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

Benjamin Dribus: on 10/5/12 at 20:47pm UTC, wrote P.S. I wish I could say something constructive about the experimental...

Benjamin Dribus: on 10/5/12 at 20:44pm UTC, wrote Dear Mark, I enjoyed your essay. Regarding the general possibility of...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 6:29am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Mark Newstead: on 10/3/12 at 17:33pm UTC, wrote Thank you very much, we are glad you liked it.

Hoang Hai: on 10/3/12 at 4:04am UTC, wrote DEAR Mark Newstead and Stephen Newstead as well as TO ALL THE AUTHORS AND...

Anonymous: on 10/3/12 at 1:58am UTC, wrote Dear Mark and Stephen, I welcomed your idea that corresponds to...

Mark Newstead: on 10/2/12 at 16:44pm UTC, wrote Sergey, Thanks for the rating. May I ask what you thought of the essay,...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/2/12 at 10:27am UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Markus, ​ In regard to "what is seen next?" David Eagleman has a..." in The Room in the Elephant:...

Stefan Weckbach: "Dear Lorraine, “If you will forgive me for saying so, the situation is..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Markus, thank you for sharing your ideas. Re. the Guinea pigs copies,..." in The Room in the Elephant:...

Georgina Woodward: "Perhaps the idea of consciousness causing collapse is being overthought? ..." in Consciousness and the...

Lorraine Ford: "Stefan, I would say that we individual human beings, and the rest of the..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "Thank you John. What did you think about the questioning whether altitude..." in The Nature of Time

John Cox: "Sorry, Georgina, I have had a busy summer and am racing the change of..." in The Nature of Time

Jim Snowdon: "If the Earth did not have it`s rotational motion, the apparent time of day..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

RECENT ARTICLES

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

The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves
Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

Can Choices Curve Spacetime?
Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

FQXi FORUM
September 26, 2021

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Electromagnetic Waves for the 21st Century by Mark Newstead and Stephen Newstead [refresh]

Author Mark Newstead wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 14:19 GMT
Essay Abstract

In this paper, we take the ideas surrounding electromagnetic waves having a wave-particle duality, matter, antimatter collisions and mass-energy equivalence to bring electromagnetic waves into the 21st century.

Author Bio

Both of the authors have always had a love of Physics. They have always been interested in deepening their physics knowledge and asking the tough questions in it, as well as proposing a few of their own ideas. Dr Mark Andrew Newstead graduated in 2010 with a Doctor of Philosophy, in Mathematical Biology. Stephen Charles Newstead has studied several Open University modules during his life, in general mathematics and science, as well as calculus, astronomy and geology.

Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 19:22 GMT
Mark, Stephen,

There is a strange text in your essay: "We have already mentioned that the speed of an electromagnetic wave is dependent upon the medium it is passing through [1]. Therefore unlike particles [11], waves are unable to speed up or slow down as they are entering or leaving a gravitational field. However this does not mean that they are unable to gain or lose energy, it is just that the energy is in a different form, frequency."

The variability/constancy of the speed of light in a gravitational field has nothing to do with the variation in a medium so the "therefore" above is unjustified. Moreover, the speed of light does vary in a gravitational field. According to Newton's emission theory of light, it varies with phi, the gravitational potential, in the following way:

c' = c(1 + phi/c^2)

General relativity predicts an even greater variation:

c' = c(1 + 2phi/c^2)

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate
Author Mark Newstead replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 14:09 GMT
Pentcho,

It is our understanding that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant at all times, (i.e. independent of whether the electromagnetic wave is entering or leaving a gravitational field) if you take into account its curved trajectory within a gravitational field. However, if you do not take this curvature into account then it can be argued that the speed of an electromagnetic wave will change within a gravitational field. In fact, if we understand correctly, the equation you present comes from this situation where the curvature of the waves is not taken into account.

