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 Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

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

Sridattadev: on 3/22/11 at 20:49pm UTC, wrote Dear Israel, I have read your essay and agree to your point of...

Israel Perez: on 3/21/11 at 21:41pm UTC, wrote Dear Basubeda I think that both most of the contestants and the organizing...

Israel Perez: on 3/21/11 at 20:25pm UTC, wrote Dear Steve I am sorry for my late reply. Thank you for your comments, I...

basudeba: on 3/20/11 at 6:20am UTC, wrote Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria – suggestions for...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/18/11 at 15:28pm UTC, wrote Hi to both of you, Indeed dear Israel, it is bizare this lack of...

Israel Perez: on 3/14/11 at 20:33pm UTC, wrote Dear Paul Thank you for your interest in my essay. I have devoted some...

Paul Halpern: on 3/13/11 at 18:24pm UTC, wrote Dear Israel, Your interesting essay offers an important call for...

Israel Perez: on 2/28/11 at 21:02pm UTC, wrote Dear Georgina Thank you for your comments, I appreciate them. From the...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

nimit theeraleekul: "Dear friends, In my early post, I said that we could see detail of..." in Weinberg: Why quantum...

nimit theeraleekul: "Dear Administrator, I have tried to make several posts with an attachment,..." in Weinberg: Why quantum...

Gary Simpson: "Pentcho, I did not need the postulates of SR to propose the mechanism. In..." in Alternative Models of...

Pentcho Valev: "Gary, "I can propose a physical mechanism for length contraction" You..." in Alternative Models of...

Robert Martin: "Theories of everything, he contends, can be depicted as those which draw on..." in Theories of Everything,...

Gary Simpson: "Pentcho, I'm not asking for you to comment upon my essay. I am asking you..." in We Are All Connected

Pentcho Valev: "Gary, Einstein deduced his concept of time (spacetime) from two..." in We Are All Connected

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Gerry, I had a quick read through " Towards a new mathematics for..." in The limits of mathematics


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 24, 2017

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: A Physicist's View of the Universe: A Philosophical Approach by Israel Omar Perez [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Israel Perez wrote on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 15:32 GMT
Essay Abstract

Without a doubt many problems in physics arise as a consequence of our philosophical conception of the reality. In this contribution however we endeavor to alleviate this scenario by putting forward a philosophical approach under which some of the most fundamental problems in modern physics might turn out to be fictitious. To accomplish such a task we propound that everything that exists must be made up of matter which not only makes up space and the universe but also is in constant change. For such reason the existence of total emptiness and material discontinuity are rejected. Here physical fields are assumed as a particular state of matter. And time is understood as the result of the intrinsic dynamics of the universe. Furthermore, the infiniteness of the universe is also discussed and its implications are briefly mentioned, e.g., the laws of conservation. Finally, the regularity of the physical laws is questioned. In summary four great problems (from the perspective of physics) are suggested to be deeply studied: (1) What is matter?, (2) Why does the universe change? (3) Is the universe infinite in extension? And (4) are there really regular (invariant) laws of physics?

Author Bio

Dr. Israel Perez obtained his Ph. D. in physics from the Center for Research and Advanced Studies (CINVESTAV) Mex. in 2010. Right now he is looking for a postdoctoral position. He has done research in experimental superconductivity and the history and philosophy of physics. He is mainly interested in the philosophy of space, time and matter. The present essay is a work written in simple language but with a very deep philosophical insight. So, the reader is warn not to read it superficially.

Download Essay PDF File




John Merryman wrote on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 04:15 GMT
Israel,

That is a very well thought out and absorbingly written essay. I am pretty much in full agreement, with one minor caveat about the nature of space. I think you bounce up against this, with the idea that space is necessarily infinite, but by arguing it hasn't any physical properties and must not exist outside of reference to the matter filling it, you overlook the consequences of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Israel replied on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 21:03 GMT
John

Thank you for your interest in my essay. First, I will comment something about the two first paragraphs and then the rest.

The tenets in which my essay is based are essentially: (1) the principle of no contradiction and (2) the idea that everything that exists must be material. The first principle (among other reasons) urged me to emphasize the importance of item (f) of my...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 18:11 GMT
Israel,

Thank you for your detailed response. I'm not saying space is something more than what occupies it(though possibly something less), but consider the consequences of an infinite, eternal universe: All energy would settle into an equilibrium state and the only action would be inherent to the energy in that state, such that any disequilibrium or instability would cause it to collapse...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 21:39 GMT
Dear John

Thank you for your reply. First I would like to make very clear something about my proposal. I shall try to be as clear as possible and I hope we do not have semantical problems. What I did was essentially based on "common sense" and my own experience in life and physics, but no more. Unfortunately, the size of the essay is limited and I had to fit this requirement, so many other...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 06:40 GMT
Dear Israel,

An elegantly and beautifully written essay. I agree with almost everything that you say.

In item 15, you offer as one possibility, the idea that "M spontaneously came into being at total rest, and spontaneously started to move." I think your preferred argument is that motion has always existed, and will never end. In my theory, if the original 'substance' is the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Israel replied on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 01:18 GMT
Dear Edwin

Thank you for your comments and your kindly words about my work. I have read yours and I can see that we have several points in common.

