Search FQXi

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

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

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

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


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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help

Don Limuti: on 4/20/17 at 6:13am UTC, wrote Hi Steve, I believe Gluons have have short range and do not get out of the...

Don Limuti: on 4/12/17 at 5:12am UTC, wrote Hi Steve, Yes, give me your thinking on physics and we will start a...

Steven Andresen: on 4/11/17 at 2:31am UTC, wrote Don Taking this at face value, I think it and you are exceedingly clever....

Don Limuti: on 4/10/17 at 3:07am UTC, wrote Steve, Here is my recommendation, browse my website in the following...

Steven Andresen: on 4/9/17 at 8:24am UTC, wrote Thank you Don Yes good luck on taking a prize. Its a little hard to...

Don Limuti: on 4/8/17 at 22:27pm UTC, wrote Steve, 1. Yes the voting is over...thanks for your acknowledgment. I have...

Steven Andresen: on 4/8/17 at 2:26am UTC, wrote James Thank you for these kind words and petition. I am entirely satisfied...

James Putnam: on 4/7/17 at 19:19pm UTC, wrote Dear Steven Andresen, Your essay and you are valuable new additions to the...


Stefan Weckbach: "Dear Lorraine, thanks again for your reply. Your point of view is a..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Lorraine Ford: "Above post was from me" in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Quantum Antigravity: "EXPERIMENTAL quantum Anti-gravity —..." in The Myth of Gravity

Pentcho Valev: "Money for teleology and silly songs only? The teleology contest is a..." in Towards a Goal — Two...

Nina Marrian: "New binary options trading technology named Lazy Trader App is a dangerous..." in Are We Merging With Our...

Jonathan Dickau: "He has been somewhat insular.. Steven is reluctant to re-engage, mostly..." in A Self-Gravitational...

Jonathan Dickau: "I went and read your essay. And I commented there. Regards, JJD" in Alternative Models of...

Thomas Ray: "Jonathan, Did you hear from Steven?" in A Self-Gravitational...

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)

April 23, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Dirty Wet Chemical Universal Awakening by Steven Andresen [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Steven Andresen wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 16:36 GMT
Essay Abstract

The question of aims and intention, how can mindless mathematical laws give rise to them? Is one facet of a most pervasive topic of our time. The discussions relating the complexity and fine tuning problem. Some might wonder if I exaggerate, and to them I suggest looking at the following topics, and realize their themes are entirely motivated by the apparent and unexplained complexity of the world. These topics being prominent in the minds of people, evidences the complexity and fine tuning problem is a most pressing issue confronting our universal awareness. No matter we try, it will not find explanation in absence of a natural organisation principle.

Author Bio

An attentive student of nature

Download Essay PDF File

Author Steven Andresen wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 05:38 GMT
I wrote about how emergence of aims and intention in the universe, is basically just an aspect of the complexity problem facing our physical understanding. So I presented an explanation for universal complexities within a Darwinian context, that gives meaningful purpose to the structures observed in this universe. In doing this, the complexity problem is resolved.

In short, it explains that Auv is a regenerative field of space, from which Tuv photons came to emerge for evolutionary progressive reasons. The purpose of photons is to consume Auv, to allow Auv to regenerate, which is useful within a Darwinian context. So Auv field and Tuv photons have compounded complexity while entwined on a symbiotic Co-evolutionary relationship. Matter is just highly evolved structured photons, which are optimized for this purpose of existence. The properties and structures of atoms, planets, stars, galaxies, are optimized in terms of being spread out across space for example, to make for an efficient interaction between space and matter. In this respect the material universe exists to gravitate, and the energy which transfers from Auv to Tuv through the gravitation process, is what enables photons to perform energetic work within these evolved structures of matter. Mass owes its work function to photons, and this is the very simple reason the energy content of mass corresponds to photon velocity C. Infact every action the material universe is capable of engaging in, is mediated by photons. Or put another way, photons are the universes only way of imparting force on anything at all. A profound truth which indicates all physical measures will be derivable from photon velocity, and its sub units of length and duration. Allowing unified physical description.

Steven Andresen

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 16:21 GMT
Dear Steven Andresen,

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...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

George Gantz wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 16:00 GMT
Steven -

I thoroughly enjoyed your essay, and your effort to ascribe Darwinian principles to our cosmic origins. I take a slightly different approach, discussing the feature of dynamic systems to evolve to specific pointer states (attractors). (This contrasts with the Multi-Verse hypothesis that simply assumes that all possible universes emerge.)

Good luck! - George Gantz

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 02:57 GMT
Hi george

Thank you for the kind words. Much appreciated. I'm on a camp trip right now but will have a look at your essay when I return home.

Good luck with your essay and look forward to reading it


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 09:49 GMT
Nice essay Andresen,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg…

What is the multiverse hypothesis, beyond attempt to explain the unlikely universal circumstances that enabled life to emerge? The answer is, it has proven to be not much more than. It is a mathematical trick of infinities, that makes inevitabilities of the most unlikely. A fascinating possibility and discussion I...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 21:50 GMT
Hi Steven,

I have printed off your essay and will be reading it this weekend. The rating system can be a minefield. I will be keeping track of my rating for each essay I read. However, I will not be posting them until the last few minutes of the contest. I want them to count for something other than target practice by those who abuse the system. I do comment, if I have a comment, near the time that I read an essay. I expect to be back here talking with you. I already know that your deductive skills are very good. Good luck!

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 09:33 GMT

Hay its great to see people engaging your essay with so much positivity and support. I'm half way through reading it, then will read it again to let its message soak in a little, then I'll post remark to your page. But yes, what I have read is very good. My days have been filled with camping and surfing, so I havent had a look through many other essays yet, but the couple that I have...

view entire post

Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 09:58 GMT

I would have you ask yourself the question, from where does a photon derive its capacity for imparting force? Why and how does a photon undertake motion?

They seam unfair questions, except that my hypothesis makes a simple sense of them.


Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 13:05 GMT

Oh yeah, and also keeping in mind that intriguing conversation you and I have partaken in. Variable C equating to a variable baryon mass. Gluons being photons that share the same variable C potential that normal photons do, depending on the galaxies gravitation potential. not only an interesting idea, but also one that delivers a seemingly appropriate formula for solving anomalous galaxy motions. This is all part of the same conversation you and I had earlier, however I havent explained all of my reasoning before now, how I came to share a similar outlook to you. Different in many ways, but similar in many respects.

My hope is that some of what has been shared between us earlier, will encourage you to follow up on what I share in my essay now. It isnt like my theory delves in obscurities like added dimensions, or some other intangible. My concept is very simple in this respect, that I point to two equality's and say, "consider the possibility this equality exists because energy flows from A to B". And that it is a simplest type of relationship, a conversion from work potential into work. The mechanics of this idea couldn't be simpler.


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 11:11 GMT
Dear Steve,

I read with great interest your deep analytical essay executed in the spirit of deep Carthusian doubt with ideas and conclusions that will help us overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science through the creation of a new comprehensive picture of the world, uniform for physicists, lyricists, poets and musicians filled with meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).

I believe that the modern "crisis of understanding" (K.V.Kopeykin "Souls "of atoms and "atoms"of the soul: Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and the "three great problems of physics"), «trouble with physics (Lee Smolin," The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next") is the deep meta-physical crisis, the deep crisis of the ontological foundations of knowledge.

FQXI Contests are first of all new ideas. You give such ideas. I give my highest rating.

I believe, that only extremely constructive ontology, and the global "brain storm" with the most in-depth analysis of all the accumulated knowledge will help us to overcome the crisis of understanding, crisis of interpretation and representation: "An educated people without a metaphysics is like a richly decorated temple without a holy of holies." (G.W.F.Hegel)

I invite you to read my ontological ideas .

Best regards,


report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 03:59 GMT
Dear Vladimir

Thank you kindly. I am delighted to receive such a message and rating, an appreciation for new ideas. And I also very much enjoyed the links you provided. I have begun reading your essay and am up to page five, and it has to be said that I understand why you were able to tune into my concept and appreciate its merit. I think that you like I, are undertaking a personal quest to learn the nature of things. The universe is a single physical process, everything in existence related within one scope. Furthermore its explanation needs to be of a natural process, which makes articulated sense of the structures and complexities observed of the natural world, without having a sense of being a forced explanation. People seem to have a hard time recognizing that the nature of the complexity of this world requires an organisational principle. So it is very pleasing to meet people like yourself who are focused on the real issues confronting our collective scientific awareness.

I have many considerations which have not been made apart of this essay, so if you are interested to know more about my concept at some time or another, then your questions are welcome plz? I will read your essay and follow up on your page with comments soon.

Here are some inspirational videos you might enjoy.


Thank you once again

Kind regards


Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 09:59 GMT
Dear Steve,

I thank you for the deep and inspiring response to my commentary, as well as for the wonderful links! Magnificent music and the majestic beauty of the Cosmos enable us, earthlings, to realize the necessity of unity in diversity for the preservation and development of life on Mother Earth - our Common Space Home .

Kind regards


report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 11:45 GMT

Here are a couple of diagrams that will help you to interpret the pole weight transition in comparison to photon probability curves.

The graph above, the length of the lines is proportional and represents the weight at that angle, 0, 22, 45, 67, 90 degrees. And so it shows the proportions of weight change through an arc of 90 degrees.

The graph underneath is an altered version of that wiki link. The way they set out the chart on wiki is not very conducing to visualizing what I wish to point out. The way I present it here, it does not matter if you visualize a pole at different relative angles to the ground, or gravitational field, or a photon at different angles to a light polarization filter. Please let me know if you have any questions?


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 05:54 GMT
Hi Steven,

1. This is an amazing essay. I have seen nothing like this taking Darwinian to the universe level. I like it and believe you are correct that "Life came to express aims and intention, in a universe of compounded complexity neither contrived not chance, but Darwinian".

2. You are much more than "an attentive student of nature". Out with many degrees do you have.

3. Please forgive this criticism: Your abstract is not about this essay.... were you trying to mislead people?

Please take a look at my website, in particular the section:

Then go to the index and check out everything concerning gravity including:

If you do this you will know why I support your thesis. I can see why others are having trouble rating your essay highly. They need to be trained in spotting good science and good art.

Thanks very much,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 04:16 GMT
Hi Don

I could not be happier that you are persuaded by my arguments. Seeing evidence that people can agree with my conclusions is a wonderful thing. Thank you Kindly.

Regarding your second comment, I dont want to make the essay about me. As far as I am concerned it is the quality of the evidence provided for me by others, that made my observations possible. I feel as though I...

view entire post

Don Limuti replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 05:11 GMT
Hi Steven,

Appreciate your visiting my essay and your generous vote.

Yes, let's discuss gravity. My website has my e-mail in the about the author section. It is

I should not have been able to make the calculation I made....something unexpected is going on. It would be really cool to see if we can create either a more complete theory or come up with some experiments that can be tried.


Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 06:55 GMT
Hi dear Steven,

You have represented one well written and attractive essay.

You have touched there large cognitive problems of the nature and concerning to humanity also that is very interesting to read as these pushed to thinking on too many things. I like your work because I feel there the logic as well as the morality, without these we hardly can go ahead - to our "bright future." So I think your work deserved to good rating and more large attention of readers!

Try please to open my work, its written a little bit in hard style and it concerned to somewhat short aspects, but I hope you can find there also something logic and morality.

I hope hearing your impression in my page, and I will completed to study your work within short time.

Best wishes

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 05:20 GMT
Dear George

Thank you kindly, I am delighted to receive these words from you. That there are people out there that follow my logic, and that realize it does have the promise of conforming to the observations of the world. That is everything I set out to achieve with my essay, and is what you have provided for me. Thank you once again.

I have read your abstract and have taken an immediate liking to it. I will make a start on your essay now and return to you soon with comment.

Best regards


Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 10:44 GMT

I found that exceptionally well written, interesting, original, insightful and a very positive contribution to the subject. I also have some fundamental agreement with you hypothesis but suggest there's more underlying and different way to interpret the part Darwin identified.

I thank you for the comments on mine and look forward to more discussion when you've completed it. It builds to a powerful ontology and agrees Darwinism as a 'course grained' effect, so consistent in many ways.

