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

Janko Kokosar: on 6/6/14 at 23:38pm UTC, wrote I make a little speculation, but I think it is not a big one. Although I...

Janko Kokosar: on 6/6/14 at 23:36pm UTC, wrote Dear Victor Vaguine I do not succedeed to read all your essay, but I see...

Victor Vaguine: on 6/2/14 at 16:14pm UTC, wrote Peter, I am really impressed with your essay. It is sophisticated and it...

James Hoover: on 6/2/14 at 2:21am UTC, wrote Victor, Being a type 0 civilization in Kaku ratings, do you think we can...

Peter Jackson: on 5/28/14 at 17:30pm UTC, wrote Victor, I looked through your site and saw no detail. My Email link is at...

Victor Vaguine: on 5/28/14 at 17:08pm UTC, wrote Peter, I will publish my book on a deeper theory of Quantum Mechanics in a...

Peter Jackson: on 5/27/14 at 15:55pm UTC, wrote Victor, Those damn little quanta snuck up and logged me out! I look...

Anonymous: on 5/27/14 at 15:50pm UTC, wrote Victor, I was pleased to find that our views coincide in almost every way....


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: "Coins always have two sides. Always. The fact that some observer has..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Robert, Re.measurement being considered the cause of subsequent effect; I..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Eckard Blumschein: "Steve, Darwin contradicted to the view of Parmenides, ..., and Einstein..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "Joe,do you understand that the universe is finite like our series of..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "this second law is so important,my theory of spherisation and these quantum..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "I must explain what is the real meaning of Spherisation in my theory.It is..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

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...

Steve Agnew: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." 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 16, 2019

CATEGORY: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? Essay Contest (2014) [back]
TOPIC: With Expanded Vision and Plentiful Nuclear Fusion Energy Full Ahead into the Future by Victor Vaguine [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Victor Vaguine wrote on Apr. 17, 2014 @ 20:25 GMT
Essay Abstract

The principal global problems in the human society are identified. It is recognized that foundational science is the key for the development of applied science and technology. In the final analysis, foundational science is the driving force for the progress and transformation of mankind. As a “compass”, four Pointers are proposed to validate any particular direction in foundational science research. The Pointers are: P1 (Philosophy and Mindset), P2 (Mankind as an Emerging Intelligence), P3 (The Principle of Fine Tuning), and P4 (The General Copernican Principle). The Pointers are subjected to a verification test in four specific foundational situations: fundamental nature of quantum laws, unification of fundamental forces, the string theory, and the multiverse theory. To address mankind’ global problems for the next 100 years four solutions are outlined: the development of profound science for evaluation of the impact of human activities on the health of our planet; the realization of plentiful nuclear fusion energy; the control & regulation of incoming solar radiation; and the construction of a defense system against dangerous asteroids and meteorites.

Author Bio

Victor Vaguine is currently an independent scientist with the strong interest in foundational issues and philosophy. He received his PhD in Physics from the University of Paris, Orsay, France. For a few years he was a visiting scientist at CERN. He worked in academia and industry. In his most recent work not yet published, he succeeded to bring quantum mechanics to a deeper level. His theory, based on a new paradigm, includes nine postulates, explains longstanding enigma and paradoxes, and makes predictions confirmed experimentally (see www.vaguine.com). He is living in Dallas, Texas, USA.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Apr. 18, 2014 @ 08:59 GMT
Dear Victor,

very interesting essay, we are following almost the same perceptions...

P1 : I fully agree with you that Science is an ATTEMPT to find the TRUTH, and any theory has no limits.

P2 : Our two essays are parallel here...

P3 : You can read one of the explanations of fine tuning in my essay "STEERING THE FUTURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS ?" .

P4 : On GAT and TOE : my opinion is that even for the ONE reality we are aware of there is no "SCIENTIFIC" theory that will unify the unique reality we are conscious of (and so its creators), if we accept that our consciousness is the origin of all then we heve found " the reference of reference" I think, that is not a scientific theory I know.

Multiverse : In my perception of "Total Simultaneity" I give a different view on this concept : every possible universe (your uni-universe) is an availability in Total Simultaneity.

About all the technological solutions you are mentioning, of course I think you are right, I wrote an article (see reference 7 in my essay (link above))where i gave some solutions for the energy question and how to end egoistic profit thinking) but all of them are only a moment" of the created reality.

I hope that you will find some time to read my essay (link above) and leave a post on my thread, eventually when you like give it a rating that is in conformity with your appreciation.

best regards

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Dunn wrote on Apr. 18, 2014 @ 14:42 GMT
Nuclear Fusion requires light elements to form larger elements. What is done with the radioactive wastes produced?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Victor Vaguine replied on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 16:03 GMT
James,

Your comment is excellent. I hope I did not give an impression that I solved

all problems.

There are some other considerable challenges. But once you have plentiful

nuclear fusion energy, you also have flexibility.

You can dispose radioactive material into space or bury it into a really deep

hole in the ground in a suitable geographical location.

Thank you for your comment.

Victor Vaguine

Bookmark and Share



John C Hodge wrote on Apr. 18, 2014 @ 18:43 GMT
I see your book “ Prologue to Super Quantum Mechanics; Something is Rotten in the State of Quantum Mechanics” is available. When is your next book “Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations of Super Quantum Mechanics” to be available on amazon.com? I didn’t see your new principles in the former book. Are they to be available in the second book?

Your first book outlined some problems. Was the Afshar experiment in it? Do you see the Afshar experiment as a problem for your model as it is for Copenhagen?

“At the present time, in my opinion, foundational physics and cosmology show a certain degree of stagnation. Removal of some roadblocks would make foundational science sharper, more efficient and more credible with the general public on whose support science relies.” I agree. Further there are many ad hoc additions to current models and many “anomalies”. This has historically indicated the next level model in soon to arrive. It seems we both have a good try at it. Do you cover cosmological anomalies as well?

Neither Newton nor Einstein liked “action-at-the-distance” and neither do I. This is why my model has action-by-contact. I cover this in my book and my entry (section 2) in this essay contest.

I reject the “Principle of Fine Tuning” and have a replacement - see my entry (section 2). This principle is replaced by a negative feedback loop principle that also calculated a theoretical universe temperature of 2.718 K very close to the CMB 2.725 K. No other model does this.

The “Theory of Everything” is highly defined in physics. But you are correct if you interpretation “everything” to include “ultimate” and points to being able to create a universe. Current jargon means “everything” is the union of the big (general relativity) and the small (quantum mechanics) (see STOE correspondence to general relativity and quantum mechanics.

I have suggested a candidate for a TOE in a book . It is based on cosmological anomalies but can explain the interference of light by particle photons. The book lists new principles of physics that my papers use. The papers were written around each observed anomaly. Most of the galaxy-oriented papers were also published in a Nove science book referenced on my web page. My model predicted 3 observations in 2006 that were found in 2011.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Victor Vaguine replied on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 15:54 GMT
John,

Non-local influences are confirmed by experiments.

This property is an element of objective reality.

I have an impression that you deny non-local influences.

By definition, your quantum mechanics theory cannot be valid.

Bookmark and Share



John C Hodge wrote on Apr. 18, 2014 @ 18:47 GMT
Links:

book .papers

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 02:52 GMT
Victor,

By foundational science, do you mean leading edge science in areas from astronomy to geology to zoology, including high-risk, high pay-off ideas? I agree that science and technology is the answer for a viable future and you do mention survival, maybe not with the emphasis I pose in subduing climate change. Is the foundational science one with global cooperation or competitive?

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 02:21 GMT
Victor,

Being a type 0 civilization in Kaku ratings, do you think we can accomplish the following in time: "the development of profound science for evaluation of the impact of human activities on the health of our planet; the realization of plentiful nuclear fusion energy; the control & regulation of incoming solar radiation; and the construction of a defense system against dangerous asteroids and meteorites."

Having had rating problems with my Firefox browser and with some 5 days remaining, I am revisiting essays I've read to see if rated. I find that I did not rate yours before.

Your given the time, I would like to see your comments on my essay: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2008

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Apr. 20, 2014 @ 03:30 GMT
Hi Victor,

I think there is something not quite right about the scenario of generating plentiful energy from fussion, that will be adding energy to the biosphere, and at the same time throwing away the energy from the sun by reflecting it back into space. Instead of using reflectors to discard energy why not use them to concentrate the energy and use it to generate steam? Or just have photovoltaic solar farms instead of reflectors. I'm sorry if I'm missing the point but your solution sounds a bit like- collecting water with a hole in the bucket and trying to make things better by adding more water and making the hole bigger.

Climate science is an important topic, in the Lorenz center talk by Tim Palmer Nov 2012 he says (words to the effect) that the computational abilities of current computers is just not great enough to make highly accurate predictions. He gives a nice illustrated description of why the mathematical models have inbuilt inaccuracy; that being they have to be simplified to fit the computational limit of the computers. He states that further investment is very important as it could allow us to distinguish between a Katrina or a Sandy event.

Better early warning and defense against asteroid threats sounds a sensible precaution, so mankind does actually have a future, and isn't wiped out by an unexpected large asteroid impact.

Thanks for sharing your ideas, Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Victor Vaguine replied on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 16:19 GMT
Hi, Georgina,

Your reasoning makes sense for the present but not for the future. In the future, let's say 100 years from now, according to my prediction there will be plenty

almost free nuclear fusion energy, available for every corner of our planet.

Nobody would be interested in solar energy. Nuclear fusion energy consumption will be increased dramatically. The principal concern will be what to do with generated heat. As an interim solution,I am proposing a reflectometry, both from the surface of our planet and in the space.

Those geographical areas which are suitable today for generation of solar energy will be used to reflect solar radiation back to cosmos.

However, mankind must find a long term solution how to transfer the generated heat directly to cosmos.

Thank you for your interest in my essay, Victor

Bookmark and Share



John C Hodge wrote on Apr. 20, 2014 @ 16:29 GMT
VV

The STOE is not a quantum mechanics model. It is a model of the small and the BIG that reduces to quantum mechanics with some assumptions STOE correspondence to general relativity and quantum mechanics. Non-locality or locality means little in the STOE. How else do we get a Bohm interpretation, explanation of the Afshar experiment, and an explanation of entanglement in one structure?

Hodge

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Victor Vaguine replied on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 16:33 GMT
Hi, John,

As I mentioned before, non-locality is a property of objective reality. It is independent from our subjective opinions. In case of Bohm interpretation, then as John Bell stated (I can supply you references), it is an extreme case of non-locality. If your STOE theory includes elements of quantum mechanics, it must include non-locality to be valid.

Victor

PS: you can find a status of my Super Quantum Mechanics theory on my website

vaguine.com

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 16:28 GMT
Dear Doctor Vaguine,

I found reading your essay utterly compelling and I do hope that it does well in the competition.

You wrote, “Science is a search for the whole truth about objective reality.” Alas, scientists haven’t got a clue about reality because they all suffer from abstraction informania.

INERT LIGHT THEORY

Based only on my observation, I have concluded...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James A Putnam wrote on May. 12, 2014 @ 02:29 GMT
Victor Vaguine,

An excellent essay very appropriate for this contest. In my opinion, it took courage to put it forward during a time (this is only my opinion) when political influences have taken hold of much of science. I also think that ideology, or perhaps it is personal philosophies, have distorted physics theory. Anyway, beyond what I think, I appreciate reading this essay that brings needed variety to the contest. I just rated it for you. Good luck.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Victor Vaguine replied on May. 13, 2014 @ 20:54 GMT
James Putnam,

We both agree that science should not be a subject to various political influences. Science is too important to mankind's future.

Thank you for warm words and your interest in my essay.