To be honest I think that I require more background to fully understand your theory in particular the physical relevance of the fields C and G. You argue that the gravitational field is the only real thing. But from the perspective of my...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 30, 2011 @ 02:56 GMT
Dear Israel,

I thought that I had replied to this thread, but I do not see it so I'll try again.

I suspect you are right that we are merely talking about the same thing with different names. I see reality as a field that distributed energy over all space and concentrates energy is locations we call matter, particularly mass. You could therefore say, I suppose, that the field is a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 06:41 GMT
Dear Eckard

Yes it is easier to think that space and time started with the Big Bang and the question "what was before the Big Bang?" makes no sense. But the question "What caused the Big Bang?" does make sense. So, if one asks for a cause one is asking for something that preceded the Big Bang, and therefore one is talking about a past event. Think about this and you will realize that there...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pierre Loty wrote on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 13:58 GMT
1. Point N° 7: “time still flows because time is the intrinsic motion and change of the universe, motion or change can never stop”.

It is great that motion never stops because it could stop if decided upon. Time is relative to space; thus your description of time is a description of relative or spatial time. There is also reference time, which can exist independently of space, but that...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Israel Perez wrote on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 23:15 GMT
Dear Pierre

Time is relative to space; thus your description of time is a description of relative or spatial time. There is also reference time, which can exist independently of space.

Forgive me but it is not clear to me what you mean by "time is relative to space" and what you mean by "reference time" Could you please rewrite or extend your comments.

2. Point N° 7: “And a...

view entire post





Pierre Loty wrote on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 08:20 GMT
Point N° 7:

“Well, from my view space is made up of matter, therefore matter serves to locate matter. My view of space is as a material continuum which follows the laws of fluid mechanics. And I think that points do not precede length. A length is not constituted of points, but of infinitesimal lengths. This is so because a point is adimensional, that is, its length is zero. Therefore something that has a length cannot be constituted of things that do not have length.”

Let us assume a length is not constituted of points, but of infinitesimal lengths. Let us consider two such infinitesimal lengths. An obvious operation would be to place one length next to the other, the result being a new length. The question then arises: where does the first length end and where does the second length begin? It is safe to say the first length ends where the second one starts, because the lengths are contiguous. Therefore, the end of the first length is the beginning of the second length. The two lengths intersect. The intersection has no length because the two lengths are contiguous. Thus the intersection of two contiguous lengths is a point. Here, points are part of lengths. In other words lengths are made up of points. Therefore something that has a length can be described relative to some reference: points.

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 17:47 GMT
Dear Loty

I agree with you that the ends of a length are points and that you can find infinitely many points in a length. Points only indicate where a length ends or where two lines intersect, that's all. But if you agree with me that a point is adimensional and that something adimensional has length equal to zero, then you are contradicting yourself by saying that a length is made up of things (points) with zero length. Thinking this way is the same reasoning of Zeno of Elea with his famous paradoxes like the arrow or the dichotomy. If you believe that lengths are constituted of points (of zero length) and that time intervals are constituted of instants (of zero duration) you will arrive at these paradoxes. Please take a look at Zeno's paradoxes.



Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 19:04 GMT
Dear Israel,

My essay will support your opinion concerning the point/line issue. Are you aware that Loty's position corresponds to presently mandatory mathematics?

Thank you for the link you gave to me elsewhere. Did you already comment on Peter Jackson's essay? Aren't his ideas in part similar to yours?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jan. 25, 2011 @ 06:16 GMT
Dear Eckard

Thank you for your comment. Yes I am aware of that. In fact, I used to be in that position, that is what one learns while in school and in the long term it becomes a prejudice which is really hard to get rid of it. This is why one must be critical about the perception of the word. What others do is most of the times reliable just to a certain extent.

I have read Jackson's essay but although at first sight they appear similar at a deeper level may not. I have given some comments about this in my reply to Peter below. Please take a look.

By the way, I haven't read yours, I've been looking for it; where is it?

Israel




Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 10:02 GMT
Dear Israel,

I enjoyed reading your essay, which shows that profound reasonings can be made without being prisoner of a particular mathematical representation of the Universe. I am interested myself in this aspect, and I developed a mathematical structure that can be used to say general things without being tied to a particular theory. Anyway, my essay is about something else.

Best...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jan. 25, 2011 @ 07:28 GMT
Dear Cristinel

Thank you for your comments, I appreciate them. I would like to quote something that I wrote some posts above:

I would like to make very clear something about my proposal. I shall try to be as clear as possible and I hope we do not have semantical problems. What I did was essentially based on "common sense" and my own experience in life and physics, but no more....

view entire post


attachments: 1_2009CChristov_MathCompuSim_80_91_QuasiparticleNonProbab_WaveMechanics.pdf



Cristinel Stoica replied on Jan. 25, 2011 @ 21:07 GMT
Dear Israel,

You may say that your conclusions contradict General Relativity or Big Bang or Quantum Mechanics. My own experience taught me that often, but not always, what appears to be a contradiction at first sight, at a second, or third, or thousand sight may turn out to be just a way things complement each other.

