Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

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

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

George Kirakosyan: on 4/11/17 at 12:07pm UTC, wrote Dear Koshy If we kill all mathematicians and burn all handbooks then what...

Jose Koshy: on 4/11/17 at 10:06am UTC, wrote George Kirokasyan, I completely agree with you on the following points:...

George Kirakosyan: on 4/5/17 at 5:41am UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir I will answer simply as your question is – yes, my dear! I...

George Kirakosyan: on 4/5/17 at 5:28am UTC, wrote Dear Cristi Many thanks for your attention and kindly words. You are...

Cristinel Stoica: on 4/4/17 at 17:26pm UTC, wrote Dear George, You raise interesting criticism of contemporary science in...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 4/4/17 at 12:45pm UTC, wrote Dear George, I would ask you something, reading your amazing essay. The...

Rajiv Singh: on 4/4/17 at 10:17am UTC, wrote Dear George, I am responding to the note that you left on my essay. But...

George Kirakosyan: on 4/3/17 at 4:50am UTC, wrote Dear Rick Your favorable words are over of any my expectations! It's very...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

Lorraine Ford: "Dear Rajiv, I answer your post by clarifying the logic of what I’m..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Lorraine Ford: "Jonathan, Yes, I agree that the many derive from one. And I would say that..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

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

Georgina Woodward: "A proposition for the cause of gravity, and inertia, and its relation to..." in Alternative Models of...

Anonymous: "So, Ginger, What is your thinking on whether Planck's yet to be..." in Purifying Physics: The...

Ginger Grey: "When we studied Physics at Central Washington University, we used to hire..." in Purifying Physics: The...


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 FORUM
April 27, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Magic of physics, math tricks and an observer - with his own brain by George Kirakosyan [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 3, 2017 @ 21:12 GMT
Essay Abstract

Here we talk that our bitter lessons have been consigned to oblivion. Disputable divisions of physics have degenerated to a kind of elitist - unproductive genre of creativity because of arbitrary, unreasonable methodology. There is an actual opportunity to come to a high-grade realistic science by returning to natural thinking and objective scientific approaches. To do this we need to overcome the imposed firm convictions with tremendous psychological and political significances. De facto, it is banned to do in present physics, by historical or other circumstances unclear to us.

Author Bio

George (Gevorg) Kirakosyan was born 1950, in Armenia. Manager of engineering group in private company, Dubai, UAE. Associate specialist in Physics Department, State Engineering University, Yerevan, Armenia

Download Essay PDF File




Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 16:08 GMT
Dear George Kirakosyan,,

Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about imaginary invisible “doubtless picture of reality.”

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 5, 2017 @ 06:59 GMT
Dear Andrew

I can only applaud your true remarks, as we are obligated do not deceiving ourselves, before teaching something to others!




Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 6, 2017 @ 09:09 GMT
Really Good essay George Kirakosyan,

You have very nicely analyzed the present day situation. You are exactly correct CORRECT about the SR and GR. NO new observation or NO experimental results are considered. Take the case of Superluminal neutrinos in case of SR, and many experimental verification failures of GR. If there is any theory like Dynamic Universe Model explains ALL such results, MAIN STREAM Scientists don’t bother about it, NO SUPPORT of any sort from any person is visible forget financial support. Very sorrow state of affairs.

Your observation is exactly correct about the HIGG’s boson. …. Your own words …” I only think to myself; how and for what purpose this new particle, which is busted practically at the same moment as it is born, will be useful, when there are more than ten thousands of different unstable particles as well as some bosons among them? “…. Hats off to you…

report post as inappropriate


Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 6, 2017 @ 10:33 GMT
Dear Gupta!

Many thanks for your great opinion.

I am just happy to see that we are not alone in our views!

Maybe in any time people will be realized that the way of natural thinking is more preferable in science than any beautiful creativity! Now I am starting to study your work (with pleasure!) I will tell you about it after some time.

I suggest you to read M-r Andrew Scott’s article where I find very costly remarks!

With best wishes!




Don C Foster wrote on Feb. 7, 2017 @ 19:50 GMT
Dear George Kirakosyan,

Your essay provoked me to read a couple of your papers in the references section, the one on modeling the electron and the one on substance as spin-vortex. I am not competent to judge their ultimate merit, but I very much appreciated the method of approach. The notion of substance as a arising from a spin-vortex in a field simply mirrors dynamics that are apparent in the universe at vastly different scales i.e. solitons, hydrodynamic quantum analogues and turbulence modeling. To my mind it suggests a deeply rooted, underlying cosmological principle. I hope you have a chance to read my yet to emerge essay which touches on that notion.

To judge from your essay, your views are counter current with the mainstream and that is causing considerable frustration. I certainly wish for you a quiet eddy free from vexation in which your ideas can grow in substance and recognition.

Best, Don Foster

report post as inappropriate

Author George Kirakosyan replied on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 04:58 GMT
Thank you Dear Foster for the flattering words.

Unfortunately, you are right; we are not so much here, but we need do our job!

Of course, I can read your article as it will be, let me know.




Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 06:43 GMT
Dear Vladimir

I welcome your article as a professional and serious work. For me personally, it is very important that you are well aware of the global crisis of our time, which seems to almost in all spheres of human activity. Well I try to understand the deep meaning of your work to evaluate it by its significance.

Best wishes




John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 19:19 GMT
George

Thanks for these interesting ideas. I think one important reason to magic in mathematics is the frame of reference. We see development in aa backwards perspective. We see how Maxwell transformed Faradays work to mathematics but we do not see how Faraday worked hard his whole life and invented electric motors and generators and transformers. We see Kepler shifting from circle to ellipse but not Tycho Brahe to invent instruments and building observatory under ground level and work his whole life on the same issue.

