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
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/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
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/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
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.
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 10/5/12 at 11:49am UTC, wrote Dear Alexander, I rated Axiomatic theory of elementary particles in your...
Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 8:03am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...
George Kirakosyan: on 10/3/12 at 5:43am UTC, wrote Dear Kiriakos, Your article is very interesting and I already have rated...
Vladimir Tamari: on 9/29/12 at 9:50am UTC, wrote Dear Kyriakos, thank you for your kind references. I will study them when...
Steve Dufourny Jedi: on 9/25/12 at 17:17pm UTC, wrote A crisis? the word is weak.It is not a crisis but a virus. I know the cause...
Kyriakos A.G.: on 9/25/12 at 16:56pm UTC, wrote Dear Hai! I, as a physicist, know that there is a crisis in physics, and...
Hoang Hai: on 9/25/12 at 14:19pm UTC, wrote Dear Alexander G. Kyriakos Would be more interesting if we stop quoting...
Jonathan Kerr: on 9/24/12 at 11:47am UTC, wrote Dear Alexander, I enjoyed your essay, particularly the discussion about...
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.
Sergey Fedosin: on 10/5/12 at 11:49am UTC, wrote Dear Alexander, I rated Axiomatic theory of elementary particles in your...
Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 8:03am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...
George Kirakosyan: on 10/3/12 at 5:43am UTC, wrote Dear Kiriakos, Your article is very interesting and I already have rated...
Vladimir Tamari: on 9/29/12 at 9:50am UTC, wrote Dear Kyriakos, thank you for your kind references. I will study them when...
Steve Dufourny Jedi: on 9/25/12 at 17:17pm UTC, wrote A crisis? the word is weak.It is not a crisis but a virus. I know the cause...
Kyriakos A.G.: on 9/25/12 at 16:56pm UTC, wrote Dear Hai! I, as a physicist, know that there is a crisis in physics, and...
Hoang Hai: on 9/25/12 at 14:19pm UTC, wrote Dear Alexander G. Kyriakos Would be more interesting if we stop quoting...
Jonathan Kerr: on 9/24/12 at 11:47am UTC, wrote Dear Alexander, I enjoyed your essay, particularly the discussion about...
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: Crisis in Physics. Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong? by Alexander G. Kyriakos [refresh]
TOPIC: Crisis in Physics. Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong? by Alexander G. Kyriakos [refresh]
Essay Abstract
Many famous scientists have noted the presence of crisis in fundamental physics. Despite their technological success, they stopped answering many questions that are entitled to be asked by scientists. Which of our basic physical assumptions are wrong? What we need to change? The essay tries answer these questions.
Author Bio
Speciality: Theory of Nuclei and Elementary Particles, PhD. The main interest in physics is related to nonlinear quantum field theory.
Download Essay PDF File
Many famous scientists have noted the presence of crisis in fundamental physics. Despite their technological success, they stopped answering many questions that are entitled to be asked by scientists. Which of our basic physical assumptions are wrong? What we need to change? The essay tries answer these questions.
Author Bio
Speciality: Theory of Nuclei and Elementary Particles, PhD. The main interest in physics is related to nonlinear quantum field theory.
Download Essay PDF File
Dear Alexander,
Thank you for a very interesting and thought-provoking essay. I found much in your essay to like. As a result of what probably is my own shortcoming, however, I was left without a clear concept of exactly what conclusion(s) you hope readers will take away from your essay.
You were absolutely on target to cite Smolin's book 'The Trouble With Physics' in your opening passages; in fact, that book might well serve as the sub-text for this entire essay competition. In far too many regards, it does appear that physics is in crisis.
I have focused my own attention on one particular point made in Smolin's book where he writes, 'More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are both deeply wrong about the nature of time. It is not enough to combine them. There is a deeper problem, perhaps going back to the beginning of physics.' (p.256)
I am in total agreement with Smolin on this crucial point, and I have addressed this issue in several of my own essays, including the one submitted to this competition, Rethinking a Key Assumption About the Nature of Time and in another essay, Toward a Helpful Paradigm for the Nature of Time. Should you have an opportunity to read them I'd welcome your comments.
If you could please add a posting here with a concise statement of the message you wish readers of your essay to take away from it I would be deeply grateful. Thank you. And good luck in the competition!
jcns
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for a very interesting and thought-provoking essay. I found much in your essay to like. As a result of what probably is my own shortcoming, however, I was left without a clear concept of exactly what conclusion(s) you hope readers will take away from your essay.
You were absolutely on target to cite Smolin's book 'The Trouble With Physics' in your opening passages; in fact, that book might well serve as the sub-text for this entire essay competition. In far too many regards, it does appear that physics is in crisis.
I have focused my own attention on one particular point made in Smolin's book where he writes, 'More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are both deeply wrong about the nature of time. It is not enough to combine them. There is a deeper problem, perhaps going back to the beginning of physics.' (p.256)
I am in total agreement with Smolin on this crucial point, and I have addressed this issue in several of my own essays, including the one submitted to this competition, Rethinking a Key Assumption About the Nature of Time and in another essay, Toward a Helpful Paradigm for the Nature of Time. Should you have an opportunity to read them I'd welcome your comments.
If you could please add a posting here with a concise statement of the message you wish readers of your essay to take away from it I would be deeply grateful. Thank you. And good luck in the competition!
jcns
May I support icns? I got the impression the essay ends with suggested equations after it begun with the definitely correct statement that several physicists used the expression "crisis of physics" or "crisis of modern physics". I wonder why nobody so far asked whether or not that crisis relates to the so called foundational crisis of mathematics.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Eckard
Dear J. C. N.!
Thank you for your favorable response to my essays, and for the interesting questions.
Do you write: «however, I was left without a clear concept of exactly what conclusion (s) you hope readers will take away from your essay». Maybe you're right and I had to point out that to overcome the crisis we must discard neo-positivistic ("Babylonian", instrumentalistic, algorithmic, etc.) approach and «going back to the beginning of physics» (as said Smolin), that is, go to a materialistic (realistic, "Greek", axiomatic) approach. I thought it is clear from my essay, and perhaps I made a mistake.
I think you have focused your attention on a very important point - about the nature of time. If we add to this problem the space, it is probably the most important concepts of physics. And I think that the crisis (as you write in your article) «require us to abandon an unspoken assumption that the operational definition is the final word of science on the nature of time» and, I will add, space. I think that the closest to reality and common sense is the analysis of the concepts of space and time, which are contained in the well-known works of Poincare about the basics of science.
Thank you and success to you.
-----------------------------------------
Dear Joe!
I can agree with you that realistically, science is TODAY a business. But I think that this was not always so. Until the 20th century, many scientists do not earn money on science, and lived at his own expense. These are the all the Greek and Roman scholars, all scholars of the Middle Ages and modern times, until the scientific revolution in the late 19th century.
