If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

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

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

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

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

Previous Contests

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

*December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020*

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

read/discuss • winners

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

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

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

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

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

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

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

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

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

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

read/discuss • winners

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

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

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

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

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

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Yuri Rylov**: *on* 10/4/12 at 11:58am UTC, wrote Dear Sergey, Thank you for information about rating. I did not know rules...

**Sergey Fedosin**: *on* 10/4/12 at 7:26am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

**Yuri Ryov**: *on* 10/3/12 at 1:59am UTC, wrote Dear Sergey, I am admiring. I would not be able to look through such a...

**Yuri Rylov**: *on* 10/3/12 at 1:40am UTC, wrote Dear Ben, I should like to add a short remark to my answer 2 Oct. 2012....

**Sergey Fedosin**: *on* 10/2/12 at 14:40pm UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

**Yuri Rylov**: *on* 10/2/12 at 11:37am UTC, wrote Dear Ben You wrote: ”In my approach there is only one dynamical law,...

**Benjamin Dribus**: *on* 10/2/12 at 7:13am UTC, wrote Dear Yuri, Thanks for looking at what I wrote. It is interesting how some...

**Yuri Rylov**: *on* 10/1/12 at 13:36pm UTC, wrote Dear Ben, I tried to conceive, what is your causal structures. I must say,...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Steve Dufourny**: "Hi Mr Hosein, the MWI of Everett is a philosophical different..."
*in* Good Vibrations

**Steve Dufourny**: "Hello John and Dr Chiang, Dr Chiang , I have tried to find you on..."
*in* Anatomy of spacetime and...

**Nicholas hosein**: "Reality is a many-worlds Quantum level event."
*in* Good Vibrations

**Kwan Chiang**: "Hi John and Steve, When the majority talk about Maxwell equations, it is..."
*in* Anatomy of spacetime and...

**Monika Součková**: "What do you feel the most exciting or effective learning environment would..."
*in* Quantum Machine Learning...

**Jim Snowdon**: "Had we evolved on a swiftly rotating planet like the Earth, our..."
*in* The Quantum Clock-Maker...

**Jim Snowdon**: "If the rotational motion of the moon is 370km per hour, and the rotational..."
*in* The Quantum Clock-Maker...

**Lorraine Ford**: "Steve, I would like to point out that physics says that the world and..."
*in* How does an Isolated...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Good Vibrations**

Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

**Reconstructing Physics**

New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

**The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves**

Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

**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.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

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.

'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

FQXi FORUM

January 18, 2022

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

TOPIC: Tachyons in Monistic Space-Time Geometry by Yuri Rylov [refresh]

TOPIC: Tachyons in Monistic Space-Time Geometry by Yuri Rylov [refresh]

It is shown that geometry of Minkowski G_{Ms}, constructed by a metric approach in terms of world function, differs from usual geometry of Minkowski G_M, constructed as a Riemannian geometry on the basis of the linear vector space, although world functions of both geometries are the same. In G_{Ms} amplitude of the tachyon world chain wobbling is infinite, and a single tachyon cannot be detected. Tachion gas in G_{Ms} has very large pressure and can form halo of the dark matter around some galaxies. Tachyons do not exist in the space-time geometry G_M. Such cosmological problems as dark matter and dark energy (cosmological antigravitation) appear to be solved freely on the level of the space-time geometry without any additional hypothesis.

I am physicist theorist, PH.D. I have ended Moscow State university in 1959. I research fundamental problems of theoretical physics, using investgation strategy:'Hypothesis non fingo." It is most optimal strategy, when fundamental physics is in crisis due to mistakes congested in the twentieth century. It is the most reliable strategy to go out of the crisis, although nobody like it. Most reseachers prefer to invent exotic hypothesis, hoping to find a successful one.

Dear Yuri Rylov,

In my theory http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 Tachyons are not exist. But, But in the case of faster than light events are occurring in a faster rate than other, where connections are faster than others. In my interpretation of faster than light, there is no violation of Lorentz transformation or causality. In my paper I'm challenging if the Tachyonss are existed. I hope to read my paper and then we discuss

Azzam

report post as inappropriate

In my theory http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 Tachyons are not exist. But, But in the case of faster than light events are occurring in a faster rate than other, where connections are faster than others. In my interpretation of faster than light, there is no violation of Lorentz transformation or causality. In my paper I'm challenging if the Tachyonss are existed. I hope to read my paper and then we discuss

Azzam

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Azzam K AlMosallami,

I have read your essay, where you discuss interrelation between the real

physical processes and observation of these processes in different

coordinate systems. It is a very old problem. This problem was considered by

A. Einstein and H.Lorentz. They have different viewpoints on the special

relativity theory.

