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

Yuri Danoyan: on 11/21/12 at 4:40am UTC, wrote Final conclusion about space and time. The Universe expanding by by...

Yuri Danoyan: on 10/6/12 at 3:28am UTC, wrote Just in case: Max Planck Scheinprobleme der Wissenschaft ...

Yuri Danoyan: on 10/6/12 at 3:21am UTC, wrote To my opinion charge and mass two sides the same coin. So the of...

Jin He: on 10/5/12 at 15:42pm UTC, wrote FRS G F R Ellis just said that many posts on 2012 FQXI contest are trash. ...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 10/5/12 at 8:22am UTC, wrote Dear Yuri! 1. You asked me - why 12 - dimensional Space-Time? I answered...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 6:30am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Yuri Danoyan: on 10/3/12 at 11:48am UTC, wrote Steve don't forget please impartially evaluate my essay

Anonymous: on 10/3/12 at 6:08am UTC, wrote Hi Yuri, I have to say that your essay was one of the most fun to read - a...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Zeeya Merali: "Viviana Fafone is a member of the VIRGO collaboration that detects..." in Micro and macro-physics...

Zeeya Merali: "Antonino Cataldo describes the how to synthesize bio-nanotechnologies to..." in Bionanotechnologies and...

Zeeya Merali: "What is the scientific approach? Matteo Martini talks about the..." in The 21st Century News...

Zeeya Merali: "in this introductory lecture, Frederick Van Der Veken discusses physics at..." in Big Machines, High...

Zeeya Merali: "FQXi's Catalina Curceanu discusses how particle physics experiments at the..." in Strangeness in Neutron...

Zeeya Merali: "Leader of the NEXT group, Stefano Bellucci, discusses applications of..." in Nanomaterials for...

Zeeya Merali: "FQXi's Lorenzo Maccone delves into the one of the deepest question in..." in What is Time? by Lorenzo...

Fabio SCIARRINO: "An introductory lecture on how developments in quantum physics over the..." in The Second Quantum...

RECENT ARTICLES

Building Agency in the Biology Lab
Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

Think Quantum to Build Better AI
Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.

Outside the Box
A proposed quantum set-up that could predict your game-playing strategy resurrects Newcomb’s classic quiz show paradox.

The Quantum Agent
Investigating how the quantum measurement process might be related to the emergence of intelligence, agency and free will.

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

FQXi FORUM
June 5, 2020

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: No 3 Things by Yuri Benjamin Danoyan [refresh]

Author Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 14:19 GMT
Essay Abstract

Assumptions of physics need reconsider:1)4D spacetime. 2) Gravity as a fundamental force 3) 3 fundamental dimensional constants(G,c,h). Alternatives have been proposed. 1.Splitting 3D discrete space from 1D continues time.2.Gravitation as a Integral effect of the Universe. 3. Only Planck constant as a fundamental dimensional constant.

Author Bio

Independent

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 10:00 GMT
Yuri

Fascinating viewpoint. I agree absolutely with the following, and thought you may have read the link in my essay last year explaining a full ontological construction of a recycling mechanism;

"It seems that continuous time eliminates the problem of the beginning of the Universe and is appropriately incorporated in the theories of cyclic universes. For example, Penrose modern version of Heraclitus . http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/e06/PAPERS/THESPA01.P
DF Every Universe is the cause of the previous Universe and is originated from the remnant after Big Crunch. Time is a circle."

If you have not yet read it, and you wish to do so, tell me and I'll post it here. It solidly evidences your description. The astronomical evidence is all there, and it emerges naturally from the kinetic logic and mechanism for local reality described in my essay this year. It seems you may only have skimmed over it and missed the rich findings so far. I hope you can read it carefully and comment.

But still more questions exist than answers, so we'll all remain busy!

Best of luck and best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 13:22 GMT
Peter

As i see your last essay is not Winning Essays

Only 18 Winning essay.Your essay not included.

Is it a fair expert solution?

