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.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

Previous Contests

**Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest**

*December 24, 2019 - March 16, 2020*

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Sergey Fedosin**: *on* 10/4/12 at 8:27am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

**Malcolm Macleod**: *on* 10/2/12 at 18:35pm UTC, wrote Dear Sergey, Thanks. I have an online calculator which, using only the...

**Sergey Fedosin**: *on* 10/2/12 at 17:14pm UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

**Sergey Fedosin**: *on* 9/28/12 at 8:17am UTC, wrote Dear Malcolm, From the point of view of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of...

**Malcolm Macleod**: *on* 9/27/12 at 13:54pm UTC, wrote Thanks Yuri, I downloaded those and will have a look at them! Cheers, ...

**Hoang Hai**: *on* 9/27/12 at 8:45am UTC, wrote Dear Malcolm Macleod Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of...

**Yuri Danoyan**: *on* 9/18/12 at 14:45pm UTC, wrote I sending to you Frank Wilczek’s 3 keen articles ...

**Yuri Danoyan**: *on* 9/13/12 at 17:35pm UTC, wrote You are true master...cool

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Lorraine Ford**: "John, I would say that you need to think what you mean by “physical..."
*in* Emergent Reality: Markus...

**John Cox**: "Lorraine, That clarifies, thanks. I'd be in the camp that argues for a..."
*in* Emergent Reality: Markus...

**Steve Dufourny**: "We have a big philosophical problem with the strings and the photons like..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Steve Dufourny**: "If my equation is correct, E=mc^2+Xl^2 , so how can we take this enormous..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Lorraine Ford**: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..."
*in* Undecidability,...

**John Cox**: "George, We shouldn't conflate contradiction with inconsistency. QM has a..."
*in* Watching the Watchmen:...

**John Cox**: "Georgi, by and large I agree. Near the end of the discussion panel,..."
*in* Watching the Watchmen:...

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.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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.

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

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.

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

January 21, 2020

CATEGORY:
Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)
[back]

TOPIC: The Universe That Isn’t by Malcolm Macleod [refresh]

TOPIC: The Universe That Isn’t by Malcolm Macleod [refresh]

Conventional wisdom depicts our universe as matter (particles to planets) within the vacuum of space. Nevertheless we are still not sure what matter is and we need the language of mathematics to describe it. However if we consider that matter could be the absence of space rather than space as the absence of matter, then a mathematical treatment becomes appropriate for there is no physical matter, instead matter becomes information – the universe data-set. Beginning with the Greek understanding of the number ‘1’; the electron is described in terms of dimensionless magnetic monopoles and atomic orbitals and gravitational waves as standing waves analogous to photons albeit of opposite phase. Gravitational momentum replaces gravitational force. Particles and interactions may be interpreted as the means by which a computational universe stores and manipulates data.

Engineer in software radio R&D. In physics the principal interest lies in the role of alpha, the fine structure constant and Planck momentum, and their relationship to the fundamental physical constants in geometrical terms. Authored a philosophical text on a mathematical universe hypothesis from the perspective of Eastern and Greek tenets.

Malcolm,

I have a difference of opinion about magnetic monopoles. Magnetic monopoles are produced everytime an EM wave is propagated, and these magnetic monopoles act just like the individual pole of a magnetic field produced in the laboratory. An experiment demonstrated that properly aligned EM fields attract and repel.

EM Fields Attract Repel

In a propagated EM field, the N and S magnetic monopoles are spatially separated, as are the plus and minus electric fields.

report post as inappropriate

I have a difference of opinion about magnetic monopoles. Magnetic monopoles are produced everytime an EM wave is propagated, and these magnetic monopoles act just like the individual pole of a magnetic field produced in the laboratory. An experiment demonstrated that properly aligned EM fields attract and repel.

EM Fields Attract Repel

In a propagated EM field, the N and S magnetic monopoles are spatially separated, as are the plus and minus electric fields.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Frank,

I proposed a mathematical solution to the 'electron as magnetic monopole' based on its symmetry, geometrical simplicity (uses only t_{p}, e, c) and it gives 12 digit Rydberg precision. If there really is a mathematical formula that can describe an electron, I offer that this must be a candidate.

As a proton must also be formed from magnetic monopoles, as must all charges, would not my photon formulas then tend to support your own EM argument?

