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.

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

Anonymous: on 6/3/15 at 16:46pm UTC, wrote the universe is not what we think and it's showing us this at every step of...

Anonymous: on 11/9/13 at 18:37pm UTC, wrote Baggott[Farewell to Reality: How Fairy-Tale Physics Has Betrayed The Search...

grainne: on 10/17/11 at 10:46am UTC, wrote when things expand the surface becomes thiner as it spreads and the cause...

narsep: on 9/17/10 at 13:24pm UTC, wrote The previous note refers to string theories, Hawking's calculations on...

NARSEP: on 9/17/10 at 7:40am UTC, wrote A geometric representation of the holographic principle. Let us suppose...

Steve Dufourny: on 8/23/10 at 12:18pm UTC, wrote Ray, These things are business and that's all. It's time to be rational.A...

Ray Munroe: on 8/22/10 at 20:26pm UTC, wrote Dear Kelly, I looked up Lisi on Spires-HEP, and it is only showing 6...

kelly: on 8/22/10 at 17:03pm UTC, wrote dear ray, has lisi published his theory in any journals yet? if not, why...



FQXi FORUM
September 23, 2017

ARTICLE: Readers' Choice: The Holographic Universe [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

kelly wrote on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 13:52 GMT
the article reports, "String theory has been formulated as a candidate theory of quantum gravity, which can be applied in realms where both quantum mechanics and general relativity are important. But, unfortunately, it doesn’t offer any easy answers to mystery of dark energy; string theory’s intractable mathematics has made applying it to the problems of cosmology near impossible."

yes, but there is no physical evidence for quantum gravity, and there is no successful mathematical system which predicts quantum gravity.

and too, string theory has no meaningful mathematical equations.

"Holography right now

is the most powerful

tool to understand

precise formulations of

quantum gravity."

- Alex Maloney

yes, but there is no such thing as quantum gravity, nor are there any equations predicting it. there is no physical evidence for quantum gravity, and both string theory and lqg fail to make any successful mathematical predictions regarding quantum gravity.

as physicists we must let physics guide the way.

:)

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 15:44 GMT
Ever heard that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? Every explanation is theoretical, and nothing but.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Jeffery Hart wrote on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 16:51 GMT
Well, that's quite a red-herring Tom. And snarky too with that "Ever heard...? lozlz"

Tom, you must acknowledge that science is defined by theory BACKED BY EVIDENCE.

Otherwise I could theorize that invisible monkeys which fly out of your ears are responsible for gravity, and get funding for my foundational theory, or perhaps I could theorize that gravity is caused by tiny, vibrating strings that nobody has ever seen, or by tiny, little loops that nobody has ever found evidence for.

And if anyone ever critcized my monkey gravity theory, I could hire Tom to viciously snark them with, "Ever heard that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? Every explanation is theoretical, and nothing but."

lolz!

Best,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 17:52 GMT
No, I don't acknowledge that theory backed by evidence defines science, even when it's written in all caps. I do acknowledge that theory is the only scientific means of interpreting evidence. In that regard, string theory is already supported in the low energy limit of classical physics and by principles of quantum field theory in the high energy domain. That string theory has to make novel predictions will probably fall to thought experiment and indirect evidence, IMO.

Best to you too, Elliott.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 16:59 GMT
HAHAHA IF the string theory is the candidate...me I am the future president of USA .HIHIHHI

Once upon a time.....

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 20:06 GMT
Dear Steve,

Were you born in Belgium or Hawaii? It makes a difference if you want to run for President of the USA.

Just as Holograms make no sense without BOTH PARTICLES (spheres/ data film) AND WAVES (strings - membranes/ em radiation), a TOE likewise makes no sense without BOTH PARTICLES AND WAVES. Scale Invariance solves this problem by introducing both on an equal footing, and holograms are consistent with this fundamental dual nature of reality. But which is more fundamental? Scale Invariance or the Hologram?

Did FQXi recycle this article and post? It sounds very familiar...

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 10:14 GMT
ahahaha Interesting Dr Cosùmic Ray....but if strings are inserted thus I lost my time....because the strings are for pseudo scientists that's all .

It's just a job and a business for the pseudo scientists simply.

It exists any proof for strings....on the other side the sSPHERES AND THE SPHERICAL WAVES......are a reality, objective, rational,pragmatic, logic and evident.....where are the strings ....even for oscillations and vibrations it's a joke because the only oscillatioin is the rotations of these spheres, spinals and orbitals.

The strings as M theory are just copy of the real model.

Ray I consider you as a real searcher thus don't loose your time with these stupidities of business and vanity of these systems.

