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 - March 16, 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

Jayakar Joseph: on 10/4/12 at 5:34am UTC, wrote Dear Marek Adam Michalski, In Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 4:33am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/2/12 at 7:37am UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

Hoang Hai: on 10/1/12 at 3:24am UTC, wrote Dear Marek Adam Michalski Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps...

Benjamin Dribus: on 9/27/12 at 15:57pm UTC, wrote Dear Marek, I enjoyed reading your essay, and I agree with a lot of what...

Marek Michalski: on 9/11/12 at 21:11pm UTC, wrote Dear Sergey, The speed of light in Michelson-Morley experiment is...

Frank Makinson: on 9/10/12 at 18:17pm UTC, wrote Marek, Introducing the concept of a "Primary Structure" is difficult to do...

Sergey Fedosin: on 9/8/12 at 16:04pm UTC, wrote In the previous post there is a mistake in the name, it was written for...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: ""At least that's the premise." That's the problem. "the theorems that..." in Alternative Models of...

Malcolm Riddoch: "@Robert: ""This latter, Ψ(U), can't describe a 'drug test' can it?" For..." in Alternative Models of...

John Cox: "Lorraine, I briefly described the relationship of mass to inertia..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

Lorraine Ford: "John, I would say that you need to think what you mean by “physical..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

Lorraine Ford: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..." in Undecidability,...

John Cox: "George, We shouldn't conflate contradiction with inconsistency. QM has a..." in Watching the Watchmen:...

John Cox: "Georgi, by and large I agree. Near the end of the discussion panel,..." in Watching the Watchmen:...

RECENT 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
January 24, 2020

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Two Levels of Universe and the Old Physical Experiment by Marek Adam Michalski [refresh]

Author Marek Adam Michalski wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 15:39 GMT
Essay Abstract

The current essay attempts to discuss the vision of the Universe with the material, spatial, discrete geometric structure of its primary level and the immaterial space of emergent excitations, generated by the evolving Basic Structure. It proposes a new interpretation of the classic Michelson-Morley experiment. I came to the new interpretation after having found, that the original interpretation contradicts the predictions based on my model of Basic Structure.

Author Bio

The author is an independent researcher.

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 20:05 GMT
Do yo now Stefan Marinov?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Marinov

http://ww
w.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-05.PDF

report post as inappropriate

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 13:06 GMT
Dear Marek,

I appreciate your bold attempt at formulating the 'vision' of Universe by postulating the existence of 'Basic Structure'. What are the physical properties of this 'Basic Structure' and how does it differ from the poor old aether? Anyway, I appreciate your bold attempt. Good luck.

All authors in this contest have presented their viewpoints in different styles. In the grand maze of the unknown it is important to consider all possible alternatives and different viewpoints for building a consolidated common approach.

You know, with arbitrary assumptions we can build wonderful fantasies. But to come close to building a model of reality, we must use barest minimum of assumptions and such assumptions that are used must be plausible and compatible with physical reality. For this reason I think FQXi has chosen a most appropriate topic for this contest.

Kindly read my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space".

Best Wishes

G S Sandhu

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 15:57 GMT
Dear Saibal,

What do you think about the speed of light in Michelson-Morley experiment? In the article Metric theory of relativity is supposed formula for absolute speed of light depending on the speed of interferometer.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

report post as inappropriate

Author Marek Adam Michalski replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 21:11 GMT
Dear Sergey,

The speed of light in Michelson-Morley experiment is independent of the speed of interferometer. Such is the conclusion of my model of the Basic Structure.

Marek A. Michalski

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 16:04 GMT
In the previous post there is a mistake in the name, it was written for Marek Adam Michalski.

report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 18:17 GMT
Marek,

Introducing the concept of a "Primary Structure" is difficult to do in nine pages. I will limit my comments to the Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment. This experiment was conducted in 1887, just after Heinrich Hertz demonstrated that electromagnetic (EM) waves propagated through the air, 1886. The "ancient scientists" of that era were unaware that we are constantly bathed in EM...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 15:57 GMT
Dear Marek,

I enjoyed reading your essay, and I agree with a lot of what you say: the existence of a basic or primary structure, the emergence of familiar physical entities from this structure, and so forth. I have a few questions.

1. Could you be a bit more specific about the precise definition of the basic structure in your model? You say that there is a “high degree of similarity between the Basic Structure and the Turing machine with a fairly simple algorithm…” On the basis of this, I presume that your basic structure is something like a graph or a causal network?

2. Do you distinguish between classical and quantum theory, and if so, how?

If you are interested in my ideas about the “basic structure,” you might look at my essay here. I call it a “causal structure” or a “binary relation.”

Finally, I agree with you that relativity and quantum theory are not “wrong,” but I do believe they can be improved. Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 03:24 GMT

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 @ 07:37 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 @ 04:33 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. 4, 2012 @ 05:34 GMT

In Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe, shift of spectral line is the effect of angular acceleration of eigen-rotational string the observer and source belongs. Observable redshift and blue-shift in the universe is indicative of the hierarchy of eigen-rotational strings the observer belongs in the holarchial clustering of universe.

With best wishes

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate