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

Paul Butler: on 2/25/17 at 21:28pm UTC, wrote Dear Declan, The problem with considering the universe to be God is that...

Declan Traill: on 2/23/17 at 23:27pm UTC, wrote Correction: anthropology should read Anthropic (auto correct error)

Declan Traill: on 2/23/17 at 23:25pm UTC, wrote Paul, Surely you have heard of the anthropology principle? Namely: of...

Paul Butler: on 2/23/17 at 19:53pm UTC, wrote Dear Declan, I realize that there are those who just consider anything...

Declan Traill: on 2/21/17 at 1:16am UTC, wrote Paul, Sure there is a lot to learn that we don't know and possibly...

Paul Butler: on 2/20/17 at 23:53pm UTC, wrote Dear Declan, Are you aware of any of these tricks or are you just...

Declan Traill: on 2/20/17 at 5:57am UTC, wrote Paul, You are assuming that the proteins were built in one go from...

Paul Butler: on 2/20/17 at 3:44am UTC, wrote Dear Declan, I guess I just got carried away. To me, the source of the...


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: The key requirements that allow goal oriented structures to develop in the Universe by Declan Andrew Traill [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

This essay's rating: Community = 5.6; Public = 5.5


Author Declan Andrew Traill wrote on Feb. 3, 2017 @ 21:12 GMT
Essay Abstract

A number of key principles that allow goal-oriented systems to develop in the Universe can be identified. All are closely linked to Physics and the Mathematics that describes how it works, but none is more essential than the fact that the energy in the Universe has a wave nature and is able to form stable three dimensional standing wave structures that persist over time. We know these structures as particles.

Author Bio

I am a senior software engineer from Melbourne Australia. Theoretical Physics is and has been by interest and hobby for many years.

Download Essay PDF File




John C Hodge wrote on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 06:41 GMT
You have come very close to the Scalar Theory Of Everything model (STOE). It also has energy being pumped into our universe through Spiral galaxies an sunk (if there is an "input" there must be an "output") in elliptical galaxies. I also endorse the fractal and feedback principles, and the emergent principle. The exception is the STOE's need for an agent to form the gravitational field that can support wave action.

report post as inappropriate

Author Declan Andrew Traill replied on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 07:33 GMT
Hi John,

Thank you for your comment. Actually I too assume a field that causes gravity and the effects of Relativity. Please refer to my first FQXi essay in 2012 titled "A Classical Reconstruction of Relativity" for my ideas on that. I have not heard of STOE, though I am intrigued now. I don't see the need for a source and sink for energy in the Universe - it simply exists and changes form over time. That is not to say I exclude a possible creation of energy somehow, but there is no evidence for it and remains probably the biggest mystery in Physics - where did and how did the Universe come to exist rather than just nothingness?



John C Hodge replied on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 11:45 GMT
I would be supprised if you had heard of the STOE. It is radical by the establishment standards. I was a published author in peer reviewed jounals, then the development of the STOE start and I wrote in the arxiv. When examining the pioneer anomaly, arxiv dropped me.

You can see short videos on various topics at

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc0mfCssV32dDhDgwqLJjpw

pape
r references are given at the end of each segment.

I'll look up your 2012 essay.

In section 3 of my essay contribution has the how of the entropy issue you address. The entropy of the universe remains nearly constant (I'm hard pressed to find that reference now) Yet, entropy is constantly increasing as you note. The universe cannot be adiabatic. The CMB paper shows how the temperature is what it is - no other model does this.

Where the universe came from is a mystery science has yet to find a model. I'm confident in a few thousand years there may be a model.

Hodge

report post as inappropriate

Author Declan Andrew Traill replied on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 12:17 GMT
Thanks for the link.

How did you get to publish in the first place. Every attempt I have made to good peer reviewed journals has been rejected, even when it is new, original work and quite a concise proof that makes sense and brings clear insight to how the physics works (for example: explanations for Relativistic mass increase, length contraction, time dilation, or Fresnel dragging, or wave functions for the electron/positron). All were rejected and I had to publish online in little known peer reviewed journals or on Vixra. Do you have to be an academic working in a University to be recognized as worthy? Or is it simply whether you are in full agreement with the established line? If so then how will any new idea get any traction?




Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 14:55 GMT
Declan,

Welcome to the contest. The zero'th law was a nice touch. All in all it is a good effort. Having said that, you relied upon emergence as a magical property to produce intelligence. Emergence is a shared theme by many of the essays this time. Don't take that as a criticism ... I did not even attempt to address the issue and instead focused on eliminating the "arrow of time" requirement of time evolution. Your initial step of an available long-term energy source seems to be a novel concept thus far in the contest. Essentially, you create local order at the expense of a greater amount of large scale disorder. The weakness of that is that there is order at large scale in the form of galaxy clusters and super clusters.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Declan Andrew Traill replied on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 20:56 GMT
Hi Gary,



Thank you for the welcome and positive comments. We can perceive order in the form of galaxy clusters and super clusters, but is this really order in the Thermodynamic sense? On the Wiki page on the laws of Thermodynamics it states that a system "will eventually reach a mutual thermodynamic equilibrium". While stars in galaxies are still burning, equilibrium has not yet been reached.

Regards,

Declan



Gary D. Simpson replied on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 22:08 GMT
Declan,

You misunderstand the thermodynamic meaning of both entropy and equilibrium. It might as well be argued that no equilibrium ever truly exists and therefore thermodynamics is meaningless. Nonetheless, thermodynamic predictions are accurate when applied correctly.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 22:41 GMT
Gary,

But entropy "is a measure of the number of microscopic configurations that a thermodynamic system can have" (wiki page on Entropy). In a galaxy comprised primarily of stars/hot gas/plasma there is high entropy due to the fast moving, essentially random motions of the particles; even though on a large scale there appears to be an organized structure.

Regards,

Declan

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 5, 2017 @ 00:34 GMT
Dear Declan Andrew Traill,

you mentioned in 2 nd paragraph............ but only the structures that can persist in their environment will survive ..........

Why you require structures, how structures are formed, is it something like radiation dominated era you are talking about...?

But anyway,

When stars are there , there are cold places also exist as we see....

You mentioned energy to matter conversion as very important........... please check Dynamic Universe model's paper in viXra on this subject, where a mechanism was shown to convert energy to matter.

report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 5, 2017 @ 00:55 GMT
Dear Declan Andrew Traill,

you mentioned in 2 nd paragraph............ but only the structures that can persist in their environment will survive ..........

Why you require structures, how structures are formed, is it something like radiation dominated era you are talking about...?

But anyway,

When stars are there , there are cold places also exist as we see....

You mentioned energy to matter conversion as very important........... please check Dynamic Universe model's paper in viXra on this subject, where a mechanism was shown to convert energy to matter.

Sorry I did not notice I was logged out, I think FQXi computer system logs out automatically after sometime. That's why I repeated my post with the name visible...

report post as inappropriate


Author Declan Andrew Traill wrote on Feb. 5, 2017 @ 05:12 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu,

Structures form due to electromagnetic bonds forming (I did mention that the Electromagnetic force was the main force at play on the particle level). This can only occur, however, if the environment is not too hot or being bombarded by too much radiation, as these things will destroy structures and break the bonds between particles.

I will have a look on viXra - do you have a link to the paper you are referring to?

Regards,

Declan



Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 7, 2017 @ 17:00 GMT
Dear Mr. Traill,

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 “A number of key principles that allow goal-oriented systems to develop in the Universe can be identified.”

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


Paul N Butler wrote on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 18:48 GMT
Your post on my paper’s page:

...And so who made God?

God is not a solution, only another question...

Declan T

Dear Declan,

That is a good question, but it does not mean that God is not the solution as to how the universe and life were created. It would just be the next logical question to ask once you came to the conclusion that he did create them. We know...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Declan Andrew Traill wrote on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 06:30 GMT
Wow, I think that comment is another essay!

I do not wish to start a Science v's Religion debate.

I do want to dispute a couple of your points though:

You assert there is not enough time for life to have evolved, but there is an enormous amount of material that is all reacting and undergoing change at the same time - thus a massively parallel computer in effect. This multiplies the available time for reactions to take place by a truly enormous number. Also there may be certain fortuitous events (such as certain materials acting as catalyst in reactions) that short-circuit the processes and allow certain reactions to occur much more easily and quickly, given the right conditions.

Also, there is some evidence that has been detected (by Roger Penrose's team a few years ago, I think) of the echoes of previous Big Bangs that occurred before our most recent one. This could indicate that the Universe is much older than originally thought, or even of infinite age (i.e. has always existed).

It depends on your point of view: If one were to say that the Universe IS god then there is no need for it to have been created, and it might have always existed. This might be a good way for Science and Religion to unite in some fashion.



Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 03:44 GMT
Dear Declan,

I guess I just got carried away. To me, the source of the universe and all things in it is the most important understanding to obtain because everything else expands from that and there is so much to it, so I can go on for a much longer time than I did to explain everything, but for your sake I will try to keep this comment shorter.

I was not talking much about the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Declan Andrew Traill replied on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 05:57 GMT
Paul,

You are assuming that the proteins were built in one go from scratch. No doubt there are countless clever tricks that nature used to generate these structures in the time available. Catalysis is just one such example. There would be quantum leaps in structure creation in the same sort of way that we have big advances in technology that completely revolutionize the world each time they occur. These sorts of developments in living organisms may not occur very often, but when they do, they can have huge ramifications for the development of living creatures and they build upon one another.

Just as an internet search engine can find things very quickly without having to trawl through every web page on the internet every time a search is done, nature no doubt has ways to fast track the process of developing structures that work and persist without having to try every possible combination of atoms.

Regards,

Declan



Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 23:53 GMT
Dear Declan,

Are you aware of any of these tricks or are you just imagining the possibility of them? Imagining possibilities without a clear workable concept and without any observational evidence of their existence is not really science. It is just your desired belief. I learned a long time ago that if I really wanted to know how things really work I have to stay within the constraints...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jeff Yee wrote on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 01:59 GMT
Declan,

I fully agree with your concluding paragraph about the wave nature of particles. But I'm curious about your thoughts on entropy which you lead with in your paper. Do you have an idea how entropy fits into WSM (wave structure of matter)?

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Author Declan Andrew Traill replied on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 02:31 GMT
Hi Jeff,

The consideration of entropy really only applies to atoms/molecules rather than fundamental particles. It expresses the order/disorder of bulk atoms/molecules. The entropy reduction is required so that composite structures can become ordered and not torn apart by random heat 'noise' that tends to destroy such ordered structures.

Having said that, the original formation of fundamental particles from random wave activity could be considered as involving a reduction in entropy - thus ordered 3D standing wave structures form from disordered wave activity. In this case it is the mathematics of the stable standing wave, wave-functions that brings order to the chaos of random wave motion, thus allowing stable fundamental particles to form and persist.

Regards,

Declan




Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'J' and 'L':


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