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

Robert Traill: on 10/6/12 at 4:01am UTC, wrote Thanks for the encouraging comments. Bob Traill

Robert Traill: on 10/6/12 at 3:34am UTC, wrote Regarding your "1294" essay: I Certainly agree about the difficulty in...

Robert Traill: on 10/6/12 at 3:18am UTC, wrote Thanks Anton, I'm gald to hear about your agreement on these points. ...

Robert Traill: on 10/6/12 at 1:30am UTC, wrote Thanks Peter for your comments. I was very interested to see your essay. ...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 4:20am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Declan Traill: on 10/3/12 at 9:36am UTC, wrote I have given you a high Community rating: love your work... Best wished...

Hoang Hai: on 10/1/12 at 2:28am UTC, wrote Dear Robert R. Traill Very interesting to see your essay.You may also...

Peter Jackson: on 9/29/12 at 14:42pm UTC, wrote Robert Someone told me you needed a plumber for your '...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

Steve Dufourny: "They have a life time these dinosaurs like us, I have ranked the evolution..." 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: Updated Scientific Method Versus Crucial Gaps in Our Theory by Robert R. Traill [refresh]

Author Robert R. Traill wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 14:48 GMT
Essay Abstract

This paper seeks to report developments in "ToK" (the Theory of Knowledge) and, where feasible, apply them to long-standing problems in physics. One key issue is to explain the nature of observation/perception, and hence criticize the 1900s' emphasis on experimental observation as harmfully overzealous empiricism. Meanwhile theory (and hidden-but-indispensible processes) have both been undervalued and their processes misunderstood. Much of the impetus for this work came from the late Professor J.Piaget, best known for the impact of his work on developmental psychology; but he also argued that similar principles apply to society-as-such (including the collective scientific-world) — and that amounts to a new approach to "Scientific Method" which has been used with apparent success in the biological sciences closest to physics, including neurophysiology. The account concludes with a brief application of this approach to two old problems in physics (Special Relativity, and Wave/Particle indeterminacy) — meanwhile noting other work which seems to have produced plausible models by actually breaking those “taboos” criticized here.

Author Bio

I am now "retired" (at least according to SOME definitions), but I am actively persuing several inter-related lines of interdisiplinary enquiry. I had started with physics, but then spread my interest into the social sciences, thence to the biological sciences, and then back to physics again, meanwhile becoming a fan of both Heaviside (cable theory), and Piaget (knowledge theory). When I find the time, I sometimes appear onstage (mostly musicals these days) or participate in walking-or-cycling activities.

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 00:02 GMT
Hi Robert,

Your essay will either be praised or condemned,  nothing in between. I am in the camp of support. Not surprising, I am one of those, as you put it, "just another irritating mutation".

Remember, Copernicus was exactly such an irritant, however his evidence overwhelmed the common believe.

Sooner or later, a theory will emerge that will gain popular support outside the academia and may seriously challenge the "lucky few".

It is unwise by the professionals to ignore the ideas from the non-academics. I can understand why, the shear volume is too huge to handle. I am sure that a voluntary hierarchical pyramid like structure of  bottom-up vetting can be introduced to filter and pass only the best ideas to the top.

Regards

Anton @ (  ../topic/1458  )

report post as inappropriate
Robert Traill replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 03:18 GMT
Thanks Anton,

(For moe unaccountable reason, I've not been able to access your essay --- at least not from here. I'll maybe try another route later on.)

Best Wishes,

Bob Traill

report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 03:42 GMT
Robert,

As I stated in my bio, topic 1294, I thought I had retired. After retirement, outside of the system, it gives one the opportunity to think about the conformities that one had to stay within, otherwise one could find themselves outside of the system even though still physically within it.

In your essay, Section 4.1, you raise the issue of measurements. It is not just the scale used for a measurement, it is what the scale is related to and how the scale is implemented. It would be beneficial if SI units had a base "unit of energy" by which all energy, regardless of electromagnetic (EM) spectrum position, could be related to.

Even though some point in the EM spectrum could be used to establish a "base unit of energy", apparently, there is no agreement where this point should be. A mathematically derived solution is available. It was not apparent from the basic formulation where this "spectrum position" was until it was translated to the SI second.

An IEEE paper titled, "A methodology to define physical constants using mathematical constants" provides a precise point in the EM spectrum that can be used to establish a "unit of energy." A search on the title will identify the IEEE publication and my webpage (~ancient) which provides a link to the postprint. Also, I provide links to the publications in the comments of topic 1294.

report post as inappropriate
Robert Traill replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 03:34 GMT
Regarding your "1294" essay: I Certainly agree about the difficulty in getting a change in official beliefs and doctrines, including methodology. That leaves the question of what (if anything) can be done about it.

[Adjusting the use of units may have its place, tho its role is surely fairly minor. So where is the MAIN Problem?]

I have suggested difficulties within practical Knowledge-Acquisition procedures, but maybe these too are only part of the problem!!

I guess there may also be vested interests which do not WANT major change since that could leave them with "stranded assets". What do you think?

At any rate, I don't yet see much political will towards reform; --- or have I missed something???

Regards,

Bob Traill

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 14:42 GMT
Robert

Someone told me you needed a plumber for your ' hidden-but-indispensible processes'. I agree consistent theory and process 'have ...been undervalued and ...misunderstood', and I present one that works in my own essay. But I'm afraid it shows the old ones seem to need a bit of a clear out! I loved reading your essay and your part 4.2 is shown as pretty spot on by the model. A top score for that alone! Frames can move relative to local background frames, which can move relative to local background frames. Analagous to 'flexible ether', and with real evidence of boundaries (see also Kinsgley-Nixy essay and his Fig 2). It also also agrees waves are more fundamental.

The ontological construction built from solid epistemoligical elements needs support (and a top placing) to get noticed. (scoring ending soon!). At present it seems it's just too 'unfamiliar' to be taken on board by any physicist.

From reading your excellent essay and analysis I think you're one of the minority here who'll understand and put together the mechanisms. (Do also read my latest post to Pentcho).

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Robert Traill replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 01:30 GMT

I was very interested to see your essay.

Meanwhile I'll need to study it further, and follow up some of your references.

Bob Traill

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 02:28 GMT
Dear Robert R. Traill

Very interesting to see your essay.You may also same feel like with my essay.

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
Robert Traill replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 04:01 GMT

Bob Traill

report post as inappropriate

Declan Traill wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 09:36 GMT
I have given you a high Community rating: love your work...

Best wished for the contest Dad!

Regards,

Declan Traill

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 04:20 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