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 10/10/12 at 12:44pm UTC, wrote Dear Ben, Thank you a lot of for your attentions and comments. Please...

Ben: on 10/9/12 at 13:18pm UTC, wrote Dear Akbar, I'm a fellow contestant in the FQXi essay contest. I just...

Benjamin Dribus: on 10/4/12 at 18:54pm UTC, wrote Dear Akbar, I enjoyed your essay, and I believe I will find your analysis...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 5:52am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Georgina Woodward: on 10/3/12 at 10:05am UTC, wrote Dear Akbar Fahmi, I'm afraid your paper was too technical for me to...

Hoang Hai: on 9/28/12 at 1:43am UTC, wrote Dear Akbar Fahmi Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us...

Juan Ramón González Álvarez: on 9/23/12 at 11:48am UTC, wrote Dear Akbar Fahmi The response to your question is "yes". The moon is there...

Yuri Danoyan: on 9/18/12 at 16:26pm UTC, wrote Answer:No Einstein's Moon D. Song School of Liberal Arts, Korea...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jorma Seppaenen: "Hi Georgina, Yes, CMB map is an observation product, it's very essential..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Jim Snowdon: "Of course, the stars would, very slowly, move across the sky as the Earth..." in The Nature of Time

Georgina Woodward: ""The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Jim Snowdon: "On the permanently dark side of the Earth, the stars would appear to stay..." in The Nature of Time

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained 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...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

RECENT 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.

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

FQXi FORUM
May 27, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Is the Moon There When Nobody Looks? by Akbar Fahmi [refresh]

Author Akbar Fahmi wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 12:07 GMT
Essay Abstract

Einstein asked: whether I really believed that the moon exists only when I look at it”. In this essay, we partially try to answer this question. We considered some realistic non-local hidden variable models which simulate the quantum correlation function (singlet state). We have derived inequalities which are based on these models and show that these inequalities are violated by quantum predictions. It prompts revisiting such models from logical perspective. These results raise some questions: Can quantum predictions are simulated by nonlocal realistic models? Can this approach be extended to general cases? In this essay, We will try to answer these questions.

Author Bio

I got my PhD in 2005 in Sharif University of Technology. I am a postdoctoral researcher working on foundations of quantum mechanics and quantum information theory. I am a member of the Philosophy of science Department, Sharif University of Technology and School of Physics, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM).

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 12:44 GMT
Akbar

I enjoyed you clear 'Locally Real' explanation of the most confusing part of physics. I describe a novel logical and causal resolution in my essay, and have discussed the moon in other blogs. Also the Matt J and Charli C essay finds a consistent ontology incorporating the Copenhagen interpretation and SR in a conceptual solution to the measurement problem.

I've proposed the completion of QM exposes the variable which derives the effects encompassed in the SR postulates. It uses the lesson Bohr taught Heisenberg to rescue his thesis; 'understand how a lens works'. Detection itself has a quantum interaction at the lens surface with implications and effects on the detected related to Raman atomic scattering over non zero space and time, and thus kinetics. Einstein's Local Reality simply emerges.

In this case, if no lens is receiving light reflected from the moon, then there is no mechanism to convert the signals into what we interpret as 'the Moon', so we may say the moon as we know it cannot then exist. We may however still gain evidence from reflected light and shadows of it's presence.

Even my dense essay struggles to handle the most basic mechanisms, kinetics and implications conceptually, but I hope you may be able to help make better sense of it, or indeed falsify the model. There is also much not in the essay. I hope you will forgive the metaphors there to aid kinetic visualisation.

I do hope it may contribute something to your own work, but in any case I would be most honoured and greatly value your opinion and views.

Many thanks.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 16:26 GMT

Einstein's Moon

D. Song

School of Liberal Arts, Korea University of Technology and Education, Cheonan, 330-708, Korea

E-mail: dsong@koreatech.ac.kr

An account of the subjective elements of quantum mechanics and of whether, as Einstein's famously asked, the Moon exists when

nobody is looking at it.

PACS number: 03.65.Ta DOI: 10.3367/UFNr.0182.201209h.1013

Bibliographyì4 references Received 28 May 2012

Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk 182 (9) 1013 ± 1014 (2012)

report post as inappropriate

Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 11:48 GMT
Dear Akbar Fahmi

The response to your question is "yes". The moon is there when nobody looks, for instance before the first human was born at Earth.

In his work "Does The Moon Exist Only When Someone Is Looking At It?" Raymond D. Bradley reports the history of how one of Einstein's young friends, Abraham Pais, asked him if he really believed that the moon existed only if he looked at...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 01:43 GMT
Dear Akbar Fahmi

Very interesting to see your essay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

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

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 10:05 GMT
Dear Akbar Fahmi,

I'm afraid your paper was too technical for me to properly appreciate. Though it was particularly interesting to read your concluding paragraph, outlining where you see this research leading and what it is necessary to consider. Amongst that list I saw reality, which is something to which I have given some thought. Good luck and kind regards, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:52 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

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 18:54 GMT
Dear Akbar,

I enjoyed your essay, and I believe I will find your analysis quite useful for some of my own work. You frame the problem magnificently with excellent referencing and historical context. Although I am not quite clear on the exact scope of what you have proven (see below), your work rates highly in my opinion. A few more thoughts.

1. Thank you for the reference [31]...

view entire post

post approved

Ben wrote on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 13:18 GMT
Dear Akbar,

I'm a fellow contestant in the FQXi essay contest. I just read your essay

activity there recently, I decided to email you as well (it's a better

method of communication anyway).

I enjoyed your essay, and I believe I will find your analysis quite useful

for some of my own...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 12:44 GMT
Dear Ben,

As you correctly mentioned, we reviewed all non-local hidden variable models which simulated quantum singlet state by non-local hidden variables. We derived inequalities which are based on these models and showed that they violated by quantum correlation function.

Unfortunately, my essay has typos at first paragraph of page 5 (is equal to one…), however, equation 6 and fig. 3 are correct.

As you mentioned at your essay, there are some physical models which are based on the Extra Dimensions and compactification of extra dimensions. However, please pay attention that these models take place at high energy physics (about 10^{18} Gev). I can accept your opinion if you find rationalization for it. In other words, how space-time microstructure is changed at low energy physics (about 1 kev)?