My personal view is that our universe is simply the geometry of momentum, I refer you to an online calculator that solves the physical (mass and charge) constants as geometrical shapes in terms of Planck momentum, the fine structure constant and c.

report post as inappropriate

I proposed a mathematical solution to the 'electron as magnetic monopole' based on its symmetry, geometrical simplicity (uses only t

As a proton must also be formed from magnetic monopoles, as must all charges, would not my photon formulas then tend to support your own EM argument?

My personal view is that our universe is simply the geometry of momentum, I refer you to an online calculator that solves the physical (mass and charge) constants as geometrical shapes in terms of Planck momentum, the fine structure constant and c.

report post as inappropriate

Malcolm,

I looked at the vixra article, "Electron as Magnetic Monopole". An electron has a substantially different structure than a propagated electric or magnetic field. Electrons have been measured to have "mass", which means it has a mechanism that allows masses to be attracted to each other. An EM field does not have mass. I do not equate a photon to be anything like an electron, even though they both may have some field characteristics that are precisely equivalent.

Propagated magnetic monopoles, N & S, and electric fields, + & -, are described by Maxwell's equations. EM fields can be attracted to each other, but this is explained by classical physics. See link in my initial reply. Even though the physical size of the EM field is described by the classic formula c=f*lambda, the transverse EM fields have an influence, in the direction of the field vector, that extends beyond those dimensions, and the "force" of this influence, on another similar EM field vector on the same axis, can be described by Coulomb's Law.

I stated in a reply to another essay that the "vacuum of space" must have the ideal ratio of permittivity to permeability to allow near loss-less propagation of EM fields. This is somewhat like the condition that allow waves to propagate as solitons. EM solitons are exploited in optical fibre cables, where an element of the EM field has been modified to have a longitudinal component.

Your explanation of "one", top of page 2, is interesting. If you read the IEEE reference cited in my essay, topic 1294, the concept of a unit value of arbitrary length is a core feature of the "methodology." I translated the unit length (intrinsic unit) into the familiar size defined by SI, which revealed the basic unit length is directly related to a very familiar EM wavelength. I believe the mathematics are telling us something that I could not state in the paper.

You are attempting to identify the mathematical structures that best fit particular physical law characteristics. When you find the proper mathematical structure, and you apply the proper basic "unit value(s)" for that structure, you will have found one of the "mathematical entities" that reveal a basic truth about our physical existence. The geometric structure in the methodology concept, which is defined by mathematical constants, is "one" such mathematical structure.

report post as inappropriate

I looked at the vixra article, "Electron as Magnetic Monopole". An electron has a substantially different structure than a propagated electric or magnetic field. Electrons have been measured to have "mass", which means it has a mechanism that allows masses to be attracted to each other. An EM field does not have mass. I do not equate a photon to be anything like an electron, even though they both may have some field characteristics that are precisely equivalent.

Propagated magnetic monopoles, N & S, and electric fields, + & -, are described by Maxwell's equations. EM fields can be attracted to each other, but this is explained by classical physics. See link in my initial reply. Even though the physical size of the EM field is described by the classic formula c=f*lambda, the transverse EM fields have an influence, in the direction of the field vector, that extends beyond those dimensions, and the "force" of this influence, on another similar EM field vector on the same axis, can be described by Coulomb's Law.

I stated in a reply to another essay that the "vacuum of space" must have the ideal ratio of permittivity to permeability to allow near loss-less propagation of EM fields. This is somewhat like the condition that allow waves to propagate as solitons. EM solitons are exploited in optical fibre cables, where an element of the EM field has been modified to have a longitudinal component.

Your explanation of "one", top of page 2, is interesting. If you read the IEEE reference cited in my essay, topic 1294, the concept of a unit value of arbitrary length is a core feature of the "methodology." I translated the unit length (intrinsic unit) into the familiar size defined by SI, which revealed the basic unit length is directly related to a very familiar EM wavelength. I believe the mathematics are telling us something that I could not state in the paper.

You are attempting to identify the mathematical structures that best fit particular physical law characteristics. When you find the proper mathematical structure, and you apply the proper basic "unit value(s)" for that structure, you will have found one of the "mathematical entities" that reveal a basic truth about our physical existence. The geometric structure in the methodology concept, which is defined by mathematical constants, is "one" such mathematical structure.

report post as inappropriate

Thanks Frank, I like your closing description. Just a quick note on your comment "Electrons have been measured to have mass". If an electron is a physical entity, then we must account for its properties; mass, charge, spin etc... but if the electron simply describes a localized distortion of space, then these are properties of space (not of the electron)... the electron is dictating the frequency of units of Planck mass and Planck length within space but does not have these attributes itself. Likewise the EM wave dictates the frequency of units of Planck energy but via E=mc2 this is equivalent to Planck mass. We may then surmise that the photon is a moving wave and the electron a standing wave, with (Planck) mass and (Planck) energy simply Planck momentum viewed from different angles.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Malcolm,

A pretty complete paradigm of presenting a perspective change.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

A pretty complete paradigm of presenting a perspective change.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Malcolm,

I want to expand on your statement about 'one', at the top of page 2 of your essay, as it has a link to where the Greeks learned of geometry.