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 15:09 GMT
Dear Yuri Danoyan,

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your well written entertaining essay, however, I do have a quibble about your assertion that “No one before has collected so many different evidence of ratio 3:1…” As I point out in my essay Sequence Consequence, such luminaries as Hegel, Aquinas and Freud promoted the 3:1 ratio for the human expression of an idea, the nature of God and the nature of human behavior. Most people use the 3:1 ratio in general conversation. You rightfully point out that there is only one law of Nature, without listing its three aspects, but then go on to mention that thermodynamics has more than one law. This is unrealistic. One real Universe can only be occurring eternally once in one dimension. The real Universe has three aspects of observation as does the one real dimension the real Universe exists in.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 15:29 GMT
Dear Joe

Hegel, Aquinas and Freud epoch not aware lot of facts modern physics facts. But I agree so that the Hegelian triad of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis is close to me in spirit.

report post as inappropriate

Ted Erikson wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 21:02 GMT
. Does nature recognize fancy mathematics? My essay is perhaps overly simplified, but addresses the real problem of Physics. Wherein lies "consciousness"? Very murky, but emergentism (growth) and panpsychism (memory are properties suggested that aligns them with probabilities of a 1-D, 2-D, and 3-D geometric world. i.e., your "3:1" , actually 3 lines to 4 points..See:

To Seek Unknown Shores

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1409

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 23:17 GMT
"This submission evolved from a question seeking answers that Diane and I

sought since 1961, "Why does anything do what it does?"

The same question Einstein put forward wisely:

"What I am really interested in is knowing whether God could have created the world in a different way; in other words, whether the requirement of logical simplicity admits a margin of freedom.”(see Einstein quotes)

I think all participants of this contest try to find out answer.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 13:08 GMT
Appendix 1 Cosmological picture of one cycle

Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch

c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10

G=10^22; G=10^-8; G=10^-28

h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28

alfa =10^-3; 1/ 137; 1

e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12

report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 15:15 GMT
Sorry for wrong number G=10^22, actually G=10^12

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 01:20 GMT
Confirmation of lower limit velocity of light

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.3765.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 13:32 GMT
Appendix 2 Cosmological values of mass

Mp =10^-24; 10^-24; 10^-24

Me =10^-28; 10^-28; 10^-28

Mpl=10^-4; 10^-4; 10^-4

Mhbl=10^16; 10^16; 10^16

See Scale invariance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 13:58 GMT
Appendix 3

Age of the Universe t=13,7 billion years

Duration of one cycle of the Universe T=144 billion years;

report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 12:46 GMT
Hello,

144 billions , I believe that it can be relevant for the maximum volume.So the begining of the contraction. This oscillation, unique is relevant. The cycle is unique.I see the max volume at 125 billions and the perfect equilibrium at 250 billions. So it is the begining of this eternal physicality.

The radius is relevant considering the maximum volume before the contraction.

The critical point of density before the contraction becomes relevant at my humble opinion.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 13:18 GMT
The periodicity and the frequences appear when the uniqueness is understood.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 16:06 GMT
144 is the twelfth Fibonacci number, and the largest one to also be a square,[1] as the square of 12 (which is also its index in the Fibonacci sequence), following 89 and preceding 233.

I deeply believe in the anthropic principle.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 17:12 GMT
As model of evolution the Universe can serve the evolution logarithmic spiral in polar coordinates from 0 to collapse and again to survive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_spiral

http:
//jwilson.coe.uga.edu/EMT668/EMAT6680.F99/Erbas/KURSATgeomet
rypro/golden%20spiral/logspiral-history.html

http://jsxgraph.
uni-bayreuth.de/wiki/index.php/Logarithmic_spiral

report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 20:49 GMT
Appendix 4

See Appendix 1

All these data can be interpreted as:

No expanding Universe, only shrinking space.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 23:04 GMT
Acсelerating No. Decelerating Yes.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 22:34 GMT
Conclusion:

Wrong ratio 3:1; Energy:Matter;

Right ratio 3:1; Matter:Energy.

report post as inappropriate

George wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 07:09 GMT
Dear Yury,

I am agreeing with you that the expansion (BB) and gravitational collapse are the alternate-changing process. (To a favor of that, it shows also the last observations of Roger Penrouse & Vahe Gurzadian) http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101210/full/news.2010.665.ht
ml

Sincerely,

George

report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 11:46 GMT
I am familiar with Vahe and Penrose works very well.I am supporter Penrose'S ideas.I sent this essay also to him.But no answer yet.

Vahe is arrogant person.I meet him about 30 years ago in Yerevan

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 12:50 GMT
arrogant, I like . It is intresting to see the real generalists.

Mr Vahe and Mr Penrose, we can collaborate. We shall be arrogant and we shall show them what is the real spherization. If the pseudo scientists are frustrated and jealous, it is logic, if they are full of hate, it is logic.