The sciences aren't a play but a real quest of truth....

The spheres and their rotations EXPLAIN BOTH PARTICLES AND WAVES it's evident.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 14:25 GMT
No Steve,

I'm not wasting time - I think I gained 3 extra (4 total) kinds of time...

IMHO, your model fails in the limits of spherical radius -> zero, infinity

AND in the limit of rotation -> infinity. Scale Invariance solves these problems, but effectively introduces twice the degrees-of-freedom by introducing the equivalent of a Brilloin Zone (and/or Supersymmetry - depending on your perspective). You admit four degrees-of-freedom: 3-D space plus 'spin'. If you add Scale Invariance, then you are up to 8 degrees-of-freedom. You are up to the equivalent of 8-dimensions, but you haven't even introduced interactions yet!

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 17:37 GMT
In the 1970s, Hawking and Jacob Bekenstein showed that the information stored in a black hole is proportional to its surface area rather than its volume.

That it's relevant....but normally the two are proportionals .....3D TOWARDS 2D I can understand but if the rotations aroundf the universal center is not inserted, that will be not possible to see the real hologram of evolution.

The cause of mass is the rotating spheres.....the hologram are just a human invention.Don't forget that.

On the other side, if these holograms are well synchronized on the line time with the rotations of these said spheres.All cn be perceived with a good sorting and a good synchronization...it's interesting to know where we are in our UNIVERSAL SPHERE.

PS a BH is a sphere and has a rule of balance for smallest spheres as stars, planets and moons...after theses bh are taken in a rotation by more important spheres(volumes)

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Jeffery Hart wrote on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 19:06 GMT
Hello Tom,

You write, "No, I don't acknowledge that theory backed by evidence defines science, even when it's written in all caps. I do acknowledge that theory is the only scientific means of interpreting evidence. In that regard, string theory is already supported in the low energy limit of classical physics and by principles of quantum field theory in the high energy domain. That string theory has to make novel predictions will probably fall to thought experiment and indirect evidence, IMO."

No. String Theory is not "already supported in the low energy limit of classical physics and by principles of quantum field theory in the high energy domain."

String Theory has no meaningful, consistent equations and cannot be tested, so your statement is entirely 100% false. The problem with string theory is not that it doesn't make any novel predictions, but that it makes NO predictions whatsoever, as it has no equations.

Unlike physics, string theory proposes an entirely fictional construct--tiny, vibrating strings--and then after beginning by failing physical reality, it also epic fails on a mathematical level, as there are no equations for string theory.

"Holography right now

is the most powerful

tool to understand

precise formulations of

quantum gravity.

- Alex Maloney"

Well, since there is absolutely no phsyical evidence for quantum gravity, nor accepted mathematical equations predicting it, it sounds as if Holography is as useless as ST & LQG in the realm of physics, but only useful in projecting holograms of Princess Leah from R2D2.

:)

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 22:36 GMT
Okay, so your knowledge of string theory is zero. Sorry that I wasted my time.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Jeffery Hart wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 00:06 GMT
Thanks Tom,

Perhaps you could enlighten us all as to String Theory's equations?

Perhaps you could link to the page with its equations which predict gravitons or quantum gravity? Or anything else for that matter?

Rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks and placing String Theory's epic failures on anyone who asks to please see the equations, perhaps you could share String Theory's equations?

Thanks Tom. As String Theory master you have a vast opportunity here to enlighten and exalt us all with ST's beauty.

Please do not keep it a secret. Einstein, Feynman, Bohr, Schwinger, Glasshow, Planck, Maxwell, and Newton never kept their equations a secret from the world, so it is strange that you do.

Instead of ad hominem atacks and namecalling, please share ST's equations, if there are any.

Thanks & Best,

Jeff :)

report post as inappropriate


CyberBeach wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 06:07 GMT
I was sure I had pulled a twenty out of my pocket and put it on the dresser, but in the morning it was nowhere to be found.

Three weeks later, it turns up in the dryer! Only thing I can think of is that it folded in on itself in the 11th dimension until the heat of the drier straightened it back out into classical reality.

That's evidence enough for me! :)

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 14:10 GMT
I had a similar problem with my front-load washer. It was taking too long to wash. I checked the pin trap and there was a rolled-up $10 bill (my wife likes to roll bills up tightly), a quarter and 4 pennies - but no pins!

