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, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - March 16, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

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

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

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

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

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 9:54am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Jonathan Dickau: on 10/3/12 at 6:39am UTC, wrote Interesting thoughts Domenico, Thank you for sharing your outlook. But...

Hoang Hai: on 10/3/12 at 4:26am UTC, wrote DEAR TO Domenico Oricchio as well as ALL THE AUTHORS AND READERS WAS...

Hoang Hai: on 10/1/12 at 4:31am UTC, wrote Dear Domenico Oricchio Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of...

Domenico Oricchio: on 9/14/12 at 15:53pm UTC, wrote I must say that some of my research is (a little) your fault. Last year,...

Peter Jackson: on 9/14/12 at 14:37pm UTC, wrote Dominico I enjoyed your interesting and many original thoughts, and after...

Domenic o Oricchio: on 8/25/12 at 16:40pm UTC, wrote James, I misunderstand your message. I see that you appreciate my work...

James Putnam: on 8/25/12 at 14:18pm UTC, wrote Domenico, I felt that I saw interesting potential, of the kind that you...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "John, I would say that you need to think what you mean by “physical..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

John Cox: "Lorraine, That clarifies, thanks. I'd be in the camp that argues for a..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

Steve Dufourny: "We have a big philosophical problem with the strings and the photons like..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "If my equation is correct, E=mc^2+Xl^2 , so how can we take this enormous..." in Alternative Models of...

Lorraine Ford: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..." in Undecidability,...

John Cox: "George, We shouldn't conflate contradiction with inconsistency. QM has a..." in Watching the Watchmen:...

John Cox: "Georgi, by and large I agree. Near the end of the discussion panel,..." in Watching the Watchmen:...

RECENT ARTICLES

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

FQXi FORUM
January 21, 2020

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Zibaldone by Domenico Oricchio [refresh]

Author Domenico Oricchio wrote on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 12:21 GMT
Essay Abstract

I write some reviewed collection of my comments in FQXi blog on second law of thermodynamic, wave function and quantum entanglement, quantum mechanic

Author Bio

graduation: mechanical engineering degree: physics thesis: deterministic neural network and fuzzy neural netwoek master: advanced technology in communication and information research: -Genova,fractal dimensionality and experimental discrete equation -Marina di Ravenna, fluid dynamic and bacteria grow equation -Vietri sul mare, fluido dynamic model applied to soil pollution and associate bioremediation -Manchester (interrupted), Natural Gradient Descent and Indipendent Component Analysis

Georgina Parry wrote on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 23:22 GMT
Hi Domenico,

just wanted to let you know that I have read your essay. Thanks for sharing your way of thinking with us.

report post as inappropriate

Domenico Oricchio replied on Jul. 15, 2012 @ 10:36 GMT
Thank you, Georgina.

I have read all the essays, and I vote all immediately after the publication in the site.

I think that to include a philosophical point of view, in the essay rules, is a great idea: there is a broader perspective (I read some interesting).

I fight against myself to write my thoughts (too extreme), but I must say that FQXi blog is the right place to share ideas (I start to amuse me).

Saluti

Domenico

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 16:07 GMT
Domenico,

"the second possibility that the expanding electric

shell is the wave function because of the interaction of boson-antiboson (to obtain massive particle)"

I also speak of boson-antiboson interactions. Would you explain your above statement and its impact?

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Oricchio Domenico replied on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 00:28 GMT

I think that each gauge boson is the own anti-boson: the annihilation of a particle-antiparticle give two boson that move away in opposite direction; if you reverse the film of the process, then you obtain from two boson annihilation the couple particle-antiparticle (or one decay particle); I read that in Quantum Electrodynamic the scattering photon-photon have a non-zero cross section.

This is not the important point, for me, because I think that the expansion shell is destroyed (collapse) in the annihilation: there is no more couple, and there is not more a wide couple wave function (I think that the destruction - collapse - is instantaneous).

The matter-antimatter double layer is a simplified model of the couple particle-antiparticle, that contain the same information on the wave function dynamic: I shall try to solve the double layer in a mathematical exact way, because I can study the collapse of the wave function of the double layer, and the collapse of the gravitational fields.

It is surprising that there are people that in different context arrive to similar consideration.

Saluti

Domenico

report post as inappropriate

Dirk Pons wrote on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 09:08 GMT
Domenico

You wrote: "It is possible to built a macroscopic entangled system, using a low temperature system (it exist a macroscopic wave function): you can cut the macroscopic system in two parts, and these parts are like the entangled spin experiment (entangled macroscopic wave functions): it is possible a superluminary message between the parts? If this is possible, the relativity is not violated, because the macroscopic parts cannot violate the relativity."

We came up with this principle too, and have built it into a non-local hidden-variable solution (see here Bundles..). Your further comments would be welcome.

Saluti

Dirk

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 13:26 GMT

I find interesting each alternative ideas, that is outside of the traditional view.

In a quick reading of yours essay, this remember me some string theories (I am not an expert), in a new perspective. I need some time for a deep analysis of the essay.

My idea is a little different, and simple: I think that near 0°K the wave function of the macroscopic system is a single quantum system (Nernst theorem); so that when the cut happen, then the wave functions are highly correlated.

I don't think that the light velocity is violated, but that messages can violate the light velocity if there are not particle, or gauge boson, like messenger (wave function like a real object).

Saluti

Domenico

report post as inappropriate

Author Domenico Oricchio replied on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 13:33 GMT
I am the Anonymous.

Saluti

Domenico

Author Domenico Oricchio wrote on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 20:34 GMT
I am writing with only one hand: I think a dislocation, or a fracture, of the arm; I must to go in hospital.

I think that I shall have problem to respond in the next days (there are not many messages, but I don't want resemble discourteous).