For example, if you think that your 10 contradicts the possibility of the Big Bang, then you may ponder on Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. Another possibility is that, even with the Big Bang as it is usually considered, the universe appears 13-14 billions years old in some proper time, but we can use a different time scale, a la Zeno, so that the Big Bang is moved in the past infinity. This idea is counterintuitive, but it becomes easier to grasp after playing a while with coordinate systems in the FLRW model.

Best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jan. 26, 2011 @ 00:38 GMT
Dear Cristi,

I agree with your first paragraph. Sometimes things may be complementary and not contradictory, the degree of contradiction may depend on the principles one bases the theories or the arguments.

As to the second paragraph I have taken a look of Conformal Cyclic Cosmology which is essentially based on the FLRW metric; the latter being one of the solutions of general...

view entire post





Anonymous wrote on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 12:01 GMT
“Time is relative to space; thus your description of time is a description of relative or spatial time. There is also reference time, which can exist independently of space.

Forgive me but it is not clear to me what you mean by "time is relative to space" and what you mean by "reference time" Could you please rewrite or extend your comments.”

It is commonly agreed: c = d/t or ...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pierre Loty wrote on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 13:05 GMT
“Time is relative to space; thus your description of time is a description of relative or spatial time. There is also reference time, which can exist independently of space.

Forgive me but it is not clear to me what you mean by "time is relative to space" and what you mean by "reference time" Could you please rewrite or extend your comments.”

It is commonly agreed: c = d/t or ...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 23:46 GMT
Dear Pierre

I am sorry but I do not understand what you mean. I am not sure under what theoretical framework you are founding your arguments. Is it in Newtonian kinematics? Special Relativity? General Relativity? N-dimensional manifolds?

I do not know what to tell you.




Pierre Loty wrote on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 15:27 GMT
Point N° 10

“The main idea here is that what I did suggests that the universe has no beginning of time. If you do not agree with this I would be grateful if you let me know your arguments.”

Concerning the time when the universe began, I will quote a well circulated publication showing the universe was once a singularity.

If there strong indication about this, I can say...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 18:56 GMT
Dear Pierre

First I would like to make very clear something about my proposal. I shall try to be as clear as possible and I hope we do not have semantical problems. In the last part of the introduction of my essay I say:

...And I think that another way of growing our understanding of the universe cannot only be attained by abstract theories and experimental observations but by...

view entire post





Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 20:50 GMT
Dear Israel

I am impressed and inspired by your excellent essay, which may be no surprise as I found it almost the precise philosophical equivalent of my own, rather more mundane and down to earth offering.

I agree with almost all, though may now be able to add an interesting 1.3 to your Universe derivation options. Actually this has similarities to the 'big crunch', and it is that...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jan. 25, 2011 @ 05:53 GMT
Dear Peter

Thank you for your interest in my essay. I have read yours which appears quite interesting. I would like to be honest and remark some deep differences that I could not express in my essay due to limitations of size. I will quote the following paragraphs of your essay to make a comment.

You: Yet we know light moves at c both across deep space and through galaxies...

view entire post


attachments: 2009CChristov_MathCompuSim_80_91_QuasiparticleNonProbab_WaveMechanics.pdf



Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 26, 2011 @ 15:02 GMT
Dear Israel,

My comment on the Christov article seems to be off topic, and it is rather a curious general question. Once more I got the impression that waves phenomena in quantum mechanics are often imagined like those known for acoustic monopoles.

Since I am an electrical engineer, my picture of electromagnetic waves is different: Dipoles emit transversal (TEM) waves into a wave...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jan. 26, 2011 @ 19:24 GMT
Dear Eckard

You: Since I am an electrical engineer, my picture of electromagnetic waves is different: Dipoles emit transversal (TEM) waves into a wave guide or in free space. Longitudinal em waves are limited to cables, and they propagate with a front speed of typically only 2c/3.

I: Yes, here you are talking about electromagnetic waves that propagate in vacuum or free space (this...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 08:38 GMT
Dear Israel,

Since my essay is available, I hope you will understand why the question of SR vs. Ritz is of rather marginal interest to me. I consider just one argument of Ritz still valid: Future does not act back on the past.

I agree with you. The word vacuum must not be interpreted as just nothing. Guericke demonstrated the pressure of air, not an absolutely empty space....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 20:36 GMT
Dear Eckard

I agree with your first paragraph. As to the second one concerning aether and field, I can say the following:

Maxwell had a Newtonian notion of space, he believed that space existed as a vessel or container for bodies, and independent of them. Therefore, he also believed that the aether was filling space. In this sense space was for him something with no material...

view entire post




Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 28, 2011 @ 15:51 GMT
Dear Israel,

Let me briefly add something concerning my understanding of the notion field. What about your comment on my essay, I will reply there as to just once answer questions, which others might share with you.

To me a stationary electric field as well as a magnetic field can either attract or repel. I am in position of switching them on or off at will. Gravity is also stationary but always attracting at least on earth. I see abundant indications conforming my suspicion that negative energy, backward causation and the like go back to unjustified generalization of mathematical results. Electromagnetic fields are also peculiar: They propagate always forward even if they appear as standing waves for instance due to repeated reflection from end to end in a waveguide. In all, I see various possible fields that can fill what you seem to understand as the field. Correct?

