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
read/discusswinners

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.
read/discusswinners

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

read/discusswinners

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
read/discusswinners

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

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
read/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
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
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 8:57am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Vladimir Tamari: on 9/29/12 at 11:23am UTC, wrote Dear Tatiana I hiope you are fine. Hello. This is group message to you and...

James Hoover: on 9/28/12 at 22:28pm UTC, wrote Tatiana, Stubby fingers. Jim

James Hoover: on 9/28/12 at 22:27pm UTC, wrote Tatianak, For this contest, I decided to go through and comment on essays...

Hoang Hai: on 9/28/12 at 3:35am UTC, wrote Dear Tatiana Izmaylova Very nice. Do you think so : "4. Dark...

Hoang Hai: on 9/19/12 at 15:45pm UTC, wrote Dear Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us are convinced...

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 9/10/12 at 15:44pm UTC, wrote Dear Tatiana, I found your essay interesting in many ways. We have a...

Peter Jackson: on 8/22/12 at 17:55pm UTC, wrote Tanya What a wonderful fresh view on an important subject, (perhaps even...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

isabell ella: "If you are facing Cash app related problems and want to get support..." in Cosmic Dawn, Parallel...

Georgina Woodward: "Quite right Lorraine, ( to be clear perhaps I should have said..." in Cosmological Koans

Lorraine Ford: "Honestly Georgina, Wake up! Change of number is NOT energy." in Cosmological Koans

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

Michael Hussey: "https://www.google.com" in New Nuclear "Magic...

Michael Hussey: "it is really difficult to understand what is all about all the things..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Stefan Weckbach: "I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that..." in First Things First: The...

Roger Granet: "By the way, this post was from Roger." in First Things First: The...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read 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
July 18, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Time or Dark Energy: A Hypothetical Quest for the Missing Force by Tatiana Izmaylova [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Tatiana Izmaylova wrote on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 12:41 GMT
Essay Abstract

Could dark energy by responsible for an increase of entropy in our universe? If so, could it be a physical representation of time? In this essay I hypothesize that dark energy could be the force that pulls on matter with the vector opposite to that of gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong force, which leads to an increase in the amount of universal entropy. I also attempt to infer possible properties of dark energy using the notion of time in relativity.

Author Bio

Tatiana Izmaylova holds MA in Applied Linguistics from the University of New South Wales (Australia) and is currently pursuing Graduate Diploma in Psychology at the Macquarie University (Australia). Despite her Arts background, she has always been interested in physics, particularly in the problem of time. She likes collecting interdisciplinary information about time as she thinks it brings her closer to the answer of what time may be.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 15:56 GMT
Interesting premise, Tatiana, and clearly presented. Your view of dark energy makes mine seem simplistic.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Tatiana Izmaylova replied on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 14:58 GMT
Thank you James. But your view has more practical applications, which is always helpful :).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 09:28 GMT
Dear Tatiana,

it was interesting to see your hypothesis. You have presented your ideas clearly and with good diagrams making a very accessible essay.

I too have been very interested in the subject of time, so it is good to see what other people are thinking about that subject. Time affects everyone and seems to be at the heart of a lot of the problems of physics. So I think it is a very worthwhile subject for us to be considering and trying to understand. I have a very different approach to your own though.

Thank you for sharing your ideas.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Tatiana Izmaylova replied on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 14:09 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Thank you for taking time to read and comment on my essay. It is amazing to know that there are many people around the world who are concerned about the same things. We all may come from different backgrounds, have different views, and may disagree with one another but what unites us all is the desire to make sense of the world we live in. I find it absolutely fascinating!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 08:11 GMT
Dear Tatiana,

There's a much simpler explanation why the redshift of galaxies varies linearly with their distance: this linearity, however, does not mean the expansion of the universe accelerates. For details, see topic 1328.

Anton

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Tatiana Izmaylova replied on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 13:23 GMT
Dear Anton,

You have an interesting theory. I was only unsure in relation to what you measure the distance when you say:

Contrary to a Big Bang Universe (BBU), a SCU does not live in a time realm not of its own making but contains and produces all time within: here we should see clocks show an earlier time as they are more distant –and time to pass slower, clocks to run at a slower pace as they are more distant, even if they are at rest with respect to the observer, no matter when the observer lives to look at it and where he looks from.