Saluti

Domenico

Author Domenico Oricchio replied on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 17:34 GMT
Seven days of convalescent; nothing of serious.

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 07:04 GMT
Dear Domenico,

As you know, with arbitrary assumptions we can build wonderful fantasies. But to come close to building a model of reality, we must use barest minimum of assumptions and such assumptions that are used must be plausible and compatible with physical reality. For this reason I think FQXi has chosen a most appropriate topic for this contest.

You are also requested to read and comment my essay titled "Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space".

Best Wishes

G S Sandhu

report post as inappropriate

Ted Erikson wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 18:20 GMT
Domenico:

2nd law Thermodynamics depends on product of temperature time to be constant.

See:

To Seek Unknown Shores

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1409

report post as inappropriate

Domenico Oricchio replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 00:42 GMT
Thank you Ted Erikson for read my essay.

I hope that all was clearly explained.

We have the swim passion, but the mine is only a pleasure and I understand the muscles suffering of the marathon.

Saluti

Domenico

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 18:47 GMT
Dear Domenico Oricchio,

"Each time variable system can be modeled using arbitrary differential equation:

...(some non-reproducible math)...

the strange result is that the volume restrictions in the phase space are ever true (Lee Hwa-chung invariants and Poincare invariant); the dynamic of the momentum is necessary to preserve the invariants, and it has arbitrary initial conditions.

I can write the classican Hamilton-Jacobi equation and the Schrodinger equation (using the quantum correspondence) for each time variable system:

...(Some non-reproducible math)...

these equations are equal! This is a wave function dynamic (if PSI is a solution then PSI^alpha is a solution: we can use wave function or probability) and this is true for each Hamiltonian linear in the momentums! Interesting...

The ideas of Hamilton, Schrodinger, De Broglie and Bohm can converge in the same theory.

It is possible demonstrate that each time variable system is Lagrangian using the Weierstrasse theorem (trajectories like extremal fields)."

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 18:49 GMT
Domenico,

That James was James Putnam. Thank you.

report post as inappropriate

Domenico Oricchio replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 23:04 GMT
Thank you James Putnam, the criticism is well-liked.

I try to write the essay in two different way: the first part is a dialog without formula, that I think that is the important part for all the readers; the second part is more specific, and this is not important for me (it is a mine ten years old theory) and I think that can be important in future: I decided to don't try to publish nothing, and FQXi is perfect to me because I can share idea without referees, translation problem, restrictions, loss of time (only interesting feedback like this one).

I try to say that each differential equation have an Hamiltonian (usually not-potential forces have not an Hamiltonian), then each differential equation have a Schrodinger equation; this can be made in a simple way increasing the number of variables of the system.

This could be a general theory: each differential equation can be transformed in a standard equation if we use a greater number of variables (projection of the standard equation dynamic in a subspace).

Saluti

Domenico

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 14:18 GMT
Domenico,

I felt that I saw interesting potential, of the kind that you just mentioned, in your presentation. My opinion would not be what you need. I believe that your work deserves some discussion by professionals. FQXi is the right place for you to have that opportunity. Good luck in the contest.

James

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 14:37 GMT
Dominico

I enjoyed your interesting and many original thoughts, and after wading through so many long essays, a very pleasant read. I agree systems may be assigned a state of motion and that 'each time variable system is Lagrangian.'

I'd be interested in your thoughts on my take on those points and related findings. I hope you may also like my sonnet, but I'm afraid it is more dense than many, with all the meaning below the 'theatre of motion' and gives a 'kit of parts' for a self-build' ontological construction. Thus not accessible to a quick 'skim' reading.

Hope you can find the time and comment.

Best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Domenico Oricchio replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 15:53 GMT
I must say that some of my research is (a little) your fault.

Last year, in my research essay on unification, you give me some suggestions (not much readers, but valids); when I start in an interesting research field, and I see that is free from explorers, then I understand that is the right place.

The purpose of my writing is to enjoy and interest (with a dense construct): so I think that my essay work.

I must reread your sonnet, that I have votes some weeks ago (there are many essays this year), but I remember a nice (and deep meaning) theatre play structure.

Saluti

Domenico

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 04:31 GMT
Dear Domenico Oricchio

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material (definition from the ABSOLUTE theory of me) - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 04:26 GMT
DEAR TO Domenico Oricchio

as well as ALL THE AUTHORS AND READERS WAS INTEREST.

Today, I am finished reading all of the essays in this topic.

First of all, thanks again to FQXi and the donors has facilitated for us to have the opportunity get contribute to science.

Next, would like to express to other author by the thanks for the comments that you have contributed to give me, and sincere apologies to those of you that I do not have specific feedback for your essay.The reason that is because:

The placing for issues and measures to solve for the problems of your offer is completely different from mine, so I can not comment when we do not have the same views on one matter, the purpose is to avoid the discussion became conflict of ideologies,it is will not be able to solve the problem which we are interested.

The end, I hope that : we ( who want the human to put their faith in science) will have the same fear: to someday,every people told each other that:

WAIITING FOR SCIENCE HELPS IS VERY LONGTIME,

LET PRAY TO GOD OR A CERTAIN DEITY SOMETIMES EVEN FASTER !

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 06:39 GMT
Interesting thoughts Domenico,

Thank you for sharing your outlook. But these are just undeveloped fragments so far. It would have been nice to see more development of the ideas.

I have attached a paper by Steven Kenneth Kauffmann - about the presentation of a Classical oscillator as a Schrodinger equation - which ties some of your essay's ideas together, as it involves 'Hamiltonizing' the system.

I think this paper relates, or hope it helps you with a next step.

all the best,

Jonathan

attachments: 1012.0051v4.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:54 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate