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

Previous Contests

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

Anonymous: on 10/13/12 at 11:39am UTC, wrote Dear Armin Your bold claims against this essay contest deserve further...

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi: on 10/5/12 at 17:09pm UTC, wrote Thank you Ed, It looks like it was not enough to make it to the top 35,...

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi: on 10/5/12 at 17:04pm UTC, wrote Dear Gheorghe, Thank you so much for your positive comments. It turns out...

Edward Gillis: on 10/5/12 at 11:45am UTC, wrote Armin, Congratulations on your good showing in the contest. I am...

Gheorghe-Sorin Paraoanu: on 10/4/12 at 20:16pm UTC, wrote Hi Armin, I really enjoyed realding your essay. Very clearly written and...

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi: on 10/4/12 at 16:34pm UTC, wrote Dear Georgina, No problem, thank you for taking the time to read it. I...

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi: on 10/4/12 at 16:28pm UTC, wrote Hi Sergey, I think the whole notion of authors being able to vote on each...

Georgina Woodward: on 10/4/12 at 10:28am UTC, wrote Dear Armin Nikkhah Shirazi, sorry it has taken so long for me to get to...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "'Energy' can be a measurable. Measured or calculated, number value assigned..." in Cosmological Koans

Lorraine Ford: "Georgina, Energy is merely a category of information in the same sense..." in Cosmological Koans

Joe Fisher: "Dear Reality Fans, The real VISIBLE Universe never “started out.”..." in First Things First: The...

isabell ella: "If you are facing Cash app related problems and want to get support..." in Cosmic Dawn, Parallel...

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

Michael Hussey: "https://www.google.com" in New Nuclear "Magic...

Michael Hussey: "it is really difficult to understand what is all about all the things..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Stefan Weckbach: "I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that..." in First Things First: The...

RECENT ARTICLES

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.

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.

FQXi FORUM
July 19, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The Myth of a Theory of Everything by Armin Nikkhah Shirazi [refresh]

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 17:26 GMT
Essay Abstract

A fundamental assumption embedded in our current worldview is that there exists an as yet undiscovered theory of everything', a final unified framework according to which all interactions in nature are but different manifestations of the same underlying thing. This paper argues that this assumption is wrong because our current distinct fundamental theories of nature already have mutually exclusive domains of validity, though under our current worldview this is far from obvious. As a concrete example, it is shown that if the concepts of mass in general relativity and quantum theory are distinct in a specific way, their domains become non-overlapping. The key to recognizing the boundaries of the domains of validity of our fundamental theories is an aspect of the frame of reference of an observer which has not yet been appreciated in mainstream physics. This aspect, called the dimensional frame of reference (DFR), depends on the number of length dimensions that constitute an observer frame. Edwin Abbott's Flatland is used as point of departure from which to provide a gentle introduction to the applications of this idea. Finally, a 'metatheory of nature' is proposed to encompass the collection of theories of nature with mutually exclusive domains of validity.

Author Bio

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi studies physics and philosophy at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor because of a deep curiosity and passion for understanding the basic aspects of nature. He is also a composer and pianist, having composed about 100 musical works(some of his works are available on his Youtube channel). His work as a pharmacist funds the pursuit of his other passions.

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 03:13 GMT
Dear Armin Nikkhah Shirazi,

Unification of fundamental particle interactions is not vindicated in a Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter universe model, in that the fundamental matters are considered as string-like structures. Thus, only gravity and electromagnetic force are expressional in this scenario of string dynamics, in that these forces have a common origin.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 08:14 GMT
Jayakar,

Thank you for your comments. I did take a look at your paper, but must admit that I got lost. Perhaps this is because my knowledge of string theory is very little, you may be better advised to consult with a string theorist on your theory.

Thanks again and take care,

Armin

ABRAHAM wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 03:46 GMT
Hi Armin,

Great essay highlighting some of the fundamental obstacles that we need to overcome in order to develop a TOE [and that is where I disagree with your conclusion]

Space is limited here in this reply but I but in short here a number of points I would like to make in consideration of your essay:

1. Tetryonics is a unified Theory of Everything that has developed from...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 08:39 GMT
Kelvin,

I looked at your essay, it has some very nice illustrations and the narrative gives a rough idea of what you are trying to convey.

Unfortunately you make a number of very strong statements of fact without showing how they follow from the mathematics associated with your idea. For example, you write:

"It [i.e. your theory] effortlessly merges all the tested features of...

view entire post

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 10:36 GMT
Hi Armin,

Noted your comments and would like to point out that my full work is peppered with the relevant equations but I do note that they are not included in my competition essay [if that is what you are referring to].

I was limited by space and had to condense the 1300 illustrations I have produced to a short essay for the comp [but I did include the unified equation for EM mass-ENERGY-Matter].

The application of equilateral energy geometries to the current Math does not change the current Math formulations as they apply to physical processes, only the 'assumed' geometry underlying them - and in turn it explains many of the mysteries at the heart of physics today - mass, Matter, wave-function probabilities, wave-particle duality, constants etc.]

These 'errors of mathematical perception' are readily corrected, as outlined in the essay, when equilateral geometry is applied as the foundation of the mathematics used to describe physics - and I stand by my statements particularly as they apply to the advancement of Science - more detail is available in my full eBooks [and a 4th eBook will detail its application to GR and gravity culminating in the true 'fusion' mechanism at the heart of Stars and how we can replicate this process on Earth for clean, limitless energy]

However I do understand where you are coming from with regard to succinctly conveying my entire theory [especially in the context of an essay competition]

Thanks and good luck in the comp.

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 11:09 GMT
Hi Kelvin,

Thank you for the clarification, based on your statement it appears that you have done a substantial amount of work. I did look for a reference in your paper but did not find any. If you did not reference your ebooks, may I ask why you didn't?

