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

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

Cristinel Stoica: on 10/6/12 at 16:07pm UTC, wrote Hi Tim, Please check this link and find how five essays, including yours,...

Jin He: on 10/5/12 at 11:54am UTC, wrote You mainstreamsians controle science for over 50 years. You mainstream and...

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...

Benjamin Dribus: on 10/2/12 at 15:50pm UTC, wrote Dear Timothy, If there is any context in which "heresy" is appropriate, or...

Timothy Boyer: on 10/2/12 at 13:18pm UTC, wrote Hi Benjamin, 1. Unfortunately, I have no idea how the idea of a classical...

Benjamin Dribus: on 10/2/12 at 2:39am UTC, wrote Dear Timothy, I enjoyed reading your essay. A couple of questions come to...

David Rousseau: on 9/25/12 at 20:08pm UTC, wrote Dear Timothy Your essay is very readable and develops very important...

Steve Jedi Dufourny: on 9/25/12 at 16:15pm UTC, wrote personally no. Could you tell me more about these units. Regarsd

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Hanvi jobs: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

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

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

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

RECENT 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.

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.

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

FQXi FORUM
May 22, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Is Planck's Constant h a "Quantum" Constant? An Alternative Classical Interpretation by Timothy Boyer [refresh]

Author Timothy Howard Boyer wrote on Jul. 2, 2012 @ 11:30 GMT
Essay Abstract

Although Planck’s constant h is currently regarded as the elementary quantum of action appearing in quantum theory, it can also be interpreted as the multiplicative scale factor setting the scale of classical zero-point radiation appearing in classical electromagnetic theory. Relativistic classical electron theory with classical electromagnetic zero-point radiation gives many results in agreement with quantum theory. The areas of agreement between this classical theory and Nature seem worth further investigation.

Author Bio

My introduction to quantum zero-point radiation was given by Sheldon Glashow lecturing on the Casimir effect as a visitor in a quantum field theory class. During and after my doctoral work on the Casimir electron model and on retarded dispersion forces, my point of view gradually changed from quantum to classical. It became clear that zero-point radiation made perfectly good sense when regarded as classical radiation. I have worked on classical zero-point radiation for over forty years as a Professor of Physics at the City College of New York.

Ed Unverricht wrote on Jul. 2, 2012 @ 18:02 GMT
Thank you for the very nice explanations of classical electromagnetic zero-point radiation, Casimir force and the importance of the Planck constant. Both the historical information and current description give the reader a clear understanding, leading to "It turns out that all the aspects of nature which can be described by quantized free fields or quantized harmonic oscillator systems can also be described equally well within classical theory including classical electromagnetic zero-point radiation."

I was struck by the comment "One place where it was hoped that classical zero-point radiation would be important is in the structure of the hydrogen atom". and the later comment "The electron indeed radiates away its energy as it accelerates in its orbit around the proton".

There are a number of classical structures that can attempt to address this issue. My own submission essay attempts to address this same issue, so your essay was a great and timely read for me. Thanks.

report post as inappropriate

Timothy Boyer replied on Jul. 4, 2012 @ 12:53 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Your own interesting essay also includes a mixture of both familiar and unfamiliar ideas for most physicists.

1. I am unfamiliar with the context for your comment on the vacuum energy for QED.

2. Gravity in my current ideas simply influences the background spacetime for the electromagnetic waves. I do not know how zero-point radiation would influence gravity.

3. In the view given in my essay, the de Broglie relation might be derived as the influence of zero-point radiation upon a particle.

Timothy Boyer

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 2, 2012 @ 20:12 GMT
Dear Timothy Boyer,

Yours is a fascinating essay explaining a wealth of material with which most physicists are unfamiliar. A few questions come to mind:

1. How does this relate to the 1998 'discovery' that the vacuum energy is 120 oders of magnitude smaller than previously assumed by QED?

2. From your discussion of non-inertial frames it is unclear to me what relation or correlation the zero point energy has with gravity. Any comments?

3. In particular, does this have any consequences for or insights into de Broglie's momentum-wavelength relation; p=h/l (where l=lambda=wavelength)?

I hope you find time to answer these questions and that you also find time to read my essay on The Nature of the Wave Function. I look forward to any comments you might care to make.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Jul. 3, 2012 @ 01:17 GMT
G.H. Goedecke in Physical Review, 135(1B), B281-B288, 13 July 1964 demonstrated that the Rydberg electron or low-n electron orbiting the central nucleus or ionic core of the atom need not radiate EM radiation if the orbital radius is "an integrable multiple of cT/2", where T is the orbital period.