In fact, the irony is arrived at its paraxysm. I respect Mr Penrose, if he wants he can be my mentor !!! We shall make incredible publications.and we shall win a lot of prizes ! the team is Mr Hawking, Mr Penrose and Mr Dufourny, the dream team in fact. I will be happy to collaborate with both of them .

I think that their works are so relevant.And we shall make also beautiful inventions. The determinism like a torch of knowledge and evolution.

We can work together simply. I need good mentors.I need to learn more , I need to share, I need to create. I need to have mentors. Penrose and Hawking are relevant.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Tony Smith wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 19:34 GMT

"Fermions. 12(6 quarks+3 leptons+3 neutrino).Spin =1/2

Bosons. 12(8 gluons+3 vector(2W+1Z)+1photon).Spin=1

Numerical supersymmetry not broken."

is interesting.

Have you shown that your "not broken ... Numerical supersymmetry"

gives cancellations in the Standard Model Lagrangian picture

that are as nice and useful as those of conventional supersymmetry ?

How do you justify considering the red, blue, and green quark states

as the same particle instead of the conventional 3 different particles

(distinguished by the 8 gluons of the color force)

which would give you

Fermions. 24(18 quarks+3 leptons+3 neutrino)

with

3 generations each with

1 lepton + 3 up-type quarks + 3 down-type quarks + 1 neutrino

?

report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 19:50 GMT
I think generation #2,generation #3 are the effect of Influence from Future, just hints from the Future.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1919

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 20:08 GMT
More old preprint

Influence from the Future

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9607375

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 20:37 GMT
Tony

Some quote from Lev Okun "Physics of elementary particles"

" As for the fermions of the second and third generations, their role in the modern world seems negligible. At first glance, a world without them would be just as good. These particles resemble rough drafts, which the Creator threw as bad, and we are using our sophisticated techniques dug into his wastebasket."

I've often thought about this.I believe that next generations will show up in the future history of the Universe.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 09:58 GMT
Yuri

I did not understand your response post of 23rd. My last years essay was a top 10 finalist but not a winner (a crime perhaps?). Fair? and expert? I don't now, but the Solution, of course.

I just noticed your comment elsewhere; "We live in a universe that was born from a previous universe." which is entirely consistent with the recycling implicit in the essay and the Discrete Field Model, (and with my end notes this year).

The mechanism leading to this is as my current essay, unifying SR and QM consistent with Ken Wharton's view of re-mapping maths, but using non 'point' particles. The re-ionization mystery is explained by the 'rebirth' of galaxies via AGN quasars and their superluminal jets. The CMBR evidence suggests just a larger scale version of this for the universe.

I hope you will understand the kinetics and mechanism and score my essay, as I will yours, allowing that you are writing in a foreign language.

Very best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 21:52 GMT
No atoms of space and time, there are only atoms of space, which name is Planck's constant or spin.Integer and half-integer.Even and odd.Yang and Yin.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 00:25 GMT
Appendix 4 Solution of cosmological constant problem

Theory: Cosmological constant is 10^94 g/sm^3

Practice: Cosmological constant is 10^-28 g/sm^3

Planck constant h=10^-28 g x sm^2/sec in 2D space embedding in 3D space

Only right value is experimental value.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 01:57 GMT
Note.In the 2D space Pauli's principle is not valid.There is no need introduce the concept of "color".

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 11:58 GMT
Does God play Dice?

Yes,but when He play, always falls the same 3:1

report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 17:13 GMT
:) intresting point of vue.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 18:12 GMT
Another interesting point of view.

Despite my assertion of continuity of time, need to admit: Every cycle of the Universe is a discrete unit.

report post as inappropriate

Saibal Mitra wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 16:13 GMT

1) If you try to find hidden relations using numerology, you have to be careful about selection effects. If there are no relations between particle masses, you may still find a few relations by considering at a large enough number of particles.

2) I think that there are no fundamental dimensionful constants. So, I would side with Micheal Duff in that article you cite written by Okun, Veneziano and Duff.

3) About cyclical universes, I would say that the evolution laws of any universe will make it effectively eternal. I.e. even if the universe evolves in away that gives rise to some state only once and would never return to that, you can use the evolution laws to identify any future state with past states. This is yet another reason (not mentioned in my essay) why I reject the concept of a physical universe :) .

report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 21:31 GMT
1.Numerology for me not a means, not an end, but the result.

2.Planck constant for me only dimensional constant.

report post as inappropriate

Daryl Janzen wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 21:08 GMT
Dear Yuri:

You present some interesting points in this essay. Thanks for inviting me to read it! I'm sorry I was unable to take you up on your earlier invitation to join in on the discussion that was taking place on Phil Gibbs' site. By the way, I thought you would be interested to note that a (one) Schwarzschild black hole has three horizon radii only when Lambda is positive.

I personally think positive Lambda is a fundamental dimensional constant. In this case, a very nice scale invariant equation can be recovered from equation (4) in my essay by setting 2M=r_0-(Lambda/3)r_0^3, and then replacing all dimensional parameters (i.e., r, t, r_0, etc.) by a dimensionless one, X-->X'=sqrt(Lambda/3)X.

Best wishes, Daryl

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 03:25 GMT
Dear Yuri,

Interesting essay.

We wrote essays about similar ideas. Now to find missing links between all the phenomena you mention, but is worth your opening your intuition to these strange coincidences. Yes, for this reason you raised a remarkable question, I agree with you. Now we need to find the processes that are behind as those correspond to the physical laws that guide the conduct of energy in the universe.

My work : http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1552

Best regards,

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 14:04 GMT
My private correspondence concerning my first essay:

"The wording is very poor and even after one tries to sort out what the author intends to say, the ideas appear to be extremely incoherent." Fri 11/28/2008 9:58 PM

Gerardus 't Hooft , ( Nobel prize in Physics, 1999)

"I couldn't spend a lot of time on it, but a quick look did not lead me to anything that would make me want to reconsider the panel's decision. Sorry."

Sun 11/30/2008 6:55 AM

Frank Wilzek, (Nobel prize in Physics, 2004)

report post as inappropriate

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 07:40 GMT
Dear Yuri Benjamin Danoyan,

As per Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe; Gravity is not only a fundamental force, but also the prime force for the emergence of all other fundamental forces of nature.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Jeff Baugher wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 10:14 GMT
Yuri,

You stated:"Jeff

Appendix 4 Solution of cosmological constant problem

Theory: Cosmological constant is 10^94 g/sm^3

Practice: Cosmological constant is 10^-28 g/sm^3

Planck constant h=10^-28 g x sm^2/sec in 2D space embedding in 3D space

Only right value is experimental value.

I couldn't find the appendix. To me the obvious answer is that they both are correct (meaning that there is a large value for the cosmological constant but we can only detect the small value since we are interpreting the EFE incorrectly). Can you point out more directly your derivation?

Regards,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 15:03 GMT
Jeff

Can you read my essay Part 3 more attentively?

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 15:13 GMT
Dear Yuri, thanks for the link to essay 1512. indeed some âralels but paralels do not cross (perhaps in the infinite). I liked very much your essay, especially when you quote Aharonov " Everything you are going to do is already known to GOD, but you still have the choice" This is exactly what I describe when introducing Total Simultaneity, there all probabilities are "present", and every Planck moment you can make a choice between an infinity of possibillities, that need not to become "reality" , (so no multiverse), only one becomes part of your causal life-line 5that is why our universe is fine-tuned), so you could say that Total Simultaneity is GOD. That is why a lot of posts on my thread are going in this direction.

Eternal return is Immortality is another quote that i would like to comment, in our causal universe it is not nececerry that this eternal return is needed, the universe around is is a result of the interaction between our causal consciousness and the non-causal part in TS, in TS every possibillity is eternal, you could imagine that your causal consciousness is repeating the same probability for a certain causal time even infinite, but it stays causal, so with a beginning and an end, the real immortality is in TS, where all possible life-lines are eternal.

Good luck with the contest.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 15:40 GMT
All solutions comes from God.

report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 13:33 GMT
Indeed ,but our simple human interpretations are so far of the real meaning of God, this infinite light without motions. God is the troch of all things. The spherization is his her project. It is a little if I said that the infinite light is the man, and this finite physicality tending towards the eternal physicality is the woman. It is relevant considering the polarization m/hv of evolution.

The road is the pure optimization spherization. God is more than our simple human interpretations. It is above our understanding. The real secret is this universal love. We optimize, we improve, we create, we harmonize, we catalyze,we love, we accept, we continue, we live ....

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

The Spherical Belgian Jedi replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 13:34 GMT
It was me the young crazy.

report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 13:06 GMT
Hi Yury,

Nice Essay. Concerning your vision of the Universe, i.e. Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch; you could be interested to two works of mine:

1)http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.2523, published in Gen.Rel.Grav.40, 2201-2212 (2008).

2)http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4801, published in Astropart.Phys.34, 587-590 (2011).

In the first I discussed an oscillating Universe. In the second, together my collaborator H. J. Mosquera Cuesta we improved the model by showing a way to remove singularities.

I am going to give an high score to your Essay.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 13:44 GMT

report post as inappropriate

Angel Garcés Doz wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 22:19 GMT

My thought of physics is based on maintaining a balance between theory and empirical facts.

On this basis, there are points of your essay in which I fully agree:

4D space is not continuous, if not discrete, quantized. But a space quantization inevitably leads to a minimum quantization time lapse. Heisenberg uncertainty principle,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 17:32 GMT
Hi Yuri,

I haven't had time to fully understand your essay yet, but I do like the idea of circular time. I once read a book called Transcendent by Stephen Baxter that goes pretty deep into the consequences of circular time. Perhaps you may like it, if you haven't already read it. Of course, there is also Stephen King's The Dark Tower series, which frequently states that "Ka is like a wheel".

- Shawn

report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 19:26 GMT
Thank you for attention...

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 23:53 GMT
Well, as long as you don't make a frequent habit out of putting some random stranger in-between us by asking them for a negative opinion on my essay or my taste in fiction, then I suppose you're quite welcome.

- Shawn

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka replied on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 16:43 GMT
Hey Yuri,

You started explaining your theory on my page, but you didn't finish. It would be most helpful if you used that opportunity to help everyone see your point of view clearly by writing a guide, rather than just use it to spam everyone with random numbers.

- Shawn

report post as inappropriate

Vasily Kletushkin wrote on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 18:27 GMT
Hello Yuri. English I do not know and have not read your essay. Tried to understand the annotations and comments. Your suggestions can be implemented by writing metaphysical books. Only one space. Time is of simultaneity. Measure the space required. Content can be measured. All types of energy comes from the heat and all kinds of material - from the information. Gravity does not have neither heat nor the information (structure). She comes to the origin of the heat. Complete thermodynamic formula M.Plank in MDM, he found the quantum of action, analyze not yet started. Since metaphysics can find in my essay.

Information-Energy Quantum Balance by Vasily Kletshkin

14 posts • created by Vasily Kletshkin • Aug. 30, 2012 @ 12:08 GMT

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 18:42 GMT
Василий

Н
77; верю,что без знания английск
86;го можно выступит
00; с опроверж
77;нием каких-либ
086; постулат
86;в физики.

Из
074;ините....

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 17:16 GMT
Dear Yuri,

I want add information about Planck units according to the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter (my Essay). About the meaning of the Planck length. It is close to radius of particles (praons) which relate to nucleon in the same way as nucleons relate to neutron star. It is supposed that in neutron as much praons as neutrons in the neutron star. Now about Planck mass. From the theory it follows that Planck mass is equal to product of proton mass and similarity coefficient in size between star and atomic levels of matter. So the Planck mass is not a mass of real particle, since there is should be similarity coefficient in mass, not similarity coefficient in size.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 17:42 GMT
For better clarification my approach

I sending to you Frank Wilczek’s 3 keen articles

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Ab
s_limits388.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/physt
oday/Abs_limits393.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_toda
y/phystoday/Abs_limits400.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:35 GMT
Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

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

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 02:28 GMT
Freeman Dyson interesting point of view.

The New York Review of Books Volume 51, Number 8, 2004

"The question that I am asking is whether there is any conceivable way in which we could detect the existence of individual gravitons. It is easy to detect individual photons, as Einstein showed, by observing the behavior of electrons kicked out of metal surfaces by light incident on...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 04:25 GMT
Why is Quantum Gravity so hard?

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/07/
14/why-is-quantum-gravity-so-hard-and-why-did-stalin-execute
-the-man-who-pioneered-the-subject/

" The reason is that, when it comes to gravity, mass is the gravitational analog of electric charge. You do not have freedom to choose mass and (gravitational) charge separately, as you do in electromagnetism." (Gennady Gorelik blog)

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 00:43 GMT
Yuri,

You wrote:

"2. If you take away all matter, there is no more space 3.The theory contains no absolute elements. I am also a supporter of opinion that gravity is not a fundamental force. It seems to me that Sakharov's view about gravitation as elasticity of space is close to truth."