Thank you
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for your favorable response to my essays, and for the interesting questions.
Do you write: «however, I was left without a clear concept of exactly what conclusion (s) you hope readers will take away from your essay». Maybe you're right and I had to point out that to overcome the crisis we must discard neo-positivistic ("Babylonian", instrumentalistic, algorithmic, etc.) approach and «going back to the beginning of physics» (as said Smolin), that is, go to a materialistic (realistic, "Greek", axiomatic) approach. I thought it is clear from my essay, and perhaps I made a mistake.
I think you have focused your attention on a very important point - about the nature of time. If we add to this problem the space, it is probably the most important concepts of physics. And I think that the crisis (as you write in your article) «require us to abandon an unspoken assumption that the operational definition is the final word of science on the nature of time» and, I will add, space. I think that the closest to reality and common sense is the analysis of the concepts of space and time, which are contained in the well-known works of Poincare about the basics of science.
Thank you and success to you.
-----------------------------------------
Dear Joe!
I can agree with you that realistically, science is TODAY a business. But I think that this was not always so. Until the 20th century, many scientists do not earn money on science, and lived at his own expense. These are the all the Greek and Roman scholars, all scholars of the Middle Ages and modern times, until the scientific revolution in the late 19th century.
Thank you
Dear Eckard!
As said J.W. Gibbs: «Mathematics is a language." Language, including mathematics, can not be the cause of the crisis in physics: the language has its own rules of grammar, and if they are not broken, all is well.
However, I think that math is relevant to the crisis in physics in the other. On the basis of a positivistic ("Babylonian") approach, all that is expressed mathematically, a priori can be considered as the really existing in nature (see the superstring, 10 and 26 dimensions of space-time, multiverses, supersymmetric particles, and much, much more). In order to prove that it exists or not exists, theoretical physicists propose to build expensive accelerators, telescopes, etc. But if the superstrings and others will not be detected, scientists do not risk anything: they can simply say that the hypothesis is not justified.
Axiomatic physics includes frames, beyond which all mathematical models are only human imagination. This system describes only what is in accordance with the existing picture of the world, and this picture is only one (see the quotation of Max Planck and Schrödinger in my essay).
Thank you
report post as inappropriate
As said J.W. Gibbs: «Mathematics is a language." Language, including mathematics, can not be the cause of the crisis in physics: the language has its own rules of grammar, and if they are not broken, all is well.
However, I think that math is relevant to the crisis in physics in the other. On the basis of a positivistic ("Babylonian") approach, all that is expressed mathematically, a priori can be considered as the really existing in nature (see the superstring, 10 and 26 dimensions of space-time, multiverses, supersymmetric particles, and much, much more). In order to prove that it exists or not exists, theoretical physicists propose to build expensive accelerators, telescopes, etc. But if the superstrings and others will not be detected, scientists do not risk anything: they can simply say that the hypothesis is not justified.
Axiomatic physics includes frames, beyond which all mathematical models are only human imagination. This system describes only what is in accordance with the existing picture of the world, and this picture is only one (see the quotation of Max Planck and Schrödinger in my essay).
Thank you
Dear Doctor Kyriakos,
Please under no circumstances take any of my following remarks personally. I enjoyed reading your essay, but while your assertion that “Simplistically, we can say that science is a method of obtaining the answer to a question in order to gain some benefit for people” I think that realistically, science has always been a business. The only difference between any sciences practiced today from previous scientific projects, is that government sponsorship is now required to fund them rather than private expenditure. CERN has spent $10 billion so far and is likely to keep at least 3,000 scientists gainfully employed for at least the next five years regardless of whether they actually find the path of the Higgs boson particle or not. The only real crisis in physics today is finding a wealthy organization to bill.
report post as inappropriate
Please under no circumstances take any of my following remarks personally. I enjoyed reading your essay, but while your assertion that “Simplistically, we can say that science is a method of obtaining the answer to a question in order to gain some benefit for people” I think that realistically, science has always been a business. The only difference between any sciences practiced today from previous scientific projects, is that government sponsorship is now required to fund them rather than private expenditure. CERN has spent $10 billion so far and is likely to keep at least 3,000 scientists gainfully employed for at least the next five years regardless of whether they actually find the path of the Higgs boson particle or not. The only real crisis in physics today is finding a wealthy organization to bill.
Alexander,
A clear sighted essay.
I do wonder though, if this dichotomy of inductive vs. deductive reasoning is two sides of the same coin? The interaction between linear and non-linear systems,like order coalescing out of chaotic states and then projecting back out onto them. Roots of induction coming to a conclusive trunk, then branching back out deductively.
I'm writing this on a phone and intend to develop some of these relations between physical and logical systems further,because you do go to the conceptual heart of the problem, but trying both write on this and think what I'm trying to say is impossible.
report post as inappropriate
A clear sighted essay.
I do wonder though, if this dichotomy of inductive vs. deductive reasoning is two sides of the same coin? The interaction between linear and non-linear systems,like order coalescing out of chaotic states and then projecting back out onto them. Roots of induction coming to a conclusive trunk, then branching back out deductively.
I'm writing this on a phone and intend to develop some of these relations between physical and logical systems further,because you do go to the conceptual heart of the problem, but trying both write on this and think what I'm trying to say is impossible.
Alexander,
Having read through your essay a number of times, I would have to say it does give a very effective overview of the situation in physics today and much of how we have arrived to this point. I agree with the others you don't present a clear solution, but than if there was one, we wouldn't be in this quandary. So your only real fault in that case is due to having clearly enough presented the problem, that the lack of a firm solution seems a letdown. Personally I am not a physicist and only come to the field in search of answers to questions in other fields. What I found were some of the very same habits of mind clouding clear thinking which permeate most other disciplines. Since I do come to the table with a clean slate and some would argue, an empty mind, my solution to what ails physics is quite basic. I think we are so intellectually wrapped up in the effect of time, the sequence of events defining our lives, that we overlook the basic physical process creating it. Rather than time being a vector from past to future, mathematically enshrined as ever more accurate measurements, it is the changing configuration of what exists, that turns future potential into past circumstance. To wit, the earth doesn't travel some fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. Time, then, is an effect of action, rate of change. This makes it similar to temperature, rather than space. I go into this in my own entry, so I won't repeat the various points here.