Mark

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 14:33 GMT
It is a matter of a LOCAL measurement, Mark. The top of a tower of height h emits light and the observer on the ground measures the frequency to be shifted: from f=c/L to f'=f(1+gh/c^2), where f, c and L are the initial frequency, speed of light and wavelength (as measured by the emitter). We have also f'=c'/L', where f', c' and L' are the final frequency, speed of light and wavelength (as measured by the observer). You may try to answer the following questions:

c' = ? ; L' = ?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Author Mark Newstead replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 15:35 GMT
Pentcho

From what you have said, it would appear that the apparent frequency and wavelength change are due to time dilations and length contractions that occur within gravitational fields. These time dilations and length contractions cancel themselves out, such that

v = f * L = f' * L'.

Mark

Ted Erikson wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 20:42 GMT
Mark:

Your notions are extremely interesting. Mass and light certainly have a battle for their existence as I feel light seeks mass for its identity, mass seeks time of existence for its. Your combo combines their survival.

Couple points:

(1) Do you (or anyone) intend to pursue your suggested gamma experiment to confirm or deny your approach?

(2) Care to comment on my interpretation, posted on my essay, To Seek Unknown Shores? "The 3-fold electric-magnetic-gravitational wave of Newstead18 suggests, when (IF) experimentally confirmed and properly tuned, the creation of matter from nothing (a point) has a 0.0625 probability. This may be happening in nature occasionally, even now. "

Good Luck in contest!

Ted

report post as inappropriate
Author Mark Newstead replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 14:11 GMT
Ted,

Currently we are not intending to pursue the experiment that we propose, since it is far too complex for us to achieve without a laboratory. In terms of your second point we would need to do some more research in that particular area, before we could even comment on it.

Thanks and we wish you good luck too.

Mark

Ted replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 20:59 GMT
Mark:

Thanks.. Good luck!!

report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 00:11 GMT
Mark, Stephen,

Propagating electromagnetic (EM) fields are somewhat neglected, there seeming to be nothing new to be learned about them. It is typical that papers about electromagnetics (EMs) are presented with no time frame specified when various concepts and associated equations were developed. I suspect the authors expect the readers to already know the details.

Gauss had died before Hertz demonstrated that EM waves can propagate as waves through the air. Every EM wave consists of two electric and magnetic monopole sets at 90 degrees to each other, with their different polarities and poles. Gauss developed his theories using static laboratory produced electric and magnetic fields.

You might want to consider how two other authors brought together EMs and gravity. They took a conventional approach, no new physics required. One paper was titled, "Electrifying Gravity", the other, which was prepared in parallel, "Newton's Gravitation Constant G as a Quantum Coupling Constant". Links below.

Electrifying Gravity

Newton's Quantum Coupling Constant

report post as inappropriate
Author Mark Newstead replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 14:12 GMT
Frank,

Within the paper, we simply had insufficient space to give a full time line of events, concepts and equations being proposed by different scientists throughout the years. In the first section we were just trying to give a background of what the electromagnetic equations are, as well as an understanding of electromagnetic waves, such that everybody understood exactly what we were talking about.

Thank you for the links to those papers, which we will save for future reference, as currently we do not think they are of much help to us.

Mark

Frank Makinson replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 17:52 GMT
Mark, Stephen,

The timeline has to be considered when you are using a statement that is timeline limited.

"Examples of these implications are that it would allow magnetic monopoles to exist, define whether charge is conserved and quantized, as well as whether there could be charged black holes in the universe." (this statement preceded Eq. 2)

"Equation 2 (Gauss's law for magnetism) states that there are no magnetic monopoles (i.e. a magnetic north and south can never be separated)."

It would not be obvious to many readers when Gauss made that statement. Many readers do not know propagating EM fields already contain magnetic monopoles.

report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 02:14 GMT
Mark, Stephen,

A great step forward in presenting the true nature of EM radiation.

May I suggest that your theory could benefit from a clear definition of radiant EM mass vs standing-wave Matter.

As you point out 2D divergent EM mass is a distinct property of Energy [as opposed to Matter] which has been poorly defined for over a century now. Even Einstein admitted that his Stress energy tensor represents energy in all its forms without distinction [and this presented a problem for advancement of the theory].

The interchange of the two terms has become a foundational problem for physics in the 21st century, forming the basis of my paper - Tetryonics, and as a result even your paper exchanges the two terms inappropriately.

2D radiant mass-Energies [photons, EM waves etc] have a planar EQUILATERAL geometries while 3D standing-wave Matter [Fermions, Baryons etc] have TETRAHEDRAL geometries.

The physical impact being that EM fields resulting from Matter in motion [KEM] are subject to Lorentz contractions and contribute to their total relativistic mass [energy density] changes due to accelerations. Matter on the other hand is a 3D charged geometry and is velocity invariant. [see attached]

In short EM waves have mass BUT are best termed 'Matter-less' quanta.

I hope this aids in the further development of your ideas.

report post as inappropriate
Author Mark Newstead replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 14:12 GMT
Abraham,

The paper that we have entered here is only part of our research which is ongoing. Some of this research includes combining electromagnetism with the other atomic forces, which is proving encouraging.

Mark

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 07:30 GMT
Hi Mark,

Electromagnetic waves for the 21th century sounds promising. As an EE, I only found speculations. What does a "single" em wave mean in terns of a mathematical description? Did you try a modal analysis of propagating waves?

Good luck,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate
Author Mark Newstead replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 14:13 GMT
Eckard,

From a mathematical description, a single EM wave would be a single sine wave (i.e. from 0 to 2Pi) for the electric and another one for the magnetic, such that the plane each wave exists in, is perpendicular to the other. Within the natural world there may also be small amount of damping occurring at the front and back as well. In terms of propagating waves, we would understand this to be a string of waves all connected together (front to back) that would travel in a straight line (given no external gravitational fields, medium changes, etc). However we also understand from an electrical point of view, you could consider waves being emitted from a radio mast for example. In this case you have lots of EM waves being emitted in each direction, all of which travel off on their own straight path. Using this idea, we would relate signal strength to be the density of the waves and thus close to the source where there are lots of waves close together you get a strong signal. Further away though, the waves are more spread out and thus the weaker the signal. Putting it another way, if we assume a radio mast emitted 360 waves, one at each degree, then close to the mast the distance between neighbouring degrees is small, but the further from the mast you are the greater this distance (between neighbouring degrees). Thus the signal strength decreases with distance, because the waves move further away from each other. Hopefully, this has answered your question.

Thanks for the good luck,

Mark

Frank Makinson replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 17:15 GMT
Mark, Stephen,

In your essay, page 3, you state, "Thus if the wave was travelling really slowly, it would have an incredibly short wavelength, implying that its energy was contained in a very small volume."

I do not understand the quoted statement. What does the velocity of an EM wave have to do with "energy volume?"

I would think the "energy volume" of an electromagnetic (EM) wave would be defined by the wavelength. For equation (6), wavelength and frequency are inversely proportional and this is a linear relationship. When an EM beam enters a material in which it can propagate, that has a different permittivity, it is assumed both the frequency and the wavelength are changed; typically a change in frequency is measured, which implies a change in wavelength. Ask Eckard which came first. Keep in mind that equation (10) is defining energy, an idealized quanta of energy, in relationship to the frequency of an EM wave. The actual "energy content" of an EM wave is a result of the process that creates the wave. And, it is "assumed" that the EM field configuration and the energy content of the EM wave does not result in a nonlinear response in the medium in which it is permitted to propagate.

Equation (6) is somewhat like the equation that represents Ohm's law, V=IR, it represents a linear relationship. EEs recognize that simplistic formula represents idealized conditions, that is, there are no conditions that will cause one of the parameters to become nonlinear. The problem with equation (6) is equivalent, everyone is "assuming" there are no conditions which would result in one of the parameters becoming nonlinear.

report post as inappropriate

Author Mark Newstead replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 08:47 GMT
Frank,

When an electromagnetic wave goes from one medium to another, its frequency and total energy remain fixed. However, its speed decreases and hence so does its wavelength. This decrease in the wavelength means that the wave volume has decreased and thus the total energy of the wave is contained in a smaller volume. Moreover, this decrease in volume implies that the energy density of the wave increases.

