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 5:43am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Gary Simpson: on 9/28/12 at 3:09am UTC, wrote Dear Mr Baker, I've given some more thought to your ideas and in some...

Jimmy: on 9/17/12 at 1:21am UTC, wrote Gary Thanks for reading my essay. As for rotation, a graviton, as defined...

Gary Simpson: on 9/16/12 at 6:01am UTC, wrote Dear Mr Baker, I like it. I need to think about it. But I like it. Try...

ABRAHAM: on 9/3/12 at 1:07am UTC, wrote Roger, RE: Your questions, if I may: 1 Charged particles interact through...

ABRAHAM: on 9/3/12 at 0:54am UTC, wrote Hi Jimmy, You're right on so many levels in your essay - Maths without...

Alan Lowey: on 9/1/12 at 11:53am UTC, wrote Hi Jimmy, I loved your rugged back-to-bascis analysis of the physics...

Roger: on 9/1/12 at 3:28am UTC, wrote Mr. Baker, I like your essay because you're trying to explain the...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "State latency is an explanation for the results of Stern Gerlach experiment..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

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:...


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: Let There Be Light by Jimmy Allen Baker [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author jimmy allen baker wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 11:34 GMT
Essay Abstract

Abstract The flaw in the way we look at the foundational laws of physics is that they are commonly viewed as if they are laws that are set forth by decree. When, in fact, they must have their genesis in the mechanics of how the universe works. We can never hope to understand the universe until we know not only its laws, but also their origin. Newton formulated his laws of gravity and motion from his measurements of forces. But he did not know the mechanics of how the force of gravity was able to reach out and act at a distance. Einstein used his warped space model to explain the mechanics of gravity acting at a distance. But he was unable to explain the mechanics of how space is warped. Both Newton’s and Einstein’s equations seem to work alright up to a point. But when they reach that point, which is where distance equals 0, both equations self-destruct and you wind up in the middle of a black hole. When we try to understand the other fundamental forces of the universe, here too, we always seem to be ensnared by some paradox or another. Quantum mechanics also works pretty well up to a point; until you wind up in two places at the same time or become entangled in spooky action at a distance again. On top of that, we have to deal with Schrodinger’s cat, which is neither dead nor alive until you look at it. The foundational laws of physics do work up to a point. But, if we hope to increase our understanding of the universe we live in, we must go beyond that point.

Author Bio

I have absolutely no qualifications for writing an essay on the fundamental laws of physics. I dropped out of high school after the ninth grade. For the past half century, I've worked as a farm worker, carpenter, cabinet maker and, for the last twenty years, a mailman in the Ozark Mountains of Missouri. I bring nothing to the writing table but time and curiosity.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 16:12 GMT
I like the ending a lot. :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Roger wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 03:28 GMT
Mr. Baker,

I like your essay because you're trying to explain the physical, and visualizable, mechanisms for how the universe might work. This is the type of reasoning that's missing in physics. As far as I know, no physicist actually knows the physical, mechanical mechanism of:

o how a positively charged particle and a negatively charged particle attract. They say they exchange photons, but how does this lead to attraction?

o what does it mean physically that space is curved? Can you show it to me?

o How can a point particle, with no dimensions, actually exist. It seems to me that any particle with one dimension of 0 would actually not be there.

Anyways, I think more of your type of reasoning would be welcome in physics. It's there in other sciences like in biochemistry, my field. But, mathematics has overtaken the real world in physics today.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 01:07 GMT
Roger,

RE: Your questions, if I may:

1 Charged particles interact through their respective coupling fields - see attached field illustrations - noting the directions of the net charged field momenta.

2 - The curvature of Space-Time that Einstein referred to is the mapping of Energy density gradients that result from Matter forming regions of Zero energy inside their 3D geometries which are surrounding by vacuum energies. The VE seeks to equalise the ZE region [like the ocean seeks to crush a submarine in the ocean's depths] see attached 2

3 - Point particles can't exist they result from mathematically tracing their EM fields back to their origin without know the true geometry of the fields.

Hope this helps you visualise what the real mechanics is behind these processes.

attachments: Figure_23.02__Coulombs_Charge_Constant_800x600.jpg, Figure_68.06__SpaceTime_Fabric_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 11:53 GMT
Hi Jimmy,

I loved your rugged back-to-bascis analysis of the physics problem. I have a simple easy to read idea which has just got some backing from other essay authors. It's something which is similar to your own essay. I'd be delighted if you'd take a quick look and keep very open-minded, Newtons Isotropy and Equivalence Is Simplicity That Has Led to Modern Day Mass Misconceptions of Reality

Cheers,

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


ABRAHAM wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 00:54 GMT
Hi Jimmy,

You're right on so many levels in your essay - Maths without Models creates Muddles - and that's what Physics has been doing for the past Century.

While the Physicists have been playing with the Math they have developed increasing bizarre explanations for the most mundane aspects of Physics.

I, like yourself, Faraday and Maxwell realised the need for a 'back to basics' approach to solving our current physical quandaries - and as you would know it is always better to have a plan of grandfather clock and its workings rather than just attempt to build one from observing the motion of its hands.

So I developed Tetryonics - the Charged geometry of mass-Energy and Matter in motion - whose single element is an equilateral triangle of ElectroMagnetic Energy-momenta [you may know it better as Planck's Constant].

From that I built 2D & 3D models of all the fields and particles known to physics and set about correcting the errors in perception that have arisen from Maths without Models [all of which are on the web at youtube.com/tetryonics].

In fact I found so many 'little' errors to correct that the project evolved into a 4 year odyssey and now totals 1300 illustrations on every conceivable aspect of QM, QED, Chemistry & Cosmology [even the long sought quantum theory of Gravity as revealed itself]

I invite you to take a look and see what the geometry of Physics looks like and see that Uncertainty and Schrödinger's cat have vanished along with Black Holes as manifestations of the 'limited' minds of Mathematicians.

I am sure you will appreciate the beauty of my work and find many new ways to apply it to developing your knowledge of our Universe.

attachments: Figure_21.06__Joule_800x600.jpg, 1_Figure_72.06__Singularities_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gary Simpson wrote on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 06:01 GMT
Dear Mr Baker,

I like it. I need to think about it. But I like it.

Try to add some rotation.

Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jimmy replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 01:21 GMT
Gary

Thanks for reading my essay. As for rotation, a graviton, as defined in the essay, is a void in the aether and a void in itself cannot rotate. But consider a case where two gravitons are orbiting their common center of gravity. In this case, their direction of motion is constantly changing. Therefore, for each revolution the gravitons make around their common center gravity,the positive and negative poles of each graviton make one revolution around the event horizon. It would be like two rotating magnets orbiting each other.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gary Simpson replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 03:09 GMT
Dear Mr Baker,

I've given some more thought to your ideas and in some ways, they dovetail in with my own. You describe these as gravitrons, I simply treat them as wave centers.

I am doing work associated with treating time as though it were spherical rather than linear. As part of that analysis, I've been thinking about how two adjacent wave centers would interact. A geometric plane that bisects the line segment between them would be a set of concentric isochronal rings.

So, rather than have the gravitrons rotate around a shared center of gravity, it might be better to allow their interaction to create a rotating spiral in the above referenced bisection plane. That is closer to the QM meaning of spin I think.

Regards,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:43 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.