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

Constantinos Ragazas: on 10/7/12 at 13:56pm UTC, wrote Dear Anton, Have no fear, the end is here! The community rating has...

Anton Biermans: on 10/7/12 at 4:47am UTC, wrote Dear Constantinos, I agree that much of present physics (like Big Bang...

Constantinos Ragazas: on 10/5/12 at 21:25pm UTC, wrote Richard, Thanks for your support of my essay. Just briefly looking at your...

Constantinos Ragazas: on 10/5/12 at 20:25pm UTC, wrote Pentcho, Thanks for your good wishes. That you cannot vote for my essay is...

Richard Kingsley-Nixey: on 10/5/12 at 17:46pm UTC, wrote Constantinos Nice essay. You must explain in detail the relatively limited...

Pentcho Valev: on 10/5/12 at 17:37pm UTC, wrote Sorry Constantinos I was not able to vote. Some time ago I withdrew my...

Pentcho Valev: on 10/5/12 at 17:24pm UTC, wrote Constantinos, I wrote: "When the initially stationary observer starts...

Constantinos Ragazas: on 10/5/12 at 13:59pm UTC, wrote Dear Sergey, Thanks for your very long answer! But 'being in the Universe'...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "I have a dream , like you know I have conviced FQXi to create the forum..." in Global Collaboration

Steve Dufourny: "If we try so to consider these 4 lie groups and the 3D spheres like..." in The Noise of Gravitons

Steve Dufourny: "All seems a question of how we consider the vacuum and the condensates.If..." in The Noise of Gravitons

Steve Dufourny: "Let s try please dear members of FQXi, let s forget our vanity, lets forget..." in Global Collaboration

Steve Dufourny: "I play guitar and piano, let s imagine that this consciousness is a..." in Mathematical Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "It is this which seems important, this generality of systems more our..." in Mathematical Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "The point important at my humble opinion to understand this consciousness..." in Can We Feel What It’s...

Steve Dufourny: "it is a new physics and we need to know more, how they interact, how are..." in Can We Feel What It’s...

RECENT ARTICLES

The Math of Consciousness: Q&A with Kobi Kremnitzer
A meditating mathematician is developing a theory of conscious experience to help understand the boundary between the quantum and classical world.

Can We Feel What It’s Like to Be Quantum?
Underground experiments in the heart of the Italian mountains are testing the links between consciousness and collapse theories of quantum physics.

The Thermodynamic Limits of Intelligence: Q&A with David Wolpert
Calculating the energy needed to acquire and compute information could help explain the (in)efficiency of human brains and guide the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence.

Gambling Against the Second Law
Using precision thermometry to make mini heat engines, that might, momentarily, bust through the thermodynamic limit.

Mind and Machine: What Does It Mean to Be Sentient?
Using neural networks to test definitions of 'autonomy.'

FQXi FORUM
June 27, 2022

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The Metaphysics of Physics by Constantinos Ragazas [refresh]

Author Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 15:35 GMT
Essay Abstract

Most physicists claim Physics is free of Metaphysics. I question this fundamental assumption and argue this is not so. Ignoring The Metaphysics of Physics may be physicists' biggest mistake. The use of models (whether axiomatic or curve fitting) to describe what is the Universe is metaphysical in essence. Models have lead physicists to create a 'house of horrors' more phantasmagorical than any Metaphysics in the past [28]. With our minds twisted to believe in the reality of the unreal and the unreality of the real. Though the language and methods may differ, the fundamental assumptions of Physics are metaphysical. And all metaphysical descriptions of the Universe ultimately fail. Collapsing under their own unreality. To avoid such fate Physics, I argue, should be based only on measurement and mathematical identities (not models) applied to measurement. Whereas a model is a postulated theory of what is, an identity is a proven theorem applied to measurements1. Such mathematical identity, for example, is the Pythagorean Theorem that can be used to describe measurement of lengths under right triangle conditions. I show Planck's formula for blackbody radiation is also such a mathematical truism and not a Physical Law [2, 10]. Like a Rosetta Stone, this result has lead to mathematical derivations of Basic Law in broad areas of Physics [2, 8]. Sensible insights open up as to the true meaning of entropy and time [2, 6]; the meaning and existence of Planck's constant h [2, 7]; the meaning and nature of the wavefunction ψ [2, 9]. And many other fundamental results. The Second Law of Thermodynamics I show to state “every physical event takes some positive duration of time to occur” [2, 6]. And I further prove the inconsistency between the CSL Postulate and the Photon Hypothesis [2, 18].

Author Bio

In my retirement from teaching math I am pursuing lifetime interests. These included my FQXi 2010/11 essay “A World Without Quanta?”[3], the chapter “The Thermodynamics in Planck's Law” in the book Thermodynamics: Interaction Studies [2], and some 15 papers in the now defunct Google knols. Shame on you, Google! I have also proposed a natural agency explanation for Stonehenge in“The un-Henging of Stonehenge” [4] and in Brian John's blog Stonehenge Thoughts [38] and Robert Langdon's blog Prehistoric Britain [37].

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 20:03 GMT
Constantinos

The most balanced view of the role of maths and theory I've read. I loved the essay which was well written and pertinent (and felt honoured by the mention).

In particular;

"A theory is a view. The very word theory in Greek means 'divine view'. Physics without a view is thinking without thought." .. also..;

"Mathematical truths are always conditional. They depend on our presuppositions and our premises."

An important point on which many here agree but so many elsewhere are blind to. And to sum up another much agreed truth;

"Mathematical truths are always conditional. They depend on our presuppositions and our premises."

I tried to find something to challenge but could not. Congratulations on a direct and masterpiece blowing most assumptions about the role of maths to bits.

I do hope you will read and can comprehend the complex logical structure in my own essay, beneath the metaphorical dressing, designed to aid kinetic visualisation. The findings are revolutionary, deriving SR direct from a quantum mechanism, but it seems a little lost to mathematically based thinking so far, and certainly not penetrable by a quick scan over.

The equations at the end notes describe the wavelength Doppler shifting on a progressive acceleration (frame transformation), which produces CSL to all moving observers. The wave-function itself does not change as assumed.

Well done and best of luck.

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 21:11 GMT
Peter my friend, thanks for the kind words.

My intent is not to 'blow off' the use of math in Physics. But to raise concerns about the abuse of it. In this regard I am with many others in this contest that feel the same way. But perhaps for different reasons. I truly value mathematics but question some of its applications in Physics. In my view, seeking to know 'what is' the Universe is metaphysics, pure and simple. Whether mathematical or not is besides the point. The Pythagoreans tried to do the same 2500 years ago!

But I also argue for the proper use of math in Physics. And that is in the application of mathematical truisms to physical measurements. And this I show is possible! Planck's Formula, for example, is actually a mathematical truism, and NOT a Physical Law based on 'energy quanta'.

The essay, of course, is much more than that! In it you will find some remarkable derivations, including proof of the inconsistency between the CSL Postulate and the Photon Hypothesis. This should be of special interest to you since this confirms that light propagates as a wave and not as a particle-photon.

nmann wrote on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 22:21 GMT
Constantinos,

Monte Carlo simulation. Maybe the most brilliant mathematical modeling protocol ever invented in relation to physical science or ever invented, period. As long as you're dealing with bosons and weakly-interacting fermions. But MC can't address strongly-interacting fermions. The modeling of strong fermionic interaction appears to be mathematically and computationally impossible thanks to the minus-sign problem. Jan Zaanen calls this issue "the nightmare of modern physics." Its ramifications are enormous if we're ever to understand how solid matter emerges from quanta. Matthias Troyer and Uwe-Jens Wiese have demonstrated (although not to the satisfaction of everyone ... cf. Konstantin Efetov) that putting these fermions on the lattice for bosonization and MC simulation is NP-hard. Prove Troyer-Wiese wrong and you may have also proven P=NP and earned a million dollars (US) from the Clay Mathematics Institute in addition to whatever the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences might be willing to give you on behalf of that award fund they oversee.

Understandably there's a lot of denial and deliberate (if often unconscious) avoidance of knowledge in regard to this issue. You hardly ever hear about it. Many people insist on seeing the sign problem as a technical conumdrum that numerical simulators and/or condensed matter physicists simply need more time, labor and ingenuity to resolve. One metaphysical assumption at work here is that accumulated scientific knowledge can overcome all obstacles placed in the way of science by nature. Maybe, or on the other hand we might be facing a drama worthy of ... well, hey, why not of a Dionysia.

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 00:21 GMT
Dear nmann,

My only familiarity with the Monte Carlo method from my years of teaching math was its use as a practical (pre-computer) method of calculating definite integrals. I am not at all surprised when any clever math should find its way in Physics. To so model the Universe, however, is a gamble in my view. Or perhaps not! Since such 'cosmic casino' model does not describe 'what is' (what I argue is metaphysical). But makes the point convincingly that 'what is' is as unknowable as 'throwing darts' on a cardboard square. Such randomness can be even considered 'truism'. This fits well with the overarching theme in my essay!

Constantinos

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 04:37 GMT
Not sure where Monte Carlo came from on this thread, and I had not previously thought of it as "Maybe the most brilliant mathematical modeling protocol ever invented in relation to physical science or ever invented, period" but I do recall falling in love with it when I first discovered it. Like Constantinos, I knew it as a technique for calculating definite integrals, but it is almost infinitely flexible. I once needed to model large polymer molecules adhering to metallic surfaces where the sticking coefficient was unknown. With Monte Carlo methods one can very easily 'shape' the distribution, and it was known that the particles re-evolved with a cosine distribution. This was easy to solve analytically in 2D so I both Monte Carlo modeled the process and also calculated the exact solution and they agreed as closely as I wished (just run longer!) Thus convinced of the validity of the technique I used the Monte Carlo in a 3D configuration (which I could not solve) and got great results to compare with experiment. I suspect there are thousands of unique applications of Monte Carlo to accomplish otherwise almost impossible tasks.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 04:09 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

What a wonderful essay! It is also rewarding to see how our theories [divine views] improve from year to year. I very much appreciated your last essay, A World without Quanta?, but I found a few points to disagree with. Like Peter above, I found nothing in your current essay to challenge on first reading. I do tend to see 'action' as fundamental, and continue to find your 'eta' formulation to be quite beautiful. I do agree with your claims concerning math and metaphysics, and wherein we should "put our faith". The world is far too complicated to capture in a mathematical map. The inherently religious effort to do so ("Scholastic Metaphysics") is "cruisin' for a bruisin'" and this particular FQXi essay contest is landing some serious blows.

Like you I am thankful for Templeton's initial funding and for the hardwork and good will of the FQXi administrators as well as all those who take it seriously and work to present their own thoughts to their fellows. In a world that often gives one a headache, FQXi tends to restore my faith in my fellow man.

Thanks again for an essay that almost qualifies as 'wise'.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 14:53 GMT
Dear Edwin Klingman,

Thank you very much for your kind words. I too remember very fondly the exchanges we had in my previous essay and am looking forward to all your great insights and comments on this one.

You write, “I do tend to see 'action' as fundamental”. In my formulation, “action” and “accumulation of energy” are equivalent. Both are expressions of the same primary quantity 'eta'. 'Action' concerns 'momentum' while 'accumulation' concerns energy. While 'momentum' is an 'extension of eta' in space, 'energy' is an 'expansion of eta' in time.

At the End Notes of my essay I include a mathematical proof of the following proposition: “If the speed of light is constant, then light propagates as a wave”. I find this so very relevant and wonder why others do not!

Constantinos

John Merryman wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 04:12 GMT
Constantino,

I'm afraid I'm going to have to take you to task on this one. While you put up lots of interesting thoughts, it seems more like notes on a subject, rather than an essay. Given the areas you cover, it would take a good length book to do them all justice, but squeezing them into a ten page essay isn't effective. Possibly you might have focused on clarifying the difference and relationship between mathematical truism and universal law. That would be the kind of single topic more suited to this form and forum.

Good to see you anyway and don't take this as anything more than comments from a friend.

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 14:36 GMT
John, thank you for your honest comments. Certainly volumes can be written on any one topic in my essay. But does 'volume' equate with 'clarity'? I tried purposefully to focus each idea, haiku-like, on a metaphor that makes sense. And let the reader fill in instances of its truthfulness.

As to the “relationship between mathematical truism and universal law” you highlight in your comment. That indeed is the central key idea in my essay. Besides all the other central key ideas! ;) Just to take this point further.

In my view, the only logical connection between math and physics is the application of mathematical truisms to physical measurements. These are or should be the universal laws of physics. There is no other reason why the Universe should follow mathematical models. Models of 'what is' the Universe are metaphysical, in my view. My objective was to demonstrate in a limited way (commensurate with my knowledge and abilities; others can do much more) this is possible. I show that Newton's Laws of Motion are such mathematical truisms and not physical laws. As is also Planck's formula for blackbody conditions; Boltzmann's Entropy Equation; Schroedinger's equations, and many more. Further, using this formulation, I am able to prove the inconsistency between the CSL Postulate and the Photon Hypothesis.

In another of your posts under some other forum (I forget where) you raised the relationship between 'time' and 'temperature'. I agree there is indeed such a relationship. This naturally shows up in my results. In fact, I show how 'time' and 'temperature' are reciprocal. The duration of time, for example, for an 'accumulation of energy' equal to h to occur (in ideal blackbody conditions) is given by h / kT. Thus, the higher the temperature, the quicker the accumulation. And visa versa.

Thanks for all you do. Our discussions are always enriched by your insights.

Constantinos

John Merryman replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 16:27 GMT
Constantios,

I understand you were drawing a web of connections, but they tended to obscure the central focus somewhat. I think the existence of this contest and its question is a small breach in the wall of status quo physics, or should I say, static physics, since I'm on Heraclitus' side of the issue. So I'm trying to make sure there is as much pressure being applied as possible.

I think that the search for the Higgs proving to be a climb up a lonely mountain and not a stairway to heaven of ever more exotic particles, will prove to be the apogee of the current model, because future generations of theoretical physicists have no options to work on, other than examining the many loose ends left patched over, or unanswered in the present situation.

There are a few truly preposterous entries in this contest, by well respected professionals, which I will leave un-named, that make claims which would make multiworlds and inflation seem almost reasonable. If they think future physicists will follow them further down that path, they would seem to have little knowledge of the more introspective and less sheep like qualities of human nature.

As for truism, vs. laws, I'm more and more of the opinion that it is all truisms and there is no platonic realm of universal law. If we have no matter, energy, shape, form, structure, then there are also no defining principles. If we start with nothing, then nothing necessarily has no boundaries or action. Therefore nothing would seem to be infinite and inertial. It would seem nothing is empty space. Then we add action, which would mean the need for opposites, since one defines the other. Then we get multiplicity and interaction. Each layer of emergence creates the properties that define it. So what do the Platoists look at, when they seek those universal laws? Basic concepts and shapes; points, lines, planes, volume, triangles, circles, causality, reactiveness, etc. Basically they point to the initial levels of emergence and their properties. Then they do away with the nothing of space and call it an ether. Now they are trying to do away with the physical and say it is all just a platonic realm of math and information.

Just thinking out loud. Good to see you and keep hammering away.

report post as inappropriate

Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 18:47 GMT
John you write,

“ I'm more and more of the opinion that it is all truisms and there is no ... universal law”.

I completely agree with that! Sorry this was obscured in my essay.

Constantinos

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 16:00 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

What a wonderfull and comprehensive essay ! I was honoured to be quoted by you.

Indeed "reality" cannot wholly be described wwith mathematics, mathematics is a good tool, but every tool is not apt for the whole oeuvre. I am glad that you also treat "metaphysics" , you will see that the "public rating" will flow from high to low, I think that our opinions do not ask for medium opinions. In the last posts that I received the question was asked about the "theological consequences" of the thread, I gave an answer which states that we all are searching and that it will never be possible to give "proof" of GOD. GOD is not a physical problem that can be solved, God is state of mind.

Good luck in the contest.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Author Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 18:38 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

Too often when we speak of God we are understood through the misconceptions of others. As these are attributed to us. I try to avoid such discussions all together. I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that God exists or God does not exist! Or even God may in the future exist. Or had existed at one time.

But I am convinced (and have good reasons to be convinced as per my essay) any description of 'what is' the Universe is metaphysical. Whether mathematical or not! And any such metaphysical description will ultimately fail. Just as it has in the past. And it will fail because the Metaphysics stretches the limits of the sensible. And so it is no longer believed. I believe we are near that point now with Modern Physics.