Mark

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 14:44 GMT
Mark and Stephen

As far as I know when proton and antiproton pair collide not all their mass is converted into

electromagnetic waves, but only about 180 MeV. The main energy is spent for creation of 4-5 pions.

Also about the mass of a wave in substance, where the speed of wave is V < c. For this you find the mass of wave (9). But the speed of wave V in substance is due to of interaction of wave with charges of the substance. It seems that you find mass-energy of the interaction, not the mass of wave quantum.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate
Author Mark Newstead replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 15:37 GMT
Sergey,

In terms of proton and antiproton collisions, pions maybe formed but again these would be particle, antiparticle pairs, which could again annihilate each other. Even, if they did not they would decay either into gamma rays (in the case of neutral pions) or eventually into positrons and electrons (which do produce gamma rays when they come together) plus neutrinos and anti-neutrinos. Thus it would appear to us that given sufficient time matter, antimatter collisions do result in mainly a conversion from mass to energy.

We do not disagree that the wave speed decrease is caused by the interaction with the medium the wave is passing through. However, that does not seem to discount the possibility that this speed reduction causes a shift in the wave's energy between electromagnetism and mass. This possibility that a wave can have mass fits well with the other research we are doing into combining electromagnetism with the other atomic forces, which is proving encouraging.

Mark

Guy Wihelmy wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 18:26 GMT
Mark, Stephen

Your ideas are very interesting and it takes courage to tackle this vast subject. For too long EM radiation has been a troublesome relation of physics, always locked away and spoken for where historic equations are accepted as though they can never be challenged.

I encourage you to explain more of your thinking, particularly interactions of EM at the atomic level. The 'is it a wave, is it a particle' debate has been an unsatisfactory truce for too long.

Good luck...

Guy Wilhelmy

report post as inappropriate

John Alan Macken wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 21:43 GMT
Mark,

Your essay contains many of the same points that I make in the first chapter of the book "The Universe Is Only Spacetime" available here. In particular I show that when a photon is confined in a hypothetical 100% reflecting box, it is forced to have a specific frame of reference and exhibits inertia (rest mass). Since momentum is a vector, a confined photon has opposing vectors which results in zero net momentum. Therefore this satisfies the definition of having rest mass. Since a confined photon exerts photon pressure on the reflecting walls of the box, I show that accelerating the box results in a difference in pressure on opposite walls that always opposes acceleration. The amount of force is shown to exactly match the inertia that would be exerted by a mass of equal energy. I also discuss the fact that light passing through a transparent material with n>1 is equivalent to partial confinement and therefore exhibits some mass. If there was not an equal amount of inertia for an equal energy in the form of photons or particles, then it would be possible to do an experiment that violated the conservation of momentum.

All of this leads to a model of particles and forces. My essay titled "Insights into the Unification of Forces" is actually the result of a model of forces founded on some of the principles discussed in your paper and the first chapter of my book.

report post as inappropriate
Author Mark Newstead replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 10:47 GMT
John,

On first glance your work appears interesting, but we don't want to comment too much before we have had a chance to fully read your work. Both of us seem to be proposing that electromagnetic waves can have mass under the correct conditions. From our point of view, the only condition needed for an electromagnetic wave to portray mass, is for it to be travelling slower than the speed of light in a vacuum.

Also, as I have mentioned in other posts, this is only part of ongoing research into combining electromagnetism with the other fundamental forces, all of which is proving encouraging.

Mark

John A. Macken replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 23:28 GMT
Mark,

You mention that your essay is part of ongoing research into combining electromagnetism with other fundamental forces. I would be interested in seeing any other work you have since our work overlaps. For example, on page 9-2 of my book I propose a new constant of nature that I call the "charge conversion constant". This constant has units of meters/Coulomb and relates a distortion of spacetime with units of meters to the unit of Coulomb. Making this connection has far reaching implications. For example, when the impedance of free space (Zo) is converted with this constant it becomes the impedance of spacetime Zs = c3/G obtained from gravitational wave equations. The implication is that electromagnetic radiation is propagating in the medium of spacetime, just like gravitational waves. There are also experiments suggested to test this interpretation.