One argument I forgot to add in that paper was about space being fundamental, rather than just a measure; Centrifugal force suggests space is an inherent equilibrium state. Consider being on an astroid in the deepest regions of space. Would you know it is spinning, if there were no outside references? Say you had poor eyesight, would you be safe, not seeing other markers, but if you pulled out your glasses and saw stars circling rapidly above you, would you then be in danger of being thrown off?
report post as inappropriate
Having read through your essay a number of times, I would have to say it does give a very effective overview of the situation in physics today and much of how we have arrived to this point. I agree with the others you don't present a clear solution, but than if there was one, we wouldn't be in this quandary. So your only real fault in that case is due to having clearly enough presented the problem, that the lack of a firm solution seems a letdown. Personally I am not a physicist and only come to the field in search of answers to questions in other fields. What I found were some of the very same habits of mind clouding clear thinking which permeate most other disciplines. Since I do come to the table with a clean slate and some would argue, an empty mind, my solution to what ails physics is quite basic. I think we are so intellectually wrapped up in the effect of time, the sequence of events defining our lives, that we overlook the basic physical process creating it. Rather than time being a vector from past to future, mathematically enshrined as ever more accurate measurements, it is the changing configuration of what exists, that turns future potential into past circumstance. To wit, the earth doesn't travel some fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. Time, then, is an effect of action, rate of change. This makes it similar to temperature, rather than space. I go into this in my own entry, so I won't repeat the various points here.
One argument I forgot to add in that paper was about space being fundamental, rather than just a measure; Centrifugal force suggests space is an inherent equilibrium state. Consider being on an astroid in the deepest regions of space. Would you know it is spinning, if there were no outside references? Say you had poor eyesight, would you be safe, not seeing other markers, but if you pulled out your glasses and saw stars circling rapidly above you, would you then be in danger of being thrown off?
Dear Alexander Kyriakos,
I enjoyed reading about the history of science, the problems, and opinions of various scientists along the way. Very clear and well written.
I think it is an interesting question whether the world is ideal but that is obscured by noise because there is so much going on? Or it is really just messy but some pattern emerges from the mess. Maybe its both.
I was a little puzzled at the end as I was not sure if all of the preceding essay was just building up to your mathematics at the end.
A verbal conclusion or short summary would have been helpful.
Thank you for sharing your thought provoking essay. Good luck in the competition.
report post as inappropriate
I enjoyed reading about the history of science, the problems, and opinions of various scientists along the way. Very clear and well written.
I think it is an interesting question whether the world is ideal but that is obscured by noise because there is so much going on? Or it is really just messy but some pattern emerges from the mess. Maybe its both.
I was a little puzzled at the end as I was not sure if all of the preceding essay was just building up to your mathematics at the end.
A verbal conclusion or short summary would have been helpful.
Thank you for sharing your thought provoking essay. Good luck in the competition.
Dear Georgina!
Thank you for your wish of good luck in the contest.
Regarding to your comments «A verbal conclusion or short summary would have been helpful», I note that some colleagues have also expressed this wish. But what is that I have not said in my essay?
Famous scholars argue that in the fundamental physics arose a crisis. Therefore, a question arise: «Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?». Famous scientists (Planck, Schrödinger, Popper and others) argue that the crisis arose because of a paradigm shift in the methodology of physics. I suggested to eliminate the crisis to go to the old paradigm - to the materialistic ("Greek" or axiomatic) paradigm.
Maybe my colleagues would like that I answer the question: "How to force the scientific community to change the paradigm?". I have no answer to this question.
And how would they answer?
Alexander
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for your wish of good luck in the contest.
Regarding to your comments «A verbal conclusion or short summary would have been helpful», I note that some colleagues have also expressed this wish. But what is that I have not said in my essay?
Famous scholars argue that in the fundamental physics arose a crisis. Therefore, a question arise: «Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?». Famous scientists (Planck, Schrödinger, Popper and others) argue that the crisis arose because of a paradigm shift in the methodology of physics. I suggested to eliminate the crisis to go to the old paradigm - to the materialistic ("Greek" or axiomatic) paradigm.
Maybe my colleagues would like that I answer the question: "How to force the scientific community to change the paradigm?". I have no answer to this question.
And how would they answer?
Alexander
Dear Alexander,
A conclusion would have just distilled something particularly important that you wanted to convey and tied it up nicely. Like a bow on a parcel, unnecessary but making it special and finished. What you have just written in your reply would have done nicely.
I have just read your reply to Eckard. I now think you may have been demonstrating what can be done using the different paradigm. Its practicality. So rather than a conclusion or summary you had the grand finale. Unfortunately that was not obvious to me, which is my shortcoming. Not really understanding the reason for the end of the essay at the time was only a minor problem. Overall I found it a very enjoyable and interesting and relevant essay. I hope you get lots of appreciative readers.
report post as inappropriate
A conclusion would have just distilled something particularly important that you wanted to convey and tied it up nicely. Like a bow on a parcel, unnecessary but making it special and finished. What you have just written in your reply would have done nicely.
I have just read your reply to Eckard. I now think you may have been demonstrating what can be done using the different paradigm. Its practicality. So rather than a conclusion or summary you had the grand finale. Unfortunately that was not obvious to me, which is my shortcoming. Not really understanding the reason for the end of the essay at the time was only a minor problem. Overall I found it a very enjoyable and interesting and relevant essay. I hope you get lots of appreciative readers.
Money in physics is made by changing experience from what is natural, although truth (and reality) are FUNDAMENTALLY found/present in and with natural experience.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Kyriakos
Yasu. I enjoyed both parts of your paper. The historical approach explaining the pragmatic 'shut up and calculate!" or 'Babylonian' approach to QM, and how a systematic axiomatic 'Greek' approach is needed. I very much agree with you there.
I am in no position to evaluate the algebraic axioms you presented in the second part of your paper, except for three observations:
1-Since it is a 'Greek' method a geometrical approach rather than an algebraic one would have been best - I know it is difficult but is it possible? Maxwell tried to explain E/M in a mechanical model
2- I would have preferred the amalgamation of (h) with E/M in the first axiom. I do not know how to do that, but I think that is basic.
3- I have a serious problem with the concept of a 'photon particle', but liked your idea of photon rotation to lock in a new position to create mass. Why not extend this into the surrounding 'photons' of a 'sea of photons' and thus define gravity?
That is what I have done in my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory where the geometrical twisting or rotation of the universal dielectric nodes create quantum phase, local photon intensity and polarization. When neighboring nodes are made to twist so that their poles are opposite they lock in place (as in your theory) creating a particle with mass. An explanation of gravity as the effect of the unwinding of twisting immediately follows. Neutrino description as a twisting of the field of nodes is also one of the ideas in my paper.
I think this approach, using a physical model to embody the situation and use it to find answers, (much like a graphic pencil-and paper solution to vector addition), or the use of an abacus where the position of beads represent arithmetic calculations, may be a pioneering alternative to the Babylonian and Greek methods in physics: a 'Chinese' or if you prefer a 'Japanese' method. If the universe is such a self-assembling '3D abacus' (as in my BU model) such a method may well be the nearest we can get to understand both qualitatively and quantitatively the way Nature actually operates!