So, if time runs slower somewhere, it should also run faster in some other places? What does it depend upon? I am also very interested in your definition of time...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 07:35 GMT
Dear Tatiana

''if time runs slower somewhere, it should also run faster in some other places? ''

This question is asked from an imaginary observation post outside the universe, as if you're looking over God's shoulders at His creation, so to say, as if the pace of time is something absolute, something which doesn't depend on anything, something which can be determined objectively, which, as I argue, it is not. Since according to relativity theory a gravitational field is an area of contracted spacetime as seen from a position outside* of it, the physical distance between the observer and the clock (as measured with a ruler within the field) is much larger than their mathematical distance (as calculated from their positions with respect to the stars), so the observer should see the clock run slower as the field is stronger or, equivalently, as their (physical) distance is greater. Reversely, as seen from within the field, from a position near its 'source', the field works like telescope, so things appear to be closer, so a clock outside* of it is observed to run faster. *With ' outside', I mean a position where the field is very weak compared to the field at its 'source', quotation marks as in a Self-Creating universe (SCU) particles (and the objects they form) are as much the source as the product of their fields and forces, of their interactions.

''in relation to what you measure the distance''

As there's no yardstick outside the universe with respect to which we can compare, measure inside distances, distance similarly is not an absolute quantity but something relative, observer-dependent, on his mass, motion and the distance he observes a distance between objects from. A SCU has no reality as a whole, no beginning, so it lacks the external, absolute clock showing cosmic time a BBU is supposed to have, no clock we can use to objectively determine the duration or time sequence of events, what precedes what even if we would be able to look from the outside in.

My essay, short as it had to be, only could be a summary of the main arguments and conclusions of a far more extensive study you may find interesting, so if you are able to bear its many flaws, you might take a look at my site: www.quantumgravity.nl. If you do, I'd very much like to hear your comment on it: as a work in progress, it can only benefit from critique.

Anton

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Tatiana Izmaylova wrote on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 12:20 GMT
I have come across the article http://www.economist.com/node/16930866 that states that the fine-structure constant varies across the universe which means that other constants may vary too. This discovery if confirmed may require the laws of physics being rewritten.

I think my approach could well accommodate variation of constants across the universe (the closer we approach the source of dark energy, the more it interacts with the fundamental forces causing changes in the values of the constants).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 12:44 GMT
Dear Ms. Izmaylova,

There is no way that I could adequately express the awesome respectfulness your brilliant essay aroused in me. Not only was your plausible explanation for the possible structure and influence of Dark Energy the most lucid one I have ever read, the meticulously designed executed graphics easily transcended the artfulness of the graphics I have seen in any of the astronomy textbooks I have ever perused. In all humility, I honestly feel that the cause of the Dark Energy is because only a part of the Universe may have actually been observed. As best as I can calculate given the background radiation maps, only 1/14 billionth of the visible Universe may have actually been observed to date. Your perfectly written rational essay is far more convincing.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Tatiana Izmaylova replied on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 14:23 GMT
Dear Mr.Fisher,

Thank you so much for your feedback. It is the most positive feedback I got for my theory so far! Even according to John Webb, the author of the research on the variable fine-structure constant http://www.technologyreview.com/view/420529/fine-structure-c
onstant-varies-with-direction-in/, the universe is much bigger than we can observe and, as it seems, much more unpredictable. Which gives us all an opportunity to be creative, I guess :). All the best with your essay Mr.Fisher!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Mark TT wrote on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 09:50 GMT
Everything is presented in NOW. There is only now. We can predict when energy will fall form a higher level to a lower state (quantum based) of more lineair (like speed), but will ALLWAYS appear as NOW ! The fact that one single photon can be seen on two or more places when you place a plate with two or several small openings in front of the moving photon, or the fact that you can see through glass, which is also clustered atoms like steel, where we can look throught, are just examples of how energy is presented to us. In front of the glass and behind the glass. A state of entropy. And not only in the (for us visible) dimension, but in numberless dimensions! My ideas about time is that time has something to do with the dimension we look at; in atoms time is very short due to its size. In our universe time is slown down due to the size. So time seems streteched to us ! We humans are somewhere between atoms and universes, so time appears to us as a sequence in 1 sec. One human eye collects several megabytes photons per sec. But one single atom faces a hell lot more processes in the same sec. Our eye is build of huge ammount atoms. Any idea how many proeces occur here every second?! You simply can't imagine. We are not aware of that. In a solar system the same 1 sec is nothing compared to the light years which are more common here. But accept that the 1 sec there can't be compared tot the sec on our level. An ant or a mosquito moves faster and relative WAY faster than we humans, but we look at their movement in their dimension with human perception. This simply can't be compared! Never ! Time is inherent on size and distances imho! I wonder what time must be for the planck element (smallest element known)! In other dimensions time or events happen over and over again. Just like the photon which presents itself on more places, at the same time!. Accept this "fact" and you will understand how nature works.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Tatiana Izmaylova replied on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 11:21 GMT
Dear Mark,