Is it a too naive shot of mine in the dark to consider the electromagnetic result of all actually superimposed photon fields their own aether?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jan. 28, 2011 @ 18:51 GMT
Dear Eckard

I am sorry but I am afraid that I did not understand well what you mean in your first paragraph. Could you be please more clear and explicit.

As for the second. I recommend that you read the below attached papers. C. Christov exposes from a different perspective how particles and fields can be unified in a simple and conceptual theory (solitons). He also explains what a...

view entire post


attachments: 2009NVBudko_PhysRevLett_102_020401_ObservationNegativeVelocity.pdf, 1996CChristov_WorldScientPub_Proc_Discrete_out_of_Continuous.pdf




Rodney Bartlett wrote on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 18:31 GMT
Dear Dr. Perez,

Thanks again for visiting my essay "Steps Resulting From Digital Reality" (subtitled "Science Out Of The Straitjacket: Rethinking General

Relativity, E=mc2 … and String Theory"). Just as Oskar Klein prepared a quantum version of Theodor Kaluza's 5-dimensional spacetime in 1926 and Leonard Susskind wrote a string-theory version of Gerard 't Hooft's holographic...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 21:22 GMT
Dear Rodney

Thank you for your comments. I would like to say something about them.

[In relation to Dark Energy] Based on the Newtonian theory of gravitation, the gravitational force is considered to be attractive. Based on General relativity there is no gravitational force but a curvature of space-time. And if one bases one's arguments on other theories, one will probably conclude...

view entire post





Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 28, 2011 @ 16:03 GMT
Hi to both of you,

Dear Rodney,

Are you serious??? The relativity never says that it's possible to travel in time.The concept of space time is a concept of evolution, relativistic.

The only thing you can, is the check of the internal duration of your motion system,we can thus go in theory in the future but we can't return at home.Thus why??? Furthermore the technology is so...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jan. 28, 2011 @ 18:58 GMT
Hi Steve

I think that your previous post was aimed to Rodney, am I right?

best regards

Israel



Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 29, 2011 @ 11:46 GMT
Hi Israel,

Indeed, sorry.

Good luck for this contest, a beautiful essay,

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Rodney Bartlett wrote on Jan. 29, 2011 @ 12:11 GMT
Dear Israel and Steve,

First, what I understand by time. Space and time only exist in our experience. They are emergent properties, like wetness and mind. We experience wetness because it emerges from the building blocks of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms which make up water. We experience mind because it emerges from the building blocks of neurons composing the brain. And we experience...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Rodney Bartlett wrote on Jan. 30, 2011 @ 08:29 GMT
Hi again,

I had a lot of trouble writing down an answer to what I understand by time. I think I might be able to do better than I did yesterday. So here's the last third of something I spent today writing.

My essay suggests the universe is a Mobius loop and is contained in, or unified with, each of its particles (relying on physical senses or 21st-century scientific instruments would...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 06:48 GMT
Dear Rodney

I am sorry but your notion of time is obscure to me.

kind regards

Israel



Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 18:48 GMT
Hi Rodney and Israel,

Me also I think that time travel is so "pseudo sciences".Dear Rodney, you imagine a transfert of mass between two points of space time,it's purely not possible considering the entropy and the evolution.

You know the strings are falses and the hyperdimensions also.The real secret is far of us but we appraoch all days.In fact it's the energy the real secret and the motion,it's thus more rational to focus on the check of space between two points, here spheres for example as our planets.The contraction of this space more the rotations more a good speed and we can discover our Universe in evolution, but the time is just a constant of this evolution, harmonious and precise.PURELLY IRREVERSIBLE .

Now dear Rodney if you can convince us, let's go but I must admit you that it will be difficult.The rationalism is essential for all good extrapolations.

Best Regads

Steve

report post as inappropriate


basudeba wrote on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 06:18 GMT
Dear Sir,

We congratulate you for the brilliant essay. We fully agree that “Coherence in the physical interpretation” is very important “when we try to decode the mathematical language.”

You ask “What experimental evidences support the existence of ten dimensions?” “What powerful epistemological reasons do we have to believe in extra dimensions?” We hold that...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 21:39 GMT
Dear Basubeda

Thank you very much for your comments, they are very valuable to me. I would like discuss some points and ask a couple of questions.

You: ...These are the ten dimensions and not the so-called mathematical structures. These are described in detail in our book "Vaidic Theory of Numbers".

I agree with you, they are only axes (i.e. mathematical constructs) that help...

view entire post




basudeba replied on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 06:12 GMT
Dear Sir,

We are thankful to you for your response. If you can mail your postal address to mbasudeba@gmail.com, a copy of the book will reach you. In our previous post, the expressions “(x,y), (-x,y), (-x, -y) and (x, -y)” should be read as “(x=y), (-x=y), (-x,= -y) and (x,= -y)”. Time is not a dimension in the sense that space has three dimensions, because, as we have pointed out...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 20:16 GMT
Dear Basubeda

You: By displacement we mean all displacements from the decay of protons and neutrons to the apparently receding galaxies. We hold that field is the only absolute state. Matter is nothing but confined field. The confinement changes density, the effect of which on the external field is expressed as mass. This generates the charge, which in turn generates different effects of...

view entire post





re castel wrote on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 12:32 GMT
After reading your posts, I thought perhaps you guys should read my essay Discrete and Continuous Realities According to Fundamental Laws of Nature. I'd be obliged to answer your questions if you have any.