John-Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

Author George Kirakosyan replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 12:48 GMT
Dear John-Erik

Sorry! I was a little busy. Just now I seen your post and have read your kindly words on my work. Thank you!

Now I start read your "tragedy" with interest - as we really have faced to biggest tragedy!

I will return soon with my opinion, as I felt it may to interest you.

Best wishes




Alexander M. Ilyanok wrote on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 17:27 GMT
Dear George Kirakosyan, I agree with your essay.

Today, the official science is not able to adapt to the rapidly changing of the international situation in science and technology.

The modern theoretical physics as a whole is characterized by exaggerated mathematization, a deliberate refusal to find the cause and the essential explanations, as a conscious rejection of spatial models and, as a consequence, the lack of "understanding" in the conventional (ie non-philosophical) sense.

People cannot and do not want to believe in the doctrine that no one understands, even his followers.

I have carefully considered these questions in my article "In Defense of Science"

http://www.rusnor.org/pubs/articles/10537.htm

report post as inappropriate

Author George Kirakosyan replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 05:25 GMT
Dear professor!

Thank you very much for your opinion and kindly words on my work.

These are especially significant for me as one experienced scientist and serious person who are able to deeply understanding what is going on in the present fundamental science.

I seen some incognito “gentleman” initially have evaluated your work by one fatty 1! It is simply outrageously...

view entire post





Jeff Yee wrote on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 05:35 GMT
George, I laughed (in a good way) when I read this line of your paper because it is so true:

"I only think to myself; how and for what purpose this new particle, which is busted practically at the same moment as it is born, will be useful, when there are more than ten thousands of different unstable particles as well as some bosons among them? Then, what kind of significant shift it can...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Jeff Yee replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 05:36 GMT
Sorry, forgot to provide the link of the paper mentioned above:

The Relation of Particles Numbers to Atomic Numbers

report post as inappropriate

Author George Kirakosyan replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 08:14 GMT
Dear Jeff,

Your comment really is beautiful, thank you so much - our command becomes more!

Previously I can say that I have nothing against to neutrino, the electron is preferable because it is always under our hands (I mean it is much easy to detect and to study). Moreover, the neutrino does not have charge and mag. momentum that makes so much difficult to catch and to identify it. Principally, if we can to explain what is any particle on a 100% then we can understand almost everything!

I will study your work and to return again after short time!

Best wishes!

George




Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 05:19 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

I am happy to welcome you in FQXi contest again with your nice essay. It is right that we have talking about of some different subjects in our works, however I did not seen the contradictions in ours approaches - I hope my work can be interesting to you.

Best wishes!



Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 18:03 GMT
Dear George

I have read with great interest your essay.

In your conclusion you mention that physical laws are the traffic signs of our perceived reality. It may seem so, but my perception is that any LAW is just valid untill NOW, in the future quite other forms of what seems the basic of reality may be valid, nad then only for the new coming NOW mement.

The Laws that we are experiencing in our collective memories are also emergent phenomenae, so they can change any NOW moment.

best regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Author George Kirakosyan replied on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 04:29 GMT
My dear Wilhelmus,

I can be with you completely agree, when I see how growing my grandchildren in the other world than it has been in our time.

I can also think that maybe the crocodile can be born from the chiken eggs with the time! However, I never can think that energy preservation law, or the value of pi (3,14 ...), can be changeable, in the past, or in the future.

I have initially put high score on your essay because it is informative and written just beautiful! Excuse me if something is not that!

Best wishes




Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 08:08 GMT
Dear Jeff Yee

I have study your work (Particle energy .... in vixra.org).

I am very impressed with your huge work and I find very right things there, concerning to a wave-field common essence of everything. Particularly, You correctly have explained the double slit interference of particles (by the way it is much coincide with the mine!) and many useful things also are there.

However, I am forced to say some my regrets also. The standing wave concept of particles is really are very right and this will become much more productive for you if you will start from VORTEX NATURE of field and waves (with your phenomenal ability to working!) I just friendly recommend you carefully to study my works (not now, of course). I think your level will allow you to catch some very necessary trifles from there in short time. Then you can to develop your nice ideas more successfully!

Good wishes!




Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 07:15 GMT
Hello nMr Kirakosyan,

I liked your essay.I liked also how you utilise the occam razor about our foundamentals.And It is well said about the p^rimordial essence of particles.Personally it is the gravitation the chief orchestra for me.Photons are not the only one piece of puzzle when we consider an entropical infinity sendenig informations of évolution.The center os our universe is not an immense star,a BH in the cold implying then gravitational aether seems more logic.This cold balancing this thermo....God does not play at dices after all :) I am wishing you all the best in this contest,good luck.

report post as inappropriate


Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 07:50 GMT
Hello M-r Steve,

Many thanks for kindly words and good opinion!

Do you have your own essay? I did not find it in the list.

Best wishes



Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 10:52 GMT
You are welcome Mr Kirakosyan,

I liked your general ideas.

No I have not made this contest like the last past 8 years.I learn I imrpove my theory of spherisation with quant and cosm 3D sphères Inside the Sphere and equation E=mc²+ml².I have studied and learnt so much here n this wonderful transparent Platform.I am a nursery man for plants, flowers,I have been obliged to learn things that I didn't know.I evolve simpkly and optimise my works.I must formalise the spherical geometrical algebras and this spherisation.It is not easy, I learn maths and physics in détails.I try to respect our postulates and foundamentals.

Best and good luck in this contest :)

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 21:15 GMT
Sorry for my equation,I made an error.It was necessary to differenciate the two kinds of matter,one baryonic, the other not baryonic.

This one is better,E=m(b)c²+m(nb)l² m(b) is the baryonic mass and m(nb)is the not baryonic mass.The cold dark matter is produced in my model of spherisation with quant and cosm 3D sphères Inside the universal 3D sphere by supermassive BHs.l is their linear velocity proportional with the spherical volume.That is why the aether is gravitational from the central cosm singularity, the biggest BH producing the speedest particles of gravitation.This standard model seems encircled by this cold gravitation.I have found in my humble reasoning that this weakest quant force was in the same time the strongest when we consider quantum BHs with a serie towards the quantum singularities,the cnetral BH of all serie of uniquenss .The particles of gravitation them are encoded weaker than electromagneic forces and photons.This thermo and standard model with photons is encircled by this gravity.That is why I consider that photons are spherons coded in fact.The main chief orchestra giving the road to photons is this gravitation.Like if God ,this infinite entropy balanced the thermo and cold like the + and the -.It is fascinating all this universal mechanic of imrpovement.

Regards

report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 14:32 GMT
Dear George,

In your emergent reality (the one you are experiencing right now) and in our collective NOW memory, energy preservation and pi are stable,. Changing of life-line may reveal that they may be changing, when you change life lines you are not aware of the specific changes.

I thank you for your rating, but it is best not to talk about in the threads I think.

best regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 05:29 GMT
Dear George Kirakosyan,

I followed your essay to your viXra 'wave-vortex' paper and very much appreciate your work in both. I fully agree with "thinkers by own brains" versus "followers of holy instructions", as you will see if you read my essay. Like Lindsay in your 2016 paper, we agree that science is "comprehension of the essence of things by thinking".

I agree...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author George Kirakosyan replied on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 08:06 GMT
Dear Eugene,

Thank you for attention,

I am always looking to find my like-minded that is why I am happy with your message.

Of course, I will read your work and I will share with my view, in short time.

Best wishes



Author George Kirakosyan replied on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 08:52 GMT
George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 08:47 GMT

Dear Eugene,

I have read your work (as we usually say this, after of brief checking the material!)

I shall express my impression how you are hard worker, and hope you can understand that I just cannot somewhat to study the big volume of your rich references right now.

However, I can surely think already that you...

view entire post





Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 22:44 GMT
George,

Many thanks for an enjoyable and insightful essay.

You are very correct regarding the use of units in calculations. I am an engineer by education. One of the first things we are taught is to carry dimensional units through calculations. That keeps us from making major mistakes and it forces us to think about what we are doing when things appear to be dissimilar.

I certainly see similarities with the bee on the window ... it simply cannot understand why it cannot pass through.

I share your puzzlement regarding the Higgs Boson ... I am fairly sure there are few if any giant particle accelerators in the universe to create such things. In my simple thinking, the only particles worthy of great study are the proton, electron, and neutron since they are STABLE. Of course, the reason that folks want to create such particles is to study the associated fields. However, rather than studying the Higgs, it seems to me a better use of resources to figure out why a solitary neutron decays with a half-life of 14 minutes.

Your notions for an electron and proton are interesting. In fact, they are somewhat similar to my own.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate


Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 04:30 GMT
Dear Harry

I am thankful that you are with me! We must to join our efforts to push ahead what we believe are the right. I see one of important criterions of our rightness in that the different brains in the different times and in the different places may come to similar conclusions. So, I just felt myself very obligated to read your work to say something.

About of decay of freely neutron you are fully right. I have tried to explain it and I even calculated its time, based on my model (you can find it in good time in my ,,Rethinking ... (I),, )

I will answer you within short time!

Good wishes



Author George Kirakosyan replied on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 07:19 GMT
Dear Gary,

You have used the the complex vector representation and the Euler's beautiful formula in your attempts to describe proton, in this case. You have the definite success on this. It shows just that you are on the somewhat right way. I am very agree with you that the dynamics and harmony should be the base to understand the microcosm. By the way, the solutions of Maxwell's equations (in macrocosm) and Schrodinger's equations (in microcosm) with its different modifications correspond with this. The main questions however, has become there - how need to interpret these solutions, since a what of physical values must to put there as the this or that members of equations? That is why I am calling to put the ideas first before of math! You know of course the merits of Faradei as well as Nikola Tesla ..... who was very weak in math! So, the math does not disturb them to RIGHT THINKING and to find the right answers by the same! Then their job was continued by whom who was more well with math ....!

So, I welcome your work and I will happy to help you.

I wait that we can be agree each with others.

Good wishes




Branko L Zivlak wrote on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 18:08 GMT
Dear Mr. Kirakosyan

As a philosophical work, your essay is excellent. I agree with all your views. Especially, I would not have better described the situation with the Higgs Boson.

About b) There may be an intentionally lack of understanding for political purposes (very smart).

For example: when I read these essays, authors support very little dark matter. However, it is main stream theory.

Best regards,

Branko

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 19:30 GMT
George,

Good to hear from you on my string. Thanks for your comment.

Yes I 'speed read' you essay once and found it excellent with some heartening agreement so marked down for a more thorough read. I've just pulled it up to the top of the pile!

Best

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 21:20 GMT
George,

OK, first I'm delighted to find, like me, you've avoided the pyres and stakes of outrageous fortune. Perhaps being ignored is as bad but we have strength of spirit! My (recently adopted) family motto is; "I have the strength of ten men as I am pure in heart!" It's so nice to converse with a kindred spirit.

Now the essay. Well even had you not written one the literary genius, clarity, truth and insight of the abstract alone might be worth a 9!

I'm no nuclear physicist but am excited by your finding; "We discovered new type of light excited nuclei with excited alpha particle inside. This nuclei are unstable, with emission of p and t Will this be published? or is it too new to pass the gatekeepers (armed guards!) of theory.

How familiar are you with plasma?/Ions?/condensation of Fermion pairs? Do you agree the pairs may be identical just with opposite orientations? as with 'split' pairs in QM?

I do hope you may take a rigorous look at the simple momenta pair identified in my essay and confirm my derivation of the orthogonal cos2 curves of QM. established physicist run screaming rather than look and bury their heads in the sand or even a dung pile!

I'd also like to talk and think more about the 8-9Mev continuum energy recognised in nuclear physics. I think I referred to something similar in terms of the 'condensate', conceptually equivalent to Paul Dirac's 'new ether'. How 'recognised' is it and what is the interpretation. Any good links?

Very well written and worth top marks.

Very best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 21:48 GMT
OK, ignore or wipe out the above. I must stop reading so many at once! I made notes for both yours and Kozlowski and remembered my thought about yours but referred to the wrong ones! (Actually his is also quite interesting!) I'll do your proper post after a brain-break.

best Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 11:00 GMT
George,

The first two paragraphs above apply, but I now realise you didn't suddenly become a nuclear physicist!

Yes, I've opened many windows for bees and flies, only to be ignored or told with arrogance and indignation to leave them alone and not try to tell them where the route to joining with the universe lies! A great example of where science stands (mainly still!)

Also great comments about the importance of the observer. You'll have seen I extend that to detectors, finding the final key to a Classical reproduction of QMs Cos2 curves in the cascade or 'avalanche' multiplication of the photodetectors themselves. Always self doubting I checked everywhere and found this effect already a key part of QCD!

So I agree, cause and effect does work fine, the problem has been only our inadequate mental evolution. Can we really self-evolve fast enough?

Applying my score made yours leapfrog mine but I had no compunction doing so.

Very best

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 08:50 GMT
Dear George ! Official science has become a decisive knowledge tool of the economic production process. This alienation process of science and its tools (e.g.maths) can lead to mindless constructions of artificial realities, reinforcing the total alienated value of its professional participants, i.e. there exists an existential difference between knowledge value for economic production/consumption and coping with real life. Maybe, a new Copernican shift will take place when exponential knowledge automation will free the scientific workers and scientific labor from mindless activities for increasing economic productivity.Take this a my reader response to your brilliant essay.. Best: stephen

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 14:44 GMT
Dear George Kirakosyan

Excellent essay, near to me in pursuit.

«There is an actual opportunity to come to a high-grade realistic science by returning to natural thinking and objective scientific approaches».

I think the most important for the theme of the contest is to solve the problems of causality in quantum mechanics -

«I will refer only to the opinion of a respectful for me professor Lee Smolin, Ref. [4], who sees solution of arisen problems with QR in the opportunity to interpret quantum relations and phenomena based on cause-effect laws».

However, let me disagree with your statement:

«All kinds of particles are formed from the same primordial substance. The huge numbers of different unstable particles cannot represent any interest and perceptivity for study, because of their transient state and common physical essence».

I believe that in the universe, each particle of interest and the prospects for research. Each particle has a role in the causation of quantum processes. Not stable particles with their transition states are nonlinear elements from nonideal medium of physical vacuum, where there are quantum processes due to non-linearity.

In My essay it is shown that the using of mathematical abstractions and ideal properties of matter and fields in the description of physical reality leads to a lack of reasons for the ongoing processes, lead to the abstract particles, to pointless research of collapses, of infinities , of normalization, of calibrations, of clouds of probability and so on. The phenomenological laws and their abstract coefficients spread on everything systems unreasonably and are elevated to the rank of absolutes.

This led me to the conclusion that the reason of self-organization systems of matter is quantum-parametric resonance and the formation of solitons.

Kind regards,

Vladimir Fedorov

report post as inappropriate


Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 05:55 GMT
Thank you, Dear Vladimir Nikolayevich, for your kindly attention on my work and for favorable words.

I have read your nice article also and fully agreed with you in many points. I especially like your vortex - toroidal structures that can form elementary particles. So, we can welcome each to other as realistically thinking engineers.

Of course, we can have some disagreements also what we have actually. The matter is you are a mechanical engineer and I am a poor electrical engineer only. That is why we must always to fight on the question - which principles should be in the base of formation the primordial substance of matter - is this should be mechanical or the electrical?

I see you are silently - intuitively inclined on the mechanical side that is why you cannot be free from the environment (I mean the physical vacuum with its special, different properties).

Here I have nothing to tell you, but only I will ask to you to listening advice of old man - try to build everything from the beginning without using any of hypothetical (unproven) things. (Let me tell only that it is really is possible!)

To help you somewhat, I will tell you that the physical vacuum is the same undetectable ether that was silently renamed, to be solve the huge problems in the microcosm for this time. You and I have big respects to Einstein. His first greatest merit was that he realized whole unnecessary of physical environment (that we can call the ether, physical vacuum or other) and he try remove it out from physics. Moreover, there is the proven kind of physical reality that can exist and work itself – without any environment, which are the electromagnetic field. The second greatest merit of Einstein (in my view) is that he says; everything can be build from this single kind of reality only that is the electromagnetic field! So, try please to work without physical vacuum!

With all this, I see your work as a good significant.

I wish you successes!




Avtar Singh wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 18:06 GMT
Hi George:

Enjoyed reading your paper and really agree with two key points you have made:

1. The role of the observer; it is very important to have an integrated consciousness model with the physical model to realize the true nature of reality.

2. "The huge numbers of different unstable particles cannot represent any nterest and perceptivity for study, because of their transient state and common physical essence."

Particles represent fragmented and not wholesome reality of Oneness of consciousness in the Zero-point state of physical existence.

Thank you very much for reading my paper and providing your kind comments. The mainstream science needs to cultivate a consciousness-integrated rather than Inanimate approach to science to represent a wholesome reality, purpose, and meaning to the universe and life in it.

