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

Anonymous: on 5/28/14 at 20:34pm UTC, wrote Peter, The cosine curve distribution can be attributed to the chopping of...

Peter Jackson: on 5/28/14 at 12:24pm UTC, wrote Ken, Thanks, I hope you get your rating ability sorted. I still seem to be...

Ken Seto: on 5/27/14 at 21:09pm UTC, wrote Dear Peter, I enjoy reading your essay especially your discussion on...

Peter Jackson: on 5/26/14 at 13:39pm UTC, wrote Ken, Doing moderations and have just reviewed your essay for scoring...

Don Limuti: on 5/25/14 at 20:12pm UTC, wrote Hi Ken, I give your essay a high mark because of your statement: At the...

Anonymous: on 5/23/14 at 15:11pm UTC, wrote Dear Jim, I did not mention anything about the Schrödinger's Cat...

James Hoover: on 5/23/14 at 2:22am UTC, wrote Ken, I cannot pretend to follow your essay with a great deal of...

Michael muteru: on 5/16/14 at 12:31pm UTC, wrote ken nice essay. On the M5 Brane all unifications can be done.we have...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

Steve Dufourny: "why the post about the team of Nassim and his friends cannot be accepted..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Rob,Eckards, Dear Rob,it is well said all this indeed.Friendly" in First Things First: The...

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

Georgina Woodward: "Robert, I'm not sure that the 'thing as it is' is irrelevant. I can..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: "Eckard, "You referred to..." I was referring only to my final comments..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..." in The Demon in the Machine...


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: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? Essay Contest (2014) [back]
TOPIC: The Future Development of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology by Ken Hon Seto [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Ken Hon Seto wrote on Apr. 4, 2014 @ 17:04 GMT
Essay Abstract

In the past 100 years theoretical physics and cosmology development have been conducted almost strictly on a mathematical basis, leading to non-physical objects or processes such as fields, space-time, curvature in space-time, time dilation, length contraction, virtual particles, action at a distance, curled-up dimensions, Entanglement, Dark Energy, Dark Matter....etc. It is posited that these non-physical mathematical objects must have their origin from one physical model of our universe. As a method to find this one physical model I invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics. The Pyramid Technique identifies the most problematic observations of current theories and formulates a physical model of the universe that can explain these problematic observations. The result is the physical model of Model Mechanics. Model Mechanics gives valid physical explanations for all the problematic observations encountered by current theories. In addition, it gives rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity called DTG. IRT in combination with DTG can be used to replace SRT and GRT in all applications. In addition the unification of DTG with the electromagnetic and nuclear forces of nature become feasible.

Author Bio

Ken H Seto is a graduate Chemical Engineer. He was a product manager for Protective Treatment company and developed several major adhesive and sealant products for the automatic and construction industries. He obtained two patents on polymer technology. He published two books on physics and cosmology.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Hasmukh K. Tank wrote on Apr. 6, 2014 @ 08:59 GMT
Dear Ken Hon Setto,

I can agree with one sentence of your essay:

"Theoretical physics and cosmology developments without physical constraints leads to non-physical mathematical objects that may not have physical existence in our universe"

Hasmukh K. Tank

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Gluck replied on Apr. 6, 2014 @ 09:30 GMT
Dear Ken,

It seems we really have not invented (or discovered?) the mathematics able to describe the reality and we are in deep theory trouble. There are so many heroic efforts to find a solution to this Stepmother of All Problems- let's hope your original idea will contribute to it. I promise to follow your publications

The spirits of Gauss, Einstein and Florentin Smarandache should be with you!

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ken Hon Seto replied on Apr. 6, 2014 @ 13:43 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you for your kind comments

I am hopeful that other theorists will use the Pyramid Technique for the future development of a physical Theory of Everything.

Ken

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Apr. 7, 2014 @ 13:16 GMT
Peter,

If you are interested I have other papers in my website:

http://www.modelmechanics.org/

Ken

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Gluck replied on Apr. 8, 2014 @ 14:07 GMT
very nice, dear Ken!

I think it is my duty to explore systematically all the essays here and to learn.

But I will visit ModelMechnics site as soon as possible.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 8, 2014 @ 14:50 GMT
My Dear Mr. Seto,

Although I did not understand most of your splendidly written essay, I am certain that it will do well in the contest for it is assuredly one of the best essays on abstraction ever written.

You wrote: “Model Mathematics gives us a unique way to achieve the elusive goal of unifying all of physics.” There is an even better way Mr. Seton. It is called reality.

Based only on my observation, I have concluded that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real things have one and only one thing in common. Each real thing has a material surface and an attached material sub-surface. All material surfaces must travel at the constant “speed” of light. All material sub-surfaces must travel at an inconsistent “speed” that is less than the “speed” of light. Einstein was completely wrong. It would be physically impossible for light to move as it does not have a surface or a sub-surface. Abstract theory cannot ever have unification. Only reality is unified because there is only one reality.

The real Universe is unique, once. All information is not unique.

With all of my best regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 9, 2014 @ 14:27 GMT
I am sorry for the misspelling of your name as Seton instead of the correct Seto. Please excuse me.

Ruefully,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Apr. 12, 2014 @ 15:53 GMT
Dear Ken,

Indeed humanity is using all kind of terms to try to explain the awareness of reality.

However none of these is going to explain the essence when we do not involve our consciousness.

I liked very much reading your essay and hope that you can find some time to read my essay and maybe leave a comment on my thread or even give rating (forgrt about Joe Fisher he is only giving everyone a ONE when he begins with "I did not understand..."

best regards

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Ken Hon Seto wrote on Apr. 14, 2014 @ 15:27 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

Consciousness and awareness of reality is the corner stone of human intelligent. The paper entitled "The origin of life as Interpreted by Model mechanics" in the following link describes the consciousness processes as interpreted by Model Mechanics.

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011life.pdf

I will read your paper and give it a rating. Hopefully you will give my essay a rating. Thanks.

Ken Seto

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous replied on Apr. 15, 2014 @ 15:06 GMT
Dear Ken,

Your E-matrix is residing already in "space", so is a quality of it.

Total Simultaneity with the non-caused consciousness embedded is the creator of any space and for causal consciousness tha creator of the emergence of time.

In my perception the origin of "life" being the result of a time-dependent process that our causal consciousness has lined up in its "memory" is only one of the infinity of possibilities that our non-caused consciousness is able to "create".

I will read further on the subject you propose.

Thanks

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ken Hon Seto replied on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 13:56 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

In my theory time is not crated.....it is absolute in the infinite past and infinite future. Consciousness is the recognition of the geometric patterns exist in the E-Matrix and these patterns are the result of absolute motions of the interacting objects in the E-Matrix.

Ken Seto

Bookmark and Share



John C Hodge wrote on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 18:23 GMT
KHS

“…importance of selecting the correct physical model for our mathematics.”

OK. You got into math and physics. The following was posted to Fisher’s essay:

Math shows only 2 things in reality. Math is really basically simple. We use it all the time. I wonder if the very fundamental idea that math works to help us define observations also describe our...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ken Hon Seto replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 16:48 GMT
Dear John,

Division is part of math. It includes both reality and non-reality solutions. The point is if we interpret our math based on a real physical model then our interpretation is real.

Your STOE model is a physical model? I read some of your writings and I still not sure about the physical description of STOE. Can you give us a physical description of it? Thanks.

Ken Seto

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 09:53 GMT
Dear Ken,

I read with great interest your essay. Indeed, the physical picture of the world, which is consistent with common sense - it is extremely important to select the correct course of Humanity in the sustainable Future, which implies development, rather than degradation of Nature and Man.

I have several questions:

1. What is the nature of "the laws of Nature" in your model of the Universe?

2. What is the nature of "the fundamental physical constants"?

3. What needed is new revolution in physics and mathematics to the scientific world physicists would be as rich in meaning as the picture of the world lyricists and poetes, that is the meaning of "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl)?

"We do not see the world in detail-

Insignificant all and fractional.

Takes me sadness from all this ... "


Russian poet Alexander Vvedensky(1930)

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 09:58 GMT
Link: Alexander Zenkin in the article Science counterrevolution in mathematics

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ken Hon Seto replied on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 15:14 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for reading my essay.

1. All the laws of nature are the result of absolute motions of the interacting objects in the E-Matrix.

2. Model Mechanics have different fundamental constants:

-Time is absolute and the rate of passage of absolute time is not sensitive to motion. However there is no physical unit of time (including the clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames (different state of absolute motion).