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:48 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
Author Mark Newstead replied on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 15:19 GMT
Dear Hai.Caohoang,

I'm not sure I fully understand everything you are saying; however you have to remember that the mass of a particle does not just affect its inertia but is also related to the particle's gravitational field strength. Therefore, if a particle was travelling through a vacuum, i.e. not impacting upon anything, we could still measure its mass by determining its gravitational strength. (If the particle was very small then measuring its gravitational field strength would be difficult, but that does not mean it would not have mass.) Thus the question is whether you define mass from a gravitational or inertial point of view. We note that it has been shown that the gravitational and inertial masses have the same value, but it is not currently understood why this is the case. Hence it would appear to us that to better understand mass, science needs to understand why these masses are the same, i.e. why inertia and gravity are linked.

In this paper, though, we are not dealing with where mass comes from or the link between gravitational and inertial mass. What we are proposing here is that electromagnetic waves can have mass when they are travelling slower than the speed of light in a vacuum. In particular when a wave is travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum it has no mass, but as it speed decreases, its mass increases, such that its maximum mass is portrayed when the "wave's speed is zero". Moreover, the amount of mass a particular wave has for a given speed is also dependent upon the wave's frequency. Thus a gamma ray will have more mass than a radio wave, at a given speed, which is less than the speed of light in a vacuum (at this speed they would both have no mass).

Hopefully this has answered your question, but if not or you have more, then please let me know.

Mark

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 10:27 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
Author Mark Newstead replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 16:44 GMT
Sergey,

Thanks for the rating. May I ask what you thought of the essay, although I see you have commented previously?

Mark

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 01:58 GMT
Dear Mark and Stephen,

I welcomed your idea that corresponds to Einsteinian approach - the material world can be explained on the wave field base. I am going to apprised your work as 10. Please find time to read and apprise mine essay, where I am saying almost the same.

essay

Regards

report post as inappropriate
Author Mark Newstead replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 17:33 GMT
Thank you very much, we are glad you liked it.

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 04:04 GMT

as well as TO ALL THE AUTHORS AND READERS WAS INTEREST.

Today, I am finished reading all of the essays in this topic.

First of all, thanks again to FQXi and the donors has facilitated for us to have the opportunity get contribute to science.

Next, would like to express to other author by the thanks for the comments that you have contributed to give me, and sincere apologies to those of you that I do not have specific feedback for your essay.The reason that is because:

The placing for issues and measures to solve for the problems of your offer is completely different from mine, so I can not comment when we do not have the same views on one matter, the purpose is to avoid the discussion became conflict of ideologies,it is will not be able to solve the problem which we are interested.

The end, I hope that : we ( who want the human to put their faith in science) will have the same fear: to someday,every people told each other that:

WAIITING FOR SCIENCE HELPS IS VERY LONGTIME,

LET PRAY TO GOD OR A CERTAIN DEITY SOMETIMES EVEN FASTER !

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:29 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

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 20:44 GMT
Dear Mark,

I enjoyed your essay. Regarding the general possibility of massive electromagnetic waves, as you note, this would have "wide implications for physics" (and that is putting it mildly!). However, there are a number of purely empirical considerations that make such a thing worth thinking about, at least in my opinion: neutrino mass, the hierarchy problem (in general), the cosmological constant, and so forth. We have repeatedly observed quantities very many orders of magnitude smaller than other "similar" quantities, and yet nonzero. Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate
Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 20:47 GMT
P.S. I wish I could say something constructive about the experimental setup, but I don't have much confidence in my laboratory expertise. In general, I'd be worried about absorption issues (i.e. whether the waves were really "massive themselves" or the energy in the waves was merely being "converted to mass," if this makes any sense. You seem to have thought about this, however.)

report post as inappropriate