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

MM: on 10/10/12 at 16:56pm UTC, wrote I have uploaded a more complete description of the NOE Hypothesis and the...

MM: on 10/4/12 at 16:17pm UTC, wrote Thank you for your comment. It is a numbers game but I also noticed early ...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 6:03am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

MM: on 9/20/12 at 17:08pm UTC, wrote Thank you for your post. I am sorry for not responding sooner but the...

Hoang Hai: on 9/19/12 at 13:42pm UTC, wrote Dear Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us are convinced...

MM: on 9/4/12 at 20:37pm UTC, wrote The original writings started with the Secret Doctrine in 1888 with the...

Anonymous: on 9/4/12 at 15:53pm UTC, wrote Since, as you state, this is a unification of General Relativity and...

MM: on 9/3/12 at 14:23pm UTC, wrote When starting to write this essay we noted that the requirement was -...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "P.S. Clearly, a situation symbolically representable as: ..." in The Present State of...

Lorraine Ford: "So, in reply to the posts by Stefan Weckbach and Steve Dufourny above,..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "If considering existence rather than appearances, the time dimension..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Georgina Woodward: "That is about the 'anatomy"" of spacetime." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Steve Dufourny: "Hello Jim, yes indeed in a sense we have these motions and we have invented..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Jim Snowdon: "Hi Steve, Clearly we have motion in our Universe. It is not..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Georgina Woodward: "Thank you. Good luck." in The Nature of Time

Lorraine Ford: "Rob, As you have not replied, I take it that you now concede that the..." in 16th Marcel Grossmann...

RECENT ARTICLES

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.

The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools
Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

The Quantum Refrigerator
A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

FQXi FORUM
September 17, 2021

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The NOE Hypothesis and the Unification of General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and Consciousness by Madonna-Megara Holloway, Mark Garstin, and Gary Hildebrand [refresh]

Author Madonna-Megara Morgana-Helena Holloway wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 16:43 GMT
Essay Abstract

The NOE Hypothesis concepts are extracted from the combined work of Blavatsky, Bailey and Besant. The original paper, “A New Cosmological Model for Matter, Energy, Sound, the Origin of the Universe and Gravity” is intended as a bridging paper between esoteric philosophy fact and scientific hypothesis. The concepts have been translated into the language of physics and chemistry from the often abstruse language found in philosophy. This essay expands on the concepts and unifies General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness. String Theory is superseded by the Spirilla Hypothesis. Origins of the Universe, definitions for time and space, and Quantum Entanglement are discussed relative to life.

Author Bio

Madonna-Megara Holloway is a registered professional engineer with a degree in Chemical Engineering from Queens University, Canada. She is President and CEO for The PG7 a company aiming to develop a new clean energy source based on the NOE Hypothesis.

Mark A.B. Garstin, BIS (Neuroscience and Computer Science), Waterloo University, Canada; CTO for The PG7. Mark has worked on the NOE Hypothesis with MM since 1994.

Gary Hildebrand, BoE Stevens Institute; MSc Carnegie Mellon (Computer Science); Board of Advisors for The PG7. Gary has been a member of the board since 2010.

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 23:04 GMT

I am also supporter of cyclic immortal Universe.

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

report post as inappropriate

Ted Erikson wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 14:47 GMT

Interesting essay; Love the "cyclic"nature of things. It was unclear to me how you disposed of consciousness. I seek definition of emergentism and panpsychism in my essay by imagining simultaneous growth of a tetrahedron, as energy, with a sphere, as mass in space time.. End Notes contain specifics..

Point of essay (vote high!, thanks) is based on

(1) Light "energy" seeks surface area of mass that mediates charge motions while

(2) Gravity is a content of mass phenomena that seeks time to exist by growth.

To Seek Unknown Shores

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

Good luck,

report post as inappropriate
MM replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 15:45 GMT
Hi Ted - I see you have chemical engineering in your background - as do I.

I am not certain what you mean by 'disposed of consciousness'. The paper states: "Relative to a human, there are permanent atoms where all consciousness, all memory, all faculty is stored." This statement was taken directly from a Treatise on Cosmic Fire , 693 as follows:

"(b.) Hylozoistically considered. ...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 20:32 GMT
Very Well Written.

report post as inappropriate
MM replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 00:41 GMT
Thank you for your comments. The concepts in this essay have been over 30 years in the making. The essay itself several hundred man hours but it was important to get it right.

MM

report post as inappropriate

MM replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 14:23 GMT
When starting to write this essay we noted that the requirement was - Accessible to a diverse, well-educated but non-specialist audience, aiming in the range between the level of Scientific American and a review article in Science or Nature. To understand the target audience I went to a news stand to review the content. The standard for Scientific American was well known to me but not Science or Nature. The problem then became writing to such a wide range of readers from the keenly interested to the academic or scientist. The only solution was to layer the essay like an onion;

1. for the keenly interested the use of diagrams and figures to illustrate; it was important that when they finished reading they could say - I get it;

2. for the advanced knowledge reader the use of detailed end notes plus a bibliography to help tie the pieces together so that it is technically correct to the degree of a published work or grant proposal.

There is enough content that a book or doctoral thesis could be written based on the outline.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 20:36 GMT
I totally agree with you. Good reading

report post as inappropriate
MM replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 00:45 GMT
Thank you for your comments. The inclusion of consciousness greater than human is a subject that is hard to address in a science paper.

MM

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 20:41 GMT

Interesting thoughts. Thank you for the Essay

report post as inappropriate
MM replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 00:53 GMT
Thank you for your comments. Certainly a first read presents interesting thoughts but to really understand the ramifications of what is written one would need to set aside many hours and trace through all of the references and End Notes. Scientists will find the key to resolving unification of the various disparate theories when String Theory is superseded by the Spirilla Hypothesis and all that is entailed.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 23:51 GMT
Have you ever read the book Dimiter by WP Blatty? There are some aspects of his book that remind me of the things that you've addressed in your work over the past few decades. His book is a good read, in any case.

May I ask about which specific "physical assumption" that this essay aims to question/refute? The essay's conclusion (and some of these comments here) are not very clear to me, and I was hoping that you could explain what paradigm shift is meant to occur (other than "strings are to be superseded by spirilla")? My initial guess is that the essay is meant to counter the notion held by some that "a dead rock is a dead rock, and nothing more". Is this a close guess?

report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 23:52 GMT
(Regardless of your aim, my intention is not to question it. I just want to clarify it)

report post as inappropriate

MM replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 15:47 GMT

Questioning the Foundations: Which of Our Basic Physical assumptions are Wrong?

The assumption of the 3 dimensional nature of atoms. The essay redefines the hydrogen atom as 4 dimensional, on 7 planes, has a dinucleon (with the second nucleon being the Etheric double), and that hydrogen bonding is neutral electricity.

What exactly are the basic physical and mathematical postulates in our "fundamental" physical theories or candidate theories?

1. The postulates stated in Section 2 are added

2. The veracity of the Big Bang is challenged

3. String Theory is superseded by the Spirilla Hypothesis

4. The structure of the sun

5. The formation of planets

6. In the End Notes that gluons and bosons are imaginary particles; E=mc2 is only valid for the reflection of light as it counter rotates to the E2 plane rotation; and the Periodic Table of Elements needs to be pivoted

7. more

Foundational: This Contest is limited to works addressing, in one of its many facets, our understanding of the deep or "ultimate" nature of reality.

The entire essay is foundational and as I quoted above in another question: When we have attained to this conception of hylozoism of a living material universe, the mystery of nature will be solved.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 16:58 GMT
Ok, right on. Thank you for the clarification! I can tell that you spent a lot of time working on the model. I can tell that you've spent a lot of time and effort on putting this together, and you're definitely not trying to "beat people over the head" with the premise, so I gave you a fairly high rating.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 15:53 GMT
Since, as you state, this is a unification of General Relativity and Quantum Physics (plus human conscious), and that you've spent over 30 years working on this, why have you waited so long to publish? I would have thought that you would have put out more into the academic media by now as your work has progressed. One may get the feeling that you’ve been holding onto (holding back on?) this for a while.

report post as inappropriate
MM replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 20:37 GMT
The original writings started with the Secret Doctrine in 1888 with the rest of the works following. Blavatsky, Bailey and Besant have been mostly ignored and in some cases laughed at. There is a searing commentary by Yale on Besant however in their defence there is an error in Besants work which was corrected by Bailey but not accounted for Yales statements. The three pieces of work must be viewed as a single effort.

I did publish the first paper in 2010 in the American Institute of Physics.

I have been at this for +3 decades, my husband Mark for nearly 2 decades and between the two of us we developed the NOE Hypothesis which also included a new clean form of energy-the methodology taken right out of a Treatise on Cosmic Fire. We have a pending application with the US DOE ARPA-E which has been pending since June 2011. The issue is no ACADEMIC sponsor.

We waited because;

1. Over one hundred and twenty years of rejection and scorn of those before us;

2. The promise of clean energy can not motivate a government or corporations to review the hypothesis;

4. We do not have the finances to attend conferences and/or pay to publish.

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 13:42 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.

Regard !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

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

report post as inappropriate
MM replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 17:08 GMT
Thank you for your post. I am sorry for not responding sooner but the notice just came in yesterday. You have asked complex questions which have complex answers - too long for a post. I am currently writing an expanded version of the essay into a full paper - right now it is at 60 pages and even at this length it is missing much. I will post on Vixra and note the link in FQXi when done.

It should be noted that physicists are currently looking for the TOE however the problem that science has encountered is due to the fact that life and consciousness have been excluded in an attempt to unify the various theories. Science studies the effect and is searching for the cause leaving out the most fundamental parameter-life. The assumption being that life does not affect the observed phenomenon. Yet, the questions, What is Life? or What is Energy? or What is the process of Becoming and the nature of Being? remain unanswered.

The fuller description will unify Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity and Consciousness. The expanding universe, gravity, mass paradox, Higgs, bosons, gluons, SU(3), U(1) and SU(2) PLUS+++ have been addressed.

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:03 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

MM wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 16:17 GMT
Thank you for your comment. It is a numbers game but I also noticed early in the contest that some people would systemically go to EVERY essay and rate them as 1 to decrease the scores while at the same time just one essay would get a 10. There is more than one way of distorting the numbers. As for the NOE Hypothesis I see the issue as more about not understanding the implications of what is written because to truly understand it you need to study ALL of the end notes and references and people are not making the time to do this. I am preparing a full paper which I will post on Vixra.

report post as inappropriate

MM wrote on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 16:56 GMT
I have uploaded a more complete description of the NOE Hypothesis and the Unification of General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness to Vixra:

http://vixra.org/abs/1210.0046

report post as inappropriate