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.

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

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

 RSS feed | RSS help

Matt Brown: on 8/9/17 at 7:20am UTC, wrote Wonderful post!!! Genuinely loved this kind of post. Although I want much...

sasa sasa: on 7/17/17 at 3:14am UTC, wrote OBAT AMBEIEN

sasa sasa: on 7/17/17 at 3:11am UTC, wrote OBAT BATUK

sasa sasa: on 7/17/17 at 3:06am UTC, wrote OBAT DARAH TINGGI

sasa sasa: on 7/17/17 at 2:55am UTC, wrote OBAT MAAG

Steven Andresen: on 7/7/17 at 5:34am UTC, wrote Electromagnetism is considered one of the four fundamental forces of...

lionel john: on 7/5/17 at 10:34am UTC, wrote Physics is a vast topic and there are lots of branches of studies related...

Steven Andresen: on 6/29/17 at 9:13am UTC, wrote Give nature an energy potential and it will invent a Darwinian circumstance...

August 18, 2017

CATEGORY: High Energy Physics [back]
TOPIC: Theories of Everything, by Frank Close [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on May. 8, 2017 @ 16:48 GMT
Steve Agnew suggests that physicist Frank Close's new book would be a good topic of discussion. According to the blurb, in his book (which has yet to be released in the US, but is available in the UK), Close takes the reader to the frontiers of science in a vividly told investigation of revolutionary science and enterprise from the seventeenth century to the present. He looks at what has been meant by theories of everything, explores the scientific breakthroughs they have allowed, and shows the far-reaching effects they have had on crucial aspects of life and belief. Theories of everything, he argues, can be described as those which draw on all relevant branches of knowledge to explain everything known about the universe. Such accounts may reign supreme for centuries. Then, often as a result of the advances they themselves have enabled, a new discovery is made which the current theory cannot explain. A new theory is needed which inspiration, sometimes, supplies."


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 8, 2017 @ 20:05 GMT
Is Close critical enough in his book? He was very critical a couple of years ago:

Frank Close: "In recent years, however, many physicists have developed theories of great mathematical elegance, but which are beyond the reach of empirical falsification, even in principle. The uncomfortable question that arises is whether they can still be regarded as science. Some scientists are proposing that the definition of what is "scientific" be loosened, while others fear that to do so could open the door for pseudo-scientists or charlatans to mislead the public and claim equal space for their views."

So new theories are not falsifiable, but how about old ones? General relativity for instance? What if, by introducing fudge factors, Einsteinians can make general relativity predict anything they want? Are fudge factors a legitimate theoretical tool? Is the theory deductive if fudge factors are a legitimate theoretical tool? If the theory is not deductive, what is it? Empirical concoction? Not even wrong?

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on May. 9, 2017 @ 03:45 GMT
This book is a very good read and easy at around 100 pp or so and only $5 for the e-book. It is well worth it and the Kindle e-reader seems to work just fine on my PC. I bought it on Amazon and read it with the Kindle cloud reader and that all worked very well.

Close asks, "Will space and time eventually emerge from some deeper theory?"

Well...yeah...of course they will...

Actually, I believe that the answer is out there and just buried in the hubris of the many possibilities...

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 9, 2017 @ 07:48 GMT
Hi Steve,

Thanks for sharing.

The answers indeed are still fzr of us when we consider these singularities and all these steps before.What are our knowledges in fact ? so weak in front of this infinite entropy and its irreversible increasing evolutive mass....

The space time has still so many secrets to show us ....

Best Regards Jedi of the Sphere....

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on May. 11, 2017 @ 02:22 GMT
Close says in a section discussing the Higg's boson,

"This may sound as if we have re-introduced the ether, a fluid once supposed to be responsible for the propagation of electromagnetic waves, but was famously eliminated by Einstein with his theory of relativity." is now openly proposing aether as the remedy that beats stringy, quantum loopy, multiversey, and supersymmetrization. It is ironic that so many prominent in science know that science is in a deep rabbit hole, but they cannot seem to find there way out of that rabbit hole...

report post as inappropriate

sampath rao wrote on May. 9, 2017 @ 10:31 GMT
memorial day quotes and sayings

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on May. 31, 2017 @ 09:37 GMT
Dear friends,

Refer to Steve Agnew’s post on May, 11, 2017 which told that - Close says in a section discussing the Higg's boson,

"This may sound as if we have re-introduced the ether, a fluid once supposed to be responsible for the propagation of electromagnetic waves, but was famously eliminated by Einstein with his theory of relativity."

Actually we can easily prove that there is something like ether before Higgs field was found, by a simple scientific experiment as explain in the paper attached.

And indeed (as Steve said) armed with the mechanism of vacuum medium we could solve most problem involved TOE.


Nimit Th.

attached file.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 31, 2017 @ 09:47 GMT

All this is relevant.

The ether is an intuitive interpretation of Einstein connecting God with all with a kind of field primordial respecting our special relativity and our standard model and its matter baryonic.

Eibsteinb said that God does not play at dices. The higgs are bosons and Under our standard model and our special relativity.

The problem is that if our ether is not luminiferous but gravitational, newtonian if I can say, so we must rethink our lines of resonings about our quantum gravitation and this ether.Furthermore more the works of Prof Tegmark, we have a superimposing of gravitational aethers considering the singularities of each universes connected with all quantum singularities of its universe.

The ether,let's name a cat a cat is a spiritual and philosophical intuitive interpretation of Einstein wanting to find the secrets of God,this infinite entropy creating a physicality in playing with the cold and the heat like the gravitation plays with the electromagnetism.

What do you think Nimit?

They turn so they are after all ....

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 31, 2017 @ 10:06 GMT
You are going to understand me :) imagine that our universe possesses a central BH the biggest and that this singularity has created a physicality with specific codes of evolution.

Now imagine that we have a fractal from this main volume and a serie.We have so a system after of multiplication of this serie and after the motions permit the evolution.All this is very simplistic but the universe in its generality is so simple.

Now imagine that the main primordial field is from this central cosm singularity and that this singularity produces the speedest particles of gravitation, a serie also of uniqueness possessing the cold and heat and this infinite entropy?paradoxal in all.Now let's take my equation with the two matters baryonic and not baryonic,the matter not baryonic is produced by BHs and is the dark matter in logic.

Now here is this equation E=m(b)c²+m(nb)l² you can see easily that I have simply added the matter not baryonic the dark matter, the particles of gravitation with l a linear velocity.They are not relativistic.

Now let's take a proportion with the spherical volulmes producing particles and the linear velocities, we have so an ether, gravitational appearing due to these particles produced by this central BH.The stars produce photons and BHs spherons in this logic, like if the linear velocities decreased their linear velocities in passing to spherical volumes to spherical volumes, that is why we have c and l.A spheron can become a photon, that said a photon cannot become a spheron due to intrinsic codes created at this cosm singularity giving the series of uniquenss.

The luminiferous ether considers a kind of enormous star like center and a kind of infinite light above our walls.But the gravitational light seems more complex still than our light.and God is near us with this instantaneity due to l.

We can break our special relativity with spherons, not photons.....


report post as inappropriate

Steven Andresen wrote on Jun. 28, 2017 @ 08:13 GMT
Darwinian Universal

The nature of the interaction between space and matter, what causes gravitational acceleration? is a question forefront in people’s minds. But also the nature of the universal orders we observe, atomic and cosmological structures being very non-random and articulated. I will speak briefly to these now, but please bear in mind that I can corner these considerations with...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Steven Andresen replied on Jun. 29, 2017 @ 05:23 GMT
Here is another way I might have put it

I'm very pleased with the reviews my essay received, and for the community score that tallied. However I havent engaged with the community in discussions about it yet, either in a sense that might test it or allow me to elaborate further. I have added a post to my essay thread titled Darwinian Universal, which presents an explanation for why the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Steven Andresen replied on Jun. 29, 2017 @ 09:13 GMT
Give nature an energy potential and it will invent a Darwinian circumstance of emergence. Take early oceanic life for example, algae invented a way to exploit the suns energy in a process known as Photosynthesis, which then founded the base of a food chain that blossomed through a diversified range of organisms of increasing levels of character and complexity. Krill that eat the algae, in turn eaten by small fish, eaten by bigger fish and squid, eaten by tuna, sharks, birds, dolphins and whales.

Auv cosmological emergence is a like circumstance of Darwinian emergence, as a result of an as yet unidentified natural energy potential. Like the algae, this Auv elemental field of space foundations the base of a system that has compounded ever higher levels of universal order and complexity, in the form of atomic and cosmological structure. This is how elaborate Gluon and photon characteristics have emerged in the universe, and the circumstance whereby their activity is enabled by a metabolism of an Auv elemental field of space.

report post as inappropriate

Steven Andresen wrote on Jul. 7, 2017 @ 05:34 GMT
Electromagnetism is considered one of the four fundamental forces of nature.

Another force considered as fundamental is the strong nuclear force, for which the Gluon is the mediator, which importantly is the generator of “mass”, which is the property of matter which responds to gravitational fields. Or I could have said it like this “The strong nuclear force makes the “MASS” which...

view entire post

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.