Are you saying that without matter gravity doesn't exist. Would Einstein say this? Can the vacuum of space be empty? Not according to Krauss in Universe from Nothing. What do you think?

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 02:07 GMT
Gravity doesn't exist without matter.

I am not agree with Krauss.

Every cycle the Universe in the end gives product for next cycle.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 15:23 GMT
Once again, why G and c not fundamental.

Because in the same space - time they vary synchronously, but in Planck units of length and Planck unit of time they have different dependencies, and therefore none of them are true.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 15:32 GMT
Once again, why is not always suitable 4D space-time.

Because it does not solve the problem of beginning.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 15:42 GMT
Once again, why gravity is not a fundamental interaction.

Because it is emergent and graviton does not exist.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 22:47 GMT
My discussion with George Ellis

Yuri

Dear Dr Ellis,

First of all I would like reminding to you one quote from famous neurophysiologist Warren McCulloch, known for his work on the foundation for certain brain theories and his contribution to the cybernetics movement .

In the last century he wrote:

''As I see what we need first and foremost is not correct theory,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 10:14 GMT
Dear Dr Wharton

First quote from your essay: "The LSU blends time and space together just

like GR, while the NSU has to grapple with a dynamic evolution that seems to single out time as\special".

See my letter to Dr Stephen Weinberg.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

Hi Yuri,

I think I disagree with Weinberg's response to your interesting question -- I don't think that you can discretize space while not discretizing time, at least not in any GR-friendly way.

That said, I'm not a particular fan of discretization at all -- at least not the conventional justifications for it. (That was the last essay contest, which I linked to above.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 10:18 GMT
My essay devoted at first to splitting space from time.

GR-is not completed theory,as SR.Why i must be friendly to her?

Wharton

You certainly don't have to be friendly to GR or SR -- many quantum theorists take the same view.

For me, I guess I just have too much respect for Einstein's hard-won insights, and too little respect for our human intuitions about time.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 10:26 GMT
Julian

Are you agree with my abstract?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

Julian Barbour

I can agree with some of Yuri's abstract, mainly because it only invites us to reconsider

report post as inappropriate

Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 10:32 GMT
Yuri,

Thanks for the feedback. I just read your essay, which I found interesting in several regards. I note that you mention the idea that space can be described in terms of angles. Julian Barbour suggests something similar with his "shape dynamics," but doesn't suggest quantization.

You point out that the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions are of similar strengths and that gravity is much weaker. This is true, of course, but it's also interesting to think about the size scales on which these interactions dominate. The strong and weak interactions have very short range, while electromagnetism dominates up to about the everyday scale, where gravity takes over.

You also point out some interesting numerical relationships. There is much speculation about the dimensionality of space and the number of particle generations, but the 18-degree thing is something I have not heard of before. Take care,

report post as inappropriate

Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 10:38 GMT
Yuri,

Let me make sure I understand. So you think that the ratio c/G is constant, but neither G nor c are independently constant? Do you mean constant in "space" or constant in "time?" Take care,

Ben

Variation constants in time.Within a single cycle.

report post as inappropriate

Tanmay Vachaspati wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 10:44 GMT
Dear Yuri,

It is really interesting that you predict black holes of mass 10^{16} gms. These are the ones that are evaporating just about now and producing a gamma ray background. Do you know the recent constraints on black hole masses? I believe the constraint might be right around 10^{16} gms but it would depend on their number density as well.

Best,

Tanmay

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 10:45 GMT
Tammay

As you see mass of nuclon 10^40 lesser than black hole mass

it is close to

Dirac large numbers hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_large_numbers_h
ypothesis

report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 10:53 GMT
Concerning the abstract of your Essay, in my opinion gravitation as a Integral effect of the Universe is not in contrast with gravity as a fundamental force. In that case, if you split 3D discrete space from 1D continues time can you construct a metric theory of gravity which is needed to taken into account experimental measures which guarantee that Equivalence Principle is valid at a level 10 to minus 13?

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 10:56 GMT
It turns out we are allies in this matter

Sean Gryb

It seems we are, though our motivations are different.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:05 GMT

I think generation #2,generation #3 are the effect of Influence from Future, just hints from the Future.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9607375

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan Kerr wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:06 GMT
Hello Yuri,

thanks. These papers suggest that there may be influences on the present from the future, but how can one suggest something like that without first putting forward a conceptual picture of time? Time does certain things, we know exactly what it does, but not why. To me something physical is clearly going on, and I think a reliable conceptual picture is needed before anything else - and it must be one that fits the clues well.

Our present interpretation of what we know about time has major problems (see my conversation from today and yesterday with George Ellis on his essay page, who thinks the same, and has argued very strongly that standard block time is wrong). But the spacetime interpretation tends to deflect people from investigating these questions, because what we observe then looks like something unassailable to do with the dimensions, and wrapped up in the nature of the time dimension somehow.

But without a reliable conceptual picture of what the equations are describing, why try to guess what time might or might not do? People who look only at the mathematics might do that, some tend to work as if they have the whole picture in front of them already.

Anyway, that's my take on it. In the second paper you refer to, they suggest drawing a card and using it to decide how to operate the LHC, and they say this might make it shut down totally. I'm not objecting to this on the grounds that it's a form of gambling, but the LHC was very expensive, and if they think that will happen, they shouldn't risk damaging it. There has to be a cheaper version of this experiment.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:13 GMT
Giacomo

Are you agree with my abstract?

report post as inappropriate

Giacomo Mauro D\'Ariano wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:14 GMT
Dear Yuri

I do agree on some of your points, but not ll f thm. In particular, I think that timeis discrete. You can always interpolate with a continuum time, but at the price of losing the locality of interactions, a too big price to pay. As for the fondants constants, these are just the three universal constants of Dirac automata, namely: the Planck time, length, and mass. The Panck constant is derived from them, as you can read in my essay.

Thank you

Mauro

report post as inappropriate

Amanda Gefter wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:19 GMT
Hi Yuri,

I enjoyed reading your essay. I must admit I did not fully understand it, but you seem to be drawing some interesting connections.

All best,

Amanda

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:25 GMT
Dear Olaf

Are you agree with my abstract?

report post as inappropriate

Olaf Dreyer wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:26 GMT
Dear Yuri:

Thanks for the interest in my article. In your article you mention these four assumptions that need changing:

1. 4D spacetime.

2. Gravity as a fundamental force.

3. 3 fundamental dimensional constants(G,c,h).

At this level of discussion I would agree with all of them. In my view the 4D spacetime is only an emergent object and not fundamental, gravity is emergent, and because of that the gravitational constant G can not be of fundamental importance. In fact I provide a formula for G in my essay. The devil is of course in the details.

I particular like the last sentence of your essay:

"I would really wish to those who are working in the field of fundamental physics problem to not remain unemployed."

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:31 GMT
Donatello

My essay part 1 devoted to cyclic universe.

What is your attitude to cyclic direction in cosmology?

report post as inappropriate

Donatello Dolce wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:33 GMT
Yuri,

every system can be described in terms of elementary space-time cycles describing elementary particles. A universe composed by single particle would be cyclic as a pendulum in the vacuum. An universe composed by more non-intearctiong particles, i.e. elementary space-time cycles, has an ergodic evolution. If interaction is also considered, with the corresponding modulations of space-time periodicities, the evolution is chaotic. See for instance subsection "comment and outlook" at the end of sec.1, arXiv:1110.0316.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:35 GMT
Donatello,

If I understood you correctly, you are not ready for a radical break space from time?

report post as inappropriate

Donatello Dolce wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:36 GMT
Yuri,

In relativity space and time mix each other. QM is telling us that space-time is intrinsically cyclic in elementary systems, the periodicity is described by undulatory mechanics (think to wave-particle duality). When this is used to describes the non-relativistic limit it is possible to see the radically difference nature of time w.r.t. spatial coordinates. This limit is obtained by putting the mass to infinity (rest energy) and the momentum to zero. In undulatory mechanics, through the Planck constant, this correspods to put the time periodicity to zero and the spatial periodicity to infinity. in classical mechanics, time is extremelly compactified whereas the spatial dimensions have infinite compactifications. Thus we have an effective 3D description in which the flow of time is an emerging (relational description) phenomenon associated to the tiny periodicities of these elementary cycles (i.e. the elementary particles).

regards,

Donatello

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:46 GMT
Hi Yuri,

Thanks for taking the time to direct me to your essay.

I did visit your essay and copied the following:

"For practical use Planck’s length, time and energy are obviously irrelevant. But I am sure that Planck’s mass eternal relevant."

I agree that the Planck mass is extremely interesting (that is what my essay is about). But do not throw out the Planck length too soon. If I may point out, the Planck mass when compressed to have a wavelength of a Planck length is a black hole. And this may fit in with points in your essay.

report post as inappropriate

Reeve Armstrong wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:52 GMT
Hello Yuri :)

I was hoping someone would send me an email but I didn't expect anyone to notice that I had put my email address as a footnote, so thank you.

I read your essay and I am in agreement with you on a lot of the ideas. For example, I also think that the universe must recur and I think that the supposed "time asymmetrical" arrow of time is not the true description of reality....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Edward Anderson wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 15:05 GMT
Dear Yuri,

"law 3:1" isn't necessarily the use of "law" that is contained in "physical law", since those tend to be based on vast numbers of experimental observations, whilst usually only covering logically-connected facts, which are usually explained by one simple but broadly-reaching physical principle. Viz "Newton's second law", "Stefan's Law" as useages, and reflect what set of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 15:36 GMT
Dear Edward

First of all thanks for such an abundant review...

-----Original Message-----

From: E. Anderson [mailto:ea212@hermes.cam.ac.uk] On Behalf Of E. Anderson

Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 7:19 AM

To: Yuri Danoyan

Subject: RE:

Dear Yuri,

"law 3:1" isn't necessarily the use of "law" that is contained in "physical law", since those...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Edward Anderson wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 03:10 GMT
Going in a bit deeper, there's an observationally obvious but hard to explain difference between mass and charge: charge has *two signs*. How does that fit in with your ideas? And any ideas about cosmological variation of c and G? (Like any original reason why there should be any, preferably with some law *deduced*, not described, as to what form that variation would take).

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 03:13 GMT
Throughout the history of the Universe mass values will vary, but the ratio will remain the same.

Big crunch epoch approximately Mpr=10^-23g; Mel=10^-27g

report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 03:27 GMT
Charge in Big Crunch will increase about 10-12 times

Confirmation this value came from

G.Gamow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 759 (1967). e^2 ~ t.

Maximum Number 12 on the Spectrum of Mass of Elementary Particles

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 10:32 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 06:08 GMT
Hi Yuri,

I have to say that your essay was one of the most fun to read - a veritable smorgasbord of energetic, sparkling ideas. I'll want to look at material you referenced. That certain numbers and ratios appear almost ubiquitously surely hints at things we don't know but ought to. The fine structure constant is another of those mysterious numbers which no doubt has a profound meaning in conjunction with quantum mechanics.

Steve

report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 11:48 GMT
Steve

don't forget please impartially evaluate my essay

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:30 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

Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 08:22 GMT
Dear Yuri!

1. You asked me - why 12 - dimensional Space-Time? I answered you in your topic: 3 - linear + 3-wave + 3-vortex (Greek-dine). Therefore synthetic extended Space - is 3M (mea), but not 3D (dim).

2. Time - is the memory of material structure at a certain level of its whole being. That is his nature. Time is a burden. Time is the price of the Becoming.

3. I agree with you that the true model of the Universe is a model of Eternal Universe. Modeling of Universe must begin with one of the ancient Axiom (Superaxiom): "In the Beginning Was the Logos ...". This is the meeting point of Knowledge and Faith, Science and Religion.

4. You have the right question, the right way, but I have not found an essay ontological justification of your hypotheses.Today the fundamental physics and mathematics - not ontologically grounded science.

report post as inappropriate

Jin He wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 15:42 GMT
FRS G F R Ellis just said that many posts on 2012 FQXI contest are trash.

Stephen Hawking went to China to cheat money and fame. FRS George F R Ellis came to FQXI to cheat money and fame. They thought they could save Physics. Amazing!!

But they and their assouciates can control physics on Earth indeed.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 03:21 GMT
To my opinion charge and mass two sides the same coin.

So the of Newton’s law and Coulomb's law have the same form.

So c and G vary so synchronously in cosmological evolution time.

So ratio e/m constant for proton and electron

So quantum gravitation problem is pseudoproblem.

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 03:28 GMT
Just in case:

Max Planck Scheinprobleme der Wissenschaft

http://www.quantum-cognition.de/texts/Planck_SCH
EINPROBLEM.pdf

report post as inappropriate