Einstein assumes...

view entire post

I have read your essay, where you discuss interrelation between the real

physical processes and observation of these processes in different

coordinate systems. It is a very old problem. This problem was considered by

A. Einstein and H.Lorentz. They have different viewpoints on the special

relativity theory.

Einstein assumes...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri Rylov,

The goal of my work is unify between quantum theory and relativity theory in concept, principles and laws. I found, relativity theory and Lorentz transformation can be interpreted by other way different from Einstein and Lorentz interpretation. What I did -in my equivalence principle- is equivalent the Lorentz factor to the refractive index, and I found then the Lorentz factor is equivalent to the difference between vacuum energy which is the field. In the case of this difference is positive where equivalent to refractive index greater than 1, then there is time dilation, but in the case of this difference is negative there is time speeding up, and equivalent to refractive index less than 1. The stunning idea in my theory, in the case of measuring faster than light there is no violation of Lorentz transformation or causality. My interpretation is agreed exactly with the latest experimental results of quantum tunneling and entanglement, OPERA, ICARUS, Casimir effect, SN1987a, and wormholes in GR. My interpretation to faster than light and time speeding up is combining and interpret the JOÃO MAGUEIJO theory relative faster than light. In my theory the I illustrate, why the constancy of the speed of light, at the same the variability of the speed of light. Also my theory is supported and be proven with the discovery of the Higgs boson and Higgs field.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

The goal of my work is unify between quantum theory and relativity theory in concept, principles and laws. I found, relativity theory and Lorentz transformation can be interpreted by other way different from Einstein and Lorentz interpretation. What I did -in my equivalence principle- is equivalent the Lorentz factor to the refractive index, and I found then the Lorentz factor is equivalent to the difference between vacuum energy which is the field. In the case of this difference is positive where equivalent to refractive index greater than 1, then there is time dilation, but in the case of this difference is negative there is time speeding up, and equivalent to refractive index less than 1. The stunning idea in my theory, in the case of measuring faster than light there is no violation of Lorentz transformation or causality. My interpretation is agreed exactly with the latest experimental results of quantum tunneling and entanglement, OPERA, ICARUS, Casimir effect, SN1987a, and wormholes in GR. My interpretation to faster than light and time speeding up is combining and interpret the JOÃO MAGUEIJO theory relative faster than light. In my theory the I illustrate, why the constancy of the speed of light, at the same the variability of the speed of light. Also my theory is supported and be proven with the discovery of the Higgs boson and Higgs field.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Azzam K AlMosallami,

You wrote in your post: "The goal of my work is unify between quantum theory and relativity theory in concept, principles and laws." At the correct approach the quantum theory is corollary of the relativity theory. There is no necessity to unify the relativity theory and the quantum theory. Quantum principles remind thermodynamics principles, which are corollaries...

view entire post

You wrote in your post: "The goal of my work is unify between quantum theory and relativity theory in concept, principles and laws." At the correct approach the quantum theory is corollary of the relativity theory. There is no necessity to unify the relativity theory and the quantum theory. Quantum principles remind thermodynamics principles, which are corollaries...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri Rylov,

Thank you very much for your comment. You are right "the quantum theory is corollary of the relativity theory", But it is corollary with the resulted equations of time dilation, increasing of mass with relativity, and then the relativistic kinetic energy and equivalence of mass and energy. Both of quantum and relativity are disagreed with the basis that each theory is built...

view entire post

Thank you very much for your comment. You are right "the quantum theory is corollary of the relativity theory", But it is corollary with the resulted equations of time dilation, increasing of mass with relativity, and then the relativistic kinetic energy and equivalence of mass and energy. Both of quantum and relativity are disagreed with the basis that each theory is built...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Azzam K AlMosallami,

It is very strange, that you consider quantum tunneling and entanglement as a paradoxes, or some unsolved problems. Paradox appears, when one used the Copenhagen interpretation, which is incompatible with the quantum mechanics formalism (see Incompatibility of the Copenhagen interpretation with quantum formalism and its reason . Concepts of Physics 5, iss.2,...