You have raised a very interesting question, something I have been thinking about too. I also believe that time can have different effects on different scales. However, I think we may need to clarify the definition of time. I think we can divide it into two types:

1)You are talking about an object's/living being's personal time. This time can run at a different rate depending on many factors. The difference may be obvious not only across different species but even among humans. There is a interesting book "The Joy of Laziness" by Peter and Michaela Axt that explores different factors contributing to a longer life. The authors arrive at the conclusion that on average people who lived longest had least stressful life: they did not excercise, they did not expose themselves to extreme temperatures, did not overeat or undereat and were fairly relaxed. So, the authors advice to everyone is to slow down if we want to live longer. It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between a life span and how "fast" or "slow" a person is.

In living beings this time may be closely connected to time perception. For example, time seems to slow down in dangerous situations. This is, according to David Eagleman, because in emergencies amygdala becomes more active and generates an extra set of memories. Dense memories are associated with a longer time span, that is why it appears that time slows down. However, it seems that dense memories in emergencies can also trigger other physical reactions, such as a sudden appearance of grey hair and wrinkles in a very short period of time. So, we may say that time can run faster or slower for living beings (as well as objects - as you have said time at the subatomic level and time at the universe level may be quite different).

2)The time I was talking about in my essay is the essence that underlies everyone's personal time, i.e. when we say that the time of one person/living being runs faster or slower, we mean that the reaction to that mysterious something occurs at a faster or a slower rate. So, I was trying to imagine the nature of that mysterious something, how it may work and interact with us, living beings, and non-living objects. I guess when it comes to living beings, our consciousness also has some role to play in that interation and, as a psychology student, I may try to investigate that aspect.

Thank you for bringing up this topic. I wish all people who think about time could put their heads together for a discussion. Surely, we could work out something interesting :).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 00:27 GMT
Tatiana,

Congratulations for a very lucid and enjoyable essay. I wish all fqxi essays were so well written illustrated and presented. While I do not agree with your theory about Dark Energy I applaud your courage to try out imaginative new ideas in a systematic and coherent way.

While I am not an expert in thermodynamics or in several of the areas your research covers, I think it is simplistic to bundle the forces you mentioned as cohesive. Electromagnetic radiation for example spreads outwards and has a momentum in that direction, while the Strong Force also has a repulsive aspect at close quarters. The other thing I objected to was giving time such physicality - in many theories including my own, time is not a real dimension or quantity it is an emergent concept when human memory, expectation etc. compares different states of an evolving one-state 'Now' Universe.

Lastly I am prejudiced towards my own explanation of dark energy and everything else :) Please See my fqxi essay Fix Physics! about my questioning time, and also Beautiful Universe Theory where I explain dark matter and energy. But since I may be be wrong about this (and everything else!) do keep up your search. Again I sincerely applaud your effort and interdisciplinary attitude.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Tatiana Izmaylova replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 03:44 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you very much for reading and giving a consideration to my essay. I really appreciate your feedback, particularly, becuase I am not a physicist and it is difficult for me to see the weak points of my theory. For example, as you have rightly pointed out that electromagnetic radiation has an outward momentum. That made me think what the difference between electromagnetic radiation spreading outward and matter spreading outward is. I can see only one: matter accelerates while the radiation does not. But it's hard to say whether we can draw any conclusions from there, plus, you are arguing that the speed of light may not necessarily be constant. So, yes, there is something to think about.

Regarding the strong force being repulsive at short distances, I believe this property was proposed as an explanation as to why nuclei do not collapse on themselves. I have also seen a different explanation related to the charge of different parts of a proton which consists of one negatively charged down quark and two positively charged up quarks that repel each other at longer distances due to their net charge, and attract each other at shorter ones. I guess in my approach dark energy prevents the protons from collapsing on themselves by pulling on them. But then it's really nothing more than a hypothetical thought.

True, time is rarely regarded so "physically". That was the reason why I decided to participate in this contest, more with the intention of sharing this idea rather than anything else. As I have already said, I am not a physicist and as of now (you never know about the future though) it would be difficult for me to relay my thoughts into formulas and generally see if this model has any predictive power. So, I decided to share it, so that if no one has thought of it before and it turns out to be useful, someone could take it further or, perhaps, combine with other models and come up with something that will enhance our knowledge. But if it is not the case, it's fine too. At least we will know which way not to go :).

