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

James Hoover: on 5/29/14 at 5:53am UTC, wrote Aitor, You speak of Einstein's pursuit of the theory of everything and of...

Aitor Elorza: on 5/27/14 at 19:53pm UTC, wrote Dear Hài Cao Hoàng, Thanks for your post. I'll read your article. Best...

Hoang Hai: on 5/26/14 at 1:45am UTC, wrote Dear Author Aitor Elorza I enjoyed the views in your assessment, because:...

Aitor Elorza: on 5/15/14 at 17:00pm UTC, wrote Dear Peter, I've read your essays of previous contests. I think we share...

Aitor Elorza: on 5/11/14 at 20:46pm UTC, wrote Dear Peter, I've read your last essay. I think it is very good and...

Aaron Feeney: on 5/10/14 at 3:58am UTC, wrote P.S., I will use the following rating scale to rate the essays of authors...

Aitor Elorza: on 5/6/14 at 21:56pm UTC, wrote Dear Peter, Thanks for your comments. I discovered FQXi last year but...

Peter Jackson: on 5/5/14 at 18:06pm UTC, wrote Aitor, An exceptional essay. It takes the same theme as mine and our...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Robert, re. your ""one huge mistake"- they are describing non-existent..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: "They are proud, because they have solved some problems, which are..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Robert McEachern: "Eckard, I do have an interest in the history, but not as much as I used..." in First Things First: The...

Georgina Woodward: "The Schrodinger's cat thought experiment presents 3 causally linked state..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Roger Granet: "Well put! Physics is hard, but biochemistry (my area), other sciences..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

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...


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 18, 2019

CATEGORY: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? Essay Contest (2014) [back]
TOPIC: MAKING THINGS UNDERSTANDABLE by Aitor Elorza [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Aitor Elorza wrote on Mar. 25, 2014 @ 17:28 GMT
Essay Abstract

The impact of science on society does not concern only technology. It is also relevant with regard to the prevailing "mode of thought". It shapes how we see and interact with the world. In that respect, the message physicists convey to society is that it is not humanly possible to understand physics at microscopic level. Some also claim that since predictions are Ok, why bother? Somehow, we know how to handle instruments and can predict the outcome of experiments, but we don't understand why it works as it does: we know but we don't understand. In other fields of knowledge, having an accurate understanding of things is essential for progress. In physics, do we have to content ourselves with mastering the technology without understanding how the reality is? I review some of the quantum experiments, raising a number of questions and seeking new ideas to explain phenomena in a simplified way. I argue that it is possible to conceive new realist models worth exploring. Simple is frequently understood as macroscopically explainable. As classical physics, based on macroscopic assumptions, was unable to explain subatomic phenomena, simplicity was dropped in favour of other complex theories. It could be that the physical laws at microscopic level are understandable through a different type of simplicity from the macroscopic one, so that we can say: we don't know but we understand.

Author Bio

The author has a master's degree in mathematics. After a few years in the IT private sector, he has been working for a public institution.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Hasmukh K. Tank wrote on Mar. 26, 2014 @ 09:17 GMT
Dear Elorza,

You will be delighted to read my attemt trying to make quantum mechanics understandable; posted on March 11; and titled: On the emergence of physical world from the ultimate reality. http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2001

You may also find it interesting my attempt to explain wave-particle-duality, posted at pre-print-server-site, in February 2014:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0153v3.pdf

You will also be delighted to read some of my earlier attempts, described in the attachment:

attachments: Reconciliatin_of_the_two_different_formulae_for_Relativistic_Increase_of_Energy_By_Hasmukh_Tank.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Aitor Elorza replied on Mar. 28, 2014 @ 22:34 GMT
Dear Mr. Tank,

Thanks for your post.

If I have correctly understood, you suggest that on top of space and time, there exists another entity (ultimate reality) where particles (standing wave fluctuations) are generated. Is it not possible to assign to the space-time the properties of that entity? What is time or how is it created in your theory?

Aitor Elorza

Bookmark and Share


Hasmukh K. Tank replied on Mar. 29, 2014 @ 12:17 GMT
Thank you, Dear Aitor Elorza,for your reply to my post, and the questions. What I currently think is:

The Ultimate Reality, is not only real-entity, but also aware of its own existence. It is all-pervading in space, and ever-present in time. Rather, 'space' and 'time' are in the Ultimate Reality.