view entire post

It is very strange, that you consider quantum tunneling and entanglement as a paradoxes, or some unsolved problems. Paradox appears, when one used the Copenhagen interpretation, which is incompatible with the quantum mechanics formalism (see Incompatibility of the Copenhagen interpretation with quantum formalism and its reason . Concepts of Physics 5, iss.2,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri Rylov,

Since according to MSRT, in the case of faster than light there is no violation of causality or Lorentz transformation, thus, the prediction of existing Tachyons is in correct, and thus time travel is incorrect. What is existed is time speeding up, where in the case of faster than light time in this frame moving faster than the other frame, and thus, the connections between events will be faster. This idea is agreed with the experimental results of quantum tunneling. and also this idea is existed in SRT, but Einstein was not understand it because at that time the concepts predominated at that time is different from the time of discovering quantum theory. if you review the twins paradox in SRT, and how I could solve and interpret it, you will see my interpretation is correct and agreed with the experimental results, also logically, as time dilation existed, there must exist time speeding up also....right? And what I proposed also agreed with what proposed by JOÃO MAGUEIJO relative to faster than light, but the difference I could keep on the constancy of the speed of light locally. In my theory I answered why the speed of light is constant as proposed by Einstein, and why it is variable at the same time.

report post as inappropriate

Since according to MSRT, in the case of faster than light there is no violation of causality or Lorentz transformation, thus, the prediction of existing Tachyons is in correct, and thus time travel is incorrect. What is existed is time speeding up, where in the case of faster than light time in this frame moving faster than the other frame, and thus, the connections between events will be faster. This idea is agreed with the experimental results of quantum tunneling. and also this idea is existed in SRT, but Einstein was not understand it because at that time the concepts predominated at that time is different from the time of discovering quantum theory. if you review the twins paradox in SRT, and how I could solve and interpret it, you will see my interpretation is correct and agreed with the experimental results, also logically, as time dilation existed, there must exist time speeding up also....right? And what I proposed also agreed with what proposed by JOÃO MAGUEIJO relative to faster than light, but the difference I could keep on the constancy of the speed of light locally. In my theory I answered why the speed of light is constant as proposed by Einstein, and why it is variable at the same time.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Azzam K AlMosallami,

What do you mean, when you say that the speed of the light is constant. Is it constant with respect to what? Could you formulate your statement in the coordinateless form?

Yuri Rylov

report post as inappropriate

What do you mean, when you say that the speed of the light is constant. Is it constant with respect to what? Could you formulate your statement in the coordinateless form?

Yuri Rylov

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri Rylov

Have you read my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1208.0018

It is answered your question. For any observer locally the speed of light is constant and equals to c where c is the speed of light in vacuum. But the difference is the measuring of the speed of light inside the moving train for a stationary earth observer, which is leading to the time dilation inside the moving train. In my MSRT the Lorentz factor is equivalent to refractive index, and then depending on the difference of the vacuum energy. If this difference is negative, then the observer will measure a faster than light or time speeding up, but in my theory in this case there is no violation for Lorentz transformation or causality. If the difference is positive, then there is time dilation. According to my theory, since time dilation and Lorentz factor is depending on the difference of the vacuum energy. Thus I found, in the case of the train moving with constant speed v, then for the stationary earth observer the vacuum energy of this train must be higher than the vacuum energy of the earth surface. Thus the temperature inside the boundaries of the moving train will be increased. And if the velocity increased also, the temperature will increase also. This increase in the temperature is because of the increase of the vacuum energy which is related to the velocity of the train. This interpretation of increasing the temperature of the moving frame for an observer located in a lower vacuum energy is illustrating and agreed with the Hawking radiation of the black holes, But according to my MSRT, there is no Unruh radiation, where I proof that. Please review this paper http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1392 for Douglas Alexander Singleton

report post as inappropriate

Have you read my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1208.0018

It is answered your question. For any observer locally the speed of light is constant and equals to c where c is the speed of light in vacuum. But the difference is the measuring of the speed of light inside the moving train for a stationary earth observer, which is leading to the time dilation inside the moving train. In my MSRT the Lorentz factor is equivalent to refractive index, and then depending on the difference of the vacuum energy. If this difference is negative, then the observer will measure a faster than light or time speeding up, but in my theory in this case there is no violation for Lorentz transformation or causality. If the difference is positive, then there is time dilation. According to my theory, since time dilation and Lorentz factor is depending on the difference of the vacuum energy. Thus I found, in the case of the train moving with constant speed v, then for the stationary earth observer the vacuum energy of this train must be higher than the vacuum energy of the earth surface. Thus the temperature inside the boundaries of the moving train will be increased. And if the velocity increased also, the temperature will increase also. This increase in the temperature is because of the increase of the vacuum energy which is related to the velocity of the train. This interpretation of increasing the temperature of the moving frame for an observer located in a lower vacuum energy is illustrating and agreed with the Hawking radiation of the black holes, But according to my MSRT, there is no Unruh radiation, where I proof that. Please review this paper http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1392 for Douglas Alexander Singleton

report post as inappropriate

Dear Azzam K AlMosallami,

The speed of the light is to be one of fundamental concepts of your theory. But it is defined via following concepts: (1) Lorentz factor, (2)refractive index, (3)vacuum energy, (4) time dilation, (5)vacuum energy of the earth surface, (5) temperature, (6)observer located in a lower vacuum energy.

Any of these six quantities must be defined via fundamental concepts of your theory. If you do not able to define simply concepts of your theory, what it is a theory! Do not say me, that it is an essay, but not a scientific article! Elementary logic is to be present in any scientific paper. I am sorry, but unfortunately, I am not able to read paper, devoted to natural sciences, where there are only associations without a logic and clear definitions. It is obscure what you write about.

Yuri Rylov

report post as inappropriate

The speed of the light is to be one of fundamental concepts of your theory. But it is defined via following concepts: (1) Lorentz factor, (2)refractive index, (3)vacuum energy, (4) time dilation, (5)vacuum energy of the earth surface, (5) temperature, (6)observer located in a lower vacuum energy.

Any of these six quantities must be defined via fundamental concepts of your theory. If you do not able to define simply concepts of your theory, what it is a theory! Do not say me, that it is an essay, but not a scientific article! Elementary logic is to be present in any scientific paper. I am sorry, but unfortunately, I am not able to read paper, devoted to natural sciences, where there are only associations without a logic and clear definitions. It is obscure what you write about.

Yuri Rylov

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri Rylov,

When I adopted the proposed concept of the speed of light in Robertson, H. P. (1949) Postulate versus observation in the special theory of relativity, Reviews of Modern Physics, 21 (3). pp. 378-382. I found there is an analogy between the motion of the light beam inside the moving train and the motion of the light beam inside the medium of refractive index greater than 1. and after the mathematical treatment, I found the the Lorentz factor is same as the refractive index, and are related to the vacuum energy. The vacuum energy is affected by the temperature, pressure and effective density. Hawking theory of black holes connected the thermodynamic, quantum theory with general relativity. And what I did, I connected thermodynamic, quantum theory in SRT. Please read this article http://phys.org/news204866995.html you will see how event horizons are not unique to black holes; they can be exhibited in a variety of physical systems, from flowing water to a moving “refractive index perturbation” (RIP) in a dielectric medium (in which light can change the medium's refractive index).

So, if you think my theory is wrong, so what is the relation of the refractive index in this experiment with the black holes in GRT?

My problem is I can't explain my theory in few words in a comment, because it is connected with many branches of physics. To understand if I'm right, Please read about the vacuum energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy and faster than light http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

Sincerely,

Azzam

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

When I adopted the proposed concept of the speed of light in Robertson, H. P. (1949) Postulate versus observation in the special theory of relativity, Reviews of Modern Physics, 21 (3). pp. 378-382. I found there is an analogy between the motion of the light beam inside the moving train and the motion of the light beam inside the medium of refractive index greater than 1. and after the mathematical treatment, I found the the Lorentz factor is same as the refractive index, and are related to the vacuum energy. The vacuum energy is affected by the temperature, pressure and effective density. Hawking theory of black holes connected the thermodynamic, quantum theory with general relativity. And what I did, I connected thermodynamic, quantum theory in SRT. Please read this article http://phys.org/news204866995.html you will see how event horizons are not unique to black holes; they can be exhibited in a variety of physical systems, from flowing water to a moving “refractive index perturbation” (RIP) in a dielectric medium (in which light can change the medium's refractive index).

So, if you think my theory is wrong, so what is the relation of the refractive index in this experiment with the black holes in GRT?

My problem is I can't explain my theory in few words in a comment, because it is connected with many branches of physics. To understand if I'm right, Please read about the vacuum energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy and faster than light http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

Sincerely,

Azzam

report post as inappropriate

Dear Azzam K AlMosallami,

You write:

"So, if you think my theory is wrong, so what is the relation of the refractive index in this experiment with the black holes in GRT?"

I am sorry, but I do not see any theory neither valid, nor wrong. According conditions of the contest one should submit essays containing fundamental concepts and principles of physics. Do refractive index and black holes concern fundamental principles of physics?

Consideration of apical conception may be curious, but it assumes conservation of fundamental concepts and fundamental principles of physics. The apical conceptions are not a subject of the contest, and discussion of apical conceptions is not interesting for me. The fact that other reseachers consider apical conceptions does not change anything. I am sorry.

I prefer, if you make some remarks (maybe, critical) concerning my essay which contains conceptual changes of the space-time properties.

With my best wishes,

Yuri Rylov

report post as inappropriate

You write:

"So, if you think my theory is wrong, so what is the relation of the refractive index in this experiment with the black holes in GRT?"

I am sorry, but I do not see any theory neither valid, nor wrong. According conditions of the contest one should submit essays containing fundamental concepts and principles of physics. Do refractive index and black holes concern fundamental principles of physics?

Consideration of apical conception may be curious, but it assumes conservation of fundamental concepts and fundamental principles of physics. The apical conceptions are not a subject of the contest, and discussion of apical conceptions is not interesting for me. The fact that other reseachers consider apical conceptions does not change anything. I am sorry.

I prefer, if you make some remarks (maybe, critical) concerning my essay which contains conceptual changes of the space-time properties.

With my best wishes,

Yuri Rylov

report post as inappropriate

dear Yuri Rylov

I think if any researcher proposed any of the fundamental concept is wrong, then he must illustrate why it is wrong, and then must illustrate what is the right instead of the wrong, and then must verify how his proposed solution is agreed with the experimental results and interprets the uninterpreted problems in physics. Relative to what is the relation of the refractive...

view entire post

I think if any researcher proposed any of the fundamental concept is wrong, then he must illustrate why it is wrong, and then must illustrate what is the right instead of the wrong, and then must verify how his proposed solution is agreed with the experimental results and interprets the uninterpreted problems in physics. Relative to what is the relation of the refractive...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Azzam AlMosallami,

You write:

"I think if any researcher proposed any of the fundamental concept is wrong, then he must illustrate why it is wrong, and then must illustrate what is the right instead of the wrong, and then must verify how his proposed solution is agreed with the experimental results and interprets the uninterpreted problems in physics."

You are quite right. But there is one subtlety. There is a lot wrong papers. One cannot read all of them and point, what is wrong in each paper. It is impossible. There are some evidences of fundamental papers. Fundamental paper treats about simple things without a reference to numerous other papers. If statements of a paper are formulated in apical derivative concepts. Such a paper cannot be fundamental.

Sincerely yours,

Yuri Rylov

You write:

"I think if any researcher proposed any of the fundamental concept is wrong, then he must illustrate why it is wrong, and then must illustrate what is the right instead of the wrong, and then must verify how his proposed solution is agreed with the experimental results and interprets the uninterpreted problems in physics."

You are quite right. But there is one subtlety. There is a lot wrong papers. One cannot read all of them and point, what is wrong in each paper. It is impossible. There are some evidences of fundamental papers. Fundamental paper treats about simple things without a reference to numerous other papers. If statements of a paper are formulated in apical derivative concepts. Such a paper cannot be fundamental.

Sincerely yours,

Yuri Rylov

My dear silent opponents,

I should like to answer your wordless objections generated by the Galilei phenomenon. Let me explain what the Galilei phenomenon is. Galiei was a great researcher. He had introduced the concept of inertia which transformed the Aristotelian mechanics to the Newtonian one. The concept of inertia and transformation of the Aristotelian mechanics was too radical and too...

view entire post

I should like to answer your wordless objections generated by the Galilei phenomenon. Let me explain what the Galilei phenomenon is. Galiei was a great researcher. He had introduced the concept of inertia which transformed the Aristotelian mechanics to the Newtonian one. The concept of inertia and transformation of the Aristotelian mechanics was too radical and too...

view entire post

Dear Yuri.