I have a copy of "The Temple of Man", by Schwaller de Lubicz, and he stated that all pharaonic mathematicians were theologians.

"The pharaonic mathematician remains a theologian. He accepts comparisons, but for the directive of his thought he accepts neither a "situated point," nor, mechanically, a speed (such as that of light); only the Unique and Unity will be his reference." Schwaller

You used the term "earth formula" in the last sentence of your Dimensionless Matter section. With the dimension mess created by SI units, an earth formula would definitely be complex, but when the units are distilled down to their essence, the various "universal mathematical entities" may be as easy to understand as basic geometric relationships.

report post as inappropriate

I want to expand on your statement about 'one', at the top of page 2 of your essay, as it has a link to where the Greeks learned of geometry.

I have a copy of "The Temple of Man", by Schwaller de Lubicz, and he stated that all pharaonic mathematicians were theologians.

"The pharaonic mathematician remains a theologian. He accepts comparisons, but for the directive of his thought he accepts neither a "situated point," nor, mechanically, a speed (such as that of light); only the Unique and Unity will be his reference." Schwaller

You used the term "earth formula" in the last sentence of your Dimensionless Matter section. With the dimension mess created by SI units, an earth formula would definitely be complex, but when the units are distilled down to their essence, the various "universal mathematical entities" may be as easy to understand as basic geometric relationships.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Malcolm,

I have had a look at your essay, not read it thoroughly. So I can't give a fair overall evaluation yet. I was a just a little puzzled by what you said right at the beginning.

I don't understand why matter has to be an absence of space to be regarded as information. Can't it just be whatever it is and be information as well? Not information that we humans directly access but information that the universe uses for its continuous self creation. It seems to me that whatever a bit of matter, a fermion, is it "carries" the information "keep out of this space its already occupied"- isn't that the same as "there's no space here"? (cf. Pauli exclusion principle)

report post as inappropriate

I have had a look at your essay, not read it thoroughly. So I can't give a fair overall evaluation yet. I was a just a little puzzled by what you said right at the beginning.

I don't understand why matter has to be an absence of space to be regarded as information. Can't it just be whatever it is and be information as well? Not information that we humans directly access but information that the universe uses for its continuous self creation. It seems to me that whatever a bit of matter, a fermion, is it "carries" the information "keep out of this space its already occupied"- isn't that the same as "there's no space here"? (cf. Pauli exclusion principle)

report post as inappropriate

Dear Georgina,

If an electron is a physical entity, then we must account for its properties; mass, charge, spin etc... but if the electron is 'information' then these are properties of space itself and the electron dictates their frequency... the analogy may be a whirlpool in the ocean, we can mathematically describe its attributes (size, speed...) but we cannot isolate it from the ocean.

You are correct of course, all information is information... I have tried to describe a possible method by which the universe may manipulate this information.

If you interested in the physics, I have an online calculator which describes the physical constants as geometrical forms and for the philosophy an online book: Plato's Cave (Part 1).

report post as inappropriate

If an electron is a physical entity, then we must account for its properties; mass, charge, spin etc... but if the electron is 'information' then these are properties of space itself and the electron dictates their frequency... the analogy may be a whirlpool in the ocean, we can mathematically describe its attributes (size, speed...) but we cannot isolate it from the ocean.

You are correct of course, all information is information... I have tried to describe a possible method by which the universe may manipulate this information.

If you interested in the physics, I have an online calculator which describes the physical constants as geometrical forms and for the philosophy an online book: Plato's Cave (Part 1).

report post as inappropriate

Dear Malcom

You have an interesting thought process ‘Universe That Isn’t’. Staring sentencing of your essay are power statements:

1. Conventional wisdom depicts our universe as matter (particles to planets) within the vacuum of space.

2. we are still not sure what matter is

3. we need the language of mathematics to describe it

4. space as the absence of matter

5. Fundamental constants such as G and h can be considered as natural units

As a Pico-Physicist, I can comment on above power statements

1. Yes, It is compatible with Human intuition and observation. It can be taken as a fact. This is embedded into thought process of Pico-Physics as Unary law ‘Space contains Knergy (Matter)’.

