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

micheal le: on 1/17/17 at 8:22am UTC, wrote nhằm có thể mau chóng lành căn bệnh không mất đi nhiều...

Christian Corda: on 6/6/14 at 14:04pm UTC, wrote Dear Stephen, As I promised in my Essay page, I have read your Essay....

Judy Nabb: on 5/13/14 at 6:58am UTC, wrote Stephen, A profoundly good essay. Well done. I often find mathematic and...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 5/5/14 at 19:47pm UTC, wrote Dear Stephen, I thank you for your deep detailed commentary and analysis...

Stephen Tuck: on 5/4/14 at 22:11pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir Rogozhin, I really appreciate the comments that you made in...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 5/3/14 at 9:54am UTC, wrote Dear Stephen, Each contest FQXi - a contest for new ideas. In your essay,...

Kimmo Rouvari: on 5/2/14 at 14:51pm UTC, wrote Ok, we should keep on rocking... Good luck!

Stephen Tuck: on 5/2/14 at 14:13pm UTC, wrote Kimmo, I really don't care what Matt Strassler has written on the topic. I...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "An other point very important considering this nature.Ecology is so..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

janey hug: "Vape Juice Wholesale When it pertains to vape juice, you require to obtain..." in Ed Witten on the Nature...

Forever Fiances: "Welcome to Forever Fiances, an invitation company in San Diego. Since 2008,..." in Vita Nuova

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which change is happening, is sequential..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "In the many cat version as time progresses there are less and less cats..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

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

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Mr Musser,this article is very interesting.Max Tegmark speaks about an..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Lorraine, Thanks for sharing,we speak about our main global..." in Till Next Time


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 21, 2019

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

Author Stephen Tuck wrote on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 14:57 GMT
Essay Abstract

Mankind's tenacious spirit has led to great technological innovation over the ages. Technological development like life cannot be contained. It breaks free painfully or even dangerously. I believe the future lies with Quantum Mechanics in applying the Equation of Everything to benefit humanity.

Author Bio

I grew up in Jacksonville Texas and recieved my diploma there. I am seperated from my wife and have 2 sons named Cayden and JD. I have always had an interest in Science and mathematics. I have been working on finishing Einstein's work for the last 5-years in my spare-time and have been actively disclosing my theoretical and mathematical work in the hopes that my research will be used for the benefit of mankind.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Kimmo Rouvari wrote on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 03:45 GMT
Hi Stephen,

Nice to see your essay here! I shall read and score it in couple of days. Good luck!

Kimmo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 14:45 GMT
Dear Mr. Tuck,

Please forgive me, I do not wish to be needlessly insensitive. Obviously, you have gone to enormous lengths to master the abstract musings of Albert Einstein and you really ought to be rewarded for your efforts. Please do not take my theory as a rebuke.

INERT LIGHT THEORY

Based only on my observation, I have concluded that all of the stars, all of the planets,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen Tuck replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 15:52 GMT
Dear Mr. Fisher,

I appreciate the kind comments and the politeness of the presentation of your theory. I doubt either of us would easily abandon our own theoretical views so we may have to maintain a difference of opinion (which is perfectly okay). Often I've gotten into debates where it helped my theory grow because others brought up a different perspective or additional research material....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 13:08 GMT
Respectfully Mr. Tuck,

Mathematics is abstract. As I have pointed out in my essay REALITY, ONCE, although Bertrand Russell's perfect proof that abstract 1+1=2, it is pragmatically incorrect for no two phenomena can be identical. Light cannot have a surface, because if it did, it would be physically impossible for light to be absorbed, reflected, or refracted. A surface cannot absorb, reflect or refract another surface.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Kimmo Rouvari wrote on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 03:34 GMT
Hi Stephen,

To me, your essay was kind of presentation of your theory. I mean, you could have made all that as a reference to your paper(s). Now the main portion of your essay went kind of wasted in terms of the topic.

So, I wasn't too impressed, but that's just me! Good luck!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 05:30 GMT
Dear Kimmo,

Yes, the purpose of my paper was absolutely to show how I was personally taking the initiative to steering the future of humanity through my mathematical work in Theoretical Physics. I was trying to express my great accomplishments in a clear, concise, and entertaining way. I wanted to give my knowledge to a larger audience for the benefit of mankind. The mathematics are what is most impressive, rather than the mere words of an interesting story. They say a picture can paint a thousand words, but what about a powerful equation of great elegance and grace? The equations are the center of my masterpiece that paints a vibrant picture of our magnificent universe. Imagine all the most beautiful and cherished knowledge of the physical universe (sought for over 2,000 years of human history) being presented in one amazing, awe-inspiring, integrated equation. It is like a dramatic dance between fire and ice. I believe that a Theoretical Physicist that can decode the mysteries of the universe has an even greater imagination than the most creative of artists. It takes extraordinary vision to locate pieces that can't be touched and solve a puzzle that can't be seen!

