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

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

Paul Reed: on 6/3/12 at 7:26am UTC, wrote Steve No! All that exists at any point in time is a finite number of...

JOE BLOGS: on 7/29/11 at 9:48am UTC, wrote Lets chat. My clock...

JOE BLOGS: on 6/27/11 at 5:05am UTC, wrote EInsteins second equation is for mass approaching the speed of light. And...

Roy Johnstone: on 2/28/11 at 2:59am UTC, wrote Sophie, The article was a bit vague on the details of the process. For...

Don Limuti: on 2/27/11 at 6:23am UTC, wrote Sophie, A most interesting experiment. However, you whetted my appetite...

March 27, 2017

ARTICLE: A Whole New Quantum Ball Game [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 06:23 GMT

A most interesting experiment. However, you whetted my appetite and then gave no results gathered to date. I suspect the forces holding the Styrofoam balls together are very much smaller than those holding a Buckyball C60 together and therefore the Styrofoam will not exhibit interference.


Most interesting, Thanks,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Roy Johnstone wrote on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 02:59 GMT

The article was a bit vague on the details of the process. For instance, are the balls dropped simaltaneously through the optical grating, or one at a time?

There already is, by the way, a theoretical QM interpretation that explains the "wave/particle" nature of things and *apparent* wave function "collapse", without the need for an actual collapse mechanism or decoherence! It is the DeBroglie/Bohm "pilot wave" type of formalism.

Thanks for the article!

report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS wrote on Jul. 29, 2011 @ 09:48 GMT
Lets chat.

clock converts a circular earth orbit into an eliptical one.

And the result is six minutes difference from sidereal time per year.

Approx we take this figure to 10,000 digits of pi accuracy as the formula uses Pi.

A cicular orbit can be in as many as 11 dimensions but these are unstable when an orbit is converted to an elipse it becomes stable in three dimensions plus one of time.

Thus you can reverse the equation to convert Einsteins 4D space time to 11 dimensions.

So you can convert String theory to Einsteins thoery and EInsteins theory back into string theory.

Some scientists believe Einsteins thoery cannot be expressed in 10 dimensions.

Others believe EInsteins thoery can be expressed in as many dimensions as you want to use...................

What do you believe can my thoery work to unify Einsteins thoery and string theory.

And is my clock time more accurate or just an error of six minutes per year rather than a more accurate measurement of time..........................................

Please help me with this problem.


Iam not answering the question myself what I have provided is background to the problem.

The central question is whether Einsteins 4D space/time can be converted to ten dimensions or not.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jun. 3, 2012 @ 07:26 GMT


All that exists at any point in time is a finite number of adjacent spatial possibilities which the entity could occupy next (directions if you want, but not dimensions). There is no 'time' within any given reality, because that is concerned with the rate at which this movement (or any other form of change) occurred. And if there is change that means there is another reality (or physically existent state is better) which has superseded the original. The two do not exist at the same point in time.

Another way of putting this is: there are only occurrences, or objects/ entities/etc-any label so long as it conveys that meaning. At any point in time these 'occupy' a specific spatial position. The notion of space being: that which is not 'occupied' by the objects under consideration, ie it is not an existent entity. The configuration of this 'occupation' can be identified wrt any given point in time, and then compared with others, to identify change (eg what changed and at what rate did it do so)


report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'N' and 'P':

Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.