Search FQXi

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 - April 24, 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

Cristinel Stoica: on 10/5/12 at 20:04pm UTC, wrote Dear Hope and Jin, I think your essay is interesting, although I don't...

Christian Corda: on 10/5/12 at 13:16pm UTC, wrote Dears Hope and Jin, I enjoied in reading your interesting Essay. I am...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 9:29am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Jin He: on 9/22/12 at 21:24pm UTC, wrote Dear Pentcho Valev, Thanks for your kind words. In fact I learned about...

Pentcho Valev: on 9/22/12 at 16:54pm UTC, wrote Dear Jin He, Your cosmic breasts discovery is breathtaking. The FQXi...

Hoang Hai: on 9/19/12 at 15:50pm UTC, wrote Dear Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us are convinced...

Yuri Danoyan: on 8/25/12 at 20:37pm UTC, wrote hope he See my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413 Specially...

Peter Jackson: on 8/23/12 at 16:24pm UTC, wrote Dear Hope and Jin Barred spirals were indeed unexplained in any secular or...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jim Snowdon: "It`s the cognitive grasp of the Earth`s rotational motion! Our conscious..." in The Nature of Time

Jim Snowdon: "Steve, The science is simple. Embrace the non-existence of..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Dufourny: "Hi, Esa, Nasa, WB, UN ,All governments, the royal famillies, the..." in Global Collaboration

Nicholas hosein: "Iwrote the above when I had perfect clarity." in Good Vibrations

Steve Dufourny: "Dr Chiang, I am understanding. These quars , antiquarks, gluons personally..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Kwan Chiang: "Hi Steve, I didn’t get involve with quarks and gluons too much, because..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Nicholas hosein: "This bears some resemblance to my statement from 2014 on these forums,..." in Reconstructing Physics

Nicholas hosein: "Everything is observer dependent?" in Good Vibrations

RECENT ARTICLES

Good Vibrations
Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

Reconstructing Physics
New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves
Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

FQXi FORUM
January 23, 2022

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Galaxy Anatomy: "Darwin Spirals" by Hope He and Jin He [refresh]

Author Hope He wrote on Jun. 22, 2012 @ 15:57 GMT
Essay Abstract

This whole universe is definitely not of `relativity'. The universe is hierarchical, absolutely. For example, the biosphere and all laboratorial experiments suffer the same effects of Earth's gravity. In the same time, gravity cannot be testified by scientists' laboratorial experiments, because the gravity between two protons is 10^40 times weaker than the electricity between the same two protons. The most independent system close to humans is the Solar system, which, however, is effectively an example of two-body system. All theories of gravity are derived from the two-body system. When applied to three or more bodies, the theories give chaotic results. This is similar to the situation that there exists no formula solution to any algebraic equation of order 5 or more. Scientists, however, use the two-body theories of Newton and Einstein to explain the whole universe. This is fundamentally wrong. Galaxies are relatively the independent many-body systems. Dr. He initiated the concept of rational structure and applied it to the study of galaxy structure in 2001. His result is neither a theory nor based on any two-body theory; it is based on the analysis of galaxy images.

Author Bio

Hope He is currently a high school student. She was born in China and came to the United States at the age of 5. She grew up in Alabama. Her main interests are math and science. She is the English editor of a new company in Wuhan, China. The company dedicated to the education and study on galaxies.

Alan Lowey wrote on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 10:53 GMT
Dear Hope and Jin,

I really enyoyed your essay. Well done on such a nice piece of work. It's the best one I've read so far. I liked the Darwin Spiral idea and also firmly believe in the necessity to understand these golden galaxy spirals. I *do* have an alternative solution for the conundrum, which is waiting to be approved and posted, fingers crossed. You should both be interested with luck. Cheers

report post as inappropriate
Author Hope He replied on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 15:04 GMT
Thank you for reading our essay! We will be looking forward to reading yours also. Good luck to you too!

Alan Lowey replied on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 09:40 GMT
Thanks!

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Jun. 29, 2012 @ 09:17 GMT
Hi again, I've been thinking about the barred spiral galaxy formation conundrum and have realised that my essay has a solution for you. It has been recently been approved and posted incidentally. I propose that there is non-spherical 'hidden exotic matter' (HEM) at the centre of the galaxies as well as at the centre of stars. The additional force on the plane of rotation of a galaxy or star would require a HEM shaped like a rugby ball ready to be kicked. This assumes that the exotic matter gravitation effect is dependent on it's cross sectional area. Hence a star on the rotational plane 'sees' more of the galactic centre HEM compared to a star high above or below the plane. If this galactic centre HEM is 'squashed' from the sides so that it becomes more lozenged shaped, then this also gives a greater x-sectional area in just a single bar, radiating out across the rotational plane. This model therefore predicts that the bar in a barred spiral is rotating at the same rate as the galactic centre HEM.

