Search FQXi


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

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

Contests Home


Previous Contests

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

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

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

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/5/12 at 9:41am UTC, wrote Dear Janko, Here are answers to your questions: 1.< You included...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 6:24am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/2/12 at 9:46am UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

Stefan Weckbach: on 9/30/12 at 11:07am UTC, wrote Dear Janko, hope you read my comment above. I rated your essay as very...

Janko Kokosar: on 9/30/12 at 10:01am UTC, wrote Dear Benjamin, Thank you for reading my essay and giving good opinion. It...

Stefan Weckbach: on 9/30/12 at 8:08am UTC, wrote Dear Janko, i promised to read again your essay and i did it this morning....

Benjamin Dribus: on 9/30/12 at 5:39am UTC, wrote Dear Janko, I think you have done a fantastic job with this essay. You...

Hoang Hai: on 9/27/12 at 14:34pm UTC, wrote Dear Janko Kokosar Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

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

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

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

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

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

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
May 22, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Postulates and Prejudices in Fundamental Physics by Janko Kokosar [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Janko Kokosar wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 11:51 GMT
Essay Abstract

A new view on quantum gravity is presented, among others a new step toward quantization of gravity is presented. A model is also developed, where the elementary particles are black holes. This disagrees with the Higgs mechanism. An explanation is also shown why three space dimensions exist, and what is uncertainty of masses of black holes. A new view on consciousness theory is shown. Regardless of the correctness of the above theories it is shown, what postulates are and what prejudices are.

Author Bio

The author has a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics since 1989. He works in steel industry. His field of work are physical measurements, simulations of cooling of steel, phase changes, magnetic properties, statistical analyses, programing and analyzes in Excel and SQL, etc. In young age he also competed in chess. In free time he developed some theories in fundamental physics and theories of consciousnes. He found some formulae for the masses of elementary particles, he offers partial explanation of three space dimensions, he developed one step toward quantization of gravity, and generalization of principle of uncertainty.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Ted Erikson wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 19:56 GMT
Janko:

You mention "consciousness".. I attack it as an emergent (memory) and pansychistic (directive) property. See:To Seek Unknown Shores

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

Comment?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jeff Baugher wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 22:32 GMT
Janko,

You stated "It would be strange that gravity would not be a primary reason for the elementary particles, because the elementary particles are foundation of space-time, and the same is true for gravity. But this con rms that the elementary particles are BHs or something very similar to BHs or at least that they are gravitationally built up objects,"

To perhaps give you some more food for thought on your essay, I agree with this sentence in a way. Modeling particles as elastic wave packet (see Sandhu Section 5) holes using a mathematically correct form of the Einsten tensor, imagine the Fig.2 of Marcoen's paper as traveling holes instead of particles. Does this seem akin to what you are getting at?

Regards,

Jeff Baugher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Janko Kokosar wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 18:39 GMT
I wrote still some summary about the above paper. It is in attachement and it is found on viXra.

I hope for discusion with arguments, anti-arguments, new knowledge, and new ideas, because this is the most important part of this contenst. I also read other essays in this contest and I will give arguments, and when it will be clear, I will give marks.

Good Luck

attachments: Petkov.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 16:38 GMT
Dear Janko,

In your essay elementary particles may be as black holes. But in accordance with the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter black holes do not exist. And at the level of particles there is strong gravitation.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Janko Kokosar replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 18:45 GMT
Dear Sergey,

You describe that interactions of elementary particle do not give black holes (BHs). Thus you conclude that black holes do not exist. But I claim that elementary particles are already BHs without typical gravitational interactions. I also do not claim that elementary particles are the same type of BHs as large holes. (Quantum physics probably change a lot of properties.)

You also claim that enlarged gravitational constant at small distances exists. I claim that this is agains rules of general relativity, and against claims of Duff.

I did not read your articles precisely, are my arguments enough?

Best regards,

Janko Kokosar

p.s. Some time ago I searched theory of strong gravitation as a reference. I do not rememember precisely, do you the only author of this idea?

Bookmark and Share



Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 09:06 GMT
Dear Janko,

According to your essay: < But this confirms that the elementary particles are BHs or something very similar to BHs or at least that they are gravitationally built up objects.> I supposed that you understand black holes (BH) in usual way. The idea of strong gravitation is very old. A lot of people try to calculate Strong gravitational constant. With this constant the radius of a particle with the mass of proton is close to radius in the formula for the black hole:
, where
is strong gravitational constant, Mp is proton mass, c is speed of light. But in reality radius of proton Rp is equal to
, and so Rp < R. On the other hand instead of c we must use speed 4.3 c in the formula for the radius of black hole. It is so the speed of light for the proton is the characteristic speed of its matter, as for the neutron star the characteristic speed of its matter is equal to
. See Stellar_constants. Then for the black hole at particle level of matter must be:
. We se that Rp > Rb, and proton is not a black hole, as a neutron star.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 14:34 GMT
Dear Janko Kokosar

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 (definition from the ABSOLUTE theory of me) - 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.

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 05:39 GMT
Dear Janko,

I think you have done a fantastic job with this essay. You manage to touch on many aspects of some very profound issues in a short space and also provide excellent context and referencing. I think the subject of consciousness is quite difficult and is probably beyond our current science, but it is perfectly legitimate (and interesting too) to speculate about it in an educated...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 08:08 GMT
Dear Janko,

i promised to read again your essay and i did it this morning.

I must fully affiliate to the points made by Benjamin in his post above.

Although i am not sure if one can link the features of BH's to the features of "particles", i nonetheless think that it is worth tinking seriously about it. My approach to tink of "particles" as "empty containers" for "properties...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Janko Kokosar wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 10:01 GMT
Dear Benjamin,

Thank you for reading my essay and giving good opinion. It is beneficial to me that one Ph. D. student gives good opinion about my essay. It is also a favor that someone reads it precisely and comments, this is what our amateur theories lack. So it is well to obtain any opinion, still better if it is professional or skilled one. It gives new ideas.

I hope that we will further exchange some physical opinions, also after this contests.

Because I cannot read all essays until Friday, can you recommend the best ones by your opinion.

I will read your essay tomorrow. I will give comment below of your essay.

Bookmark and Share


Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 11:07 GMT
Dear Janko,

hope you read my comment above. I rated your essay as very positive and i want to remark some additional reasons for this. You have thought intensively about consciousness as a necessary ingredient for every measurement theory and therefore for physics in general. Your references to some latest experimental evidence for quantum effects in living organisms where very helpfull for me. I read them and realized that Tegmarks calculations may be right, but QM could have some tricky workarounds to shape the brains' mechanism quantum mechanically.

Best wishes,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 09:46 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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:24 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
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 09:41 GMT
Dear Janko,

Here are answers to your questions:

1.< You included strong gravitational constant which rejects some benefits given by general relativity. They are, the principle of equivalence, background free spacetime etc.> The general relativity may be changed by Covariant theory of gravitation . In view of it the principle of equivalence, background free spacetime etc. are...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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