Taking the muon lifetime at rest as the laboratory value of 2.22 microsecond, the lifetime of a cosmic ray produced muon traveling at 98% of the speed of light is about five times longer (Wikipedia). In special relativity all the motions are measured with the help of electromagnetic waves. It leads to the fact that energy and momentum have the multiplier in the form of Lorentz factor gamma. It looks like the speed of bodies can not exceed the speed of light. But I am sure that the real speed of cosmic ray muons is about 5 times of speed of light if do not use special relativity. So muons may be real tachyons. And it is possible that their speed must slow down with time because of action of gravitons. My own interest is in Covariant theory of gravitation and the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter (subject of my essay).

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Taking the muon lifetime at rest as the laboratory value of 2.22 microsecond, the lifetime of a cosmic ray produced muon traveling at 98% of the speed of light is about five times longer (Wikipedia). In special relativity all the motions are measured with the help of electromagnetic waves. It leads to the fact that energy and momentum have the multiplier in the form of Lorentz factor gamma. It looks like the speed of bodies can not exceed the speed of light. But I am sure that the real speed of cosmic ray muons is about 5 times of speed of light if do not use special relativity. So muons may be real tachyons. And it is possible that their speed must slow down with time because of action of gravitons. My own interest is in Covariant theory of gravitation and the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter (subject of my essay).

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sergey,

I looked through your essay and compared your approach with my approach. You increase number of essences, hoping to explain all physical phenomena by means of a large number of new essences. However, the number of physical principles does not decrease, and maybe even it increases. You use a lot of new hypotheses, what is necessary to explain existence of new...

view entire post

I looked through your essay and compared your approach with my approach. You increase number of essences, hoping to explain all physical phenomena by means of a large number of new essences. However, the number of physical principles does not decrease, and maybe even it increases. You use a lot of new hypotheses, what is necessary to explain existence of new...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri.

The form of representation of reality and using of coordinateless form can not be new physics. Someone can think that Copernicus simply changed references frame of the Earth by the frame of the Sun. But in reality the new physics was in the fact that the planets rotate around of the Sun not around of the Earth.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

The form of representation of reality and using of coordinateless form can not be new physics. Someone can think that Copernicus simply changed references frame of the Earth by the frame of the Sun. But in reality the new physics was in the fact that the planets rotate around of the Sun not around of the Earth.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sergey,

I agree with you that using of coordinateless form can not be new physics. It is only some secondary appearance. As concerns Copernicus, the fact that the planets rotate around of the Sun not around of the Earth was only a secondary appearance of Newtonian mechanics, which did not exist at the time of Copernicus. Ptolemaic doctrine of the planet motion is a corollary of the...

view entire post

I agree with you that using of coordinateless form can not be new physics. It is only some secondary appearance. As concerns Copernicus, the fact that the planets rotate around of the Sun not around of the Earth was only a secondary appearance of Newtonian mechanics, which did not exist at the time of Copernicus. Ptolemaic doctrine of the planet motion is a corollary of the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

This is a very interesting essay, and rates high in my opinion since it taught me some geometric ideas I did not know. I would be grateful if you could answer a few questions.

1. How should the causal structure of spacetime be viewed in this approach?

2. Have you thought about inflation in the early universe in this context? The reason I ask is because one of the primary motivations for inflationary theory is the homogeneity of the microwave background, which is thought to imply communication among the constituents of the early universe. I am wondering if the tachyon gas could provide a similar mechanism without invoking expansion.

3. Does the impossibility of detecting individual tachyons save results like the no-signalling theorem?

4. I am not sure how to interpret equation 1.3. You define sigma as a map from Omega cross Omega to the reals with certain properties, but then say that the events are not elements of Omega.

5. You might be interested in looking at Cristinel Stoica’s essay, in which he proposes the possibility of distinct points with zero distance between them. This is conceptually similar to blowups in algebraic geometry, in which all the points of the exceptional fiber correspond to a single point in the base.

6. My essay has a different point of view, based on causal structures, but I would still appreciate any remarks you might have on it if you have time to read it.

Thanks for the great read! Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

This is a very interesting essay, and rates high in my opinion since it taught me some geometric ideas I did not know. I would be grateful if you could answer a few questions.

1. How should the causal structure of spacetime be viewed in this approach?

2. Have you thought about inflation in the early universe in this context? The reason I ask is because one of the primary motivations for inflationary theory is the homogeneity of the microwave background, which is thought to imply communication among the constituents of the early universe. I am wondering if the tachyon gas could provide a similar mechanism without invoking expansion.

3. Does the impossibility of detecting individual tachyons save results like the no-signalling theorem?

4. I am not sure how to interpret equation 1.3. You define sigma as a map from Omega cross Omega to the reals with certain properties, but then say that the events are not elements of Omega.

5. You might be interested in looking at Cristinel Stoica’s essay, in which he proposes the possibility of distinct points with zero distance between them. This is conceptually similar to blowups in algebraic geometry, in which all the points of the exceptional fiber correspond to a single point in the base.

6. My essay has a different point of view, based on causal structures, but I would still appreciate any remarks you might have on it if you have time to read it.

Thanks for the great read! Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ben,

I shall try to answer your questions

1. How should the causal structure of spacetime be viewed in this approach?

According to the principle of relativity there is only ONE structure in the space-time. If your causal structure is some additional structure, it is not to exist in the space-time. If the causal structure is some property of the structure described by the...

view entire post

I shall try to answer your questions

1. How should the causal structure of spacetime be viewed in this approach?

According to the principle of relativity there is only ONE structure in the space-time. If your causal structure is some additional structure, it is not to exist in the space-time. If the causal structure is some property of the structure described by the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ben,

I should like to add some important remarks to my to-day answer.

My changes of the physical theory concern only space-time properties, whereas corollaries of these changes concern cosmology and theory of elementary particles. It means that my changes are fundamental.

First about cosmology. There are two most fundamental problems in cosmology: dark matter and dark...

view entire post

I should like to add some important remarks to my to-day answer.

My changes of the physical theory concern only space-time properties, whereas corollaries of these changes concern cosmology and theory of elementary particles. It means that my changes are fundamental.

First about cosmology. There are two most fundamental problems in cosmology: dark matter and dark...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

Thank you for the detailed answers, and particularly for the additional references. I understand the fundamental nature of your proposals, and that it will take some time to determine applications and predictions. However, I do think that inflation might be a topic for which your approach would hold promise. Also, I wholeheartedly agree with your analogy between chemistry and...

view entire post

Thank you for the detailed answers, and particularly for the additional references. I understand the fundamental nature of your proposals, and that it will take some time to determine applications and predictions. However, I do think that inflation might be a topic for which your approach would hold promise. Also, I wholeheartedly agree with your analogy between chemistry and...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ben,

I tried to conceive, what is your causal structures. I must say, that I failed to understand. I can say only about my impression. I dislike a lot of various properties, ascribed to your structures. It reminds me situation with Ptolemaic doctrine of the planet motion, when progress of the doctrine was achieved by invention of new epicycles. Nevertheless, the doctrine could explain only periodical motion of planets and could not describe the comet motion which is not periodical.

Besides, you consider quantum laws and classical laws as two different conceptions. In my opinion one should not differ quantum laws and classical laws. Quantum constant is a geometrical quantity determined by the elementary length of the discrete space-time qeometry. In particular, the quantum theory of gravitational field is meaningless, because the gravitational field is a geometrical quantity. The Ptolemaic doctrine has been disproved by introduction of a new concept (concept of inertia).

In the same way the contemporary crisis of theoretical physics may be resolved by introduction of a new concept (concept of multivariance). Multivariance is unknown immanent property of the space-time geometry. It appears freely. One does not need to reject multivariance. In my essay I have shown, how this property is used for solution of the dark matter problem. In a like way this property resolves freely other problems of cosmology and of the theory of elementary particles.

In sixteenth century the concept of inertia realized transition from Aristotelian mechanics to the Newtonian one. I believe, that in the twenty first century the concept of multivariance will realize a transition to a new physics, which will unite the quantum physics and the relativistic physics.

Best regards,

Yuri Rylov

report post as inappropriate

I tried to conceive, what is your causal structures. I must say, that I failed to understand. I can say only about my impression. I dislike a lot of various properties, ascribed to your structures. It reminds me situation with Ptolemaic doctrine of the planet motion, when progress of the doctrine was achieved by invention of new epicycles. Nevertheless, the doctrine could explain only periodical motion of planets and could not describe the comet motion which is not periodical.