This model can be described mathematically by discrete calculus. But expressed as a quantum computer using some sort of yet-to-be-built hardware the (BU) model may yield the results of present-day physics and perhaps new insights and quantitative predictions about physics we have not dreamed of yet. I will be honored if you read and comment on my (BU) paper as well as my fqxi essay 'Fix Physics!'
Best of luck
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Yasu. I enjoyed both parts of your paper. The historical approach explaining the pragmatic 'shut up and calculate!" or 'Babylonian' approach to QM, and how a systematic axiomatic 'Greek' approach is needed. I very much agree with you there.
I am in no position to evaluate the algebraic axioms you presented in the second part of your paper, except for three observations:
1-Since it is a 'Greek' method a geometrical approach rather than an algebraic one would have been best - I know it is difficult but is it possible? Maxwell tried to explain E/M in a mechanical model
2- I would have preferred the amalgamation of (h) with E/M in the first axiom. I do not know how to do that, but I think that is basic.
3- I have a serious problem with the concept of a 'photon particle', but liked your idea of photon rotation to lock in a new position to create mass. Why not extend this into the surrounding 'photons' of a 'sea of photons' and thus define gravity?
That is what I have done in my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory where the geometrical twisting or rotation of the universal dielectric nodes create quantum phase, local photon intensity and polarization. When neighboring nodes are made to twist so that their poles are opposite they lock in place (as in your theory) creating a particle with mass. An explanation of gravity as the effect of the unwinding of twisting immediately follows. Neutrino description as a twisting of the field of nodes is also one of the ideas in my paper.
I think this approach, using a physical model to embody the situation and use it to find answers, (much like a graphic pencil-and paper solution to vector addition), or the use of an abacus where the position of beads represent arithmetic calculations, may be a pioneering alternative to the Babylonian and Greek methods in physics: a 'Chinese' or if you prefer a 'Japanese' method. If the universe is such a self-assembling '3D abacus' (as in my BU model) such a method may well be the nearest we can get to understand both qualitatively and quantitatively the way Nature actually operates!
This model can be described mathematically by discrete calculus. But expressed as a quantum computer using some sort of yet-to-be-built hardware the (BU) model may yield the results of present-day physics and perhaps new insights and quantitative predictions about physics we have not dreamed of yet. I will be honored if you read and comment on my (BU) paper as well as my fqxi essay 'Fix Physics!'
Best of luck
Vladimir
Dear Vladimir! Yasu!
Thank you for your interest in my essay.
I met with your (BU) paper as well as with fqxi essay 'Fix Physics!'. I can not comment on these works in detail, because it requires a lot of time. I will say very briefly.
I think, BEAUTIFUL UNIVERSE is a very correct statement of the general and specific problems in physics. Your «proposal to reconstruct physics from simple physically realistic first principles» is the goal of my work in physics. The result of this work is my non-linear theory, where it is possible to find answers to your questions, as well as a concrete embodiment of many of your suggestions. Unfortunately, it is impossible to comment on all the details here. Four pages of the theory outlined in my FQXI 2012 ESSAY are simply the content of the theory; full theory takes about 300-350 pages.
The same applies to “Fix Physics!” essay. Your questions are very serious and important. And my theory is an attempt to answer them. On the question “WHY CHANGE IN PHYSICS IS NECESSARY”, I tried very briefly to respond in my FQXI-2012 essay. Answers to “SEVEN FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS” are also contained in the nonlinear theory.
Regarding the composition of the system of axioms is known, it can be different. The composition that I suggested I call the "minimal", i.e. such as it is necessary and sufficient in the general sense.
You are asking «Why not extend this into the surrounding 'photons' of a 'sea of photons' and thus define gravity? I'm doing it now (in Prespacetime Journal just published two articles on this subject and I hope it will be continued.)
Good luck.
Alexander
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for your interest in my essay.
I met with your (BU) paper as well as with fqxi essay 'Fix Physics!'. I can not comment on these works in detail, because it requires a lot of time. I will say very briefly.
I think, BEAUTIFUL UNIVERSE is a very correct statement of the general and specific problems in physics. Your «proposal to reconstruct physics from simple physically realistic first principles» is the goal of my work in physics. The result of this work is my non-linear theory, where it is possible to find answers to your questions, as well as a concrete embodiment of many of your suggestions. Unfortunately, it is impossible to comment on all the details here. Four pages of the theory outlined in my FQXI 2012 ESSAY are simply the content of the theory; full theory takes about 300-350 pages.
The same applies to “Fix Physics!” essay. Your questions are very serious and important. And my theory is an attempt to answer them. On the question “WHY CHANGE IN PHYSICS IS NECESSARY”, I tried very briefly to respond in my FQXI-2012 essay. Answers to “SEVEN FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS” are also contained in the nonlinear theory.
Regarding the composition of the system of axioms is known, it can be different. The composition that I suggested I call the "minimal", i.e. such as it is necessary and sufficient in the general sense.
You are asking «Why not extend this into the surrounding 'photons' of a 'sea of photons' and thus define gravity? I'm doing it now (in Prespacetime Journal just published two articles on this subject and I hope it will be continued.)
Good luck.
Alexander
Dear Alexander
Thank you for the positive comments about both my research and fqxi paper, and about my response to your paper. I really look forward to reading more of your work and communicating about it with you - as you can imagine reading many fqxi essays and commenting on them is a time-consuming business - but well worth it!
Where are you studying or doing your research?
Best wishes
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for the positive comments about both my research and fqxi paper, and about my response to your paper. I really look forward to reading more of your work and communicating about it with you - as you can imagine reading many fqxi essays and commenting on them is a time-consuming business - but well worth it!
Where are you studying or doing your research?
Best wishes
Vladimir
Dear Vladimir!
I understand your difficulties and I respect your courage to continue studies in science. When you have time, you can first get acquainted with the most simple parts of the theory (the photon, the intermediate massive photon, electron-positron, neutrino-antineutrino):
http://vixra.org/pdf/1009.0066v1.pdf
http://vixra.org/pdf/1011.0013v1.pdf
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V11NO2PDF/V11N2KYR.pdf
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO1PDF/V12N1KYR.pdf
If you have any questions, we can discuss them using the e-mail: a.g.kyriakAThotmail.com (where AT = @ ).
Sincerely,
Alexander
report post as inappropriate
I understand your difficulties and I respect your courage to continue studies in science. When you have time, you can first get acquainted with the most simple parts of the theory (the photon, the intermediate massive photon, electron-positron, neutrino-antineutrino):
http://vixra.org/pdf/1009.0066v1.pdf
http://vixra.org/pdf/1011.0013v1.pdf
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V11NO2PDF/V11N2KYR.pdf
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO1PDF/V12N1KYR.pdf
If you have any questions, we can discuss them using the e-mail: a.g.kyriakAThotmail.com (where AT = @ ).
Sincerely,
Alexander
All modern theoretical thermodynamics are wrong.
