Search FQXi

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.

Contests Home

Previous Contests

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

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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

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/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 7:01am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 10/2/12 at 21:03pm UTC, wrote Dear Andrew! With great interest and attention to read your profound and...

Steve Dufourny: on 8/15/12 at 18:09pm UTC, wrote You are welcome. I totally agree, the experiments are the best friends of...

Ted Erikson: on 8/15/12 at 17:09pm UTC, wrote Hmmm. Thank you. Will take your advice under consideration, but I have...

Steve Dufourny: on 8/15/12 at 8:15am UTC, wrote Hello Andrey Rysin, I wish you all the best.

Andrei Rysin: on 8/15/12 at 4:03am UTC, wrote Dear Steve Dufourny. We gave text very short, but for full information you...

Steve Dufourny: on 8/14/12 at 23:19pm UTC, wrote Hello I have several ideas for you. 1 the volumes 2 the number of the...

Andrei Rysin: on 8/14/12 at 2:48am UTC, wrote Dear Jayakar Johnson Joseph, I agree that weak and strong nuclear forces it...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jorma Seppaenen: "I find this very interesting topic. I am just a amateur enthusiast of..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Hanvi jobs: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

FQXi FORUM
May 23, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: About the False Statements in Physics by V. Boikachov, I. Nikiphorov, A. Rysin, and O. Rysin [refresh]

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Andrei Rysin wrote on Aug. 12, 2012 @ 17:35 GMT
Essay Abstract

There are the new approach to understanding of interrelation of the electromagnetic fields and gravitational fields which give a basis of our universe. It has been made on the basis of critic and the analysis of paradoxes in the field of nuclear physics, of quantum mechanics and of the theory of electromagnetic interaction. The development of physics without interrelation of the specified forces can go only on the basis of miracles and unreasonable the postulates, and it has led a physics how the science to the deadlock.The new theory have basis on relationships of cause and of effect and unites in itself all earlier known laws of physics and the quantum theory of a field. Authors managed to solve the problem of Einstein in association of electromagnetic and gravitational forces, but it has demanded reconsideration of many positions, both in the physicist, and in the mathematician and philosophy.It is clear the technique of calculation of the closed decisions in the theory about an electromagnetic origin of the so-called charged particles, as we has shown unequivocal communication of electromagnetic and gravitational forces. As we avoid all existing paradoxes and mistakes of the previous theories, it is possible to consider how the doubtless achievement of the new theory. Thus authors did not invent new kinds of the equations, and have shown logic of communication of already existing decisions in the physicist.

Author Bio

Rysin А.V.-radio engineer, has ended the Moscow institute of a radio engineering, electronics and automatics. The co-author of 5 copyright certificates, 3 scientific and technical clauses 3 of books. Bojkachyov V.N. the-candidate of engineering science, the senior scientific employee, has ended the Moscow aviation institute, 60 proceedings, 3 copyright certificates, 12 patents. Nikiforov I.K. the candidate of engineering science, the senior lecturer, has ended the Chuvash state university, 43 scientific works. Rysin O.V. the-radio engineer, has ended the Moscow institute of a radio engineering, electronics and automatics. The co-author of 3 copyright certificates, 3 books.

Download Essay PDF File

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 17:45 GMT
Dear Andrei Rysin,

I think the fallacy of existing physics begins with the atomic analogy we follow and the nature of particles we assume. Thus if we workout with a different paradigm of universe, there may be changes on our assumptions in the fundamental forces of nature, in that we may have to decline the weak and strong nuclear forces and may get interpreted differently. However, gravity and electromagnetism may be considered as same, but with different origin.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Author Andrei Rysin replied on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 02:48 GMT
Dear Jayakar Johnson Joseph, I agree that weak and strong nuclear forces it is miracles as in interaction under known laws of physics they simply do not have a place, them it is simple not where to insert. Here therefore we also have gone on a way from simple to complex. Advantage of our theory is that we on the basis of Lorentz's transformations can explain a difference of masses between a proton and electron and a difference between electric and magnetic permeability. Other approach will not give interrelation.With best wishes, Rysin Andrey.

Ted Erikson wrote on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 18:53 GMT
1st timer submission, not yet submitted, while reviewing selected works for End Notes.

Very interesting paper but got lost in the heavy math, but love your necessity of "opposites exist"!!

I see them as mass and energy, respectively, as the inscribed sphere, tangent to the face of a regular tetrahedron where sphere and tetrahedron surface-to-volume ratios are equal at ANY size, e.g. equivalent "activity" as free energy.

Comment? (may use in end notes)

report post as inappropriate

Author Andrei Rysin replied on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 02:45 GMT
Dear Ted Erikson, we decide tasks which are following logic from knowing equations,as it find through experiences. This is alone path, which exclude mistakes.It is possible to speak through abstraction, but for practice it is not give result.

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 23:19 GMT
Hello

I have several ideas for you.

1 the volumes

2 the number of the serie of uniquenss

3 forget the binar system :).It is better to insert the increase of density correlated with volumes.

4 insert the 2 other motions of light, so the spinal speed and the orbital speed, with c the linear speed , it is relevant for the principle of equivalence !

5 the fermions turn in opposite sense than bosons !

6 Dirac and Maxwell are in a bar, they speak about the Minkoswsi space time, do you think that they have seen the spherization ....quantum spheres....cosmological spheres....Universal sphere.

7 Eureka from Belgium !

Regards and good Good luck

report post as inappropriate

Ted Erikson replied on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 17:09 GMT
Hmmm. Thank you. Will take your advice under consideration, but I have already ready to submit via an off-the-wall approach. I am suggesting experimental means for confirming logic. Even a preliminary definition of consciousness.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 18:09 GMT
You are welcome.

I totally agree, the experiments are the best friends of rational results.

I am happy to see the word sphere :)

In fact the secret is there, the spheres and their rotations.

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

Author Andrei Rysin wrote on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 04:03 GMT
Dear Steve Dufourny. We gave text very short, but for full information you must read our books. Now we translate our book on english language, so you must wait, if you not know of russian language.

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 08:15 GMT
Hello Andrey Rysin,

I wish you all the best.

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 21:03 GMT
Dear Andrew!

With great interest and attention to read your profound and wonderful essay. The main thing in it - new ideas. Thank FQXi that such a great event organized competition of global importance for basic science. We must all together to overcome the "trouble in Physics" ... Success in promoting your ideas! I am happy to put your essay a high rating for the new original idei.

Sincerely, Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 07:01 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

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.