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

Georgina Parry: on 10/6/12 at 10:19am UTC, wrote Hi Andreas, It makes much more sense to me too. I also agree that an...

Andreas Boe: on 10/5/12 at 13:18pm UTC, wrote Thanks for your concern. I never really set out to get a good rating in...

Andreas Boe: on 10/5/12 at 13:14pm UTC, wrote Glad you liked my "assumptions"! I will try to give you a not to ambitious...

Georgina Woodward: on 10/4/12 at 5:54am UTC, wrote Dear Andreas, your essay was delightful to read. Clear, concise, and...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 5:22am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Andreas Boe: on 9/23/12 at 22:04pm UTC, wrote Thanks Curt! I have not yet had the opportunity to read your essay, but...

Anonymous: on 9/22/12 at 4:19am UTC, wrote Andreas, It seems every contestant in the FQXI essay contest has an agenda...

Steve Dufourny Jedi: on 9/20/12 at 13:42pm UTC, wrote Hello to both of you, Indeed the mass and the weight are different but...


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: Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong by Andreas Bøe [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Andreas Bøe wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 14:11 GMT
Essay Abstract

The author of this short essay has chosen two assumptions that is both basic and wrong: #1: Elementary particles obeys the laws of nature. #2: Things are what they appear to be. The discussion of the first wrong assumption concerns the nature of natural law and entropy. The discussion of the second wrong assumption leads to thoughts about quantum computing. Both have connections to billiard balls.

Author Bio

Andreas Bøe is 42 years old and lives on a small farm in south-eastern Norway with wife and two children. He is a computer networks engineer and passionate student of all sciences. Predominantly through the Scientific American Magazine and lately also ted.com. Curiosity and a longing to know how the world works is the main drive for further study.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 10:21 GMT
Hi Andreas,

I just read your quick and light-hearted essay. Just a couple of comments I hope you may find useful:

On the first assumption, I wonder whether you think particle physicists are attributing too many anthropomorphic properties to elementary particles. What you wrote, namely that "elementary particles "only react" seems to me in line with current mainstream views on elementary particles, and this includes the fact that they obey certain conservation laws (i.e. they only react to the constraints imposed upon them on such laws.) So if I understood your point correctly, it seems pretty uncontroversial.

On your second assumption, I also think that you may be referring to the picture painted by many popularizations of quantum mechanics, rather than what most quantum physicists think, which, as far as I can tell, is that a quantum object is neither a particle nor a wave but rather something that manifests in some experiments wavelike behavior and in others particle-like behavior. Again, your point seems to me largely in line with this view.

On your bonus assumption, I agree that there may be much more to the universe than what we can observe directly. If you'd like to see a novel conceptualization of this idea, take a look at the appendix of my paper: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1431

All the best,

Armin

PS. I was just in Norway three months ago, what a beautiful country! The road between Oslo and Bergen is the most scenic route I have seen in my life.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Andreas Boe replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 16:32 GMT
Thanks for the feedback!

I do not think particle physicists attribute "anthrophomorpic" properties to elementary particles knowingly. But i think the freedom of mind required for new discoveries is threatend by falling into psychological traps. Small but important details may be missed, because you look the wrong way. As you say. My point is hardly controversial. I am but a humble amateur that try to understand how the world works.

I will check your link.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 14:50 GMT
Andreas,

I heartily agree that intuition and language pose an amazing variety of traps for physicists, and these are precisely the type of traps that often go unnoticed. It's not necessarily that problems of this sort are harder to solve as it is that no one recognizes them as problems in the first place. I won't quote myself, but I tried to make a similar point in the second section of my own essay

On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics

I can also tell you from my own experiences in academia that I feel (regrettably) that you're correct about how few people are actually passionate about the big questions. My guess is that you probably spent a fair bit of time in academia yourself to form these opinions. Take care,

Ben Dribus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Andreas Boe replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 16:36 GMT
Thanks for positive feedback Ben!

I will have a look at your essay too.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 00:03 GMT
Andreas,

"Elementary particles obeys the laws of nature." First wrong assumption.

"Natural law is deduced from observations of what happens in the world."

Are you saying that since we can't see the behavior of elementary particles, that we attribute their behavior to natural laws we can see?

Certainly gravity, weak, undetectable, and acting over long distances, which I discuss, has scientists mystified.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Andreas Boe replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 11:57 GMT
"Are you saying that since we can't see the behavior of elementary particles, that we attribute their behavior to natural laws we can see?"

Instead of a yes or no, I will try to explain my view:

The expression "Natural Laws" has something in common with the expression "Natural gas". Just hearing the naturalness of it gives us a positive bias.

It is very tempting to mix up "natural laws" deduced from experiments with the hidden mechanisms that is the true source of the particles behaviour. If we want to make a leap in our understanding of the universe, like the leap from Newton to Einstein, we cannot stand on Einsteins shoulders and jump to the next level. Einstein did not stand on Newtons when he took his leap. He used the old data, but not the old interpretations of it.

I wrote my short essay in the last hours before the deadline of the contest. So some things could have been explained clearer.

I am a son of the information age, so I am biased towards an information oriented perspective on the universe. For example, I believe the distance between particles is an expression of the gravity/time-difference between them. Empty space is not a scene on with the particles do their thing. Empty space does not exist, It only looks that way because particles appears to be far away, because we have a weak relation to them.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 04:19 GMT
Andreas,

It seems every contestant in the FQXI essay contest has an agenda when commenting upon competitor's essays. So, with that in mind, let me say this: I like your attitude, and reading between the lines, I see some deep realizations. I agree with your philosophy. Taking assumptions to be the God Awful truth leads to many fantasies.

I would appreciate any comments you may form after considering my essay on the foundation of the Special Theory of Relativity.

I believe I have found a major problem with Einstein's initial reasoning!

All the best in the upcoming judging!

Curt Youngs

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Andreas Boe replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 22:04 GMT
Thanks Curt!

I have not yet had the opportunity to read your essay, but will probably stuble upon it soon in my chaotic dodging between the too many essays to read all.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:22 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

Andreas Boe replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 13:18 GMT
Thanks for your concern.

I never really set out to get a good rating in this contest.

I am just happy to be part of it :->

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:54 GMT
Dear Andreas,

your essay was delightful to read. Clear, concise, and unusual.Very relevant to the essay question that was set. You have highlighted some wonderfully different wrong assumptions. I particularly like the last one. Another possibility is that the visible universe is larger in estimated extent than the material universe now existing. Especially if there is unaccounted for curvature of the light rays, carrying the sensory data, due to planetary motion disturbing the environment in which they travel.

If the view of observers, scattered across the universe, were considered there would be a whole multi-verse of different visible universes. That is one of the types of multiverse Max Tegmark as talked about. Which raises the question in my mind - could they also still be regarded as all parts of the same Mega-universe? Or must they be regarded as distinct universes because these image fabrications are isolated from each other? A thought provoking, well written essay. Good luck, Kind regards Georgina : )

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Andreas Boe replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 13:14 GMT
Glad you liked my "assumptions"!

I will try to give you a not to ambitious answer to your question:

"If the view of observers, scattered across the universe, were considered there would be a whole multi-verse of different visible universes.......could they also still be regarded as all parts of the same Mega-universe? Or must they be regarded as distinct universes because these image fabrications are isolated from each other?"

I would say that the whole "Mega-universe" could be regarded as one thing, no matter if parts of it is physically detached from each other. The "Mega-Universe" as a quantum-object resides outside of physics and is not in itself bound by the light-speed limit.

One thing that would make the mega-universe much easier to relate to, is if there exists a common "now" for every place in it. Even super-remote ones. Many distinguished cosmologists believe it does not. For example cosmologys own poster boy; Brian Green. Personally I have a hard time to swallow that pill. A common "now" makes much more sense to me.

Have ze najs day.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 10:19 GMT
Hi Andreas,

It makes much more sense to me too.

I also agree that an unobserved Object Mega universe would be 'one thing' even though it can not be observed in its entirety and so there are a multi-verse of separate Image fabrications produced.

Thanks for your reply. Its good to agree.

Georgina

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.