But in my essay I also argue Physics can be based on mathematical 'truisms' applied to measurements. Though we cannot know 'what is', we certainly know our measurements of 'what is'. And though there is no logical basis that the Universe follows mathematical 'models', there is logical certainty applying mathematical 'truisms' to measurements.

Thank you for your good wishes …

Constantinos

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 08:10 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

A measurement is an "observation", and as I wrote in "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION" the result of an obsevation is the origin of "awareness", which in fact is the CAUSE, our consciousness "creates" these outcomes in the for us causal beings not yet existing future.(by the collapse of the alpha-probability to a historical fact in the bète time line, which is an entanglement of the alpha-probability).

So aren't we influencing ALL of our experiments,

and indeed all our "isms" as you point it out.

the extraterrestial

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 15:13 GMT
Dear Wihelmus,

Our 'measurements' indeed are 'observations'. As are our 'understandings' measurements! In all such interactions the 'subject' and the 'object' are in 'local equilibrium of self-recognition'. We indeed influence our experiments. But not in a 'spooky way'. But because everything that comes to be known to us gets filtered through our minds.

I am not at this time puzzling over Consciousness in Physics. Quite the opposite, actually. I am arguing that in order to avoid all such metaphysical questions, Physics should be based on 'measurements' and mathematical truisms (not models) applied to measurements. And this I show is possible.

Constantinos

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 02:36 GMT
Hello Constantinos,

I couldn't resist reading, and found myself at the end before stopping. A masterful exposition of how deeply entrenched Physics is in Metaphysics, yet in denial about this fact. I might go even further. I find a lot to agree with, as you would know from my own essay on "Cherished Assumptions and the Progress of Physics," but I find also myself living outside of the box you have so cleverly designed.

I think a lot of lies can get told with Math, because it is a language and people forget Korzybski's dictum "The word is not the thing, and the map is not the territory." I point out in my essay from 2 yrs. ago that we should add "The equation is not the Physics it represents." And I elaborate on the problems of applying linear Math models in a largely non-linear world, this year.

A lot of people forget that the Math is meant to model Physics, and is often imperfect in that role, acting as though the Math is creating the Physics instead - and this is usually false. However; there is a need to acknowledge that sometimes the rule we observe through physical measurement actually does arise from mathematical or geometrical rules at work, that dictate the relationship between physical objects and forces.

That is; it is not so clear cut, and it works both ways. I have 25 years of accumulated evidence I would need ignore, to feel otherwise. Sometimes, things believed to be objects of pure Math exert an inexorable pull on reality. I'll comment more later, and make some mention too of objections to the concept of the unknowable - as though it was an absolute. It is not.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 15:31 GMT
Jonathan, you write

“... there is a need to acknowledge that sometimes the rule we observe through physical measurement actually does arise from mathematical or geometrical rules at work, that dictate the relationship between physical objects and forces.”

Indeed! These underlying 'mathematical rules at work' are the mathematical 'truisms' I argue for in my essay. Such Physical Law as, for example, Newton's Laws of Motion I show to be actually mathematical truisms. As is also Planck's Formula for blackbody radiation. Which has long been considered could only be derived as a 'physical law' based on the existence of 'energy quanta'. NOT SO! It is a very simple mathematical truism. No 'energy quanta' need apply!

Constantinos

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 03:09 GMT
Hi Constantinos,

You said, "The failing of physics is in not providing us with a physical view that makes sense".

I couldn't agree more!

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 15:39 GMT
Hello Jason and thanks for your comment!

I am glad we agree on this and other points. Feels like 'old times' again … look forward to more discussions.

Constantinos

DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 15:12 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

You´ve written

''Our understading of the universe is deeply rooted in the views we have.

If we believe in atoms, our explanations of what happened will be in terms of atoms (...) In all cases, our explanation will only be a description of 'what happened'. Using words and ideas drawn from our beliefs.''

This is something often overlooked by professional physicists. The ''words drawn from our beliefs'' are something created at the very start of physical theories, and physics deals much more with the manipulation of these words then with questioning their appropriateness. For instance, dynamics is about the motion of objects in space and time, but the concepts of object, space and time themselves are rarely questioned. But different ''first conceptions'' (which are different metaphysical positions), for instance about space, motion and time, may lead to different and testable physics. In this point I agree with you that physics is not immune to metaphysics. I develop this thought in my essay Absolute or Relative Motion...Or Something Else? which you might find interesting, and show how metaphysical ''first conceptions'' may lead to new physics.

However, the metaphysical question of what the universe is seems to have no definite awnser, and I´m not even sure if it makes sense. Thousand of years of unresolved metaphysical disputes seems to confirm my hypothesis.

I feel that all we can do is take a particular metaphysical position, develop a physical theory upon it and check it with experiments.

Best regards, Daniel

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 15:59 GMT
Dear Daniel,

There are many fundamental assumptions physicists overlook. Their natural aversion to metaphysics is keeping them from realizing this. This is what I mean when I argue, “Ignoring 'The Metaphysics of Physics' may be physicists biggest mistake”. And each of us have something very relevant to contribute. As you write, “metaphysical ''first conceptions'' may lead to new physics.” Indeed. But why not seek to free Physics from all Metaphysics? I argue in my essay this is possible. I am arguing for a move away from 'physical law' and away from models of 'what is'. Which are metaphysical and we cannot know. But use mathematical truisms which we know are always true and 'measurements of what is' which we do know because we make them.

Constantinos

Michael Lee replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 20:10 GMT
"I feel that all we can do is take a particular metaphysical position, develop a physical theory upon it and check it with experiments."

Well written. Without checking assumptions via experiments, we arrive again and again at metaphysics. The experiment is the key of science, consistency is the key to metaphysics and maths - but not sufficient for physics.

report post as inappropriate

Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 21:16 GMT
Dear Michael,

Certainly checking our hypotheses through experiments is fundamentally important. I agree. But you seem to think that is all we need to do not to “arrive again and again at metaphysics”. A central argument in my essay is that the very asking and answering the question 'what is the Universe' is metaphysical in essence! Thus, all mathematical models that seek to describe 'what is the Universe' are metaphysical and doomed to ultimately fail. Knowing 'what is the Universe' is no more possible than knowing truly another person.

As I argue in my essay, we may have reached a stage in our technology and our manipulation of Nature where we are now able to create 'outcomes' we design into our instruments. The Reality some of our instruments reveal may be of our own making!

Constantinos

Michael Lee wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 06:09 GMT
Hi Constantinos,

can you give some explicit examples concerning QM and Special Relativity that "The Reality some of our instruments reveal may be of our own making!"?

Thank you,

Michael

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 14:32 GMT
Hello Michael,

I do in my essay! Check the Kate Becker quote in it and my comments to it. Also, I raise the same question in relation to the recent Higgs boson announcement. One final important point. You rightfully quoted me as saying “may be of our own making!”. The “may” makes this statement a hypothetical. Important and relevant to be seriously considered, however. But don't expect more than that from me! I am not a physicist. And so my knowledge and expertise is limited. But just because I am not a physicist, I may be bringing into consideration a larger perspective. Clear and not cluttered by the numbing technical and theoretical detail.

But what really convinces me I MAY be right are the very many paradoxes and unrealities Physics itself is presenting as how “reality is”. And how these can be explained by my simple hypothetical observation and the abuse of math in Physics (see my essay). It certainly explains Kate Becker's dilemma that (paraphrasing) “somehow light knows what kind of experiment it enters in and adjusts its behavior to it”.

Constantinos

Michael Lee wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 17:16 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

the Kate Becker quote on the double-slit experiment simplifies the experimental results of those experiments. Of course you can detect interference in double-slit experiments with detectors instead of screens.

The quote "if you’re looking for a wave, light will act like a wave. Seek a particle, and light will be every inch a particle" is also, - Sorry Kate Becker! - nonsense and shows that she hasn't understood recent experiments or needs some publicity. Finding wave-like or particle-like behaviour has nothing to do with the difference between detectors and screens!

Michael Lee

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 21:14 GMT
Dear Michael,

Let's not singularly pick on Kate Becker! Especially since she is not available to defend herself. The isolated quote by me surely does not tell her whole story. But even the revered Richard Feynman said more or less the same thing, as I recall reading! So this is a belief and an explanation that has been entertained (and entertaining) for sure!