I'm keen to hear what you may have to think about these revolutionary ideas.

report post as inappropriate

J. C. N. Smith wrote on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 17:53 GMT
Hi,

Your essay is interesting and enjoyable to read. But please explain how your essay addresses the theme of this competition: which of our basic physical assumptions are wrong? That was not made clear to me. Thank you.

jcns

report post as inappropriate

Roger Schlafly wrote on Jun. 29, 2012 @ 19:38 GMT
Why do you say "This whole universe is definitely not of 'relativity'."? Is there some evidence or argument that is contrary to relativity?

report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 11:14 GMT
The essay is quite clear in my eyes. Dr Jin He works for a chinese company which models galaxy formation. He says that the spiral galaxies "are easy" but the barred spirals remain an enigma. I think that he intuitively believes that the 'standard model' has a fundamental problem, which is why Hope and Jin have entered the competition. A fact that is missing from the essay is that *at least* two thirds of spiral galaxies are barred spirals. This really means that modern science doesn't have the ability to model spiral galaxy formation, even with the existing dark matter halo hypothesis. I have given an alternative solution which has the ability to solve the barred spiral enigma as well as the ice age enigma.

report post as inappropriate

Author Hope He replied on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 14:56 GMT
Dear Roger Schlafly,

The big big evidence is the Machian Principle which was terminologied by Einstein.

Dear Alan Lowey and other friends,

We are very busy recently, and we can not visit this furums frequently. Even though we can find time, we may not have time to discuss the important and valuable issues with our friends.

Sorry for this.

Yours,

Hope He and Jin He

Alan Lowey replied on Jul. 3, 2012 @ 09:15 GMT
Nevermind. Your essay entry has been very useful to me, so thank you for that. I've even remembered that Mercury's precession can be accounted for by it's close proximity to the sun's exotic centre and irregularities. It's rise and fall about the ecliptic must take it into a region where it 'sees' a change in the sun's HEM cross sectional area imo.

Anyway, thanks again.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 16:24 GMT
Dear Hope and Jin

Barred spirals were indeed unexplained in any secular or classical evolutionary theory, and a major bizarre anomaly, until quite recently, the enigma resolved courtesy of the discrete field model (DFM).

http://vixra.org/pdf/1102.0016v3.pdf

I should of course say that although web archived at vixra and the RAS this is still not yet published in a mainstream journal as reviewers reject anything that may be conceived as different from the current ruling paradigm. In fact the DFM derives the observed effects of SR direct from a quantum mechanism, but it is none the less unfamiliar.

To explain; after AGN (disc) accretion and (quasar) jetting the re-ionized matter lies in a line, or splayed butterfly shape (from spiral jets) ave some 2,000 light years long (1M at M87).

Due to intrinsic rotation in space the central 'virial' radius starts to rotate (Google Hawk) propagating matter at the circumference and 'trailing the arms. Inside this the remains of the jet arms form the bar, which rotates bodily, or in 'lock step', just like all spirals. This is on a NEW perpendicular axis to the old galaxy, explaining They then evolve into a full spiral, merge into a disc, accrete into a lenticular as the AGN grows, and the cycle restarts. I recently posted to Singh's essay blog I think why the cycle seems to be around 10-12Gyr. There are good NASA shots of Centuarus A undergoing the rapid accretion and jetting process. (Previously thought o be a collision!)

There are many other anomalies explained by this.

Some papers with previous interpretations but good evidence here, the first of intrinsic rotation;

Parra, F.I., Barnes, M., Catto, P.J., RPCtr. Th.Phys. Ox. CCFE. N.Fusion. 2011. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.4613.pdf

Zoltan H. Jimenez R. Bernardire.M. Constructing the cosmic evolution of quasars from the age distribution of local early-type galaxieshttp://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astroph/pdf/0610/0610723v1
.pdf

Wold,I. et al. Host galaxies of luminous quasars population synthesis of optical off-axis spectra.RAS Vol.408,Issue2,pp.713-730. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.408..713W

Benton R, Metcalf, A. Constraints on Small-Scale Structures of Dark Matter from Flux Anomalies in Quasar Gravitational

Lenses http://arxiv/pdf/1007/1007.1599v1.pdf

DeBuhr, J., Quataert E., Ma, C.P., Galaxy-scale outflows driven by active galactic nuclei. MNRAS accepted. 30.10.2011

Martini ,P., Weinberg D.H.., Quasar Clustering and the Lifetime of Quasars 2001 ApJ 547 12 doi:10.1086/318331.

Porciani, C., Magliocchetti P., Norberg P., 2004 MNRAS 355 Issue 3, p1010-1030.

I do hope that is all enlightening. There is much more of course. Main paper now in review for 3rd time!

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 20:37 GMT
hope he

See my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

Specially post about the Universe as a logarithmic spiral.

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:50 GMT
Dear

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 - 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.

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

Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 16:54 GMT
Dear Jin He,

Your cosmic breasts discovery is breathtaking. The FQXi community loves this kind of science. Your community rating is much greater than mine even now but I expect you to go to the top of the rating list.

Good luck, Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Jin He wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 21:24 GMT
Dear Pentcho Valev,

In fact I learned about varying light speed etc on internet during 2007 when I found your posts and I sill remember your name.

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:29 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

Christian Corda wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 13:16 GMT
Dears Hope and Jin,

I am going to give you a score 10.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 20:04 GMT
Dear Hope and Jin,

I think your essay is interesting, although I don't know much about galaxies. I hope you will find the recognition you deserve.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate