Search FQXi

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

Contests Home

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 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

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

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

ioannis hadjidakis: on 10/4/12 at 10:04am UTC, wrote Dear Sergey, You are right that rating procedure is at least tricky....

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 7:54am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Ioannis: on 10/4/12 at 7:41am UTC, wrote Already done.

Yuri Danoyan: on 10/4/12 at 0:04am UTC, wrote Dear Ioannis Don't forget please impartially evaluate my essay half...

ioannis hadjidakis: on 9/20/12 at 9:35am UTC, wrote Dear Hoang, Mass was tackled by physicists up to now as a fundamental...

ioannis hadjidakis: on 9/20/12 at 8:42am UTC, wrote Dear Peter and everebody, The most interesting point according to our...

Hoang Hai: on 9/19/12 at 14:43pm UTC, wrote Dear Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us are convinced...

ioannis hadjidakis: on 9/18/12 at 17:17pm UTC, wrote Dear Yuri, Your essays are very much related to mine. I am not in a...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "P.S. Clearly, a situation symbolically representable as: ..." in The Present State of...

Lorraine Ford: "So, in reply to the posts by Stefan Weckbach and Steve Dufourny above,..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "If considering existence rather than appearances, the time dimension..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Georgina Woodward: "That is about the 'anatomy"" of spacetime." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Steve Dufourny: "Hello Jim, yes indeed in a sense we have these motions and we have invented..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Jim Snowdon: "Hi Steve, Clearly we have motion in our Universe. It is not..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Georgina Woodward: "Thank you. Good luck." in The Nature of Time

Lorraine Ford: "Rob, As you have not replied, I take it that you now concede that the..." in 16th Marcel Grossmann...

RECENT ARTICLES

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

Can Choices Curve Spacetime?
Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools
Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

The Quantum Refrigerator
A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

FQXi FORUM
September 17, 2021

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Natural Coordination System (NCS) and Existing Theories in Physics and Cosmology by Ioannis Hadjidakis [refresh]

Author ioannis hadjidakis wrote on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 16:28 GMT
Essay Abstract

After the introduction of Natural Coordination System (NCS) by our last contribution(1) (Has the time come?) in this contest we shall put forward some ideas that we think clarify in the simplest way a few physical and cosmological mysteries or controversial theories that are part of the established science nowadays.

Author Bio

Author is a lecturer in Chemistry department, University of Ioannina in Greece. His interest in fundamental physics started from his early childhood trying to perceive emptiness, in its purest form, during night’s relaxation (he is happy that he is still trying ...).

Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 16:16 GMT

I found your essay to be absolutely absorbingly fascinating. I was especially impressed by your contention that “It is evident that every event (vertex) in the spacetime manifold is unique. By the term “unique” we mean that it can not reexist in another event (vertex) in universe’s lifetime.” That is the same conclusion I mentioned in my essay, Sequence Consequence. Yet mathematicians ignore the singular aspect of reality by manipulating what they consider to be ageless identical valued abstract numbers, and seeking to prove the accuracy of identical termed equations. All scientists insist that time has always elapsed in identical measurable segments. One real Universe can only ever have one number 1 once.

report post as inappropriate
Author ioannis hadjidakis replied on Aug. 4, 2012 @ 07:09 GMT
Dear Joe,

Thanks for your encouraging words. The "uniqueness of events" (here and now) is a major concept of nature and a key point that science has overlooked so far as it contradicts determinism. However, there is a great number of established scientists (even through this contest) that expose themselves by considering another way of viewing Nature. It will take a long time till this new road will gets its own traffic signals because even the vehicles that are going to move on it are not known yet.

Ioannis

Joseph Maria Hoebe wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 12:37 GMT
Hello Ioannis,

I like your paper, but it is not clear to me why you stick to 2-d. I know we only see 2-d, or better at best between 2 and 3-d. Still bodies are 3-d. Therefore it is not about hexagons but about configurations of 3-simplexes. Nevertheless a fine paper.

about unique: unique is a possibility of 1 to infinity. Less than that won't do.

And indeed every event, how ever minor or major is unique.

Interesting are minerals. They seem to be less unique. Maybe due to that hey are less event-like?

best regards,

Jos Hoebe

report post as inappropriate
Author ioannis hadjidakis replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 09:37 GMT
Dear Joseph,

Thank you for spending some time for my essay and for your complimentary words.

'... it is not clear to me why you stick to 2-d.' : _____ At the second paragraph of the introduction it is stated that: 'For simplicity reason the whole essay is referring to a 2+1 dimensional world,...' and at the end of the same paragraph: 'The actual 3+1 dimensional world is treated accordingly ...'. By the way, in 3D the hexagon becomes rhombic dodecahedron - impossible to be shown (or furthermore treated) onto a 2D paper (or screen).