Whereas space-time is actualy a term used by physicists. Space is objective reality, whereas 'time' is actually a 'subjective' perception. If we were not having any memory, then we can not perceive any 'time'. We percieve a ceaseless change through our eyes; and to describe this changing ecvironment, we use the term 'time'. We can measure a length with a foot-rule; whereas we have to select some cyclic process to difine 'time'. A clock does not 'measure' time, like a foot-rule; rateher it tells the time.

In the real physical world, there are three dimensions; and volume means length x width x depth. But in mathematics one can imagine four-dimensional space. Similarly, 'space-time' is a mathematical-object, whereas the Ultimate Reality is a real entity.

These are my tentative views at present.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Aitor Elorza replied on Mar. 29, 2014 @ 14:51 GMT
I think your model must be difficult to test experimentally.

I don’t share your view that space is “objective reality” while time is only a “subjective perception”. Different instruments are needed to measure space and time because they have different nature but in my view, both are equally real physical entities (subjectively perceived by our senses).

Aitor Elorza

Bookmark and Share



Hasmukh K. Tank wrote on Mar. 26, 2014 @ 09:24 GMT
For your convinience, the following are the direct links to the articles:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0153v3.pdf

https://docs.go
ogle.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnx0aGV1
bHR

pbWF0ZXJlYWxpdHlzaXRlfGd4OjY5OWRjOTU1NWVhM2M3ODg

https://d
ocs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbn
x0aGV1bHR

pbWF0ZXJlYWxpdHlzaXRlfGd4OjFmZDAzNmFkMjY2YTA1YjQ

Sin
cerely,

Hasmukh K. Tank

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan M. Kadin wrote on Mar. 26, 2014 @ 13:04 GMT
Mr. Elorza:

I agree with your intention to make fundamental physics more understandable. This runs counter to the prevailing belief that physics is paradoxical, and can only be understood via abstract mathematics. Further, I agree that a local realistic microscopic model is not only possible, but can be derived simply in a straightforward manner. In fact, I have already done so, and summarized these results in two previous FQXi essays: "The Rise and Fall of Wave-Particle Duality", and "Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotation and Relative Time". Unfortunately, these received remarkably little attention.

The key in these analyses is NOT to discard established logical or physical principles to resolve the paradoxes, but rather to question the conventional assumptions behind the paradoxes. Let me take two examples discussed in your essay.

(1) Quantum diffraction effects are conventionally used to prove that de Broglie waves are universal, including neutrons, atoms, and even molecules. This analysis implicitly assumes that the screen is a classical object, but diffraction requires momentum transfer between the particle and the screen. Treating the screen as a quantum object shows that momentum transfer is quantized, thus reproducing the standard diffraction result regardless of the wave nature of the particle.

(2) Quantum entanglement derives from a mathematical construction involving products of vectors in abstract Hilbert space. There is no physical basis for this construction, which is intrinsically non-local. If we discard this construction, then separated particles have definite local quantum properties without the need for hidden variables. The EPR paradox disappears.

Alan Kadin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 29, 2014 @ 14:15 GMT
Dear Mr. Kadin,

Thanks for your reply. Your articles are very interesting.

If my understanding is correct, your model is a new interpretation of quantum mechanics where particles are rotating wave fields in a real space and local time. How are the space and the local time generated in this model?

Regarding EPR paradox, you suggest that experiments carried out so far are not sufficiently accurate because a missing “loophole” is not taken into account. I’m not convinced that this explains all of the experimental results. I assume that the experiments are correct and that something must be wrong in Bell’s theorem. My suggestion is to replace the probability and the binary logic behind by a continuous fuzzy logic, best adapted to analyse phenomena occurring in a continuous space-time.

Regards,

Aitor Elorza

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 27, 2014 @ 16:34 GMT
Dear Aitor Elorza,

I found your essay quite informative, and I do hope that it does well in the competition. You wrote in the abstract: “I review some of the quantum experiments, raising a number of questions and seeking new ideas to explain phenomena in a simplified way.” I do not mean to be critical, but as I have thoughtfully pointed out in my essay, Reality, Once, all information is abstract. All information has nothing to do with reality. Reality is simple, for instance; all real surfaces travel at the constant speed of light. All non-surfaces travel at an inconsistent speed that is less than the constant speed of light. Real identical states can never occur. As reality is pragmatically simple, it follows that all information is indubitably complex. Reality is simply unique, once. New, old, and indeterminable ideas, no matter how they are couched are demonstrably complex and unrealistic.

With respectful regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Aitor Elorza replied on Mar. 29, 2014 @ 16:00 GMT
Dear Mr. Fisher,

Thanks for your post.

I agree that each experiment, each particle or each measurement are unique. While at macroscopic level measurements may be idealized or rounded, at microscopic scale tiny differences may have a big impact.

This is maybe related to my suggestion that the logic used to analyse microscopic physical reality should be a continuous logic (where propositions are not absolutely true or absolutely false but trueness is approximate) instead of the macroscopic binary logic.

On the contrary, I don’t agree that “All information has nothing to do with reality”. Information is abstract but helps us to understand reality and make accurate predictions about it (accurate meaning 99%, not 100%). Both are deeply connected. If reality is simple, why the information we have about it should be complex?

Aitor Elorza

Bookmark and Share



Hasmukh K. Tank wrote on Mar. 29, 2014 @ 12:15 GMT
Thank you, Dear Aitor Elorza,for your reply to my post, and the questions. What I currently think is:

The Ultimate Reality, is not only real-entity, but also aware of its own existence. It is all-pervading in space, and ever-present in time. Rather, 'space' and 'time' are in the Ultimate Reality.

Whereas space-time is actualy a term used by physicists. Space is objective reality, whereas 'time' is actually a 'subjective' perception. If we were not having any memory, then we can not perceive any 'time'. We percieve a ceaseless change through our eyes; and to describe this changing ecvironment, we use the term 'time'. We can measure a length with a foot-rule; whereas we have to select some cyclic process to difine 'time'. A clock does not 'measure' time, like a foot-rule; rateher it tells the time.

In the real physical world, there are three dimensions; and volume means length x width x depth. But in mathematics one can imagine four-dimensional space. Similarly, 'space-time' is a mathematical-object, whereas the Ultimate Reality is a real entity.

These are my tentative views at present.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John C Hodge wrote on Apr. 17, 2014 @ 19:54 GMT
You raise a number of interesting questions. I think I have a solution (perhaps better –the beginning of a solution).

“Intelligibility and simplicity are closely related.” Agree. One of the fundamental principles I propose in my entry (section 2) is intelligibility requires that the model of a phenomenon be like a model we experience in our everyday life. For example, we can see...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Aitor Elorza replied on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 08:32 GMT
Dear Mr. Hodge,

Your model is interesting and suggests to me a number of questions.

Is it possible to draw it?

"Photon's movement produces waves in the plenum." Do electrons do the same? If so, does the different speed of photons and electrons have an impact on the waves they create?

If the speed of the plenum wave is much quicker than the speed of light, is it possible to design an experiment to test its effects?

Regards,

Aitor Elorza

Bookmark and Share



Anselm Smidt wrote on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 17:32 GMT
Ist das Teil der Lenkung die Zukunft der Menschheit?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Aitor Elorza replied on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 21:04 GMT
Dear Anselm,

If I understand correctly your question, I think that seeking for understandable solutions on the foundations of physics is important not only for physics but also to set an example for other areas of knowledge.

Regards,

Aitor Elorza

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 09:07 GMT
Dear Aitor,

You put a very important problem - understanding the foundations of physics, the basis of the scientific world. Your important conclusion:

«Simple explanations are more difficult to find than complex ones, because the latter may be adapted whatever is necessary to get the desired result, but at the expense of intelligibility. The solution is maybe simple; what is complex is to find it.»

Yes, the present crisis in basic science - a "crisis of understanding". Understand means "grab structure" ( G.Gutner Ontology mathematical discourse).

To more reliably steer the Future physicists and poets should be one picture of the Universe filled with the sense of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl). Physics fractured world and then "blew up" the Universe. And where did the "fundamental constants" and "laws of nature"?... Need to grasp this "simplicity of the complex ."

Closed science: «Shut up and calculate», Open Science: "understand and count fast".

Understanding the foundation of the Universe device is necessary not only to physicists, but lyricists:

"We do not see the world in detail-

Insignificant all and fractional.

Takes me sadness from all this .


Vvedensky Alexander (1930)

Physical picture of the world should be the same rich sense as world picture lyricists.

Unified picture of the world for physicists and lyricists - then management of the future of humanity more reliable, because there will be understanding.

I wish you good luck!

All the Best,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 20:06 GMT
Vladimir, a look at the guitar (my favorite tool) - its image contains an absolute eidos Universe... "String theory" still demands the ontological justification ...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Aitor Elorza replied on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 21:32 GMT
Thanks Vladimir,

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. A. Einstein

"Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated." Confucius

Aitor

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 07:52 GMT
Dear Aitor,

I beg your pardon! I wrote the wrong name ...

Very good quotes great thinkers! Thank you!

I wish you success in the contest and research!

Sincerely, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John C Hodge wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 16:29 GMT
This is a reply to your reply of Apr. 21.

What do you mean by “draw it”?