Read:
"Физичес
;кий смысл адиабатн
99;х процессо
74;" ("The physical meaning of adiabatic processes") (http://yadi.sk/d/pi8OPFpe0Efv - on russian)
report post as inappropriate
Read:
"Физичес
;кий смысл адиабатн
99;х процессо
74;" ("The physical meaning of adiabatic processes") (http://yadi.sk/d/pi8OPFpe0Efv - on russian)
Dear Alexander
I enjoyed reading your essay very much, I agree the standard model is a foundation in physics that have run out of particles to explain except the axion now that the Higgs may have been found. In my opinion in physics the interest may be turned more towards how bosons react in Bose Einstein Condensate, BEC. For example by observing how bosons move through a BEC it will provide the missing link that will combine everything together, of course since bosons are so hard to detect that is not going to be easy, we can however use Helium II phase change and other heavier atoms to form condensates.
Since the proton contains two up quarks and one down quark which only account for 1 percent of its mass, the remainder of the protons mass is due to the kinetic energy of the quarks and to the energy of the gluon fields that bind them together. In my judgment that means that most of the mass is dependent on the protons continuously moving through a Higgs-like bosonic field which may include higgs, gluons, proposed-axions, z boson and w boson particles as a result it forms a BEC of all the bosons within that field giving us mass.
report post as inappropriate
I enjoyed reading your essay very much, I agree the standard model is a foundation in physics that have run out of particles to explain except the axion now that the Higgs may have been found. In my opinion in physics the interest may be turned more towards how bosons react in Bose Einstein Condensate, BEC. For example by observing how bosons move through a BEC it will provide the missing link that will combine everything together, of course since bosons are so hard to detect that is not going to be easy, we can however use Helium II phase change and other heavier atoms to form condensates.
Since the proton contains two up quarks and one down quark which only account for 1 percent of its mass, the remainder of the protons mass is due to the kinetic energy of the quarks and to the energy of the gluon fields that bind them together. In my judgment that means that most of the mass is dependent on the protons continuously moving through a Higgs-like bosonic field which may include higgs, gluons, proposed-axions, z boson and w boson particles as a result it forms a BEC of all the bosons within that field giving us mass.
I looked at your paper and although I think that it contained more math than will be understandable by many readers that are not deeply involved in the field, I did like your concept of a photon becoming a matter particle and gaining mass through a rotation transformation. To make this transformation more easily understood and visualized in people’s minds would you please explain without math the nature of this rotation. Do you visualize the photon being an extended object like a sphere that rotates on its axis like the earth or do you think of it more like the photon’s path of motion becomes curved in such a way that it travels in a cycli8cal circular path. Also do you think of this rotation as a standard two dimensional rotation like the earth and the examples that I gave above or as a three dimensional motion and if it is a three dimensional motion, how does that work?
report post as inappropriate
Paul N. Butler
Dear Alexander,
For some reason instead of taking my name and putting it at the top of the entry it took my greeting to you and put that at the top. I put my name at the top of this entry so if it does that again you will at least know that I sent this and the previous comment. I also noticed after I sent the message that I had somehow entered cycli8cal when it should have been cyclical. I guess I accidentally hit the 8 key also when I hit the i key. Sorry about that.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Alexander,
For some reason instead of taking my name and putting it at the top of the entry it took my greeting to you and put that at the top. I put my name at the top of this entry so if it does that again you will at least know that I sent this and the previous comment. I also noticed after I sent the message that I had somehow entered cycli8cal when it should have been cyclical. I guess I accidentally hit the 8 key also when I hit the i key. Sorry about that.
To make this transformation more easily understood and visualized in people’s minds I have explained without math the nature of this rotation by means of diagramms of field transformations .Please, see figures in http://vixra.org/pdf/1009.0066v1.pdf and http://vixra.org/pdf/1011.0013v1.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Dear Alexander G. Kyriakos,
A very informative essay from mainstream physicist. Your statement below expresses my views on mainstream theories in Physics:
"Scientific community has taken that any theory is true, if it is in agreement with experimental results when these experiments are invariant with respect to the space, time, experimentalists, technical means and some other conditions"
That is how PicoPhysics treat the theories from mainstream physics as statement of facts. A cross verification of facts in a different context does not prove anything but invariance of observed results in a different environment not previously documented. Recent proof of Higgs-Bosons as a result of statistical analysis is a case-in-point.
Pico-Physics works down from observed facts to relate seemingly un-related observations into a single axiom - 'Space contains Knergy'. The concept of Konservation, Knergy and space are partially available in my essay on Five Dimensions of universe .
PicoPhysics believe the origin of problem lies in concept of potential energy evolved to explain gravitation which is measured negative. This embedded neutralization into conservation, which was not part of conceptual conservation when it was just applied to matter/mass as in phase change between gas/liquid/solid states or chemical equations.
Thanks and Regards,
Vijay Gupta
report post as inappropriate
A very informative essay from mainstream physicist. Your statement below expresses my views on mainstream theories in Physics:
"Scientific community has taken that any theory is true, if it is in agreement with experimental results when these experiments are invariant with respect to the space, time, experimentalists, technical means and some other conditions"
That is how PicoPhysics treat the theories from mainstream physics as statement of facts. A cross verification of facts in a different context does not prove anything but invariance of observed results in a different environment not previously documented. Recent proof of Higgs-Bosons as a result of statistical analysis is a case-in-point.
Pico-Physics works down from observed facts to relate seemingly un-related observations into a single axiom - 'Space contains Knergy'. The concept of Konservation, Knergy and space are partially available in my essay on Five Dimensions of universe .
PicoPhysics believe the origin of problem lies in concept of potential energy evolved to explain gravitation which is measured negative. This embedded neutralization into conservation, which was not part of conceptual conservation when it was just applied to matter/mass as in phase change between gas/liquid/solid states or chemical equations.
Thanks and Regards,
Vijay Gupta
Dear Alexander,
I looked at your papers and from what I can tell without attempting to decipher all of the math, it looks like you are suggesting that the photon rotates about a center location in space much like the moon rotates about the earth rather than how the earth rotates about its own axis. If this is the case, you are ahead of most and have the right concept at least up to a point. The mass effect of a rotation is due to its angular motion (momentum) content. A standard rotation such as the earth on its axis or the moon around the earth is a two dimensional motion even when it occurs in 3 space because you can see that each particle travels in a two dimensional plane around its path. Such a rotation creates a directional mass effect (field). As an example, if a large mass were to impact the earth going straight down at the north pole of its rotation, it would not feel the rotational mass effect because it would not be trying to vary the angle of the two dimensional plane of rotation of the earth’s particles in their paths around the axis of the earth. If the same object approached the earth from the north in a line that is parallel to the earth’s axis, but such that it hit at a lower latitude, it would feel the earth’s rotational mass effect. For everything to balance out, the photon must travel a three dimensional path around its center of motion. This gives a three dimensional angular motion component that creates a non-directional mass effect for the matter particle because regardless of from what direction you approach the particle an interaction always changes the angle of its plane of rotation in one or more dimensions. I have found that it is easiest to start with the fact that all photons and matter particles are composed of motions. Then it is only necessary to determine what combination of motions is necessary to generate the observational characteristics of each and the dimensional structure that allows each of these motions to exist as it does. Of course, it could be that I am interpreting your paper wrong and the three dimensional rotation is covered somewhere in the math in which case maybe you can explain it to me without the math, so I don’t have to do all the work of deciphering it as I do not have the time to do that right now.
