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

Dr. Elliot McGucken: on 3/3/17 at 20:33pm UTC, wrote Greetings Friends! Would love to send you free review copies of my new...

Anonymous: on 8/8/13 at 2:54am UTC, wrote Dear Elliot McGucken, Yes you are a hero in many ways. You have the...

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 19:13pm UTC, wrote Dear Elliot, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

Cristinel Stoica: on 8/7/13 at 7:43am UTC, wrote Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Yuri Danoyan: on 8/7/13 at 3:43am UTC, wrote Dr Elliot Are you like my essay? Yuri

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 8/5/13 at 23:00pm UTC, wrote Dear Elliot, We are at the end of this essay contest. In conclusion, at...

Manuel Morales: on 8/5/13 at 21:04pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Elliot McGucken, I find your interest in the arts most endearing...

Antony Ryan: on 8/3/13 at 20:16pm UTC, wrote Dear De McGucken, I've lost a lot of comments and replies on my thread and...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: ""At the risk of stroking physicists’ egos, physics is hard" But every..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

George Musser: "Imagine you could feed the data of the world into a computer and have it..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "Personally Joe me I see like that ,imagine that this infinite eternal..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "Joe it is wonderful this,so you are going to have a nobel prize in..." in First Things First: The...

Robert McEachern: ""I'm not sure that the 'thing as it is' is irrelevant." It is not. It is..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "lol Zeeya it is well thought this algorythm selective when names are put in..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "is it just due to a problem when we utilise names of persons?" in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Georgina Woodward: "I suggested the turnstiles separate odd form even numbered tickets randomly..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read 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
October 17, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Where is the Wisdom we have lost in Information? Returning Wheeler’s Honor and Philo-Sophy—the Love of Wisdom—to Physics. by Dr. Elliot McGucken [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 12:39 GMT
Essay Abstract

I walk into my Princeton advisor John Archibald Wheeler’s third-floor Jadwin Hall office one fine autumn afternoon to find him gazing out the window at October’s burning leaves. Wheeler senses my presence and slowly turns towards me, dressed in his crisp signature suit and tie, his fist lightly clenched. He solemnly states, “Today’s physics lacks the Noble,” his blue eyes smiling, “And it’s your generation’s duty to bring it back.” The following year (1990) Wheeler would hand me the booklet he had printed, called “It from Bit,” engraved with the quantum black hole on the cover. The book would inspire the “physics as information movement,” while Wheeler’s far greater call to adventure—to return honor to physics—would be lost in time, as it wasn’t quite as profitable as pursuits in the fiat-debt funded, dishonorable, ignoble realms of untestable, failed groupthink “physics.” The classical, exalted Spirit of physics, embodied by Wheeler and his teacher Bohr, his colleague Einstein, and his student Feynman, was sacrificed on the altar of fiat misinformation, as hundreds of millions of dollars disappeared down the black hole of the postmodern soul and progress in physics ground to a halt. Tragic as it might seem, the pseudo-physicists had to deny the heroic Spirit of Einstein, Bohr, Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus—of Wheeler and Feynam—and thus of Moving Dimensions Theory . And just as MDT first appeared in Dr. E’s artificial retina physics Ph.D. dissertation which is now helping the blind see, so too am I devoting myself to helping the world see the banished beauty and wisdom of Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Feynman, et al. The great J.A. Wheeler had called me to adventure with, “Today’s physics lacks the Noble, and it’s your generation’s duty to bring it back,” as wisdom—as philo-sophy—the love of wisdom—trumps mere information.

Author Bio

In high school, theoretical physicist Dr. Elliot McGucken received the Bausch & Lomb Science Award, the William Tenney Scholar-Athlete Award, and the Judith Resnik Memorial Scholarship which helped him attend Princeton University. Dr. E’s Ph.D. research titled “Multiple unit artificial retina chipset to aid the visually impaired and enhanced holed-emitter CMOS phototransistors” received several Fight for Sight and NSF grants, as well as a Merrill Lynch Innovations award. The late J.A. Wheeler wrote, “More intellectual curiosity, versatility and yen for physics than Elliot McGucken’s I have never seen in any senior or graduate student.”

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 17:31 GMT
Greetings Professor McGucken,

It's good to see that you have an entry in this year's contest, especially as a distinguished student of John Wheeler. I've not read a word yet of this essay, but your abstract puts it at the top of my reading list. If I don't miss my guess, this paper is a follow up of some of the comments you made on last year's essay page, about how Physics is done, and I look forward to reading it - while waiting for my own essay to appear.

I am actively engaged in a research project now, where it is proposed that playful exploration is essential for learning at all levels, and makes a good general metaphor for learning. Because it is geometrically constructivist, I theorize it can be generalized into a mathematical description of the process of abstraction, which appears to have natural connections with the deep inner structure of Math.

After seeing your many comments and quotes last year, about the value of play, I imagine this essay thread will be a good place to talk about that. I hear the same story from Cog Sci folks, Neuroscientists, Educators, and Physics researchers at the frontiers. Notably; Nobel laureates and top Physics experts are the most emphatic about the need to allow researchers to play. Would you care to comment about this, while I begin reading your essay?

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 20:54 GMT
An interesting essay sir.

I think you proved your point, by the end, but portions of the opening took on the flavor of a rant that does not compel the reader to read further. But assuming you did have a point besides railing at the sorry state of modern Physics, and being a cheerleader of your own work, I kept going. I'm glad I did read to the end, as you do demonstrate that MDT can aptly explain what we observe.

Everything you say appears reasonable, except that you seem to believe the superiority of your approach should be intuitively obvious. The problem is rather that one must be able to suspend judgment and look at things with child-like eyes, to consider a possibility such as the one you have offered, given what the orthodoxy says or the consensus is compelled to believe.

Unfortunately; rejecting the orthodoxy does not get the job done. Instead; you must encourage people to think for themselves, or to have a child-like openness for a radically simpler model like the one you propose. You have failed to deliver on that promise in this essay, in large measure because the bashing of the opposition took center stage.

I may comment further later, as I am not fan of String theory, et al.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 22:20 GMT
Taking the liberty to say more..

I heartily agree that some edgy pursuits within Physics, like String Theory, have garnered a large share of the funding - despite producing minimal results for maximal effort. It might have been better, had the ST folks not been so convincing that theirs was the ultimate theory, but there is too much appeal for those with the reductionist mindset. I guess some things will never be explained, like the Einstellung effect that renders theories like yours invisible.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 14:36 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

A fuller treatment of Moving Dimensions Theory--the definitive *physical* theory of our era--is offered in numerous papers/threads:

http://herosjourneyphysics.wordpress.com/

PAPE
RS/RESEARCH ON TIME:

E. McGucken, MDT’s dx4/dt=ic Triumphs Over the Wrong Physical Assumption That Time Is a Dimension,...

view entire post


attachments: 1_1_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg, 2_figure9.jpg

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 20:15 GMT
Dr. Elliot,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 12:38 GMT
Dear Professor McGucken,

My spirits were uplifted by your abstract alone and even more so by your essay. Thank you. I can't say there was one comment or emotion I disagreed with. It was clearly and confidently written too, both qualities also often sacrificed to the falsities you describe. I've felt quite unsupported working bottom up from quantum optics and using a highly empirical basis for ontological construction. I feel I've escaped from dishonesty and falsity and made great progress, but am exploring the new clearer territory quite alone.

Your theory itself reminds me a little of an old concept of mine that time is non-linear. Far less provable than your model, though of course 'proof' is a relative concept. I'd like to see your essay in the van as it deserves to be.

In particular as an authority on the mechanism of the lens and also the EPR paradox I hope I can prevail on you to read my essay, which I think proposes important conceptual advances, emergent from a new more consistent underlying interpretation of nature. Please be aware the essay builds a working model from an apparently slightly disparate assembly of components, including many anomalies found 'under the carpet' as inconsistent with old physics and astronomy doctrines. I really feel and hope you could help develop my thesis and look forward to your views. ("The Intelligent Bit").

I also look forward to a better understanding of your own unique model, and discovering how it can explain the things you refer. You'll be aware Smoot proposed a similar but very localised variable expansion approach to the CMB anisotropies, though that ultimately hit constraints I've been able to remove.

I'd appreciate it you can provide any links to your key papers.

Many thanks and best wishes.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 15:16 GMT
Thanks Peter--glad you enjoyed the spirit of the Homerica, heroic poetry! :) After all, Socrates cited the Noble Courage of Homer's Achilles when Socrates chose death for his Truth rather than the dishonor of changing the Truth he taught.

Yes the modern fiat-debt-funded "physicists" have banished Honor and Nobility from Physics. That has been their greatest single innovation.

Most...

view entire post


attachments: 2_1_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg, 3_figure9.jpg

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 17:08 GMT
Dear Professor McGucken,

Thank you for your epic post above. I agree we certainly have similar views on some things. Are we now to old to be heroes?

I'd be most grateful if you have a moment to check over and agree the equations in my previous essay and end notes. They're not extensive.

I noted I hadn't rated your essay and it was languishing, we should dos so, have now done so to very good effect I hope. Some essays such as yours do seem rather out of position.

Very best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT
Dear Prof Elliot,

Thank you very much for a nice essay presented us. Your association with Wheeler is overwhelming.

So sir do you think just information is sufficient to create matter from nothing......?

And...

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 15:33 GMT
Thanks Satyavarapu,

Yes! Glad you enjoyed the heroic poetry. :) Yes as you say: "The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology."

Never before in the history of physics has there been such a massively well-funded group of failed, arrogant, snakry, preening, covetous, talentless, handwaving sophists whose gargantuan...

view entire post


attachments: 3_1_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg, 4_figure9.jpg

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 20:25 GMT
Thank you Dr. E.

Your reply to my post above was impressive, and later replies to other authors were also informative. My friend Andy recently attended the String Math conference at Stony Brook, and saw how a lot of String Theory folks ended up with egg on their faces, and how some of the Math folks offered concrete ways to fix the flaws and salvage something useful - but encountered roadblocks to a common understanding. He surmised that the reason Witten did not come (though he was the keynote speaker) was that it would have been embarrassing.

When I first became aware of your work, it was largely because of its resemblance to that of Dr. Johan Masreliez - which I had learned of several years before discovering MDT, on a bulletin board maintained by Phil Gibbs with links to Alternative Theories in Physics and Cosmology. After meeting Dr. M a few years back at CCC-2, and hearing his lecture on a theory eerily similar to yours, I can reasonably assume that you and he arrived at the same result independently. Of course; he asserts that the fourth dimension IS time, but that it expands just like the spatial dimensions - except in discrete steps.

I must admit, at this point, that I was impressed with Masreliez' work when I first learned of it. So I would be a jerk not to find value in your theory - as it has virtually the same advantages as his construction. But so far as I can tell, he came up with it on his own. So it may be that you and he have a slightly different framing of the same great idea. But perhaps my failure to be more impressed with YOUR accomplishment is that fact that Johan was so emphatic that HE was in possession of what MUST be the ultimate theory, and his evangelism was off-putting, after a while - souring the milk for you.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 20:51 GMT
I should add this..

After the 2nd Crisis in Cosmology conference (CCC-2), there was a lot of e-mail discussion about how to continue the momentum of the conference, and the atmosphere of open inquiry which was prevalent throughout. As I detailed in last year's essay, there were any number of realistic alternatives to the consensus or concordance cosmology (lambda CDM...) offered in lectures. The essay by Vishwakarma details one of the models presented there (or extensions thereof).

Anyhow; when Johan sent an e-mail to the participants, suggesting that since his theory best explained all the available evidence, the Alternative Cosmology Group should adopt it as their official replacement for Big Bang theory, there were some abrasive replies. It seems the only thing we could agree on is that we did not want a new Canon, but instead needed to honor the individual freedom to explore. In short; nobody wanted a plug-in replacement for the current failed model.

Rock On!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 21:13 GMT
Also,

The essay by Royce Haynes, talking about the Zero K Big Bang model, is another offering by a CCC-2 participant (expanding on work presented there).

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 21:29 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Does Dr. Johan Masreliez's theory have a postulate or equation? fF so, what is the postulate or equation?

MDT’s postulate: The fourth dimensions is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c.

MDT’s equation: dx4/dt=ic.

Simple proofs of MDT:

MDT PROOF#1: Relativity tells us that a timeless, ageless photon remains in one place in...

view entire post


attachments: 5_1_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg, 6_figure9.jpg

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 00:46 GMT
Hello again,

I have located the appropriate file and attach the CCC-2 paper of Masreliez. I will then look above at your reply to my last comment, before signing off.

Regards,

Jonathan

attachments: MasreliezCCC2.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 14:31 GMT
Thanks Jonathan,

I looked through the paper, but I was unable to find a single equation in it?

Should not physics papers have physics equations as well as postulates representing physical attributes of our universe? I mean at least one or two?

Perhaps I missed the equations and postulates? Please do share!

Does Dr. Johan Masreliez's theory have a postulate or...

view entire post


attachments: 10_1_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg, 11_figure9.jpg

Bookmark and Share


Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 17:14 GMT
Sorry to disappoint Sir,

Perhaps if I am not qualified to be a fair judge of your work, it is a waste of your time to try to convince me. But do not be too quick to assume that I have not grasped the subtleties or the beautifully simple Math that comes out of your approach. We appear to be at loggerheads, in any case.

I have not once said that I reject your idea, nor do I tend to favor the theories that as you noted should only be called models, and failed or flawed models at that. My take is that I have offended you by rejecting dogma, as you would have us adopt your theory as the new canonical view, and I would have to embrace your dogma instead of someone else's - rather than being encouraged to think for myself.

Personally; even though I believe there can be valid theories of everything, I do not seek to find the one true or final answer - that invalidates everything else. It appears you feel strongly that the rightness of your work does invalidate the worth of anybody else's idea - and that makes me uncomfortable. As far as Masreliez' work goes; the cards are on the table, or the ball in your court. I had thought the simile would be obvious to you, but perhaps I was wrong.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 17:20 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

I am not trying to convince you of anything.

We are not at loggerheads. You are only disappointing yourself.

All that is happening is that you are completely incapable of answering simple questions, and prefer to just ramble ramble ramble, sans answers, logic, math, or reason.

Thanks Jonathan,

I looked through the paper, but I was unable to find a...

view entire post


attachments: 13_1_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg, 14_figure9.jpg

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 01:59 GMT
Dear Dr. Elliot McGucken

It's nice, very well, interesting, unique, comprehensive, in-depth, concise and very practical - just lacking a bit specific to the contest question : if "Whether it is It from Bit, or Bit From It, It does not Come from the Top Down" - so , Where are they from? how MDT will answer ?

And to change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 14:46 GMT
Thanks Hoang cao Hai!

Actually it is the narrow FQXI question which lacks the Noble Spirit of Physics, as Feynman reminds us that curiosity is not to be dictated from the top down.

Who are we physicists to listen to and follow, the Great Feynman, Einstein, Wheeler, Newton, Bohr, Born, Galileo, and Copernicus, or some anonymous of massively-debt-funded fiat physicists who have utterly...

view entire post


attachments: 12_1_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg, 13_figure9.jpg

Bookmark and Share



Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 09:32 GMT
Greetings Professor McGucken,

(google translation)

Try to do the opposite of what is being proposed by supporters of string theory, and you're on the right track. Instead of wasting time adding the number of dimensions, you reduce their numbers. Famous Milankovich noticed the contradiction in presenting the movement of light, and movement in general, both in the Cartesian system and in Minkowski’s system, 90th years ago. By the way, The words in first sentence in your essay ( The endless cycle of idea and action) are the key words in my essay.

Reagards Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 14:37 GMT
Thanks Branko!

Yes! The hallmark of MDT is its beautiful simplicity!

Sir Isaac Newton: Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent (String Thoery/LQG). It takes a touch of genius—and a lot of courage—to move in the opposite direction (MDT).[xxiv]...

view entire post


attachments: 11_1_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg, 12_figure9.jpg

Bookmark and Share



Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 10:23 GMT
This entry reminds me of Swiss novelist's Gottfried Keller story "Clothes Make The Man", which tells about the fate of a poor tailor named Wenzel Strapinsky. Because of his elegant coat he is mistaken for a Polish count and courted by the rich.

You are decorating yourself with the great, but this decoration is rather transparent. I doubt if your MDT postulate will ever have a wider audience than this forum page.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 14:14 GMT
Dear Anton,

Do you disagree with MDT's central postulate and equation? Could you please kindly man up and talk Noble physics like an honorable, Noble man, as opposed to wallowing in snark and petty politics? Remember, we are trying to bring the Heroic Spirit of physics back! Thanks!

MDT has a vast and growing audience, even though it lacks the 100s of millions of misappropriated...

view entire post


attachments: 7_1_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg, 8_figure9.jpg

Bookmark and Share


Author Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 14:17 GMT
Dear Anton,

MDT Honors the Greats’ Definition of Science. Anton--do you not like Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Bohr, Feynman, Planck, and Wheeler?

In questions of science, the authority of thousands is not worth the humble reasoning of one individual.[viii] –Galileo

Einstein and Galileo embodied and exalted the heroic spirit in which Moving Dimensions Theory was...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 10:42 GMT
Dear Dr. McGucken

I enjoyed the upbeat and inspired tone of your essay. It would be great if contemporary physics was as exciting and inspiring as it was to its founders in the early 20th. c., particularly as it has so obviously lost its way in a stringy pool of despond, as I understand the situation. It was very appropriate to quote the late Dr. Wheeler concerning you - if you email me a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 14:23 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

In Einstein's 1912 Manuscript, it is written x4 = ict.

Now Vladimir, as t increments or increases, what happens to x4?

This is a simple mathematical question.

Now Vladimir, as t increments or increases, what happens to x4?

attachments: 8_1_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg, 9_figure9.jpg

Bookmark and Share


Author Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 14:27 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thanks again--I'm glad you enjoyed the upbeat tone!

Perhaps you could begin with this essay on MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY, and feel free to ask any questions!

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238

Essay
Abstract

In his 1912 Manuscript on Relativity, Einstein never stated that time is the fourth dimension, but rather he wrote x4 = ict. The...

view entire post


attachments: 9_1_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg, 10_figure9.jpg

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 15:34 GMT
Dear Dr. Elliot

I will read your references later thanks.

Here is the letter after the digital reconstruction (straightening the perspective mainly) - sorry it is the best I can do hope it helps.

Vladimir

attachments: wheelermcg.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 15:19 GMT
Dear Dr. McGucken,

Your abstract is attractive especially the words, philosophy—the love of wisdom

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 19:59 GMT
Dear Dr McGucken,

Noble is also to accept critique. I cannot comprehend the motivation of your record breaking lengthy reply to my short comment above, however I will keep my reply short.

Yes, I honor Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Euler, Maxwell but cannot extend that honor to Einstein, his theories are leading us by the nose and not nature as Einstein claims.

You wrote: "Einstein: Truth is what stands the test of experience.[xviii]" - that is one of the few things that Einstein said that I can agree with.

Here is a small challenge which should be very easy for you to solve, use whatever theory you want, SR or MDT and give me the proper explanation why the Space-Time Information Paradox is not a paradox.

There are two possibilities to this challenge: (1) Your "intellectual curiosity, versatility and yen for physics" will make mincemeat out of my reasoning or (2) my reasoning is making mincemeat of contemporary physics including MDT.

As nobody contested my reasoning so (2) stands.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 20:03 GMT
Dear Anton,

In Einstein's 1912 Manuscript, it is written x4 = ict.

Now Anton, as t increments or increases, what happens to x4?

This is a simple mathematical question.

Anton, as t increments or increases, what happens to x4?

Thanks!

Bookmark and Share



Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 23:25 GMT
Dr McGucken,

You still have not responded to my challenge thus I can only conclude that MDT is flawed as SR is flawed.

Stop hammering the point x4=ict, you are becoming obsessed with something that has no relevance to the challance I set you.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 23:33 GMT
Dear Anton,

Please note that not only is this forum devoted to my research, but that it is also devoted Physics and Physical Reality in the spirit of Einstein, Galielo, Newton, Feynman, and Bohr.

This forum is not the place to discuss your "work" nor your "challenges."

If you would like to participate, please do so civilly and discuss the topics here.

ear...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 09:29 GMT
Dr McGucken,

I am commenting your research by pointing out that MDT (and SR) do not explain the Lorentz invariance as observed in the Michelson-Morley experiment when in the mathematical analysis the infinitesimal particle is replaced by a continues wave-train as described in my essay.

I only present a complete mathematical analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and all I am asking is that this analysis is discussed in context with your MDT theory, this you are avoiding.

That I am pointing out a possible flaw should be greeted in the scientific spirit of the greats that you repeatably quote and not end up as an accusation of hijacking your thread.

I still maintain the MDT as a theory will not stand the test of experience.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 14:22 GMT
Dear Anton Lorenz,

You write, "I still maintain the MDT as a theory will not stand the test of experience."

Wrong! MDT encompasses all our experiences from disparate realms! MDT both begins and ends in experience, presenting a foundational *physical* model unifying relativity, time and all its arrows and asymmetries, and quantum mechanics!

MDT Honors the Greats’ Definition...

view entire post


attachments: 15_1_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg, 16_figure9.jpg

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 10:26 GMT
Dear McGucken

Can you please let me know: your MDT was defined for space and time is what ? Why are they like that? so then I have the concept of origin be to learn it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 14:16 GMT
Dear Hoang cao Hai,

MDT is very, very simple.

We live in 4D. All dimensions are the same, but the fourth dimension x4 is moving at the rate of c relative to the three spatial dimensions.

This is apparent in Einstein's 1912 Manuscript where it is written: x4 = ict. This naturally implies that dx4/dt = ic, and one can readily see that the fourth dimension is expanding at c...

view entire post


attachments: 14_1_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg, 15_figure9.jpg

Bookmark and Share


Hoang cao Hai replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 19:36 GMT
Very many thank Dr. Elliot

Perhaps you are the funniest person that I've ever known.

Many thanks more again .

Bookmark and Share
post approved

Hoang cao Hai replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 19:41 GMT
Very many thank Dr. Elliot

Perhaps you are the funniest and kindest that I have ever known.

Many thanks more again .

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan M. Kadin wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 13:59 GMT
Dr. McGucken,

I, too, remember Prof. Wheeler from my time as an undergrad at Princeton 40 years ago. I also agree with you that much of modern theoretical physics has been misdirected. You might be interested in reading my essay ( "Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotations and Relative Time" ). I present a simple realistic picture of quantum waves based on special relativity, and show how this leads naturally to a form of general relativity, with no additional assumptions. The famous paradoxes of indeterminism and entanglement disappear.