Your counter argument on “screens vs. detectors” is but a 'smoke screen' and not at all relevant to my main point of contention. Namely, our instruments may be detecting experimental outcomes they are designed by us to detect. Thus, they may be determining the Reality we theorize. For the 'same input', different instruments will detect different outcomes according to our design.

This is only a suggestion! I can do no more than raise that possibility. But in the backdrop of all the paradoxes of modern physics, it may be well worth considering!

Constantinos

Michael Lee replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 23:44 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

i only picked on Kate Becker because with her article she diffuses the simple observations made in such experiments. Because many people like you, that are not familiar with those experiments, then pick up those quotes as youve done with your reference [21] in your essay. I mention this because i feel that it isn't good for discussing the fundamentals of human cognition or physical reality to rely on secondary or third hand sources without proving them and spread news that aren't new nor correct. That was my motivation on this issue and to give you feedback to your essay. I think, concerning the false statements of Mrs. Becker, that you took them for granted because you want to find what you are looking for. Namely "We observe what the apparatus is designed by us to tell us".

Further you can in no logical way deduce due to her statements that light does not know what kind of experiment it is entering - but surely you also cannot deduce the opposite of it due to her statements. It even could logically be the case that we only see one aspect amongst many from the nature of light in such experiments.

As you hopefully see, it is a qualitative difference (not a quantitative one) between an interfernce pattern built over time in single-particle double-slit experiments and a pattern that only builts up behind the two slits over time in single-particle double-slit experiments. But both the interference pattern and the slit's pattern can be detected with one and the same instrument. The qualitative difference between both patterns is that in the first case the detector (screen or something else) detects a certain percentage of particles at places where in the second case are constantly only a few or no particles detected.

Sorry for my harsch critisicm, but that's what i have to say to your considerations despite of any wishfull thinking how nature should be to fit in a certain sheme.

Michael

report post as inappropriate

Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 16:34 GMT
Dear Michael Lee,

The Becker quote in my essay only sought to clarify an argument and hypothetical I am making. It wasn't meant to be a technical review of the double-slit experiment.

Clearly, if we can built instruments that can detect 'waves' and instruments that can detect 'particles', we could built hybrids that can detect both 'wave and particle'. None of this contradicts my main point that our instruments will detect what we design them to detect! Thus, 'wave detectors' will detect 'waves', 'particle detectors' will detect 'particles' while 'wave-particle detectors' will detect both. We could either interpret these outcomes as revealing the contradictory nature of Nature; or raise questions that our instruments may be defining and determining the Reality we theorize and design into them.

You write, “... that's what i have to say to your considerations despite of any wishfull thinking how nature should be to fit in a certain sheme”. Is it “wishful thinking” to expect Nature to fit a “certain sheme” that 'makes sense'? Perhaps! But that says more about people than about Nature!

Really the whole issue with the hypothetical I am raising is this: Can our technology and abilities to manipulate Nature bring us to a point where our instruments determine and define the Reality we built into them? Judging from our ability to create new substances and new living organisms, never before existing in Nature, my feeling is that “yes” we can come to such a point. So the only question then is are we already at that point! And the many experimental paradoxes and contradictory outcomes now in Physics (which my hypothetical resolves) lead me to believe we are!

Constantinos

Avtar Singh wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 17:31 GMT
Hi Constantinos:

I enjoyed reading your clear and well-written essay describing the physics’ mathematical descriptions as metaphysical and not true representation of reality.

I agree with some of the thoughts presented in your paper, especially – “ ..the elaborate ‘math tricks’ taken as ‘real’” by quantum Magicians, such as ‘time travel’, ‘backward causation’,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 20:07 GMT
Dear Avtar Singh,

Sorry for my delay responding to your comments. Others were tugging harder on my mental sleeves.

You write,

“...reconsider or reword your statement – “All math models of Physics that seek to describe what is the Universe lead eventually to metaphysical nonsense and unreality” ”

Let me explain further what I mean. I am convinced we cannot know 'what is' the Universe. Thus any attempts (mathematical including) to describe what is the Universe I consider metaphysical and flawed to failure. Knowing what is the Universe is no more possible than knowing another person truly. We can only know ourselves. All knowledge is self-knowledge, as the ancient Greeks taught.

But we can know our measurements of 'what is' and apply mathematical truisms to such measurements. But not mathematical models which presume to describe 'what is'.

In the second half of my essay I sketched an approach to such foundation. More details can be found in my referenced works. But one interesting result that I do include in the End Notes of my essay is the proposition “If the speed of light is constant, then light propagates as a wave”. Thus, the CSL Postulate contradicts the Photon Hypothesis. And thus establishes light to propagates as a wave. And not as a particle projectile. And this, I believe, establishes the speed of light to be independent of the speed of the source or the speed of the observer. I am very interested in knowing your views on this!

Best regards,

Constantinos

Avtar Singh replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 15:25 GMT
Hi Constantinos:

Your comment 1: “I am convinced we cannot know 'what is' the Universe. ……. Knowing what is the Universe is no more possible than knowing another person truly. We can only know ourselves. All knowledge is self-knowledge, as the ancient Greeks taught.”

Response: You are labeling or presuming that Universe is another person and...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Avtar Singh replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 15:28 GMT
Hi Constantinos:

I forgot to attach the figure in the post above. It is attached here.

Thanks

Avtar

attachments: 1_Waveparticle_behavior_of_a_photon.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Eric Brunhouse wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 18:42 GMT
I write to you now from a condensed matter counsel I am told will not have been discovered without the model of quantum mechanics to guide us to its eventual application to let you know I loved the essay. There is a lot for me to comment on, especially your appreciation of what is obvious to your senses and how measurements themselves are presumtptious, but I have to get home to my wife. I will like it if you read my essay and tell me what you think. Geometric and Nongeometric Interaction.

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 02:15 GMT
Eric Brunhouse,

I am glad you loved my essay! We cannot know 'what is' the Universe and any model of 'what is' (whether mathematical or not) is metaphysical and will ultimately fail. In order to save Physics from such fate, I propose Physics should be based on 'measurements of what is' (what we can know) and mathematical truisms applied to measurements (what we know to be logically certain). I show Basic Law of Physics (such as Newton's Laws of Motion, Planck's formula for blackbody, Schroedinger's equations, de Broglie equations, and many others) are mathematical truisms and not universal physical laws describing 'what is' the Universe. Furthermore, I prove the CSL Postulate of SR contradicts the Photon Hypotheses. The proof is in the End Notes of my essay.

Anticipating misunderstandings, let me try to clear my position. I am not against Physics. Or Math for that matter. While Math only claims 'logical certainty', Physics claims the truth of 'what is' the Universe. Thus making far reaching and consequential claims on our 'belief system' as people and as civilization. When Math talks about infinite dimensional spaces, no one cares. But when Physics talks about the Spacetime continuum, everybody is affected. As this defines our Universe but contradicts our experience of that Universe. I do believe Physics has failed to provide us with a 'physical view' that makes sense. And somebody has to talk about it!

Constantinos

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 01:59 GMT
Dear Constantinos

Congratulations on publishing this thought-provoking paper. It also gave me opportunity to read your excellent 2011 fqxi paper. Your eta formulations of Planck's Law may well be fundamental as you describe them, and I can see how they can mathematically describe the energy transfer between the nodes of my model Beautiful Universe Theory which I have so far only described mostly qualitatively.

Your Introductory points about reality, experiments to discover it, the tools used in doing so and the way mathematics tends to take over and have a life of its own are all illuminating and to the point.

What I find confusing (it may be that I am too lazy to change the modus operandi of the way I think about physics) is the use of the word 'metaphysics' I know you explained it satisfactorily, and contrast it to 'reality'...but in the last analysis cannot our thought processes themselves be classified as 'metaphysics' - they are just the results of neurons firing signals in our brains - how different can that be from the reality out there in the physical Universe?

Perhaps this makes my meaning clearer: in the introduction to my (BU) essay I wrote "The human brain evolved over millions of years in organisms that interacted directly, causally and locally with inanimate nature on a molecular scale. Is it too much to ask now that our understanding of Mother Nature should also be as simple, direct and realistic as possible?". In the last analysis our thoughts about Reality are the only reality possible to know.

With best wishes and good luck re-posting your essays that were deleted by Google.

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 03:09 GMT

Thank you for your comments. I am gratified you found in my essays reflections and connections to your own ideas on Physics. As to my use of the word 'metaphysical'. I recognize the preloaded meanings this word has for many people, especially physicists. For me it's simple. “What lies beyond the physical”. While by “physical” I mean observations and measurements that...

view entire post

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 14:03 GMT
Thanks for the clarifications, Constantinos.

Cheers

report post as inappropriate

Jeff Baugher wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 04:57 GMT
Constantinos,

I too come to the same conclusion as you about light traveling as a wave. It would seem that if one inverts the EFE in GR so that instead of modeling a positive density particle traveling in spacetime, we should instead model the large cosmological constant as a flat perfect fluid. Thus the stress energy tensor of the remaining fluid as a reduced density wave should account for your expectations also. Dark Energy or a Simple Mistake: Do We Understand How Non-Unique the Einstein Tensor Actually Is?

Regards,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 14:28 GMT
Dear Jeff,

Thank you for your most interesting and important comment! I am very pleased and very encouraged our results confirm the same conclusion that light propagates as a wave. Yet approaching this question from drastically different perspectives. You from the formalism of Einstein's GR, while I from the 'quantity eta' that naturally appears in my derivation of Planck's Formula – showing this is actually a mathematical truism, and not some physical law requiring 'energy quanta'. A broad and radical 'consensus view' is emerging in this contest that our fundamental assumptions in Physics need to change. And a 'physical view' be developed that makes sense. Our results resolve many of the dilemmas and paradoxes today in physics. And validate the need for a 'medium of propagation'. Such medium in my formulation is the 'quantity eta' (the time integral of energy) which naturally ties in with the wavefunction.

All the best,

Constantinos

Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 15:04 GMT
Constantinos,

I am reading more in depth of your formulation of "quantity eta". It seems that your concept of mass and energy would be the reduction of vacuum energy in my proposal ( a dimple traveling as a wave in a flat cosmological fluid).

"Thus with mathematical models the more closely we look into the physical phenomenon modeled the more divergence we typically have with our theoretical calculations. Forcing fine tuning of our model. The need to add more epicycles to our theoretical orbits."

So true. We only may be able to directly detect the dimple itself, but the evidence of the existence of a required medium to overcome these divergences is overwhelming.

"We tend to find what we are looking for. Simply by ignoring all other occurences. And we interpret the evidence according to our beliefs and the theories based on our beliefs. Our theories become filters to Reality."

Thus, in the Newtonian view of attractive gravity, your quantity eta must be the cause of attractive gravity. With the regular EFE, we found exactly what we were searching for. We ignored that while there is no mathematical difference between a vector pointing to the right and a vector pointing to the left with a negative sign in front of it, there may be a physical one. Does the eta wave cause gravity or the medium in which it resides?

Let me know if I am interpreting your thoughts correctly.

Kindest regards,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 16:34 GMT
Constantinos,

I am becoming very interested in your eta concept. I had also run across the problem of how to describe vacuum energy (a multiple of the metric in GR), since it is not energy that we are familiar with and is more of a potential to have energy. I must be careful about describing it as a "potential" energy since at this basic of a level it is not the same as other definitions. It is more of a potential to have curvature, but if this potential is changed with respect to space and time then it becomes the energy we are familiar with. In that respect it seems to be conceptually similar to your eta. The major difference is that where you show
$E=\frac{\partial\eta}{\partial t}$
, I would probably show this as
$E=-\frac{\partial\eta}{\partial t}$
I look forward to reading more of your research to see how I can incorporate the concept.

Regards,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Inger Stjernqvist wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 14:57 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

Your essay is admirable! You do what I wish I could, but of course cannot do - discuss and question the role(s) of mathematics in physics from a scientific point-of wiev. I have learnt a lot from reading your essay - and will have more to learn by thinking it over again. My present understanding of your essay caught up in a few words is that the misuse of mathematics in physics creates metaphysics, and in so doing, it also dresses up metaphysics in the false clothes of science. Have I got it just about right so far? Thank you for a most interesting and instructive essay!

Best regards, Inger

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 00:25 GMT
Dear Inger,

That is correct. I argue that any model that seeks to describe 'what is' the universe is metaphysical in essence. But to make my argument, I first seek to dispel deeply held beliefs physicists have about physics. That includes the belief that because math is used to deduce logical conclusions, physics is immune from becoming metaphysics. But I also offer a solution to this predicament of physics. That we restrict physics to our 'measurements of what is' (which we know) and derive Basic Law as mathematical truisms (and NOT as models). I demonstrate how this is possible.

All the best,

Constantinos

Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 04:42 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

as I told you: I strongly believe in metaphysics. When I read your paper a meeting between Werner Heisenberg and Albert Einstein came in my mind.

In this meeting (1926) Einstein made a statement, that irritated the German physicist. Einstein stated, that it is the theory that decides what can be observed ..and not the other way around.

To formulate his...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 14:34 GMT
Dear Helmut,

Is your response here to my post there, under your essay? We may be disagreeing over what in fact we agree! You write, “[Einstein stated] it is the theory that decides what can be observed ..and not the other way around”.

In my essay I write,

“Our understanding [of 'what happened'] is deeply rooted in the 'view' [theory] we have. ... In all cases, our explanation will only be a description of 'what happened'.”

And also,

“We observe what the detector is designed by us to show”.

Also,

“In our recent search for the Higgs boson (if confirmed) did we find it or did we create it? By designing our instruments according to our theories of its existence?”

And,

“Where is the fine line between evidence and interpretation? We discern our evidence [observables] using the same thinking and theories we use designing our instruments.”

But more than the above quotes, I also present in my essay an argument that we cannot know a physical quantity E(t) by our measurements of it interacting with it. Yet such 'invisibles' from us are real to us. In my formulation I in fact start with such a 'quantity eta' which is undefined and undefinable [invisible]. This 'eta' I argue in my last post to you may be thought as the 'invisible ether' you argue cannot be directly 'observable' in a physical theory. Yet providing 'sense' to our understanding of the world.

Constantinos

Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 05:10 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

just the fact that your 'quantity eta' is undefinied is the focus of my critique as far as metaphysical options are concerned. I do not avoid of being metaphysical. Instead of that I take very consciously a metaphysical position. Consequently I am working on a specific set of metaphysical properties, like OMNIPRESENCE, INVISIBILITY, ONENESS, ABSOLUTENESS etc.. To any of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 14:17 GMT
Dear Helmut,

Thank you for further clarifying your views on physics and metaphysics vis-a-vis my essay. Though you highlight differences, I choose to highlight agreements. There are several.

As to the differences, you write

“You are f.e. claiming, that there is only a wave-like face of c (i.e. light is propagating as a wave), but not a particle-like one. (Hence, your conclusion: Einstein's CSL Postulate contradicts his Photon Hypothesis.)“

This is not a claim! It can be mathematically proven that if the speed of light is constant then light MUST propagate as a wave. Your metaphysical argument for the 'two faces of light' is interesting but suspect.

You write, “I am working on a specific set of metaphysical properties, like OMNIPRESENCE, INVISIBILITY, ONENESS, ABSOLUTENESS etc.. To any of these properties we can state, that their physical meaning is still unknown.”

I accept the 'physical meaning' of such abstractions is unknown. But I ask you, what is the meaning (any meaning) of such terms like, ONENESS? And if such terms are not 'objectively defined', how can these be used in our 'objective reasoning' we seek to communicate to others? Or we must first be 'believers' before we can 'understand'.

In my own thinking I DO make sense of such terms as you've listed. And I can even say I 'understand' some of what you argue. And use such 'metaphysical reasoning' to guide my thinking. Just as all physicists do in their own way but never acknowledge or perhaps even know. And this is a key point in my essay!

All the best in all you do,

Constantinos

Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 15:42 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

you are right, first of all you have to believe in order to be able to understand afterwards.

Credo ut intelligam is a well-known phrase, which means "I believe so that I may understand". I am sure you know this. It was the maxim of Anselm of Canterbury - and if you are working on the field of metaphysics you have indeed to start with a belief, because the ONE is beyond usual perception. We have very little serious information about this field of reality, most of them only in pictorial or allegorical fashion.

But quotes like credo ut intelligam may sound very dramatic. Actually every theoretical physicist resp. philosopher does have a working philosophy, sometimes more abstract - and sometimes less abstract. Metaphysics is a very radical working philosophy. To built up a metaphysical theory of the universe you have to go to the most extreme limits of language - to a point, where language begins to fail. This is one way, one can go. Another way is to push already existing theories beyond its scope and to ask how does the theory look like, if f.e. the condition of OMNIPRESENCE is applied to it. As I already told on this way the archetypal structure of a MANDALA surprisingly came up.

And this structure f.e. has intrinsically a lorentzinvariant design, which is slightly different from the relativistic version.

In brief, it is possible to conduct metaphysics in such a way, that scientific standards are met.

There are many ways to ROME.

Kind Regards

Helmut

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 15:55 GMT
Dear Helmut,

Thank you for your thoughts. You write, “There are many ways to Rome”.

I like to add, “... and they all require a traveler to seek the journey”.

Best regards,

Constantinos

Sridattadev wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 20:19 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

I see several valid points you made in your essay about how the scientific community will always find what it seeks by making adjustments to the methods of measurement it uses. Answer to the question "what is universe?" is what we want it to be. Answer to the question "Why does universe exist?" can be experienced by the one who is self realized, and the answer is love. It is out of love a mother brings forth a child in to this world and thus creates a universe for the child. These are purely metaphysical aspects of our being, but they shape the physical realm of our existence. We are not only real on a sensory basis, we are also real on the spiritual or conscience basis. Eta that you propose is like the radius of the sphere of consciousness. It can vary from zero to infinity in a relative existence. And for the realized, one who experiences absolute singularity, both (zero and infinity) are the same and hence Eta is a constant.

Love,

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 22:49 GMT

Thank you for your thoughts. You write, “We are not only real on a sensory basis, we are also real on the spiritual or conscience basis.” I would say we are more real as 'spiritual beings' than 'physical beings'. All knowledge is self-knowledge. Thus, to know the universe we need to know ourselves. It is in that sense I understand and agree with you when you write, “... for the realized, one who experiences absolute singularity, both (zero and infinity) are the same...”

Though the 'quantity eta' in my essay is the basis for defining the physical quantities like energy, momentum, force, temperature, and entropy, 'eta' is undefined. It can be thought as 'being' or as 'ether'. Thus, built into my mathematical formulation of Basic Law of Physics, is both 'spiritual existence' (being) and 'physical existence' (energy, etc.)

love and peace,

Constantinos

Sridattadev replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 13:35 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

I absolutely resonate with you. Wish you all the best.

Love,

report post as inappropriate

Author Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 03:00 GMT
Dear G S Sandhu,

Thank you for your kind words and support. I agree with you. In the background of overwhelming noise (and odds) its hard our message to be heard by those that need to hear from us.

Best regards,

Constantinos

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 00:15 GMT
Natural reality involves both the truth AND us fundamentally. That is what the physicists do not understand. Thank you for your essay. It is an important one. Can you read and rate mine please?

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 01:55 GMT
Hello Frank,

Thank you for your support and interest in my essay. The 'mindless Universe' of Physics is an intellectual black hole. We agree! The Universe known to us cannot be independent of us. If we are fortunate, we will soon discover the face we see in the mirror of nature is our own!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 02:04 GMT
Well said Constantinos. Thank you.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 22:10 GMT
Constantinos,

You wrote: "With this understanding that light propagates as a wave (and not as a particle projectile) we can now explain why the velocity of light in a medium is constant and independent of the velocity of the source or the observer."

I am afraid you can only explain the independence from the source but not from the observer. The speed of all waves relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer:

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 03:05 GMT
Pentcho,

Thanks for your comment. This same question (speed of light independent of the observer) was earlier discussed in Israel Perez's forum. Here are some quotes from that discussion:

Israel Perez: “The problem arises when there is an observer moving in relation to the medium and the question do not appear to be as simple as in the previous case.”

Me: “There can be no doubt light propagates as a wave. And as such, light will have an absolute and innate propagation speed in a medium. And that constant speed is what we measure 'locally' to the medium of propagation. So the only question really is can we measure the speed of light in any other way but 'locally'?”

Israel Perez: “I agree with you, though I don't have a definite answer to your question.”

Pentcho, I believe the speed of light can only be measured “locally”. To measure the speed of light otherwise the observer will have to be “outside” the medium of propagation. In the case of light in “empty space”, this would mean the observer will have to be outside “empty space”! Or the “ether” that I argue makes up physical space at the most fundamental level. But this amounts to being “outside the Universe”. Which is just impossible!

Another way that perhaps this can be stated is: “all observers are at rest relative to the 'ether' ”

In my humble opinion, the problem with CSL arises because we seek to understand this in terms of 'particle projectiles'. But one interesting results in the Endnotes to my essay is a mathematical proof of “if the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”. Together with Maxwell's result, “if light is a wave, then the speed of light is constant”, this conclusively proves CSL and the wave nature of light.

Constantinos

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 06:17 GMT
Constantinos,

When the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light source, he encounters more wavecrests in a given time and accordingly the speed of the light waves RELATIVE TO HIM has increased. Is that true?

You are invited to give a yes/no answer but note that "yes" marks the end of relativity.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 13:44 GMT
Pentcho,

In the mental frame you frame the issue, the answer for me too would be “yes”. But the problem, as always, is our 'mental views' are only our views and not necessarily what Nature has in mind.

For me, the question of light breaks down to this: 1) Light propagates as a wave as a disturbance in the most fundamental layer of all physical being (I call this 'ether' others call it empty 'physical space'). I have shown this to be true in my Endnotes. And 2) The speed of light can only be determined 'locally' to this fundamental physical space as an absolute and constant speed. On this I agree with Peter Jackson. Although I don't want to put words in his mouth. He has his own way of describing all this.

In the quotes I have provided in my last comment to you, I believe Israel Perez also agrees with this assessment. And though he has no answer to the question, “can the speed of light be measured other than 'locally' to the medium of propagation”, I have offered what I believe is an explanation why this cannot happen. Simply, for an observer to measure the speed of light while in motion relative to 'physical space' they would need to have an existence apart from 'physical space'. But 'physical space' is what constitutes existence in the Universe. Thus, such observer would need to be other than and apart from our existing Universe. And this I argue is not possible for Physics! Perhaps Metaphysics!

Have you rated my essay yet? Please do! As I need all the support I can get just to make it to the final round. I don't expect any prizes. But more exposure and recognition of the ideas I argue.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 14:47 GMT
Kostas/Pentcho

Thanks for the reference to my explanation, which may indeed be characterised as all mass being at rest in it's own frame.

Petncho. I agree your description is fine, as far as it goes. But it does not go all the way. It is incomplete and stops short of physical meaning. It is that fact that misled Einstein and still fools most today.

When we look at what MUST happen, when hitting a detector lens but before the wave peaks reach the brain via the optic nerve (or a cable) to be analyses, it all becomes clear.

In your scenario; When the observer starts moving towards the source, the distance BETWEEN wavecrests in the lens and nerve is reduced. The only possible description of that is that the wavelength is reduced at the same time the frequency is increased. They change inversely.

Now you may see the secret of writing c= f.lambda, and why it is a constant. Frequency f and wavelength lambda can change as much as they wish, but if it is inversely, then c will always be a local constant. This may be the biggest realisation in science since fish fingers. As Wheeler predicted; "an utterly simple idea".

The ONLY problem with this is that it is very unfamiliar, but unfamiliarity is the first requirement for the true answer. It's logical 'truth value' (via TFL) is 100%, which is quite unprecedented.

I know your prior assumptions and beliefs differ, but in this forum those are what we have identified we must drop. Perhaps the scoring should reflect how successful entrants are at doing so?

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 16:27 GMT
Peter,

We agree the speed of light remains constant, but our explanations differ. Is this because we are likely right? The CSL for me is for a deeper and more profound reason than measuring 'wave crests' with questionable 'ruler and clocks' and all the confusion that involves. I have resisted such thinking. It smacks me as too 'technically cute'. But others will disagree and agree with you! Still, I value your insights and persistent voice in these blogs. We need it for no other reason, perhaps, than stimulating discussions and contemplation. You have been mainly responsible you know in dragging me into this murky area of Physics called Relativity! I was happy waddling in my 'unquantum' world and pleased to have Eric Reiter confirm such 'world without quanta' in his experimental results as presented in his essay, ”A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory”!

