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

January 21, 2018

ARTICLE: Melting Spacetime [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Georgina Parry wrote on Apr. 30, 2012 @ 23:25 GMT
Dear Grace Stemp-Morlock, Joanna, all,

Joanna Karczmerek- "If one could construct a theory where the entire spacetime including the time were emergent, then you would discover that time is an illusion and have a more fundamental understanding of why it is there," .. "But that's the holy grail of the field, and I wouldn't be surprised it if takes fifty years to make any progress on it."JK.

So Joanna doesn't read anything that the FQXi community writes! I refer you and her to the recent discussions between Mr. J.C. N . Smith and myself on the thread Elegance and Enigma.It will answer the before after problem for you and much, much more.

Mr.Stemp-Morlock you said "Scarily, the work may also force us to rethink what time actually is" Why do you presume that to be scary. I have been doing just that for many years and discussing it with others on this site for many years. The community is very familiar with time being called into to question and has been considered by various people in a number of ways.It is not only PHDs with large grants that think about such questions. You should not presume concern or surprise. It seems to be catching up.

But Hooray how wonderful to hear that there is a growing movement to develop a theory where space-time is emergent. I wonder how far they want to go. Stopping with consideration of how data is distributed in the environment and calling that data pool space-time, or continuing through the processes of various types of reality interface into space-time image output. Not in the external environment but chemical or electrical output fabricated by the observer, organism, device or material. Which will ultimately mean the unification of physics theory and biology.

IMO Space-time is not in the external reality but photon data is. Anything affecting the paths taken by the photons will have the potential to affect the output reality created when those photons are received and processed. Mirages and the shimmering of the air on a hot day are common examples. The space-time image output is altered by the change to the distribution of the data in the environment, but the Source or Object reality is unaffected. There is no feedback from space-time output to Source (or Object) reality.

Thank you for that article I wish her luck, when she has decided what she is doing. As it sounds like it has the potential to be a promising avenue of research. I'll not comment on the big bang part.

report post as inappropriate

TexMurphy replied on May. 1, 2012 @ 05:15 GMT
Why can space-time not be a single event occurring in two places simultaneously?

Why can't we explain dark matter by the absence of the matter that had just previously occupied space-time?

How long does it take for an idea to spread?

If I were speaking directly to you, you would hear this at a specific space-time.

Does that mean that specific space-time exists in two space-times, because it was witnessed in two dimensions,(me and you)? But we are both three dimensional.

There must be many more dimensions than we thought.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 1, 2012 @ 12:03 GMT
ahahaha the extradimensions are a pure joke , return at school Murphy and buy a better book of maths.

Learn what is the 3D distribution since the BB, learn what is the evolution and the polarity between mass and light on the entropical arrow of time before pondering ironical extradimensions.

Georgina ahaha what a work they do not understand even the quaternion and the PRIME numbers ahahah and they insist furthermore. Perhaps they want grants, isn't it ?

The irony at its paroxysm above the deterministic thoughts....

and the words shall not change this simple evidence.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on May. 1, 2012 @ 13:02 GMT
Dear Steve,

you sound happier.3 laughs in one post! Yes a grant would be very nice but very unlikely I expect. Its not just a thing of mathematical beauty that may or may not be realistic but something with the power to unify and answer questions. Not just one but many. Which can incorporate different kinds of mathematics because it is different parts, with different forms, functioning differently, and best described differently. Though they might all be unified under one mathematical formalism.

Dear TexMurphy,

I did reply but its accidentally in the wrong place, separate from this.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on May. 1, 2012 @ 12:45 GMT
Hi TexMurphy,

Source event, an interaction of material objects (separate from observer)----photon data transmission ----output event observed, (interaction of data with sensory system giving brain activity experienced as (output) image observed.) This is two different events not the same event occurring in two different places. The observer only sees a fabrication of the former event from the data received. This can not be occurring simultaneously because of the speed of light at which the data transmission occurs.