The cause of the waves is the moving matter be it hods, photons (colume of hods) or electrons (3 D structures of hods). I haven’t simulated the speed issue except in the simulation of the differing speed of photons depending on the plenum density. I suspect the number of hods (mass) in a particle does have an effect on the waves frequency and amplitude.

Test effects of speed of plenum wave – Yes. I think they have been done. Interference depends heavily on the wave overtaking the more forward photons. The quantum entanglement is also an effect of resonance of wave and matter.

Thanks for your interest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on May. 5, 2014 @ 18:06 GMT
Aitor,

An exceptional essay. It takes the same theme as mine and our findings almost entirely agree. Very clearly written, drawn and explained.

It's shame you haven't joined in the conversation on the "Classical Sphere's" blog here where I've struggled to gain any acceptance of the simple solution. My last years essay (scored 2nd) also derive Godel's 'n-value' fuzzy Logic and Beyesian iPAD values. QM is shown as a total 'cop out', crazily over complicated.

I hope you may read my other essays going back to '2020 vision' in 2011, also removing the anomalies and paradoxes from SR. This year I go much further, describing the specific classical mechanism of OAM exchange producing the cosine curve, both at each detector and for relative angles, and describe and give results of a repeatable experiment (end notes) I hope you'll try. I also draw the solution (but it's also a romance!). See also my predictions and notes on Aspect and Weihs, borne out.

Top marks for yours, which I was elated to find, and I hope you may feel mine worth the same. I'm not a mathematician so perhaps we could even collaborate on compatible descriptions. However our problem is not so much the physics as overcoming the embedded beliefs of the physicists. Though scored 2nd my essay last year was entirely passed over. Doctrinal inertia is overwhelming.

Very best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Aitor Elorza replied on May. 6, 2014 @ 21:56 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thanks for your comments.

I discovered FQXi last year but unfortunately, I don’t have much time to participate in conversations and forums.

I will read your papers and send my comments,

Best regards,

Aitor

Bookmark and Share


Author Aitor Elorza replied on May. 11, 2014 @ 20:46 GMT
Dear Peter,

I've read your last essay. I think it is very good and deserves attention and further development. The essay is also well written and nice to read. I’ve marked it high.

If my understanding is correct, you consider that the problem with Bell’s theorem is that it is based on “theoretical” singlet states without taking into account “real” 3D states around the poles of the particle. The cosinus relation for the relative angle between the results of Alice and Bob is obtained assuming that each angle doesn’t represent a single position but in fact, a set of rotated positions (which give a cone on a sphere surface, maintaining the relative angle).

I like your idea and I think it is a promising path to follow. I'll read your other essays as soon as I can.

A theoretical question on entanglement: if a decision of Alice to change the setting affects Bob’s results, as the situation is reversible, what would happen if both change settings “at the same time”?

Aitor

Bookmark and Share


Author Aitor Elorza replied on May. 15, 2014 @ 17:00 GMT
Dear Peter,

I've read your essays of previous contests. I think we share the same global vision but with some differences. For instance, I don't think that there is a non-zero probability for all possibilities in nature. In my view, probabilities may be zero. The point is that probabilities are continuous, not discrete; not only probabilities but also their change, the change of their change and so on (infinitely differentiable).

Moreover, you argue that time is a human invention to describe change and that space is discrete. My essay proposes that space and time are created by a continuous wave field emitted by particles: space is created by the field itself and time, by the rotation of the field, both being continuous.

Anyway, your ideas are very interesting and I wish you success with your paper.

Aitor

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on May. 26, 2014 @ 01:45 GMT
Dear Author Aitor Elorza

I enjoyed the views in your assessment, because: my Absolute Theory have all the capabilities that you mentioned.

10 points for "MAKING THINGS UNDERSTANDABLE" - Hải.CaoHoàng

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Aitor Elorza replied on May. 27, 2014 @ 19:53 GMT
Dear Hài Cao Hoàng,

Thanks for your post. I'll read your article.

Best regards,

Aitor

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on May. 29, 2014 @ 05:53 GMT
Aitor,

You speak of Einstein's pursuit of the theory of everything and of "making things, and in particular theoretical physics, understandable". Often models or thought experiments like Schrödinger's cat interchange macro and quantum particle behavior characteristics to prove points.

In my essay I bring together, as you propose, the macro and the subatomic like the vacancies between nuclei and electronic shells in the subatomic world, causing the body to hover less than a nanometer above your chairs cushion, averaging out the quantum effects of 7 octillion atoms.

I like to see your comments on my essay.

Jim

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.