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

Anonymous: on 10/25/12 at 22:42pm UTC, wrote Thanks for the last messsage. Indeed I'm missing some of them. And I found...

Jayakar Joseph: on 10/5/12 at 14:58pm UTC, wrote Dear Juan Miguel Marín, As per Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 4:34am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Vladimir Tamari: on 10/2/12 at 11:11am UTC, wrote Dear Juan Thank you for confirming the importance of Young and...

Anonymous: on 10/2/12 at 3:00am UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir You make me realize I should have paid more attention to...

Yuri Danoyan: on 10/1/12 at 20:27pm UTC, wrote Juan,very interesting essay....

Ed Unverricht: on 10/1/12 at 20:05pm UTC, wrote Juan, Loved the video on youtube. I also learned about "the vortex-atom...

Hoang Hai: on 10/1/12 at 3:29am UTC, wrote Many thank Juan.Very happy when known to you.


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jorma Seppaenen: "I find this very interesting topic. I am just a amateur enthusiast of..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...

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

Hanvi jobs: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 24, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Revisiting Our Basic Physical Assumptions: Our Density Concept Vs. Riemann's Dichtigkeit by Juan Miguel Marín [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Juan Miguel Marín wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 15:39 GMT
Essay Abstract

In this essay I argue that we need to revisit and re-conceptualize our basic physical assumptions within a wider scientific context. I exemplify my argument with Riemann’s concept of Dichtigkeit (density).

Author Bio

Originally from Puerto Rico, Juan Miguel Marín lives in Cambridge, MA, where he pursues graduate studies at Harvard University. His most recent academic articles have been published in the European Journal of Physics and Harvard Theological Review. He gladly welcomes questions, comments and criticisms at jmarin(@)mail.harvard.edu.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 20:27 GMT
Pythagoreans thought that the principles governing Number are “the principles of all things,” the concept of Number being more basic than earth, air, fire, or water, which were....

Juan

Pythagoras is the best understanding this World.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 15:11 GMT
Thanks for the comment. Pythagoras certainly remains with us today. And his influence on our physical foundations and cosmological ideas remains to be explored. Best, Juan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 00:11 GMT
Juan

This is confirmation my love to Pythagoras

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:08 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.

Regards !

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

Anonymous replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 19:41 GMT
I would rather re-examine first our basic assumptions and then, only then, seek new definitions in collaboration with others. If we don't re-examine what we mean by mass, weight and density, we risk repeating our previous mistakes.

As Riemann writes, no theory can be 100% correct. We can only approximate truth by diminishing the error margin.

Thanks so much for your comments.

Many best wishes. Juan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 03:29 GMT
Many thank Juan.Very happy when known to you.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 17:00 GMT
Dear Juan,

Congratulations on an insightful and original approach and thanks especially for the rich historical context! I have often wished that Riemann and Einstein had been contemporaries; I believe that Riemann could have guided Einstein on the mathematical side more effectively than Minkowski and company.

Have you read the online book Noncommutative Geometry, Quantum Fields and Motives by Connes and Marcoli? It discusses fascinating connections between number theory and quantum field theory. The second part of the book, which I have not yet fully absorbed, is devoted to the Riemann hypothesis.

I think it's ironic that even though Riemannian geometry is taken for granted in the study of relativity, Riemann himself did not take continuum manifolds for granted as a basis for physics. My own favorite approach to quantum gravity described in my essay here On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics begins with something else, namely causal structures. If you get the opportunity, I'd be grateful for any thoughts you might have on this.

Good luck with the contest, and take care,

Ben Dribus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Juan Miguel Marín wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 01:11 GMT
Dear Ben

Thanks so much for your comments on my submission discussing Riemann’s concept of density. I believe everything in your submission, up to its last sentence on “energy density,” reflects rigorously much of what I discuss at a different level. And it does so a hundred times better.

I’ve also often wished that Einstein had met Riemann. Einstein and Planck borrowed a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Juan Miguel Marín replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 01:13 GMT
... (cont.) …From my European Journal of Physics article perhaps you could guess that I would find exciting any research concerning your “universal Schrodinger equation.” Keep it up!

“Mathematical tools necessary to implement these ideas include a synthesis of multicategory theory and categorization in abstract algebra, involving interchangeability of objects, morphisms, elements,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 05:59 GMT
Dear Juan

I was attracted to your essay because of the importance I attribute to the concept of density in the explanation of gravity in my Beautiful Universe Theory upon which I based my fqxi essay Fix Physics! . In my case I owe the concept to Thomas Young and later by Eddington rather than the numerical/knot interpretation you attribute to Riemann and Kelvin and others.

In any case you have written a fascinating description of ideas in physics that were swept away by the overwhelming success of Einstein's unnecessary banishment of the ether with its knots, density and other qualities!

With best wishes,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 03:00 GMT
Dear Vladimir

You make me realize I should have paid more attention to Young and Eddington. I do so elsewhere http://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/30/4/014 but not in relation to Riemann. Thnaks for making me think more deeply about the issues.

Your essay was sometime out of league but always fascinating, original and creative. Hope more thinkers adopt your style. Beauty is not a scientific add-on but a necessary requirement.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 11:11 GMT
Dear Juan

Thank you for confirming the importance of Young and Eddington's concepts of 'density' of space. I wish I could read your IOP article, but I have no means to do so from here.

Thank you for appreciating my style. And if you mean I am sometimes out of my league I must admit that of course it is true. When you fight windmills you realize your true size :)

Dirac emphasized the concept of beauty in physics, but it is by no means a foolproof criterion to correctness!

Best wishes

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 21:25 GMT
Juan

Great essay. Also brilliant smoke ring video and analysis of vortex theory. I agree with the fundamental importance of the vortex model, but also of non zero spatial physics not the points and lines making geometry invalid for describing motion. (Making 'wire frame' frames without solid wires an embedded wrong assumption!). I've worked with toroids for some time (see also last years essay, http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803 and Richard Kinsley Nixey's http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1448 )

Your essay's worth a top score just for the video's!, but a good read as well. I hope you'll read my essay, which I think is unique, breaking new ground in mapping fundamental mechanisms to classical physics. Perhaps tell me if you think not! Interestingly I also finish with a poem, or rather a sonnet.

Well done, and Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 22:42 GMT
Thanks for the last messsage. Indeed I'm missing some of them. And I found yours on Spam.

Anyways, I did took notes and asked some questions. Hope they are helpful.

I'm glad you recognized the philosophical assumptions behind seemingly "scientific" statements, like those around "vacuum." The ideas behind much science go back to Aristotelian science's dictum Nature abhors a vaccum." As you made me realize, they keep "popping up," or not, every now and then.

I wonder about one of your assumptions, falsifiability. What's your stake on Eisntein's cosmological constant? From the little I know about the topic, it seems he plugged it in to avoid rejecting cherished assumptions about a static universe, then rejected it as a flaw, recognizing his "mistake." Supposedly some want it back. I believe in progress but not sure how to address this.

Did Einstein want to incorporate QM, or explain it away? I thought it was the latter. But I should go check,.

When you say "we forget reality," what do you mean? As in, reality is a sine qua non principle? or as in "we know" there's a reality out there? Is reality quantifiable, like Kant used to say, i.e more waves we can "add"?

As you predicted I did resonate and enjoy your conclusion. I think Riemann would have done so too. His system indeed is dynamical. As i interpret some of his notes, his space-time seesm to have consisted of a curved surface/volume in correlation with particle/point/prime density. And as for Charles' Mad Hatter, some claim he may found in "Riemanniana" a place analogous to Wonderland!

Great essay, in all aspects: philosophical, scientifical and literary. Congratulations!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ed Unverricht wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 20:05 GMT
Juan,

Loved the video on youtube. I also learned about "the vortex-atom theory of Sir W. Thomson, made distinctly conceivable in very recent times by the hydrokinetic researches of Helmholtz. Helmholtz, in 1858, first successfully attacked the equations of motion of an incompressible frictionless fluid, [and] that those portions of the fluid which at any time possess rotation preserve it forever...". Very well done essay.

I do computer models of different styles of vortexes to describe fundamental particles in my essay 1306. Great topic, hope you get a chance to have a look or comment on the models.

Regards, Ed

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 20:27 GMT
Juan,very interesting essay....

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 04:34 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
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.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 14:58 GMT
Dear Juan Miguel Marín,

As per Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe, density wave is the pressure wave travelling through lattice of tetrahedral-branes.

With best wishes

Jayakar

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.