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 21:42 GMT
Dear Castel

Thank you for your invitation. I will take a look at your essay, if I have any comment or question I will let you know.

Good luck in the contest

Kind regards

Israel




Barkat Ram wrote on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 13:33 GMT
i wonder that the way we have developed our Physics thus far, based on the concepts of space and time, may have some inadequacies! I wonder if these two concepts can isolate multiverses that may well exist. Distortions in space and time are well possible, specially at the start of a new universe like ours. But then has it come out of a Big bang that may well have been an outcome of earlier universes colliding!

Physical constants and space time inhomogeneity may well pose problems. Constants may not be constants for all times and space too. If space can be expanded behind a space ship and compressed in its front, it may well propel the vehicle to exceed the speed limit of 'c'e

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 21:46 GMT
Dear Barkat

Thank you for your comments. I think one should distinguish what a theory is and to what extent the theory describes reality. You may consider a theory with several constants, or you may consider another theory with no constants. No matter your approach it must be consistent to a high degree of accuracy with observations. That is all I can say.

Kind regards

Israel



basudeba replied on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 04:46 GMT
Dear Mr. Barkat Ram,

We thank you for raised a very important point that is befitting the Foundational Questions Institute Forum. Most scientists running after name and fame and the benefits of Office ignore foundational questions and run after patch work. For example, though there are various interpretations of quantum physics that sometimes contradict each other, most quote general quantum theory without naming the specific interpretation and resolving the differences with other interpretations, but drawing from different theories what suits them to justify their view. Ultimately they end up in some conjecture like the flowers of the sky. They discuss everything about it such as structure, texture and smell etc. without proving its existence, but only assuring that one day it will be found. So we have big projects like LHC at public expenses with which the scientists can make merry.

We recommend you to read our essay and our comments here in earlier posts in answer to Mr.Perez and those of Mr. Buehlman, Mr. Akerlund, Mr. Biermans, Mr. Castel, Mr. Granel, etc.

Regards,

basudeba.

report post as inappropriate


Rodney Bartlett wrote on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 03:29 GMT
I know I can't submit another essay. I don't plan to - these are just some comments that came to mind after thinking about my essay. They don't seem very relevant to the topic "Is Reality Digital or Analog?" but writing them has given even more satisfaction than writing the essay, and I'm in the mood to share them with the whole world. So if you've got time to read them...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Rodney Bartlett wrote on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 03:00 GMT
According to the Community Ratings, my essay in the 2011 Essay Contest is sliding further down the ratings each day. But I'm having more luck with a science journal called General Science Journal - comments of mine inspired by the essay (which are nearly 20,000 words long and include comments about "The Nature of Time" as well as "Is Reality Digital or Analog?") were published in the Journal on Feb. 6 and may be viewed at http://gsjournal.net/ntham/bartlett.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Steev Dufourny replied on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 13:46 GMT
Hi dear Rodney,

Don't stop,never, you are creative.You just need to improve a little your foundamentals.I wan't discourage you.But I think it's important to show you the road of rationalism.The mass, the light, the time have their properties and they are universal you know.

ps the higgs has an external cause of mass, that's why they are probably and with a big probability false,because our fractal of mass is newtonian and purely irreversible.The cause of mass is intrinsic in all gravitational systems which evolve furthermore.

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Rodney Bartlett wrote on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 02:20 GMT
Hi Steve,

Thanks a lot for your kind words and encouragement. I won't stop ... not ever! I often want to, because I don't enjoy controversy at all. But I always end up finding another place where I want to promote my ideas. I guess human nature makes it impossible to give up when a person has no doubt he or she is on the right track.

Sometimes, what science accepts as fundamentals have to change. People once had a fundamental belief that the world was flat - and that space and time were absolutes which could never vary - and that traveling to the moon was simply fantasy. All those fundamental beliefs changed though, understandably, not without a fight (change is never easy). Now it's time for some more fundamental beliefs - both public and scientific - to change.

I hope Israel will forgive us for taking over his page sometimes. It might be a good idea to post any more of our comments on the page for my essay ("Steps Resulting From Digital Reality" -

Please visit my FQXi page

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 18:33 GMT
Dear Rodney

It's ok, you may post anything you wish, no problem.

Good luck

Israel



Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 10:10 GMT
Hi to both of you,

Dear Israel, it's cool.

Dear Rodney,you are welcome,...... never indeed !

Best

Steve

report post as inappropriate


basudeba wrote on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 16:06 GMT
Dear Sir,

We cannot understand why scientists have to resort to weirdness to explain physical phenomena. Confinement and Entanglement are not quantum phenomena alone, but they have macro examples also. Superposition of states arises out of the mechanism of measurement, which has been sensationalized by imputing imaginary characteristics to it.