Sincerely,

Stephen Tuck

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 20:26 GMT
Steven,

Well you've made my day, Thank you! A brilliant and very important essay that also mathematically confirms a lot of stuff I've been developing.

It's probably fated to be entirely ignored by most including the judges, so I hope that doesn't dampen your exuberance. The score of 1 is an insult and a crime. But both I and Christain Corda got 1's in the first minutes last year...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen Tuck replied on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 21:05 GMT
Dear Mr. Jackson,

Thank you so much for your honest, glowing review. I've dealt with the narrow, close-minded, politics in the academic community and it is refreshing to hear such inspiration for all my hard work.

I'm still working out the orbital dynamics so I cannot be 100% confident in some of my Quantum Theory until I have labeled every magnitude and applied tried and true Trigonometry to all the angular and orbital momentum, but I feel that I have progressed my work well beyond the range of conventional scientific work. I was ecstatic when I discovered that Elementary Charge was itself due to Electron Spin Momentum. I really believe that I am close to modeling atoms with the Bohr Model using Classical Mechanics. It is kinda hard sailing uncharted territory in Science, but mathematics is definately the compass guiding the way.

You know, you have really heightened my interest into your work. I really want to check it out because since you have given me such an enthusiastic review, I know that you must be on the right path towards understanding the TOE yourself. I wish Scientists were the selfless noble undertakers of expanding truth and knowledge that they are portrayed, but it seems that money, power, and career-minded ambitions get in the way to cloud their judgement. Even FQXi for what it stands for may have difficulty not catering to the crowd rather than the truth at times. Christian was going to review my work, but I haven't heard from him. However, I gave him a way out from the pressure of a public review. I'm sure he has also found some intregue in my mathematical equations. It is hard to dispute mathematical proof of one's work when you have the answers on your side. That is one of the great beauties about mathematics!

Thank You Kindly,

Stephen Tuck

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 16:40 GMT
Stephen,

Yours is the kind of maths I like, honest and representative of nature. I actually started life in pure mathematics and escaped when it stopped doing so. Many say my last essay criticised maths, I say it defined it's power and limits. If you'd like to see my logic perhaps start here;

2020 Vision. for the 'Discrete Field' model outline, go on to here; Much Ado About Nothing., then the last one here; The Intelligent Bit..

It should all then start to fall into place. Some joint published and unpublished papers are here, one for instance deriving a physical mechanism producing the LT. Academia Web archive; PJ.

I'm not sure about a full TOE, but certainly Unification, pre Big Blast conditions etc all seem to slot into place. But my maths are all but existent so I'd like to collaborate if you're up for it. Changing a paradigm in the current climate might take a bit of a consortium! But my family motto is "I have the strength of 10 men as I am pure in heart". Now we just need another 9,989 or so and we're home and dry!

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Kimmo Rouvari wrote on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 08:02 GMT
Hi Stephen,

Could you elaborate this more?

Interestingly, I have found mathematical evidence of my equation when you divide 2PI Radians (a full 360-degree rotation) by 31,536,000 seconds (365 days * 24 hours * 60 minutes * 60 seconds). The answer you get is 2 x 10^-7 rad/sec, which is the same value as the Ampère.

I can't make any sense from it :-)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 16:20 GMT
Kimmo,

Slightly bizarre, but I too have found a connection between a full rotation and a full orbit and the Amperian loop model. It underlies the classical derivation of spin 1/2 OAM in my essay, (apparently little different from Stephens, but most else very consistent).

I don't know the answer to your question so am interested in Stephens reply, but you may find a different glimpse in my own essay.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen Tuck replied on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 21:37 GMT
What I was showing here is that connection between the time that it takes the earth to revolve around the sun (1 full Revolution) in seconds and the Ampere. The value for an Ampere is 2 x 10^-7 Newtons per meter. The value that you obtain when you divide 2PI Radians (equal to 6.28319) by 31,536,000 seconds is exactly 2 x 10^-7 Radians per second. Now of course, one could say well these values are...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Kimmo Rouvari replied on May. 1, 2014 @ 16:59 GMT
After all, Centripetal Force exactly opposes the force of Gravity within a satellite's orbit.

Not so! Do some research on that one.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Kimmo Rouvari wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 07:44 GMT
So I misspoke saying Centripetal Force when I should have said Centrifugal Force

Wrong again! ;-) Perhaps I should help you out here. Orbiting satellite is in constant falling motion. Maybe you should read what Matt Strassler has written on the topic.

Any comments?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen Tuck replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 14:13 GMT
Kimmo, I really don't care what Matt Strassler has written on the topic. I am not wrong on this issue. Satellites like any object revolving in an orbit are subject to Centripetal and Centrifugal Force, which are really made-up of component vectors. Scientists consider them pseudo-forces for that reason but it isn't inaccurate to reference them when discussing the mechanics of orbiting satellites. I wasn't talking about the fundamental force vectors or offering them as the underlying mechanics. I was making a generalization. You are getting more into theoretical or philosophical arguments. Personally, I wouldn't characterize a satellite as a "constantly-falling" object because such phrases imply that it is a Linnear Velocity rather than an Angular Velocity (where an Angular Velocity is really a Linear Velocity affected by Rotational Subspace Field Components). If you say that something is falling then you are implying that there is a bottom. Now I know that Matt would probably say that I am being too technical like I have accused you of being. You know what, he would be right because personally I know what he is trying to say and I wouldn't criticize his exact phrasing unless his understanding of what was going on was way off-base. That just drives my point in the fact that you are trying to make something out of nothing. We are getting into Syntax rather than real Substance. I subscribe to Matt's posts but I have seen him ignore my comments probably for the same reason other Ph.D's have ignored them. They don't want to admit that I am right and that I figured out the Unified Field Equation that describes the underlying Quantum Mechanics of Gravitation. Nobody wants to concede that they got all those years of education and are supposedly looking for the unification of Gravity and the Electromagnetic Force and then someone figured it out who just has a natural gift and no formal college education because it doesn't make them look so great anymore. They don't want to be on the losing-end of an argument or hurt their reputation with their peers who would despise them lending their support so instead they chose to conveniently ignore the truth!

Bookmark and Share


Kimmo Rouvari replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 14:51 GMT
Ok, we should keep on rocking... Good luck!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on May. 3, 2014 @ 09:54 GMT
Dear Stephen,

Each contest FQXi - a contest for new ideas. In your essay, I saw these new ideas to address global problems, a more successful future for Humanity.

I totally agree with you:

«I truly believe that the greatest direction humanity could steer the future is towards the path of setting aside our differences, overcoming our own selfish ambitions (that are based upon money, greed, power, prestige, or pridefulness), and embracing revolutionary new ideas that can create a better world for the next generation of man to set foot upon the face of the earth.»

Yes, we need new revolutionary ideas in fundamental science, especially in physics, we need a new economy, a new ethic to new generations lived in a more sustainable world and have hope for the future.

But can understand ("grab") through the formula the primordial structure of the Universe, paint it and explain it to make it clear schoolchildren? Alexander Zenkin in the article Science counterrevolution in mathematics concludes:

«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence.»

Do you agree with him?

What should be done to physicists that the physical picture of the Universe as rich meanings of the «LifeWorld» as the picture of the Universe lyricists?

I invite you to my forum.

High regard,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen Tuck replied on May. 4, 2014 @ 22:11 GMT
Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

I really appreciate the comments that you made in support of my mathematical and theoretical work. I feel honored that an engineer like yourself would agree with my findings. I am unsure of what forum that you have invited me. I do have my own forum on ToeQuest called, "Tuck's Theory of Everything." However, I have strayed from presenting just logic as emotions have...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin replied on May. 5, 2014 @ 19:47 GMT
Dear Stephen,

I thank you for your deep detailed commentary and analysis of my essays 2012-2013.

Rating system works and I appreciate your essay.

Thank FQXi that brings together people for "brainstorming" on very important topics of modern Humanity and modern Science!

It would be interesting if it was still a topic of "Models of the World: modern ideas" to gather here on the portal FQXi, with all models of the world and discuss them ...

I invite you to comment on and appreciate my essay.

High regard,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Judy Nabb wrote on May. 13, 2014 @ 06:58 GMT
Stephen,

A profoundly good essay. Well done. I often find mathematic and mathematicians loose touch with reality. Your approach is commendable and is much needed, but it seems the poor state of physics may not warm to it. I wish you luck.

I also write on a subject needing to be addressed where science is stumbling somewhat blindly towards possible disasters. I hope you may look.

Judy

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 14:04 GMT
Dear Stephen,

As I promised in my Essay page, I have read your Essay. While I do not agree with the main claims of the Essay, I think that the arguments presented can contribute constructively to the discussion about the topic of the Contest. More, your Essay was a nice reading. Hence I will give you an high score.

Cheers,

Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


micheal le wrote on Jan. 17, 2017 @ 08:22 GMT
nhằm có thể mau chóng lành căn bệnh không mất đi nhiều tiến trình. thanh niên thì tinh trùng rất nhiều song trường quan hệ bằng miệng

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.