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

Vladimir Tamari: on 4/8/17 at 23:25pm UTC, wrote Dear Ray Thank you for your commisseration- so far so good! I have read...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 4/7/17 at 11:00am UTC, wrote Dear Sirs! Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of...

Thomas Ray: on 4/6/17 at 18:35pm UTC, wrote Defending my defense of Einstein, attached.

Thomas Ray: on 4/5/17 at 20:18pm UTC, wrote Vladimir: I suspect that few if any among us have examined our biases and...

Thomas Ray: on 4/4/17 at 14:37pm UTC, wrote Reference to advantages of Majorana particles: ...

Thomas Ray: on 4/4/17 at 14:30pm UTC, wrote Awww, I didn't know you were taking chemo treatments, Vladimir. Wishing...

James Hoover: on 4/4/17 at 5:40am UTC, wrote Thomas, Time grows short, so I am reviewing those I've read to see if I...

Vladimir Tamari: on 4/4/17 at 0:20am UTC, wrote Hi Tom Glad you are doing better - so am I (chemo). My idea about...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Nice, well done. Clear explanations of the ideas by all of the speakers. I..." in The Multiverse - Part 2...

Farzad Nekoogar: "Part 2 of the Multiverse documentary is now released on the YouTube: ..." in The Multiverse - Part 2...

Pentcho Valev: "Compatibility of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity: Impossible A Priori ..." in We Are All Connected

kurt stocklmeir: "neutrinos are tachyons - neutrinos flying around the universe would have an..." in Alternative Models of...

Gary Simpson: "All, Is there any empirical evidence that the electron orbitals of an..." in Real-Time Physics

Georgina Woodward: "Hi William, Thanks for your answer. The motivation for the vibration..." in Alternative Models of...

Ken Seto: "I endorse the idea of Newton’s “absolute time”. However, we have no..." in Real-Time Physics

kurt stocklmeir: "if space is expanding and if this makes positive energy particles have a..." in Alternative Models of...


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
May 28, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: The Dynamics of Einstein Separability. by Thomas Howard Ray [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 20:21 GMT
Essay Abstract

Are cognizance and consciousness innate to our brain-minds, or the effect of a negative environmental feedback loop? We argue the latter case.

Author Bio

Independent researcher, complex systems.

Download Essay PDF File




Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 04:54 GMT
This was an interesting read Tom..

The neutrino experiment you propose is interesting. It was not hard to justify giving you a moderately high rating, to help offset the 1 bomb you received early on. I Have not found any essays worthy of less that a 4, and I have only given ratings of 5 or higher so far. But I guess some folks figure that only an on-target essay should be given a decent grade - or something like that.

I wish you luck. Your essay is well written and deserves some positive attention.

All the Best.

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 15:58 GMT
Jonathan,

Thanks for the "gentleman's 'C'".

I would much rather preferred that you understood the implications of the experiment.



Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 20:12 GMT
I expect to revisit it..

I try to plow through a large number of essays early on, before becoming more selective and thorough. Some are too dense to get through in a single run, because they cram in a lot of content or use heavy Maths elaborately. Lawrence Crowell tends to write using a lot of acronyms, along with tricky Math, which may impress a few people while losing many others.

Your paper was clearly written, but perhaps I missed something profound behind the apparent simplicity of it. It seems like you are looking for a specific quantum gravity signature, and that it might also be difficult to precisely compensate for background neutrino flux. Would a colder fluid like liquid Helium provide greater isolation from thermal effects, being closer to absolute zero?

I visited with CardioMag developer Karl Rosner last year, and they have a device that measures the heart's dynamic magnetic field with femto-Tesla sensitivity. But as you might imagine; it was a real problem to deal with the fact that magnetism is ubiquitous. How does one measure a deviation so small, in a magnetically noisy environment?

It looks like you are proposing to use something just below a critical threshold, and a collimated beams of neutrinos. I don't know how one might direct a neutrino-beam with precision. It might be tough to overcome the engineering challenges to conduct the experiment. I like the idea, but it still seems a bit incomplete.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 01:02 GMT
I'll leave the materials science to the experimentalists.

The experimental result, however, has implications for, among other things, quantum computing without the need for entanglement.

All based on a simple harmonic oscillation.




Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 14:23 GMT
Hi Tom,

Happy to see you again on FQXI and your papper,I asked me but where is Tom? :)

Relevant general reading ,thanks for sharing and good luck in this contest.

