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 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

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.

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


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

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

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

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
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

Domenico Oricchio: on 5/18/15 at 12:20pm UTC, wrote I am thinking that if there is a complete equivalence in the relativistic...

Domenico Oricchio: on 5/5/15 at 10:32am UTC, wrote I am thinking that if it is true that the Gravitoelectromagnetism is an...

James Hoover: on 4/22/15 at 22:48pm UTC, wrote Domenico, Shark time as they pull you down, so I am revisiting essays...

Domenico Oricchio: on 4/21/15 at 19:07pm UTC, wrote Thank you for reading my essay, I read them all, and I voted for those who...

Peter Jackson: on 4/21/15 at 17:11pm UTC, wrote Dominico, Very original in concept and style. I firmly believe...

Neil Bates: on 4/14/15 at 16:10pm UTC, wrote Domenico, your essay is daringly different from the conventional, and...

James Hoover: on 4/12/15 at 16:07pm UTC, wrote Domenico, First of all, thanks for checking out my essay and for your...

James Hoover: on 4/11/15 at 21:39pm UTC, wrote Domenico, Simplify for a quicker development. A universal language. I...


Steve Agnew: "There are some questions that do not seem to have answers in the classical..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Agnew: "Yes, there are two very different narratives. The classical narrative works..." 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: "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 that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Dufourny: "Joe,so lol you speak to God or it has send you this information lol ?..." in First Things First: The...

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.

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.

October 14, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: T-symmetry by Domenico Oricchio [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Domenico Oricchio wrote on Jan. 9, 2015 @ 22:28 GMT
Essay Abstract

Has the natural language the same expressive power of mathematics?

Author Bio

graduation: mechanical engineering degree: physics thesis: deterministic neural network and fuzzy neural netwoek master: advanced technology in communication and information research: -Genova,fractal dimensionality and experimental discrete equation -Marina di Ravenna, fluid dynamic and bacteria grow equation -Vietri sul mare, fluido dynamic model applied to soil pollution and associate bioremediation -Manchester (interrupted), Natural Gradient Descent and Indipendent Component Analysis

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 13, 2015 @ 01:27 GMT
Dear Domenico,

I greatly enjoyed your answer to "Has the natural language the same expressive power of mathematics?" I hope others perceive your essay as I have.

Some of the details that I found interesting... you ask, why the formal structures of chess do not represent the reality, while mathematical physics with its formal game is the reality. This is so close to the nature of a Zen koan that I won't touch it, but your question is apt. Phil Gibbs brings chess into his essay as a means of discussing 'invented' or 'discovered'. I suspect a very nice essay could be written around chess as metaphor for math and physics. I also like your analogy of evolution of mathematics through interaction with the world as genetic evolution. Your observation of 'Elasticity law = Hooke's law' and the cost of teaching history with technique is interesting. Maybe so.

Observing Newton's and Coulomb's laws, you ask whether we can write Maxwell's equation for masses. In fact Maxwell did so, perfected (as far as possible pre-relativity) by Heaviside.

In V you ask "why every formal system works in our reality?" I treat this topic on the first few pages of my essay, which I invite you to read.

I very much enjoyed your unorthodox approach, and felt you made many relevant points. The ambiguity of some of your points does not bother me at all. I think that you prove your point. My current essay treats a similar situation in which two formally identical equations are sufficiently ambiguous that their confusion led Bell to renounce local realism. One needs natural language to straighten this out.


Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Domenico Oricchio replied on Jan. 13, 2015 @ 14:00 GMT
Thank you for reading my essay.

I am thinking that the idea of invented or discovered mathematical physics can give the difference between philosophy and science: if the reality is discovered by the physics, then the reality structure is mathematical (or equivalent languages) and there is no restriction on philosophical reasoning (abstract reality).

