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 04:32 GMT
Thank-you very much for your views on time. Time is a very useful notion and helps science predict the futures of sources, but ultimately, time is limited and does not represent all action in the universe.

Time needs very careful interpretation and then the notions of time have much value for prediction of of source action.

james r. akerlund wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 02:07 GMT
Hi Steve,

I read your submission and I am not happy. Your profile suggests a better researched and referenced submission. I didn't get that. I see no references, (I seem to live on those). And in your first paragraph you are making statements that other material contradicts. Here is the statement. "The quantum observer has many more possible futures and may not be able to remember the mysteries of exactly which door they actually took or why they chose the door they chose." And here are the references that contradict that statement. [Link:]Lev Vaidman1[/Link] and [Link:]Lev Vaidman2 and others[/Link]. I choose to believe Lev Vaidman in this case.

Jim Akerlund

report post as inappropriate

james r. akerlund replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 02:10 GMT
Let's try those links again.

Lev Vaidman1


Lev Vaidman2 and others

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 04:46 GMT
There is nothing really wrong with your two-state vector formalism, it is just limited and does not apply to dynamical QM and does not include the decoherence of quantum phase noise.

You are correct in that I do not give a lot of references since those are present in other papers. Any true quantum description of reality must include decay of quantum phase coherence or it makes no sense. Technical references exist and if you want to see them, you are welcome.

Without the decoherence of quantum phase noise, the universe simply does not make sense...

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 00:18 GMT
Dear Steve Agnew

I inform all the participants that use the electronic translator, therefore, my essay is written badly. I participate in the contest to familiarize English-speaking scientists with New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the principle of identity of space and matter. Combining space and matter into a single essence, the New Cartesian Physic is able to integrate modern physics into a single theory. Let FQXi will be the starting point of this Association.

Don't let the New Cartesian Physic disappear! Do not ask for himself, but for Descartes.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show potential in this essay I risked give "The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural" - Is the name of my essay.

Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. After you give a post in my topic, I shall do the same.


Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 23:22 GMT
Dear Steve Agnew,

You view of physics is one of those I find far too loose in its handling of properties and especially their equation representatives, their units, to agree with. However, I do also think that it is representative of cutting edge physics theory as theory is handled today. I think we have spoken more than enough about our views. I will not bring anything more about our differences here unless you bring them up. I want you to know that I think you wrote a very good essay promoting your views. I don't rate essays according whether or not I agree with their content if that content is consistent with today's professional presentations of theoretical physics. I think that yours is consistent in that manner. I won't be posting my votes until the last minutes of the contest. Thus far I have posted no votes. Whatever my vote for your essay is, it should have a good chance of counting at that late time. Good luck to you.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 04:14 GMT
...but you have to know that I always reply to comments that are worth replying to. I realize that I have been hard on you, but such is life in the fast lane.

The fact is that you have really good intuition about reality and I always appreciate good intuition. What you could do better on is in not redefining physics so much as clarifying physics instead.

Granted. There are many ways to redefine the fundamental nature of physical constants. However, redefinition is a perpetual recursion that can tie you up in philosophical knots that lose sight of the primal goal: predicting the future of sources.

What we are all about is predicting the future better than the current models, and that is quite a challenge. For this essay, it means showing how mindless equations result in aims and intentions. In other words, how does the objective reality of the universe couple with the subjective reality of sources.

Since observers can only know sources and not themselves, that means that observers always affect sources in ways that those observers can never know. In many ways, that is exactly what your intuitive arguments state, but since you have not yet reached quantum phase noise, you have not yet reached the third stage of consciousness.

Spectral consciousness is an awareness of the universe sources as spectra of matter. In a way, you could do force spectra in terms of acceleration, which you are want to do. But really, matter and action are much better conjugates for the duality that defines our universe.

James A Putnam replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 02:54 GMT
"There are many ways to redefine the fundamental nature of physical constants."

That can only occur so long as physics properties have not each received empirically revealed definitions. Once all inferred physics properties have received their empirically reveal definition, there is no further means by which to offer other definitions.

"In many ways, that is exactly what your...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 03:26 GMT
You have been kind enough to share your empirically revealed foundations with us along with your empirically revealed definitions of physical properties. Fortunately, you also then explain what foundations and definitions mean. Unfortunately, foundations are empirical revelations and physical properties are what definitions reveal and so we recursively go a giant circle until we hit the showstopper...

When we hit f/m=a, this reveals the hidden truth that defines physical properties...that way, force and mass have physically revealed units. I do admire your ability to continuously recursively redefine reality and actually seem to believe that it helps to predict the action of sources better than current physics.

