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

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
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 9:09am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

George: on 10/4/12 at 5:09am UTC, wrote Hi Ed, I am shocked a little bit: =The particles are Wave-vortexes=. The...

Hoang Hai: on 9/19/12 at 13:43pm UTC, wrote Dear Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us are convinced...

Raja Panwar: on 9/18/12 at 21:31pm UTC, wrote I found the essay to be stimulating and relatively easy to understand. ...

Alan Lowey: on 7/9/12 at 10:13am UTC, wrote Hi Ed, Is the Moon able to precess like the planets or is it's lack of...

Ed Unverricht: on 7/4/12 at 23:35pm UTC, wrote There is a very nice description of the periodic nature of light. In this...

Frank Makinson: on 7/4/12 at 18:32pm UTC, wrote Ed Unverricht, One of the fundamental assumptions you use to form a basis...

Alan Lowey: on 7/4/12 at 11:32am UTC, wrote Thank you for the further explanations Ed, but I'm struck by another...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "'Sharp comb" and 'shredder' are used as similes and metaphors because the..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Sydney Grimm: "Lorraine, Let’s take an example: E= mc[sup]2[/sup]. It is an equation..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Jason Wolfe: "I cannot say that I am enthusiastic about where philosophy has led us. We..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Jason Wolfe: "How can there be any talk of determinism when the real world is built upon..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Georgina Woodward: "I might be able to improve on that description. It's early days.If it is a..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: ""do you agree with Davies that these questions will need new physics?" It..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Zeeya Merali: "Joe, You appear to really want to contact Dr Kuhn about his Closer to..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "(Zeeya's note: Joe I've deleted the text of this post. It appears to be..." in First Things First: The...

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
September 21, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Framework for a Classical Model of the Neutron, Proton, Electron and Photon by Ed Unverricht [refresh]

Author Ed Unverricht wrote on Jul. 2, 2012 @ 11:30 GMT
Essay Abstract

The world is assumed to be made of energy, and particles are assumed to be vortexes of spinning energy. Large empty spinning energy shells make up protons and neutrons. Electrons are much smaller, consisting of tiny spinning loops of energy. Periodic strings of energy that expand and contract as they fly through the air at the speed of light are photons. The "wave nature" of matter is modelled as a periodic internal process within the particle.

Author Bio

Ed Unverricht graduated with an honors BSc degree at the Univerity of Alberta specializing in mathematics and physics. He has pursued a career in computer programming with extensive experience in data storage and live animations. Animations started with gravitation using Newton's laws for earth bound objects and planetary systems. Since then, he has used a fixed grid and fixed time steps, similar to frames in a movie, to model particles and forces. Once the forces and objects acting in the grid are quantified in space and time, they can be tested to see if they match reality.

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 3, 2012 @ 01:13 GMT
Dear Ed Unverricht,

I enjoyed your essay and was quite surprised to find that you included animations in your essay. Congratulations.

I also found your approach to particle physics interesting. I agree with you that particles are non-point entities, and also agree that a vortex-based approach is very promising, including the treatment of W bosons as vortices. Instead of your fixed grid and fixed time steps, I have employed the weak field equations of general relativity as the basis of such an approach. A popular-level treatment is found in The Chromodynamics War.

My current essay The Nature of the Wave Function assumes the existence of the particles and derives a theory of quantum mechanics based the weak field equations. I hope you have a chance read it and look forward to any comments.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Jul. 3, 2012 @ 09:41 GMT
Dear Ed Unverricht,

A superb essay! Well done. I totally agree with you that a classical explanation is the common sense answer to a t.o.e. I love your simulation models and was quickly struck by an immediate question "What is your explanation for Mercury's precession using such a classical model?".

report post as inappropriate

Author Ed Unverricht wrote on Jul. 3, 2012 @ 17:10 GMT

As you point out, with traditional physics, Newton's force laws allow gravity to be simulated, but start to fail both on the very large scale and on the very small scale. Specifically, the orbit of Mercury cannot be accurately predicted over time with these calculations. In fact, using the inverse square law implies that no two body orbit will have a "precession", yet many are observed.

You can see that here, click for planets where only Newton's inverse square law is used and where the aphelion (farthest point from sun) and perihelion (closest point to sun) never move.

Treating energy as having a fixed speed is ineffect, applying relativity to the calculations. You can see that here, click for precession where the aphelion and perihelion move with every orbit.

A very good fundamental explanation from mathmatics can be found here at mathpages.com.

Alan Lowey replied on Jul. 4, 2012 @ 11:32 GMT
Thank you for the further explanations Ed, but I'm struck by another immediate question, "Your models are in 2D and I'm currently exploring the importance of a 3D orbit w.r.t the 100ky glacial cycle. The up and down motion of the earth is also a 100ky cycle w.r.t the invariable plane, which is approximately the orbit of Jupiter. I have a hunch that gravitational tidal forces change w.r.t orbital inclination which would solve the problems with sunlight-only Milankovitch forcing models imo. I'd be grateful if you could give this idea some thought and let me know what your first impressions are please. Cheers.

report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson wrote on Jul. 4, 2012 @ 18:32 GMT
Ed Unverricht,

One of the fundamental assumptions you use to form a basis for your essay has a somewhat older parallel. "2. Matter is confined energy and energy travels at the speed of light." One of my mentors, an Emeritus Professor of Electrical Engineering, since deceased, wrote in one of his publications that everything is a specialized form of energy. I learned later that this parallels the "Theory of Energetics," which was supported by Max Planck. It is my understanding that Max Planck never accepted the existence of material particles, he viewed them all as forms of energy.

Your photon description has some good and questionable parts.

"The photon is an unconstrained piece of connected energy with no mass." -Good-

"As it travels, it is expanding and contracting, allowing it to store both kinetic energy and spin angular moment." -Questionable-

Expanding and contracting can be readily explained by the photon traveling through areas with different permittivity. By default the photon stores energy, but spin angular momentum has to be the result of an initial field orientation or an alteration of a specific directional field polarization to circular by an intervening process.

For optical frequency photons, a specially shaped lens, that exploits Snell's law, can change a transverse wave, with a specific directional polarization, to one that has circular polarization, or as it is described in optical texts, having Orbital Angular Momentum (OAM). For producing standard radio frequency photons, phase delays between the source and antenna elements are used to create circular or elliptical polarizations.

Although we know how to produce and manipulate photons, it is my opinion we really don't understand the nature of their existence. For example, it seems there has to be an optimum ratio of permittivity to permeability for essentially loss-less propagation.

report post as inappropriate

Author Ed Unverricht replied on Jul. 4, 2012 @ 23:35 GMT
There is a very nice description of the periodic nature of light. In this Feynman lecture in New Zealand, around the 7:30 minute mark he is talking about light reflecting from a thin (or thick) film of glass. If it is an even wave number in thickness, the photon has a good chance of getting through. If it is some thickness off by 1/2 wavelength, more photons are reflected. In his words "A wave or something follows the particle and changes its disposition to be reflected".

Alan Lowey wrote on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 10:13 GMT
Hi Ed,

Is the Moon able to precess like the planets or is it's lack of spin a key factor in your opinion??

report post as inappropriate

Raja Panwar wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 21:31 GMT
I found the essay to be stimulating and relatively easy to understand. Indeed, its an essay that I could have used with my Grade 12 Physics students when describing electrons and energy levels and the behaviour of photons. These qualitative descriptions were clear and would be highly effective in enabling high school physics students to better visualize and understand quantum behaviour.

Since Physics teachers read scientific articles and are always on the lookout for such papers, and given its clarity and accessibility, I would encourage the publishers to recognize this essay.

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 13:43 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.

Regard !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

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

report post as inappropriate

George wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:09 GMT
Hi Ed,

I am shocked a little bit: =The particles are Wave-vortexes=. The same I am saying in mine work. I hope you will find there some thing more (you must go to full version of article) I have rated your work.

Best wishes to you.

report post as inappropriate

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