Re dark matter, it is supposed to have extra mass to account for galaxies holding together. An absence will not have any mass.

You ask "How long does it take for an idea to spread?" How long is a piece of string? It depends. If no one talks about it it may as well be a secret. Is it accessible to people who might tell others? Is it understood sufficiently to talk about it with others? Who thinks it is interesting or cares enough to tell someone else about it? Who thinks someone else might actually be interested or amused by it? Who thinks they won't be made to look stupid or be judged if they mention it? Is it reaching a target audience who could be interested in it? Celebrity or unknown originator? Media interest?......

Yes it exists in two space times the space-time fabricated by the speaker and the space-time fabricated by the listener. Which are different because they are in different positions obtaining different input from the environment. Which would be more obvious if facing each other rather than next to each other.

you said -"There must be many more dimensions than we thought". It depends upon what you are thinking about.

report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith wrote on May. 1, 2012 @ 12:50 GMT

Given the topic of this article, I would be seriously remiss were I not to put in a plug for my recent essay, 'Toward a Helpful Paradigm for the Nature of Time,' which will be found here.

As Georgina Parry noted in an earlier post, there is an informal group of FQXi bloggers whom I fondly think of and refer to as the FQXi 'time mafia,' to which I confess being an occasional collaborator and fellow traveler. It might not be too far fetched to say that we are, to varying degrees, more or less obsessed with the quest for what David Deutsch would call a "good explanation" for the nature of time. Our comments on the topic are spread out over numerous FQXi blogs, and thus not easily accessible in total. Many, but certainly not all, of our comments will be found under the various essays which were submitted as part of the FQXi essay competition on the nature of time in 2008.

I am optimistic that slow progress actually is being made toward some sort of agreement or consensus among at least some who thing about these things. I am further encouraged by well-founded rumors that highly regarded authorities on the topic such as Lee Smolin are even now nearing completion of new books on the topic. As I suggest in my latest essay, this topic need not forever remain an impenetrable mystery. It would be exciting to see it well resolved during our lifetimes.



report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on May. 1, 2012 @ 19:36 GMT
The D-brane in n dimensions fixes the endpoints of strings in Dirichlet boundary conditions. If we let σ be the parameterization of an open string, the Dirichlet boundar condition is for the string X(σ = 0) = X(σ = 2π) = 0. Here the string length is parameterized for σ \in [0, 2π]. This turns out to be dual to the Neumann boundary condition, where the momentum is...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Douglas W Lipp wrote on May. 2, 2012 @ 01:34 GMT
Does anyone understand CIGTheory?

Its claims are preposterous and I am wondering if it is explained simply enough, too simply, incomprehensible, too complex, or something else altogether?

Dr. Joanna Karczmerek may wish to consider CIG's offerings when writing her paper. Why not? It can't hurt. CIG Theory can always be discarded. We can always throw out CIG Theory, but we should at least make an attempt at its understanding. Is that too irrationale? I personally have stopped thinking these days. I QUIT! No movement, no time. Try please

report post as inappropriate

Doug W Lipp wrote on May. 4, 2012 @ 11:54 GMT

I have sent my theory off to at least one hundred reknown physicists, and some not so reknown, dozens of Publishers and Journals, Newspapers, Ripley's Believe it or Not!, and the Royal Society. How many comments have I received? Zero.

Does this mean my theory is right or wrong?

The theory explains where Space comes from, it explains Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Red Shift anomalies, Wave Paticle Duality, much more. Is this the way the community works?

Thanks A Lot Guys/Girls,

Mr. Doug

PS: My deepest apologies for venting on Dr. Joanna's article site. She's the best.

report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith replied on May. 4, 2012 @ 15:20 GMT
Mr. Lipp,

You wrote, "How many comments have I received? Zero. "

Even that is no longer true about your theory; you are now receiving a comment.

We here in the FQXi community generally attempt to treat one another with a basic level of respect, and we try to give one another the benefit of the doubt regarding motives and intentions, until proven otherwise. With this in mind, I went to your website and looked at your theory. Your Postulate II is: "1) If you believe it, it is true. 2) I believe it!"

You have thereby immediately lost all credibility with me, and I suspect with virtually anyone who would extend to you the respect and the benefit of the doubt which is customary here and who would begin to read what you have written. If I believe that the moon is made of green cheese, that is not true. Sorry.

You obviously have devoted a great deal of effort to creating your website. Why would you do so, and then lead off with statements such as the one quoted above which are virtually guaranteed to alienate potential serious readers? You appear to be intent on wasting not only your own time, but the time of others as well. I can't help wondering why anyone would do so. Is this your labor-intensive way of trying to "punk" the scientific "establishment," or what? Just curious.


report post as inappropriate

Douglas W Lipp wrote on May. 5, 2012 @ 00:53 GMT
Dr. Smith,

Respectfully, I disagree. We must rely on our beliefs, no matter how strange or bizzare, for only then can we build and trust, no matter how little, our fragile reality. Do you believe that you are existing in the Milky Way, spiraling through Space? How strange. If you believe that the moon is made of green cheese so be it. There are zillions of realities out there. It is what makes the multiverse possible. And it is only the majority that decides what is the correct view, though it would be a most interesting Many World's Universe where the minority decides reality.

Besides, if you can't get past a little humor to read a thoroughly groundbreaking theory, that is your degree of freedom. I am still waiting for the community to respond to CIGTheory. But, many thanks for at least openng the website! More than I've gotten from anyone else!

To satisfy your immediate curiosity, "Please Keep Reading" - at least try the Fourth Law of Motion - many years of effort. Or maybe the explanation of the reality behind the wave-particle duality Double Slit experiment. Or maybe the solution to Dark Matter. Or Red Shift Anomalies. Or Dark Energy. Or the Horizon Problem. Fact is, one theory, one view, satisfies each of the above problems simultaneously (the 4th Law is independent of the others).

Hopefully, you will finish the theory and reply with great thought and after deep contemplation.

Do you have any better ideas where and how Space manifests itself?

Does any other theory combine the fundamentals? Or describe Black Holes and Space in one equation, and as manifestations of one another?

And yet, there are so many things I don't want to believe in, like sickness and poverty, and that become part of my reality despite my tryng not to believe, that I do not feel I have any control over my beliefs whatsoever, for if I did, I would never believe in many of the things I see and hear.

Please finish reading the theory, and then after you understand it, if you can understand it, if it is understandable, feel free to scientifically disprove it. It is welcome. It is what I want. I have written my discoveries as simply as I can, and with my limited knowledge in the field. Open your mind.

thank you


report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith replied on May. 5, 2012 @ 01:48 GMT
Mr. Lipp,

I appreciate your honesty. You at least do not pretend to be anything other than what and who you are. That in itself is refreshing. That not withstanding, no, I'm afraid that I couldn't get past a little humor to read your groundbreaking theory. Sorry. Humor, in general, is a good thing, but science is not about humor. Science is about good explanations. If you have a good explanation, don't hide it behind humor, or behind anything. We all have only a limited amount of time to spend trying to figure out how the universe works. We need to focus much of that time on thinking about the work of people who have serious ideas to share with us.

Please read some good books such as David Deutsch's recent book, 'The Beginning of Infinity.' You don't need to be a science or math whiz to enjoy reading it. Then think about your theory, and then re-write it to make it come across from the get-go as something more than mere humor. We need all the really good explanations we can get. If you have a good explanation, put it out there, in serious language. Trying to figure out how the universe works is hard work. None of us can do it alone. Fortunately, others have helped pave the way for us. Take a good look at what they've already done. And good luck to you.


report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 01:45 GMT
Hi Joanna,

Quoting your article: "Scarily, the work may also force us to rethink what time actually is: "If one could construct a theory where the entire spacetime including the time were emergent, then you would discover that time is an illusion and have a more fundamental understanding of why it is there," says Karczmarek. "But that’s the holy grail of the field, and I wouldn’t be surprised it if takes fifty years to make any progress on it.""

I hope you won't mind if I share my aether theory with you. I think it will explain everything including time. If the aether is made out of waves, then everything makes sense. I call them aether medium waves.

I got the idea from atomic clocks. There is an atomic clock that uses Caesium-133 which emits 9,192,631,770 cycles per second. The most accurate clocks in the world are atomic clocks, and they use EM frequency.

Nature makes available to us an electromagnetic frequency spectrum with radio waves at the low end, and gamma rays at the high end. Nature gives us a frequency range that spans more than 24 orders of magnitude.

I believe that the fundamental properties of the vacuum are: aether medium waves that span an unknown frequency range (a lot more than 24 orders of magnitude). AM waves are 3D and they move at the speed of light relative to their own existence.

What do you call 9.1GHz? Answer: a very accurate clock.

What do you call an EM frequency that spans more than 24 orders of magnitude? Answer: time itself.

If we make AM waves, which behave like electromagnetic frequencies, the foundation of the vacuum, then quantum mechanics and QCD fall into our laps.

How does nature define the existence of distance? Care to make a guess?

report post as inappropriate

Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Oct. 29, 2012 @ 19:09 GMT
Shapiro delay might originate from diminished energy density of quantum vacuum.

attachments: Density_factor_of_quantum_vacuum_and_Shapiro_delay.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 8, 2013 @ 23:49 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

Akinbo Ojo wrote on Aug. 24, 2014 @ 18:49 GMT

Thanks, but I asked for bread but what you offered me is a stone! I have no dollars to get any info where you linked. I hope you don't mind my posting here...

Here is what some other sources say:

"In mathematical physics, Minkowski space or Minkowski spacetime (named after the mathematician Hermann Minkowski) is the mathematical space setting in which Einstein's theory...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 24, 2014 @ 19:26 GMT
Sorry, Akinbo, your thinking about physics and spacetime is so foreign to what I know that I can't help you.

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 24, 2014 @ 23:23 GMT
Dear Tom, that is why I asked you what you know about Minkowski spacetime and whether you agree with what I saw on the web about it. Is it too much to ask?

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 25, 2014 @ 02:23 GMT
Absolutely it's too much to ask, Akinbo. Internet quips and wikipedia do not a physics education make. There are fundamentals to get familiar with.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 25, 2014 @ 19:30 GMT

Your point is a valid one, with no answer except in terms of the unsatisfactory 'domain limits' identified by Einstein. Tom's schema assumes Relativity as it's start point so can't really further address the issue.

My co-author on a few papers is a Minkowski and we've looked at his antecedent's work in much detail. His view was mathematical, and his concepts are hardly truly...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 26, 2014 @ 11:24 GMT

First, since you seem to agree with 'length contraction' and 'time dilation' as mechanisms that keep the arrival time of a wave to observer unaffected by observer motion both of which are mathematically based on Minkowski spacetime, what is your own definition of Minkowski spacetime?

My proposal is that an earth-bound matter medium makes length contraction and time dilation unnecessary to explain the experimental finding that earth motion has no effect on arrival time of a wave on earth surface (either for sound or for light) completes the similarities of the analogy of the dynamics of light and sound. The 'plasma' as you prefer to call it, if bound to earth as it is therefore does not require LT, time dilation, etc to make light arrival arrival times unaffected by earth motion since it is a light-carrying medium. The dilemma with light is that such earth surface experiments have been done in a vacuum, but I propose that the vacuum secured with baryonic matter as the boundary of the instruments cannot exclude/ constrain dark matter from permeating the light path being not reactive electrically and so not easily repelled or constrained.

Tom seems to admit that he may sometimes resist not answering honestly and it may be fun "hedging, hemming, hawing or bloviating"



report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 26, 2014 @ 13:28 GMT

I agree your description can be interpreted as true. It's capable of different interpretations and more precise specification is needed as it's far from 'complete'. (i.e. light 'arrival' from where? arrival time wrt which other scenario? and; "does not require the LT" all as an observed effect? or just as 'interpreted'. The Lorentz Factor does of course consistently model real findings.

The 'boundaries' of instruments aren't required to exclude 'dark matter' because the surface transition zones/plasmons/free electron fine structure is MADE OF the fermions (or 'dark matter') at rest in each frame, which do the job by scattering to the local c.

Light transmitted across a vacuum chamber then does c wrt the emitter. If you blow a few particles around within it you'll find some 'scintillation'.

If the detector is in motion through the vacuum; it's free surface electrons re-scatter the light to the local (detector) speed c ready to 'measure'.

Minkowski space-time is simply a convenient mathematical 'short-cut' approximation. Nobody back then thought there was ANYTHING in space so it was a useful formulation. However to cling on to it as a precise model of nature's real mechanisms is quite delusional.

If you and a pal await a light signal, and he starts moving forward, those clinging on to old myths will think he slows down the speed of light heading for him (not you) at infinite range! The DFM simply points out it doesn't need to change speed until it arrives and interacts!

Best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo wrote on Aug. 28, 2014 @ 14:26 GMT
Thank you JRC and Tom for directing me to resources on Minkowski spacetime on the 'Why Quantum' blog. These have kept me busy. The 27-pages of I. What to Trust to Avoid Believing in Illusions written by Petkov was very well written and interesting, even if misleading.

Quoting excerpts from there as well as from II. Space and Time: Minkowski’s Papers on Relativity, a few deductions can be...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 28, 2014 @ 15:19 GMT
"MORAL: Spacetime is NOT flat on Earth surface."

Locally, yes it is. If you know Galilean relativity, you know that objects fall at the same rate in a gravity field, whether they follow a straight path or a curved path. Take, for example, an airplane dropping a bomb; assuming that the airplane continues on course without accelerating, the bomb will remain directly below the craft its entire journey to the Earth's surface. This can only happen in a flat plane, because there is no horizontal acceleration component -- all the acceleration is vertical, the dead weight of the bomb accelerated only by gravity.

"MORAL: Special relativity and accompaniments like time dilation and length contraction belong to flat spacetime."

Exactly right. See above.

"MORAL: Minkowski spacetime can therefore ONLY provide the correct explanation for experiments on Earth such as the Michelson-Morley results, IF, AND ONLY IF the spacetime in the Earth's vicinity were flat, UNFORTUNATELY it is not."

Um, yes it is. As Einstein relativity shows, the universe is Euclidean on the average. When laymen speak of "curved spacetime" they don't normally envision the actual mathematics, much less try to solve the equations -- they think of a picture, a curved line on a piece of paper. That isn't the case.

Like Pentcho, you must actually learn what Einstein relativity is, before you can be an effective relativity-denier.

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 28, 2014 @ 19:11 GMT
To prevent me from "hedging, hemming, hawing or bloviating", firstly, what is the size of LOCAL and secondly, what does LOCAL mean mathematically and in physics?

Then take note that I am not a relativity-denier. On the contrary, I support relativity, but the one in which in the coordinate system

ct, x, y, z

c is a vector quantity, while t, x, y, z are scalar, not the one in which

c is a scalar, while t, x, y, z are vectors. There is a physical, observable and explainable difference, even if mathematicians want to reverse their properties and foist paradoxes and absurdities of time dilation and length contraction on us.

There is claimed to be no role for gravity or acceleration in SR so no need to introduce it unless you want to propose a variant of SR.



report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 28, 2014 @ 20:34 GMT
"what does LOCAL mean mathematically and in physics?"

You need to go to primary sources for this, as I told you. You won't believe anything I say. Here is as easy as I can make it:

Locality, mathematically, refers to the relation between a point of origin -- an initial condition, zero -- and another point or set of points differentiable from the origin.

Locality, physically, refers to events within causal distance of one another.

report post as inappropriate

Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Aug. 30, 2014 @ 16:57 GMT

report post as inappropriate

gil ayala wrote on Sep. 20, 2014 @ 06:40 GMT
wow .. thank you for your clarity. i'm not a math person, but as i read this at my desk .. my son (who sent this to me) standing beside me, and my cat, *ORION* Night Hunter of the Stars, watching from the hutch overhead .. i stopped reading and cried aloud, looking at one then the other, saying:

Of course! Now it all makes sense! You and I and *ORION* share various BRANES, and that is how our individual personal awareness singularity lifeforce actually share space .. but not necessarily time. my son, my cat, and myself share the space of this room; but our experience of time is of a non-commutative structure .. as H.sapiens my "time" passes in a totally different "sphere" from that of my cat, who as F.catus, has a life expectancy much shorter, and even in his sleep phase lives to the beat of a thousand juicy mousies scurrying across the horizon. I don't know if i'm a BRANE D43 or D613 .. but this non-communative analysis provides for the possibility that in those specific BRANES we three share, our realities cross paths and so we appear and act in each other's worlds .. but each of us is also experiencing a still unknown number of BRANES, which is why my son and i are in ways worlds apart .. and my cat and i belong to and live in totally different universes. How sweet it is to partake of this non-commutative cosmic dance. Thank you very much, mr. Stemp-Morlock, for this article.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 24, 2015 @ 16:26 GMT
Can Physicists Save Dying Physics?

Physics is not just dying - it is already dead, but the majority of physicists behave like the pet shop owner in the following sketch:

Dead Parrot Sketch

Still there is a small minority that, although unable to resurrect physics, at least raise the alarm:

"Turok explains that the "large bandwagon" of the last 30 years has not found...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

DURGA DAS DATTA. wrote on Jul. 3, 2016 @ 05:31 GMT
With such a high level of confusion in physics, we are bound by a theory called relativity. Why we can not think of space as absolute empty but filled with an exotic fluid called ether or dark energy or even geavitoewthertons in certain pockets where universe exist. The total landscape may be infinite with patches of absolute nothing and patches of something. Scientists are getting signal from absolute void and how do we ignore that. Balloon inside balloon theory what we call parallel universes of opposites can be a fruitful theory to look into. Standard model prescribed some particles and we are comfortable with that. Standard model prescribed four fundamental forces but most from imagination and gravity is totally unknown except its presence in fall of apples etc . All forces as we know are electromagnetic origin and strong nuclear fore, weak nuclear force can be merged into quantum gravity by suitable manipulation of gravitons giving mass and a coupling. Quantum gravity is emergent force. Gravitons also act at molecular level..when we see apple fall . Simple calculation predicts M/R.R =CONSTANT for any molecule in classical molecular gravity theory. But quantum level action with quarks inside proton and neutron culminates into a residual color charge effect with quarks where graviton serve the purpose of force carrier in place of gluon and this quantum gravity is strong nuclear force. Similarly weak nuclear force come into play in big atoms from a residual increase in the repusion for decay in radio activity. We have to come out from the paradigm of Einstein ideas and assumed four fundamental forces. LHC will do the rest by fniding out a massive graviton soon. I am attaching paper for wide circulation and re thinking basis in physics . Kindly go through the paper even if not so convincing from present modern physics.

attachments: 6_New_Physics_with_Emergent_Gravity_Mechanism.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 3, 2016 @ 06:05 GMT
Hi Durga,

You have written "With such a high level of confusion in physics, we are bound by a theory called relativity. " You seem to be implying that confusion binds us to relativity. I don't think that is so but rather it can not be discarded because it is useful, fits experimental evidence and only suffers from the lack of general realization that there is an inherent category error in the theory.

What do you mean by " We have to come out from the paradigm of Einstein ideas and assumed four fundamental forces."? I think we need only to see the theory in relation to the underlying ontology and alongside other models formed upon information rather than beables.

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.