As we have explained in our essay,...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 18:37 GMT
Dear Basubeda

I am sorry but I do not know what you are referring to.

Israel



Author Israel Perez replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 20:19 GMT
Dear Basubeda

I apologize for my late reply, I been very busy these days. I have reread your comments in more detail and I agree with your view. I also hold the idea that the underlying substance of material particles is a fluid. Physicists resort to metaphysical assumptions just to make the theories to match with observations, although this way of proceeding sometimes complicate even more the situation (at the long term). I also believe that quantum mechanical concepts are in need of reinterpretation under a more coherent conceptual framework (epistemological coherence), what you say about entanglement is true. But I believe that if you differ from the way this problem has been treated for the last 80 years, you should put forward your view, this is the only way things can change and this is what I try to do.

As for Relativity Einstein did what he could in his age with the philosophical and mathematical tools he had at hand. In his time his approach worked very well and it remains to be the prevailing paradigm because of his axiomatic formulation that allows us to apply the deductive method promoted by K. Popper. But from my view, one can see Relativity as a simple geometrical model in analogy with the Ptolemaic system which worked very well although the underlying reality was not the correct one. Now it is really hard for mainstream physicists to get rid of some prejudices, like the principle of relativity and the deductive method.

Thank you for your comments, I will take a look at the essays of Castel and Granet.

Kind Regards




Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 02:59 GMT
Dear Israel,

As to the 'epistemological coherence' of your essay, a real consistent view exposes string theory to be the product of some fundamental misconceptions. If the universe creates itself without any outside intervention, then particles have to create themselves, each other. The consequence is that fundamental particles then are as much the source as the product of their interactions. Since they obviously need to acquire some kind of backbone to prevent their properties to vary continuously as the circumstances vary, their properties, energy, the energy interval within which they are stable, must be quantified. If particles are as much the source as the product of their interactions, then so is the force between them, so a force cannot be either attractive or repulsive. This means that though particles, within the conditions they are stable, may act as if they either attract or repulse, as their energy also is the product of their interactions, they have no absolute charge or mass which can give rise to infinite interaction energies at infinitesimal distances, so there's no need for string theory. Since the mass of particles similarly is the cause as well as the effect of their interactions, of their energy exchange, we need no Higgs particles either. A universe which finds a way to create itself, can hardly stop creating: it is this continuous creation process which gives rise to the observation that masses contract, the effect of which is that spacetime between the mass concentrations expands. For details see my thread 838.

Regards, Anton

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 01:10 GMT
Dear Anton

Thank you for your interest. Indeed, I believe that string theory lacks epistemological coherence. In order for the physics community to believe in this theory, string theorists should give first an ontological notion of dimension. To arbitrary propose 10 or 26 or n dimensions just because this is the only way that the theory becomes mathematically consistent it is unphysical and incoherent.

As to the creation of the universe and particles, I understand creation as becoming something out of nothing, I am not sure if you are thinking in this sense.

If the universe or the particles create themselves out of nothing they are violating the conservation of energy. This is not allowed even by the principle of Heisenberg.

Kind Regards

Israel




Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 01:43 GMT
Dear Israel,

You write: ---If the universe or the particles create themselves out of nothing they are violating the conservation of energy. This is not allowed even by the principle of Heisenberg."---

My point (see my essay) is that since the energy of a photon in one phase is as positive as it is negative in the next, there's no law violated as energy is created out of nothing. In the 2-split experiment, no energy is liberated as two photons annihilate, nor has their source lost any energy by emitting them. As positive as it is negative, energy doesn't have to obey conservation laws (which is why it can create itself out of nothing in the first place): it is the expression of all such laws, their enforcer.

The uncertainty principle, in the form dE . dt = 1, shows that energy and time create, define each other, so an energy quantum creates itself the time necessary to exist, to manifest itself. In other words, there's no authority outside/before the universe who's looking on his/her/its watch to monitor whether something pops up which might violate conservation laws: the universe doesn't exist IN time, but produces time itself.

Regards, Anton

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 04:03 GMT
Dear Anton

That is precisely what I mean by epistemological coherence. To me it is not coherent to say that something is created out of nothing. I understand "nothing" as the total absence of something, if the nothing exists then it is no longer nothing it becomes something. And not only becomes something but it must be made of something (say energy, or matter) otherwise it does not exist, is an invention of my imagination.

On the other hand, when I said "...even by the principle of Heisenberg" I was referring precisely to the form dE . dt = 1. The ordinary interpretation of this equation is that energy can be created out of nothing for the short period of time dt... this is a misinterpretation. Please take a look in wikipedia for some arguments like this: "Another common misconception is that the energy-time uncertainty principle says that the conservation of energy can be temporarily violated – energy can be "borrowed" from the Universe as long as it is "returned" within a short amount of time..." One should be careful with the interpretation of this form, since time is not an observable in quantum mechanics but only a parameter.

I will take a look at your essay to better understand what you mean. If I have some comments I will let you know.