2. My essay Five Dimensions of universe resolves this issue in a meaningful manner – Knergy (Matter) as host reality of Konservation concept and Space as host reality of anti-dote to Konservation concept.

3. Mathematical language to describe the matter is discussed in the essay along with subset of numvers that can be used to express its magnitude. The question of units as an identified and well publicised (to independent observers) identity of reality.

4. Space as absence of matter: I have spent lot of time on this issue. But with this concept, I was not able to conceptualize changes that take place in the universe. I was hampered by the thought of space and matter being two state of same reality as a very viable statement resulting from this thought processes. In the end, I settled for space and matter being independent realities. The interaction between them is governed by unary law .

5. You are right in considering G & h are natural units. In PicoPhysics we consider h, c and possibly Hubble's constant as natural units. Hubble's constant and G are related to each other in PicoPhysics.

Thanks and Regards,

Vijay Gupta

report post as inappropriate

You have an interesting thought process ‘Universe That Isn’t’. Staring sentencing of your essay are power statements:

1. Conventional wisdom depicts our universe as matter (particles to planets) within the vacuum of space.

2. we are still not sure what matter is

3. we need the language of mathematics to describe it

4. space as the absence of matter

5. Fundamental constants such as G and h can be considered as natural units

As a Pico-Physicist, I can comment on above power statements

1. Yes, It is compatible with Human intuition and observation. It can be taken as a fact. This is embedded into thought process of Pico-Physics as Unary law ‘Space contains Knergy (Matter)’.

2. My essay Five Dimensions of universe resolves this issue in a meaningful manner – Knergy (Matter) as host reality of Konservation concept and Space as host reality of anti-dote to Konservation concept.

3. Mathematical language to describe the matter is discussed in the essay along with subset of numvers that can be used to express its magnitude. The question of units as an identified and well publicised (to independent observers) identity of reality.

4. Space as absence of matter: I have spent lot of time on this issue. But with this concept, I was not able to conceptualize changes that take place in the universe. I was hampered by the thought of space and matter being two state of same reality as a very viable statement resulting from this thought processes. In the end, I settled for space and matter being independent realities. The interaction between them is governed by unary law .

5. You are right in considering G & h are natural units. In PicoPhysics we consider h, c and possibly Hubble's constant as natural units. Hubble's constant and G are related to each other in PicoPhysics.

Thanks and Regards,

Vijay Gupta

report post as inappropriate

Dear Vijay,

Apologies, I haven't had time to study your work yet so just a quick comment on your point '5' regarding G and h.

I consider only the fine structure constant alpha, Planck momentum and c as the 'natural constants'... the other constants can be derived from these. I demonstrate this with an online calculator.

report post as inappropriate

Apologies, I haven't had time to study your work yet so just a quick comment on your point '5' regarding G and h.

I consider only the fine structure constant alpha, Planck momentum and c as the 'natural constants'... the other constants can be derived from these. I demonstrate this with an online calculator.

report post as inappropriate

Malcolm

Can your calculator test my theory is right or not?

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

report post as inappropriate

Can your calculator test my theory is right or not?

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

report post as inappropriate

Check please my theory

1.BB 2.Present 3.BC

c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10

G=10^12; G=10^-8; G=10^-28

h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28

alfa =10^-3; 1/ 137; 1

e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12

report post as inappropriate

1.BB 2.Present 3.BC

c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10

G=10^12; G=10^-8; G=10^-28

h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28

alfa =10^-3; 1/ 137; 1

e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12

report post as inappropriate

Hi Yuri,

Sorry, the calculator is set up to work with present SI units; 1kg, 1m, 1s... and uses CODATA values to confirm results. You can of course use your own values to see what the universe would look like if G was greater for example, but this requires modifying Q, not alpha - as alpha is independent of the SI units. I would have to set up a different calculator using Q as the input (or Q and alpha), which could be interesting... alternately if you have Maple, you can do it yourself, copy and paste the formulas. Let me know how it goes...

Cheers,

Malcolm

report post as inappropriate

Sorry, the calculator is set up to work with present SI units; 1kg, 1m, 1s... and uses CODATA values to confirm results. You can of course use your own values to see what the universe would look like if G was greater for example, but this requires modifying Q, not alpha - as alpha is independent of the SI units. I would have to set up a different calculator using Q as the input (or Q and alpha), which could be interesting... alternately if you have Maple, you can do it yourself, copy and paste the formulas. Let me know how it goes...

Cheers,

Malcolm

report post as inappropriate

No,i don't have maple

Does your theory valid in case where only one constant Planck?

report post as inappropriate

Does your theory valid in case where only one constant Planck?

report post as inappropriate

You might have noted from the online calculator that I can reduce everything to; Planck momentum, the fine structure constant alpha and c (which I assume to be the velocity of Planck momentum and so not a fundamental entity). For a background to the theory. I have written a 'popular' book which I just put online: www.platoscode.com, chapter 1.2 and Part II. It is still under construction so let me know if you spot any errors.

Cheers,

report post as inappropriate

Cheers,

report post as inappropriate

I sending to you Frank Wilczek’s 3 keen articles

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Ab

s_limits388.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/physt

oday/Abs_limits393.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_toda

y/phystoday/Abs_limits400.pdf

All the best

report post as inappropriate

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Ab

s_limits388.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/physt

oday/Abs_limits393.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_toda

y/phystoday/Abs_limits400.pdf

All the best

report post as inappropriate

Thanks Yuri, I downloaded those and will have a look at them!

Cheers,

Malcolm

report post as inappropriate

Cheers,

Malcolm

report post as inappropriate

Dear Malcolm Macleod

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 (definition from the ABSOLUTE theory of me) - 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.

Kind 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

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 (definition from the ABSOLUTE theory of me) - 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.

Kind 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

Dear Malcolm,

From the point of view of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter and Similarity of matter levels , at every main level of matter there are their own gravitational constant and Planck constant. For the level of star such constants are described in Stellar constants . At the level of particles is supposed strong gravitation . Now I want say that Planck units must be corrected. If for the particles level of matter we will use not common gravitational constant, but instead of it take Strong gravitational constant , we find good coinciding with the parameters of nucleons. To use correctly Planck units at the level of stars we must to use stellar Planck constant. There was found the meaning of the Planck length. It is close to radius of particles (praons) which relate to nucleon in the same way as nucleons relate to neutron star. It is supposed that in neutron as much praons as neutrons in the neutron star. Please see and evaluate my essay.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

report post as inappropriate

From the point of view of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter and Similarity of matter levels , at every main level of matter there are their own gravitational constant and Planck constant. For the level of star such constants are described in Stellar constants . At the level of particles is supposed strong gravitation . Now I want say that Planck units must be corrected. If for the particles level of matter we will use not common gravitational constant, but instead of it take Strong gravitational constant , we find good coinciding with the parameters of nucleons. To use correctly Planck units at the level of stars we must to use stellar Planck constant. There was found the meaning of the Planck length. It is close to radius of particles (praons) which relate to nucleon in the same way as nucleons relate to neutron star. It is supposed that in neutron as much praons as neutrons in the neutron star. Please see and evaluate my essay.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

report post as inappropriate

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

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sergey,

Thanks.

I have an online calculator which, using only the fine structure constant, the Rydberg constant and c; can calculate theoretical values for the physical constants with extremely high precision. I put your strong gravity formula on this site and using alpha = 137.035999074, I get Gs = 1.5141729346e+29 (as c has a fixed value and Rydberg is known to 12 digits, precision is limited only by alpha). You can check your formula at this site: physical constants calculator

You can also relate G with Gs - using these formulas to break down G and Gs to their component parts helps to determine their actual structure and function: Alpha and sqrt of Planck momentum

You may also find the online gravitational wave calculator useful. It is also very precise: gravitational wave calculator

Let me know if there are any other formulas you want me to look at.

Cheers, Malcolm

report post as inappropriate

Thanks.

I have an online calculator which, using only the fine structure constant, the Rydberg constant and c; can calculate theoretical values for the physical constants with extremely high precision. I put your strong gravity formula on this site and using alpha = 137.035999074, I get Gs = 1.5141729346e+29 (as c has a fixed value and Rydberg is known to 12 digits, precision is limited only by alpha). You can check your formula at this site: physical constants calculator

You can also relate G with Gs - using these formulas to break down G and Gs to their component parts helps to determine their actual structure and function: Alpha and sqrt of Planck momentum

You may also find the online gravitational wave calculator useful. It is also very precise: gravitational wave calculator

Let me know if there are any other formulas you want me to look at.

Cheers, Malcolm

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.