Search FQXi

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

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

Previous Contests

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

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Helmut Hansen: on 10/4/12 at 7:28am UTC, wrote Dear Richard, I have read your well-written paper. I think your critical...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 4:48am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/2/12 at 7:42am UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

Hoang Hai: on 9/28/12 at 4:08am UTC, wrote Dear Richard Easther Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of...

Jonathan Dickau: on 9/27/12 at 2:03am UTC, wrote Hello Richard, I expect to read your essay soon, but I wanted you to know...

Benjamin Dribus: on 9/14/12 at 18:08pm UTC, wrote Dear Richard, You make some excellent points here, although I hope the...

Sergey Fedosin: on 9/8/12 at 17:23pm UTC, wrote Dear Richard, As a cosmologist and theoretical physicist, I hope you can...

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi: on 9/5/12 at 7:02am UTC, wrote Dear Richard, I enjoyed reading your essay, which was somewhat unusual in...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jim Snowdon: "What do you mean by universal clock?" in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Steve Dufourny: "duration or time, or clocks, they are linked and under an universal..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Lorraine Ford: "P.S. Clearly, a situation symbolically representable as: ..." in The Present State of...

Lorraine Ford: "So, in reply to the posts by Stefan Weckbach and Steve Dufourny above,..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "If considering existence rather than appearances, the time dimension..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Georgina Woodward: "That is about the 'anatomy"" of spacetime." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Georgina Woodward: "Thank you. Good luck." in The Nature of Time

Lorraine Ford: "Rob, As you have not replied, I take it that you now concede that the..." in 16th Marcel Grossmann...

RECENT ARTICLES

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

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

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

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

FQXi FORUM
September 17, 2021

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Fundamental Physics and the Useful Arts by Richard Easther [refresh]

Author Richard Easther wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 11:37 GMT
Essay Abstract

Up until the middle of the 20th Century, advances in fundamental physics often led directly to technological innovations. However, since the construction of the Standard Model in the 1960s, it appears we have an essentially complete description of the fundamental constituents of the universe on ``human'' scales -- that is, larger than nucleons and smaller than galaxies. Discoveries of new fundamental interactions and particles beyond the Standard Model will illuminate the fundamental properties of the physical word, but cannot be expected to drive technological progress. Consequently, the long-standing assumption that advances in physics have practical implications may finally have reached its limit.

Author Bio

Richard Easther is a cosmologist and theoretical physicist.

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 15:47 GMT
Richard

Are you agree with my abstract?

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

report post as inappropriate

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 07:02 GMT
Dear Richard,

I enjoyed reading your essay, which was somewhat unusual in that the assumption it questions is not something about our fundamental theories per se but rather the societal implications of our current knowledge state.

I would like to suggest on a more optimistic note than in your essay that perhaps the financial constraints associated with building particle accelerators may itself provide an impetus for developing new technologies that help probe nature more deeply more efficiently. I am not convinced, for example, that there is no way to deliver a comparatively large amount of energy to an individual elementary particle without building enormous (and enormously expensive) facilities, but unfortunately I cannot offer an alternative. Someone who exhibits the right kind of ingenuity to overcome our current constraints would likely be richly rewarded, and, if such an event does really happen, then it would not be unreasonable that there may be more immediately recognizably useful off-shoots.

The anecdote about Bethe is inspiring, I hope when I'm 90 years old (If I even live that long) I'll keep just a fraction of that kind of activity.

All the best,

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 17:23 GMT
Dear Richard,

As a cosmologist and theoretical physicist, I hope you can evaluate the idea of nuons as the base of dark matter. These particles are supposed in the Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter (my essay). More about it is in the article: Fedosin S.G. Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. Galilean Electrodynamics, Spring 2012, Vol. 23, Special Issues No. 1, P. 3 - 13.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 18:08 GMT
Dear Richard,

You make some excellent points here, although I hope the possible implications can be concealed from those in charge of the purse strings of scientific funding! The "superluminal neutrinos" graph is particularly amusing; I remember reading some of those articles for entertainment and feeling that many of them reflected a profound lack of self-respect; the ideas were obviously half-baked and were predicated on the cynical realization that no one would remember exactly who had filled out a lottery ticket with their favorite superluminal theory.

On a more serious note, I hope (very, very optimistically) that quantum circuits may be capable of modeling some aspects of "fundamental physics" at reasonable scales. There are a number of ideas about quantum gravity and the fundamental structure of spacetime that bear deep similarities to conventional quantum information theory. In the meantime, perhaps we should be thankful that nothing like the atomic bomb has come out of the last 50 years of particle physics. Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 02:03 GMT
Hello Richard,

I expect to read your essay soon, but I wanted you to know that I find your premise kind of scary. To some extent; I hope you are wrong. I hope that Physics is in a place like the turn of the 20th century. Though some felt that Science had already reached its pinnacle in Classical Physics, it turned out that a revolution in Modern Physics was well underway.

More poignantly; I echo Ben's comment above, in hoping that the people who control the funding for my next project have not read your essay. I just left a comment on Ian Durham's essay forum, that reductionist thinking on the part of Finance people hurts Science funding, but if it were true that even great strides in Physics will yield no important technologies, this could be the death knell for many worthwhile research programs.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 04:08 GMT
Dear Richard Easther

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 (definition from the ABSOLUTE theory of me) - 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.

Kind 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

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 07:42 GMT
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

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 04:48 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

Helmut Hansen wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 07:28 GMT
Dear Richard,

I have read your well-written paper. I think your critical analysis is quite serious. At the end of your paper you are nonetheless expressing the hope to be shown overly pessismistic.

As you know there are 20 fundamental constants those origin is still unknown. I think a deeper understanding of these 20 fundamental constants will advance our understanding of reality tremendously.

I have found or discovered that at least one of these 20 fundamental constants is perceived insufficiently. That is the speed of light c.

My discovery is quite simple: If the Light is of Dual Nature, it seems quite natural, to assume, that the speed of light c is of Dual Nature as well. In other words: The fundamental constant of c is given twice - in two different modes - and not once as it is still implicitly assumed.

See my paper: Is the Speed of Light of Dual Nature?

If such a second still hidden face of c is really existing, it will change our fundamental understanding of the universe significantly because the discovery of every new fundamental constant does naturally imply such a paradigm shift .