Victor Vaguine

Bookmark and Share



Ajay Bhatla wrote on May. 23, 2014 @ 22:14 GMT
Victor,

My understanding of your message: A good future in less than 100 years with science and technology; a much better future but in more than 100 years because responsibility in ordinary humans is a tougher goal. Any further insight into how to get the level of cooperation required to achieve the science and technology results you prescribe?

I totally agree that science and technology is the key to our future.Your Principle of Fine Tuning is intriguing. How can I get a copy of your paper "Prologue to Super Quantum Mechanics"?

You are proposing some very BIG things. In my essay (here), I propose many tiny actions. Please let me know what you think of my proposal.

-- Ajay

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Victor Vaguine wrote on May. 25, 2014 @ 15:39 GMT
Ajay,

It is an undeniable fact that after introduction of relativity (1905-1916) and quantum mechanics (1927) there has been no new fundamental principles in physics proposed. Foundational physics and cosmology are in state of stagnation. We are swimming in the ocean of absurdities.

My theory "Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations of Super Quantum Mechanics" is going to change all this in a dramatic way. I will demonstrate this redundantly by bringing Postulates, explaining all long standing enigmas and supporting experimentally. My theory will be published in a few months.

Please visit vaguine.com.

"Prologue to Super Quantum Mechanics" is my book published in 2012.

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on May. 27, 2014 @ 15:50 GMT
Victor,

I was pleased to find that our views coincide in almost every way. I admit I was disappointed not to be able to find a description of 'super quantum mechanics'. Do links exist to any papers or preprints? I also saw nothing tangible on understanding and advancing fusion, where such progress is much needed.

Can you explain how you have overcome or circumvented Bell's...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on May. 27, 2014 @ 15:55 GMT
Victor,

Those damn little quanta snuck up and logged me out! I look forward to your comments. If you'd like the SR derivation see my last 3 essays. All scored top 10 but Orwell's 'Crimestop' seemed to render them invisible to the judges.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Victor Vaguine wrote on May. 28, 2014 @ 17:08 GMT
Peter,

I will publish my book on a deeper theory of Quantum Mechanics in a few months.

You can find some information on my website VAGUINE.COM Please provide me your email address.

I appreciate your comments.

Victor

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on May. 28, 2014 @ 17:30 GMT
Victor,

I looked through your site and saw no detail. My Email link is at the end of my essay end notes. I hope you'll also read and score it before the imminent deadline. It seems to be dropping in a hail of 1's from neighbours despite a number of 10's from those who've read it!

I certainly agree yours should be higher up the list and am happy to help with the appropriate score. I look forward to looking further into your important work and wish you luck with the book.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Victor Vaguine wrote on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 16:14 GMT
Peter,

I am really impressed with your essay. It is sophisticated and it took great effort om your part.

I am sure you agree with me that there is no one single essay among all others that would deserve a rating "1". It will be obvious to judges that there are some people (I am sure, very few) who do not mind to playing games. It is not so difficult to find out who they are.

You can find an actual rating of your essay by eliminating "1"s. As far as I am concerned, I am not really sensitive to rating of my essay for I know my own value.

What I have shown is that:

1.the quantum laws are not the only ones that govern our Universe;

2.the effort to unify the fundamental forces will not lead to scientific success;

3.the string theory is a pseudoscience, and very expensive one;

4.the multiverse theory is a misconception.

That is not so bad for a single essay.

With best wishes,

Victor

Bookmark and Share



Janko Kokosar wrote on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 23:36 GMT
Dear Victor Vaguine

I do not succedeed to read all your essay, but I see that it is interesting. I will read it after. You are attacking also interpretation of quantum mechanics, and I agree that it need better interpretation. Maybe you will be interested also in my essay from 2013.

My essay

Best regards

Janko Kokosar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Janko Kokosar wrote on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 23:38 GMT
I make a little speculation, but I think it is not a big one. Although I did not read yet all your essay, I give you 10.

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.