Best

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 16:00 GMT
Thanks, Steve.




Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 15:47 GMT
Dear Thomas Howard Ray,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

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

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 perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 15:56 GMT
Joe,

What is simpler than a simple harmonic oscillation?



Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 16:59 GMT
Thomas,

Without a doubt, it am the indisputable fact that 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.

Invisible “harmonic oscillation” am not simple.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 18:17 GMT
Why do you think a harmonic oscillation is invisible?




Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 06:43 GMT
Dear Ray,

Nice essay sir,

Your ideas and observations are excellent. Firstly … ‘We intend to show that unified spacetime does not imply a mutually exclusive internal or external consciousness, and Einstein separability 2 is physically real’…..

2. The Bohm-Hiley nonlocal interpretation preserves the classical notion that particles do possess a position and momentum...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 14:35 GMT
Tom,

Nice essay ... I'm glad to see someone propose an experiment.

FYI, Dr. Klingman also proposes a consciousness field, although his experimental basis differs from yours.

I have a few questions for you beginning near the bottom of page 2 of your essay. You present a schematic of two self-interacting fields. Should not the observer O be either 2+ or 2- to maintain neutrality? Assuming that the observer is the same for both fields, does this imply that the observer O is himself an alternating electro-magnetic field? Does the requirement that there be a pair of complimentary self-interacting fields account for the universe/self dichotomy? I might have made one of the triangles upside down to emphasize that the observer is changing.

Lastly, do you argue that if the cosmic background were warmer, there would be no gravity and no self-awareness?

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 15:46 GMT
Thank you, Gary, for a most thoughtful and insightful post.

I'll look forward to reading Gene's essay. We agree on many things in principle (consciousness field among them).

" ... near the bottom of page 2 of your essay. You present a schematic of two self-interacting fields. Should not the observer O be either 2+ or 2- to maintain neutrality?"

It doesn't matter, physically,...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 15:48 GMT
Sorry, lost my log-in



Gary D. Simpson replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 14:35 GMT
Tom,

Your speculation regarding gravity, consciousness, and the temperature of the background radiation is interesting ...

I don't know about awareness, but I could believe that gravity did not exist until the universe cooled enough for there to be matter. So the first moment of cosmological inflation could have been gravity-free.

Regarding consciousness, your idea implies to me that the neutrino field is the mediator of consciousness and it requires there be a single, lowest-energy wave function for the observer ....

That is profound. These are new ideas for me. Thanks.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 23:44 GMT
Thomas,

Your essay is an interesting journey.

Reading your essay, I feel like I've entered an interactive phantom world in which I'm bathed in neutrino radiation -- which I know we all are. I know that the quantum world does a number on us to the tune of some 7*1027 atoms. I never thought of the quantum (gravity) world being interactive with consciousness but you almost poetically declare neutrinos at the speed of light showed us a classical world. Like that.

It's mind boggling.

If you want to assemble yourself, I like to hear your comments on my essay.

Regards,

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 05:40 GMT
Thomas,

Time grows short, so I am reviewing those I've read to see if I have rated them. Yours I did on 3/20. Bad accounting and short memory.

Hope you enjoyed the interchange of ideas as much as I did.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 14:00 GMT
Hi Tom,

Nice Essay and a bit provocative. Your neutrino experiment to test quantum gravity is interesting, despite thinking about the Neutrino field as the fundamental field is a bit speculative. In any case, your Essay enjoyed me, so, I will give you the highest score. Thanks for your comments in my Essay page, I wish you good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 12:46 GMT
Thanks, Christian!




Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 05:19 GMT
Hi Tom,

I understand your essay a little better than the first time because I've read the comments here.

It's not clear to me that the neutrino beam, which is uncharged, will disrupt superconductivity, which is an electromagnetic phenomena. Or perhaps you're saying that if the neutrino is absorbed in a nucleus that then radiates the secondary radiation will disturb the superconductivity. You could be right, I don't know. It's always good to propose experiments.

By the way, my gravity-based model of the neutrino is Majorana, that is, a neutrino is its own antiparticle. Does this agree with your model or not? Attempts are ongoing to determine this aspect, but so far the question is unanswered.

I liked your Kevin Brown quote re 'free particles'.

Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay, and thanks for continuing to play this game.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 17:55 GMT
Hi Edwin,

Certainly, it agrees with Majorana, insofar as "self-interacting" is identical to "self-reinforcing", as a neutrino particle, converted to soliton wave, has become.

