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

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

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

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

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

Previous Contests

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

*December 24, 2019 - March 16, 2020*

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

read/discuss

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

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

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

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

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

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

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

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

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

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

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

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

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

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

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

read/discuss • winners

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

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

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

read/discuss

read/discuss • winners

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

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Angel Doz**: *on* 10/4/12 at 11:15am UTC, wrote Thank you very much for the info. Sure that the process of selection and...

**Sergey Fedosin**: *on* 10/4/12 at 7:15am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

**Steve Dufourny Jedi**: *on* 9/25/12 at 16:43pm UTC, wrote ahahahah they delete, they fear oh the poor thinkers. even like that they...

**Steve Dufourny Jedi**: *on* 9/19/12 at 14:09pm UTC, wrote Mr Witten, let's play. You insist always on dimensions , me I insist on...

**Angel Doz**: *on* 9/18/12 at 20:37pm UTC, wrote Thank you very much, I will download

**Yuri Danoyan**: *on* 9/18/12 at 14:48pm UTC, wrote I sending to you Frank Wilczek’s 3 keen articles ...

**Yuri Danoyan**: *on* 9/13/12 at 18:29pm UTC, wrote Do you like? http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1335 specially his...

**Yuri Danoyan**: *on* 9/12/12 at 1:50am UTC, wrote Angel i forgot to say before reading my last essay you can read my first...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**First Things First: The Physics of Causality**

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

**Can Time Be Saved From Physics?**

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

**Thermo-Demonics**

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

**Gravity's Residue**

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

**Could Mind Forge the Universe?**

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

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

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

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

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

FQXi FORUM

January 21, 2020

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

TOPIC: On the Possibility of a New Principle of Equivalence and Its Relation With a String Theory Based on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics by Angel Garcés Doz [refresh]

TOPIC: On the Possibility of a New Principle of Equivalence and Its Relation With a String Theory Based on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics by Angel Garcés Doz [refresh]

Today there are several inconsistencies in quantum mechanics, we think, must be solved to make an advance that could open the door to a predictive theory of unification, according to empirical data. The first problem: the infinite sum of Feynman diagrams to calculate. This issue begins to have a way of solution, using the principle of unitarity. The second problem: The knowledge that is the mass, are not resulted successfully, because despite the recent progress with confirmation of the Higgs boson, the missing answers for of his character scalar. Third problem: non-locality and the abrupt collapse of the wave function. This essay will expose, in the most clear as possible, some ideas that might be useful.

My job is an electrician. My big hobby: particle physics. As a non-expert, and without appropriate studies, but try to provide, within the limitation of my knowledge, some ideas, maybe, could be of some value. Thank you very much. I apologize for my deficient English

Excellent!

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear George Rajna ,thank you very much

However, there are in my essay, two misspellings equations that do not affect the results.

Simply, when the assay had gone Fqxi, I realized.

I mention this, so take this into account. Two minor errors that do not affect the results, a bad transcription on paper, the equations are:

Pag 7, subsection 3.1.1, where

It has to be:

2) Endnotes

Where:

It has to be:

However, there are in my essay, two misspellings equations that do not affect the results.

Simply, when the assay had gone Fqxi, I realized.

I mention this, so take this into account. Two minor errors that do not affect the results, a bad transcription on paper, the equations are:

Pag 7, subsection 3.1.1, where

It has to be:

2) Endnotes

Where:

It has to be:

My calculations of Higgs

My phenomenon 18 degrees

http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0012

can help you to confirm your calculations.

18x7=126

18x11=198

18x14=252

18x18=324

See http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/08/conformal-standard-model-a

nd-second.html#more

report post as inappropriate

My phenomenon 18 degrees

http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0012

can help you to confirm your calculations.

18x7=126

18x11=198

18x14=252

18x18=324

See http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/08/conformal-standard-model-a

nd-second.html#more

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri:

I'll check your work, vixra.

Anything study, research, thinking, and exchange ideas, is very welcome. Thank you very much.

From what little I know, I have the impression, more or less in some physico-mathematical basis, that quantum reality, in the background is not as probabilistic, as it seems, mainly due to the interference of the observer.

But virtual particles, which define a "state" without possible interference of the observer (because, otherwise particles would be "real") have a real effect in the strict sense of the scholastic definition of quantum theory, with the great advantage that the mathematical modeling is free of interference from the observer or measurement problem.

report post as inappropriate

I'll check your work, vixra.

Anything study, research, thinking, and exchange ideas, is very welcome. Thank you very much.

From what little I know, I have the impression, more or less in some physico-mathematical basis, that quantum reality, in the background is not as probabilistic, as it seems, mainly due to the interference of the observer.

But virtual particles, which define a "state" without possible interference of the observer (because, otherwise particles would be "real") have a real effect in the strict sense of the scholastic definition of quantum theory, with the great advantage that the mathematical modeling is free of interference from the observer or measurement problem.

report post as inappropriate

Dear, Yuri: actually, you are posing problems, relationships that have to do a lot with the great role of number theory in future quantum theory of unification of the forces, including gravity.

The topic is to discuss so widespread, but in relation to this interesting pattern, maybe I can bring you something to help you.

First: it is easy to show that consecutive Fibonacci numbers,...

view entire post

The topic is to discuss so widespread, but in relation to this interesting pattern, maybe I can bring you something to help you.

First: it is easy to show that consecutive Fibonacci numbers,...

view entire post

About number 240

Once i decide ask famous mathematician John Conway question

and get answer

Hello Yuri!