report post as inappropriate
I looked at your papers and from what I can tell without attempting to decipher all of the math, it looks like you are suggesting that the photon rotates about a center location in space much like the moon rotates about the earth rather than how the earth rotates about its own axis. If this is the case, you are ahead of most and have the right concept at least up to a point. The mass effect of a rotation is due to its angular motion (momentum) content. A standard rotation such as the earth on its axis or the moon around the earth is a two dimensional motion even when it occurs in 3 space because you can see that each particle travels in a two dimensional plane around its path. Such a rotation creates a directional mass effect (field). As an example, if a large mass were to impact the earth going straight down at the north pole of its rotation, it would not feel the rotational mass effect because it would not be trying to vary the angle of the two dimensional plane of rotation of the earth’s particles in their paths around the axis of the earth. If the same object approached the earth from the north in a line that is parallel to the earth’s axis, but such that it hit at a lower latitude, it would feel the earth’s rotational mass effect. For everything to balance out, the photon must travel a three dimensional path around its center of motion. This gives a three dimensional angular motion component that creates a non-directional mass effect for the matter particle because regardless of from what direction you approach the particle an interaction always changes the angle of its plane of rotation in one or more dimensions. I have found that it is easiest to start with the fact that all photons and matter particles are composed of motions. Then it is only necessary to determine what combination of motions is necessary to generate the observational characteristics of each and the dimensional structure that allows each of these motions to exist as it does. Of course, it could be that I am interpreting your paper wrong and the three dimensional rotation is covered somewhere in the math in which case maybe you can explain it to me without the math, so I don’t have to do all the work of deciphering it as I do not have the time to do that right now.
Dear Paul!
You write: «it looks like you are suggesting that the photon rotates about a center location in space much like the moon rotates about the earth rather than how the earth rotates about its own axis». The closest is the expression «It looks like the photon rotates about a center location in space», but in the linear theory is not clear how this happens. I will explain it at the popular level.
According to my theory, in process of production of the electron-positron pair, a photon in a very strong electromagnetic field of a nucleus undergoes the transformation of rotation, in which the photon fields begins to act upon itself. A self-interaction is the nonlinear interaction. A particle moves in its own field. A self-interaction does the particles either metastable or completely stable. This transformation is equivalent to the gauge transformation of the Standard Model (SM) , which from a physical point of view is the rotational transform.
When the fields of photon are "twirled" on the spot, then a photon, as it is seem, is stoped. More precisely, its energy is localized, and therefore, according to Einstein's formula, it is equivalent to the mass. Now, as a whole, this "twirled" photon could not travel at the speed of light. But the photon field is continuing to move in a circle with the speed of light. Due to the appearance of tangential currents, this "intermediate massive photon" is unstable, and after a short time, it breaks (in SM this is mathematically described as a field symmetry breaking). As a result, appears a pair of electron and positron.
The math of non-linear theory is equivalent to the SM theory and explains its as described in my articles.
Alexander
report post as inappropriate
You write: «it looks like you are suggesting that the photon rotates about a center location in space much like the moon rotates about the earth rather than how the earth rotates about its own axis». The closest is the expression «It looks like the photon rotates about a center location in space», but in the linear theory is not clear how this happens. I will explain it at the popular level.
According to my theory, in process of production of the electron-positron pair, a photon in a very strong electromagnetic field of a nucleus undergoes the transformation of rotation, in which the photon fields begins to act upon itself. A self-interaction is the nonlinear interaction. A particle moves in its own field. A self-interaction does the particles either metastable or completely stable. This transformation is equivalent to the gauge transformation of the Standard Model (SM) , which from a physical point of view is the rotational transform.
When the fields of photon are "twirled" on the spot, then a photon, as it is seem, is stoped. More precisely, its energy is localized, and therefore, according to Einstein's formula, it is equivalent to the mass. Now, as a whole, this "twirled" photon could not travel at the speed of light. But the photon field is continuing to move in a circle with the speed of light. Due to the appearance of tangential currents, this "intermediate massive photon" is unstable, and after a short time, it breaks (in SM this is mathematically described as a field symmetry breaking). As a result, appears a pair of electron and positron.
The math of non-linear theory is equivalent to the SM theory and explains its as described in my articles.
Alexander
Hi Alexander. The crisis in physics begins with the failure to understand vision, the body, and thought [fundamentally] as they relate to physics/physical experience. One always starts with typical/ordinary experience and with function/purpose for meaning, perception, and comprehensibility. Thanks for your essay.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Alexander,
I believe you are right that such a rotated photon would not be stable because the EM field would not be strong enough to contain its angular motion mass effect. How are the electron and positron generated from the photon as it loses containment of its angular motion (mass) component in your theory? It is good that you see that the generation of the angular motion component requires an external motion input via the nucleus that you mention.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
I believe you are right that such a rotated photon would not be stable because the EM field would not be strong enough to contain its angular motion mass effect. How are the electron and positron generated from the photon as it loses containment of its angular motion (mass) component in your theory? It is good that you see that the generation of the angular motion component requires an external motion input via the nucleus that you mention.
Paul
Dear Alexander,
I welcome your article and I appreciate it as truly/realistic. I see that we move in the same way in many aspects. We have reached to a some different points, however it is normal for independent workers. I am happy to find of like-minded! A mine work is "Rethinking the formal methodology...." (Topics 1430). Hopeful it may be useful for you as yours for me.
Regards,
George Kirakosyan
report post as inappropriate
I welcome your article and I appreciate it as truly/realistic. I see that we move in the same way in many aspects. We have reached to a some different points, however it is normal for independent workers. I am happy to find of like-minded! A mine work is "Rethinking the formal methodology...." (Topics 1430). Hopeful it may be useful for you as yours for me.
Regards,
George Kirakosyan
Dear Alexander,
I have read your essay and I appreciate your viewpoint. Your essay is very well-written, interesting and highly relevant. I wish you good luck in the contest.
Recently, I have noticed some wild variations in community rated list of contest essays. There is a possibility of existence of a biased group or cartel (e.g. Academia or Relativists group) which promotes the essays of that group by rating them all 'High' and jointly demotes some other essays by rating them all 'Low'. As you know, we are not selecting the 'winners' of the contest through our ratings. Our community ratings will be used for selecting top 35 essays as 'Finalists' for further evaluation by a select panel of experts. Therefore, any biased group should not be permitted to corner all top 'Finalists' positions for their select group.
