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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 8:56am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/3/12 at 17:14pm UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

Vladimir Tamari: on 9/29/12 at 9:30am UTC, wrote Dear Emmanuel Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some...

Sergey Fedosin: on 9/29/12 at 8:17am UTC, wrote Dear Emmanuel, It seems the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is about...

Benjamin Dribus: on 9/28/12 at 19:29pm UTC, wrote Dear Emmanuel, Thats a good point... Lawrence Crowell, Sean Gryb/Flavio...

Emmanuel Moulay: on 9/28/12 at 8:40am UTC, wrote Dear Benjamin, Thank you for your comment. I have read your very...

Benjamin Dribus: on 9/28/12 at 1:43am UTC, wrote Dear Emmanuel, I just read your interesting essay! A few thoughts come to...

Hoang Hai: on 9/26/12 at 2:47am UTC, wrote Dear Emmanuel Moulay Unfortunately, can not agree with your essay: The...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "State latency is an explanation for the results of Stern Gerlach experiment..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "Isn't symmetry simply closely related to redundancy even if physicist may..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Robert Rise: "Meet many types of women on ihookup. Some dates better than others. It is..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Steve Dufourny: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

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
October 24, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The Uncertainty Principle: The End and the Beginning of Dreams by Emmanuel Moulay [refresh]

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Emmanuel Moulay wrote on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 12:58 GMT
Essay Abstract

Is it possible to have a unique interpretation of quantum mechanics and quantum gravity? This article proves that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle implies that it is not possible. Moreover, it raises the question to know if there is a finite number of interpretations of these theories.

Author Bio

Emmanuel Moulay is a French CNRS researcher at the Xlim laboratory at the University of Poitiers. He received his PhD from the University of Lille and the Ecole Centrale de Lille in 2005. He works in Automatic Control and Applied Mathematics.

Download Essay PDF File

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 17:55 GMT
Hi Emmanuel,

Je suis content de vous revoir cette année.

Bone chance pour ce concours.

cordialement

report post as inappropriate

Author Emmanuel Moulay replied on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 06:29 GMT
Bonjour Steve,

Je vous remercie pour vos encouragements.

Emmanuel

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 10:41 GMT
De rien Mr Moulay.

et que les méandres des sphérisées espérances dévoilent leurs soupçons de vérité.

Portez vous bien.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 22:09 GMT
Dear Emmanuel Moulay,

I very much enjoyed your essay, especially the thought experiment combining the Compton Wavelength with the Schwartzschild radius and the uncertainty principle. You conclude that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle with general relativity limits our knowledge of space itself, and therefore it is possible to consider there is nothing of physical nature below the minimal length. I agree, but it is not *necessary* to consider this, only possible. I was unsure whether possibility or necessity was the basis of your conclusions about the uniqueness of interpretations. [You seemed to use a similar Copenhagen argument that there is nothing of physical nature beyond the uncertainty principle to draw a similar conclusion about QM interpretations.] So do your conclusions depend upon this *possibility* or on the *assumption* of "no physical nature" below a certain limit?

In any case, since you have opened the door wide to interpretations, I refer you to my essay The Nature of the Wave Function in which I assume that the field is continuous beyond this limit, but the state is quantized, and derive a "wave function conservation" relation by combining de Broglie's momentum-wavelength relation with a weak field relativity equation.

In light of your conclusions about the [possibly unlimited] number of interpretations, do you have an opinion on the question of whether they are all equivalent or whether there is a "best" interpretation, and what would constitute such?

Thanks for a really nice essay that presented new ideas and addressed basic assumptions.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Emmanuel Moulay replied on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 06:54 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thank you for your comment and your questions.

I think that it is a necessity to have several coherent interpretations of quantum theories. The conclusion does not depend on the Copenhagen interpretation but on the Uncertainty Principle.

One might think that the Copenhagen interpretation is general and does not make any assumption about the nature of what is beyond the Uncertainty Principle, but it is not the case. The Copenhagen interpretation asserted: "What cannot be observed does not exist". So, it is really an interpretation and thus it cannot be the only interpretation due to the limit of our knowledge imposed by the Uncertainty Principle.

Concerning your last question, I don't think that the different interpretations are equivalent but they lead to the same experimental results. The Copenhagen interpretation is the one taught in school but I also like the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation.

Emmanuel

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 23:29 GMT
Hi Edwin,

While reading about your C-field, the question occured to me: what is the difference between a field and an aether medium? I'm working on my own paper in which I argue that there is a medium; it's a medium made of waves. I don't like the word "field" beause a field can be turned off. I think there is a ubiqitous aether medium that is always present. But I get hammered for using the words aether medium. What is a field and how is it different from a medium?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 01:20 GMT
Dear Emmanuel,

My mistake, I posted my question in the wrong place. But you are welcome to address the question: how is an aether different from a field?

report post as inappropriate

Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 01:20 GMT
Dear Emmanuel,

If we assume that we live in a universe which creates itself out of nothing, then conservation laws say that everything inside of it, including spacetime itself, has to add to nil.