Of course, my string theory isn't 11-dimensional - it is at least a 28-dimensional F-theoretic super-computer. What is the origin of information? How does every electron 'know' that it has an intrinsic spin of 1/2 h-bar, an electric charge of -1e, and a rest mass of 511 KeV/c^2.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate


Bobby Sziliardo wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 13:50 GMT
Wow! That's odd. Three weeks ago, I found a blue sock on my dresser. It isn't one of mine. I was wondering how it got there!

report post as inappropriate


kelly wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 15:02 GMT
hello all!

i am glad that all of your washing machine experiences are going well!

but i, and the nobel laureate physicists & galilean giants, must tell you that it is probably not string theory that is responsible as string theory lacks physcial models, postulates, and meaningful equations. also, string theory, unlike physics, as pointed out above, begins with completely non-physical...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 16:28 GMT
Dear Kelly,

Whether we are motivated by money, politics, or a search for the truth (I'm a businessman with a Doctorate in HEP Physics that considers myself closer to the latter category), we know that reality has a dual wave-particle nature, and should thus expect strings-membranes (wave behavior) and kissing spheres-CDT (particle behavior) to both be important.

Large collaborations have the advantage of being able to work constantly, having lots of cheap & intelligent grad student labor, and having political power to block potentially competitive ideas. However, most large collaborations that I have known work by committee, and cannot respond or react to a new perspective as quickly as a smaller collaboration. I don't mind being called a maverick - the worst that can happen to me is that people DON'T hear my ideas.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Jeffery Hart replied on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 16:59 GMT
Hello Ray,

You write, "Whether we are motivated by money, politics, or a search for the truth (I'm a businessman with a Doctorate in HEP Physics that considers myself closer to the latter category), we know that reality has a dual wave-particle nature, and should thus expect strings-membranes (wave behavior) and kissing spheres-CDT (particle behavior) to both be important."

Dear Ray--did you reead any of Feynman's or Einstein's or Glashows or Laughlin's words above in the post made by kelly?

In no way does wave-particle duality imply strings-membranes (wave behavior) nor kissing spheres-CDT (particle behavior).

Please remember that there is no physical evidence whatsoever for strings nor for membranes, and certainly not for kissing spheres. From Galileo on down, as Einstein noted, the center and circumference of physics has always been found in physical reality. What are your business interests in making it otherwise? PErhaps you profit by peddling non-physical entities which have killed physics?

You writes, "Large collaborations have the advantage of being able to work constantly, having lots of cheap & intelligent grad student labor, and having political power to block potentially competitive ideas. However, most large collaborations that I have known work by committee, and cannot respond or react to a new perspective as quickly as a smaller collaboration. I don't mind being called a maverick - the worst that can happen to me is that people DON'T hear my ideas.

Have Fun! "

If you study the history of physics, all great advances came from indivdiuals, not "large pools of cheap labor" organized by marxist professors more interested in serving their private bottom line as opposed to the higher ideals, even at the expense of physics. In fact, physics has been brought to a standstill by politicians posing as physicists while funding large pools of cheap labor with questionable intelligence, as what grad student with one iota of intelligence would want to be a faceless, proletariat gear of "cheap & intelligent grad student labor" in a regime based on lies, hype, and solinsky tactics? Surely any grad student capable of independent thought would prefer pondering physical reality on their own, rather than spending life's precious time parroting and promoting the groupthink lies and hype of the senior citizen trotskyite professors, who have never had a useful idea--not even back in the seventies when they were young, passionate, and full of the best intentions.

You write, "I don't mind being called a maverick - the worst that can happen to me is that people DON'T hear my ideas."

What is this supposed to mean? That the groupthink regime was right in burning Bruno at the stake and persecuting Galileo? That is is right for non-physicists and snarky handwavers to pocket millions of fiat dollars for non-theories as physics dies?

Best,

Jeff :)

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 18:17 GMT
Dear Jeff,

I understand your pessimism. I dropped out of grad school (after I had qualified for a Doctorate in Solid State Physics) once because I didn't like being a faceless, proletariat gear. I once swore off physics and higher education. Years later, I chose to go back to grad school. My perspective was completely different - I didn't want to "simply survive" grad school - I wanted to be one of the best.

I enjoy living, thinking, and spending time with my wife and daughter, and I'm not yet ready to be burned at the stake. But at least we remember Bruno's name. Is it better to be a faceless, proletariat gear that no one remembers, or to be the guy that everyone remembers for being burnt at the stake?

Modern physics is at a standstill because experiment has not advanced as quickly as potential theories in recent decades. Not only are the experiments technologically difficult, but we have fewer monetary resorces in this difficult economy. To my knowledge, there is insufficient experimental confirmation of strings, CDT, and holographic gravity. But we know that reality has a dual wave and particle nature, and that holograms require BOTH concepts to work.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate


Jeffery Hart wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 17:20 GMT
How physics works these days:

1. Come up with a completely non-physical concept such as tiny little strings or little loops.

2. Make surf that not only that these entities have never been seen, but make sure that it is impossible to even look for them.

