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

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

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

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

John Cox: "Steve's, I'll leave dark matters for other topics. I think what is an..." in On a contextual model...

Steve Dufourny: "Yes you are right we are responsible for all our global problems, and if we..." in How does the brain...

Steve Dufourny: "To be frank Lorraine, I don t wait persons lacking of consciousness on this..." in How does the brain...

Steve Dufourny: "Well, there still it is an affirmation about the modified gravity , the..." in On a contextual model...

Paul Hayes: ""According to quantum physics, a system can be in a ’superposition,’..." in The Quantum Engine That...

Alan Lowey: "Brian What % chance would you give of Einstein's gravity theory being..." in Alternative Models of...

Brian Balke: "I offered this to the community roughly ten years ago, and thought that I..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "Rudiger, you could explain all what you have told me by mails , regards" in Alternative Models of...

RECENT ARTICLES

Can Choices Curve Spacetime?
Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools
Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

The Quantum Refrigerator
A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

Time to Think
Philosopher Jenann Ismael invokes the thermodynamic arrow of time to explain how human intelligence emerged through culture.

Lockdown Lab Life
Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

FQXi FORUM
June 16, 2021

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Let There Be Light by Jimmy Allen Baker [refresh]

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

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.

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

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
$R_1$
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