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

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

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 4:11am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Hoang Hai: on 10/1/12 at 2:01am UTC, wrote Dear Sreenath B N Very happy to be your answer. Based on my research: the...

Sreenath N: on 9/19/12 at 16:53pm UTC, wrote Dear Hai, Thanks for your interesting query. You have confused between...

Hoang Hai: on 9/19/12 at 15:52pm UTC, wrote Dear Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us are convinced...

Peter Jackson: on 9/19/12 at 10:26am UTC, wrote Sreenath The path is helical, but from a translating 'soliton', so...

Sreenath N: on 9/19/12 at 10:01am UTC, wrote Dear Sridattadev, It is enlightening to know that you have adopted...

Sreenath N: on 9/18/12 at 17:37pm UTC, wrote Dear Peter, Thanks for your encouraging comments on my essay. But I am not...

Sridattadev: on 9/18/12 at 17:07pm UTC, wrote Dear Sreenath, Science is about the details of a system as you are...

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: The Concept of Acceleration in the Quantum World Is Wrong by Sreenath B N [refresh]

Author Sreenath B N wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 15:34 GMT
Essay Abstract

Acceleration plays key role in solving the problem of Quantum-Gravity and that is why it has got to be redefined in the quantum world so as to formulate a consistent theory of quantum-gravity and set a plotform for merging general-relativity with quantum-mechanics.

Author Bio

Independent researcher on QG; interested in the fundamentals and philosophy of physics.

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 05:01 GMT
Dear B. N. Sreenath,

Interesting essay. A few questions come to mind.

1. As you know, acceleration is related to gravity in ordinary GR by the equivalence principle, and hence accelerated frames of reference are equivalent to frames in an appropriate gravitational field, at least locally. Now, does your quantized acceleration imply "quantized reference frames?" The reason I ask is because changes between frames of reference are usually understood in terms of continuous group transformations, and quantized reference frames would alter this. My own belief is that frames of reference are indeed quantized and that changes of reference frame are not really group transformations. I discuss this in my essay: On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics.

2. Are your field equations still intended to describe a manifold over the continuum, or is spacetime itself quantized in some way in your theory.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on these points. Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Sreenath BN replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 04:56 GMT
Dear Ben Dribus,

Greetings and thanks for your lucid inquiry.

My answer to your first question is, 1) Quantized acceleration applies only to quantum (or micro) particles and not to classical test masses or bodies. In EVAF, the path described by both quantum particles and classical test masses or bodies is log spiral and it is a continuous path. So the motion of quantum particles and classical test masses can be explained on the basis of 'continuous reference frames' and if 'continuous group transformations' can explain EVAF, then it can be applied. However, for quantum particles the reference frames may be treated as being quantized and accordingly energy transitions can be explained. To this continuous group transformations cannot be applied.

To your second question, my answer is; Quantized acceleration, for quantum particles, is equivalent to quantum of energy but this does n't mean that space-time itself is quantized. It is true that the field equations describe a manifold over the continuum, because the path described is a continuous one.

I have a glimpse of your article and I like your approach towards solving the problems and as soon as I go through it in detail, I surely express my opinions.

Best regards and good luck in the essay competition.

Sreenath B N.

report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 06:08 GMT
Thanks... I'll look forward to seeing your remarks. Take care,

Ben

report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 16:14 GMT
Dear Benjamin,

I am extremely sorry for the delay in replying to your query. I am glad to know that you have your original way of looking at the fundamental problems of physics and surprised to learn that you suspect too many basic assumptions of physics where as I consider as wrong only one basic assumption. On the basis of your 'causal metric hypothesis', you have tried to explain, in a novel way, the origin of the classical concepts of space-time and also the role of space and time in the quantum world. On the basis of 'causal metric hypothesis' you have attempted to unify both GR and QM leading to the theory of QG. I am also interested in knowing how you account for the appearence of continuous manifolds on the basis of 'discrete reference frames'.

Anyway, you have put too much thought in to the problems facing physics and wish you succeed in solving them in one stroke on the basis of 'causal metric hypothesis'. I rate your essay high because of its originality and want to know how you feel about mine.

Good luck and best regards,

Sreenath.

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 15:11 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

As the tetrahedral-brane, expressional in Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe is quantization, the gravity that is the tensor product of the eigen-rotational string is also quantised with the eigen-rotational cycle of that string that is transformational as tetrahedral-brane.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N wrote on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 07:33 GMT
Dear Jayakar,

Thanks for your courtesy call and as soon as I go through your essay I will respond.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Sridattadev wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 18:34 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Gravity is the inherent nature of the space-time fabric as in GR (duality) and pulls on things in that fabric accordingly. Yes gravity gets twisted along with the space-time inside the black hole (moment of death) and hence EVAF as you have beautifully explained. Space-time is the inherent nature of the conscience (singularity) and hence the realization that there is no more gravity to the realized one who experiences singularity as it is everywhere (immortality or nirvana or enlightenment or moksha).

Yes indeed, the singularity that I am referring to is the Advaita experience of Adi Shankaracharya.

Love,

report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 16:53 GMT

Thanks for your kind comments.The system of philosophy you are following i.e., Advaitha is closely related to science, especially to physics, as current trend in physics is to unify all basic interactions (forces) in to one. Infact my last year's essay started with the word 'Advaitha".

Warm regards,

Sreenath.

Sridattadev replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 17:07 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Science is about the details of a system as you are trying to desribe, spirituality is the essence of the entire cosmos as in Advaitha philosophy. We can choose to be the mechanic (scientist) or the driver (spiritual being) of a vehicle or even better both at the same time. Wisdom is to enjoy the ride safely.

You are most welcome and I wish you all the best with your work.

Love,

report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 10:01 GMT

It is enlightening to know that you have adopted Advaithist Vedanthik view in life. Accordingly there is only one Reality and that is Brahman, 'The Cosmic Consciousness' and the rest are subservient to the realization of that Reality.

warm regards,

Sreenath.

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 14:19 GMT
Sreenath

Gravity as a torsion field and spiral morphology, but quantized, are certainly original and I think have some good strengths over other models. I think your work is undervalued.

Have you seen the (translating toroid) helix or 'twin spiral model of Kingley-Nixey, equivalent to my twin vortex torus, which is also torsion based, as the em field spirals around the tubular 'body'. (last Fig). He also well covers my frame boundary condition with his Fig 2. interpretation of ion shocks. Do let me know what you think, or I'll check on his blog.

My original post to you spiralled off into cyberspace instead of sticking, and I've only just noticed.

Well done.

Best of luck.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 17:37 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thanks for your encouraging comments on my essay. But I am not seeing the figures you are talking of in my forum. It might not have been posted properly. Please send them soon so that I will have a look at them.

BTW, my QG field describes log spiral path but not helical path due to some specific reasons.If your twin vortex torus is equivalent to my log (or conical)spiral,then both are same. Where do I find the 'twin spiral model of Kingley-Nixey'? Please give me the link to that article.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best of luck.

Sreenath.

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 10:26 GMT
Sreenath

The path is helical, but from a translating 'soliton', so effectively a twin vortex, the two 'cones' when turned back on themselves forming a torus. (Two rotating bipoles translating will then also form the structure of DNA)

The figures I refer are all in this essay, http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1448 consistent with mine and not only showing the 'tapered corkscrew', but in his Fig 2, the actual experimental results from the Cluster probes showing and correctly re-interpreting the frame transition ('LT') mechanism I describe at REAL inertial frame boundaries implementing local CSL.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:52 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

Author Sreenath B N replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 16:53 GMT
Dear Hai,

Thanks for your interesting query. You have confused between 'mass' and 'weight'. A test mass or body as described by classical physics can have both mass and weight.The mass of the same body will have different weights on Earth and Moon because weight (w) is related to mass (m) by the equation w = mg, where 'g' is the surface gravity of Earth or Moon. Since there is difference in the values of surface gravity of Earth and Moon its (bodies) weight accordingly varies but not its mass.

For micro (quantum) particles only the concept of mass is used but not the concept of weight.So you cannot apply the concept of weight to the Higg's boson. So whether the Higg's boson is on Earth or on moon its mass remains the same.

My article is about the concept of acceleration in the micro-world and this concept will not apply to classical- world and hence to classical bodies. It applies only to quantum particles and,as I have said in my article,it (acceleration) is 'quatized' in the micro world and is equivalent to 'quantum of energy'.I have given experimental proof for it too. So it need not be taken for granted.

I will go through your article soon and respond.

Best regards and good luck in the essay contest.

Sreenath

Hoang cao Hai replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 02:01 GMT
Dear Sreenath B N

Based on my research: the separation of the concept of "weight" and "mass" is a mistake stems from the failure to identify specific "gravity".Therefore we will not be able to find the Higg boson, because when stoped (the effects of acceleration) is that it "disappeared".

If the Higg particle contains the mass (is "heavy")

So: in multi-dimensional space,way or direction was it will be "heavy" follow ?

and why it is "heavy" follow that way or that direction?

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 04:11 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