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.

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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Previous Contests

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Sergey Fedosin**: *on* 10/4/12 at 5:25am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

**Sergey Fedosin**: *on* 10/2/12 at 7:58am UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 9/25/12 at 9:36am UTC, wrote Dan Time is definitely speeding up. I read Richard's essay as you advised,...

**Hector Zenil**: *on* 9/25/12 at 6:36am UTC, wrote Dear Dan, You are right pointing out that physicists (and not only them)...

**Hoang Hai**: *on* 9/19/12 at 15:33pm UTC, wrote Dear Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us are convinced...

**Anthony DiCarlo**: *on* 9/19/12 at 14:24pm UTC, wrote Dan, You state: "Singularities have always created headaches for...

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 9/10/12 at 16:41pm UTC, wrote Dan I think time is speeding up! I agree the quality is exceptional this...

**Hadjidakis**: *on* 9/10/12 at 12:17pm UTC, wrote Dear Daniel, It may be helpful to have a look to my essays. ...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**isabell ella**: "If you are facing Cash app related problems and want to get support..."
*in* Cosmic Dawn, Parallel...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Quite right Lorraine, ( to be clear perhaps I should have said..."
*in* Cosmological Koans

**Lorraine Ford**: "Honestly Georgina, Wake up! Change of number is NOT energy."
*in* Cosmological Koans

**Joe Fisher**: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..."
*in* Can Time Be Saved From...

**Michael Hussey**: "https://www.google.com"
*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...

**Roger Granet**: "By the way, this post was from Roger."
*in* First Things First: The...

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.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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.

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.

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

July 18, 2019

CATEGORY:
Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)
[back]

TOPIC: Black Holes and the Nature of Reality by Dan T Benedict [refresh]

TOPIC: Black Holes and the Nature of Reality by Dan T Benedict [refresh]

We ask the fundamental question: “What is the nature of reality” and show that the common interpretational assumption of Einstein’s Equations representing the curvature of absolute spacetime is logically inconsistent when investigating the event horizon and interiors of black holes (BHs). We contend through philosophical and cosmological arguments and through the introduction of unrecognized paradox that the “field formalism” and its “gravitational field in a flat spacetime background” interpretation of gravity presents a more complete description and a deeper understanding of both the Theory of General Relativity (GR) and the enigmatic nature of reality.

Dan Benedict completed two Bachelor of Science Degrees, one in Physics and one in Mathematics from the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. He is currently an independent researcher and amateur Cosmologist with a variety of interests, including the foundations of Cosmology, the philosophy of Physics, and anomalies in nature.

Dan

Much good logical analysis of the shortcomings of current BH theory, which I hoped for and expected from you. Very well done for that. But I ended up disappointed by the limited argument and falsification of your extension of the flat space time basis into your alternative model.

As an astronomer whose studied real, not just theoretical, BH's and SMBH's, I was left feeling...

view entire post

Much good logical analysis of the shortcomings of current BH theory, which I hoped for and expected from you. Very well done for that. But I ended up disappointed by the limited argument and falsification of your extension of the flat space time basis into your alternative model.

As an astronomer whose studied real, not just theoretical, BH's and SMBH's, I was left feeling...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dan

See also Christian Corda et al's excellent analysis in their essay, very consistent with the above. And let me know what you think.

Best wishes

Peter

PS I believe your read my Helical/Recycling paper last year which also implies the same structure for the Universe, but do let me know if not and you'd wish to. Frankly I feel a bit swamped by essays!

report post as inappropriate

See also Christian Corda et al's excellent analysis in their essay, very consistent with the above. And let me know what you think.

Best wishes

Peter

PS I believe your read my Helical/Recycling paper last year which also implies the same structure for the Universe, but do let me know if not and you'd wish to. Frankly I feel a bit swamped by essays!

report post as inappropriate

Peter,

It's good to hear from you once again. Time has real factor for me as of late, hence the short and sweet approach. I originally thought I would sit this contest out, but then FXQ(i) proposed the perfect essay question and I found myself compelled to submit an entry. I had more to interject, yet reconsidered and tried to keep my hypotheses and scientific speculations to a minimum.

I look forward to reading your and many other of the fine essays as time permits. It's truly amazing the large number of high quality essays this year. I should have invested in speed reading classes before I became an old man ;-)

I would recommend Richard Benish's essay, even before I have had a chance to read it. I am familiar with a series of obscure papers he has written (found at his website, GraitationLab.com), in which he has admirably argued for the "gravity as expansion" hypothesis and proposed realistic experiments to confirm this outrageously heretical proposal, thus taking what has been considered a "crank theory" and made it respectable.

I have long suspected that such a hypothesis could possibly become the essence of gravity in an expanding universe, even before discovering his work. This hypothesis fits almost seamlessly (with only slight modifications) with both the flat spacetime paradigm and the HCBS Cosmology, where perfectly rigid rulers never truly exist.

Dan

It's good to hear from you once again. Time has real factor for me as of late, hence the short and sweet approach. I originally thought I would sit this contest out, but then FXQ(i) proposed the perfect essay question and I found myself compelled to submit an entry. I had more to interject, yet reconsidered and tried to keep my hypotheses and scientific speculations to a minimum.

I look forward to reading your and many other of the fine essays as time permits. It's truly amazing the large number of high quality essays this year. I should have invested in speed reading classes before I became an old man ;-)

I would recommend Richard Benish's essay, even before I have had a chance to read it. I am familiar with a series of obscure papers he has written (found at his website, GraitationLab.com), in which he has admirably argued for the "gravity as expansion" hypothesis and proposed realistic experiments to confirm this outrageously heretical proposal, thus taking what has been considered a "crank theory" and made it respectable.

I have long suspected that such a hypothesis could possibly become the essence of gravity in an expanding universe, even before discovering his work. This hypothesis fits almost seamlessly (with only slight modifications) with both the flat spacetime paradigm and the HCBS Cosmology, where perfectly rigid rulers never truly exist.

Dan

Dan

I think time is speeding up! I agree the quality is exceptional this year. I'll read Richard Benish's essay.

I look forward to your comments on mine, (and score!) but allow thinking time as you read it, I can speed read but it's useless for grasping and assimilating complex concepts.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I think time is speeding up! I agree the quality is exceptional this year. I'll read Richard Benish's essay.

I look forward to your comments on mine, (and score!) but allow thinking time as you read it, I can speed read but it's useless for grasping and assimilating complex concepts.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Hi Dan,

It is good to see you are participating here as well. I read your essay, and here is my honest feedback:

I asked a few years ago one of my professors, a relatively well-known theoretical physicist and cosmologist, the same question about catastrophic time dilation. He brushed it off immediately by stating the well-known counter argument that there is no paradox if one keeps...

view entire post

It is good to see you are participating here as well. I read your essay, and here is my honest feedback:

I asked a few years ago one of my professors, a relatively well-known theoretical physicist and cosmologist, the same question about catastrophic time dilation. He brushed it off immediately by stating the well-known counter argument that there is no paradox if one keeps...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Armin,

Thanks, for your sincere and relevant remarks.

"He brushed it off immediately by stating the well-known counter argument that there is no paradox if one keeps in mind that the proper time of the observer who approaches the horizon is distinct from the coordinate time of an observer very far away."

This counter argument assumes that an observer (and her proper time) can exist independent of a universe! All observational data suggests otherwise. Your professor needs to provide a tangible counter example to the data, which of course, he cannot.

And if one follows the standard theory, the laws of physics still breakdown at the singularity.

If the universe is indeed best described by Minkowski's absolute four dimensional spacetime then each distinct event of this cosmic absolute spacetime should be a subset of the overall absolute spacetime, regardless of the extent/magnitude of the curvature existing locally. Otherwise it *cannot* be considered an absolute spacetime without resorting to The Principle of BH Complementarity which seems to me to be both ad hoc and unnecessary.

"If not, then the flat space paradigm seems to imply that in the vicinity of a black hole, the geometry of spacetime effectively turns into a sort of projective geometry, and I wonder whether you had this in mind."

Yes, this is more of what I had in mind, similar, in fact, if I remember correctly, to your ideas presented in your last essay, of how spacetime becomes increasingly 2-dimensional as the volume of spacetime approaches zero. I believe there is a link between your ideas and the nature of the event horizon of a BH.

I also remember being very intrigued by your ideas and your approach. Likewise, I look forward to reading your current contribution.

Dan

Thanks, for your sincere and relevant remarks.

"He brushed it off immediately by stating the well-known counter argument that there is no paradox if one keeps in mind that the proper time of the observer who approaches the horizon is distinct from the coordinate time of an observer very far away."

This counter argument assumes that an observer (and her proper time) can exist independent of a universe! All observational data suggests otherwise. Your professor needs to provide a tangible counter example to the data, which of course, he cannot.

And if one follows the standard theory, the laws of physics still breakdown at the singularity.

If the universe is indeed best described by Minkowski's absolute four dimensional spacetime then each distinct event of this cosmic absolute spacetime should be a subset of the overall absolute spacetime, regardless of the extent/magnitude of the curvature existing locally. Otherwise it *cannot* be considered an absolute spacetime without resorting to The Principle of BH Complementarity which seems to me to be both ad hoc and unnecessary.

"If not, then the flat space paradigm seems to imply that in the vicinity of a black hole, the geometry of spacetime effectively turns into a sort of projective geometry, and I wonder whether you had this in mind."

Yes, this is more of what I had in mind, similar, in fact, if I remember correctly, to your ideas presented in your last essay, of how spacetime becomes increasingly 2-dimensional as the volume of spacetime approaches zero. I believe there is a link between your ideas and the nature of the event horizon of a BH.

I also remember being very intrigued by your ideas and your approach. Likewise, I look forward to reading your current contribution.

Dan

Hello Dan,

I wonder if I misunderstood the problem you are raising. What is the reason for saying that, if what my professor said was true, the observer can exist "independent of the universe"? Is it because that observer is usually taken to be at infinity?

The tangible orthodox counter example I have seen in textbooks is the scenario (which I'm certain you already know about) of two astronauts, one whom goes on a suicide mission into the black hole, and sending out signals at equal intervals (in his proper frame) to the other who remains in a region farther away. As the first approaches the event horizon, the interval between the signals he sends out is observed by the second to increase, and approaches infinity as the first approaches r_S, while in the frame of the first nothing special happens (geometrically at least) as he crosses it, he just keeps on sending out signals until the instant he reaches the singularity, at which moment space effectively vanishes everywhere around him and crushes him into zero dimensions.

Thanks for explaining this to me,

Armin

report post as inappropriate

I wonder if I misunderstood the problem you are raising. What is the reason for saying that, if what my professor said was true, the observer can exist "independent of the universe"? Is it because that observer is usually taken to be at infinity?

The tangible orthodox counter example I have seen in textbooks is the scenario (which I'm certain you already know about) of two astronauts, one whom goes on a suicide mission into the black hole, and sending out signals at equal intervals (in his proper frame) to the other who remains in a region farther away. As the first approaches the event horizon, the interval between the signals he sends out is observed by the second to increase, and approaches infinity as the first approaches r_S, while in the frame of the first nothing special happens (geometrically at least) as he crosses it, he just keeps on sending out signals until the instant he reaches the singularity, at which moment space effectively vanishes everywhere around him and crushes him into zero dimensions.

Thanks for explaining this to me,

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Armin,

"What is the reason for saying that, if what my professor said was true, the observer can exist "independent of the universe"?"

What is the age of the universe when the accelerated observer crosses the event horizon? This is the key question that illustrates the CGTD paradox. Now, consider that an intelligent observer, knowing the laws of GR, can calculate that the rate of a...

view entire post

"What is the reason for saying that, if what my professor said was true, the observer can exist "independent of the universe"?"

What is the age of the universe when the accelerated observer crosses the event horizon? This is the key question that illustrates the CGTD paradox. Now, consider that an intelligent observer, knowing the laws of GR, can calculate that the rate of a...

view entire post

Dear Dan,

In your essay are the questions: < How is it that any observer is able to cross any boundary (hotizon), if the observer, the boundary, and every other constituent of the cosmos ceases to exist? Are not accelerated observers, local spacetime structure, and black holes part of the cosmos? How can they exist separately from a universe from which they were created? This perplexing scenario illustrates the Catastrophic Gravitational Time Dilation Paradox, a fundamental contradiction in the very meaning of existence.>

I think the problem with black holes will better explained if take into account that really in general relativity no one know is the power of gravitation really enough to make black holes? I calculated the power of gravitation in the paper Model of Gravitational Interaction in the Concept of Gravitons. Journal of Vectorial Relativity, March 2009, Vol. 4, No. 1, P.1-24. It seems gravitation is unable to make black holes. See other objection in relation of black holes in the article Covariant theory of gravitation.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

In your essay are the questions: < How is it that any observer is able to cross any boundary (hotizon), if the observer, the boundary, and every other constituent of the cosmos ceases to exist? Are not accelerated observers, local spacetime structure, and black holes part of the cosmos? How can they exist separately from a universe from which they were created? This perplexing scenario illustrates the Catastrophic Gravitational Time Dilation Paradox, a fundamental contradiction in the very meaning of existence.>

I think the problem with black holes will better explained if take into account that really in general relativity no one know is the power of gravitation really enough to make black holes? I calculated the power of gravitation in the paper Model of Gravitational Interaction in the Concept of Gravitons. Journal of Vectorial Relativity, March 2009, Vol. 4, No. 1, P.1-24. It seems gravitation is unable to make black holes. See other objection in relation of black holes in the article Covariant theory of gravitation.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dan'

It is so nice to see your brief but lucid essay in the essay contest.It is much nicer to hear back from you.You could have expounded your ideas but,I think,for lack of time you were not able to do so. Doesn't matter,for I too had a very short time to complete my essay and in the last minutes I was able to complete it and post it to FQxI.

You,I feel,have touched the BH from only outside and that too from far away and it is GR which has prevented you from entering in to the BH. Inorder to know what happens inside it (BH) ,please,go through my article http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1543--Sreenath B N., and express your comments on it.

BTW,you have mentioned that there are 18 versions of QM. Have you included my version too? If not, hasten to include it too.The concept of minimum velocity that I have introduced in my article has far reaching implications on special relativity and GR and that too on motion inside BHs.As a result of which,time cannot become infinite nor zero.So is the case with mass,energy and spatial coordinates.More on this when you respond.

Hoping to hear from you soon.

Best regards and good luck in the essay contest.

Sincerely,

Sreenath.

report post as inappropriate

It is so nice to see your brief but lucid essay in the essay contest.It is much nicer to hear back from you.You could have expounded your ideas but,I think,for lack of time you were not able to do so. Doesn't matter,for I too had a very short time to complete my essay and in the last minutes I was able to complete it and post it to FQxI.

You,I feel,have touched the BH from only outside and that too from far away and it is GR which has prevented you from entering in to the BH. Inorder to know what happens inside it (BH) ,please,go through my article http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1543--Sreenath B N., and express your comments on it.

BTW,you have mentioned that there are 18 versions of QM. Have you included my version too? If not, hasten to include it too.The concept of minimum velocity that I have introduced in my article has far reaching implications on special relativity and GR and that too on motion inside BHs.As a result of which,time cannot become infinite nor zero.So is the case with mass,energy and spatial coordinates.More on this when you respond.

Hoping to hear from you soon.

Best regards and good luck in the essay contest.

Sincerely,

Sreenath.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Daniel,

It may be helpful to have a look to my essays.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/804

http://w

ww.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1345 (posts as well)

Best wishes, Ioannis

report post as inappropriate

It may be helpful to have a look to my essays.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/804

http://w

ww.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1345 (posts as well)

Best wishes, Ioannis

report post as inappropriate

Dan,

You state: "Singularities have always created

headaches for physicists when they occur in physics."

Well, I do not believe this to be true. One of the most important class of functions (Dirac delta functions) depend on a singularity existing at an exact location. The Green's functions homogenous equations depend on this singular function & for integrable normalizability of the function. When we run into singularities we integrate around them (analytic space) and acquire all the information we can ever hope for on a contour encircling this singularity.

It appears OK to have singularities just as long as you know how to model the singularity such that all measurable information regarding the singularity can be modeled. The singularity within a black hole should also be capable of being modeled with all the information obtained on the event horizon surface (a contour surface rather then path). This implies a 3D Gaussian, 2D Stokes .... divergence type relation in where the entropy (ensemble) on the event horizon surface can provide a model for ALL the information regarding the "measurable doings" of the singularity within the horizon.

Best Regards,

Tony DiCarlo

report post as inappropriate

You state: "Singularities have always created

headaches for physicists when they occur in physics."

Well, I do not believe this to be true. One of the most important class of functions (Dirac delta functions) depend on a singularity existing at an exact location. The Green's functions homogenous equations depend on this singular function & for integrable normalizability of the function. When we run into singularities we integrate around them (analytic space) and acquire all the information we can ever hope for on a contour encircling this singularity.

It appears OK to have singularities just as long as you know how to model the singularity such that all measurable information regarding the singularity can be modeled. The singularity within a black hole should also be capable of being modeled with all the information obtained on the event horizon surface (a contour surface rather then path). This implies a 3D Gaussian, 2D Stokes .... divergence type relation in where the entropy (ensemble) on the event horizon surface can provide a model for ALL the information regarding the "measurable doings" of the singularity within the horizon.

Best Regards,

Tony DiCarlo

report post as inappropriate

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.

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

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.

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

Dear Dan,

You are right pointing out that physicists (and not only them) rarely ask foundational questions such as the ones you ask in your essay. It is sometimes understandable but not always desirable. Fortunately there are some interested in foundations of their disciplines and do ask the interesting top level questions. I am not completely sure I would identify a logical flaw in the theory of black holes or rather say, as I guess most physicists would, that the theory is not complete because it is exactly where general relativity meets quantum mechanics, so rather than a logical flaw is a mathematical hole. (competing the model doesn't either mean that nature works that way but would give us a working theory, as today are models of quantum gravity to mention an example). In the same way I think that the space curved is a metaphor of what reality might really be, specially it is a pedagogical instrument to explain a theory such as general relativity. The main problem is to take mathematical models as true descriptions of the world. But history has tell us that models and theories are replaced with new more accurate or encompassing ones, as you suggest when explaining how general relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics as a description of gravity.

report post as inappropriate

You are right pointing out that physicists (and not only them) rarely ask foundational questions such as the ones you ask in your essay. It is sometimes understandable but not always desirable. Fortunately there are some interested in foundations of their disciplines and do ask the interesting top level questions. I am not completely sure I would identify a logical flaw in the theory of black holes or rather say, as I guess most physicists would, that the theory is not complete because it is exactly where general relativity meets quantum mechanics, so rather than a logical flaw is a mathematical hole. (competing the model doesn't either mean that nature works that way but would give us a working theory, as today are models of quantum gravity to mention an example). In the same way I think that the space curved is a metaphor of what reality might really be, specially it is a pedagogical instrument to explain a theory such as general relativity. The main problem is to take mathematical models as true descriptions of the world. But history has tell us that models and theories are replaced with new more accurate or encompassing ones, as you suggest when explaining how general relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics as a description of gravity.

report post as inappropriate

Dan

Time is definitely speeding up. I read Richard's essay as you advised, I agree it was good, and commented though he didn't respond. But time for scoring is now running out and no chance of getting through them. I'm doing last re-reads and scores now. I'm surprised yours is so low, I suppose the 'quantity' issue, but I rate on quality.

You did promise you'd try to read mine, I hope you do as I need the scores! I'd also value your opinion as I'm convinced the result found from the simple mechanism is a big game changer.

Bets wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Time is definitely speeding up. I read Richard's essay as you advised, I agree it was good, and commented though he didn't respond. But time for scoring is now running out and no chance of getting through them. I'm doing last re-reads and scores now. I'm surprised yours is so low, I suppose the 'quantity' issue, but I rate on quality.

You did promise you'd try to read mine, I hope you do as I need the scores! I'd also value your opinion as I'm convinced the result found from the simple mechanism is a big game changer.

Bets wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.