Again, I am really grateful for your understanding and support of the wholesome approach.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

report post as inappropriate


Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 06:36 GMT
Hi dear Christian

It is nice to see you (and co-authors) in the contest. I have read your interesting article and have got there some valuable for me information. Particularly, I have impressed with that dramatic situation of Einstein that was linked with creation of GW. I had felt that it could not be accepted by Einstein so easy because there are one deep (and obvious) logical contradiction between GW and one of basic principle GR. It was very important to me to know that Einstein has some doubt in soul on the existence GW in generally! For this, mainly I am very thankful from your article.

I never hide that I did not trust in the existence of GW and I have continue say this even there was announce on the detection of GW by LIGO group. This let be remain up on their conscience.

I will call your attention only on the next argument; GR was based on the close - action principle, and GW, however, assume the existence of a far - action, let it be explained as a current of gravitons or, as the action trough the field etc. So, GW should be not there, otherwise this valuable – important principle of GR become broken in fact! I think Einstein was so doubtful on GW on this namely. There goes on the more powerful LISA project. I hope it can be realized and there will be finally established …. the absence of GW!

Thus, I can welcome only your article as high valuable for me and evaluate it accordingly.

With best regards




Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 06:38 GMT
Hi Don,

It is nice to see you again in our clever company!

I have discovered your unusual work and I have understood (after some time) that you try to use the pepper, - against to stupidity. I am doubtful this can be effective despite me also try to add some pepper (with the small salt) in mine essay. I do not know it can be useful because Russians say - "if guy is stupid, it is for long time!" But we must do our job as we see it may better!

I welcome you and I wish to support you!

Best Regards



Don Limuti replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 22:44 GMT
Hi George,

Really good to be in the mix again. Your essay pointed out how leading edge physics is getting kind of strange. And this strangeness has permeated the Peer Review system.

I will defend the peer review system just a bit.

If I were asked to be a judge of this contest I would: 1. Scream loudly 2. Run away as fast as possible. 3. All the while appreciating those who do volunteer.

This does not take away from your essay which I rate very high.

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 10:55 GMT
Hi dear George,

You wrote a pretty, courageous and provocative Essay. I agree with a lot of the points that you raised. Sadly, current science is dominated by political issues. Thus, it is my pleasure giving you the highest score.

Good luck in the Contest and best wishes, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Author George Kirakosyan replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 11:20 GMT
Thank you, Dear Christian!

Unfortunately you are right, the politics is everywhere!

But, I am thankful of God that my daily bread is not dependent from this favorable for us occupation. That is why some time I allow myself to say what I really thinking that need to say!

All the best!




Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 12:53 GMT
My kindly professor Ellis!

Sorry for spending your time.

Of course I read the listed rules. And first question for me become there - and where is the ready answers from these we must chosing the right one as, a) ... b) ... c) ?

My dear, do you not thinking that science is not correct to build in such way? What is going on here actually? Some clever man has offering to us the questions that he see how is better to formulate. He give to us all details and all the right instructions also how need to move, on what direction to move etc - then let he tell to us also - where need to reach! Then tell me please what kind of valuable new result can we hope to obtain if we will agree to serve them as such exemplary soldiers? I have gone a little side of question because I see this question bring us to a wall. Let me say you also silently have gone a little side (and you also do right!) And we seen M-r Corda also (but a little bit more than we, I am agree with you here!) ....

If this conversation you see interesting please try to read my essay. This about it. I felts that it will seem to you some strange and maybe will difficult job for you, because we are very different people really - and what we can do with this?

With good wishes to you,




adel sadeq wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 12:58 GMT
Hi George,

I agree with your analysis of the state of physics, and I applaud your attempt in trying to solve them although I disagree with it.

I have many things to say but I just want to start with the ERP question. DO you believe in it(entanglement) and if yes, your model does not seem to explain it or does it?

Thanks

report post as inappropriate

Author George Kirakosyan replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 16:56 GMT
Gracious scholar Adel!

1. Of course, you have the right to be agreed or not with something.

But, after such a declaration, it is usually accepted to justify why we do not agree on one or another of the issues?

2. To find out what's in my model and what's not there, you just have to study my works (see Refs.)Then we can discuss.

Regards



adel sadeq replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 20:34 GMT
Dear George,

Although I was brief but I thought I was clear. I said I have many things to say, but first I wanted to discuss EPR, I did not find anywhere were you discuss it although you have it as reference [14].

report post as inappropriate

Author George Kirakosyan replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 04:33 GMT
Dear Sadeq

You have talking about my article that published 4-5 year ago, in reviewed journal. And the reference seems to me well in the context. However, If you are not so happy with this then please tell me what I need do now?

regards




Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 10:25 GMT
Dear George Kirakosyan!

I invite you to familiarize yourself with New Cartesian Physic

I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to write it.

If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better.

I wish to see your criticism on the New Cartesian Physic, the founder of which I call myself.

The concept of moving space-matter helped me:

- The uncertainty principle Heisenberg to make the principle of definiteness of points of space-matter;

- Open the law of the constancy of the flow of forces through a closed surface is the sphere of space-matter;

- Open the law of universal attraction of Lorentz;

- Give the formula for the pressure of the Universe;

- To give a definition of gravitational mass as the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration across the surface of the corpuscles, etc.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show this potential in his essay I gave The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural . Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. Note my statement that our brain creates an image of the outside world no inside, and in external space. Hope you rate my essay as high as I am yours. I am waiting your post.



Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate


Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 11:50 GMT
Dear Boris!

I am very grateful to your attention to my work and your willingness to support me. I downloaded your work and began to study it. And it seems to me that we are striving for a largely common goal.