I listened this morning to the brilliant Daniel Dennett interviewed by Jimal Khaleli on BBC Radio4 "The Life Scientific". Philosopher, scientist Darwin supporter and author of 'Darwins dangerous idea' as well as 'Conciousness Explained'. He'd also support both our approaches.

Other lines from yours I found particularly pertinent are;

"What is the anthropic principle, if not an effort to dismiss universal complexity as a needless discussion."

."..Progression is usually slowed by prior held expectations of what we think we are aware.

Are peoples eversions (sic. aversions) to Darwinian physics rational, or is it simply because no reasonable self-consistent hypothesis has been put forward?"

"...A feedback loop that drives toward ever increasing universal energy levels and fine-tuned purposeful structure

Very well done. I'm glad James pointed you to mine, and he was also right on yours. I've just awarded it the top score it deserves (it also needs to be in the upper groups to be a 'finalist').

Keep up the good work.

Very best of Luck


report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 00:28 GMT

Wonderful, I'm glad you liked it. Thank you for reading, reviewing and rating.

I am intrigued by your suggestion we have some fundamental agreement. A conversation I will certainly pursue with you.

I read you're essay last night and am just on my way over to your page to place review.

Thank you once again for your support and I look forward to continued dialog with you.


Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 10:50 GMT

after the contest do take a look at this; Identifying overwhelming evidence a recycling mechanism answering a lot of cosmological questions including evolution of galaxies and universes. Jackson, P.A. Minkowski, J.S. A Cyclic model of Galaxy Evolution, with Bars. HJ. Vol.36 No 6. 2013 pp.633-676.


report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 01:12 GMT

Thank you, I will definitely look this over. Sounds fascinating.


Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 09:13 GMT
Steve, (Copy);

Thanks. Yes there IS a video showing the visual dynamics Classic QM Video.

I've posted the link many times but clearly should do it more. I hope you'll be delighted! My essays in 2014 and last year are helpful in precursing this, but only this year did I identify the final piece solving the puzzle; Interaction Cascades squaring the cos values in fields, consistent with QCD.

I watched Henry's video. Very professional graphics. He's largely right but missed identifying exactly what John Bell did, and didn't prove! (which recognized identified and stated!) He did NOT exclude a classical solution, in fact he pointed to it without being able to tie it down. He only excluded normal 'local hidden variable' theories, which ClassicQM is NOT!.

The problem is most beliefs about Bell are heresay (and ignoring the heresay is heresey!) Few have actually read the compilation of his works so it's widely poorly and 'mis'understood.

After seeing the video read the 2nd half of the essay again and it should all come to light. Let me know.



report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 16:50 GMT

I agree with James Putnam that your deductive skills are established. I would say that your essay title is unappealing to readings who like catchy titles like "Are we dust in the wind?" or something like that.

I really like your meaningful "turns of phrase" like: "The question of the emergence of goals and intentions, for the most part is not a question of how biology achieved it, but rather how a non-biological universal order and structure, achieve biology?" or "The multiverse hypothesis might be an answer a bad science teacher invented, to quiet his students ceaseless questioning. The shame!"

For the latter, especially, it rings of a lot of truth.

Keep up the good work. I will be your next rating.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 10:42 GMT
Dear Steven

I fully agree with you in the problem you raise and how you identify and characterize it. Namely, I fully agree that “ The question of the emergence of goals and intentions, for the most part is not a question of how biology achieved it, but rather how a non-biological universal order and structure, achieve biology?” I also agree that “...the universe and everything within...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 09:06 GMT
Dear Alfredo

Thank you for your message of support and I do respect your limited agreement. I think too many people contingent the level of respect they show for others, on how much they agree or dont agree with that persons ideas or beliefs. Its almost an unconscious influence but something people should be more mindful of. You are a man with an unorthodox notion, so I know you know too what I refer.

I am glad to have your recognition that physics needs an explanation for the very particular order and structure observed of the world. Then our ideas diverge, but I would still find it interesting to rationalize your argument. I generally see how your idea conforms to known observations of the world, and I have to confess that my immediate thought is to a question, how much resistance to reason could that notion withstand? I think it would be fun to read your essay. I will be in touch.

