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 - March 16, 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 5:34am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Georgina Woodward: on 10/1/12 at 23:32pm UTC, wrote Dear Johannes Koelman, I enjoyed reading your very surprising and...

Hoang Hai: on 9/19/12 at 14:24pm UTC, wrote Dear Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us are convinced...

Yuri Danoyan: on 9/6/12 at 23:50pm UTC, wrote Dear Johannes I hope you will like my essay. ...

Anonymous: on 9/4/12 at 15:14pm UTC, wrote Thank you Johannes for your comment, I answered it and asked you to pose...

Wilhelmus de Wilde: on 9/3/12 at 15:56pm UTC, wrote Hi Johannes, I look forward to your comment(s) on my thread. Wilhelmus.

Johannes Koelman: on 9/2/12 at 21:49pm UTC, wrote Thanks Daniel, Good to hear you liked the form and content. My key...

Daniel Burnstein: on 9/2/12 at 19:50pm UTC, wrote Your essay is the most accessible and interesting one I’ve read in this...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "John, I would say that you need to think what you mean by “physical..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

John Cox: "Lorraine, That clarifies, thanks. I'd be in the camp that argues for a..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

Steve Dufourny: "We have a big philosophical problem with the strings and the photons like..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "If my equation is correct, E=mc^2+Xl^2 , so how can we take this enormous..." in Alternative Models of...

Lorraine Ford: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..." in Undecidability,...

John Cox: "George, We shouldn't conflate contradiction with inconsistency. QM has a..." in Watching the Watchmen:...

John Cox: "Georgi, by and large I agree. Near the end of the discussion panel,..." in Watching the Watchmen:...

RECENT 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
January 21, 2020

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Dreams of a Final Foundation by Johannes Vianney Koelman [refresh]

Author Johannes Vianney Koelman wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 12:07 GMT
Essay Abstract

A popular science broadcast from the future highlights an assumption about physical reality ripe for rethinking.

Author Bio

Johannes is a physicist who holds a PhD from Eindhoven University of Technology. He blogs on subjects including cosmology, relativity and quantum physics and is a featured writer on Science 2.0. Johannes is affiliated with a Fortune Global 500 company in the role of chief scientist.

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 16:28 GMT
Hallo Johannes, You finish your well written essay wit "emerging consciousness", and in fact consciousness is at the center of our reality ewperience, just as coulors are emerging at a certain scale, so is consciousness, but it goes further as that, the non material emerging consciousness is part of a total which makes it possible that our influence on the causal universe is operating in the future, if interested read and/or comment/rate "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION"

je landgenoot Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Ted Erikson wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 19:36 GMT
Johannes:

Interesting, sweet, and simplified.. I love it. I approach the problem "tetrahedrally", as energy which surrounds mass as a sphere. The closures of sphere tangency with the tetrahedral faces grow equally since they have exactly the same surface-to-volume ratios, i.e. an "activity".

But the closures, under regular tetrahedron and sphere assumption, exhibit different probabilities.,.,

It separates the 3-D world from 1-D and 2-D where most experiments are assumed to apply. Your comment? If interested, read and rate (High preferred, heh heh)

To Seek Unknown Shores

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/14

report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 23:52 GMT
Johannes,

I really enjoyed your essay; it is a point of view I have a lot of empathy with. A few questions come to mind.

1. If presented with one of your classical universes as a fait accompli (the entire infinite network), it would seem that any small patch could be viewed as the "point of origin." Take two small nearby patches, A and B. From the perspective of A, B is in the future, and from the perspective of B, A is in the future. How does this mesh with local causality?

2. Could you encode the same information by eschewing the binary weights and allowing nodes with different numbers of edges?

3. Is there a noncommutative geometry angle to this, as with Penrose tilings?

4. What are the similarities and differences with causal set theory?

If you would like to know what is motivating these questions, you might look at my essay:

On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics[link]

Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 01:12 GMT
(sorry for the link format; I left out the slash!)

report post as inappropriate

Author Johannes Vianney Koelman wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 17:31 GMT
Wilhelmus, Ted and Ben - thanks for your encouraging reactions.

Wlihelmus and Ted - at first glance it seems you don't shy away from "the final frontier" aka the physical basis for consciousness, and you both do dare to tread into territories that emerge would I have gone beyond the point...

view entire post

Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 07:05 GMT
Johannes,

Thanks for the helpful answers. I have seen many suggestions for "emergent causality," but none that make as much sense to me as yours does. Another thing people have tried to do in situations like this is replace bits with qubits; this seems silly from my perspective because it sneaks in the whole absurdly elegant and perfect structure of the complex numbers through the back door, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Take care,

Ben

report post as inappropriate

Author Johannes Vianney Koelman replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 13:39 GMT
I agree: prefer a Feynman sum approach along the lines as expressed in your essay.

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 15:56 GMT

Wilhelmus.

report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 01:27 GMT
Johannes,

Nice essay on how simple geometric forms can evolve into complex constructs.

May I suggest the following - if you change you 'colouring' schema to a charge schema [of positive and negative EM charges] and use equilateral energy geometries you will quickly develop a Tetrahedral universe similar to the Heptagonal one you mention.

Tetryonics develops from the basis of 2 possible charges to account for all QM, QED, Chemistry and Cosmological process that it has been applied to [to date] and I am sure you'll see much agreement with the work of Dr. Gupta [your future sage] - indeed equilateral energy forms the geometric basis of all mass-ENERGY-Matter [even consciousness]

This is in fact what I did to develop Tetryonics - the Charged geometry of EM mass-ENERGY-Matter [my FQXi essay submission] - I hope you will take a look and note the similarities to the final foundation hypothesised in your essay.

report post as inappropriate

Author Johannes Vianney Koelman replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 13:36 GMT
Thanks Kelvin. Downloaded your essay. Will need some time to digest it, but surely the artwork is the best amongst all submissions I've seen so far. Best of luck,

Johannes

Daniel L Burnstein wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 19:50 GMT
Your essay is the most accessible and interesting one I’ve read in this competition. Setting your story in the future gives your characters enough distance from our present to have an objective view of the problems of current physics. The narrative format you used is ideal to present the idea that we need to seriously revaluate a number of notions we take for granted. Of course, Gupta and his contemporaries are far enough from it to see clearly a picture which, because of our closeness to it, we can view through presbyopic vision.

I agree entirely with how you envision a future theory of everything as being elegant and based on simple principles leading to complexity. That said, I would have liked to know more about the model Gupta introduces and how it translates into known phenomena and observations. For instance, how do the laws of physics emerge and evolve from it? Or how do you represent particles, atoms and other structures and how they interact? How do you describe motion and the laws that govern it?

Of course, I am aware that space limitation prohibits going into more details and that the narrative structure you have chosen requires time to setup characters and dialogue. Still, it would be interesting to see how far you have taken or can take the model.

report post as inappropriate

Author Johannes Vianney Koelman replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 21:49 GMT
Thanks Daniel, Good to hear you liked the form and content.

My key objective was to demonstrate that unitarity need not be sacrosanct. All too often I notice physicists throwing out remarks like "unitarity is required to ensure quantum probabilities sum to unity". Such remarks are based on the assumption that the fundamental laws of physics need be described via an evolution in time. My intent was to establish a simple toy model that demonstrates this need not be the case.

As a side objective, I also wanted to dispel the myth that there is no room for free will in physics. This myth assumes causal determinism to be fundamental. Again, the toy model demonstrates this need not be the case (despite determinism being emergent at late times).

In any case: don't read too much into the toy model. If there is a model like the one presented that does cause real physics to be emergent, it surely will carry a more complex structure than a simple binary field. I certainly don't want to suggest I have derived such a model.

Having said this, the toy model does contain interesting behavior that I couldn't discuss in the essay. For instance, a lot more can be said about the symmetries that emerge in this toy model for large length scales. Also some kind of Mickey-Mouse gravity/dark energy can be represented using mixtures of, for instance, pentagons and heptagons. All of this, however, carries us well beyond the scope of the essay.

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 23:50 GMT
Dear Johannes

I hope you will like my essay.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:24 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.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 23:32 GMT
Dear Johannes Koelman,

I enjoyed reading your very surprising and different essay. Glad I stumbled upon it. I liked the story format that makes it very readable, rather than a dull factual presentation. You have a clever ending linking emergence of consciousness with waking. Glad you didn't just wake up and it was all a dream! That's an old cliché (even if it has still turned up in a prize winning essay). The illustrations are helpful too. (I like visual information very much and the way that it can make lucid things that are not easily described, or might not be recognised unless put into that format.) Even simplified I am not sure I properly understand what was being presented. I get the superficial idea of increasing complexity and "joined up- ness" with growing number of nodes but it must have much deeper meaning for physicists working on models of the development of the universe and expansion. I can see that you do refer to an assumption that might be wrong, making it relevant to the essay question that was set. Thank you for sharing the interesting idea and making it accessible. Good Luck, Kind regards Georgina.

.

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:34 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