Alan Kadin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 20:43 GMT
Dear Dr. Elliot McGucken:

I am an old physician, and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics, but after the common people physic discipline is the one that uses more the so called “time” than any other. After I read what you think of today physics, I think my essay can land real physics down to earth.

...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 09:08 GMT
Dear Dr. Elliot. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 16:32 GMT
Dear Dr. Elliot McGucken,

I am a decrepit old realist and I do hope that you will not think me impertinent. You wrote about FQXi “…the only thing with consistent, novel foundational, physical testable model of the universe, complete with postulate and equation was ignored. I do hope FQXi does not ignore my theory.

The real Universe only deals in absolutes. All information is abstract and all and every abstract part of information is excruciatingly difficult to understand. Information is always selective, subjective and sequential. Reality is not and cannot ever be selective subjective and sequential.

One (1) real unique Universe can only be eternally occurring in one real here and now while perpetually traveling at one real “speed” of light through one real infinite dimension once. One is the absolute of everything. (1) is the absolute of number. Real is the absolute of being. Universe is the absolute of energy. Eternal is the absolute of duration. Occurring is the absolute of action. Here and now are absolutes of location and time. Perpetual is the absolute of ever. Traveling is the absolute of conveyance method. Light is the absolute of speed. Infinite dimension is the absolute of distance and once is the absolute of history. Life is the absolute of understanding.

Had Wheeler only asked?

Is the real Universe simple? Yes

Is the abstract universe simple? No

Is unique, once simple Yes.

Is 0 1 simple? No.

Good luck in the contest,

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 19:37 GMT
Dear Dr. Elliot McGucken,

Firstly, let me tell you I am delighted by your essay. Secondly, I am happy to count one more dependable ally in the mission to restore glory to our physics. There is nothing to criticize in your essay as all lovers of truth must read it thoroughly. As we all know, history will surely vindicate the just. Even if you would not be commenting on or rating my essay, as one close to Wheeler, I would like you to guess answers he would have given to some of my questions below (following Wheeler's own quote and use of words). I had earlier sought answers by circulating to a few but some found this disrespectful so I stopped.

"If you wake up one morning and dip your hand in your pocket and 'detect' a million dollars, then on your way back from work, you dip your hand again and find that there is nothing there…

1) Have you 'elicited' an information in the latter case?

2) If you did not 'participate' by putting your 'detector' hand in your pocket, can you 'elicit' information?

3) If the information is provided by the presence of the crisp notes ('its') you found in your pocket, can the absence of the notes, being an 'immaterial source' convey information?

Finally, leaving for the moment what the terms mean and whether or not they can be discretely expressed in the way spin information is discretely expressed, e.g. by electrons

4) Can the existence/non-existence of an 'it' be a binary choice, representable by 0 and 1?"

Answers can be in binary form for brevity, i.e. YES = 1, NO = 0, e.g. 0-1-0-1.

Looking forward to more correspondence with an ally.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Then on the foundational issues raised in my essay, is the basic unit of geometry, that 'having no part', a zero dimensional or an extended object? That is 'point' or 'monad'?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 11:29 GMT
"To begin with, let us examine a simple, irrefutable proof of moving dimensions theory, that anyone who has witnessed the double-slit experiment, cannot deny. The proof comes from my earlier paper:

Time as an Emergent Phenomenon & Deriving Einstein's Relativity from Moving Dimensions Theory's dx4/dt=ic: Traveling Back to the Heroic Age of Physics"

Dear Dr. Elliot McGucken,

I found your above comments to be well grounded in the current paradigm of how observed or measured effects cause effects, i.e., effectual causality and could not help but wonder if you had considered/addressed what caused the effects observed in the double-slit experiments in the first place?

I am more than pleased to give you a high rating. However, before I do, I would like to run some other questions by you if I may via email. My email address is: msm@physicsofdestiny.com

I look forward to hearing from you and supporting your efforts before the conclusion of this competition.

Regards,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 09:52 GMT
Dear d-r Elliot,

I have read your nice essay that arise many controversial associations to me. Particularly I see your big honor to our teachers/classics of physics that I fully share with you. I think however that they must be perceived as normally fair persons in first. Thus, they have right also to have mistakes as anyone from us. You know well the drama that become the share of Einstein, as well as of Schroedinger, de Broglie, Pauly and for many others. So, we must ask himself - what happened with physics and physicists in that time? Whay they become so unhappy on the end of their career and of lives? I have touch to this questions also in my essay within other aspects. I hope you will find time to open it Es text. For me will be very valuable any your comment in my forum - as from of one professional.

I see very unfair such small attention on your work that I am going to rate as ,,high,, - as one of interesting work presented in the contest.

I wish you good health and all the best!

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 10:50 GMT
Dear Dr McGucken

I just read your response to Anton Vrba. I so agree; especially about the lipstick!

Now, to read your paper...

Stephen Anastasi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:53 GMT
I have read your paper. I cannot see how an expanding dimension would not lead to Zeno's paradoxes. It would need to assume a smooth continuum I feel, as with a lot of other physical theories, as well slamming into my 'Problem for Geometry' carried into your fourth dimensional schema (see attached).

Just a thought.

Best wishes

Stephen Anastasi

attachments: 2_A_problem_for_geometry_1.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 12:19 GMT
Dear Dr McGucken,

What a fantastic essay - sorry I have only just read it! I rate it highly as it deserves to be much higher in the rankings. Regardless of this, I think you've presented the right arguments in a clear, concise and relevant way. It is very, very interesting with the history involved and the passion you've shown sucks the reader in - in a good way! :)

I'm an advocate of bottom up approaches.

Anyway best wishes for the contest and congratulations on an engaging essay.

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 01:48 GMT
Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 20:16 GMT
Dear De McGucken,

I've lost a lot of comments and replies on my thread and many other threads I have commented on over the last few days. This has been a lot of work and I feel like it has been a waste of time and energy. Seems to have happened to others too - if not all.

I WILL ATTEMPT to revisit all threads to check and re-post something. Your thread was one affected by this.

I can't remember the full extent of what I said, but I have notes so know that I rated it very highly.

Hopefully the posts will be able to be retrieved by FQXi.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Manuel S Morales wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 21:04 GMT
Dear Dr. Elliot McGucken,

I find your interest in the arts most endearing and relative to the findings of a recently completed experiment that may indeed confirm your Moving Dimensions Theory and your statement, "And if I want to turn history around to try to get a new way of looking at it, it doesn't make any difference; the only real test in physics is experiment, and history is fundamentally irrelevant." Although you have a different approach to the topic than I do, I found your essay to be insightful and intuitive and most worthy of merit.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 23:00 GMT
Dear Elliot,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 03:43 GMT
Dr Elliot

Are you like my essay?

Yuri

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:43 GMT
Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 19:13 GMT
Dear Elliot,

I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-
V1.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven’t figured out a way to not make it do that).

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 02:54 GMT
Dear Elliot McGucken,

Yes you are a hero in many ways. You have the ancient Plato's soul that is searching for the truth no matter what. I share your searching for truth no matter what. Simultaneously, I welcome and desire diversity of opinions and I am against uniformity of opinion because this means the death of humanity. We can learn this from history of many civilizations from Asia, to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Dr. Elliot McGucken wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 20:33 GMT
Greetings Friends!



Would love to send you free review copies of my new books on Light Time Dimension Theory (LTD Theory):

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06X93RKSY/ref=ser
ie

s_rw_dp_sw

Email me at astrophysicsmath@gmail.com and I will send you a free review copy. Thanks & best!

Dr. Elliot McGucken

Would love to do a podcast for FQXI on how...

view entire post


attachments: 6_17021835_264470727310505_6441031296795011938_n.jpg, 6_16992073_264469633977281_7860052258686985747_o.jpg

Bookmark and Share



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.