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 06:20 GMT
Armin,

Interesting essay. A few thoughts and questions come to mind.

1. What do you mean geometrically/topologically when you say that "spacetime reduces to a 2+1 dimensional analogue?"

2. You refer to "actualizable worldlines," but Feynman's sum over histories doesn't give a probability amplitude for worldlines, it gives a probability amplitude for terminal events. It...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 12:32 GMT
Hello again,

This reply comes after the previous (below, inadvertently posted separately). I just realized that I may have partially misinterpreted your second question (1st labeled 2.)

Upon re-reading, I'm actually not sure if I am understanding. The propagator clearly allows us to proceed from an initial state to a final or terminal state. I understand, in particular, the path integral to help us determine a state given an initial earlier state. If this is correct, then it would seem to me that one would not lose the time dimension. If you could clarify, I will try to give a better answer.

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 09:23 GMT
Hi Armin, good to see that you posted your essay. It is indeed a further thinking of the earlier one, this one is more detailed and with avery good ending the metatheory.

Your perception : " The key to recognising the boundaries of the domains of validity of our fundamental theories is an aspect of the frame of reference of an observer which has not yet been appreciated in mainstream...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 11:06 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,

Thanks again,

Armin

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 10:27 GMT
Dear Ben,

Thank you for looking at my especially and thank you especially for your serious questions about my framework. I will attempt to answer them the best I can, and I hope that if I failed to be clear or if you disagree with something I say, you will let me know.

You asked: "What do you mean geometrically/topologically when you say that "spacetime reduces to a 2+1 dimensional...

view entire post

Ted Erikson wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 15:58 GMT
Armin:

Great essay. The 1-D, 2-D, 3-D versions of observed and observer are key to differences of gravity and quantum approaches. Perhaps you may see better, from a mathematical point of view, my say @

To Seek Unknown Shores

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

I have attempted to look at the problem globally, difficult to do in 12 pages, but..it's my attempt.

Comment(s)?

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 17:06 GMT
Hi Ted,

All the best,

Armin

Joe Fisher wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 16:21 GMT
Dear Mr. Shirazi,

I quite enjoyed reading your very well written cogently arranged essay, although due to my lack of a formal education I did not fully understand some of the portions of it concerning fundamental physics. I do have a question for you concerning the observation of a square. I believe that one real Universe can only be occurring eternally once in one real dimension. One real dimension can only be verified from its interior by the singular use of two real observation points. That is why every animal, bird, fish, and most insects have two eyes in the front of their heads. What pragmatic proof is there that there are three dimensions?

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 17:09 GMT
Hi Joe,

I am honestly not sure if you are asking me in jest or if you are serious, but I will give you a serious reply: I think we have to assume certain very basic facts about our existence simply as a given in order to make sense out of our reality. One of these that I take as a given that in a normal state of mind my sense do not deceive me. Since my sense experience tells me that there are three dimensions of space and I know of no evidence to the contrary, this is sufficient for me to accept this as a basic part of reality.

take care,

Armin

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 03:32 GMT
Dear Mr Shirazi

I have deep passion to 2D world.

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

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 16:53 GMT
If we understand the two-dimensional world, we realize that all?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 11:54 GMT
Mr Witten has a stringit , small disease about 2d. :)

report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 08:10 GMT
Armin,

You're right, I did miss your appendix; I didn't look below the reference page. I also watched your video, so I have a somewhat better idea of what you have in mind.

It seems that by definition you can't work with manifolds and get the limiting properties you need. This isn't necessarily a bad thing in my view, but at some point one would need to know the precise definitions and properties of the "spaces" involved.

One thing I would like to point out since you mentioned the limit of length contraction is that this is partly what motivated the deformed special relativity theories (DSR), which use the postulate that the Planck length is the smallest possible length. These theories involve noncommutative geometry; I mentioned them briefly in my essay. I don't know if using a fundamental scale like this would be helpful to you or not; a "layer" would be information-theoretically two-dimensional, but it would also exist at a particular place in the larger space, which you prefer to avoid, since objects in the lower-dimensional space are supposed to be actualizable in different places.

This also reminds me of the holographic principle and the AdS/CFT correspondence. Both involve lower-dimensional information "actualized" in a higher-dimensional space.

I agree that the scale-dependence of various types of interactions from the nuclear forces up to dark energy has some meaning that has not been fully grasped by modern physics. I also agree that dimension is probably scale-dependent in a sense, although my framework has non-integer dimensions in general.

It's interesting that the string compactifications involve higher dimensions at small scales, while you propose lower dimensions. I lean toward higher dimensions associated with matter-energy density.

report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 19:06 GMT
Hi, Steve!

By the way, I was saddened to read about your piano... Ironically enough, my piano may flood in the next few hours because of a hurricane, but there are lots of other places where I can play. Anyway, I imagine Armin doesn't want his thread to degenerate into a discussion of music and misfortune, but I was interested to see a couple of fellow composers here... I have 200+ piano compositions but most are not recorded and no youtube channel. I enjoyed listening to Armin's, though. Do you have an essay here? Take care,

Ben

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 17:14 GMT
Hi Ben,

Wow, I hope your piano (and the rest of your stuff) did not suffer any damage. Also, is any of your music available to listen to anywhere?

I have noticed that many people with a predilection for math/physics are also musically talented. There should be a record label just for people like us. It could be called quantum music or something like that. Ha!

Armin

Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 07:25 GMT
Armin,

Yeah, I came out OK... usually hurricanes turn out to be false alarms. On the music front, I have a bunch of recordings from a few years ago on CD's, but I never posted anything online. I particularly liked your Toccata and Fugue, by the the way. Take care,

Ben

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 20:45 GMT
Hi Armin. Direct bodily experience (seen and felt) is fundamental to physics, as it is necessarily fundamental to the unification and elucidation of the most fundamental, integrated, and important physical ideas.

report post as inappropriate

Author diMeglio wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 20:59 GMT
Life is not possible without fundamentally stabilized distance in/of space.

report post as inappropriate

John A. Macken wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 22:12 GMT
Armin,

It is wonderful when conflicting essays stimulate debate. My essay shows that there is a previously unknown close relationship between the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force when the forces between two charged particles are analyzed in a way that emphases the wave properties of the particles. The only difference in the gravitational and electrostatic force equations is a square term. (It is necessary to read my essay to understand this point.)

There are two reasons that this conflicts with your essay. 1) I am actually proposing that this square relationship is a step towards unifying gravity with the other forces and 2) this mathematical relationship emerged as a prediction from the assumption that all particles, fields and forces are made of the single building block of 4 dimensional spacetime. Therefore the spacetime model assumed is the single component of everything in the universe (the basis of a theory of everything).

Thus far I have emphasized differences between out essays. However, there are also points of agreement and points that must be pondered further. Thank you for a stimulating essay.

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 17:20 GMT
Hi john,

I briefly read your essay but need to reread it and do the calculations myself because some of the relations, and especially the square force equation, are just too unexpected to me. I will let you know when I do so,

Thanks,

Armin

Avtar Singh wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 18:13 GMT
Hi Armin:

Your paper makes a strong and convincing argument that our current distinct fundamental theories (GR and QM) of nature already have mutually exclusive domains of validity. You also suggest that the concept of mass may not have the same meaning in two theories, because gravity may be an emergent rather than associated phenomenon.

It is interesting to note that in my paper - -“ From Absurd to Elegant Universe”, it is shown that the exclusive domain between GR and QM is nothing but an artifact of the missing physics of the well-known spontaneous decay/birth of mass particles. A Gravity Nullification Model is developed to describe this missing physics. When this missing physics is combined with relativity, the inner workings of QM are explained in a deterministic manner eliminating current singularities as well as paradoxes and inconsistencies between the two theories. The new proposed theory is shown to predict the observed behavior of the universe as well as the classic behavior.

Even if a Meta-theory consisting of GR and QM with their individual domains of validity is accepted, such a Meta-theory would not be able to explain 96% (dark energy and dark matter) of the universe because of the missing physics of the spontaneous mass-energy conversion to bridge the individual domains.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 18:02 GMT
Hi Avtar,

I did ask you some questions on your paper, which you were kind of enough to answer. As regards the relationship of the metatheor to dark matter and dark energy, I suspect that you may have missed the appendix of my paper, in which I present a guess, based on the overall pattern of how our theories of nature fit the schema, that these may be manifestations of higher-dimensional events/objects observable to us.

Armin

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 20:30 GMT
Armin

As I've come to expect this was an excellently written and argued essay, covering some very important issues. I agree with most of your proposals, but do still cling on to the fundamental belief that nature IS logical and comprehensible to intelligent creatures, without 'divisions'. When we will become intelligent enough to comprehend it is the only question.

Also that our antropocentricity is also one of the main factors preventing this.

I hope you'll read and comment on and score my essay as I think I show, in a readable way if dense, that we do have indentifiable room for improvement in our kinetic thinking methods (and math) which may remove the mutual exclusivity of divisions of physics, but utilise it in inertial frames with a quantum mechanism.

Well done. and best of luck.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 18:12 GMT
Hi Peter,

Thank you for your comments. I must admit your comment "I agree with most of your proposals, but do still cling on to the fundamental belief that nature IS logical and comprehensible to intelligent creatures, without 'divisions'" puzzles me a little.

Surely you recognize that there are already 'divisions' in the domains of validity of any area of human endeavor, be they the arts, sciences, mathematics etc.? The 'division' I propose is modeled after one that is already an integral feature of Euclidean Geometry, so I'm not sure why you find that it should be avoided. But it doesn't matter because my framework makes a definite prediction: If we fail to find superposed gravity fields for objects in a quantum superposition, as predicted, we have no choice but to go with a 'division'. I see no other way to save the internal consistency of our description of nature under that circumstance.

Thanks again,

Armin

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 19:46 GMT
Armin

I do indeed recognise the divisions between domains, but suggest most may be imposed by humans because we do not understand nature. For instance I don't accept in principle the division we have evolved between 'science' and 'the arts' but find so much overlap as to suggest a graded continuum, a little like a GRIN lens refracts light progressively due to graded particle density.

I would not postulate this if I had not already tested it to the extreme and found much consistency. I hope you might read my own essay to gain an understanding of how nature may in fact be consistently unified, and comment. Despite falsifiability I crave falsification as I've failed to do so.

Mine is not as well written and argued as yours, as I have to present a number of elements and use a logical foundations to construct a complex ontological structure that unifies whole tracts of apparently contradictory findings. In other words, suggests it is our assumptions and interpretations that were wrong and divided, not nature.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 17:11 GMT
Dear Peter,

When you say that you have tested the idea that there are no clear distinctions between areas of human activity, I take it that you have thought about several concrete examples that serve as an epitome of such division and then come up with specific counterarguments to refute that view.

To help me understand your perspective better, it would be helpful if you could give one or two examples in which the division seems especially obvious and in which you have found that this was ultimately due to lack of sufficiently deep understanding or other factors.

Let me give one example that at least in my mind clearly divides the sciences and the arts, and you can provide a counterargument if you are so inclined.

In my view, the correspondence principle as the general idea that subsequent frameworks or theories in science need to subsume the domains of previous theories in addition to providing explanations for new ill-understood phenomena marks as a division between the arts and the sciences. I see no comparable compulsory requirement for an analog to the correspondence principle in the arts. Incidentally, should you be interested, several years ago I wrote a paper in which this was a key point, so if you like a greater elaboration of this argument, you can find the paper here:

http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/79042

All the best,

Armin

Colin Walker wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 02:07 GMT
Hi Armin,

On turning to page 3 to finish the quote from Wald on quantum gravity I was taken by the simplicity of his proposition, a state of matter that could exist with 50 percent probablility in two regions, and its relevance to a problem I have been considering relating to potential energy we discussed last year. After that I was a captive audience, and was not disappointed to ultimately find an explanation for the difficulties Wald perceived.

Briefly, I consider that two bodies reduce each other's potential energy so that the amount of potential energy involved is twice the binding energy. This can be solved using the principle put forward in my essay. But then there would be unaccounted energy equal to the binding energy. If the potential energy involved was in a state similar to Wald's example, that difficulty would be removed. The idea of mutual effect naturally suggests Mach's principle.

I also enjoyed your video presentation. I found the short time spent very worthwhile.

I am motivated to re-reread your dimensional theory and try to get a grasp on the details of the phase term, and the actualization condition.

Your essay is a gentle readable introduction to a revolutionary idea which questions foundational assumptions in a fundamental way.

Colin

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 18:18 GMT
Dear Colin,

Thank you for so much for your comments. I have the impression that you have obtained a good idea about what my theory, given that you read the original paper, my essay paper and watched the talk. I find it very gratifying that someone has understood the main points of my idea. I don't nearly care as much about whether one agrees or disagrees with my ideas(though in the latter case I would care to know the reasons for disagreement) as I do about just being understood.

thank you, Colin, and if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 23:15 GMT
Hi Armin,

I really struggled through your essay. You never gave me time to pause and think. A paragraph is a good point to pause and your page long paragraphs make heavy reading, I hope others are not put off because of this.

I fully agree with you; who ever thinks that by unifying two possible incomplete and/or faulty theories to arrive at a theory of everything is grossly mistaken. I rest my statement, by just one example, on the fact that we have no idea of the workings of an accretion disk and it's observed jets in terms of accepted mainstream theory.  However,  once we have correct theories in place our little corner should be able to explain the diversity of the universe with just one base theory.

Regards and good luck

Anton @ (  .../topic/1458  )

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 18:25 GMT
Hi Anton,

thank you for your useful criticism. The problem you point out may be partly due to the font style and the fact that some paragraphs just happened to end at the end of the line. Neverteless, it is important for me to take into account just how easily my papers can be read and I thank you for sharing your perspective.

My knowledge of accretion disks is too little to be able to usefully comment on your second paragraph.

thanks once more,

Armin

Jerzy Krol wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 08:37 GMT
Dear Armin,

it's a pleasure to read your essay, though it is not very easy task (for me). Very well argued and with conviencing historical perspective. I have, however, some thoughts coming to mind during the reading: one can have different physical domains though, still, mathematics bridges them; otherwise, you refer to some kind of irrationality, but I do not think so. If mathematical description is possible, what would be the relation between 'instantonuous' pictures (labeled by the additional dimension) and the superposed (non-actual) entity. Should it be understood as the relation between eigenvalues and the self-adjoint operator with these eigenvalues? Otherwise, we lose quantumness, and are left with just 'set of pictures'. There are also some other things which are interesting to me, but maybe later.

Again, congratulation for your work, and best wishes,

Jerzy

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 18:51 GMT
Hi Jerzy,

Thank you for your feedback. Would you care to elaborate why you did not find it a very easy task to read my essay? Was this also because of overly long paragraphs? Having seen some of your work I suspect that instead it may be that my paper is not nearly as mathematical and precise in the expression of some of the core concepts as one would expect of a mathematical paper. But I'm...

view entire post

Jerzy Krol replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 13:56 GMT
Hi Armin,

Thanks a lot for your explanations. The difficulty which I met reading your essay was on my side - your essay is certainly perfectly written. Only in some cases when I tried to digg details more carefully the length of sentences was an obstraction to me. Simply, I am not good enough in English.

Regarding superposition etc. I think I understand what you mean, mathematics is a little help here; but still the difference between just collection of pictures (call it superposition) organized in higher dimensional object, and the QM superposed object can be relevant. I mean that if it is not the case we could call any collection a superposition. Even we use a probability on instances it is not enough to have QM superposition. OK, you say that this is solved by considering the collection as merely potential and the instant picture as actual. Do you mean by this anything different than the relation between an operator and its eigenvalues? If not can we represent the potential collection by an self-adjoint operator and (somehow) the instances by its eigenvectors? If yes, does it reduce to the ordinary Hilbert space QM? I ask because I am realy interested in understanding of your work.

Good luck,

Jerzy

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 18:36 GMT
Dear Jerzy,

I want to give you a fuller response, but my work week starts today (I work midnights 7 nights on and 7 nights off while going to school) so a more elaborate version will have to wait until next week.

For now, let me just say that you are basically correct. The QM operator corresponds in my analogy to the operation "add an interval of length z" and the eigenvalue...

view entire post

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 14:57 GMT
Dear Armin, I reacted on your constructive and critical post on my thread. Thank you for your time and effort, for easy find I'll give you the the link

I am still awaiting your answers of my post of 25 august, but take your time I saw on the net that you are very busy with video's and so on, sorry but here in the country of France I have only very slow internet so that viewing a video is not a pleasant thing.

best regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 18:53 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,

Take care,

Armin

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 08:39 GMT
Hi I went back to your post and saw that it contained some questions I did not see. Ok, here is my best attempt to answer your questions:

You said: "When I read your DFR concept, it again brought me to essentials like "a square has only one side" or is two sides ? for a flatlander it has only one side , and a moebiusring does not exist in his 2 dimensional universe. On page 5 you are...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 19:34 GMT
Armin, you rock! Loved your Borodin. Have you heard of his the Little Suite? The first piece, "In a monastery" is sheer magic. Very Russian. If you find it online, please let me know. I've never heard it performed and am curious about other interpretations.

I found your essay very interesting. Funny that you too reference Flatland. (me too, here, which makes 4 of us so far. The other essay is very good too. Check it out. I forget now who the 4th person is...)

Re your essay: "It is created by the fact that the Euclidean plane was not assigned a z-coordinate and hence the representation of the square in 3-space requires the inclusion of all z-coordinates."

from where does it "require"?

Re: "What hubris to think that the description of nature in all its richness would be exhausted just by unifying a few types of interactions in our small corner and calling this a theory of everything'."

that was very good.

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 11:06 GMT
Mi M.V.,

Thank you for the critique and for listening. I had planned to upload more music but reading all these essays has caused me to fall behind.

Yes, I had heard some of its pieces but not "In a monastery". I did find the link below:

http://youtu.be/ix1t4AsQXdo

I find Borodin's music has a very unique quality which I like a lot. Very few composers have such a...

view entire post

M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 16:47 GMT
Thanks for the Borodin link on youtube. She needs to up the tempo and add some passion to it. Also, her.. forgot what they are called in English... are too stubby. I am afraid this was not a good intro to this magical piece. I loved your sunny variations though. They kept playing in my head for a few days.

Thank you for answering my question and good luck to you!

report post as inappropriate

Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 08:25 GMT
Dear Armin,

you yourself might think that there is no final theory of the universe, but your work as far as I know it is already moving in this direction. Take your paper: A Novel Way of Understanding Quantum Mechanics. In this paper you are attempting to clarify what Quantum Mechanics tells us about reality.

I have no doubt an deeper understanding of Quantum Mechanics is the key to a final theory. The physicst S. Weinberg f.e. is convinced that Quantum Mechanics is that part of today's physics, that survives unchanged in a final theory. I agree..

In your paper above-mentioned you are dealing with a simple pattern that is composed of a Square and of a Circle. And just this simple geometrical pattern is - as conceived by me - part of a space-time-picture, that allows us to understand Quantum Mechanics on a deeper level. My FQXI_2012-paper ---Is the Speed of Light c of Dual Nature?--- is implicitly talking about this space-time-picture. In my reply to your current comment I have sketched this space-time-picture in an explicit manner - at least in parts.

Kind Regards

Helmut

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 11:12 GMT
Dear Helmut,

Thank you for your comments. I agree too that quantum mechanics will survive, too unchanged, in the sense that its predictions won't be proven wrong. My framework, which I'm pleased to find out you are familiar with, introduces only an additional distinction that is not present in standard quantum theory. The distinction, however, has to my mind the effect of separating the boundaries of validity of quantum theory and general relativity, as I explain in my essay. If the schema I present in the appendix to my above paper has any merit, then you could call this the outline of a "final theory' but for the reasons I discuss in my essay and the appendix I take on a different perspective.

Incidentally, the square-circle example in my "understanding" paper was just a device to try to more easily get the concept across about how my framework explains entanglement. Originally I had instead a x and + pattern in mind, but found that it was too confusing to represent in 3 dimensions. I did read your paper and lef a comment.

Thanks again.

All the best,

Armin

Roger Granet wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 04:09 GMT
Armin,

Hi. Great essay! My comments are:

1. First off, you're an excellent writer!

2. Second off, your way of thinking where you describe what things might visually look like to observers from different perspectives, like from a two-dimensional or a three-dimensional perspective, is a very good way of thinking. Because the minds of mathematicians and physicists (and...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Roger replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 06:00 GMT
Armin,

Hi. One additional comment about representing a 2-DFR square that's not associated with a a z coordinate in 3-space as an infinitely long column is this:

Actually, I'd say that a 2-DFR square that is not associated with a z coordinate in 3-space is not yet in 3-space. Only after it appears in 3-space does it seem to us "after the fact" that it could have been in any z-plane before it appeared. But, none of these z-planes existed for the 2-DFR square before it appeared. So, we're retroactively putting a continuous column of possible z-plane locations onto the 2-DFR square even though none of these z-planes existed for the square before it appeared. I think this relates to quantum weirdness. For instance, with the cat in Schroedinger's Box, it's assumed that before the box is opened, the cat exists in all possible states. But, I'd say that the cat doesn't exist in the box at all. Once we open the box, this is equivalent to actualizing the cat (causing it to come into existence), and then we go back "after the fact" and say the cat could have been in any possible state. But, none of those states even existed until after we opened the box.

I've been kind of thinking about this in regards to my ideas on the question of "why is there something rather than nothing?". As the fundamental units of spatial existence are created, these units are also creating spatial locations/positions. There was no space and no locations until after they were created. But, then we go back after the fact and say, well those fundamental units could have been created in any location, not realizing that there were no locations until after they were created. My thinking on this questions is at:

/why-things-exist-something-nothing

Thanks! Once again, excellent essay. I think our thinking is along the same lines and, unfortunately, outside the mainstream.

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 18:46 GMT
Dear Roger,

You said:"Actually, I'd say that a 2-DFR square that is not associated with a z coordinate in 3-space is not yet in 3-space. Only after it appears in 3-space does it seem to us "after the fact" that it could have been in any z-plane before it appeared. But, none of these z-planes existed for the 2-DFR square before it appeared. So, we're retroactively putting a continuous column of possible z-plane locations onto the 2-DFR square even though none of these z-planes existed for the square before it appeared. "

Yes, I think this is basically equivalent to the idea I was proposing that should be applied to QM.

You said: "I think this relates to quantum weirdness. For instance, with the cat in Schroedinger's Box, it's assumed that before the box is opened, the cat exists in all possible states. But, I'd say that the cat doesn't exist in the box at all. Once we open the box, this is equivalent to actualizing the cat (causing it to come into existence), and then we go back "after the fact" and say the cat could have been in any possible state. But, none of those states even existed until after we opened the box."

If you are using the cat example metaphorically, then I agree with you. I think that QM is basically a theory of objects in areatime observed by spacetime observers before such objects have emerged in spacetime, and I believe that macroscopic objects like cats are far beyond the limit where the emergence occurs, so I do not think that QM literally applies to the cat example.

I will take a look at the paper you mention in the near future.

All the best,

Armin

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 14:24 GMT
Armin

I cook metatheory of nature on last essay contest

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

On the base this essay i cook my wrong assumption food

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

report post as inappropriate

Stefan Weckbach wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 03:20 GMT
Dear Armin,

i have now begun to read your essay, but i am yet not fully through the text, because at the moment i have very less time and i had to finish some other comments and experimental descriptions.

As soon as possible, i will post again. But for now, our writing style is excellent, combined with deep specialist knowledge.

Greetings,

Stefan

report post as inappropriate

Stefan Weckbach wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 17:36 GMT
Dear Armin,

i am now half through your essay, but already at this point i am exited about what i read in your essay. Many authors claim "read my essay, your lines of thoughts are somewhat similar to mine". But your promised similarities are such interesting, i will also watch your video on youtube and afterwards give you a detailed feedback!

Best wishes,

Stefan

report post as inappropriate

Stefan Weckbach wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 18:14 GMT
Dear Armin,

There are several point in your essay which are interesting:

First, it is assumed that the speed of light limit can only be attached to the light...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 11:21 GMT
Dear Stefan,

Thank you so much for your detailed feedback and kind comments. I actually think that most of my ideas are rather very simple, certainly much simpler than many of the sophisticated presentations I have seen here. In part, this may be due to an inherent bias in my worldview, according to which nature at the most fundamental level is simple. While this may or may not be true, it guides how I think about fundamental problems.

There is a specific comment of yours on which I'd like to give feedback. You said: "First, it is assumed that the speed of light limit can only be attached to the light in our 3D-spacetime."

Although I did not directly talk about the speed of light as a limit in this paper, I did say something very similar in the discussion section of my entry to the first FQXi contest. If you are interested, you can have a look, it is topic 329. I also hope to soon post a series of youtube videos in which I present some of my ideas in a more conversational way, beginning with the speed of light invariance.

Again, thank you very much and I also wish you all the best,

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 15:43 GMT
Dear Armin,

I have some addition to the idea of separation of quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR).QM uses wave function, summing of probability of events, quantization of physical values and so on. QM studies amount of similar atomic systems in order to find probability of events. GR can work with a single system and give right answer about it without any probabilities. The methods of both theories are different. On the other hand we can use quantum approach on the other levels of matter, for example, at the level of star. See my essay about the theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter and Similarity of matter levels. Also it is possible to use theory of gravitation in the atomic world. For it we must use Strong gravitational constant. From here I am not sure that QM and GR have mutually exclusive domains of validity.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 11:41 GMT
Dear Sergey,

All the best,

Armin

Peter Rowlands wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:37 GMT
Dear Armin

I am replying here to say thank you for your comments on my essay because there because, for some reason, there was no place to make a comment there. I will make my comments on your essay separately after I have had the opportunity to read it.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 21:36 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you for your remarks and I look forward to your comments (should you be inclined to make any), especially since you have a particularly broad perspective on the history and philosophy of physics.

Armin

Inger Stjernqvist wrote on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 18:39 GMT
Dear Armin!

You were kind enough to comment on my essay, and thereby lead me to your own - even though I would have found it anyway, because of its interesting title. I have now read and re-read your essay - and will have to read it at least once more before I - hopefully - will be able to come up with some concrete comments/questions. I have much to learn here - and it makes me happy! Just to mention one of my many underlingings and exclamation marks, when reading you ressay: You reasoning about actual and actualizable is fascinating, to say the least.

Au revoir!

Inger

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 21:43 GMT
Dear Inger,

Thank you for your kind remark, you are of course under no obligation to make any comments or ask any questions, just the fact that you read it twice is an indication that some of my ideas were found to be worthwhile and I find that is a reward in and of itself.

Thanks again and all the best,

Armin

James Lee Hoover wrote on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 19:32 GMT
Armin,

Doesn't superposition say that a net effect is equal to the sum of the individual effects. Common belief says that gravitational forces must be added vectorially to account for the total effects on an object. How does this figure in your concepts? Certainly gravity will have different properties if it can be cancelled as my essay asks.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 22:12 GMT
Dear James,

Well, in the generality you stated it the superposition principle could already be applied to the classical physics, such as Maxwell's or Newton's theories. In fact, your second sentence indicates to me that this is what you had in mind.

What makes quantum superposition quite distinct is the fact that a state of a system is a linear superposition of 'measurement outcome states', and this something you just don't find in any classical theory.

There is a quantum mechanical version of 'Force' which you can either derive in terms of a change in the expectation value of a system's momentum over time using Ehrenfest's theorem, or (in certain cases only) as as the change in the expectation value of the Hamiltonian of which the wave function is an eigenfunction with respect to a coordinate using the Feynman-Hellman theorem but these are nothing like classical forces because they do not refer to definite objects.

I don't dispute the validity of either General Relativity or Quantum Theory, which actually makes my stance the most conservative one could take. The entire point of my essay was to show that if we realize that quantum theory and general relativity are fundamentally about different objects, then the seeming contradiction between them vanishes.

All the best,

Armin

Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 19:09 GMT
Dear Armin Nikkhah Shirazi,

I completely agree with your statement of that a theory of everything is a myth. Precisely, I started my essay with a short historical introduction on how physicists, from Laplace to Witten, have claimed that they were close to obtain a theory of everything, but Nature has shown how wrong they were!

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 18:01 GMT
Dear Juan,

I agree with several of the eight points you made, and indeed some of them are quite close to the arguments discussed in my paper.

In particular, the idea that spacetime is not fundamental (or "special" as I like to say) would seem to be an unavoidable...

view entire post

Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 16:17 GMT
Dear Armin,

Thank you for emphasizing the analogies on our arguments. It is a good notice for science when two or more lines of reasoning converge at the same point. This increases the confidence of each one of them.

Let me emphasize that my reasons against unitarity are general and apply as well in cases when proper time is not even defined.

There is not problem in defining...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Member Hector Zenil wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 05:46 GMT
Dear Armin,

I think you make a fair and sound case against the idea of a ToE (yet I don't think the idea of a ToE is as generally accepted as your essay may suggest). I wonder what is your position regarding information theory as a possible mean to reconnect areas of physics currently disconnected, perhaps even creating an overlapping dimension between quantum mechanics and general relativity as it is turning out to be the case with some proposals of quantum gravity (specially around ideas related to black holes).

Also, you make a fair historical account of previous unifications, but I wonder (and you don't seem to mention) whether back then they thought that these then unrelated areas had no overlapping whatsoever. I guess it was this was the case, but as someone interested in philosophy (and perhaps history) you could tell us something about it. If history tells us that it has always been the case that such connections were completely unforeseeable and that we have basically connected most theories of different natural phenomena, from the historical point of view it seems that thinking of a ToE is justifiable, to say the least.

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 19:01 GMT
Dear Hector,

Thank you for raising some extremely interesting questions. I would love to discuss them without the restraints of space and time, but this is not always possible, so I will attempt to give reasonably concise answers.

1. Re: Information theory. Given that I don't have much knowledge in this area, I am agnostic on your specific question, mainly because I don't trust...

view entire post

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 15:05 GMT
Dear Armin Nikkhah Shirazi

Did we form the word "myth"?

Unfortunately, I have to oppose you.

Hopefully not so that you ignore essay and my new theory.

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

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

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 16:50 GMT
Armin

Can you advise if I'm a scientist or artist? Astronomy perhaps is clear, but an Architect? and a racing yachtsman? In the former I am creating a sculpture which people view internally as well as externally, must sit harmoneously in it's context, and give confidence but also delight and inspire. Yet it is made of precisely specified materials, I must design or consider structure, heating, cooling, ventilation, natural and artificial lighting, renewables, sound etc. etc, which is all science. I see no distinction in my work as each is intermingled with the other.

Similarly with sailing. It's an art intuitively steering a boat though changing waves and wind to maximise speed, but at the same time I'd dealing with aero and hydrodynamics, mast and sail shape and multiple instrument inputs. I can 'feel' the water over the rudder and know in advance of any flow separation. The superposed surface waves also appear random, but always have a hidden pattern allowing a good helmsman to anticipate and 'set up' each impact, or use each wave face downwind. Fourier transforms on the fly!

I also part designed my current boat, she is both beautiful and very efficient. How can I draw a line anywhere there between art and science. I can only 'impose' a division to suit words we have invented. What is it I'm missing? Can you identify which of natures own natural divisions match ours?

Having said that, I still agree entirely with the rest of your thesis as referred above. I can never truly anticipate the '7th wave' a priori from topology due to the massive complexity. Your essay should be higher and my score should help. I hope you're able to read and comment on mine.

Best of luck

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 19:34 GMT
Ah, I think I better understand your perspective. It seems to me that you are saying that if a practitioner of the arts and/or the sciences can see aspects in his practice that appear to fall equally well into either domain, then this is a reflection of the inherent unity between those subjects.

From this point of view, the issue becomes a bit tricky, because a lot depends on how you define 'the arts' or 'the sciences'. Let me state my belief that it is always possible to find a definition for either field that is broad enough that you will always find examples that validate your point of view. So in this sense, we agree.

The danger I see, however, is that if a field is defined overly broadly, the definition becomes less meaningful, and in the most extreme situations it could become meaningless.

If I, say, mix some kool aid in water, am I doing physics? Well, again, I believe you can always find a definition in support of affirming this question. After all, in order to achieve the desired result, I might have to precisely weigh a quantity of powder and/or measure out a precise quantity of liquid. Perhaps to achieve the right kind of temperature I could also calculate how much ice to add using the specific heat capacity of ice and water. I might try to be careful not to add too much energy to the system via mixing (after all, this was basically the method Joule used to estimate the mechanical equivalent of heat) and so on.

The point is, yes, you can defend this point of view, but it just seems a lot more reasonable to me to say that I am not doing physics, I'm just mixing some kool aid. If I did consider this as doing physics, then, yes of course, by the same reasoning, everything becomes everything.

This is certainly a very unified point of view, but does it really add any deeper understanding?

Armin

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 18:09 GMT
Armin

Thanks. I agree deeper understanding is the thing, which is where I came in stage left with my own essay. There I did not find unity added to deeper understanding, but found the deeper understanding led to unity of the quanta and classical. I suppose that is symmetrical?

I can't recall if you've read it but please do if you haven't. Do you know how the harmonic synchronisation of the iambic pentameter works?

Very best of luck.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Inger Stjernqvist wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 15:02 GMT
Dear Armin,

In your Appendix you write "For instance, of two 3-D objects of same shape but different size, the smaller one has more units of area per unit of volume than the larger one, which can be interpreted as the smaller object being more 2-dimensional than the larger one..."

Does this mean that the smaller object is less acrual than the larger one, in a 3-dimensional frame of reference? This is how I intepret your schema.

Analoguously, of two 2-D objects of same shape but different size, the smaller one has more units of length per unit of area than the larger one, which can be interpreted as the smaller object being more 1-dimensional than the larger one.

Does this mean that the smaller object is less actural than the larger one in Flatland - and even less actual in a 3-dimensional frame of reference? Would this be the reason behind quark confinement?

In your schema, you place dark energy in the fourth dimension of observed event (box 4.3). How would we, in our 3-dimensional frame of reference, experience a 4-dimensional phenomenon? I have read somewhere - but unfortunately forgot where - that we would experience its impact equally in all directions. The accelerating expansion of the Universe is equal in all directions. As is also the CBR.

Would placing the CBR in the same box as dark energy (4.3) facilitate an alternative to the Big Bang theory?

Best regards!

Inger

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 20:30 GMT
Dear Inger,

Thank you so much for your interest, and your investment of time and attention. I am certainly happy to attempt to answer your questions.

You said:

"Does this mean that the smaller object is less acrual than the larger one, in a 3-dimensional frame of reference? This is how I intepret your schema. "

I suspect you might have meant "actual" (at least that way...

view entire post

Inger Stjernqvist replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 13:25 GMT
Dear Armin,

I am most grateful for your long and detailed answer! Like I said, I'm here to learn. The possibility to read interesting essays and be a part of this community was the major reason for me to enter my own (amateurish) essay into the contest. I very much look forward to follow your future publications. Will I find them where I found your lecture in Vaxjo?

My very best wishes!

Inger

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 09:27 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

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:11 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

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 16:28 GMT
Hi Sergey,

I think the whole notion of authors being able to vote on each others' essays is problematic because of the inherent conflict of interest and because of the possibility of "gaming the system". If it absolutely has to be that way, then in my view it should be so that one knows nothing about where someone's essay ranks until the voting period is over, that way people can vote largely based on the merits of the essay, and not extraneous considerations like trying to advance or demote the ranking of a particular essay.

I had not so long ago suggested to Max Tegmark that the voting procedure in these essay contests should be abandoned, but I guess the folks at FQXi see greater value in keeping it, most likely because of the engagement factor.

Armin

Georgina Woodward wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 10:28 GMT
Dear Armin Nikkhah Shirazi,

sorry it has taken so long for me to get to your essay. I have not spent as long with it as I would like but have found it well explained and interesting to me.

There is some overlap in our thinking.A 2 dimensional pre space-time 'thing that might be actualised' particularly struck my attention.

QM and relativity are IMHO related to different facets of reality. Potential sensory data within the unobserved pre-space-time that I call Object reality, and the fabricated space-time output of sensory data processing. Decoherence (or wave function collapse) being the transition from considering one facet to considering the other.

Good luck, Kind regards Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 16:34 GMT
Dear Georgina,

No problem, thank you for taking the time to read it.

I agree that, broadly speaking, "QM and relativity are ...related to different facets of reality." and indeed that was the central point of my essay, for if this is truly the case, we cannot have the kind of unified theory of nature that is almost universally assumed to exist.

While I agree that wave function collapse brings about the transition from one domain of nature to the other, I see this less so with Decoherence, because under decoherence you still have superposition even though it is less apparent. This is not to say that decoherence is not important, I believe it is, I just do not see it as the solution for understanding how a classical world arises from an underlying quantum reality.

Armin

Member Gheorghe-Sorin Sorin Paraoanu wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 20:16 GMT
Hi Armin,

I really enjoyed realding your essay. Very clearly written and very catchy!

I was a bit surprised that you discuss the conceptual tension between quantum superpositions and gravitation without mentioning the theoretical ideas of Penrose and Diosi (gravitationally-induced decoherence) and also without mentioning the experimental efforts in this diection (for example at Leiden).

But maybe it's better that you are not aware of all these ... it has allow you to make some interesting arguments (e.g. about the non-identity of the concept of mass in QM and GR) in some undexpected directions - for me at least.

Best of luck in the competition!

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 17:04 GMT
Dear Gheorghe,

Thank you so much for your positive comments. It turns out when I first discussed my ideas in depth with some of my professors early last year, two of them did note some similarity with Penrose's idea. I subsequently attempted to contact him to see what he, as the originator his framework, thought, but unfortunately never got a reply back.

I think that there are some similarities, but there is a major difference which makes the two frameworks really different, and actually incompatible with each other. The best I can tell, Penrose's framework still (at least implicitly) assumes that the concepts of mass in the two theories is the same, but that is, as you know the key distinction of my framework.

It did not occur to me that it would be relevant to mention Penrose' idea, but now that you have mentioned it, perhaps I should have.

As for the Leiden Experiments, I am in fact unaware of what you are referring to. A quick google search revealed the name of Dirk Brouwmeester, and a plan for an experiment using a mirror in a superposition, but I could not find an actual experiment. I would be very grateful if you could clarify what you were referring to.

Thank you again,

Armin

Edward J. Gillis wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 11:45 GMT
Armin,

Congratulations on your good showing in the contest. I am sorry that I did not have time to more thoroughly evaluate and discuss your essay. Perhaps, we can communicate by e-mail when things are less hectic. Good Luck.

Ed

report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 17:09 GMT
Thank you Ed,

It looks like it was not enough to make it to the top 35, but at least I had an opportunity to introduce some of my ideas to a broader audience than I could have otherwise.

I would be really interested in an exchange as you propose as I think that you are a thoughtful person who is technically very knowledgeable in this area. Given that I go to school and work full-time I suffer some similar constraints as you do with respect to time, but it would be great if we could pursue such an exchange of minds.

Best Wishes,

Armin

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 11:39 GMT
Dear Armin