Goedecke's work was largely ignored, but the fact is that rejecting a classical or semi-classical electron model based on the "radiative decay" argument is false and misleading.

Robert L. Oldershaw

Discrete Scale Relativity

http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Jul. 3, 2012 @ 09:31 GMT
Dear Timothy Boyer,

I was very impressed with your essay and your ability to think laterally with regard to fundamental assumptions within the foundations of modern science. It was also extremely well written and very accessible to a lay audience. Although I'm not qualified to understand all of which you are saying, I do get a strong sense of someone who knows what they are talking about. I hope you do well in the competition. Well done.

report post as inappropriate

Emilio Santos wrote on Jul. 4, 2012 @ 08:55 GMT
Dear Timothy: I like your article very much and agree with most of your assertions, in particular that Planck’s constant “appears as the multiplicative constant setting the scale of random classical zeropoint radiation” (ZPF). Thus I will comment only on a few points where I disagree. Firstly I think that other ZPF fields are required, in particular metric fluctuations, in order to explain the quantum behaviour of neutral particles. You do not reject this but do not mention it either. Secondly the explanation of the ground state of the hydrogen atom via the e-m ZPF. I am convinced that the solutions of Marshall and Claverie (your Refs.13 and 14) are essentially correct and they do not completely agree with the quantum predictions. The problem is not the self-ionization predicted by these authors (after all quantum statistical mechanics predicts that a fully isolated hydrogen atom is unstable against ionization at any finite temperature, no matter how small, because the partition function diverges), but the fact that they provide no hint about the excited states or the spectrum. The interesting numerical calculations by Cole (Refs. 12 and 22) do not solve the problem. Finally I want to mention the question of the thermal equilibrium. Your classical explanation of the Unruh effect (Ref. 20) seems to me extremely interesting, but I think that it does not prove that classical thermal equilibrium leads to Planck´s law. You suggest that a relativistic calculation would lead to that law, but long ago I showed, in collaboration with R. Blanco and L. Pesquera, that this is not the case (Phys. Rev. D 27, 1254 (1983) and D 29, 2240 (1983).)

report post as inappropriate

Timothy Boyer replied on Jul. 4, 2012 @ 13:21 GMT
Dear Emilio,

Thank you for your comments. We agree about the value of the idea of classical electromagnetic zero-point radiation; however, you and I are likely to continue to disagree about several related ideas. First, any system which has electromagnetic interactions (even if net neutral) will have zero-point motion induced by electromagnetic zero-point radiation. (The particle zero-point motion in a harmonic potential due to zero-point radiation is actually independent of the form of the small electromagnetic coupling between the particle and the radiation.) Thus I do not know whether or not other zero-point fields are required. Second, I believe that relativity is absolutely crucial for understanding classical radiation equilibrium, both in the ground state and probably in excited states. Claverie and Marshall in their work on hydrogen do not exclude the nonrelativistic Coulomb orbits of small angular momentum and so make an error. Your own work with Blanco and Pesquera excludes the Coulomb potential (the only possible relativistic potential) and so is not relativistic. I believe that my recent relativistic work is significant in this regard.

report post as inappropriate

Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Jul. 4, 2012 @ 13:54 GMT
Is Planck's Constant h a "Quantum" Constant

Planck's constant along with Hubble constant are two most important constants in picophyics www.picophysics.org. While one is representative of natural quantization of knergy the other represents anti-konservation of space.

Quantization of Energy, Space (Linear dimension) and time are results of natural quantization of Knergy. Other quantization constant the electronic charge is not considered primary in picophysics, but related to plank's constant.

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Jul. 4, 2012 @ 14:38 GMT
Dear Timothy Boyer,

Thank you for your most interesting and exceptionally relevant essay. In last year's FQXi Contest I submitted an essay, "a world without quanta?", where I derive Planck's Formula for blackbody radiation using simple continuous processes and not needing 'energy quanta' and 'discrete statistics'. I show that Planck's Formula is in fact a mathematical identity (a tautology) and not a fundamental physical law. That fact alone can explain the remarkable fit of the experimental blackbody spectrum and the theoretical curve. It's like graphing a circle using measurements and comparing this to the curve using the Pythagorean Theorem. This also explains the ubiquitous appearance of Planck's Formula. Just like the Pythagorean Theorem!

