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.

Contests Home

Previous Contests

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
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

Gene Barbee: on 10/4/12 at 20:54pm UTC, wrote I was motivated by Sara I Walker's essay to complete some work on color...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 9:50am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Hoang Hai: on 10/1/12 at 5:07am UTC, wrote Dear Gene H Barbee Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us...

Viraj Fernando: on 9/14/12 at 2:37am UTC, wrote Dear Gene Barbee, You wrote to Gurchan Sandhu: “I was sympathetic to...

Gene Barbee: on 9/13/12 at 17:15pm UTC, wrote I am posting a new paper entitled "Gravity in an expanding universe". It...

Yuri Danoyan: on 9/9/12 at 17:09pm UTC, wrote Dear Gene H Barbee, I have my own numerological idea ...

Gurcharn Sandhu: on 8/26/12 at 14:48pm UTC, wrote Dear Gene H Barbee, Your Top-Down approach is interesting. Your essay is...

James Putnam: on 8/24/12 at 22:24pm UTC, wrote Dear Gene H Barbee, I really don't know what to make of your argument,...


Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Steve Agnew: "Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time

click titles to read articles

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.

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.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

May 20, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: A Top-Down Approach to Fundamental Forces by Gene H Barbee [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Gene H Barbee wrote on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 12:22 GMT
Essay Abstract

This paper proposes that the Standard Model [4] [5] and Einstein’s general relativity theory can be unified by introducing probabilities similar to the field of information theory developed by Claude Shannon [16] and others. Accurate estimates regarding the number of neutrons in the universe are now available due to the WMAP [8] project. The author noted that there are approximately the natural number e (2.71828) to the power 180 (exp(N)) protons in the universe (Technical endnote 1) and explored the possibility that the number is fundamental to physics. Considering the probability of one neutron as 1/exp(180) a “top-down” model lead to a direct calculation of the gravitational constant and a uniform method of evaluating fundamental forces.

Author Bio

Colorado State University Mechanical Engineering (1965) Department of Energy (1964) McDonald Douglas (1966) Eastman Kocak Research and Development (1966-1997) Lifelong interest in physics

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share

Author Gene H Barbee wrote on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 12:41 GMT
This essay predicts the Higgs energy by the equation E=e0*exp(N). On July 4 the Higgs discovery was announced and the author calculated N. The value was almost exactly 22.5. Starting from N=90, the first information operation is divide 90 by 4 (the four dimensions) yielding 22.5. The author believes this supports the essay theory. The June paper used an N value of 22.33 and it was recognized that one of the information operations was out of order. A revised paper is attached since it affects the coupling constants in the Force Table (but nothing else).

attachments: Foundations_essay.pdf

Bookmark and Share

Author Gene H Barbee wrote on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 17:08 GMT
I read most of the other essays and can relate to some of your interests. Gravity has been the geometry of spacetime since the work of Einstein, FLWR and others. My essay does not disagree but rather than accepting large spacetime with G as a measured constant, we can define what spacetime is from the relationships that allow calculation of G. It is proposed that nature starts with the distance R=1.97e-13/(129.5*2.68/.927)^.5=1.019 e-14 meters and expands it to the degree we can walk around inside. I believe it does so because there is a time ratio G in the denominator of the above equation. The equation becomes R=1.97e-13/(129.5*2.68/(.927*G^(4/3))^.5. As G increases, 1e-14 meter expands and is currently about 0.62 meters. In three dimensions, exp(180) expanding spheres make the present universe 0.62*exp(60)=7.1e25 meters. This approach makes elapsed time (G) the scale factor for expanding the universe. Based on the repeating nature of time in quantum mechanics, some say that only frequency or duration exists. Time can be a scale factor because the repeats are counted allowing G to go from 1 to a high value (currently 3e20). This can only be the case if time is fundamentally related to R above. Fundamental time appears to be t=R*2*pi/(0.373*3e8)=5.7e-22 seconds. The velocity around the circumference is based on gamma being (129.5/(129.5+10.15)=0.927 and V/C=(1-g^2)^.5=0.373. This time interval repeats, adding to the previous time interval, and the elapsed time is divided by a denominator I call alpha time to give G. We would expect that the quantum mechanical probability (action) would remain constant during expansion if G is a proper scale factor. The value m/C^2*R^2/t/h (h is planck’s reduced constant and time is t) is slightly below unity and remains constant since m/C^2*(R^2/t/h*G^(2/3)/G^(2/3)) =m/C^2*R^2/t/h*1 is constant since the G’s cancel. Although beyond what I can present here (would anyone like to see my cosmology paper?), this approach supports a cosmology with dark matter, no dark energy and no missing matter that establishes an orbit as kinetic energy is diminished.

Bookmark and Share

James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 21:13 GMT
Interesting concept Gene. Could you explain what you mean by the following:

"However, the new approach suggests that dark energy is a misconception related to overuse of the critical density concept."


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gene H Barbee replied on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 16:38 GMT
Thank you very much for your post Jim. Your request for clarification allows me to comment on the current state of cosmology. Jim Peebles gives a history of critical density in his book Principles of Physical Cosmology. Parameters reported in the series starting with First Year WMAP Observations, C.L Bennett, et. al. were based on critical density. Measured data required expansion curves that...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share

Author Gene H Barbee wrote on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 18:36 GMT
I am attaching my cosmology paper. It was one of the references in the original essay.

