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

gloria davis: on 3/10/17 at 5:33am UTC, wrote Essay writing contest is the best opportunity for students to show their...

Nancy Lapointe: on 11/23/16 at 12:19pm UTC, wrote If these formulas were put for each contest there would be much less...

Nancy Lapointe: on 11/23/16 at 12:13pm UTC, wrote If these formulas were put for each contest there would be much less...

Robert Traill: on 10/6/12 at 4:03am UTC, wrote Thanks for the information. Best Wishes, Bob Traill

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. ...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: ""The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Jim Snowdon: "On the permanently dark side of the Earth, the stars would appear to stay..." in The Nature of Time

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Jorma, some thoughts; You mention mutual EM connection. I think you..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

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

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

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

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...


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 26, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Updated Scientific Method Versus Crucial Gaps in Our Theory by Robert R. Traill [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



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  )

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

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

I'm gald to hear about your agreement on these points.

(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

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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).

Many thanks in advance for reading mine, and best wishes.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert Traill replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 01:30 GMT
Thanks Peter for your comments.

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

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert Traill replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 04:01 GMT
Thanks for the encouraging comments.

Bob Traill

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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
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


Robert Traill wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 04:03 GMT
Thanks for the information.

Best Wishes,

Bob Traill

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Nancy Lapointe wrote on Nov. 23, 2016 @ 12:13 GMT
If these formulas were put for each contest there would be much less misunderstandings caused by blaming jury in warped judgment. Theory of Knowledge is complicated to write about but presenting your thoughts is even worse so that I am considering thesis to buy and focusing on presentation.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Nancy Lapointe wrote on Nov. 23, 2016 @ 12:19 GMT
If these formulas were put for each contest there would be much less misunderstandings caused by blaming jury in warped judgement. Theory of Knowledge is complicated to write about but presenting your thoughts is even worse so that I am considering thesis to buy and focusing on presentation.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


gloria davis wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 05:33 GMT
Essay writing contest is the best opportunity for students to show their caliber and also can measure up the strength. No one in this world with all caliber we boost up it through better practice. Join with Admission essay writing servicesto boost up your writing ideas and skills.

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.