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

Michael Haddid: on 11/12/12 at 13:16pm UTC, wrote Very recently there have been unexpected advances in understanding dark...

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 10/5/12 at 16:52pm UTC, wrote Cher Yuri, ne vous inquiétez pas, Lisez ma conclusion ci-dessous. Et...

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 10/5/12 at 16:49pm UTC, wrote Dear Sergey, Thank you for the clarification. See my conclusion here...

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 10/5/12 at 16:40pm UTC, wrote (It's Me and not Anonymous) Conclusion : I believe that science does not...

Anonymous: on 10/5/12 at 16:32pm UTC, wrote Conclusion : I believe that science does not work according to the number...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 4:05am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Yuri Danoyan: on 10/3/12 at 23:45pm UTC, wrote Сher Ami N'oubliez pas s'il vous plaît évaluer de manière...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/2/12 at 6:29am UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time


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 22, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: What Meaning To Give Percentages of 75% and 25%, Values Which Encounters When Studying the Components of the Universe: Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Baryonic Matter and Radiation? Is This a Coincidence or a Law? by Amazigh Mabrouk Hannou [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 11:11 GMT
Essay Abstract

Remarkable percentages appear when we study the components of the Universe. These two values, 75 % and 25 %, return very often concomitantly. I wonder if there was no law hiding behind or it would be only a simple coincidence. But we can speak about coincidence when their frequency and their precision curls the regularity. It does not appear to a single place then finds itself in a different place, without relationship with the precedent, but through a set of process in chain of the same nature. In this essay, I am only raising these coincidences, and giving some hypotheses to verify.

Author Bio

Amazigh Mabrouk Hannou amazigh@noxspam.com Independent researcher, computer scientist, questions about the nature

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Ted Erikson wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 16:05 GMT
Only had time to "skim" your essay, but seemed to conclude that your "ratios" adding to 100% needed a model for meaning.. I have attempted this in my essay, To Seek Unknown Shores

   http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1409

where 6.25% is the maximum % of3-D space that can be occupied by matter, while 37.5% and 56.25% are "lead-ins" from 1-D and 2-D space.

Yes. there is something in these kind of approaches..

Good Luck

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 03:07 GMT
Dear Ted,

Thank you for your comment.

I found your essay interesting. I would like to have more information about the process of creation of matter.

"The 3-fold electric-magnetic-gravitational wave of Newstead18 suggests,

when (IF) experimentally confirmed and properly tuned, the creation of matter

from nothing (a point) has a 0.0625 probability. This may be happening in nature occasionally, even now."

If what you say is proved, I have right to give this value :

matter + radiation = 0.0625,

or matter only : 0.04687

I would like to have more info about it.

Thanks for helping me.

Bookmark and Share



Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 16:29 GMT
I have the same idea

See my essays

1.http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

2.http:
//fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 02:11 GMT
Welcome Yuri,

Thanks for the articles.

I spent the evening reading and rereading your two articles. There are obvious similarities at first glance. Surely there must be many people who noticed these reports, but without giving them afterwards.

I think your approach is innovative and insightful, although I think it is a bit different from mine.

What worries me are the phenomena InfoEnergetics all those related to thermodynamics, entropy, energy and information.

In my approach, the procedure is in an amount of energy that is transformed by using the laws of thermodynamics, which are closely related to the entropy, and gives two (2) entities in well-defined proportions: 25% for one of the most organized, and the other 75%, whichever is the least organized of the two. The process is repeated for all components in early Universe.

For me, it is an amount of energy that is transformed into branches, giving each two entities in proportions of 25% and 75% of the starting amount.

The principle of conservation of energy is guaranteed 100% ===> 25% + 75%.

Thus I think that all components of the Universe were formed before the Universe becomes functional system and complete.

And for you, what phenomena do you think the source of this outstanding report?

Best regards,

Bookmark and Share



Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 03:21 GMT
Does God play Dice?

Yes,but when He play, always falls the same 3:1

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 10:21 GMT
I like your expression.

If He always falls on 1:3 it is not any more a dice game, it is a Nature Law.

Thank you

Bookmark and Share


Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 20:02 GMT
Lot of compliments....

Are you rate my essay?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 21:26 GMT
I am not here so long, and i take a time to show all others works to be objective, and you are in my mind to do so.

And my english is not very good.

Be without fear

Bookmark and Share



Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 05:42 GMT
Dear Mr. Hannou,

you are right, the existence of the two values is no coincidence. There is even a law behind it. Look f.e. at the half-life of an unstable radioactive atom. It follows to a very high degree your distribution scale of energy.

May be this information is of interest for you.

I wish you good luck.