Kind Regards

Israel



Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 02:43 GMT
Dear Perez

As I haven't explicitly described a creation mechanism in my essay, I try to do so now: One of the uses of the uncertainty principle is to describe how the energy of a particle varies as the bosons it emits to express its properties only on average equals the number it absorbs, so its energy varies in time. Instead of interpreting the uncertainty principle as saying that a temporary deviation of its textbook energy lasts shorter as the deviation is larger, I propose that fundamental particles borrow and lend ALL of their energy from and to each other. So if a virtual particle by popping up with a positive energy, creates an identical particle with a negative energy, then they don't borrow energy from the universe, but from each other. However, as soon as their time is up, they'll disappear to randomly pop up elsewhere, unless in the time they exist, they can set up an energy exchange with other particles which find themselves in a similar quandary. By alternately borrowing and lending each other (part of) the energy they need to exist, particles can force each other to reappear after every disappearance again and again at about the same position. As the energy, the frequency they exchange energy at (the frequency they pop up, disappear and pop up again) is higher as their distance is smaller, they can increase each other's energy by contracting. So this is a scenario by means of which virtual particles may promote each other to real ones. Unlike a battery which only is a source of energy, the energy of particles then is as much the source as the product of their exchange. By regarding the energy of fundamental particles to be much like that of a battery, as if it only is the cause of interactions, we implicitly assert that they have passively been created by some intervention from outside the universe, thereby corrupting physics to metaphysics. If particles, their energy and properties are as much the source as the product of their interactions, then so is the force between them, so in a self-creating universe where particles have to create one another, a force (at least at quantum level) never can be either attractive or repulsive. As particles contract, the frequency of their exchange increases as does the gravitational field of the particle cluster. As the field slows down in time events inside of it, an energy increase tends to preserve itself above a decrease, which is why gravity seems an attractive force. I hope this may help to understand my tale.

Kind regards, Anton

report post as inappropriate

Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 01:33 GMT
Dear Israel,

I must have been a bit absentminded when I addressed you with your surname- my apologies. What I meant to say with my previous reaction is that we've always assumed a particle to be like a battery, its energy and voltage in this case varying about the value specified by the manufacturer (implying particles to have been created). We've always assumed that the cause of this fluctuation in its energy is that the battery-particle, to communicate its existence, emits energy, which if it is to preserve its own existence must be repleted by absorbing as much energy from its environment, so you'd expect its energy to fluctuate about the specified 'voltage'. However, fundamental particles aren't like this classical battery-particle. The real McCoy is a quantum object which, in battery-speak, alternately discharges and recharges completely. Unlike a classical battery which keeps existing even if it is empty, the quantum-battery reappears and disappears at the pace its energy 'swells and fades'. A quantum particle only exists in its action and cannot be distinguished from its effect: for a particle 'to be' is a verb, not a noun, a continuous action rather than a state. This is unlike macroscopic, classical objects, where we can distinguish between an object and its properties, its effects. The discharge in this case is equivalent to, indistinguishable from recharging with an opposite charge, the energy of the particle equal to the frequency of this alternation. The energy it alternately emits and absorbs is absorbed and supplied by every particle within its interaction horizon, so all particles by continuously exchanging 'charge', keep creating and un-creating each other, possibly repeating (to some extent) every phase of their evolution over and over again. This would be a quite effective way of preparing the environment physically for their reappearance, to enforce the laws of physics to apply on the area where they are to reappear. If the indefiniteness in the position of a particle in this context may be regarded as a measure of its dimensions, then in the phase its (rate of change of) energy is minimal, it is everywhere, so it is itself part of the spacetime it is to reappear in, and in doing so, helps preserving (the properties of) spacetime itself.

Regards, Anton

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 02:40 GMT
Perez,

Your brain works perfectly and you ask all the right questions. Now, you could be open to the right answers (imho). If so,read and understand my essay. ..If understanding is what you want.... There may be a price for understanding ...

Let know if ... in my thread.

LeBel

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 21:54 GMT
Dear Lebel,

Thank you for your interest in my essay. I would like to be honest and concrete with you, please do not get me wrong and I apologize in advance if I am tough or rude in my writing. I have read your essay which appears very interesting, I can see that we have several points in common, like the laws of logic, but there are some issues that remain obscure to me. You propose time as the primordial substance but I couldn't get a clear idea of what you understand by time. I would like to know your notion of time in few sentences, I would really appreciate it. I could grasp some of your ideas, but some times the provided information is not enough to understand what you mean.Sentences like this: "...requires that all terms be of the same nature i.e no apples and oranges (the Teacher was right!)" leave much to think about it. You should keep in mind that the reader does not have the background that you have and it is not easy to figure out what you are referring to. To understand much of your essay I had to read your previous essay from where these sentences arose. I could see that you have good ideas but I did not understand them at all. May be I am not smart enough to understand them or perhaps you are not smart enough to express yours. This may be the price for understanding.

In due time, I am going to read it once more, and if I have something more to say, I would let you know.

Kind regards

Israel

report post as inappropriate


Rodney Bartlett wrote on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 03:36 GMT
In a previous post on this page I said "I hope Israel will forgive us for taking over his page sometimes. To which he replied, "It's OK, you can post anything you wish, no problem." Thanks, Israel - so here I go again.