3. Falsely claim that you are doing what Einstein did.

4. Raise hundreds of millions in funding and recruit the "best and brightest" political manipulators across the land while exiling physicists.

5. Embrace and celebrate decades of failure as justifications for millions of more dollars.

6. Reward regimists with cash and prizes.

7. Wash, rinse, and repeat as true physicists and physics equations and physics are exiled from the academy and official discussions on the physics-free physics.

report post as inappropriate


kelly wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 18:29 GMT
Ray writes, "Dear Jeff,

I understand your pessimism. I dropped out of grad school (after I had qualified for a Doctorate in Solid State Physics) once because I didn't like being a faceless, proletariat gear. I once swore off physics and higher education. Years later, I chose to go back to grad school. My perspective was completely different - I didn't want to "simply survive" grad school - I wanted to be one of the best."

I don't think Jeff is being pessimistic.

Rather it seems he is being quite optimistic as he exalts truth and beauty over the handwaving physics regimes of failure, denial, lies, hype, deceit, and subterfuge.

I think, Ray, that the pessimistic ones are the ones who have so little hope for truth and beauty and independent thought that they join snarky groupthink regimes and speak not for truth but for politics and profit.

They are the true pessimists, as they have given up.

It seems that Jeff, and certainly I, am optimists.

Whereas you seem a pessimist to so gleefully state that Bruno must always be burned while hype, lies, and conformal groupthink rewarded.

best,

kelly

report post as inappropriate


kelly wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 18:57 GMT
nice post jeff--nut i would add to it:

How physics works these days:

1. Come up with a completely non-physical concept such as tiny little strings or little loops or mutiverses or higher dimensions.

2. Make sure that not only that these entities have never been seen, but make sure that it is impossible to even look for them.

3. Falsely claim that you are doing what Einstein did.

4. Raise hundreds of millions in funding and recruit the "best and brightest" political manipulators across the land while exiling physicists.

5. Embrace and celebrate decades of failure as justifications for millions of more dollars.

6. Reward regimists with cash and prizes.

7. Wash, rinse, and repeat as true physicists and physics equations and physics are exiled from the academy and official discussions on the physics-free physics.

8. Fund tenured professors to create crackpot indexes and teach the rising young syocphantic supporters of failed regimes to attack honest curiosity in an ad hominemen mannner, label anyone who questions the deceit as crackpot.

9. Purchase playstation videogame consoles to show how cool lqg is, even though it lacks physical reality and meaningful equations.

10. Keep the failure and funding alive for non existent entities such as quantum gravity and string theory by saying things such as "holography gives us our most precise forumaltion of quantum gravity (which doesn't exist)" and string theory (which doesn't have equations nor any physical grounding in reality) gives us our best insights on time.

11. Viciously attack young physicists questioning any of the ridiculous machinations and receive funds and cash awards for your ad hominem attacks as your boss works not on physics but on books about space aliens and ufos, while ignoring Godel and Eisntein.

report post as inappropriate


Bobby Sziliardo wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 20:39 GMT
I just found another sock behind my nightstand. This is getting weird.

report post as inappropriate


Jeffery Hart wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 23:16 GMT
Thanks Ray--allow me to respond in parentheses:

Dear Jeff,

I understand your pessimism. (I am not pessimistic at all! The String Theory Regimists are the pessimists. They are so pessimistic about the future of physics and independent thought and grasping physical reality with mathematics that they gave up long ago! They are so pessimistic about pursuing and apprehending physical...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 20, 2010 @ 02:18 GMT
Dear Jeff,

"More money was spent on the LHC than any other physics project ever."

I was in grad school when the US Congress killed the Superconducting Supercollider (SSC) that was to be built near Dallas. The argument against the SSC was that costs had risen to an unexpectedly high 10 billion dollars. I was working on a High Energy Physics degree, and I like Texas (I'm a Floridian, but spent 4 years in Texas - I like the people and their "Lone Star" attitude) - I had hoped to get a position associated with the SSC upon graduation. I sent letters supporting the SSC and basic scientific research to my Senators, Congressmen, and President Clinton's office. President Clinton's office responded on linen stationary (we can't afford basic scientific research, but we can afford luxurious stationary...), but none of my other elected representatives bothered to respond. They left Texas with a two billion dollar hole in the ground. Now the future of High Energy Physics has moved to Europe. I'm likewise disappointed with our recent lack of support for Space exploration.