Many other very interesting results in Physics followed from that simple mathematical derivation. Including an 'existence argument' for Planck's constant h. Planck's constant I show is necessary in Physics (along with Boltzmann's constant) in defining the 'temperature of radiation' in Kelvin degrees.

The Thermodynamics in Planck's Law

Constantinos Ragazas

report post as inappropriate

Peter Morgan wrote on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 16:48 GMT
Hi, Tim. My principal worry about this essay is that I don't think I see anything new in comparison your previously published papers. Is there anything here that you identify as new here?

Although I think you make a decent case for ZPF here and elsewhere, and I have made a comparable argument in my own papers, it seems that the ZPF research program may be "stuck" precisely because it doesn't cleanly identify, question, and substitute an alternative for a widely held postulate. What postulate would you choose, for example, either from the Wightman axioms or from the similar but different "axioms" of Lagrangian QFT, as the postulate you
$most$
want to challenge? How precisely does the "there is classical ZPF" postulate clash with the status quo?

You may possibly remember a conversation in 2005, in which I expressed to you dissatisfaction with the ZPF approach to taking electrons to be particles instead of taking them to be fields, which I also find problematic. Indeed, it seems this choice implicitly challenges the "there are quantum fields" postulate, but doesn't argue adequately, as I see it, for adopting the "there are Dirac particles" postulate.

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jul. 15, 2012 @ 16:06 GMT
Hello Peter Morgan. Your comment to Timothy Boyer prompts me to respond. Though you find Tim's new essay saying nothing new, would proving Plansk's formula to be a mathematical truism (and not a physical law per se) relevant and new?

The Thermodynamics in Planck's Law

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Timothy Boyer replied on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 19:59 GMT
Hi Peter,

Indeed I remember well out earlier conversation. Although my views have not changed, there has been progress made on working out some of the implications. The numerical simulations by Daniel Cole and my work on the blackbody radiation in connection with time-dilating conformal transformations in a Rindler frame are both recent successes of the theory. Please remember that my work is a classical theory with particles and fields, and is not a quantum theory at all. In the theory, there are no such things as quantum states in a Hilbert space. As for “Dirac particles,” they do not exist in this theory of structureless point particles. Thus there is indeed a compete break with the postulates of quantum physics.

Tim

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 4, 2012 @ 03:12 GMT
Dear Professor Boyer

Thank you for sharing your learned views on an alternative explanation of Planck's constant. While some of the more technical aspects of the discussion are beyond, me I could see where your views on zero-point-energy ZPE need to be studied and understood. For way too long the mainstream 20th. consensus on how physics works have blocked the search for an alternative physics that may well be closer to the way Nature works.

Some years ago I have put forward my qualitative and incomplete Beautiful Universe Theory featuring a lattice of identical dielectric nodes rotating and self-assembling to enact all physical interactions. I theorized that the nodes have and transfer angular momentum 'in units of Planck's constant h) to create e/m radiation and matter and mediate gravity. In vacuum the node mutual repulsion explains dark energy - all of this sounds a lot like your ZPE. Except that in my theory the nodes interact causally and linearly and not at all stochastically. Probability is explained in terms of energy transfer between a cluster of the nodes. One consequence of my theory is a realistic explanation of particle interference. The attached graphic shows one prediction of the theory. Hope it makes sense to you!

I would be honored if you and your students would read my fqxi essay Fix Physics! as well as the above theory. And please read Eric Reiter's fqxi essay where he, like you, very ably questions another staple of 20th. c. physics: the point photon.

Best wishes

attachments: 2_Particledoubleslit_.jpeg

report post as inappropriate

Luis de la Pena, Ana Maria Cetto wrote on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 20:07 GMT
Dear Tim,

Your essay reflects beautifully your intense and successful work of almost fifty years on classical electrodynamics and the zero-point field. We feel that your essay and ours are in good accord and reinforce each other, even if they depart at some points.

We particularly appreciate your study of the relativistic aspects of the theory. Serious consideration of conformal and scale symmetries should lead to further interesting results. With this you continue to be a leader in the field.