Bookmark and Share

Author Gene H Barbee replied on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 21:08 GMT
Hopefully I was able to upload the paper this time. It is a reference from the original essay.

attachments: Cosmologypaper.pdf

Bookmark and Share
this post was moved here from a different topic

Dirk Pons wrote on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 10:15 GMT

The concept of there being e^180 protons in the universe is intriguing, as the idea that there could be meaning associated with numerical operations on the number 180. I guess the challenge with any approach like this is to explain why those specific operations. How to ground them in physical interpretations?

Thank you


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gene H Barbee replied on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 15:47 GMT
Dirk, I read your essay and am still thinking it. Although I worked in R&D for many years I found very few creative people like your self.

Your post asked if my information operations are related to physical observations. The equation E=eo*exp(N) is used to describe observables. The same eo gives the energy of the Higgs, electron, electromagnetic field, W, Z and the ratio of the W/Z known as the Weinberg angle. Constructions built from N values give the mass of the neutron and the decay of the neutron to the proton. Fundamental radii emanating from N values give the gravitation constant and according to the cosmology paper I posted, gives the basis of spacetime and expansion. The above observables are the reason I believe the information operations are real. Why are they functional? Perhaps they represent symmetries required to describe nature. Everything in my view is related to separations from zero. The information operation I call the energy interaction involves adding and subtracting the value 2 to and from fundamental N values. The result is a separation from zero: mass plus kinetic energy exactly balancing field energy. The Legrangian (difference between the kinetic energy and potential energy) is used in physics to derive equations of motion and I think the orbits that result from the energy operation are a solution (probably in a limited way) to the Legrangian. The operations always retain the original value 90 when they are combined into structures representing observables. In thinking about your cordus proposal, I am wondering if two ends are another separation we need to consider. I was intrigued by the statement “one end is not observed”. I am a believer in dark matter and think it is a neutron like neutrino (same mass just not observed). Also, I am able to understand the properties of the mesons and baryons if they are “double” particles with one observable and one unobservable half.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 02:26 GMT
Dear Steve,

why don't you write an essay for the contest? There is still plenty of time.You could use online translation to help.I will read your essay if you write it.

As you see there are already a great diversity of styles and viewpoints.

It would give you the chance to write at length and explain where science/scientists are making wrong assumptions and your model works.

It would then be here as a resource, dated and attributed to you. Available for people who want to know about your work or build on your ideas.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 02:52 GMT
Dear Gene Barbee,

You paper is very technical and It would take me a long time to really appreciate what you have written. I think its good that you have included tables of the evidence you are using and have a summary at the end. It may appeal to many others who are more comfortable with that kind of presentation. I wish I could give more positive and constructive feedback.

Good luck in the competition.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 02:20 GMT
Hi Gene,

I have downloaded your essay and will get to it soon. I like the idea of a top-down approach, as a complement to the bottom-up way, but I'll have to see how your idea stands up. Thanks for the comments on my essay page. I'll make some comments here after reading a bit.

You mentioned being in upstate NY yourself. Right now; I am in Poughkeepsie. How about yourself?

All the Best,


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gene Barbee replied on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 14:15 GMT
Seneca lake. Thanks for taking a look...I really need some feedback after working on this for years. The revised essay is Foundations essay.pdf. The cosmology paper also included applies the theory.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 22:24 GMT
Dear Gene H Barbee,

I really don't know what to make of your argument, but, that is because you understand it and I don't except in general overview terms. Your presentation is professional and I think thorough. My approach to calculating the universal gravitational constant is different, and, it does involve changing physics theory right from its start. My appreciation of your essay is not affected by that difference. I hope to see more discussion of your work by professionals here who have also submitted essays. I think it deserves expert evaluation.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 14:48 GMT
Dear Gene H Barbee,

Your Top-Down approach is interesting. Your essay is fully detailed and impressive. But finally I could not make out as to which of our basic physical assumptions are wrong?

Of course, I believe various contributions from many like-minded authors can definitely make a difference in the emergence of a consolidated un-orthodox viewpoint needed to remove some of the major weaknesses, contradictions and fantasies from current Physics.

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 17:09 GMT
Dear Gene H Barbee,

I have my own numerological idea

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gene H Barbee wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 17:15 GMT
I am posting a new paper entitled "Gravity in an expanding universe". It supports calculation of the gravitational constant in my essay. The new paper shows why the gravitation constant remains constant during expansion, shows how to calculate geodesics and argues that the underlying calculations for gravity at the proton scale provide a foundation independent of inertial frame.

attachments: Gravity_in_an_expanding_universe.pdf

Bookmark and Share

Viraj Fernando replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 02:37 GMT
Dear Gene Barbee,

You wrote to Gurchan Sandhu: “I was sympathetic to your argument that we need a foundation that does not depend on an inertial frame”.

My paper not only shows the way to work motions of particles without reference frames, it explains all relativistic phenomena under this new foundation.

Please see:


view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 05:07 GMT
Dear Gene H Barbee

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 !


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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:50 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
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gene H Barbee wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 20:54 GMT
I was motivated by Sara I Walker's essay to complete some work on color vision and electronic bonds. A new paper is posted entitled "Information networks inherent in life molecules".

attachments: Information_networks_inherent_in_the_molecules_of_life.pdf

Bookmark and Share

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.