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

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

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Mr Hosein, the MWI of Everett is a philosophical different..." in Good Vibrations

Steve Dufourny: "Hello John and Dr Chiang, Dr Chiang , I have tried to find you on..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Nicholas hosein: "Reality is a many-worlds Quantum level event." in Good Vibrations

Kwan Chiang: "Hi John and Steve, When the majority talk about Maxwell equations, it is..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Monika Součková: "What do you feel the most exciting or effective learning environment would..." in Quantum Machine Learning...

Jim Snowdon: "Had we evolved on a swiftly rotating planet like the Earth, our..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Jim Snowdon: "If the rotational motion of the moon is 370km per hour, and the rotational..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Lorraine Ford: "Steve, I would like to point out that physics says that the world and..." in How does an Isolated...

RECENT ARTICLES

Good Vibrations
Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

Reconstructing Physics
New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves
Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

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.

FQXi FORUM
January 18, 2022

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]

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Many best wishes. Juan

report post as inappropriate

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

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

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

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

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,

report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 03:00 GMT

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.

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

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

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!

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

report post as inappropriate

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

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
$R_1$
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.

Sergey Fedosin

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

report post as inappropriate