'about unique: unique is a possibility of 1 to infinity.' : ____ The uniqueness of each event is represented symbolically by 1 to 'infinity' for each dimension. However if you wish to represent each event uniquely in a spacetime manifold (and on the horizon as well) you have to accept the meaning there is in the essay.

'Interesting are minerals. They seem to be less unique.' : ____ There is no 'less' or 'more' unique but unique or not unique; and minerals, as everything (event) else, are unique. Their properties are continuously changing (e.g. temperature, energy, spacetime position, velocity,...) and they are event-like as every other event.

Author ioannis hadjidakis replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 10:00 GMT
I forgot to close my reply (and I am really sorry for this) by

My best wishes for you,

Ioannis

PS Rhombic dodecahedron is not consisted by ETs (Equilateral Tetrahedrons) and it tessellates 3D space that is not the case for ETs.

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 10:58 GMT
Ioannis

It was a great pleasure reading you essay. I find much equivalence and some commonality, but have one objection. The assumption of the instant 'Big Bang'. I agree with your 'Cosmological Age' principle, which perhaps can still work with a function allowing for a 'process' of accretion and 'jet' ejection (recycling) over non zero time. The AGN 'black hole' IS then the new universe, re-ionized. This may not however be central to what I believe is a genius essay and conception, if my interpretations are correct, in which case I believe it is worth a top score.

We may all describe the same thing or event differently, and physics is no exception. I have proposed a 'real' (c) as well as 'apparent' (c+v) light speed, with paralells to your RCS and VCS, and similarly pointed out the importance to distinguish between observer frames. Particularly I identify Cartesian co-ordinate systems and point particles as invalid for mapping motion.

I even replied to a post recently that the maximum age of the universe is indeed also still very much at large. Our thoughts have much in common, all the more valuable perhaps for the different aspects. I would like to see if you can find those connections with my own essay, which derives unification, CSL and curved space time direct from a quantum mechanism, even consistent with a 'real' interpretation of Copenhagen, also discussed elsewhere.

I crammed too much in, so the implications of the kinetic logic are easy to miss, but I think you will see them, and greatly look forward to your comments. Just look under 'Jackson'. Many thanks.

And please do revert re the big bang.

Best wishes

Peter Jackson

report post as inappropriate
Author ioannis hadjidakis replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 11:00 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you for your comments. It is true that reading a work we find many commonalities as we all try to compromise others work to our perspective and way of thinking. This is characteristic of open-minded persons and helps greatly to enrich our points of view. Half of the essays I read, and feel I could have a sense of them, could be merged with my thoughts. However the step forward in saying that we share the same views on something is a big one.

I read your essay that is dealing with light as the main physical measurable reality. Light differs from matter (boson vs fermion, VCS vs RCS, wave vs matter ...). It is fair to admit that I did not manage to follow your essay in every detail (because of my incompetence to physics) but I agree with you that a) light is propagated by an emission-absorption-emision-... mechanism and b) observer sees his own (local) frame (different from all others'). These are certainly very fundamental and they may be enough for start towaed a common perception of reality.

Best wishes,

Ioannis

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 19:15 GMT
Ioannis

I'm grateful you found and agreed with the main kinetic concept in my essay, which explains CSL and allows unification. It seems you are however in a small minority! Perhaps due to not suffering a full physics education.

As Einstein said, he learned to think despite his education.

Most importantly I hope you'll be so generous as to give my essay a high Community score. It seems it needs all the points it can get to be taken seriously.

I feel yours too is languishing lower than it should and will give the better score I believe deserved.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 22:14 GMT
Hi Ioannis,

I verified your calculation! I am posting this on your essay (it is also on mine but is somewhat buried).

1. For an estimated mass of 1.8x10^54 kg the Schwarzschild radius calculates as 26.7x10^26 meters.

2. The estimated radius of the universe is 0.95x10^26 meters.

3. Hmm,I think this is too close to be a coincidence.

4. I chose mass and radius from a calculation I was making for estimating dark energy in the universe.

I did not cherry pick to make my numbers come out correct (at least not consciously :)

5. But if I cherry pick the mass of the universe from the estimates provided in the table I can get really close to the universe being a black hole. See Below.

I also tried another reasonable estimate for mass that was given in the table (1x10^53 kg). I stayed with the estimated radius of the universe as 10 billion light years (0.95x10^26 meters) because there was more agreement that this was correct. This gave a Schwarzschild radius of 1.48x10^26 meters. The actual estimated radius of the universe is still the 0.95x10^26 meters.

