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

Constantin Leshan: on 11/1/12 at 12:01pm UTC, wrote Dear readers, Please feel free to evaluate my essay. Now I have found new...

Christian Corda: on 10/16/12 at 14:17pm UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Leshan, My peer-reviewed journals will accept papers from...

Constantin Leshan: on 10/16/12 at 12:32pm UTC, wrote Dear Christian Corda, Thanks for the positive comments. I hope that your...

Christian Corda: on 10/15/12 at 10:22am UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Leshan, Although (as usual) I substantially disagree with your...

Constantin Leshan: on 10/11/12 at 8:56am UTC, wrote In the past contest I have found flaws and errors in ~ 20 essays, including...

Anonymous: on 10/8/12 at 15:23pm UTC, wrote Your work is mentioned here ...

Constantin Leshan: on 10/8/12 at 9:58am UTC, wrote Dear Janko Kokosar, You wrote that: 'If you are right, my theories of...

Constantin Leshan: on 10/6/12 at 10:33am UTC, wrote Dear Sergey Fedosin, In my view, the majority vote is the main problem of...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "Isn't symmetry simply closely related to redundancy even if physicist may..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Robert Rise: "Meet many types of women on ihookup. Some dates better than others. It is..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Steve Dufourny: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read 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
October 24, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Flaws in EPR Paradox, Standard Model and Other Theories Indicate That Theoretical Physics Is Dead by Constantin Leshan [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Constantin Leshan wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 12:40 GMT
Essay Abstract

There are wrong physical assumption in EPR paradox and Standard Model. In general, the number of wrong physical assumptions is very large. Where experimentation cannot be done, in most cases Theoretical Physics fails in explaining any phenomena. Physics appear to be driven not by the power of human mind but instead by experiments and the unexpected; physicists believe that it is not possible to do physics without experiments. It is a strong indication that Theoretical Physics is dead, or at least not effective.

Author Bio

Born 1964, I am an independent researcher, living in Moldova; I studied nuclear physics in Kiev State University (1985 – 1990).

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



George wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 07:02 GMT
To Constantin

I welcome your work, which is based on the natural logic. Unfortunately, many of high-educated people ignored it as ,,something ugly and trivial,, for the ,,leading Science,,. They build huge artificial equations, the colliders, super-colliders, declaring that they going to open a ,,God Secrets,, in this way - without of elementary thought! It is their business, of course! The trouble is, those people has resolutely occupied a whole field, declaring herself ,,finite court,, by closing others mouths. The FOXi initiative seems as some window that maybe help of physics to return into natural way.

George K.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Constantin Leshan replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 11:36 GMT
Dear George,

Thank you very much for your comment. In my view, the dictatorship of Mainstream Theory slows progress down.

Sincerely,

Constantin Leshan

Bookmark and Share



George K. wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 07:10 GMT
you may find a confirmation ...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter CM Hahn wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 14:23 GMT
Constantin,

Very excellent assay!

I agree with you in that there is a serious crisis in mainstream physics and that the community has essentially become ineffective. I like your point regarding the standard model whereby it is continually adjusted to fit unexpected experimental data (I prefer using the word 'fudged'). Physicists these days are pure mathematicians who have not brought us any closer to understanding the underlying structure of reality or building an actual working physical model of reality.

QM and relativity have become a religion where institutions are dearly protected and outsiders are treated as heretics. I also strongly agree that the peer-review process kills "original, unique thinkers and produces instead only standard scientists" (perhaps the 'buddy-review' process would be a more appropriate term). I like the way you refer to the mainstream physicists as being the crackpots. But let's face it, it's the only way to get tenure, and it does create a lot of employment. An institute with a mission of attracting free, unique thinkers is the only way we would ever be able to develop a successful TOE. Thanks to the internet, organizations like FQXi.com, worldsci.org and viXra.org can give dissidents (and heretics) a place to speak up. But the question is, is anyone listening?

Maybe the subject for the next FQXi essay competition could be "How do you build a culture (or institute) that attracts free unique thinkers that are encouraged to question current dogma?" The first answer that comes to my mind is, get rid of the buddy-review process. It's a great process for doing medical research, but not theoretical physics!

By the way, at first glance, your Vacuum Holes theory appears to be very similar to foamy ether theory. I look forward to reading it in more detail.

I give you ten out of ten!

Cheers,

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Constantin Leshan replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 11:59 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thanks for your interest. Unfortunately, I work full time at a job that does not allow much time to participate in these discussions. Also, I know that I'll never obtain any prize because I'm an dissident.

You write 'I like the way you refer to the mainstream physicists as being the crackpots'.

I do not intend to hurt anybody. The word 'crackpots' appeared just because I used the citation from the Pigliucci's paper 'For every Galileo who eventually succeeded there were thousands of crackpots who did not'. Then I simply reasoned that these 'thousands of crackpots' today works as professional scientists. Perhaps I could use only the words "thousands of ***'. Also, note that my native language is not English.

Sincerely,

Constantin Leshan

Bookmark and Share



Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 15:01 GMT
Dear Constantin,

Having the same first name makes our very similar views on modern physics even more a pleasant and uncanny coincidence! Please read my essay, “The Metaphysics of Physics”, for a direct confirmation of this empirical fact!

As intellectual allies we support our views better. Don't you think?

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Constantin Leshan wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 12:33 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

Thank you for support. I read your essay. I agree with you that 'Models have lead physicists to create a 'house of horrors' more phantasmagorical than any Metaphysics in the past'.

Since a large number of physical theories are partially or completely wrong, it is a proof that theoretical physics is dead. Perhaps it is caused by backward evolution of human race. However, such pessimists never win prizes; people (and physicists too) want to be praised.

Sincerely,

Constantin

Bookmark and Share



Janko Kokosar wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 21:53 GMT
Dear Mr. Leshan

I enjoyed reading your essay. I presented similar ideas about amateur science. You mentioned confinement of quarks and this is really the weakest point of quark theory. I suggest that You write another article on this topic and that you give more examples and more numbers. I have also one guessing theory, which denies quarks. In this article and in present essay I also claim that my theory and Higgs boson are in contradiction. You claim that Higgs boson is a mathematical trick only. I hope that you are true, but I please for more detailed explanation. An electron in superconductor also change its mass. Is this a similar phenomenon, or not?

I think that in the second above link I have a similar example for nonexistence of quarks, because mass of the muon is very similar to the masses of the pions. It is closer than masses of kaons to the pions, or closer than masses of the electron and muon. This is especially visible in logarithmic scale. I think that their masses are similar, because their building principle is similar.

But some deeper flaws in quarks thery I did not find. Do you find any new flaws in it?

I similarly claim that black holes are the essence of matter and they are one type of particles. Another type of particles is dark matter. Both of them are not explained with Higgs boson, but they should be.

You gave an example with EPR experiment in expanded universe. This is a good experiment, because it include quantum mechanics and general relativity. But I do not understand your conclusions. Uncertainty principle in curved space-time is different. Why do you claim that photons cease to be entangled? I do not see reason for this. Should I read your reference [7]?

Best Regards,

Janko Kokosar

.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Janko Kokosar replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 22:05 GMT
I forget to add, why the "confinement of quarks" is the weakest point in this theory: Quantum mechanics claims whether somethjng cannot be measured, it cannot exist. Admittedly, free quarks exist at high energies, but no-one measured at such high energies.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Constantin Leshan replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 12:07 GMT
Dear Janko Kokosar,

Thank you for your comments. I agree to write another article on this topic with more examples and more numbers. However, I don't know where I can publish such paper. Perhaps, the best solution is to write two separate papers about theoretical physics and errors in quark model.

About my claim that Higgs boson is a mathematical trick only: in fact, the Higgs is not...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 16:35 GMT
Dear Constantin

I like your essay. I suppose that some physics theories are mathematical fiction tools for explaining of reality. The problem is the absence of real substantial models of particles, processes and interactions. In the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter there were built some substantial models. For example in §12 of the book: The physical theories and infinite nesting of matter. Perm: S.G. Fedosin, 2009-2012, 858 p. ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0, there is the model of quark quasiparticles. In Standard Model are about 20 of unexplained parameters in order to fits the facts that is too much for any physical theory. The problem with the hole gravitation theory is that we can not imagine the evolution of holes - why they appear with their properties? What do you think about strong gravitation ? This force is universal for hadrons and leptons and may be the base of strong interaction. And the substance of all particle is the same but in different states, as we see for the substance of planets and stars. You deny the black holes and in the article Covariant theory of gravitation there is some other arguments against black holes. I think it is very hard to create a Theoretical School based on Hole Research Technology for searching and teaching the talented people. But it may be at the same time the very fruitful enterprise in science.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Constantin Leshan replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 09:43 GMT
Dear Sergey G Fedosin,

Thank you for your comment. You write 'The problem with the hole gravitation theory is that we can not imagine the evolution of holes - why they appear with their properties?' If the Universe is finite in volume then the holes appear in a natural way. The Universe is all that exists - all matter and energy. Hence, outside of the Universe is nothing, it is just a hole in space-time which is responsible for mass and gravitation in Hole Gravitation theory. All properties of vacuum holes are derived from this "nothing", located outside of the Universe. According to the theory, virtual holes in space-time must exist in every point of space.

You write 'I think it is very hard to create a Theoretical School based on Hole Research Technology for searching and teaching the talented people'. It is very hard mainly because I do not have funds for such project. In fact, the modern university works like an automated factory that produces identical scientists using the 'conveyer belt' technology. I would like to change completely the university teaching - no 'conveyer belt' technology. Such original school will improve the unique abilities of every student. I hope that such unique thinkers will be the best theoreticians.

Sincerely,

Constantin

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 13:35 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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Constantin Leshan replied on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 11:02 GMT
Dear Hai. Caohoang,

Thank you for comments. Unfortunately, I'm not a supporter of the Higgs mechanism; In my view, Higgs boson doesn't exist, it is a mathematical trick only that is not able to explain the mass and inertia.

You wrote: "You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion". My definition of mass and inertia is described here:

http://th-www.if.uj.edu.pl/acta/vol41/abs/v41p2335.htm

S
incerely,

Constantin

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 18:37 GMT
Constantin

Great work from a nuclear physicist, but I can't agree 99% is wrong. I maintain Einstein was correct in estimating that we didn't know 1,000th of 1% of what nature HAS revealed (and of course none of what it has not), but I think we may now be close to that.

I also have to ask how we can have theory without observation to axiomise from and test logical consistency with? I suggest we must observe, which means experiment and explore, but it is the current 'interpretations' that are horribly wrong, due, as you say, to wrong assumptions.

I did actually co-write a paper on suppression, published in the Skeptical Intelligencer journal; http://independent.academia.edu/JacksonPeter/Papers/1920871/
SUBJUGATION_OF_SCEPTICISM_IN_SCIENCE

Well done for the essay. but I fear that to overcome the problem we have to prove the established assumptions wrong. So I turned to that in my essay. I identify and falsify 8 specific prime assumptions, and show how all theoretical anomalies, paradoxes and inconsistencies can be made to vanish with a logical re-interpretation. I hope you'll read my essay and help at least to get it before the gatekeepers if you see fit.

Very well done, and hope to see your 'star' rising.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Constantin Leshan replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 10:56 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you for information, I'll site your paper in my next paper about dictatorship in science. I agree with you about 'How can science progress if the mainstream cannot think outside its own box?'

You write 'I can't agree 99% is wrong'. In fact, all 100% of gravity theories are wrong at least partially, including Newton's and Einstein's theories. For example, Newton's...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 08:55 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 @ 05:55 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

Author Constantin Leshan replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 10:33 GMT
Dear Sergey Fedosin,

In my view, the majority vote is the main problem of the rating process. It is generally known that scientific truth is not subject to the governance of majority vote. Scientific truth cannot be established by a majority vote, as history of science shows us again and again. History abounds in cases where only one person was in possession of true knowledge in a certain field while all the rest were mistaken.

Even Democritus had said that questions of truth could not be decided by a majority vote. For this reason, the majority vote in our contest cannot find the best essay by definition. Another problem is that people are not able to read so many essays ~ 240. Since the best essay (scientific truth) is established by a majority vote, therefore this rating process is wrong.

In general, the dictatorship of majority is the main danger for humanity.

In my view, the best essay could be established by the small group of 2 - 3 very intelligent scientists (like Democritus) with different 'scientific outlook', but NOT by the majority vote. The majority vote will reject the best essays always. If FQXI will use the majority vote, they will never find any "top thinkers" in fundamental questions.

If readers are going to rate my essay then please take into consideration that I have found the most important wrong physical assumptions in accepted physics. In spite of the fact that the EPR paradox is one of the most discussed fundamental problems in physics, I have found a wrong physical assumption even in the EPR paradox. For instance, the hundreds (thousands?) scientists are working on the EPR paradox, therefore it is very difficult to find any flaws here.

Sincerely,

Constantin

Bookmark and Share



Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 05:29 GMT
Dear Constantin,

Nice paper. A few thoughts:

1. The argument involving the cosmological horizon as a limitation on entanglement (pages 3-4) is interesting, and something I had not thought of before. Thanks for pointing this out.

2. I agree that the SM is wrong, if only because it's based on a flat static Minkowski space background, which we know is not physically realistic.

3. I'm not an expert on the quark model, so I appreciate the discussion here.

4. I'm skeptical of QFT in general, so exchange of virtual particles fall under this.

5. I agree that black holes are not geometric singularities. Then again, I don't think the manifold structure survives to arbitrarily small scales.

6. On relativity, I agree with its basic principles, but I think something simpler than a manifold is involved at small scales. I prefer causal structures as a building block.

7. Some of the LHC people talked about wormholes to try to get funding, but I don't think anyone takes them very seriously.

8. Regarding scientific dictatorship, my hope is that over the next few generations independent exchange of information via free, open online archives for new papers will completely replace the dominance of the traditional journals. Funding will always be a problem, but hopefully information can at least be exchanged.

I enjoyed your essay. Take care,

Ben Dribus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Constantin Leshan replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 10:30 GMT
Dear Benjamin Dribus,

Thank you for support. You write 'my hope is that over the next few generations independent exchange of information via free, open online archives for new papers will completely replace the dominance of the traditional journals'.

I fear that these free, open online archives will be overloaded quickly by spam and senseless papers. I am sure that the percentage of false papers in these free archives will exceed 90%; Therefore, all advanced papers sinks in an ocean of spam and false papers.

For this reason, nobody would be willing to read these papers from free archives because they all are false - therefore it is the failed project. Hence, we need peer review in order to combat spam but without domination of the mainstream theory. Another problem is that many authors of alternative theories don't respect the author's rights.

Sincerely,

Constantin

Bookmark and Share



Janko Kokosar wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 16:58 GMT
Dear Mr. Leshan

I will comment Your essay can in eight main points:

1. Your sociological analysis of development of quarks theory and other physics.

2. Arguments against quarks.

3. Argument against Higgs boson.

4. EPR paradox in cosmological expansion.

5. Only point particles are elementary.

6. Virtual gravitons do not exist.

7. Mass of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Constantin Leshan replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 09:58 GMT
Dear Janko Kokosar,

You wrote that: 'If you are right, my theories of quantum gravity and uncertainty principle are correct'. There are hundreds of gravity theories which doesn't use the Higgs boson. In this context, there is a small (~1/100) probability that one of these theories is true.

You wrote: 'My suspicion is based because you here do not use any speed c of ~> c for communication'. There is a method called 'Hole Teleportation' in my theory for superluminal teleportation of matter. However, your idea is very strange, about that the absence of superluminal communication may indicate that the entire theory is wrong.

You wrote that:'It seems to me like science fiction, because a lot of tests of quarks were made, not only scattering of electrons and neutrinos on nucleons'.

If some (quark) model tries to explain the internal structure of massive particles then all massive particles must have the same internal structure. Since a part of massive particles (hadrons) is made of quarks while the rest of massive particles (leptons) don't have any internal structure, then it is a fantasy only. And their scattering experiments prove nothing, since free quarks are not found, it is the misinterpretation of experimental data only.

Sincerely,

Constantin

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 15:23 GMT
Your work is mentioned here

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1383#post_68802

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Constantin Leshan replied on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 08:56 GMT
In the past contest I have found flaws and errors in ~ 20 essays, including leading essays. However, in this contest'2012 I decided not to judge any essays because Brendan recommended avoiding the judgment atmosphere. Nevertheless, since Dr. Crowell estimates my essay, I also have the right to estimate his essay.

I saw Dr. Crowell's essay; it is a collection of statements copied from...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Christian Corda wrote on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 10:22 GMT
Dear Mr. Leshan,

Although (as usual) I substantially disagree with your scientific claims, it is surprising that, this time, I agree with lots of your claims against the wrong teaching at the Universities and against the peer-reviewed journals which reject the original papers contradicting the mainstream dogmas.

Unfortunately, you are correct on these issues and this is a great problem for Science. In fact, in my opinion dogmas do not exist in physics.

Best wishes,

Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Constantin Leshan replied on Oct. 16, 2012 @ 12:32 GMT
Dear Christian Corda,

Thanks for the positive comments. I hope that your peer-reviewed journal will accept papers from dissidents.

Sincerely,

Constantin

Bookmark and Share



Christian Corda wrote on Oct. 16, 2012 @ 14:17 GMT
Dear Mr. Leshan,

My peer-reviewed journals will accept papers from dissidents if they will be serious papers with plausible axioms and careful mathematical computations. In fact, I am all in favour of being open minded about alternatives, but they must be properly formulated and plausible scientific proposals.

Best wishes,

Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Constantin Leshan wrote on Nov. 1, 2012 @ 12:01 GMT
Dear readers,

Please feel free to evaluate my essay. Now I have found new flaws in accepted physics but it is too late to publish it because the contest is over.

Constantin

Bookmark and Share



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.