Besides, you consider quantum laws and classical laws as two different conceptions. In my opinion one should not differ quantum laws and classical laws. Quantum constant is a geometrical quantity determined by the elementary length of the discrete space-time qeometry. In particular, the quantum theory of gravitational field is meaningless, because the gravitational field is a geometrical quantity. The Ptolemaic doctrine has been disproved by introduction of a new concept (concept of inertia).

In the same way the contemporary crisis of theoretical physics may be resolved by introduction of a new concept (concept of multivariance). Multivariance is unknown immanent property of the space-time geometry. It appears freely. One does not need to reject multivariance. In my essay I have shown, how this property is used for solution of the dark matter problem. In a like way this property resolves freely other problems of cosmology and of the theory of elementary particles.

In sixteenth century the concept of inertia realized transition from Aristotelian mechanics to the Newtonian one. I believe, that in the twenty first century the concept of multivariance will realize a transition to a new physics, which will unite the quantum physics and the relativistic physics.

Best regards,

Yuri Rylov

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

Thanks for looking at what I wrote. It is interesting how some scientists prefer to regard classical physics as a limit as some parameter (such as h) goes to zero, while others prefer to regard quantum physics as built up from classical alternatives via a sum over histories.

In my approach there is only one dynamical law, not separate classical and quantum laws. The...

view entire post

Thanks for looking at what I wrote. It is interesting how some scientists prefer to regard classical physics as a limit as some parameter (such as h) goes to zero, while others prefer to regard quantum physics as built up from classical alternatives via a sum over histories.

In my approach there is only one dynamical law, not separate classical and quantum laws. The...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ben

You wrote:

”In my approach there is only one dynamical law, not separate classical and quantum laws. The sum over classical universes is a background-independent generalization of Feynman's sum-over-histories version of quantum theory, and this is how the dynamical law arises. This is analogous to how the ordinary Schrodinger equation is re-derived in Feynman's 1948 paper...

view entire post

You wrote:

”In my approach there is only one dynamical law, not separate classical and quantum laws. The sum over classical universes is a background-independent generalization of Feynman's sum-over-histories version of quantum theory, and this is how the dynamical law arises. This is analogous to how the ordinary Schrodinger equation is re-derived in Feynman's 1948 paper...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ben,

I should like to add a short remark to my answer 2 Oct. 2012. You use causal structures as basic structures of the physical theory. But causality is absent in microcosm. Real motion particle is stochastic. It becomes causal (deterministic) only after statistical description (after averaging). In particular, Feynman’s paths are causal, because they obtained as a result of statistical averaging used in formalism of quantum mechanics.

Best regards,

Yuri Rylov

report post as inappropriate

I should like to add a short remark to my answer 2 Oct. 2012. You use causal structures as basic structures of the physical theory. But causality is absent in microcosm. Real motion particle is stochastic. It becomes causal (deterministic) only after statistical description (after averaging). In particular, Feynman’s paths are causal, because they obtained as a result of statistical averaging used in formalism of quantum mechanics.

Best regards,

Yuri Rylov

report post as inappropriate

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sergey,

I am admiring. I would not be able to look through such a number of essays. I must remark that my essay reminds rather a scientific article, than an essay. The difference lies in the fact, that the article appeals mainly to the reader’s mind, whereas an essay is to appeal also to reader’s emotions/

Cood luck,

Yuri Rylov

report post as inappropriate

I am admiring. I would not be able to look through such a number of essays. I must remark that my essay reminds rather a scientific article, than an essay. The difference lies in the fact, that the article appeals mainly to the reader’s mind, whereas an essay is to appeal also to reader’s emotions/

Cood luck,

Yuri Rylov

report post as inappropriate

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

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sergey,

Thank you for information about rating. I did not know rules of the rating realization, and I did not participate in rating of anybody. On one hand, it seems to me rather strange such evaluation of the quality of essays. On the other hand, I do not know how one could evaluate different essays effectively. Maybe, the expert opinion would be more effective. But where can one find experts in fundamental problems of physics?

Best regards,

Yuri Rylov

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for information about rating. I did not know rules of the rating realization, and I did not participate in rating of anybody. On one hand, it seems to me rather strange such evaluation of the quality of essays. On the other hand, I do not know how one could evaluate different essays effectively. Maybe, the expert opinion would be more effective. But where can one find experts in fundamental problems of physics?

Best regards,

Yuri Rylov

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.