Yes this calculation is based upon best guess estimates. But my feeling is that your intuition (or did you know something) is correct, the universe taken as a whole is a black hole.

As far as I am concerned I am happy to contribute to your result. I am not sure how to do it but I think this result should be broadcast to the physics community, because I do not believe it has been suspected.

Give it a try!

Don L

report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 01:18 GMT
Hi Ioannis,

One of the things we should have done is include the estimate for dark energy.

I have not done the exact substitution, but it seems to me that the radius of the universe matches the Schwarzschild radius even better.

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 18:48 GMT
Dear Don,

I am convinced that physics community does not want to see (and acts as blind) if it feels that something is going to uncover the "elephant in the room" (a phrase common during this year's contest).

Milky way (our galaxy) is even more interesting as its Schwarzschild radius is approx. 3*10^25 m (mass = 2*10^42 kg) while its radius is about 5*10^20 m.

I feel we have to consider Black Holes as something we have to live with(in) and so we have to adjust our conception models.

report post as inappropriate

Ioannis replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 18:50 GMT
somehow I am the Anonymous.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 19:49 GMT
Ioannis, and Don.

I agree a universe has an AUN as a scaled up galaxy AGN, or SMBH in 'old money.' There is much astronomical evidence for this not yet put together in a consistent model, apart from here; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016 The helical form of quasar jets (AGN toroid outflows) is even discernible in the CMBR anisotropy.

I'm not sure Don if you've yet read my essay, which provides the foundational physical mechanisms only outlined in the paper. Please do consider the multi part ontological construction carefully, and it's implications. I'm almost at yours.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Author ioannis hadjidakis replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 08:42 GMT
Dear Peter and everebody,

The most interesting point according to our galaxy is that apart from the AGN (Active Galaxy Nucleus) which refers to its nucleus, the whole Milky Way is a BH. Our position in galaxy is inside its horizon and this emerges major issues.

Are we inside the horizon of our own galaxy? and if so. How can we exchange information with the outside (from our galaxy's horizon) part of the Universe? Have we really any interconnection with the world outside of our galaxy or we are seeing the ever updating data (from the space that inserts or exerts) of our galaxy's horizon? How our relation with galaxy-BH can be related to the possibility that our Universe inhabits on the horizon of its own horizon? Are we travelling towards a singularity or we are safe ...?

Just some homework for your brain until the next contest.

My best wishes to all, Ioannis

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 22:14 GMT
Dear Ioannis

You wrote:

"How can a spacetime or other continuum—with continuous symmetries—emerge from a 'digital' description?

What is the nature of space? How would a discrete universe expand without the discreteness becoming evident? Or, does it become evident?"

I thinking about it lot of time until get answer from Stephen Weinberg

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

You can read also my old essay

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

report post as inappropriate
Author ioannis hadjidakis replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 17:17 GMT
Dear Yuri,

Your essays are very much related to mine. I am not in a position to attribute everything you refer in your essays to the difference between the nature of three/one (real/virtual) axes of RCS. The quotation in your post is not mine. It was among the introductory hints that FQXI team put during the previous contest. However, an attempt to answer to these are included in the corresponding essay that is not much different from the one you gave in your essays.

Best wishes, Ioannis

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:43 GMT
Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

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

report post as inappropriate
Author ioannis hadjidakis replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 09:35 GMT
Dear Hoang,

Mass was tackled by physicists up to now as a fundamental entity that has the right to change the space. It is a common, but extremely serious, mistake in physics to give the right to an entity that uses another entity (i.e. space) in its definition to alter the properties of the later, its own definition is based on, at will. This is the case in relativity (special and general alike). I am near to conclude that mass is a inheritable property of space and it resembles the form of the space that each entity occupy. This idea is too far from the established science so keep it as a foolish' s intuition.

Wishes, Ioannis

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 00:04 GMT
Dear Ioannis

Don't forget please impartially evaluate my essay

half greek Yorgos Constanidis

report post as inappropriate
Ioannis replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 07:41 GMT

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 07:54 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate
Author ioannis hadjidakis replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 10:04 GMT
Dear Sergey,

You are right that rating procedure is at least tricky. Because it is only partly hided (present score not known) many participants try to get a better position by low rating (1) the essays with a higher score than theirs. This is a common phenomenon and it is getting worse during the last days and specially for the essays close to the first 35 (in order to get into the heaven...). A simple solution would be to hide community rating completely, until the end of rating period, so that most of various rating strategies will be useless.

After all the benefit that any author can get participating to this contest is not the rating results but the discussions on the different views the essays offer and the opportunity to publish your thoughts without the filtration of a peering council (for authorization according to the established views).

Best wishes to everybody, Ioannis