 1. You note, for example, that you explained the essence of the Lorentz transformation in the Cartesian coordinate system - this is extremely interesting to me, because I also tried to do the same, though, somewhat differently (see in Ref. [3]).

 2. You also talk about the principle of uncertainty of Heisenberg, which is also an intriguing topic for me.

 3. The problem of gravity, and the task of accurately assessing Einstein's legacy, are also very close to me questions.

 4. On your results on the interpretation of paranormal phenomena, however, I can not say anything definite, because I have not dealt with these problems yet. But, I'm sure that I can find there valuable approaches for me, in the near future. If questions arise, I think you will help!

 So, for this preliminary inspection, I can only welcome your work and definitely support you!

With good wishes,




Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 23:51 GMT
Dear George

I have just read with interest your essay critical of the state of physics today. You make a plea for leaders in the field (Prima Donnas) to re-examine their fundamental beliefs. You are also a little apologetic about making such demands. I used to be that way too but if one believes something needs to be changed it is good to declare it clearly. Your essay refers to how the role of the observer became central. I have been very critical of Einstein for confusing physics by introducing such an observer in Special Relativity in my current my fqxi essay which you kindly read. I was curious that you said there are tens of thousands of opposition physicists. Where did you arrive at that figure? I had a quick look at your theory of the electron but I am not qualified to judge it.

Physics is fun. I wish you all the best in your study and work.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author George Kirakosyan replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 05:45 GMT
Shokran Vladimir,

Now I understand that you really has an artist's soul.

I also understand that for you it is more important human attitude than other things! So, we can talk long and to say many nice things each to other, but let me just stop on two your remarks. 1. On scientists - protestants. Yes, there are unbelievable number of oppositions in present physics, who are under global pressing of "official science." And no need go so far to find them, my friend - we can find someone right here! I mean Eugeny Klingman, for example, who goes now on the top. God help to him (but I have doubt!) we will see! You can find many of them, using google even.

2. About role of Einstein: There are 3 Einstein for me; early, medium and last. First one is what you say. The second one was who already get huge success (by some specific way for known to you kind of people.) But for us it must be more important a third Einstein, when he have understand that he has done many wrong things then he tried to catch shaitan and put again in the bottle ... but it was already out of his power! THEY had say him - thank you "habibi" what you have done, but now you must go away ... and he become one very tragic person, to end of his life!

Be well, my friend.




James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 18:41 GMT
George,

Well done. You deliberately and logically present the essentials for the right aims and intents of the conscious mind of the observer. Good process analysis. Like the independent thinkers of old, we must ignore politicization and bias of the times and utilize natural law.

Depending on the frame of observation, my highly speculative hypothesis about dark matter, needs the ideal observer who depends on galactic field studies to see if dark matter is not an independent field like most DM scientists are prone to believe but possible one generated by the galactic motions and forces of gravity, EM, and the strong and weak force all in tandem.

It is only a thought experiment, maybe in the vein of Einstein, but one that is out of the box -- somewhat in your thought train. You provide important steps for agency and intent.

Hope you can check out my essay and provide your thoughts.

Regards,

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Author George Kirakosyan replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 05:36 GMT
Dear James,

Thank you for attention on my work. I appreciate your support!

Coming to your essay I will just emphasize some points that you says: "Such laws are not mindless ..." Then you says "they not dictate the aim ...". This almost is enough to me to understand your vision on the contest question. Then you goes a little on side and you linked the aim with the entropy. This I can welcome only (I think not me only!) because the connection of the entropy with system organisation it should be obvious to everybody. And, the purposefulness cannot be without organisation. So, this also is nice!

But let me just tell you friendly that I am a little bit sceptical to dark matter. If you will ask my advice here then I will say - It will better to wait until we understand the physical essence of gravity phenomena, the elementary particles etc. I mean, it maybe that time we just will see that the ''dark matter" becomes not so necessary!

And, in the common sense your essay are one of nice works in the contest. So, I can wish you success only!

Best regards




John C Hodge wrote on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 19:44 GMT
The FQXi is a very social oriented group. The thing you disagree with is the social rating type of group. The majority of folks in this contest don't even address the stated task. (I think only 3 perhaps 4). I like it because in past years there have been a few points I find interesting. The group generally dislikes my ideas. Because they are so different from the status quo. I've had many tell...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren wrote on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 10:16 GMT
Dear George Kirakosyan,

The speed of light in vacuum is constant relative to ‘Space’ itself, instead of relative to a material object. Therefore, the speed of electromagnetic wave is not only a speed but also a fundamental property of nature, which can be a key property to generate gravitational and inertial forces.

With Best Regards,

Ch.Bayarsaikhan

report post as inappropriate

Author George Kirakosyan replied on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 12:05 GMT
Dear Bayarsaikhan

Yes, I agree that //The speed of light in vacuum is constant// However, on //relative to ‘Space’ itself, instead of relative to a material object// it is not so unequivocally as this seems. Particularly, from this imagination has been arisen the existence of ether or (absolute system of measurement) that breaks Galilean relativity principle. This theme is large to start discuss it right here.

Check please in my article (in Refs) What I need to say It is there. I cannot say you will accept with me, but I do not have other answer. I already have evaluated (and criticized also) your work earlier (see my previous comment)

Let my wish you success!




Stefan Keppeler wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 21:04 GMT
Dear George,

you asked me to comment here. Obviously you have interpreted the theme of the contest in a very different way than me. (The topic was broad!) Thus, I'm not sure if can add very much to your analysis. But let my try to point you to a few places, risking that it's not all that new to you. First, given your general remarks about politics and sociology within the scientific community, you might enjoy the classic books "Against Method" and "Science in a Free Society" by Paul Feyerabend. Second, I believe that if the moon is there when I look at it, then it is also there when I don't look. There are realistic theories which can be used instead of (standard) quantum mechanics, the best-known being De Broglie-Bohm theory (same predictions as quantum mechanics). Finally, I have lots of sympathy for viewing mathematics as a tool created to do physics although there are areas of mathematics for which some people might argue otherwise.