Fondly,

Constantinos

Frederico Pfrimer wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 21:24 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

It is an interesting essay. Most physics dismiss the importance of true metaphysics and they cannot realize that many of our assumptions, theories of models involve metaphysical notions. Definitely physics is not free of metaphysics, but the problem is that metaphysics is not yet a theory, but only a subject. There are not many established metaphysical results that people agree worldwide. And also metaphysics has too many enemies, and most of them are the philosophers themselves. As a physicist I can see and really believe on the importance of metaphysics. I know it is deeply related to what you said: “What makes possible our understanding of our physical Universe.” In my arXiv paper “On the Nature of Reality”, the theory I propose is deeply connected with metaphysics, or it is even metaphysical and a foundation for quantum mechanics. But for now, I cannot say it is related with metaphysics, because I’ll find too much opposition, and a lot of it from philosophers! We need people like you to open the way for metaphysics. It was corrupted and there is too much prejudice around it… Please take a look on and give a rating to my essay The Final Theory and the Language of Physics , you might find it interesting too.

Best Regards!

Frederico

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 02:09 GMT
Dear Frederico,

Looked briefly at your essay. I can see we do have some general themes in common. And a much closer reading and analysis may reveal substantive points of agreement/disagreement. Certainly, we both agree underlying metaphysical assumptions in physics keeps physicists in a box. When they need to think outside that box. But where I believe we may disagree is in your conclusion (even optimism) that the right and perfect set of axioms can complete physics. I just don't share that assessment. My sense is that no mathematical model of what is the Universe can encapsulate what is the Universe. Quite the opposite. Such models of 'what is' are metaphysical in essence. No different than all the past metaphysical models that failed.

The fundamental question we need to address is this: Why should our mathematical derivations and calculations be reflected in Nature? There is really no reason why Nature should mimic Math. To think so is merely a metaphysical belief and disposition. I argue there is only one logical basis math can reveal Nature. If we use mathematical truisms (which we know to be logically certain) to 'data mine' our measurements (which we know for certain).

This I have shown is possible with such 'physical laws' as Newton's Laws of Motion and Planck's Law of blackbody radiation. And many others as well. The quantity eta (the time-integral of energy) plays a key role in such formulation. See my Endnotes of my essay for some interesting such mathematical derivations of basic physical law.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 13:56 GMT
Constantinos,

You wrote: "Peter, We agree the speed of light remains constant, but our explanations differ."

Let me ask you a question I have just asked to Peter Jackson on his page. When the observer starts moving TOWARDS the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L (L is the wavelength). When the observer starts moving AWAY FROM the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c-v)/L. Can you justify these frequency shifts based on your explanation of how "the speed of light remains constant"?

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 15:40 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

I thought I did in my previous comment to you. If we adapt the 'mental frame' you use to frame the question, then yes you are right! But I don't view this problem in that way. I argue the measure of the speed of propagation of light through (empty) physical space can only be done 'locally' to the medium of propagation, ie physical space. And this speed will be constant.

Another way of perhaps explaining what I mean is to consider that all observers (and physical things) are at rest relative to (empty) physical space. To argue otherwise requires the observer to be 'apart and outside' physical space. Which means 'out of this Universe'! And for Physics, this just is not acceptable.

Constantinos

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 18:13 GMT
But the formulas f'=(c+v)/L and f'=(c-v)/L should be DERIVED, Constantinos. I was actually asking you to derive them based on your explanation of how "the speed of light remains constant" (they can obviously be derived from the variable-speed-of-light equations c'=c+v and c'=c-v). Can you?

By the way I am no longer a contestant so search for truth is the only driving force behind my comments.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 20:52 GMT
Pentcho,

I appreciate your 'search for truth'. We share in that search!

But we are talking in circles now. I have already explained that the scenario you are 'framing' and the consequent formulas you are deriving are in principle not physically possible, imho. Just like the Spacetime continuum. But that is another story. In my view, the only way light can be measured is 'locally' to the medium of propagation (which fundamentally is empty 'physical space'). And all existing objects (including observers) are at rest with this primary medium of propagation of light. For an observer to be moving relative to 'physical space' (what determines 'physical existence') he would need to be apart from 'physical space' (ie. not physically exist). That is to say, he would need to be 'outside our Universe'. That is my view and that is my explanation for CSL.

Peter Jackson may be more receptive to your argument on this, however. But his CSL conclusion is the same as mine. Though for different reasons. His main point is frequency and wavelength will co-vary in the scenario you are framing. Thus keeping c the same. But I would rather let him make his arguments on this. Relativity has never been of much interest to me until very recently and in a very limited way.

Constantinos

Author Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 03:15 GMT
Dear Georgina,

The idea 4) in my comment to Eckard you've referenced is indeed very interesting. For me, it's the most interesting idea since my recognition a few years ago the Second Law pertains (and defines) 'physical time'. It can be stated in different ways. But phrasing it as in my comment to Eckard relates this idea to the CSL Postulate of SR. And in fact explains this Postulate....

view entire post

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 09:35 GMT
Hi Constantinos,

thank you for taking the time to explain it to me.

Incidentally when I talk about external reality I am talking about what exists "out there" whether or not a manifestation of it is formed by an observer. Where as the internal reality I am referring to is a fabrication formed by the observer from data processing. The separation is not one of distance ie inside or outside of the body (or artificial device) but sides of the reality interface ie which type of reality. That way of thinking makes understanding the labels "real universe" as mentioned by George Ellis and "our universe!" as mentioned by you less straight forward and obvious than the authors might suppose.

Warn regards to you too, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 14:12 GMT
Dear Georgina,

It is fair to say our thoughts about the Universe is often about determining and clarifying the meaning of the words we use to describe our ideas. And that meaning is embedded in our metaphysical view of the physical. Thus I seek to avoid making distinctions between 'inside' and 'outside' whenever I can. Since, really, everything we know is 'inside' our minds. And everything physical can be thought as being 'outside' our minds. I too am interested between the 'inside' and the 'outside'. At such boundary (as with every boundary) reality seeks to be.

Author Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 23:14 GMT
Dear Anthony DiCarlo,

Thank you for your email. I appreciate your comments. And welcome the opportunity to clear up misunderstandings you and others have about my view. Let me first and emphatically say I value all the models that aim to represent in a clear and convincing way more abstract reasoning and ideas. What you are doing is fascinating and admirable. And wish you great success with...

view entire post

Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 15:16 GMT
Tony,

It shouldn't surprise you to know we agree more than you realize! I too think, as I so state in my essay, “Physics happens at the point of measurement”. Any claims by anyone of knowing 'what is' I see as metaphysical. And equate such hubristic claims as no less absurd than claims of truly knowing another human being. When all we can really know are our experiences and 'measures'...

view entire post

Frederico Pfrimer wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 21:31 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

Well, I also do not agree that there will be a set of axioms that will “complete” physics. And the scope of the concept “universe” is large and even too vague for it to be encapsulated in a mathematical model! And you might be considering my view of what is something mathematical as too narrow. For me anything that can be represented in a formal way, that is unambiguously, is mathematical. You disagreed with things are not really my conclusions.

For sure there is no reason for nature to mimic math! When we apply Math we are trying to mimic nature! Math is a language, just like natural language, but more formal and unambiguous. We use language to describe how nature is, to understand it and communicate with others. When we can do it more clearly and formal, then we can use math. If some metaphysics can be formulated in natural language, then, at some moment, when it gets clear enough it will be formulated in a formal way, so mathematically.

I hope I could make my ideas clearer. Maybe now you get a different view about my essay, and if you haven’t I inviting you rating it.

Best wishes!

Frederico

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 02:37 GMT
Dear Frederico,

If I have misunderstood your conclusions, I apologize. We do agree “math is only a language”. But using math to mimic Nature is just the flip side of the same think as Nature mimicking Math. Nature, in my humble opinion, cannot be “captured” by postulating models of 'what is'. Yet certainly we use (and successfully) math to describe many behaviors of Nature. At a more practical level, I have no problems with that and feel it is proper. As long as we don't make 'metaphysical claims'. But there is a lingering philosophical problem, however. Why our mathematical deductions and calculations should be reflected in the measurements we make of Nature. There simply is no logical reason why they should.

But if 'universal laws of physics' can be shown to be 'mathematical tautologies' ( A = A ) then we do get a solid logical foundation for physics which is not 'metaphysical'; as I claim all postulated mathematical models of 'what is' the Universe are! Simply, I argue Physics can be reduced to mathematical tautologies we apply to our measurements and interactions of measurements. I have shown through many fundamental results this is indeed possible! Starting with the 'prime physis quantity eta' (the time integral of energy). Did you know the revered Planck's Formula for blackbodies is actually a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement? Check my very simple derivation of this at my Endnotes.

I will look at your essay again and rate it!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 10:02 GMT
Constantinos

"interaction of measurement" as a mathematical tautology of Planck's formula. I do like that expression. I think it encapsulates the mechanism I discuss as well as Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga's interpretation of Einsteon's view;

"The momentum of a moving particle is not diffeomorphism-invariant but it is physically meaningful. Therefore this momentum must be seen IN THE CONTEXT OF A measurement device which includes a concrete coordinate system." (My caps).

Two questions; Do you agree? and

Did that come across to you well enough in my essay?

I think this point is at the heart of 'fixing physics' as Vladimir would say, and is underestimated in yours, Torsten's, Frederico's and others, even including mine.

Logic descending with new light on the dark labyrinth?

Best wishes.

Peter

PS Now all I need to do is get my head round the real differences between a 'mathematical tautology' and sums! Can you explain it conceptually?

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 18:08 GMT
Greetings Peter Jackson,

Always good to hear from you. And thank you for your comments.

Yes, it is a rather amazing result that Planck's Formula (thought to be only derivable by postulating the physical existence of 'energy quanta' ) is actually in fact a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement of energy in ideal blackbody conditions. That is to say, it...

view entire post

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 14:58 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

It seems your function eta is a development of the function of physical action. On the other hand in four-dimensional formalism density energy and density momentum are found by derivative of stress-energy tensor in respect to time and coordinates accordingly. Then after integration density energy and density momentum over volume of body we come to your formulas. There are some forms of stress-energy tensor for matter. One of them is in my book Fizika i filosofiia podobiia ot preonov do metagalaktik.. So in it your idea is correct. I am going rate your essay with good score.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 00:26 GMT
Dear Sergey,

Thank you for your very encouraging comments. Yes, the 'prime physis' quantity eta (Planck's constant is an example of such a quantity) can be related both to 'action' (the distance-integral of momentum) as well as 'accumulation of energy' (the time-integral of energy). The view of 'accumulation of energy' has some special advantages for me, however. What you say about “density energy and density momentum are found by derivative of stress-energy tensor in respect to time and coordinates accordingly” is very interesting as this is just the way I define energy and momentum using 'eta'. Furthermore, the Schroedinger's equations can also similarly be considered as defining energy and momentum; with the wavefunction being the distribution of eta over space and time. Jeff Baugher and Anthony DiCarlo have also found meaningful connections to eta in their work. See their comments above for more on this.

Thank you for your support of my essay. Know that it is mutual. Though not specifically on eta and the many results flowing out of it as mathematical tautologies of basic laws of physics, the ideas are drawn entirely from my work using eta. I am more convinced it is possible through the formulation I sketch to base physics on mathematical tautologies (what we know to be logically certain) applied to measurements (what we know for certain). Thus avoiding postulated mathematical models of the Universe which I claim are 'metaphysical'.

All the best,

Constantinos

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:38 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 participants 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 Constantinos Ragazas replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 15:27 GMT
Sergey,

Thanks for pointing this out. And I thought it was my controversial topic! The math makes sense. And so does your critic of fqxi rules for selecting the final 35. As I already mentioned to Branden Foster, the number of finalists should be a percentage of the total number of essays submitted. And not a fixed number And there should probably be some broad categories for selecting a greater variety of topics, professional and non-professional, in the final group. Too much emphasis currently is given by the community to the more 'standard theories' with more extreme and exotic extensions of these. But this only gets us deeper in the rabbit's hole of unreality we are in. Raising such questions as my essay and others do, the 'professional physicists' of course would adversely react to what they just don't want to think.

I have no illusions about winning a prize! But just wanted to draw greater attention to the many results and ideas in my papers. Which aim to 'make sense' of physics. “Shut up and calculate” is not acceptable to me. Nor it should be to any other intellectually honest thinker.

Best,

Constantinos

Sergey G Fedosin replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 18:58 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

Firstly, the entropy of stars is negative, and if the radius of star is little the entropy is more negative. Secondly we must take into account entropy of gravitational fields itself. Gravitons of low levels of matter carry negentropy to the high levels of matter. According to formula for entropy in the book ...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 04:25 GMT
Dear Sergey,

Thanks for your response and references. A lingering curiosity I have with every theory – what in your theory determines “being in the Universe”? And don't you agree this is a fundamental question that every theory must answer? As this determines 'physical existence'. As compared to 'mathematical existence' which never needs to be 'real'.

Constantinos

Sergey G Fedosin replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 07:59 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

For any object its being in the Universe and physical existence is the next: 1). The object was born in the Universe (which as a system is so infinite as it necessary to include all forms and entities which were the base for formation of the object in question). The physical object can not exist without of its previous evolution and development. 2). Any physical object...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 13:59 GMT
Dear Sergey,

Thanks for your very long answer! But 'being in the Universe' should not be so complicated. But should be foundational and simple for any physical theory, in my humble opinion. In my view, 'being in the Universe' requires that an entity have 'physical space' and 'physical time'. The former is what CSL assures while the later is what the Second Law requires. Can't have 'physical space' without 'physical time', and visa versa. The two are necessarily interlinked through a prime physis quantity eta (in my formulation the 'time-integral of energy').

Constantinos

Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 17:24 GMT
Constantinos,

I wrote: "When the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light source, he encounters more wavecrests in a given time and accordingly the speed of the light waves RELATIVE TO HIM has increased. Is that true?"

You replied: "In the mental frame you frame the issue, the answer for me too would be "yes". But the problem, as always, is our 'mental views' are only our views and not necessarily what Nature has in mind."

You get maximum rating from me for the first part of your reply.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 17:37 GMT
Sorry Constantinos I was not able to vote. Some time ago I withdrew my essay but I still could vote. My voting code does not work anymore.

Good luck in the contest.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 20:25 GMT
Pentcho,

Thanks for your good wishes. That you cannot vote for my essay is not nearly as important to me as thinking it deserves a high rating. I look forward to future exchanges I know we will have in these blogs!

All the best,

Constantinos

Richard William Kingsley-Nixey wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 17:46 GMT
Constantinos

Nice essay. You must explain in detail the relatively limited value of a non tautological equation just in case it's not as important as I beelive. I saw Peter recommend your essay, and find he was right. It desreves a good score.

Rich

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 21:25 GMT
Richard,

Thanks for your support of my essay. Just briefly looking at your essay (didn't have the time to read through it carefully) I feel certain we agree on many ideas. The following quote from your introduction hit an immediate chord with me, “We postulate 'photons' as not conserved, and that light can be subtly changed on re-emission.”. The conservation of 'photons' can only make...

view entire post

Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 04:47 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

I agree that much of present physics (like Big Bang Cosmology, String Theory, and probably the Higgs mechanism as well) is pure metaphysics, though for other reasons, as you can see in my essay.

I post this reaction not because I want to advertise my essay, but because I think you may like it: if not, then do punish me for bothering you by awarding me a 1!

Anton.

report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 13:56 GMT
Dear Anton,

Have no fear, the end is here! The community rating has stopped some two days ago!

But really! The true value of this and other fqxi contests for me is the opportunity to air my views and engage others in an open and intellectually honest discussion. And fqxi is succeeding in that and deserve great credit. As for 'winning', none of what I write and submit is about me! In this contest, “ideas” win, and not people. And though there are typical human obstacles for ideas to sometimes emerge, the fqxi forums continue to be the “best hope for ideas” to be aired and recognized.

I am very interested to know how we reach the same conclusions on The Metaphysics of Physics but for different reasons. I will read your essay but there is no longer a rush.

Constantinos