Wishing you renewed success,

Luis and Ana Maria

report post as inappropriate

Member George F. R. Ellis wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 10:52 GMT
Dear Timothy Boyer

your essay is very nice, with its deep historical roots. There is one point I don't follow. You say "It seems natural to say that the zero-point radiation should not pick out any particular inertial frame or length or time; it should be Lorentz invariant and scale invariant. It turns out that there is a unique spectrum or random classical radiation with these properties." Now the only Lorentz invariant stress tensor is one that is proportional to the metric tensor:
$T_{ab} = \Lambda g_{ab}$
which as was show by McCrea leads to the equation of state
$p = - \rho$
. But radiation as usually understood has the equations of state
$p = \frac{1}{3} \rho$

So I can't see how these fit together. How are you characterising "radiation"? Also if the stress tensor is conserved, then
$T_{ab} = \Lambda g_{ab}$
implies
$\Lambda$
is a spacetime constant, so this will be true of the equivalent pressure and density also.

Clarification will be welcomed. Thanks,

George Ellis

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 11:38 GMT
Only one dimensional Planck constant (h)is fundamental,and as a consequence only the Planck mass (Mpl)unit makes sense.

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

report post as inappropriate

Timothy Boyer wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 11:52 GMT
Dear George Ellis,

Classical zero-point radiation is random classical radiation, and is described in the same fashion as classical thermal radiation except that the spectrum is different. Zero-point radiation necessarily requires a DIVERGENT total energy density; if the energy density of zero-point radiation at a point were finite, then a preferred local inertial frame would be defined. What is required is that the SPECTRUM of zero-point radiation is the same for all inertial observers.

Timothy Boyer

report post as inappropriate

Member George F. R. Ellis replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 05:25 GMT
Dear Timothy

Ok thanks for that, I'd missed this divergence in your discussion. It seems quite problematic: it seems to mean inter alia that this radiation does not have a well defined stress energy tensor, so its interaction with any other matter or radiation will be ill defined.

So here's a question: does this radiation gravitate? If not why not?

It seems to me you run into the vacuum energy problem that is such a major issue in the standard view (see Weinberg's review paper in Rev Mod Phys 1989 for example), only maybe in a worse form because you are claiming there is an actual divergence.

George Ellis

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 03:32 GMT
Hi Timothy,

I take issue with the flavor of your essay. For example you say:

"Classical zero-point radiation is similar to classical thermal radiation; it is the ambient radiation present in every part of the universe."

There are no references to this assertion, And I believe it has not been proved.

I would feel much better if I could take my super EM antenna anywhere in the universe and find this radiation. Why has this not been done?

Right now there is the possibility I could take my portable Casimir machine and hop all overt the universe anywhere in the universe. And yes we would see something, but is it ambient background radiation for sure?

Yes, your ideas are very interesting and they may even be true.

Best of luck in the contest.

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 12:26 GMT
Timothy.

"It is still an open question as to how much of Nature can be described in terms of classical physics which includes classical electromagnetic zero-point radiation."

Perhaps not for much longer. You've just lit up some dark areas I've been exploring naively and ontologically from very different approaches. I expected to understand little of your essay, but rationalisations...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 13:47 GMT
Tomothy

Sorry, that should have read Fig 2 of the Kingsley Essay (in the above post), an example of the 'Cluster' acceleration findings at at the Earth's shock. Light is re-emitted at c by all particles in the shock, wrt each, which change state of motion across the shock.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Ke Xiao wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 23:07 GMT
Dear Timothy Boyer

I have read your impressive essay. I'd like to bring up the following points for further discussion:

(1) We all know that Planck's constant is a bridge between 19th and 20th Century Physics. Planck not only introduced h as the fitting result from Blackbody radiation, but also saved the Boltzmann constant obtained from the gas constant and Avogadro's constant...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 02:38 GMT
Hello Timothy Boyer,

Thank you for your essay and for your work over many years on classical zero-point radiation. Your interpretation of Planck's constant as a “scale factor for classical zero-point radiation” provides new insights into this mystery. But Planck's constant h can also be thought as the 'minimal accumulation of energy' in an interaction before absorption / emission.

Using this interpretation I was able to mathematically derive Planck's Formula for blackbody radiation. Using continuous processes and not needing 'energy quanta' or discrete statistics. You can find a simple and elegant proof of this (one of several!) in End Note I) of my essay, “The Metaphysics of Physics”. I would be very interested in your thoughts and comments on this result. Which shows Planck's Formula is a mathematical tautology. And not a physical law needing the existence of 'energy quanta'.