Cheers, Stefan

report post as inappropriate


sherman loran jenkins wrote on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 20:56 GMT
Hi Gevorg,

The scope of this contest is vast for several reasons. For one, interpretation of the challenge is dependent on each person’s own understanding of several terms in the question; this alone has the effect of presenting hundreds of questions. And the added challenge to avoid our pet notions and (WHAT?) go with politically recognized but conflicting concepts while addressing a very basic question.

I enjoyed your presentation and commiserate with your angst pertaining to the opportunity the scientific community has lost in the last hundred years. But, even with this loss, it seems that science, math, and technology have evolved much faster than common sense concerns like morals, ethics, politics, and religion.

Sherman

report post as inappropriate


Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 06:03 GMT
Sherman,

I opened your opus and I seen there are written: //Author Bio// and such a text under that chapter:

//Question geometry, numbers “dark and light.” How to ask and answer. “How does sun light make shadows?” Seeing our home and garage at (36.933804, -93.055313) one can imagine what this question was for me ....//!!!

Then it become for my very difficult to imagine anything! Thus, I have seen that it will too difficult to continue ....

I just would to understand - Sorry, to what purpose you are here?

Maybe it will more right directed this question to FQXi administration?




Member Noson S. Yanofsky wrote on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 23:04 GMT
Hi,

Thank you for looking at my paper and commenting.

I like your paper. To me, there are valid criticisms of the way that science is happening now. Perhaps it belongs in a sociology of science journal. I agree with you about math being man-made. My paper pushes this also.

All the best,

Noson

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 04:38 GMT
Thank you dear professor, for answering my post and favorable words on my work. This important for me as a opinion of one deeply thinker specialist. Unfortunately our approach on the role and significance of math are some different from opinions of many important bosses in present science. However, we can thinking as we see it correct.

Maybe I have not enough level to say this, but I think...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Natesh Ganesh wrote on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 18:38 GMT
Dear George,

Your essay is very interesting and has given me much food for thought. I must admit that I must do some more research to understand some of problems in the way modern science is done, that you have pointed out. I will say that I agree that the role of the observer is of utmost importance and we need to have extremely clear definitions of such an observer's capacities and capabilities. I thank you for your discussions on that. Your work has been a good read. Good luck on the contest.

Cheers

Natesh

report post as inappropriate


Giovanni Prisinzano wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 20:47 GMT
Dear George,

Your essay has been for me a very informative and useful reading, because it raises many questions about the current state of scientific research and offers insight on the uneasy relations between the "official" science and the independent research. I am not a physicist or a mathematician and I certainly cannot evaluate to what extent the situation of the current paradigms of these two sciences is lacking. However, I share with you the view that the nature of fundamental particles has not yet been clarified (and the frequent discovery of new more and more evanescent particles does not improve the situation) and that the relationship between mathematics and reality should be reconsidered. But I must admit that the way in which you criticize the mainstream of current research seems to me somewhat too polemical (but maybe it's a matter of taste). I don't think that the boundaries between truth and error in human knowledge (apart from logic and pure mathematics) are so clear and I don't even know if there is a specific plan by the prevailing scientific community to support at any cost some particular theoretical framework. As for the quantum representation of reality (QR), that you think has favored a distorted view of things, it seems clear that quantum mechanics actually works, but no one knows yet why it works. It is likely that the interpretations proposed so far, including that of Copenhagen, are not correct or are incomplete, but we have still to find the right way to replace them. It is not an easy task and I think, but perhaps I'm deceiving myself, that philosophy has something to say about it.

My very kind regards for you,

Giovanni

report post as inappropriate


Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 04:27 GMT
Dear Giovanni

Thank you very much for your favorable words and valuable remarks. These are good support to me, a morally only, but it is also the support. I see mainly we are like-minded people, and let me be just tell some small remarks only:

1. You says //the nature of fundamental particles (and QR) has not yet been clarified// - but you already know one crazy guy who says "I know this" and he points on the large works and on the concretely results (see Refs)

2. Then you says //I am not a mathematician and nor the physicist ...etc.//

My dear, the philosophy was a father of all sciences, then the philosophers must have more priority to instruct and evaluate of mathematicians and physicists (as their non-thankful sons!) than the opposite!

However, I think everything is in the usual rule of things!

Be well and many successes to you!




Robert Groess wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 16:34 GMT
Dear George Kirakosyan,

Thank you for pointing me to your essay. You have covered a lot of ground and I sometimes wonder if key insights you share are lost in translation. Having said that there is a nugget you mentioned that deserves more attention. In reference to the original question, you state "This may happen, if ... aims and intentions can be mindless!" I think many authors have not considered this as a case study and you have inspired me to think more about it.

In any event I wanted to let you know I have also rated your essay in the meantime.

Regards,

Robert

report post as inappropriate


Koorosh Shahdaei wrote on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 17:38 GMT
Dear George,

You have written a very good essay and I agree to most of the facts that you brought up. Sometimes I feel some that kind of mentality that existed during Galileo still remains in some area, therefore like other people in this forum I believe the modern physics needs change course in some of its areas.

I wish you very good luck in your essay.

Warm regards

Koorosh

report post as inappropriate

Author George Kirakosyan replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 06:03 GMT
Many Thanks for your kindly comment!




Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 06:01 GMT
Hi dear Eckard,

I have read your essay (in known meaning) and I feel that you are one person who are inclined to bitterly criticism. My dear, there is small quantity people who like such persons. (I think for this your position in the rating list looks not so happy!) In my opinion however, any valuable thing impossible to created without serious criticism. But this is the reality. For example, we well understanding what will happen if the critic-wolf will be absent in the forest, - and we continue kill them. So I can be fully with you and even good supporting to you (because me also are somewhat critic!) let me give you one technological advice only - It will better to take one concrete nail and to bit it to end! You can try, for example, to cut whole physics by Occam's razor - to see what remain there after? (I am trying do this in my works) I do not know how will useful my support to you but I am going to do it.

Good wishes to you, in your hard work.




basudeba mishra wrote on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 04:19 GMT
Dear Sir,

You are absolutely right about the central role of the Observer, because, without observation, nothing exists for the system. By this, we imply the triplet of the Observer, the Observed and the Mechanism of Observation. The last two make sense only if the Observer observes. For this reason, “his own ability and rightness of actions” cannot be questioned or even discussed, as...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 04:54 GMT
Many thanks dear basudeba, for your kindly words and mostly, for your meaningful remarks on the relation of reality, math and physics. I can add only one remark - many of us have thinking that the God had special intention - to hid from us the secrets of his creation. I am thinking (and I see that you also!) that the problem of cognition are linked with us, but not with the Creator!

I wish you all the best!




Member Rick Searle wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 01:34 GMT
Hello George,

I really enjoyed your essay. I loved quote about Bruno- "Do you think the fuel will be enough?', but more seriously found myself nodding in agreement to observations such as this:

"I think it may be enough to remember that mathematics has been our valuable language - tool, created and developed by us to make our job easier. As we see now, it has become some omnipotent - cabalistic knowledge, with hurried hands of advanced theorists, who have long believed that it may guide them to incredible new successes!"

I am not sure if he’s right, but see you like a prophet crying in the wilderness who should be paid attention to.

It struck me that perhaps the change physics seems to need to escape its current dead end will come from a prophet/outsider from beyond the geographical or institutional centers of physics.

I wish you Godspeed in that,

Rick Searle

report post as inappropriate


Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 04:50 GMT
Dear Rick

Your favorable words are over of any my expectations! It's very encouraging for me to meet with people who preferring thinking by own head. We know the bosses always are right in life. I think, however in the science every thinker must be free to feel himself an small prophet. Then we can cry in our deserts, hoping somebody will passed nearest! Now I'm thinking it may really happen.

Thank you, and my best wishes to you!




Rajiv K Singh wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 10:17 GMT
Dear George,

I am responding to the note that you left on my essay. But then you chose not to mention anything about the essay.

I perused your essay first time on 22nd March. While reading, I got the impression that your central theme is to bring to the fore the problems in modern scientific thinking and what plagues science today in general. I agreed with several of those observations. So I also wrote a note of response about that. But as I read further, I noticed that you have a scientific proposal of your own for the contest.

I do agree with the conclusion though: Thus, it will be a simple lexical mistake to say - "math defines or manages things", since natural laws do this. Thus, mathematics is our tool that cannot work by itself, rule something, or give us useful results.

But, I could not follow the entire logic leading to that. So, I decided not to rate the essay.

Rajiv

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 12:45 GMT
Dear George,

I would ask you something, reading your amazing essay. The matter is I have read somewhere that famous Wolfgang Pauli had bitterly joking before he died, by saying: "when I die the first thing for me it will be to ask of devil - where from arises the alpha (1/137)?" Moreover, brilliant Feynman has written: "this mysterious number is a punishment of God to all physicists, as till now we have not even serious idea where from it appears!" So, I has come into shock when I has find in your papers that this mystery is solved! Moreover, I seen there that 2-3 professors have confirmed correctness your solution of this unimaginable problem. But I still would like asking you - Is it really this like that? I see your essay as high - valuable!

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author George Kirakosyan replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 05:41 GMT
Dear Vladimir

I will answer simply as your question is – yes, my dear! I have solved this problem. The matter is however, that the market management does not need to see this; they have preferred to see how people beating by their heads on the wall… Regarding on this I can suggest you rereading the “Gulliver's Travels” of amazing English classic’s Jonathan Swift, - namely, the chapter devoted to “Grand Academy of Lagado.” I think our present situation somewhat close to this.

Thanks for attention and Best wishes to you!




Cristinel Stoica wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 17:26 GMT
Dear George,

You raise interesting criticism of contemporary science in your essay, with well justified arguments but also some that maybe are less justified. It seems that you have an alternative explanation for some of the phenomena, and I wish you good luck exploring your ideas.

Best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Author George Kirakosyan replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 05:28 GMT
Dear Cristi

Many thanks for your attention and kindly words.

You are right - I have some alternative approach and own explanations to many of basic problems hoping somebody can show interest to this.

Many thanks again and good wishes to you!




Jose P. Koshy wrote on Apr. 11, 2017 @ 10:06 GMT
George Kirokasyan,

I completely agree with you on the following points: 'the significance of math apparatus was elevated to some unexplainable - mystical level'; 'All kinds of particles are formed from the same primordial substance. The huge numbers of different unstable particles cannot represent any interest and perceptivity for study'.

However, I disagree with the tone of the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author George Kirakosyan replied on Apr. 11, 2017 @ 12:07 GMT
Dear Koshy

If we kill all mathematicians and burn all handbooks then what will remain after? I can tell you that there will remains the quantity conservation laws only that we can find again experimentally (1=1 =/ 0). However, somebody can build the same math apparatus again by using this mentioned single principle only. The evidence of this can serve binary calculus system where every kind of possible calculus transformed to sum of nulls and units. This shows the smallest (technical only) role of math apparatus in the scientific research and its unnecessary elevation to mystically significance. For you It will very difficult be agree with this, - but you try do it for yourself!




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.