In order to ensure fair play in this selection, we should select (as per laid down criteria), as our individual choice, about 50 essays for entry in the finalists list and RATE them 'High'. Next we should select bottom 50 essays and rate them 'Low'. Remaining essays may be rated as usual. If most of the participants rate most of the essays this way then the negative influence of any bias group can certainly be mitigated.
I have read many but rated very few essays so far and intend to do a fast job now onwards by covering at least 10 essays every day.
You are requested to read and rate my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space". Kindly do let me know if you don't get convinced about the invalidity of the founding assumptions of Relativity or regarding the efficacy of the proposed simple experiments for detection of absolute motion.
Finally I wish to see your excellent essay reach the list of finalists.
Best Regards
G S Sandhu
report post as inappropriate
I have read your essay and I appreciate your viewpoint. Your essay is very well-written, interesting and highly relevant. I wish you good luck in the contest.
Recently, I have noticed some wild variations in community rated list of contest essays. There is a possibility of existence of a biased group or cartel (e.g. Academia or Relativists group) which promotes the essays of that group by rating them all 'High' and jointly demotes some other essays by rating them all 'Low'. As you know, we are not selecting the 'winners' of the contest through our ratings. Our community ratings will be used for selecting top 35 essays as 'Finalists' for further evaluation by a select panel of experts. Therefore, any biased group should not be permitted to corner all top 'Finalists' positions for their select group.
In order to ensure fair play in this selection, we should select (as per laid down criteria), as our individual choice, about 50 essays for entry in the finalists list and RATE them 'High'. Next we should select bottom 50 essays and rate them 'Low'. Remaining essays may be rated as usual. If most of the participants rate most of the essays this way then the negative influence of any bias group can certainly be mitigated.
I have read many but rated very few essays so far and intend to do a fast job now onwards by covering at least 10 essays every day.
You are requested to read and rate my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space". Kindly do let me know if you don't get convinced about the invalidity of the founding assumptions of Relativity or regarding the efficacy of the proposed simple experiments for detection of absolute motion.
Finally I wish to see your excellent essay reach the list of finalists.
Best Regards
G S Sandhu
Dear Alexander/Sandhu,
I assume those who have replied to Alexander's essay are those who share similar trens of thought about the crisis in physics. After reading Sandhu's post I sifted through the list according to Community Ratings against the name of those who have replied here.
On a rough guesstimate here are the community ratings presently:
A. Kyriakos – 100
JCNS -55
Eckard -120
Joe Fisher -120
J. Merryman - 130
Geogina -110
Tamari - 60
P. Butler -190
G. Kirakosyan - 200
D. Dolce - 40
Sandhu - 60
Viraj – 125
The way things are none of our essays are likely to go to the Judges.
I don’t think vote manipulation as it has been suggested is the answer. Then we fall into the same shameful category.
I wrote to the administrator (not complaining but) that the content of the essays should be in keeping with the Topic of the contest - Wrong Assumptions and not about other stuff, and to post my essay to the Community. I will copy it separately.
Best regards,
Viraj
report post as inappropriate
I assume those who have replied to Alexander's essay are those who share similar trens of thought about the crisis in physics. After reading Sandhu's post I sifted through the list according to Community Ratings against the name of those who have replied here.
On a rough guesstimate here are the community ratings presently:
A. Kyriakos – 100
JCNS -55
Eckard -120
Joe Fisher -120
J. Merryman - 130
Geogina -110
Tamari - 60
P. Butler -190
G. Kirakosyan - 200
D. Dolce - 40
Sandhu - 60
Viraj – 125
The way things are none of our essays are likely to go to the Judges.
I don’t think vote manipulation as it has been suggested is the answer. Then we fall into the same shameful category.
I wrote to the administrator (not complaining but) that the content of the essays should be in keeping with the Topic of the contest - Wrong Assumptions and not about other stuff, and to post my essay to the Community. I will copy it separately.
Best regards,
Viraj
Dera Alexander,
please consider my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1503
Motivated by the truble with physics that you describe I have developed an published in important journal a new challenging theory based on solid mathematical demonstrations. Unfortunatly nowdays if you have good and elegant results in physics you are in truble, so that I would appreciate your support.
best regards,
Donatello
report post as inappropriate
please consider my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1503
Motivated by the truble with physics that you describe I have developed an published in important journal a new challenging theory based on solid mathematical demonstrations. Unfortunatly nowdays if you have good and elegant results in physics you are in truble, so that I would appreciate your support.
best regards,
Donatello
Dear Alexander,
Further to my post just now (under Sandhu's post),as stated there I am copying my letter to the adminsitrator of FQXi.
--------------
Dear Brendan,
Thanks for clarifying how voting works and explaining the irrelevancy of ‘Public Ratings’. Without any solicitations of votes from others or even without voting myself, some unknown readers have voted...
view entire post
Further to my post just now (under Sandhu's post),as stated there I am copying my letter to the adminsitrator of FQXi.
--------------
Dear Brendan,
Thanks for clarifying how voting works and explaining the irrelevancy of ‘Public Ratings’. Without any solicitations of votes from others or even without voting myself, some unknown readers have voted...
view entire post
attachments: 5_A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc
Dear Viraj!
I believe that the authors of the articles should not participate in the vote. I agree with you that the manipulation with voting must not be allowed also from the readers. Therefore I think that the articles should be considered by independent experts who are good specialists in the field of science, in which the contest is declared.
Best regards
Alexander
report post as inappropriate
I believe that the authors of the articles should not participate in the vote. I agree with you that the manipulation with voting must not be allowed also from the readers. Therefore I think that the articles should be considered by independent experts who are good specialists in the field of science, in which the contest is declared.
Best regards
Alexander
Dear Alexander,
I agree with you that authors should not vote and about the requirement that the assessment of the articles be done by independent specialists only. The "specialists" then ought to be those academics who have credentials of having questioned the foundations and agree that there is a crisis in physics.
As you have pointed out in your essay, previously money was no incentive for pursuing science. I think there should not be any Prize Money offered. Then at least some of the entries would not have been there, and less essays for the specialists to sift through. Perhaps the funds could have been given to the specialist judges for their work.
Secondly, I assume that what you mean by voting by “readers" is voting by the members of the FQXi Community for what is called the 'Community Rating'. This is what would determine the final 35.
The 'Public Rating' is a fools paradise. For example there are contestants who have made their entries only at the end of Aug, and yet have top public ratings having obtained over 200 ratings. But we need not be concerned about this.
