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 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

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
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

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 5:47am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/2/12 at 8:38am UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

Jose Koshy: on 9/30/12 at 14:43pm UTC, wrote Dear Benjamin, Thank you for taking pains to go through my essay. It is...

Benjamin Dribus: on 9/29/12 at 22:03pm UTC, wrote Dear Jose, I enjoyed reading your essay. A few thoughts come to mind. ...

Jose Koshy: on 9/28/12 at 15:21pm UTC, wrote Dear Fedosin, I referred the the concept of electron spin. It is rather...

Jose Koshy: on 9/28/12 at 14:43pm UTC, wrote Dear Hoang Cao Hai, The question is whether matter or force is...

Sergey Fedosin: on 9/28/12 at 13:39pm UTC, wrote Dear Jose, I found the reference to your book in internet: Jose P. Koshy...

Hoang Hai: on 9/28/12 at 1:55am UTC, wrote Dear Jose P. Koshy Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us...


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: "" 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...

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.

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.

July 19, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The Incredible Foundations by Jose P. Koshy [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Jose P. Koshy wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 12:41 GMT
Essay Abstract

Any theoretical interpretation of the physical world will contain some assumptions. However, only after explaining the physical world completely, can we be sure that the assumptions are correct. Till that time, we can try alternate assumptions. Then there are silent assumptions; these are used whenever required, but never acknowledged properly. One such silent assumption in the present-day theoretical physics is that ‘any law that holds good in mathematics, holds good in physics also’. This is an utterly wrong assumption that has to be removed. Other assumptions that may be wrong are the following: 1. Energy is an independent entity; 2. Gravity is infinite 3. Space and time are not real. If we take directly opposite views in these cases, it would be possible to frame a set of explanations that may eventually lead us to the theory of everything.

Author Bio

Born and brought up in India, I entered a profession that has nothing to do with the subjects that I studied for graduation. Later, I got interested in theoretical physics and returned back to what I have studied, to work on a new hypothesis about the universe. My research was completely independent, and the findings have been self-published in the form of a book titled ‘The Reality of the Physical World’. Now I am working on another book to be titled ‘The Enigma called Life’ dealing with the physical explanation life .

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 17:33 GMT
Hi Jose. Your essay is certainly very good. I am still considering your points. It does a fine job of opening up at least several lines of fundamental significance/discussion. I will comment on it more.

Your notion of "gravity as finite" especially sparks my curiosity. Gravity as finite certainly has much merit and applicability. My essay (soon to appear)proves this. It is imperative that we look at gravity from both a tactile/felt and visual/seen perspective in order to fully understand it (and to fully understand it in conjunction/connection with thought). My essay (soon to appear) deals with this

As you say, we certainly need to establish, and to begin with, the fundamentals. We begin with typical/ordinary experiences, as they are certainly foundational. The plain and simple truth. Modern physics tries to be at y and z when it is not really even at A through F.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jose P. Koshy replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 03:00 GMT
Dear Frank Martin,

Thank you for the comment.

If speed can have a limit, then force also can have a limit.The force between two particles should be the maximum when these touch each other. If it can be greater, it will lead to singularity. In the case of electron I have clearly shown that the maximum electrostatic force is equal to the electrostatic energy possessed, of course with an assumption that the maximum electrostatic energy is half the natural energy which I propose as mc^2/2 for any body. I will be waiting for your essay.

Bookmark and Share

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 17:26 GMT
Dear Jose,

About the first Newton law. You treat it as a mathematical law. In my opinion the first Newton law is a consequence of the second Newton law in which the force is the speed of change of momentum with time. Then if the force is zero then the momentum is constant and we have law of inertial motion. In the case it is a physical law. I agree with you - expanding of space in cosmology is not physical idea. The same about singularities. By the way the maximum gravitational force is calculated in the paper: Fedosin S.G. Model of Gravitational Interaction in the Concept of Gravitons . Journal of Vectorial Relativity, March 2009, Vol. 4, No. 1, P.1-24. In the question about the connection of matter and energy I am sure that energy is a property of matter. Matter can not convert into energy. On the other hand mass is a measure of inertia in fluxes of gravitons, and proportional to the energy. In accordance with Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter (you can evaluate it in my essay) the mass is explained as a result of energy of fundamental fields in particles of the mass. When the energy of these fields is converted into motion one suppose that mass convert in energy of the motion. But in reality the energy of fundamental fields converts in energy of the motion.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 14:42 GMT
Dear Jose,

If you have papers about Strong gravitational constant please give me the references.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 13:10 GMT
Dear Fedosin,

I am an independent researcher and have not published any papers..My theory being purely classical (denying both the QM and the relativity theories of Einstein) and with no institutional back up, it is difficult to find any journal willing to publish my work. However, my findings have been self-published in the book form titled "The reality of the physical world" now available at I am also planning to hoist a web site for providing information to anybody interested.

In my theory, the nucleus is made up of electron-positron pairs (held together by alternate gravitational and electrostatic bonds) with lone positrons distributed symmetrically (similar to electron distribution outside) among them. The force available to an electron/positron is finite and the whole force is used to form electron-positron chains. So only the force available to to the lone positrons is available to the nucleus for outside interactions.The electrostatic and gravitational forces of electron are taken to be equal, and the strong constant can be got from this. In a hydrogen atom, the gravitational force between the nucleus and the electron is calculated using the same constant, and it is proposed that the spin energy of electron (actual spinning motion) is balanced by gravity and its kinetic energy is balanced by electrostatic force. As there are three independent forces (including the inertial force due to the motion of electron), the atom is spatially stable.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jose P. Koshy replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 13:17 GMT
Dear Fedosin,

The above reply is mine.I do not now how it came as anonymous.

Jose P Koshy

Bookmark and Share

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 01:55 GMT
Dear Jose P. Koshy

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 !


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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jose P. Koshy replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 14:43 GMT
Dear Hoang Cao Hai,

The question is whether matter or force is fundamental. To have an impact, there should be something like a Higgs field which should be more fundamental than matter. So we have to assume one thing: Either there is a fundamental matter particle or there is a fundamental field. Initially, both are equally rational. The one that can explain everything will ultimately triumph. So only at the end can we say which is the correct theory.

In my theory, there is a fundamental particle of matter, and I have nearly succeeded in explaining everything (it is just my claim that has not been verified). However, the details are not given in my essay.

Bookmark and Share

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 13:39 GMT
Dear Jose,

I found the reference to your book in internet: Jose P. Koshy (2010), The Reality of the Physical World. The Ultimate Theory in Physics , 290 pages. As I understand in the book is your value of strong gravitational constant which is equal to 2.78x10^32 in SI units since you determined it with the help of two electrons. In my opinion we must use forces between proton and electron. In hydrogen atom there are four forces influence the electron which is there in the form of disk cloud: Two forces of attraction, one is the proton strong gravitation, another is the electric force between proton and electron; two forces of repulsion, one is the electric force of charged substance of electron (all parts of electron repel each other), the other is centrifugal force. All the forces approximately equal to each other. Then from the equality of the electric and gravitational forces strong gravitational constant is 1.514 x10^29. Your value 2.78x10^32 is more in 1836 times that is relation of proton mass to electron mass.You can see also the idea of dynamical conception of the electron spin .

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jose P. Koshy replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 15:21 GMT
Dear Fedosin,

I referred the the concept of electron spin. It is rather complex, and require further reading on my part. Can you explain in simple language (not mathematical) the role of strong gravity in hydrogen atom? I would like to know whether you have any concept of balance in the atom. I went through some of your findings (just a cursory look). Somewhere, it was seen that you have identified mainly eight levels. Does it mean that there can be infinite levels, but you have identified just eight only? Or do you visualize a finite number of levels being accepted at a later stage of your theory. Strangely, in my theory there are eight distinct levels from fundamental particle to the universe.

Bookmark and Share

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 22:03 GMT
Dear Jose,

I enjoyed reading your essay. A few thoughts come to mind.

1. Regarding the relationship between mathematical and physical theories, I agree with what you say. In particular, physics “deals with the fundamentals of this physical world,” and hence basic physical principles should be the starting point of physical theories, not “convenient mathematics.” Rather,...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jose P. Koshy replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 14:43 GMT
Dear Benjamin,

Thank you for taking pains to go through my essay. It is purely classical and may be anathema to many. I would disagree with your opinion that mathematics will become more complicated if we attempt physical clarity, on the ground that real physical laws cannot be too complicated to require any complex mathematics.

The fundamental unit which I propose is a particle of mass 10^-47 Kg; and light is streams of these particles (these are not mentioned in the essay).

There are so many essays and we can only cherry-pick, even though it is not a good idea.I will read your essay to see where we agree and disagree.

Bookmark and Share

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 08:38 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 @ 05:47 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
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:
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.