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 2/25/17 at 7:19am UTC, wrote Dear Gary, You have used the the complex vector representation and the...

George Kirakosyan: on 2/25/17 at 4:30am UTC, wrote Dear Harry I am thankful that you are with me! We must to join our efforts...

Gary Simpson: on 2/24/17 at 22:44pm UTC, wrote George, Many thanks for an enjoyable and insightful essay. You are very...

George Kirakosyan: on 2/22/17 at 8:52am UTC, wrote George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 08:47 GMT Dear Eugene, I have...

Steve Dufourny: on 2/21/17 at 10:52am UTC, wrote You are welcome Mr Kirakosyan, I liked your general ideas. No I have not...

George Kirakosyan: on 2/21/17 at 8:06am UTC, wrote Dear Eugene, Thank you for attention, I am always looking to find my...

Edwin Klingman: on 2/21/17 at 5:29am UTC, wrote Dear George Kirakosyan, I followed your essay to your viXra 'wave-vortex'...

Wilhelmus Wilde: on 2/20/17 at 14:32pm UTC, wrote Dear George, In your emergent reality (the one you are experiencing right...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jose Koshy: "James Putnam, What do you mean by the acceleration of light? Do you mean..." in Alternative Models of...

Jose Koshy: "Steven, Because we are not sitting face to face, I may not be replying..." in Alternative Models of...

Algernon kk: "Steve Agnew is a legend for doing that. A lot of people at online resume..." in Weinberg: Why quantum...

Mohan rao: "Voot app free download Flash Recovery" in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Mohan rao: "My partner and I stumbled over here different website and thought I might..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Gary Simpson: "Ted, BTW, it is the community vote that matters ... not the public vote...." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Gary Simpson: "Ted, You statement regarding your score does not make any sense. You..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Algernon kk: "Steve Agnew is a legend for doing that. A lot of people at custom..." in Weinberg: Why quantum...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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)

Rescuing Reality
A "retrocausal" rewrite of physics, in which influences from the future can affect the past, could solve some quantum quandaries—saving Einstein's view of reality along the way.


FQXi FORUM
February 28, 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.

This essay's rating: Community = 6.0; Public = 5.3


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 meanness in my view, which cannot have anything common with the objective criticism and to science at all! So, we must seriously thinking ourselves – who and on what purpose does such things?

I would say that your article seems to me as an impressive - serious research work that must to deserve the attention of specialists in this area. I will study your works in good time, and then we can exchanging with our viewpoints.

With all best wishes

George К. (Георгий Киракосян)




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 give, excluding high awards and short euphoria?"

You went on to suggest a fundamental particle which I also believe will be proven one day. I think you mention the electron as a potential candidate, but I'd argue for the neutrino since it's a known particle that has a much smaller rest energy than the electron. My colleagues and I did some work on this subject and posted it as a submission for this contest if you are interested to read our findings.

Regards,

Jeff

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


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 with you that our century-old methodology was adopted politically, and is maintained politically, despite inconsistencies and underdetermination issues. I address aspects of this in my essay, in terms of projections on reality which, as you point out, do not similarly confuse economists, businessmen, engineers, 'who also use math in their daily jobs'. Instead (some) physicists "elevate their mathematical apparatus to a mystical level." Yes...'serious intellectual problems'. You remind us that "many indisputable founders of physics...have preferred to go away from "official" science." There is no sensible answer to your question about the Higgs; and you are correct about the electron! Both c,h and inter-transmutation of particles support your thesis that all kinds of particles are formed from the same substance.

So I agree with most of your essay and much of your viXra paper and I enjoyed reading them. I invite you to read my essay.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

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 have presented one of nice work in the contest.

It is well formatted, the meaningful content is well narrated, and, which is more significantly to me, it seems earnestly by itself. I mean the author does not try to convince others something such, when he is himself not convinced in that matter.

I think also that we not need talk about significance of math, of natural laws, or about of fundamental principles because it will be the repetition of ours works what we know already and mainly we can be agree each to other, as I believe from your comment.

Coming to a contest question, we (or, me only) can be agreeing just, that the question is formulated somewhat not so correct (subtly speaking!) Therefore, we (or, me only) have no right to spend the time on this, but we initially should to decide for ourselves that this task hardly could have some perspective. We do not know even the nature of force that presses to us in our chair, as well as how is constructed the nucleons etc. and meantime we hope to explain how working our brain! Excuse me, I never will try do this, even I have there some definitely ideas on this matter. I will never sound on this matter, as I am sure this will empty occupation, as nobody can prove it, to accept it, or use it etc. I would say the things should have their time, - first need to build the ground floor, then next ones. Maybe I am so critical, but we do not have the real chance to solve such category of questions, as we do not have even the real basic natural science for today ….

Your essay is really highly appreciable in my view!




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




Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'E' and 'G':


Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.