I have read your essay, it is very interesting and easy to read. I liked your Question 5 of whether photon is a particle. I am currently enrolled in a short continuing education physics course where our teacher doubts existence of any particles, saying that they are produced by waves at a more fundamental level that is beyond our reach for now. If I understood correctly your thoughts on the problem are similar to his. And I really liked your illustrations. Makes it so much easier to read!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 01:56 GMT
Dear Tatiana,

Thanks for your nice message. You say you are not a physicist, but neither was I 40 years ago (if indeed I am one now) - but you sound like a physicist in the making! Trying to understand what is going on by asking questions and following your intuition is far more important than learning and accepting current doctrine unquestioningly - and as you can see from my essay I see many foundational problems in mainstream physics.

I have a short speculative paper about the strong force you may enjoy reading.

I am glad you enjoyed my paper and illustrations. Your teacher may not be that far wrong - in my own theory particles are made up of 'locked' energy in various configurations. My email friend the late Canadian researcher Gabriel LeFraniere had a whole website entitled Matter is Made of Waves - sadly it became offline with his recent passing - but this 2009 version is preserved in The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. I urge you to download and study the entire site, and tell others about it!

Best wishes

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 16:56 GMT
Tanya -- nice. (I know another Tatiana with that nickname.) Maybe you would be interested in this paper of mine I wrote a few years ago, because it shares your view that the universe conserves energy by accelerating, and is also tied to the nature of time. I didn't do anything with it. Perhaps you can.

Thanks for a stimulating read. If you get a chance, please visit my essay site ("The Perfect First Question.")

Regards,

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Tatiana Izmaylova replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 15:21 GMT
Thank you, Tom! You are quite right about my name - it does abbreviate to Tanya :). I have read your essay and your paper but I did find it a bit complicated at times because I am not a professional physicist I guess. But I really hope you can do something with it. Perhaps, you could convert it into an article format and try publishing it in a journal? I was considering metaphysics journals for mine until I came across this essay contest which I take as an opportunity for sharing ideas. So, perhaps, you may want trying something like that - after all, the more people know about your ideas, the more chances that they will make some difference to science. So, best of luck with your essay and your futher research :)!

Kind regards,

Tanya

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 17:55 GMT
Tanya

What a wonderful fresh view on an important subject, (perhaps even taboo where hints of 'ether' lurk). As someone who prides himself on free thinking I always search for greater freedoms. Yours gave me that wonderful and rare new dimension and vista, consistent with my more limited thought in that direction, of gravity as a pressure force away from greatest dark energy density concentration furthest from mass. I touched on that in last years essay. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803

You may also have that rare gift to be able to visualise motion and the effects of the evolution of interactions in this years essay, which I think are massively important in unification. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1330 If not you might anyway enjoy the touch of Shakespeare.

Congratulations and thank you.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 15:44 GMT
Dear Tatiana,

I found your essay interesting in many ways.

We have a similar approach but not quite the same. Goes to see my essay, it should interest you as well that yours interests me. I am analyzing your approach, and I shall return to you sooner.

Indeed, I also think that the expansion of the space is a force opposite to the other three fundamental forces. My plan is very explicit on this. And I think that the space is what we call the dark energy.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1552

Best regards,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:45 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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 03:35 GMT
Dear Tatiana Izmaylova

Very nice.

Do you think so :

"4. Dark energy:

It is not an alien term for each of us, but with a call like this it is clear that this is an assumption that can be considered a lack of accurate, if not call is the vague.

Although we feel it, or seemed to understand it. But can not express more clearly about its,seems also little problems when we decide to name for it. What is it?

Because it is beyond the knowledge or scientific capabilities of us? It seems the basic theoretical background of our is not enough placement adequate for it, so we call it is "dark" because we not enough "light" to illuminating for it.

• Probably we have to review the specific definition and clarity for the "non-dark energy", before we would add said something about it." - extracted from my essay.

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 22:27 GMT
Tatianak,

For this contest, I decided to go through and comment on essays of interest and see what responses I got to my own essay. There are over 250 entries, so I narrowed down my evaluations. For only those who responded, I decided to reread and provide my evaluations before time expired, not making it a popularity contest but keeping in mind that I entered for an exchange of interesting ideas, whether I agree or not. Some concepts are superior and more persuasively supported.

I think yours comes under that guideline.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 22:28 GMT
Tatiana,

Stubby fingers.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 11:23 GMT
Dear Tatiana I hiope you are fine.

Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 08:57 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
and
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:
or
or
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


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.