Best wishes in this contest,

Constantinos

P.S. Eric Reiter's essay, ”A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory”, reporting on his experimental findings is in complete agreement with this interpretation of h as 'accumulation of energy'. Or Loading Theory as he calls it.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 02:58 GMT
Do you familiar with Wilczek articles concerning units?

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_
limits388.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystod
ay/Abs_limits393.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/
phystoday/Abs_limits400.pdf

Is trinity sacred?

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 16:06 GMT

http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.4361

report post as inappropriate

Steve Jedi Dufourny replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 16:15 GMT
personally no. Could you tell me more about these units.

Regarsd

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 03:43 GMT
Do you familiar with Wilczek articles concerning units?

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_
limits388.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystod
ay/Abs_limits393.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/
phystoday/Abs_limits400.pdf

Is trinity sacred?

report post as inappropriate

Alan Kadin wrote on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 21:47 GMT
Prof. Boyer,

I enjoyed reading your essay, which summarizes the key points that you have made over several decades regarding classical treatment of zero point quantum fluctuations. But something needs to be quantized for this to be consistent. This reminds me that "quantization noise" in digital systems theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_error) derives directly from classical discretization of continuous variables. I would go further and suggest that quantum mechanics has been profoundly misunderstood since the beginning. Rather than a universal theory of all matter, QM should be viewed as a mechanism to bundle a fundamental classical field into coherent units that act in certain respects as classical particles (but NOT point particles). In fact, as I have shown in my essay (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1296), one can easily derive classical Hamiltonian trajectories from the behavior of a confined coherent relativistic field. This simple change in paradigm eliminates quantum paradoxes, including wave-particle duality and quantum entanglement. Remarkably, this seems never to have been considered before. Equally remarkably, this is being mostly ignored in a contest dedicated to the proposition that some of our fundamental physical assumptions may be wrong. I would appreciate your thoughts in this matter.

Thank you.

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:38 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

David Rousseau wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 20:08 GMT
Dear Timothy

Your essay is very readable and develops very important arguments. I am sure you will do well in the competition! I think there is much room in physics for progress based on close reasoning from classical foundations, and your work here is a nice example of that. In our essay Julie and I defend the viability of finding explanations for all phenomena, and for the value of classical intuitions in making sense of the world. I enjoyed your essay, and hope you will find ours interesting too.

Best wishes,

David

report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 02:39 GMT
Dear Timothy,

I enjoyed reading your essay. A couple of questions come to mind:

1. How does this idea relate to the cosmological constant/dark energy?

2. I am wondering if you would be willing to venture a little into the realm of speculation and give an opinion on exactly what this approach implies about the status of quantum theory. On page 4, you mention disagreements between the two theories involving “nonlinear nonrelativistic classical mechanical systems,” and on page 8 you state that the scope of explanation of electromagnetic zero-point radiation remains an “open question.” Do you have any intuition or conjecture about the general answer to this question? In particular, do you doubt standard quantum theory in its entirety?

Thanks for the interesting read! Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Timothy Boyer replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 13:18 GMT
Hi Benjamin,

1. Unfortunately, I have no idea how the idea of a classical zero-point energy would be connected to the cosmological constant or dark energy.

2. My guess is that the mathematics of quantum theory works for parts of Nature because it represents an approximation to the mathematics of classical zero-point energy. I strongly suspect that quantum field theory in non-inertial frames is probably incorrect as currently presented. Of course, such conjectures are very heretical at the present time.

Tim Boyer

report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 15:50 GMT
Dear Timothy,

If there is any context in which "heresy" is appropriate, or even desirable, it is a forum like this essay contest. The whole objective, in my view, is to present ideas which, while informed, are sufficiently out of the mainstream to induce progress. After all, we all know that there are plenty of journals that publish only conventional, "respectable" physics! Take care,

Ben

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

Jin He wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 11:54 GMT
You mainstreamsians controle science for over 50 years. You mainstream and Hawking failed. The bad science is because of the Top-Down controle of the people like you. Why do you need money and fame from FQXI where the authors are mostly jobless, are mostly independent researchers, are mostly viXra.org authers? Do you need money and fame by controling jobless???

I want to rate you 0!

report post as inappropriate

Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 16:07 GMT
Hi Tim,

Please check this link and find how five essays, including yours, were removed from the 35 finalists. I posted some messages with attachments containing the page and screenshots at 0:01.

Good luck,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate