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

William Christie: on 7/27/15 at 19:16pm UTC, wrote Wow Dennis! I've been thinking the same most of my life. And you have a Phd...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 5:15am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Georgina Woodward: on 10/4/12 at 3:43am UTC, wrote Dear Dennis Crossley, I enjoyed your essay. I like the very clear way in...

Peter Jackson: on 10/2/12 at 16:56pm UTC, wrote Dennis Excellent underlying 3D logic, and nicely written essay free of...

Yuri Danoyan: on 9/30/12 at 14:35pm UTC, wrote Where are you Dennis?

George: on 9/28/12 at 6:48am UTC, wrote Dear Dennis, Thanks for your essay. I find in your judgments many similar...

James Hoover: on 9/23/12 at 23:34pm UTC, wrote Dennis, You are speaking of an expanding wave flowing through space-time?...

Hoang Hai: on 9/19/12 at 14:39pm UTC, wrote Dear Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us are convinced...


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.


FQXi FORUM
July 18, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Conceptual Barriers to a Unified Theory of Physics by Dennis Crossley [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Dennis Crossley wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 10:56 GMT
Essay Abstract

The twin pillars of twentieth-century physics, quantum theory and general relativity, have conceptual errors in their foundations, which are at the heart of the repeated failures to combine these into a single unified theory of physics. The problem with quantum theory is related to the use of the point-particle model, and the problem with general relativity follows from a misinterpretation of the significance of the equivalence principle. Correcting these conceptual errors leads to a new model of matter called the space wave model which is outlined here. The new perspective gained by space wave theory also makes it clear that there are conceptual errors in the two main thrusts of twenty-first-century theoretical physics, string theory and loop quantum gravity. The string model is no more satisfactory than the point-particle model and the notion that space must be quantized is, frankly, nonsensical. In this paper I examine all of these conceptual errors and suggest how to correct them so that we can once again make progress toward a unified theory of physics.

Author Bio

Assistant Professor of Physics and Mathematics. PhD in Physics from University of Wisconsin. Research interests are in the foundations of quantum theory and special relativity and in the search for a unified theory of physics.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 16:21 GMT
Dennis

3 Dimensional space is good idea.

I thinking about it many years.

See

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ben Baten wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 18:13 GMT
Hi Dennis,

I enjoyed reading your interesting essay and agree with many of your conclusions. At a conceptual level, it has many similar ideas as covered in my essay, http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1488 and reports (ref 13 in the essay).

Let me comment on some of your statements:

1. Page 6, "The cosmic speed limit of c for the motion of matter is widely recognized, but no one has ever given a physical reason for why this speed limit exists." I suggest that, in electrons, the speed limit is due to the internal 'photonic' motion combined with helical motion.

2. Page 6, "if this simple conclusion is true, then we should expect to see transformations from one mode to the other, from light to matter and vice versa; and of course we do in the phenomena of particle creation." Yes, and this becomes natural when all particles (massive and photons) exhibit internal motion at the speed of light.

3. Page 8. "The simplest of these, representing the electron, is easiest to visualize. It is simply a circular path in space." See my essay for the same thought.

There are a few details on which we differ in thinking, but they are not important enough to list here.

Regards,

Ben Baten

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 18:46 GMT
Dear Dennis Crossley,

I enjoyed you essay and agree with your major premises. I particularly liked your statement, "'equivalence' really means equivalence" and I was unfamiliar with Reichenbach's explanation that F = 0 is simpler!

You ask how we might make progress toward a microscopic model of gravity. I suggest that to do such we must focus on local rotational aspects, ie, gravito-magnetic effects versus radial or gravito-electric gradients. This also has the desired result, from your perspective, of providing non-linear self-interacting action over small closed paths! It leads to soliton-like 'particles' of the type you propose.

While I agree that light is a mystery, I tend to also agree with Einstein that "there is no space empty of field" so I therefore tend to think of gravity as the least medium that is conceivable, versus the 'geometry' in which Reichenbach's F = 0.

Our conceptions thus differ somewhat on the surface, but we do agree on specific details: 1) 3D space is a dynamic continuum and 2) elementary particles are the result of non-linear self-interactions propagating around small closed paths. And I strongly agree with your take on the 'virtual particle' model of force in QFT, and on the non-sensical nature of strings.

Like you, I did not have space to develop the soliton-like 'particles' in my current essay, and I ask you to merely assume their existence. Based on such, I hope you will ready my essay, The Nature of the Wave Function, and I would very much appreciate any comments you might make. And since I think my model agrees with your theory, if you do like my model, I hope that you will give me an appropriate score.

Good luck in the competition,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Warwick Morgan wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 19:19 GMT
You may find the work of Art Hobson interesting, including, most recently, "There are no particles, there are only fields".

Peter Morgan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John A. Macken wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 00:19 GMT
Dennis,

I could not believe how similar your ideas are to mine. I started with a premise like yours and I realized that if it was correct, it should be possible to show that all particles, fields and forces are made from the single building block of 4 dimensional spacetime. The first step was to define the characteristics that spacetime must possess in order to be this single building block. In this short post it is impossible to tell you all the exciting developments that have occurred in this pursuit over the last 10 years. I have written the draft of a book that is available for download here. This pursuit has resulted in not only a wave-based particle model, but this has also led to the derivation of the gravitational force from first principles. The most amazing part is that the gravity model developed from waves in spacetime not only yields the Newtonian gravitational equation, but it also makes other predictions about the relationship between gravity and the other forces. This has resulted in previously unknown equations relating the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force. These equations are the subject of my essay available here. These equations show the importance of the Compton wavelength in the generation of both the gravitational and electromagnetic forces of single particles. I would be interested in corresponding further with you on this subject if you are interested.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 09:34 GMT
Hi Dennis,

You idea is to me highly reminiscent of the sketches of space-theory propounded by William Clifford 140 years ago:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Space-Theory_of_Matter

A
ll the best,

Armin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


ABRAHAM wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 22:48 GMT
Hi Dennis,

Great essay, clearly articulating the need to better define EM mass-ENERGY-Matter in our three dimensions before we leap to conclusions drawn from mathematical modelling alone.

Tetryonics agrees in many ways with the points you make in your essay but extends it one step further with the equilateral quantisation of all EM energies.

I hope you'll take a look and see how we compliment each others work in differing ways.

attachments: 1_Figure_38.10__WaveParticle_Probabilities_800x600.jpg, 3_EM__massENERGYMatter_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Avtar Singh wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 16:18 GMT
Dear Dennis:

I enjoyed reading your well-written essay and the space-wave theory to resolve the current dilemma in physics. I have developed a similar approach that satisfies many of the features of the space wave theory proposed by you.

As you note in your paper – “ …This common speed for both matter and light suggests that they are two aspects of the same phenomenon, both modes of wave motion in the geometry of space. Indeed, if this simple conclusion is true, then we should expect to see transformations from one mode to the other, from light to matter and vice versa; and of course we do in the phenomena of particle creation (such as ! e+e􀀀) and particle-antiparticle annihilation.” My paper - -“ From Absurd to Elegant Universe” describes a mechanistic model of spontaneous transformation of matter to light and vice-versa to resolve many of the current paradoxes and singularities of GR and QM.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper. You can contact me at avsingh@alum.mit.edu.

Best of Luck and Regards

Avtar Singh

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 14:04 GMT
Dear Professor Crossley

I enjoyed reading your essay and firmly agree with the following views:

1- That the particle concept is false, and is the source of of the unphysical idea of quantum probability interpretation. I have discussed my views about this in my fqxi essay Fix Physics! . I have also described e/m as a spreading wave, but one in a lattice field, as described in Beautiful Universe Theory on which my fqxi paper is based.

I am happy to have introduced fqxi to Eric Reiter in whose essay he described his astounding experimental proof that the point photon idea is wrong!

2- That matter is a sort of wave (a soliton) but why nonlinear? My friend the late Gabriel laFrenier simulated spherical standing waves and believed that matter is only waves

3- That general relativity need not have been based on warped geometry. I did not quite understand the alternative of flat gravity . For my views about GR see my Beautiful Universe theory for the idea (originally Eddigton's) that gravity is simply due to deceleration in a density field of the vacuum with a gradient-index of refraction.

I wish you the best.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:39 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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 23:34 GMT
Dennis,

You are speaking of an expanding wave flowing through space-time? Are we at the center of a smaller wave, explaining the expanding in all directions? Are all the forces embedded in space-time? I would be interested in your thought on the nature of gravity which my essay discusses.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 06:48 GMT
Dear Dennis,

Thanks for your essay. I find in your judgments many similar points with mine approach. I think it must be interesting for you. Please find time to check it.

Essay

I have appraised your work because you are on right way in mine view.

Regards,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 14:35 GMT
Where are you Dennis?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 16:56 GMT
Dennis

Excellent underlying 3D logic, and nicely written essay free of excessive technobabble. I was astonished to agree virtually each point you made with only the odd semantics to resolve. If you are about, I do hope you'll read my own essay, which uses the same foundations and finds classical physics from the quanta via logic. I think the mechanism is a massive step forward, but it still needs the sternest tests so do comment.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 03:43 GMT
Dear Dennis Crossley,

I enjoyed your essay. I like the very clear way in which your essay is set out and the accessibility of the language.It is very relevant to the essay question and I like that you are giving what you consider better alternatives, with justification of those opinions, rather than just concentrating on the problems.

There is IMHO another important facet of reality that you have not considered in this essay, which is necessary to unify QM and space-time relativity. Nevertheless I like the very clear way in which you have talked about the problems that you regard as significant and their potential resolution. Good luck, Georgina.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:15 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


William H. F. Christie wrote on Jul. 27, 2015 @ 19:16 GMT
Wow Dennis! I've been thinking the same most of my life. And you have a Phd to boot, so maybe the idea is coming out at last.

I studied Economics and Physics in my undergrad, then went into Architecture and have been a practicing Architect all my life with a "hobby" in Physics.

I was working on my grad project in architecture when my mentor said "get outside the box, get uncomfortable". I was reading "The Evolution of Physics" by Einstein and Infeld at the time and applied that advice to the MM 1887. So, everyone was being transmitted through space just as light was. Thus, I wondered what could be the wave function or form of matter that would exhibit relativity and QM. I tried various things and read up on attempts by Lorentz and then simply thought of a rotating (spinning) wave and it seemed to answer it all. I submitted it to various journals but it was contrary to current thinking. I had doubts because surely others must have thought about it. Even Dirac suggested an internal wave structure of spin. Anyway, you mentioned rotating (obviously in reference to spin) so I sure would like to know what you think about the classical Rotating Wave. See attached. Disregard derivation of Gkl - my latest version I think is correct not shown here. If the rotating wave model is the correct model of the fermion, then it's mass energy density tensor should be the same as the thermo dynamic model and one should thus be able to derive it from the model.

Thank you so much for your article.

Bill Christie

attachments: 1_Rotating_Wave_Wavicle_-_Full_Article.pdf

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.