The LASER-generated neutrino beam should generate sufficient heat, I think.

Kevin Brown is the best. I haven't read all his mathpage essays, and I bought the book, just in case of zombie apocalypse. :-)

Best,

Tom



Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 22:22 GMT
Oooh, and a zombie just took a bite of my score. Hide your brains.



Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 14:37 GMT
Reference to advantages of Majorana particles: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7173872_Distinguish
ing_between_Dirac_and_Majorana_Neutrinos_with_Two-Particle_I
nterferometry




Anonymous wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 00:22 GMT
Hello Thomas - we meet again hoping you are well.

I read your paper, and you appear to endorse an Einsteinian view of physics with some variations that I could not quite follow on a preliminary reading. In general I have been trying to propose a physics without some key Einsteinian concepts like the importance of the observer, spacetime and the point photon localized in space (hence duality). I have outlined this my fqxi essay

I noticed you relate neutrinos to solitons - again I did not understand the exact scenario. However I was interested because in section 3.4 (Fig. 40) of my Beautiful Universe Model I speculate that due to a fundamental topological property of vectors on a sphere, each atom will have a a non-diffracting anomalous tube or vortex extending in space - can that be the neutrino-soliton? I value your opinion on this and on my essay.

Best Wishes,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 16:10 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

I'm doing better, thanks.

I agree with Einstein in toto. To eliminate observer entanglement eliminates spacetime--and to eliminate spacetime eliminates the possibility of locality.

A soliton is a self-reinforcing wave that overcomes the resistance of dispersion in a medium. That requires time. Sure, ol' man river might keep rolling along, without ever telling us his secrets ... as you acknowledge, Einstein's quest was to know the thoughts of "the Old One ... the rest are details", including the origin of ol' man river.

Now, while solitons are solutions to non-linear equations, they are dependent on conditions, and so cannot be fundamental. I suggest that the conditions under which neutrinos can decay into solitons include time dilation, released in a heat bath up to a threshold of decoherence.

In other words, The Old One is speaking continuously, on a very specific frequency and in a compressed (time dilated) message. One doesn't have to be a believer to get it.

Best,

Tom




Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 00:26 GMT
Oops sorry that was my comment above

Vladimr

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 00:20 GMT
Hi Tom

Glad you are doing better - so am I (chemo).

My idea about neutrinos being solitons obviously needs fleshing out. But why is time-dependence needed if the soliton just moves, like a particle from A to B in various states of an absolute universe? From your remarks on my fqxi essay page I take it you - very understandably - wish to stick to the tried and true Einsteinian spacetime universe. Who can blame you given my sketchy if not flighty suggestions for a rudimentary alternative? (muttered as I exit: ...and yet it is absolute :)

Best, Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 14:30 GMT
Awww, I didn't know you were taking chemo treatments, Vladimir. Wishing you better health!

Will reply later.



Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 20:18 GMT
Vladimir:

I suspect that few if any among us have examined our biases and hidden assumptions as thoroughly as we can, or ought to.

Fear, or conviction, stops us at some point, and we rest our arguments. That's the limit of anyone's competence.

As you suggest, relativity has physical, testable consequences. One realizes, as an observer, that what one observes is necessarily distant from its source, or else “The physical world is ‘cock-a-doodle-do’” as Einstein put it. We assume that the distance has a limit, a point at which the world becomes objective, because we say that’s what “objective” means.

Maybe, however, the world is too close to be objective.

Be well,

Tom



Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 23:25 GMT
Dear Ray

Thank you for your commisseration- so far so good!

I have read your defence of Einstein and fear it is lost on me I have capacity only for understanding one world-system at a time!

The distinction you make between a distant information source and local experience, each emitted or absorbed at different rates is too foreign to my mindset and the model I have adopted. In that model everything is connected through the 'clockwork' of the lattice. Motion at A is transmitted node to node to B, whether B is sentient, living, or neither. Another way of thinking of it is to expand the reference frame to include all of the Universe and within that frame everything is absolute and classical. It is only when an observer is introduced, by no means necessary for example when two black hokes interact that relativistic effects kick in ... for that observer only!

Do not mind me - best wishes in your work. Be well.

Vladimir

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate


Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 18:35 GMT
Defending my defense of Einstein, attached.

attachments: 6_april_2017.pdf




Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 11:00 GMT
Dear Sirs!

Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».

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

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

Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.