You ask what relation there is between the 240 minimal vectors

of the E8 root lattice and the 230 crystallographic space groups.

The answer is - I don't know of any relation.

I remark that the number of crystallographic space groups should

really be counted as 219 rather than 230, at least as far as

mathematicians are concerned. The reason for the difference is that

11 of them are what I call "metachiral", meaning that they cannot be

deformed into their mirror images. The crystallographers count these

twice, but mathematicians have learned that one should really classify geometric groups by their orbifolds, and there's no way to count orbifolds for the spacegroups that gives 230.

Now to your other question, about 196883 and 196560 - I'll deal

with that in a reply to one of your other messages. J

Yuri Danoyan wrote:

The E8 root system is a rank 8 root system containing 240 root vectors spanning R8. It is irreducible in the sense that it cannot be built from root systems of smaller rank. Each of the root vectors in E8 have equal length. It is convenient for many purposes to normalize them to have length √2.240

There are connection between this and crysallographic points group?

report post as inappropriate

Once i decide ask famous mathematician John Conway question

and get answer

Hello Yuri!

You ask what relation there is between the 240 minimal vectors

of the E8 root lattice and the 230 crystallographic space groups.

The answer is - I don't know of any relation.

I remark that the number of crystallographic space groups should

really be counted as 219 rather than 230, at least as far as

mathematicians are concerned. The reason for the difference is that

11 of them are what I call "metachiral", meaning that they cannot be

deformed into their mirror images. The crystallographers count these

twice, but mathematicians have learned that one should really classify geometric groups by their orbifolds, and there's no way to count orbifolds for the spacegroups that gives 230.

Now to your other question, about 196883 and 196560 - I'll deal

with that in a reply to one of your other messages. J

Yuri Danoyan wrote:

The E8 root system is a rank 8 root system containing 240 root vectors spanning R8. It is irreducible in the sense that it cannot be built from root systems of smaller rank. Each of the root vectors in E8 have equal length. It is convenient for many purposes to normalize them to have length √2.240

There are connection between this and crysallographic points group?

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Conway

Why so close each other 24-dimensional kissing number 196560

and ......the Monster simple group 196883?

This time, there IS a reason, although it's not quite as obvious

as it might have been. The Monster group's representation

of dimension 196883 splits into 3 pieces when restricted to the

centralizer 2^(1+24).Co1 of an involution. These three pieces

have dimensions 299, 98280 and 98304. The 299-dimensional

representation has the large kernel, 2^(1+24), so its dimension

had to be quite small. The given involution is mapped to 1 in

that piece, and also in the 98280-dimensional one, but to -1

in the 98304-dimensional one. One expects 1 to be about as frequent

as -1.

Summarizing, one expects the three dimensions to be

small, about half, about half the total dimension. Now the middle dimension is one-half of the kissing number 196560, since the space is spanned by 98280

1-spaces that correspond to pairs of opposite minimal vectors.

So it's not so much that 196883 is near 196560, but that one-half

the latter number is near one-half of 196883, so-to-speak!

Regards, John Conway

report post as inappropriate

Why so close each other 24-dimensional kissing number 196560

and ......the Monster simple group 196883?

This time, there IS a reason, although it's not quite as obvious

as it might have been. The Monster group's representation

of dimension 196883 splits into 3 pieces when restricted to the

centralizer 2^(1+24).Co1 of an involution. These three pieces

have dimensions 299, 98280 and 98304. The 299-dimensional

representation has the large kernel, 2^(1+24), so its dimension

had to be quite small. The given involution is mapped to 1 in

that piece, and also in the 98280-dimensional one, but to -1

in the 98304-dimensional one. One expects 1 to be about as frequent

as -1.

Summarizing, one expects the three dimensions to be

small, about half, about half the total dimension. Now the middle dimension is one-half of the kissing number 196560, since the space is spanned by 98280

1-spaces that correspond to pairs of opposite minimal vectors.

So it's not so much that 196883 is near 196560, but that one-half

the latter number is near one-half of 196883, so-to-speak!

Regards, John Conway

report post as inappropriate

Angel

i forgot to say before reading my last essay you can read my first essay based

on real facts of physics.

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

report post as inappropriate

i forgot to say before reading my last essay you can read my first essay based

on real facts of physics.

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

report post as inappropriate

Do you like?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1335

specially his calculator

report post as inappropriate

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1335

specially his calculator

report post as inappropriate

I sending to you Frank Wilczek’s 3 keen articles

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

s_limits388.pdf

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

oday/Abs_limits393.pdf

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

y/phystoday/Abs_limits400.pdf

All the best

report post as inappropriate

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

s_limits388.pdf

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

oday/Abs_limits393.pdf

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

y/phystoday/Abs_limits400.pdf

All the best

report post as inappropriate

ahahahah they delete, they fear oh the poor thinkers. even like that they fear.

report post as inappropriate

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

Thank you very much for the info.

Sure that the process of selection and other evaluation aspects of the essays can be improved.

However, there is a balance to the final assessment: a jury of experts, so I have understood, weigh three times the rating of the community.

Anyway it does not seem balanced to separate academics, non-academics. It's a personal opinion, of course

But for me, the most important thing is to exchange knowledge, ideas, physico-mathematical developments

Sure that the process of selection and other evaluation aspects of the essays can be improved.

However, there is a balance to the final assessment: a jury of experts, so I have understood, weigh three times the rating of the community.

Anyway it does not seem balanced to separate academics, non-academics. It's a personal opinion, of course

But for me, the most important thing is to exchange knowledge, ideas, physico-mathematical developments

Login or create account to post reply or comment.