The universe then is that unique, paradoxical thing which has no physical reality as a whole, no 'exterior', so to say, but only exists as seen from within.

If this means that it cannot have any particular property as a whole, then this seems to mean that all possibilities must be realized somewherewhen, which in some respects corresponds to the many world interpretation.

Another view on this is that, if in a self-creating universe particles, particle properties must be as much the product as the source, the cause and effect of their interactions, of the fore between them so we can no longer consider the rest mass of a particle as a privately owned property, then its mass also depends on the observer (on his mass, on the gravitational field he sits in, on his distance and motion with respect to the observed object).

If in that case the properties of the particle are different to different observers, then in this sense all possible magnitudes are in fact realised.

For details, see topic 1328

Regards, Anton

report post as inappropriate

Author Emmanuel Moulay replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 06:32 GMT
Dear Anton,

Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately I don't know the possible mechanisms of "self-creating universe particles" which can be related for instance with eternal inflation.

Emmanuel

Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 01:41 GMT
Dear Emmanuel,

I should have used a comma: ''in a self-creating universe, particles, particle properties''

The Copenhagen-, the de Broglie-Bohm- and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics all try to understand quantum mechanics in terms of cause and effect.

In my essay I try to show how what seems so strange from the viewpoint of classical mechanics (including big bang cosmology and relativity theory), is self-evident in a self-creating universe.

In particles in a self-creating universe have to create themselves, each other, then particles and particle properties must be as much the product as the source, of their interactions, of forces.

As much the cause as the effect of their interactions, in a self-creating universe fundamental particles simply cannot be understood causally.

The problem is that we confuse causality with reason: the flaw of causality, however, is that if we understand something only if we can explain it as the effect of some cause, and understand this cause only if we can explain it as the effect of a preceding cause, then this either goes on ad infinitum or we end up at some primordial cause which cannot be understood by definition, so causality ultimately cannot explain anything.

Our logic isn't some infallible ability to distinguish sense from nonsense; it at best is but a reflection of nature's logic, which is what we want to decipher.

Science is not about interpreting observations to fit our ideas about what is logical, a logic which may very well be based upon preconceptions, but about remaining alert for signs which may prove our assumptions wrong, our ideas of what is logical.

Regards, Anton

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 09:39 GMT
Dear Emmanuel

It must be galling for a Gallic mind to admit to imprecision in nature, but you have embraced the notion and presented it very well. There is hope yet, though! Based on my research in diffraction and dipole fields I developed a theory whereby Probability and Uncertainty both emerge as characteristics of waves that diffuse in a precise, local, causal and deterministic way in a universal lattice of dielectric nodes. Diffusion is similar to diffraction, which as you have mentioned (microscope resolution) Heisenberg used the latter to explain his famous Principle.

I have described these ideas best in Figs. 28,29,30 of my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory . I am not saying that one can measure beyond the Uncertainty Principle, but that understanding its cause may be possible and may open new approaches. I would be honored if you read this rather qualitative paper critically. Also my 2012 FQXI paper.

With best wishes,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Emmanuel Moulay replied on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 11:03 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for your comment. I agree that it is very possible that we find new interpretations of quantum mechanics and quantum gravity.

Moreover, the standard model and the general relativity are not the end of the story in physics. Even if the discovery of the Higgs boson is a fantastic new and shows the way for the future, the unification of physics is not ended. There are the problem of the Grand Unified Theory and the one of quantum gravity. New symmetries are probably necessary to achieve this goal.

Emmanuel

Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 19:11 GMT
Dear Emmanuel,

I enjoyed reading your essay, which is well written and interesting. Concerning the existence of multiple interpretations, you may be interested in categoricity.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Author Emmanuel Moulay replied on Aug. 12, 2012 @ 16:41 GMT
Dear Cristi,

Thank you for your comment. I have followed your advice and taken the time to write an essay.

Best,

Emmanuel

Avtar Singh wrote on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 22:48 GMT
Dear Emmanuel:

I enjoyed reading your paper and agree with it.

The conclusion of your paper – “This article has shown that a unique interpretation is not possible because it contradicts the limit of our knowledge imposed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.” is strongly vindicated by may paper as well - -“ From Absurd to Elegant Universe”.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper, which shows that quantum mechanics, howsoever a successful theory in a worldly sense, is incomplete from a universal point of view as evidenced by its paradoxes (quantum gravity, multi-verses, multi-dimensions, observer paradox, quantum time etc) and inconsistencies in predicting a coherent universe.

Following your conclusions, it can be said that QM is a divergent rather than convergent theory, since it cannot fundamentally provide a unique universal solution to the observed universe and phenomena in it. Do you agree?

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

report post as inappropriate

Author Emmanuel Moulay replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 17:52 GMT
Dear Avtar,

Thank you for your comment. I don't really know what is a divergent theory. QM is a complete mathematical theory. The implication of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle concerns the interpretation of QM, and not the mathematical framework of the theory.

Emmanuel

Don Limuti wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 03:41 GMT
Emmanuel,

It was probably unintended but your essay is one of the best condemnations of the uncertainty principle I have come across.

Best of luck,

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 14:26 GMT
Dear Emmanuel

The minimal length is wrong assumption.

See my essay

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

report post as inappropriate

Renate Quehenberger wrote on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 18:12 GMT
Dear Emmanuel Moullay,

I found your article during research for an article about the uncertainty principle and find it very inspiring.

What about an octonionic approach towards quantum gravity?

I just don't agree with your assumption: Knowledge will always be limited, but not by the Heisenberg's principle and neighter by Gödel's Theorem. They just tell us about the system and we have to look beyond it. Long live Hilbert ( bevor he heard of Gödel's result) !-)

By the way, I'm in the same boat: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1524

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:51 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

Janko Kokosar wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 08:38 GMT
Dear Emmanuel Moulay

Your essay is an interesting summary of more interpretation of quantum theories. Your message is hidden in the following sentences:

"So, we know what is beyond the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: nothing of physical nature. But this is a knowledge and also a problem because the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (2.3)-(2.5) is supposed to be a limit to the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 02:47 GMT
Dear Emmanuel Moulay

Unfortunately, can not agree with your essay:

The Science is turning dreams into reality, rather than make the obvious becomes impracticable and dim as dreams.

Hope you do not therefore ignore the essay and my new theory.

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

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 01:43 GMT
Dear Emmanuel,

I just read your interesting essay! A few thoughts come to mind.

1. I won't presume to say anything about the finiteness question; I'm not even sure how one would begin on such a problem. For quantum gravity, though, I'd be satisfied with one workable interpretation for the moment!

2. It is a good point that there is a difference between uncertainty in regard to two incompatible measurements on a single system and uncertainty in the statistical sense.

3. Robert McEachern has submitted an interesting essay to this contest that discusses the interpretation of the uncertainty principle. I’m not sure what to make of his conclusions, but you might find it worth looking at.

4. My favorite approach to quantum theory is Feynman’s sum-over-histories version, since it generalizes in an obvious way to give quantum theories that don’t require a static spacetime background. This seems potentially useful for quantum gravity, as I discuss in my essay here.

4. I note that you reference Gambini and Pullin’s book on LQG. Dr. Pullin was kind enough to give me a draft of that book a few years ago, and I found it quite helpful. Thiemann and Rovelli are great sources too.

5. I think the “discrete causal theories” of quantum gravity, causal sets (Sorkin and collaborators) and causal dynamical triangulations (Ambjorn and collaborators) are worth looking at too, but this is partly influenced by the fact that my own favorite approach is similar!

Anyway, I enjoyed reading it! Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Author Emmanuel Moulay replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 08:40 GMT
Dear Benjamin,

Thank you for your comment. I have read your very interesting essay and even if I am not a specialist of quantum gravity, I agree with you that the notion of manifold is certainly too rigid to be fully compatible with quantum theories. Concerning the emergence of general relativity, there is also the theoretical success of supersymmetry on this point although this theory has not been confirmed by the experiments at the LHC (at the moment).

Best regards,

Emmanuel

Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 19:29 GMT
Dear Emmanuel,

Thats a good point... Lawrence Crowell, Sean Gryb/Flavio Mercati, Daniel Alves, and I have been discussing supersymmetry a bit in regard to the idea of a possible duality between causal theory and shape dynamics. The idea is that the relations in shape dynamics are symmetric, those in causal theory (usually) antisymmetric, and so perhaps one can think of this in a bosonic/fermionic sort of way. At this point it's wild speculation, but wild speculation is sometimes OK in moderate doses (especially in a contest like this!) Take care,

Ben

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 08:17 GMT
Dear Emmanuel,

It seems the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is about theory of measurements and connection of Planck constant as a measure of action and rotational momentum with the time of change of energy of such rotation. Since at the level of star is its Planck constant, see Similarity of matter levels , then there the uncertainty principle take place too. I agree with you that < the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics cannot be the only interpretation because it leads to paradoxes.>

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 09:30 GMT
Dear Emmanuel

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

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 17:14 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 08:56 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

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.