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 - 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

John Alex: on 5/15/18 at 9:48am UTC, wrote I am going to say that you did great work and this is an awesome blog. I...

Zian Rizky: on 11/16/17 at 5:28am UTC, wrote Jual Tas Model Terbaru Wanita Branded The Good Bag | Gambar Tas Realpict...

sarah Smith: on 10/26/17 at 5:05am UTC, wrote Why are all the free wifi services offered by hotels and airports etc...

Harsha Rana: on 4/27/17 at 9:24am UTC, wrote http://www.jobsncareers.in/opsc-lecturer-recruitment/

Michael Norton: on 12/16/16 at 0:58am UTC, wrote There is an alternative way available for getting the information about the...

Michael Norton: on 12/16/16 at 0:56am UTC, wrote There is an alternative way available for getting the information about the...

Georgina Parry: on 10/13/12 at 11:16am UTC, wrote Dear'Edward Siegel', it would be interesting to know why you entered this...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 4:04am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "John, I would say that you need to think what you mean by “physical..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

John Cox: "Lorraine, That clarifies, thanks. I'd be in the camp that argues for a..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

Steve Dufourny: "We have a big philosophical problem with the strings and the photons like..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "If my equation is correct, E=mc^2+Xl^2 , so how can we take this enormous..." in Alternative Models of...

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 21, 2020

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Known Unknowns Versus Unknown Unknowns by Edward Siegel [refresh]

Author EDWARD CARL-LUDWIG SIEGEL wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 11:11 GMT
Essay Abstract

“SEPHIROT”: EMET!!!: “Known Unknowns Versus Unknown Unknowns”: It’s a Jack-in-the-Box Universe: Ten-Digits; Log-Law Scale-Invariance; Utter-Simplicity: “Complexity” Versus “Complicatedness”; Zipf’s-Law/ Hyperbolicity/ Inevitability (Archimedes); Bose- {Euler[(1732)] over-reals R)∑_(k=1)^∞▒〖1/k^R =∏_P▒1/((1-1/P^R ) )〗= ∏_P▒P^R/((P^R-1) ) ~ ∏_ω▒e^(ħ(ω-z)/kT)/((e^(ħ(
69;-z)/kT)-1) ) }-{Riemann, “Ueber die Anzahl der Primzahlen unter einer gegebenen Groesse”, Monatsberichte der Berlin Akademie,(1859)] over-complex-numbers C): ∑_(k=1)^∞▒〖1/k^( C) =∏_P▒1/((1-1/P^( C) ) )〗= ∏_P▒P^( CC)/((P^( C)-1) ) ~ ∏_ω▒e^(ħ(ω-z)/kT)/((e^(ħ(
69;-z)/kT)-1) )}-{Bernoulli-Newcomb[Am. J. Math. 4, 39(1881)]-{Planck(1901)]}-{Einstein(1905)]-Poincare[(1912)]-
Weyl[Goett. Nach.???(1914); Math. Ann. 77, 313(1916)]-Bose(1924)-Einstein(1925)]-VS. Fermi(1927)-Dirac(1927)-Benford[J. Am. Phil. Soc. 78, 115(1938)]-Kac[“The Mathematics of Statistical-Reasoning” (1955)]-Raimi[Sci. Am.(1969) ]-Hill[Proc. Am. Math. Soc.123,3,887(1995)logarithm-function scale-invariance("MAGNIFICAT", (Bach) proof]-Jech(1995)-Siegel, Antonoff, Pi, Smith[Am. Math. Soc./Math. Assn. Am./SIAM Joint Mtg., San Diego(2002)] –Benson[last-lecture!!!: Workshop: “Cohomology and Support of Algebraic-Representation-Theory”, Julia Petsova, Eric Friedlander and David Benson eds., Pacific Institute for Mathematical Studies, University of Washington(2012)]-Chern[????]-Hirezbruch, Riemann, Roch Theorem!!! Finding and proof of a digits on-average[CAUSING] logarithmic-law 〈P〉=〖log〗_10 (1+1/d), by mathematicians mistakenly excluding physics-crucial d = 0 singularity/pole, as log-law 〈P〉=〖log〗_10 (1+1/(d∈[1,…,9] )), but in actuality purposely including the all-important physics-crucial d = 0 singularity/pole: 〈P〉=〖log〗_10 (1+1/(d∈[0‼!; 1,…,9] )) permits “EMET”/TRUTH, purposely sans any “specificity-of-(so miscalled)”complexity” tactics: NO: models(“standard” nor any other), mechanisms, processes, parameters(proliferation: ad infinitum; ad nauseum!!!), “Digits”’ classic (but not classical!) Newcombe(1881)-Poincare(1912)-Weyl(1914; 1916)-Benford(1938) "NeWBe-Law" P(d) = log10 (+1+1/d) [integer d * [0,9]] * Z ; versus, non-integer 0 < P < 1] (on average) statistical-correlations, with recent Browne-Hill-Mathews-Greespan popularizations, based upon recent Hill-Jech-Pietroniero ostensibly-"rigorous" proofs domination by [(logarithm-base - invariance) = (units-invariance) = (SCALE-invariance)], and Nigrini-Hill-Burton widespread forensic applications to fraud-detection, with indictments, prosecutions and convictions, has gotten Wall Street's attention, after Peters proof of SCALE-invariance dominance of economics’ capital-markets so-called “complexity”, as nothing else! (Anderson-Mandell-Pascual-Leone identically in nerves/brain/mind); FDA.applications: drug testing verification/qualification;... Digits['1,...,9] =(upon Benford-law algrbraic-inversion)= Bosons with d = 0 BEC(!!!), and denominator-EXPONENTIAL Taylor/power-series expansion to Zipf-law Hyperbolicity (Archimedes)INEVITABILITY!!!