Since you use all of the same equations as current physics, save a few, where is the beef? Please...tell us what the entropy of a black hole is...

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 07:47 GMT
Hi Steve

I have read your essay, and as an artist enjoyed that it starts with an illustration!

Reality must be fundamentally the same, whatever physics we choose to gauge it with. Your paper explores Quantum parity and Classical Chaos ... did you equate the two? I should re-read your essay again to find out.

Other terms you use that need clarification is observer..bonding..source. You illustrate this by a person (or atom) going through a door, taking a a path in the classical case, she is bonding with ...what? But something deeper seems to be implied. It is not too clear.

Like most physicists these days you subscribe to the concept of quantum noise - that probability reigns at the bottom rung of Nature. In my Universal model, on the contrary, I believe that an exquisite crystal-like order is at work in the lattice of ether nodes that ultimately form space, energy, matter and everything else. In my fqxi essay I have presented a program of drastic spring cleaning that physics has to undergo before the truth of how it operates at the fundamental level can be known! Hope you will have a look.

I wish you the best,


report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 16:31 GMT
Your comments are very welcome. My essay is about uniting the two types of noise; quantum phase noise and the classical noise of chaos. The ancient Greeks viewed chaos as the beginning from which the order of the cosmos emerged. My essay argues that while we live in a universe ostensibly dominated by the chaos of classical noise, the entanglement of quantum phase noise is what brings the order of the cosmos from chaos.

Bonding is a term that represents how we move since in order to take one step, one foot bonds with the floor and the other foot debonds from the floor. Thus any destination breaks down into a finite number of bonding and debonding event pairs that distill down to breaking that first bond with the floor and making that final bond at the source.

My essay is also about the order that emerges from the expanding force of our aether decay. While it is true that quantum uncertainty is a necessary part of our expanding force universe, so are entanglement and coherence and superposition. The difference between a classical and a quantum approach is that classical knowledge is all knowable. This means that once an observer measures a state, the classical observer knows that state existed before its measurement. There is no classical meaning for superposition and phase and the classical universe follows a determinate path set by the CMB creation.

However, a quantum approach simply accepts that some quantum knowledge is unknowable and therefore that a quantum state may exist as a superposition before the measurement. The state of the superposition before the measurement is therefore not knowable and this also means that the future is only what is likely and simply not completely predictable.

There is no quantum sense to a determinate future although the quantum future is certainly among a set of more likely futures. A quantum future gives free will and free choice a role in bringing the order of the cosmos from the disorder of chaos.

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 01:36 GMT
Thanks Steve

Forgive me for not engaging with the themes you present -my faxi essay is all about divesting physics from emergent concepts such as wave-function collapse etc. that confuse the fundamentals of physics. if you read my pet model Beautiful Universe, it is an absolute Cellular Automata where there is no distinction between classical and Quantum states - they both emerge from the CA, so most of the concepts of QM that you reiterate above are moot in such a world. Of course I may well be wrong. Your interesting observations about CA on my page need to be re-read thanks.

All the best,


report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 03:37 GMT
...ah yes, but your model is ultimately all knowable and therefore is not quantum. There is nothing wrong about chaos and the CA is very just does not include quantum phase and therefore is incomplete.

James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 23:05 GMT

Your essay reads simplistic but weight heavy in meaning. Your plural backgrounds and interests have quantum, classical, physics and chemical bonds held together in prose.

Good point that you can't separate the universe into mindless math laws and mindful observers but must recognize mindless laws are a product of humans who are interacting.

Quantum coherence and decoherence are still conditions that quantum biology researcher are seemingly finding overlaps between the quantum and the classical world, seeing qualities of coherence holding for more efficient photosynthesis for plants, like in "Life on Edge." They mention it for European robins migration as well.

A new theory my essay mentions by Jeremy England also sees entropy-based behavior for the inanimate and well as the animate.

Hope you get a chance to read and comment on my essay as well.


Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 03:55 GMT
Dear Sirs!

New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return.


Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Agnew wrote on May. 2, 2017 @ 03:00 GMT
Somehow it is very pleasant to be at the very bottom and therefore not worrying about how fair the contest is or how everyone is one bombing everyone else.

It is nice just to experience the awe of human discourse and to know that someone, out there, somewhere has connected. Even if that quantum phase decay was very short, discourse that connects to the quantum phase noise of the universe will have its way.

Either the discourse will decay and fade away or it will be enhanced by constructive interference and the belief of others. The brief actions of discourse are the only hope that people have for sharing their ideas...

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.