Thank you once again

Kind regards


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 15:39 GMT
Hi Steven,

I have read with much attention your well written contribution.

Some points that I liked to comment on :

Indeed the extreme measure to "create" a new universe any moment a decision is made is also in my opinion toooooo much. I made a new interpretation regarding this choices in my work. The eternal availability of Eternal Now Moments in Total...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 09:20 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus

Thank you for your message and rating. I have a feeling I will better understand what you have written above once I have read your essay. I like the notion that scientific instruments are broadening our range of senses, which broadens our awareness of the world. And that it takes time to make sense of the wider range of observations we have now made. How long before we know what the universe really is, and what it is doing?

Kind regards


Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 14:46 GMT
Dear Steven,

To answer your question is easy : It will take an infinity of time.

I hope it will not take so long to read my interpretation, I will give you

the link.

Still little time left to rate.



report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 00:12 GMT
Dear Steven Andresen,

You do an analytical overview of the 'fine tuning' problem and critique the invention of multiple universes and anthropic principle as weak solutions. Gotta agree there! You are, in my opinion, correct to tie the problem of complexity to the fine-tuning problem. It is hard to recognize and frame the big problems, and then to critique the "current" solutions. And, as noted above, you do it with a nice turn of phrase.

If you've read my essay, you know that I accept the Darwinian narrative as the ideal mechanism for evolving complex living/ecosystems, but I do not believe this mechanism can produce awareness where none existed before. If it could, 'awareness' would have the status of artifact, and conditional at that. For me, awareness is primordial, while the physical 'logic' that evolves leads to increased intelligence, which I define as consciousness plus logic. It is the physical logic structures that evolve. I believe consciousness predates evolution.

What I particularly like about your essay is your focus on water as key. From your comments I believe you surf and sail and spend a lot of time on water. You've put some of that time to good use. I agree with your analysis of bonding, etc., but one tends to forget the necessity to dissolve materials and make them readily available in the soup. As you point out:

"Wouldn't it be such a shame to have a dry universe full of chemical potentials, no water lying around to express them."


My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 02:24 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman

Thank you kindly for these words. Knowing something of your mind from having read your essay, I am thrilled to have this review from you. I have praise for your work, so will head on over to your page today to place it. But to say for the moment, you have written something most extraordinary. Perhaps I should read more of the contending top spot essays for...

view entire post

James A Putnam replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 03:33 GMT
Thank you for your kind words Steven. I like my ideas. I appreciate your appreciation for them. However, it is the case the Edwin Eugene Klingman is more seriously educated and more seriously experienced in science. He also writes better. When I write well, it seems to be in relatively short blurbs. I think that, in the few weeks I have known you, you are advancing at a pace that is to be acknowledged as talent. Perhaps it isn't so much a matter of advancing as it is a matter of having the opportunity for opening up. I will rate your essay in the last few minutes of the contest.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 03:44 GMT

Yes I grew up in a fishing family in a fishing town, and make full use of the ocean in every way. Surfing, boating, sailing, fishing, diving, etc etc. My obsession with surfing has offered me a unique opportunity to tune into a dynamic of nature, of liquid matter and energy flowing through it. It is as you say, a direct experience I have had that I could express somewhat for people, but my expressions would become their indirect theory. A lot is lost in translation. But the variety of moods and different swell characteristics that come and go from day to day, is stupendous. Each surf break is unique to all others in the entire world due to a seaming endless array of subtle influences, or swell frequency and direction, bottom contour, current, tide, the list goes on forever. In addition to the determinable factors, there is also a phenomenon we refer to as the x factor. The characteristics of a given day for which we cannot determine the cause. Surfing has anomalous. There is something truly amazing about tackling a large piece of heaving ocean, driving under its curtain of heavy water, only to emerge with dry hair. It is a very intimate experience with nature, one which also translates to a useful lesson in physics.

Surfers have coined an expression. "Only a surfer knows the feeling".


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 04:49 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...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 19:19 GMT
Dear Steven Andresen,

Your essay and you are valuable new additions to the mix of physics enthusiasts and our free flowing parade of ideas taking place here at Your essay deserves a higher rating. I encourage visitors to read and fairly evaluate your good ideas. I can vouch for the quality of your deductive abilities.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 02:26 GMT

Thank you for these kind words and petition. I am entirely satisfied with this experience of the past few weeks and score how it stands. It is not a highly polished piece of writing, but yes my hope was that people would find the ideas interesting. I have meet some interesting people, learnt some of their ideas and shared mine, and it looks like the conversation might continue post contest. My full expectations are satisfied.

Thank you for sharing in the conversations with me, and referring me to some genuinely interesting people and their fine works. You are a scholar and gentleman, and ally and a friend.

Yours sinserely


Don Limuti wrote on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 22:27 GMT

1. Yes the voting is over...thanks for your acknowledgment. I have a chance of taking a prize if the judges get fed up with the all the "emergence" essays and find my bit of dialog refreshing. And congratulations on your good showing in the contest.

2. The link to the 1968 Engelbart demo. It took me back nearly 50 years! (Thank you, Thank you) I never did see it till now. I never did know what happened to Doug until I heard Ted Nelson's Eulogy. Doug's goal was "group intelligence" ......nobody was that interested.

3. Digital Physics suggests that there exists, at least in principle, a program for a universal computer that computes the evolution of the universe. Could be ....however, the concept makes for very good movies :)

4. My digital wave theory starts from the premise that uncertainty and superposition were bad guesses and a better approach (my guess) is that reality is discontinuous (wavelength hopping) at the quantum level. Now this pisses off mathematicians because their precious tools become useless (the Schroedinger equation).

5. The one thing that I've done that bites is the calculation of the precession of Mercury. When I do this dark energy and dark matter become understandable as gravity. Space and gravity may be identical. You would think that this would clobber GR does not. However, the link to GR is not complete.

6. That's why I invite you to look at my work. I have just spotted this really good wave, I think you may enjoy riding it. Bike riding is my thing.

Don Limuti (

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 9, 2017 @ 08:24 GMT
Thank you Don

Yes good luck on taking a prize. Its a little hard to estimate judges discretion.

Yes, space, dark energy, gravity all being the same substance. It sounds like we are testing some similar views. So you have identified a pattern, a correlation? You mentioned having a formula that corresponds to Mercury's procession, which then extends corresponds to dark energy and gravity considerations. That is the kind of thing I could appreciate. I look for the proportions between things. Where is the best place to open this discussion?

I would be interested to hear about your idea in simple terms and then expanded if you will please?

Thank you


Don Limuti replied on Apr. 10, 2017 @ 03:07 GMT

Here is my recommendation, browse my website in the following order:


A bit of a background.


s will give you a notion of how I visualize a graviton. Not quite the standard model.

3. ...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 11, 2017 @ 02:31 GMT

Taking this at face value, I think it and you are exceedingly clever. Please dont take this as agreement, because I havent nor probably could validate your work on my own. But I like the parameters you play with, and I respect the skills you need to build those associations. Its great that such a short explanation of yours can bring the vision to my mind.

I think the following is especially ingenious.

"I make a wild guess that the graviton (even though is not light) is ruled by the Planck-Einstein equation. Now we know the energy of each graviton."

What I also find interesting about the parameters you play with and the associations they deliver, is how they can be interpreted within my framework. Would you be open to a brief explanation why I think this works? It might be helpful for us to know each others minds.


Don Limuti wrote on Apr. 20, 2017 @ 06:13 GMT
Hi Steve,

I believe Gluons have have short range and do not get out of the atom. They are not like Photons that can travel long distances.

But I do not know much more that this on nucleus phenomena. Sorry I cannot be of any help on your concept.

I have made a diagram of how I think gravitons (my goofy variety) can cause unanticipated accelerating expansion:

I tried to paste it here with no luck. So take a look at section 3c of "The Geometry of Dark Energy" paper.

Or just see the same thing on my website:

Also, take a look on my website:

re is a diagram that shows visually how gravitons differ from photons. Gravitons look like photons that are trapped between mirrors, that is why they have mass.

Best of Luck with the sailboat. My brother in Florida had a 43 Mooney. Every time I called he was in the boat doing something.

Greetings from Missoula MT USA

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

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.