------------------------------------------------------------
------------

I have more conclusions derived from my essay, this time regarding General Relativity's...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Rodney Bartlett wrote on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 10:28 GMT
I found a few inconsistencies and unclear sentences which I corrected this afternoon. I know submissions to FOXY (FQXi) have closed - and anyway, I can only make one - but my curiosity about nature's workings is still alive and well. This article addresses Einstein's Relativities (GR + SR), Bohr's Atomic Model, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Negative Energy And Modern String Theory/Unification In The...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 01:01 GMT
Dear Israel ,

I wanted to let you know that I have read your essay. It is very clearly written, presented and easy to follow your thinking. This kind of philosophical consideration of scientific ideas is useful. You are right that such ideas do need careful consideration. You were brave to approach the essay in this way as there are some physicists who regard philosophy as irrelevant.

We are in agreement that space is not empty and that there is continuous change, giving passage of time. We can not know the composition of the "medium" of space at all. As it is entirely inert and provides no information by which it can be known. I would not have used the term matter as I understand matter to be composed of atoms or particles.

You are discussing many important foundational issues. So its content is also relevant. Thank you for directing my attention to your essay.

Good luck. Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 21:02 GMT
Dear Georgina

Thank you for your comments, I appreciate them. From the philosophy of materialism you will see that matter is assumed to be the only substance that constitutes the universe. But from the point of view of contemporary physics, the universe is made up of matter, fields, space and time. This is why one should have a clear meaning of these concepts, and this is why the meaning of reality is sometimes subjective. I think that philosophy is very important even more than people commonly believe and it should recover its high status in science. Doing physics in the old way could be useful to address some of the fundamental puzzles that we have today.

I wish you the best in the contest. I hope we can keep in touch beyond this forum.

Good Luck

Israel




Paul Halpern wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 18:24 GMT
Dear Israel,

Your interesting essay offers an important call for physicists to examine their suppositions in a rigorous manner. It provides a valuable way for thinkers to revisit the underlying assumptions of cosmology. Very well organized and presented!

Best wishes,

Paul

Paul Halpern, The Discreet Charm of the Discrete

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 20:33 GMT
Dear Paul

Thank you for your interest in my essay. I have devoted some years to deeply study those fundamental concepts. In this process I have realized that most physicists grant more scientific value to the physical laws than the concepts and the meaning of the quantities involved in those laws, say, time, field, mass, space, etc. And I understand that this has to be so because physics is not only a factual science but also a pragmatic one. Thus any idea (metaphysical or not), like the multiverse or 11 or 26 dimensions, that may help to solve our puzzles is well welcome in this science. But sometimes, it seems to me, these ideas are so bizarre that make no sense in real life. And even more, instead of permitting the advance of science they become an obstruction, a cloud that does not allow us to see the problems with clarity. This is why I started to rethink our fundamental conceptions of the world in order to understand what the laws of physics are really saying. I hope that pragmatic physicists consider my ideas more seriously.

I will take a look of your essay which appears to be interesting. If I have something I would let you know. Thank you for pointing my attention to your work. Good luck in the contest

Kind Regards

Israel



Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 15:28 GMT
Hi to both of you,

Indeed dear Israel, it is bizare this lack of rationalism and the lack of objectivity. You know I think it's just a play of maths or for a kind of confusions or a kind of business sometimes,I don't know it's sad for rationalists, these things named sciences are irrational and irrealistic. So many illogisms.Bizare is a weak word .

Good luck to both of you

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Mar. 21, 2011 @ 20:25 GMT
Dear Steve

I am sorry for my late reply. Thank you for your comments, I agree with your view, bizarre may be a weak word. Indeed, I think that science is just a human activity like any other, you may see it as a business or as a religion, or anything you like.

In physics, any model of "reality" (no matter how irrational or illogical is) so long as it approximately matches with experience (measurement) would be adopted. But who decides whether this model is accepted or not? You?, me?, the community of scientists? If the community decides then, from among the community, who is going to decide what theory is the best? Who has decided, in the last years, that string theory is the ultimate theory?

Good questions to be answered.

Good luck too

Israel




basudeba wrote on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 06:20 GMT
Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria – suggestions for improvement.

Sir,

We had filed a complaint to FQXi and Scienticfic American regarding Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria and giving some suggestions for improvement. Acopy of our letter is enclosed for your kind information.

“We are a non-professional and non-academic entrant to the Essay...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Mar. 21, 2011 @ 21:41 GMT
Dear Basubeda

I think that both most of the contestants and the organizing committee are aware that the evaluation process is neither fair nor the most appropriate. The low ratings that we all got clearly shows this.

I was once a judge in a similar contest. All essays were "peer-reviewed" by a set of expert judges; from my view, in order to be fair, this is what I would suggest to do for the evaluation process.

Israel




Sridattadev wrote on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 20:49 GMT
Dear Israel,

I have read your essay and agree to your point of absolute universe.

I have conveyed similar thoughts in "Theory of everything" that I submitted in this contest and I hope you will have a chance to review it.

Conscience is the cosmological constant.



Love,

Sridattadev.

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.