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

S Halayka: on 10/20/12 at 15:17pm UTC, wrote Hi Blake, I really liked your essay, and I do believe thzt the "gauge...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 4:28am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Jayakar Joseph: on 9/30/12 at 17:27pm UTC, wrote Dear Pollard, From your statement in context with Weyl Curvature Tensor,...

Hoang Hai: on 9/28/12 at 4:00am UTC, wrote Dear Blake Stephen Pollard Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps...

Benjamin Dribus: on 9/12/12 at 20:05pm UTC, wrote Dear Blake, Although you say you were pressed for time while writing this,...

Eckard Blumschein: on 9/6/12 at 14:08pm UTC, wrote Hi Blake Pollard, The late Hermann Weyl uttered serious doubts about very...

Blake Pollard: on 9/5/12 at 11:32am UTC, wrote Essay Abstract It is possible that the strict adherence to one...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "Isn't symmetry simply closely related to redundancy even if physicist may..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Robert Rise: "Meet many types of women on ihookup. Some dates better than others. It is..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Steve Dufourny: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...


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
October 24, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: What Would Weyl Do? by Blake Stephen Pollard [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Blake Stephen Pollard wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 11:32 GMT
Essay Abstract

It is possible that the strict adherence to one particular assumption about the physical world buried within our modern mathematical frameworks might be the limiting factor in the physics community's eager efforts to take a step forward in our understanding of the world around us. In this essay we ask ourselves which foundational concepts H. Weyl might have reconsidered.

Author Bio

The author earned his BS in Applied Physics from Columbia University in May of 2011. The author has since moved to Hawaii, where he currently works as a researcher.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 14:08 GMT
Hi Blake Pollard,

The late Hermann Weyl uttered serious doubts about very foundational matters. Figs. 1, 3, 4, and in particular 2 of my current essay should be food for thought not just addressing physicists but also mathematicians. You seem young enough as to occasionally learn in decades to come that my criticism might be justified.

While I would not appreciate you applying what you learned and reject them without due refutation, you are invited to articulate any counterargument.

I consider each out of the five Figs. relevant to the topic of the current contest. Fig. 5 may undermine all accepted interpretations of the MMX which of course implies that Einstein's SR was unfounded. You would be the first one who proved me wrong.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 20:05 GMT
Dear Blake,

Although you say you were pressed for time while writing this, you nonetheless present some very worthwhile ideas, and express them quite well. You also seem to have the mathematical maturity to make these ideas precise. A couple of thoughts.

1. Since Weyl was one of the fathers of representation theory, I thought you might be interested in a different take on this crucial subject. Many approaches to quantum gravity involve nonmanifold structure at small scales, and this makes the use of covariance in the form of the representation theory of the Poincare symmetry group difficult for determining particle states etc. However, one can alternatively view covariance in order-theoretic terms, and this viewpoint is much more general (see my essay here On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics for more details). This opens up the following interesting question: if you use something more general than groups, what do you do about the representation theory? It is also interesting to think about gauge theory in analogous terms.

2. A couple of other essays here that might interest you are the ones by Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga and Jerzy Kroll. In particular, they involve exotic smoothness structures, which can accomplish some of the same things as magnetic monopoles, among many other interesting properties.

Take care,

Ben Dribus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 04:00 GMT
Dear Blake Stephen Pollard

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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 17:27 GMT
Dear Pollard,

From your statement in context with Weyl Curvature Tensor, ‘Gravity tells space how to curve, and curved space tells gravity how to move’, we perceive that, Weyl Curvature Tensor is much applicable to describe the emergence of gravity from the eigen-rotational strings in Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe.

With best wishes

Jayakar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 04:28 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


S Halayka wrote on Oct. 20, 2012 @ 15:17 GMT
Hi Blake,

I really liked your essay, and I do believe thzt the "gauge redundancy" that you talk about is important at a fundamental level. I regret not having voted on your essay while the contest was still open.

- Shawn

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.