Best regards,
Viraj
report post as inappropriate
I agree with you that authors should not vote and about the requirement that the assessment of the articles be done by independent specialists only. The "specialists" then ought to be those academics who have credentials of having questioned the foundations and agree that there is a crisis in physics.
As you have pointed out in your essay, previously money was no incentive for pursuing science. I think there should not be any Prize Money offered. Then at least some of the entries would not have been there, and less essays for the specialists to sift through. Perhaps the funds could have been given to the specialist judges for their work.
Secondly, I assume that what you mean by voting by “readers" is voting by the members of the FQXi Community for what is called the 'Community Rating'. This is what would determine the final 35.
The 'Public Rating' is a fools paradise. For example there are contestants who have made their entries only at the end of Aug, and yet have top public ratings having obtained over 200 ratings. But we need not be concerned about this.
Best regards,
Viraj
Dear Alexander,
I appreciate your historical and philosophical analysis, and I think you're right; the descriptive success of quantum field theory, despite its conceptual deficiencies, led to an actual regression on certain foundational issues. It's amazing to consider what advanced problems the founders of quantum theory were trying to solve even in the late 1920's, and it took another two or three generations before consideration of such problems again became mainstream. By then, a lot of important conceptual and philosophical knowledge had largely vanished from much of the physics community. It's ironic to consider the possibility that many physicists over the last 30 years have proven ill-equipped to deal with foundational issues not in spite of what the field had accomplished over the previous half-century, but because of it. Take care,
Ben Dribus
report post as inappropriate
I appreciate your historical and philosophical analysis, and I think you're right; the descriptive success of quantum field theory, despite its conceptual deficiencies, led to an actual regression on certain foundational issues. It's amazing to consider what advanced problems the founders of quantum theory were trying to solve even in the late 1920's, and it took another two or three generations before consideration of such problems again became mainstream. By then, a lot of important conceptual and philosophical knowledge had largely vanished from much of the physics community. It's ironic to consider the possibility that many physicists over the last 30 years have proven ill-equipped to deal with foundational issues not in spite of what the field had accomplished over the previous half-century, but because of it. Take care,
Ben Dribus
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
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.
Dear Alexander,
Although ideally, the rules should have been that authors should not be allowed to vote, voting by authors seems to be the main voting process here. So I feel voting on merit of the content has to be done by authors objectively and impartially. I have already read and commented on your most interesting essay. On that basis I have also rated your essay.
My essay is: ...
view entire post
Although ideally, the rules should have been that authors should not be allowed to vote, voting by authors seems to be the main voting process here. So I feel voting on merit of the content has to be done by authors objectively and impartially. I have already read and commented on your most interesting essay. On that basis I have also rated your essay.
My essay is: ...
view entire post
attachments: 11_A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc
Dear Alexander,
I enjoyed your essay, particularly the discussion about approaches to quantum theory. But the crisis in physics is simply because we've not solved a conceptual puzzle, and are not geared up to the conceptual challenge in front of us, having spent 50 years immersed in the mathematics. It's now becoming clear that we can't reach quantum gravity that way.
In the mid 20th century, people started to let go of attempts to interpret the two main theories, and instead forged ahead without interpretations. We made plenty of progress, but we've now reached a point where we can't necessarily get much further without answering the simple, basic questions. People try to solve the puzzles about time, for instance, without looking closely at the clues, and without allowing for 'missing pieces of the puzzle'. In my essay I've used the clues we do have to try to guess what the clues we don't yet have might look like. This is a key part of problem solving, which we've somewhat lost the ability to use.
There is a need to set the mathematics to one side initially, but no-one seems able to do that. I think Lee Smolin (who I've quoted, as you have) was really talking about a failure in recent attempts to build a mathematical bridge between the two main theories - without much of a conceptual underpinning. So now we must look for that before we can move forward. All attempts to move forward without it have failed - hence the crisis.
I'd appreciate any thoughts you might have on my essay,
Best wishes, Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
I enjoyed your essay, particularly the discussion about approaches to quantum theory. But the crisis in physics is simply because we've not solved a conceptual puzzle, and are not geared up to the conceptual challenge in front of us, having spent 50 years immersed in the mathematics. It's now becoming clear that we can't reach quantum gravity that way.
In the mid 20th century, people started to let go of attempts to interpret the two main theories, and instead forged ahead without interpretations. We made plenty of progress, but we've now reached a point where we can't necessarily get much further without answering the simple, basic questions. People try to solve the puzzles about time, for instance, without looking closely at the clues, and without allowing for 'missing pieces of the puzzle'. In my essay I've used the clues we do have to try to guess what the clues we don't yet have might look like. This is a key part of problem solving, which we've somewhat lost the ability to use.
There is a need to set the mathematics to one side initially, but no-one seems able to do that. I think Lee Smolin (who I've quoted, as you have) was really talking about a failure in recent attempts to build a mathematical bridge between the two main theories - without much of a conceptual underpinning. So now we must look for that before we can move forward. All attempts to move forward without it have failed - hence the crisis.
I'd appreciate any thoughts you might have on my essay,
Best wishes, Jonathan
Dear Alexander G. Kyriakos
Would be more interesting if we stop quoting the opinions of others,to give by his own opinion.
Hope this idea does not make you uncomfortable.
report post as inappropriate
Would be more interesting if we stop quoting the opinions of others,to give by his own opinion.
Hope this idea does not make you uncomfortable.
Dear Hai!
I, as a physicist, know that there is a crisis in physics, and I think I know the cause. But if I did not use quotes, would you believe me?
However, when known and famous scientists confirm this, it is a proof that my thoughts are correct, and then you can trust me.
Best regards
Alexander
report post as inappropriate
I, as a physicist, know that there is a crisis in physics, and I think I know the cause. But if I did not use quotes, would you believe me?
However, when known and famous scientists confirm this, it is a proof that my thoughts are correct, and then you can trust me.
Best regards
Alexander
A crisis? the word is weak.It is not a crisis but a virus. I know the cause also. it is not acceptable. Sciences are there to help us, to imrpove the society and the quality of life.Are we ina circus or what ?
It is not acceptable !!!
report post as inappropriate
It is not acceptable !!!
Dear Kyriakos, thank you for your kind references. I will study them when this contest is over.
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
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
Dear Kiriakos,
Your article is very interesting and I already have rated it, as per as your approach has so many common points with mine view. However, I did not get your answer yet to mine post and your opinion about it, which will be important for me. Hope on your response sun.
essay
Best wishes
report post as inappropriate
Your article is very interesting and I already have rated it, as per as your approach has so many common points with mine view. However, I did not get your answer yet to mine post and your opinion about it, which will be important for me. Hope on your response sun.
essay
Best wishes
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  / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1)
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
Dear Alexander,
I rated Axiomatic theory of elementary particles in your essay by the best score.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
I rated Axiomatic theory of elementary particles in your essay by the best score.
Sergey Fedosin
Login or create account to post reply or comment.