Helmut

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 01:15 GMT
Dear Helmut,

I thought about this phenomenon of radioactivity, in particularly the half-life.

This can not be compared to the proportion of 25% -75%, of which I raised the question in my essay.

It is true, we can see everywhere, values, constants, ratios, and it is normal that some of them are repeated, either by pure coincidence, because they are phenomena of a different nature, or because they emanate from a same law.

Here, I do not see how it could be.

Thank you for your comment and suggestion.

All the best for you.

Bookmark and Share



Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 06:52 GMT
Dear Amazigh

You can evaluate some others points of view to the problems: of dark matter in the article: Fedosin S.G. Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. Galilean Electrodynamics, Spring 2012, Vol. 23, Special Issues No. 1, P. 3 - 13; and about of the levels of matter in the article Similarity of matter levels. See also Discreteness of stellar parameters about the correspondence between the atoms and the stars.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 13:16 GMT
Despite nasty knowledge of English, I after all will try to answer your question.

I will begin with that my opinion on a structure of the Universe is based on logic of things prime and available to comprehension. I don't try to invent any new aspects of a universe. I am guided in the reflections by classical laws of physics, but I find in them some defects. Certainly, these defects have the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 19:42 GMT
Dear Sergey Aleks Starostin,

Me either, I do not redo the laws of physics, I work with and I trust them. Unless I have serious reasons to worry about it.

So far I can find no evidence to doubt the energy and dark matter. They impose on us, although we do not know exactly what they are doing.

In my model of distribution of energy in the universe, I rely on a fundamental theoretical result, which I have not yet revealed the nature.

The ratios of energy, 25% and 75% have a thermodynamic basis seriously. And the universe masterfully comply with physical laws. For me this is an additional argument to support the idea of energy and dark matter.

All the best for you.

Bookmark and Share



Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 10:31 GMT
Dear Amazigh Mabrouk Hannou,

In accordance with the conservation of energy, the energy of an eternal universe described in, Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm is the energy of the dynamics of its string-matters.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 07:24 GMT
Dear Amazigh,

I just read your essay. You point out some examples of a 3:1 ratio (or close approximation) in physics that I was not aware of. In my opinion, the most important example of a 3:1 ratio is the dimensionality of "spacetime;" 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension. It seems reasonable to at least think about trying to relate this very fundamental ratio to the others. Take care,

Ben Dribus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 06:29 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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 23:45 GMT
Сher Ami

N'oubliez pas s'il vous plaît évaluer de manière impartiale mon essai

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 16:52 GMT
Cher Yuri,

ne vous inquiétez pas,

Lisez ma conclusion ci-dessous.

Et bonne chance.

Translation :

Dear Yuri,

do not worry,

Read my conclusion below.

And good luck ..

Bookmark and Share



Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 04:05 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

Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 16:49 GMT
Dear Sergey,

Thank you for the clarification.

See my conclusion here after.

Good luck !

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 16:32 GMT
Conclusion :

I believe that science does not work according to the number of points which we receive, or from our popularity to convince others to vote for us.

Of course, to win the contest, this could play a role, but not to influence the scientific veracity.

I also believe that the promoters of this contest are conscious of the limits of this form of notation, and they...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 16:40 GMT
(It's Me and not Anonymous)

Conclusion :

I believe that science does not work according to the number of points which we receive, or from our popularity to convince others to vote for us.

Of course, to win the contest, this could play a role, but not to influence the scientific veracity.

I also believe that the promoters of this contest are conscious of the limits of this form of notation, and they provided a mean to remedy for this.

It would not be desirable for them to highlight a work which is going to turn out in pure opinon, and to drop the other which may to convey a real foundation.

But as we can not change the rules, We must rely on our good star, and their good judgment.

In my soul and conscience, I gave a sincere notes to the works which I was able to read and understand, and which I find that they convey ideas close to my approach to the foundations of nature.

When I found this contest on the Internet, there were no more than five days to apply. During this time, I had to write the article, my first in my life, and especially to translate it into English on time.

I arrived there in disaster.

Some have criticized the quality of writing of the article, and I agree with them. I'm working on a remodeled, widened and improved article.

And those who are interested in this way of research have only to contact me.

And good luck to all...

Bookmark and Share



Michael Haddid wrote on Nov. 12, 2012 @ 13:16 GMT
Very recently there have been unexpected advances in understanding dark energy. In fact if the claim of the Egyptian Scientist M. S. El Naschie is correct, then there is no more a mystery regarding dark energy. El Naschie’s solution is disarmingly simple and was presented at two conferences which were almost entirely devoted to his work. The first was held in Bibliotheca Alexandrina early...

view entire post


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.