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 10/4/12 at 5:59am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/2/12 at 9:07am UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

Michael Abramowitz: on 10/1/12 at 10:41am UTC, wrote Dear Ben, Your comments have expanded my horizons somewhat. Donatolle...

Benjamin Dribus: on 9/29/12 at 18:06pm UTC, wrote Dear Michael, I just finished reading your essay. All three of your...

Michael Abramowitz: on 9/25/12 at 11:34am UTC, wrote Dear Hector, I do not have the capability to contribute to the...

Hector Zenil: on 9/25/12 at 6:48am UTC, wrote Dear Michael, Quite thought provoking in some regards. I liked the way you...

Michael Abramowitz: on 9/19/12 at 20:49pm UTC, wrote Hello Hai Caohoang, I suspect that you have mistakenly commented on the...

Hoang Hai: on 9/19/12 at 16:05pm UTC, wrote Dear Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us are convinced...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained 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: What If? by Michael Abramowitz [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Michael Abramowitz wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 12:39 GMT
Essay Abstract

Three short speculations are presented, questioning some fundamental assumptions of our enquiry of physics in relation to our attitudes to the physical world. They suggest that our attitudes affect our experience and understanding of reality.

Author Bio

I am a lay person fortunate to have had an elementary education in physics in my youth. I earned my living as a computer programmer. Now retired, I have the leisure to pursue the questions that have always interested me.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Frank Maknson wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 17:48 GMT
Michael,

You are the first person I know of that has presented the issue of an "unfinished wave".

"What if electromagnetic waves that have not been in process for long enough to express a full (or quarter) wavelength, that are therefore not capable of quantising in interaction and therefore cannot be perceived, but are nonetheless capable of gravitational interaction (assuming gravity to be a wave rather than a quantum interaction), contribute to the enigma of dark matter?"

It really doesn't make any difference in regards to propagation, as the partial structure of the field that consists of a wave is already propagating irrespective to the remainder of the field.

I just wish physicists could get it into their heads that there has to be a radiating structure to produce a propagating field in the first place. Consider the 1420.5 MHz emission that produces the 21 cm wavelength. It takes a finite time period to produce that wavelength and the radiating structure is employed for the time period it takes to produce the full 21 cm wavelength. That wavelength is humongous relative to the size of the neutral hydrogen atom.

The IEEE paper I cite in my essay, topic 1294, has a mathematical construct that results in time being a function of the presence of energy. Space has no need for time, even 1/t, if there is no energy present.

Please read topic 1419 and the comments.

"If dark matter has been created because current theory cannot account for the spiral galaxy form, it presents a good reason why this essay contest is needed, to expose the existence of assumptions that have spawned other assumptions."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Abramowitz replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 05:33 GMT
Frank

Thank you for your comments.

I found your essay interesting. We pay for the sins of the forefathers in many ways (though we also enjoy the fruits of their labours). I myself am fascinated by what it is that makes things stick around (and why it can be so difficult to get rid of them) in what seems to be such a highly volatile universe. I suspect that the problem you are highlighting is bigger than we think.

I have not yet read topic 1419. I hope to soon.

Mike

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 19:24 GMT
Michael

All 3 very pertinent for a lay author I think. I also agree with Frank.

In particular;

1. A distribution-frequency interaction between events is a direct interference of their periodicities. (See my essay).

2. I like to imagine that we view reality from a spiral staircase rather than from a ladder of scale. (eerily consistent with my recycling spiral universe!)

3. To an observer (or other quantising phenomenon), these waves appear suddenly when they achieve full wavelengths, as if there had been no build-up.

But here I don't entirely agree as I believe the quantization is on re-emission by charged particle, as the Planck loading theory. (also Regaza here).

Again I hope you manage to wade through my quite dense essay, but with some theatre to lighten it up.

Very well done. Short but very sweet and to the points.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Abramowitz replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 05:09 GMT
Peter,

Thank you for your comments. I tried your essay but it is beyond my capabilities. I was tickled by your theatre management though.

Mike

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 20:47 GMT
Mike

I'm glad you enjoyed the show. To put my essay another way; Take a pint of beer. A light pulse goes through it at a fixed speed c/n (say ~130,000 miles/sec) wrt the glass/beer system, whether it's on a train a spaceship, at rest, or sliding past you down the bar. I'm sure can cope with the beer yes?

I say; as the beer slides past you at at v, you'll see apparent c+v of the pulse passing through the beer. yet of course no light breaches c anywhere. (the light from the pulse to you does c/n of course).

SR says something different. It say's No. The glass shrinks "to prevent the pulse going faster than c".

Now I'm sure you know how glass works, but maybe drink the beer just in case before it shrinks! Or maybe you shouldn't worry, What do you think?

Do let me know, as I'm confused which bit of light would do more than c, even in a vacuum flask! But I hope you may score my essay well for the theatre in any case.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 22:18 GMT
Peter

My limited understanding of relativity tells me that the beer shrinks but time slows down, so I don't need to feel short changed on my enjoyment. Its the light pulse inside thats tricky, though I can't see myself measuring it to have a speed greater than c no matter how vast the beer is going.

Mike

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 15:31 GMT
Dear Mike Abramowitz,

As a fellow retired layman, I have to congratulate you for not only writing one of the more interesting essays in the competition, but also for the evident care you took to express your ideas with such pinpoint clarity. In my essay Sequence Consequence, I mention the importance of triadic postulations in general and specifically. Hegel found three conditions for thought. Freud found three conditions for human mental motivation. Aquinas found three conditions for God. You adroitly posited three rational speculations for possible flawed assumptions one might acquire about physics. I do hope your essay wins one of the prizes it so richly deserves.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Abramowitz replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 05:19 GMT
Joe

I found your essay equally daring. I think we share a liking for the philosophical underpinnings of physics. May I suggest that you put your cannon down and look for a context in which our confections that are not here and now may have some legitimacy? Especially since they are so very useful in practice.

Mike

Bookmark and Share



ABRAHAM wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 01:04 GMT
Hi Michael,

I like your point on the 'sudden' appearance of full wavelengths in Physics from the mechanics of the quantum realm.

And I'd like to offer you an explanation based on my work Tetryonics - the Charged geometry of EM mass-ENERGY-Matter.

If you take all energy to have equilateral EM geometries then Bosons are ODD numbered traverse [1/2 wavelength] wavelets that combine in pairs to create EVEN number [FULL wavelength] Photons through the process we call EM induction.

This then easily accounts for the 'magical' appearance of full wavelengths from the quantised energy of QM.

Re: SR and the contraction of Matter - this is a classic case of using Math without Models - the proper, and rigid, definition and distinction between EM masses and Matter is of all importance to resolving this misconception once and for all from modern physics.

EM mass are 2D planar Electromagnetic Energy densities [E/c^2] while

Matter is 3D tetrahedral Energy geometries [E/c^4]

Bosons & Photons are comprised of 2D planar energies and should be re-termed Matter-less as they have NO volume [but they do have energy and therefore mass]

It can then be demonstrated that Lorentz contractions [SR] due to Matter in motion only applies to the resulting KINETIC mass-Energy fields [ie the mass & wavelengths of Matter in motion is velocity invariant but the same is not true of their associated kinetic energies]

This is of major importance to physics and is covered fully in my QED eBook [I have attached a couple of illustrations I hope will help make this point clear]

attachments: Figure_22.12__Electromotive_exchange_particles_800x600.jpg, Figure_40.02__Lorentz_Contraction_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 15:25 GMT
Dear Michael,

In special relativity is 4-vector of position
, where index i = 0,1,2,3 for 4 components of 4-vector, c is the speed of light, t is time, 3-vecror
is a radius-vector of coordinate system, which has 3 components in the form of spatial coordinates:
. From here
,
, and so on. On the other hand there is another 4-vector of wave:
, where
is angular frequency,
is wave 3-vector. Both 4-vectors are Lorentz invariant. Your idea is to use a quantity
. First of all this 4-vector is similar to 4-vector of wave
, where 1/(ct) is changed by
, and 1/r is changed by K. So instead of
may be used the 4-vector
. Then the motion of a particle in space is the motion of soliton or wave packet. The wavelengths of waves in the packet may be proportional to the size of particle. For the second the quantity
is not an usual 4-vector since it is not a Lorentz invariant. But we can use additional Lorentz transformations. In the case of motion along axis OX only we have:
,
. With such additional Lorentz transformations the quantity
is a 4-vector and may be used.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Abramowitz replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 22:18 GMT
Sergey,

My understanding of what you are saying is that representation of position in a distribution-frequency as a 4-vector is similar to the 4-vector of a wave, and that Lorentz transformations can be used to make it Lorentz invariant and thereby justify its proposal.

In which case you have done me a great service for I myself am not equipped to make such an argument. Thank you.

Mike

Bookmark and Share


Author Michael Abramowitz replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 22:19 GMT
Sergey,

PS I will read your essay shortly.

Mike

Bookmark and Share



Tad Bniecki wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 07:09 GMT
Hi Mike,

You are a creative thinker and have put forward interesting ideas.

I have two questions for you. Could you give a worked example of how the idea of distribution-frequency rather than space-time shows something that the standard view does not?

Could you explain, "A distribution-frequency observation of events is a direct interaction between the events and the observer while a space-time observation of events is a mediated interaction between events and a separated observer."

Best regards

Tad

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Abramowitz replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 21:57 GMT
Hi Tad,

Thanks for the compliment.

No I can’t give a worked example of how the idea of distribution-frequency rather than space-time shows something that the standard view does not. The distribution-frequency view is quite alien to us and it is difficult for me to comprehend it extensively. The standard view has developed an arsenal of tools for describing and manipulating...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 16:05 GMT
Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Abramowitz replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 20:49 GMT
Hello Hai Caohoang,

I suspect that you have mistakenly commented on the wrong essay.

But I agre with your sentiments and will look at your essay shortly.

Mike

Bookmark and Share



Member Hector Zenil wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 06:48 GMT
Dear Michael,

Quite thought provoking in some regards. I liked the way you distributed your items into "Whatif" sections, quite clever. I cannot make much sense of some of the ideas, which I think is rather good, because usually I am quite good at finding when there are obvious logical flaws, but you actually make rather good and challenging suggestions.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Abramowitz replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 11:34 GMT
Dear Hector,

I do not have the capability to contribute to the conversation of physics directly, but I have an active imagination and a rough grasp of the subject, hopefully enough to provoke interest in some lesser explored directions.

Thanks for your appreciation.

Mike

Bookmark and Share



Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 18:06 GMT
Dear Michael,

I just finished reading your essay. All three of your “what if’s” are worth taking seriously, and I have read about a number of similar ideas that have already found their way into important existing work. A few thoughts come to mind:

1. As I’m sure you know, a vast amount of work has been done on the subject of “frequency analysis” in physics, signal...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Abramowitz replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 10:41 GMT
Dear Ben,

Your comments have expanded my horizons somewhat.

Donatolle Dolce's essay adds flesh to the distribution-frequency idea in a very exciting manner.

Thank you for looking at my relational behaviour essay. It does indeed address many of the same issues as your causal metric hypothesis, though in a simpler, indirect way. And I hadn't realised the intimate connection...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 09:07 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 @ 05:59 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


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.