Author Bio

BS-Physics/Mineralogy-Colorado School of Mines/CCNY(1965) Attended: Harvard/MIT, University of Pennsylvania MS-Mathematical-Physics, Courant Institute/NYU(1967) PhD-Radiation/Nuclear-Physics, U.C.Berkely(1968) MS-Nuclear-Physics- University of Michigan(1969) PhD-"Metallurgy"/Solid-State Theory/Condensed-Matter Theory/Magnetism, MSU(1970) Industry: AMRAC, Ford, GM, Westinghouse, PSEG, IAEA, ABB,... Teaching: QMUL/Uiversity of London, CUNY, ITB(Bandung, Java,Indonesia), Brazil(CNPq), ICTP/SISSA First Prover of: Fermat's Last-Theorem(FLT) [@ CCNY IN 15-MINUTES(1964), 3-decades <<< pre-“Wiles”(1994); First Experimental Discoverer of Giant-Magnetoresistance(GMR)["ICMAO", Technion, Haifa(1977); JMMM 7, 312(1978)] a decade pre “Fert”(1988)-and-“Gruenberg”(1989); and Theoretical Predictor of Colossal-Magnetoresistance(CMR)[JMMM 7, 331(1978)]; First Prover of P =/= NP(1995); First Prover of Birch & Swinnerton-Dyer(BSD)-conjecture(2004); First Prover of Riemann-hypothesis(2013) as Bose-Einstein Condensation(BEC): Polynomials/Numbers: Euler Versus Bernoulli, and Mellin dual/integral-transform(s): rectangle to hyperboloa = Archimedes zIPF-LAW hyperbolicity INEVITABILITY!!! .

post approved

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 19:02 GMT
This was unintelligible to me. The goal of the contest was to write an essay that was relevant and interesting. I am open to any argument but this seems like word salad. Why didn't you put more effort into making it readable?

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 10:46 GMT
Dear Herr Professor Fraude,

Fantastic biography, abstract and essay (literally).I was overwhelmed by the quasi prodigious profundity of your essay. I think you require an antidote more than anyone else in this contest.I don't have one handy but this serious article may help in the meantime. Searching For New Mathematics by Ivars Peterson

The condition, so well illustrated by your extortionately erudite presentation, (though hopefully not contagious),is dangerous to science.NEGATIVE LUCIDITY INVERSION THERAPY (NLIT) might be required. If a certain level of decorum was not expected on this forum I would call it balderdash but as it is- well done. Regards Georgina : )

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 21:56 GMT
Upon reflection balderdash might not be the most appropriate adjective. I don't have sufficient background knowledge of physics to enable me, for example, to easily decipher whether there is subtle humour in the choices of reference material.There may be some additional cleverness in it that I could not, without further study, appreciate.This work appears to me as a caricature of pseudo...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 11:16 GMT
Dear'Edward Siegel',

it would be interesting to know why you entered this particular essay. It doesn't look, or sound, suitable for a Scientific American article. Is it a parody which it amused you to create, or did you intend to also send a serious message? It looks as if a lot of effort may have gone into creating it. Is that the case, or did you use some kind of program to help put all of the various bits and pieces pieces together?

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 06:12 GMT
Hello Edward (Herr Doctor Fraude),

This is certainly a wonderful parody of a scientific paper, with all the bells and whistles - whoo hoo! Not to be missed as the perfect baseline - a minimal standard of 'excellence' by which all the other essays can be judged. We should all be proud, being in such esteemed company, or by comparison - whichever is simpler. You have certainly convinced me.

Congratulations!

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

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