The value for speed of light is not a fundamental constant. Model Mechanics says that the rest wavelength of a elementary source is a fundamental constant. The incoming light become a new source in the observer's frame and the grating defines a new different wavelength for this new light source. For example:

The speed of incoming sodium light is not a fundamental constant. It is calculated using the fundamental constant wavelength of 589 nm as follows:

c'= (measured incoming frequency)(universal wavelength of sodium 589nm)

Regards,

Ken Seto

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 19:40 GMT
Dear Ken Seto,

Many thanks for your explanation.

Indeed, Her Majesty Relativity can not ever sit on the throne of the Absolute ...

I wish you good luck!

All the Best,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on May. 6, 2014 @ 17:26 GMT
Ken,

An improved description on last years, and I wholeheartedly agree your description of the role of mathematics (as you may recall). I also fully agree your description of time in the response above, as absolute. Only the EM 'signal' emissions of mechanisms we call clocks are at large to be Doppler shifted on change of medium.

Your pyramid technique is interesting, but I fear from the viewpoint of the ruling paradigms faithful followers you 'jump' far to much rigorous science to be taken seriously. However I think we might both agree that the commonality of so much of our our models means the binary code at the top of the pyramid should mutually prevail, our agreement equally benefiting both theories.

I hope you'll enjoy reading my own essay, showing the power of rational physical models by deriving a classical reproduction of QM's predictions geometrically. It also has a touch of romance! Do let me know if you understand and agree the proposal.

Best of luck in the competition.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ken Hon Seto replied on May. 7, 2014 @ 14:44 GMT
Dear Peter,

Yes time is absolute.

The GPS uses absolute time to synchronize the GPS clock with the ground clock. This is done by redefining the GPS second to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make the redefined GPS second represents the same amount of absolute time as the standard ground clock second and makes the GPS clock permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time.

I agree that the Pyramid Technique concept is too radical and the ruling paradigms faithful followers will fight against it. I hope in time they will see that Model Mechanics is not a rejection of modern Physics but rather it provides physical explanations for the math of modern physics.

I agree that a correct Binary Code in combination the physical model of Model Mechanics at the top of the Pyramid can be the start of a theory of everything. I will read you essay again.

Regards,

Ken

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on May. 9, 2014 @ 02:17 GMT
Dear Author Ken Hon Seto

Your suggestion is the most fundamental issue for luggage to come the future.

In this contest I just provided 10 points.

But looks like there has been a breakdown in the assessment grading so I can not give point for you ? I will evaluate you when the problem is fixed .

Hải.CaoHoàng

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on May. 14, 2014 @ 02:22 GMT
Incidents in my evaluation had to be overcome -10 points to cheer for your passion.

Hải.CaoHoàng

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ken Hon Seto replied on May. 14, 2014 @ 13:30 GMT
Dear Hải.CaoHoàng,

Indeed we need to change our way of doing physics. The mathematical method alone will not lead to the final physical model for the reason that the inventor of the math model will invent a non-physical model to explain his math. The end result: We have a number of different non-physical models of our universe. The Pyramid Technique of doing physics will enable us to arrive at the correct physical model of our universe quickly.

I hope that you will fix your computer problem quickly and give me a rating for my essay. Thank you.

Ken Seto

Bookmark and Share


Hoang cao Hai replied on May. 15, 2014 @ 01:36 GMT
Dear Ken Seto

Incidents in my assessment has been processed and I have evaluated your essay as mentioned above.

Perhaps it is due to the translation "automatic" so you have not understood my notice.

Hải.CaoHoàng

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michael muteru wrote on May. 16, 2014 @ 12:31 GMT
ken

nice essay. On the M5 Brane all unifications can be done.we have M-theroy.Model dependent realism of the universe is thus workable on such.please read/rate my essy LIVING IN THE SHADOWS OF THE SUN: REALITIES, PERILS ESCAPADES MAN, PLANET AND KARDASHEV SCALE.MAKING THE GREAT TRANSITION by Michael muteru here http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2101 that shows how 11 dimensional physics potrays our world/s and physics that we observe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on May. 23, 2014 @ 02:22 GMT
Ken,

I cannot pretend to follow your essay with a great deal of understanding. I do observe that the Schrödinger's Cat experiment, you mention, is more metaphorical than real, attributing quantum behavior to mostly macro objects. Perhaps such explains your Pyramid Technique. I also wonder about the detection of cosmic inflation with gravity waves which you mention as invented.

Certainly we tend to look for what supports our pre-conceived theories. What are your thoughts here?

My essay speaks of looking beyond and within, the first to see beyond orthodox science and second to utilized the untapped power of the brain, the microcosm of the universe. Let me know what you think.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 23, 2014 @ 15:11 GMT
Dear Jim,

I did not mention anything about the Schrödinger's Cat experiment. Also I did not mention anything about using gravitational waves to detect Inflation.

I invented a new physical model of our universe called Model Mechanics that provides new and different interpretations to explain the problematic observations of the current theories. In addition Model Mechanics gives rise to a new physical theory of gravity called DTG and DTG is compatible with the other forces of nature. In addition Model mechanics give rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT. IRT eliminates all the paradoxes of SRT and it can be used to replace SRT/GRT in all applications.

Regards,

Hen Seto

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti wrote on May. 25, 2014 @ 20:12 GMT
Hi Ken,

I give your essay a high mark because of your statement:

At the microscopic level it is not so easy to see what is going on because the physical objects involved are too small to be seen by our most powerful microscopes. Also, there seem to be no urgent need to know the exact physical processes involved. This is because our equations are able to predict the outcome of our experiments without knowing the exact processes that give rise to the predictions. This led physicists to believe that they can use any processes to explain our equations.

A very clean description of the trouble with physics. You may appreciate my website www.digitalwavetheory.com

Thanks,

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on May. 26, 2014 @ 13:39 GMT
Ken,

Doing moderations and have just reviewed your essay for scoring (looking very strong). I haven't yet had the chance to delve deeper into your background work but I will try to soon.

I note you said you'd read mine again. I can't recall if you did or commented (I seem to have more posts than any!) but if not please do. The classical experiment in the end notes was quite conclusive and has been repeated. The issue we both have is how to get a fair assessment in the face of indoctrinated beliefs!

Best of luck in the final melee.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ken Hon Seto replied on May. 27, 2014 @ 21:09 GMT
Dear Peter,

I enjoy reading your essay especially your discussion on quantum entanglement.

It turns out that my theory Model Mechanics has a physical explanation for quantum entanglement as follows: A photon is a wave-packet in neighboring E-Strings in the E-Matrix. When a photon is chopped into two pieces these pieces become mirror images of each other and thus they become entangled as they travel in the opposite directions in these neighboring E-Strings.

I tried to give your essay a high rating but I was enable to do so. In fact I was not able to give anybody a rating at all. I will contact the administrator to correct the problem.

Regards,

Ken

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on May. 28, 2014 @ 12:24 GMT
Ken,

Thanks, I hope you get your rating ability sorted. I still seem to be being hit with 1's with no posts! Dishonesty reigns is seems. I've now rated yours but even the top score applied didn't get you into the 5's. I'll point yours out to those who I think may agree your thesis, i.e. Judy Nabb may be one so do read and post on hers if you haven't done so yet.

I agree the mirror image wave-packet model works fine, but the issue then is how to reproduce the quantum correlations, which are really in 2 parts, the +/- 50:50 is only one and has the counterfactuality/ftl issue (Alice seems to change Bob's by changing her own setting) then the 'cosine curve' distribution with relative setting angle (not 'actual angle!) needs to be derived, which supposedly can't be done classically.

However using the different assumptions of reversible ELECTRONS (wave packets if you wish) in the detectors EM field, all then emerges classically. It's a bit like YOU the observer spinning and reporting which way a fixed disc is spinning from YOUR rest frame. If you're spun the other way you'd report it spinning the other way! It's just thinking outside the box the boxes came in. I can't see your model precludes that but do comment.

Well done for yours. I do hope you manage to score mine.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 28, 2014 @ 20:34 GMT
Peter,

The cosine curve distribution can be attributed to the chopping of the photons at unequal pieces. I am not sure what you mean by "(Alice seems to change Bob's by changing her own setting)". Are you saying that Alice can change the spin of her electron at any time and Bob's electron will respond accordingly?

In my model the assumed electron waves are the results of absolute motion of the electrons in the E-Matrix. A paper in the following link on the double slit experiment illustrates this concept clearly.

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011experiment.pdf

Rega
rds,

Ken

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.