The American idea of "basic scientific research" has deteriorated to developing the first 5(6,7,8, we can count...)G wireless broadband network. If an immediate payback on research investment dollars can't be seen, then it isn't well-funded.

I'm the same age as Bruno when he was burned at the stake. If I got killed in a car accident tomorrow, I don't think that anyone would know of me in the year 2410. But we all know of Bruno's martyrdom. We will all die someday, but will we die without ever having really made a difference? Maybe I'm a realist and not a pessimist or optimist...

I am working towards a TOE. I think that a TOE must properly contain both particle and wave natures. I think that string theory is the wave extreme of this equation. String theory may be insufficient by itself, but is probably part of the puzzle. Garrett Lisi's E8 'TOE' is a particle-like approach based on the 8-D Gosset lattice. Likewise, the simplices of Causal Dynamical Triangulation can be built out of particle-like lattices. I think that fighting over these two extremes is silly, and that Scale Invariance allows us to unite these extremes. The cool thing about Holography is that it works with both extremes.

Still Having Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 20, 2010 @ 11:02 GMT
AHAHAHAH STILL PUB FOR e8 YOUR FRIEND ON FACEBOOK......THE TOE IS THE SPHERIZATION rAY ....WHAT IS THIS STRATEGIC BUSINESS OF PSEUDO SCIENCES.....

MONNEY = CHAOS Dr Cosmic Ray

What is it ....we see in the words the kind of pub.......it's not scientific that Ray ...have you a job or this team have a super vanity and the fear to loose their credibility.....

TRANSPARENCE....=TRUTH.....=....redemption hahahah

Regards

Steve

Have fun

your friend

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 20, 2010 @ 13:54 GMT
Hi Steve,

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm a self-employed businessman and doing well-enough that I don't need a science job. Yes - I've sold a few copies of my book, but I've given away more. I realy haven't 'made money' off of my science since I gave up teaching in 2003.

Garrett Lisi and I are Facebook friends (just like you and I are), and I think Lisi has started something interesting with his E8 model, but he has focussed on a 'simple' theory, and I think he has overlooked or omitted several important features of the TOE, such as extra dimensions, scale invariance, pentality symmetries, and holography. His latest paper uses a rank-14 Lie algebra that appears to be at least 14-dimensional IMHO. My current model is at least 28-dimensional. I think that I understand parts of the TOE, but admit that it is currently beyond my mathematical and philosophical ability to explain all of it. If I could explain it well, you would be one of the first that I would try to convince. All I know is that spheres look too much like a particle-like model to be able to explain wave-like behavior as well.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate


Jeffery Hart wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 23:18 GMT
Hey Bobby!

If you rephrase your sentence you can get some funding--"I just found another sock behind my nightstand. This is getting weird. Quantum mechanics is weird and string theory is weird. Ergo finding socks behind nightstands is proof of String Theory!"

report post as inappropriate


NARSEP wrote on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 07:40 GMT
A geometric representation of the holographic principle.

Let us suppose that a planar space starts to expand from a quantum space (smallest circle) to ever greater concentric circles (see figure... sorry no fig. possible in FQXi - see attach.). By each expansion new data are entering at the middle of the old ones. Each circle includes on its surface the data of all the internal circles and the outmost circle (horizon) represents the data of the whole system (universe).

attachments: HOLOGRAM1.jpg

report post as inappropriate


narsep wrote on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 13:24 GMT
The previous note refers to string theories, Hawking's calculations on black holes, M-theory, black hole information "paradox", and many other paradoxes ... of modern physics that I am happy having no any idea of.

report post as inappropriate


grainne wrote on Oct. 17, 2011 @ 10:46 GMT
when things expand the surface becomes thiner as it spreads and the cause of it's expansion increases i.e. a balloon - what is causing the expansion of the universe as we know it?

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 9, 2013 @ 18:37 GMT
Baggott[Farewell to Reality: How Fairy-Tale Physics Has Betrayed The Search For Scientific Truth] and even more spot-on Unzicker-Jones[Bankrupting Physics: How Top Scientists Are Gambling Away Their Credibility] critiques shame physics’ shameless rock-star media-hype P.R. spin-doctoring veracity-abandoning touting sci-fi “show-biz” trending viral exacerbated by online social networks...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jun. 3, 2015 @ 16:46 GMT
the universe is not what we think and it's showing us this at every step of the way. As long as we continue to analyze it within our boundaries of perception, we are going to keep hitting a wall. I celebrate the courage of those that can make a difference in our understanding by thinking out if the box and Finding some answers. Even if they don't make a lot of sense yet

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.