I don't know the gravitoelectromagnetism before writing the essay, but my idea was to write the complete equivalence between gravitational field and electromagnetic field in an Electromagnetic field equation using the same form of the Einstein field equation: the idea is to use a reasoning in natural language to obtain a mathematical physics result.

The best compliment I have experienced: writing a Zen koan in a physical essay.

Bookmark and Share

Author Domenico Oricchio replied on Jan. 17, 2015 @ 12:28 GMT
I wish to be more clear; if I can deduce that the Einstein field equation for an electromagnetic field is

[equation]R_{\mu \nu}-\frac{1}{2} g_{\mu \nu} R = -\frac{8 \pi k}{c^4} T_{\mu \nu}


then the solution of the two fields are equal, and it is possible to use the solutions of one equation to another solution; the invariant mass in the Einstein equation don't change in the motion, like the invariant charge don't change in the motion, but the observer could measure a change of the fields, that can interpret like a change in the charge.

In this moment, I don't understand the problem with the normalization, because the relativistic equations are identical for a collision between two charges and a collision between to masses; I must to study the problem in some classical text.

An other problem is that the classical solutions can be obtained with a single field, and the electric curvature is a method to solve the relativistic problem; this does not prove its existence: it is only a mathematical object that needed to solve a problem, it is measured indirectly.

Bookmark and Share

Author Domenico Oricchio replied on Jan. 17, 2015 @ 17:55 GMT
When I wrote “I don't understand the problem with the normalization”, I made a mistake, I would write “I don't understand the problem with the renormalization”.

Bookmark and Share

Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 13, 2015 @ 23:42 GMT

The hand of the artist is seen in every stroke of the brush.

My first reaction was not very positive. I read it a few times (forwards and backwards and backwards and forwards) and it grew on me so to speak. You have written abstract prose upon the tapestry of Physics (How's that for a turn of phrase?) Hemmingway would be pleased.

Your work made me think of something from college ... something I had not thought of in many years. Bear with me if you will. I think it will entertain you. During a break in studies, I found myself at a party off-campus. It was at a private home. One of the walls inside the home was covered with doodles and drawings and such things. People would simply stand in front of the wall and draw. It had obviously been going on for a long time because the drawings were by multiple people and some of the drawings interacted with prior drawings. Believe it or not, it actually looked pretty good. There was nothing tasteless or profane. It was mostly stuff like geometric shapes, people, rainbows, animals, stick figures, etc.

So, in the spirit of your essay and that wall, please allow me to doodle a little. On the wall near the roman numeral VII, there are some sketches by an artist with initials AE. There is a very nice train moving past a stick-figure man. The weather is not very good because there is also a bolt of lightning striking nearby. But don't worry, it did not hit the man. The equation (t1/t2) = (1 + v/c)/(1 - v/c) is written nearby and so is the equation v = 0. The latter equation must have excited AE quite a bit because there are several big curly kind of exclamation points by it.

If I may, I would like to make one tiny little change to this sketch. I would like to doodle in the letter i before both of the v/c terms.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Domenico Oricchio replied on Jan. 14, 2015 @ 11:48 GMT
Thank you for reading my essay.

You have the reading key of the essay, and I thought to resemble the act of discovery.

I live 26 km from the place where Hemingway wrote The Old Man and the Sea, and I am sure that my essay style would not like to he.

The real story of the murals is beautiful, and remind me three things: (1) in Italy we have Wu Ming, that wrote collective work, (2) that the science is like a murals, where every scientist writes with his stile, connecting with previous images, (3) that the human life is like a murals, that slowly disappears after painting.

I thought of writing essays, and posts, like a graffiti artist, so that there is free access, and freedom to cancel and alter.

Bookmark and Share

Gary D. Simpson replied on Jan. 14, 2015 @ 22:01 GMT
I'm glad you enjoyed the story about the mural on the wall. It seemed very appropriate to the situation. Think about including i as I described.

Also, I was not stating that your style was like Hemmingway. The events in France had me thinking about "For Whom the Bell Tolls" so I had Hemmingway on my mind. I do think that he would be delighted with a style that paints with words.


Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Domenico Oricchio wrote on Jan. 24, 2015 @ 09:03 GMT
I am thinking that there are programs to formal verification of mathematics; so that the program language contains the mathematics. So that in the computer there is a mathematical representation that is different from our (there are not whiteboards with our artistic formulas), and that is a pure logic.

If there will be the possibility to explore the unknown demonstrations, with an automatic (random) search algorithm, then the pure mathematics should be a natural language.

I'm glad the just votes, if I wrote an article for publication on any scientific journal would have chosen a different style, and purpose would have been different.

Bookmark and Share

Akinbo Ojo wrote on Feb. 12, 2015 @ 12:33 GMT
Dear Domenico,

I just went through your essay

How many fractions can you slice a cake in to? Is there a smallest possible slice? Can you slice beyond the size of the edge of your knife/

You may wish to check my essay to see how I answer these questions.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 08:44 GMT
Your work is interesting and has some lengthy parts of permissible facts derived from artistically formulas.


Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Theodore St. John wrote on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 13:56 GMT
Dear Domenico Oricchio,

Wow. I’m glad I finally got around to reading your essay. By far the most unconventional of the essays I’ve read so far. I love that you presented it in reverse order. I thought it was very appropriate that you did so, and my reason for thinking that is alluded to in my essay, Doctors of the Ring – The Power of Merlin the Mathematician to Transform Chaos into...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 05:47 GMT
Dear Domenico,

As I am not that familiar with literary forms, I am not sure if my assessment is correct, but your work struck me very much as a stream of conciousness meditation on the relation between mathematics and physics. I admit that I could not follow all of it, but it was interesting to imagine myself in the position of someone who thinks those thoughts. The final line, "Physical-mathematical thoughts prose or theory? " seems to me like a false dichotomy: For all but the most trivial ones, it is going to be a mix of both, or so I think.

Anyways, this was certainly something different, I applaud your courage to do something different from all others.

Best wishes,


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 30, 2015 @ 15:28 GMT
Dear Mr. Oricchio,

I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well written and I do hope that it fares well in the competition.

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 11, 2015 @ 21:39 GMT

Simplify for a quicker development. A universal language.

I cite Euler's identity somewhat in the same fashion to simply represent what math offers. With math's abstract formulation of logical reasoning we have achieved much. I give examples of quantum biology, DNA, and the LHC representing seconds after the BB.

Why the Roman numerals? Do you decline their values to 1 to show one language derived from all representations?


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 12, 2015 @ 16:07 GMT

First of all, thanks for checking out my essay and for your incisive words. In a "sea of essays" I often have to Google terms to understand concepts but had not caught "Wittgenstein numbering". Clever application which simplifies the message.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Neil Bates wrote on Apr. 14, 2015 @ 16:10 GMT
Domenico, your essay is daringly different from the conventional, and deserves some more credit. It encourages reflection on basic issues of semantics and the universe, even if not presenting a specific physical insight or claim as best I can tell. As for "what are laws": good thinkers have been struggling with this for years. Hume cast doubt (as on much!) on the very idea the concept makes sense: we observe regularities, which does not entail a "something" that makes things do what they do. So why is the world lawful? In my own essay, I don't even try to answer that question. Instead, I show how to at least use an assumption of lawful consistency to explain a basic fact about our universe: why space has three dimensions. I hope you and anyone else likes it. BTW, I left a note there for anyone who is unfavorable to at least explain why it did not suit them. Cheers.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 17:11 GMT

Very original in concept and style. I firmly believe communication of how the universe works can be equally or better achieved with 3D dynamic visual images. A new example is here, though far to densely packed into too little time (9 mins) to allow mi ost brains to absorb and assimilate

VIDEO Time Dependent Redshift.

I hope you may read my essay and assess how well we can do so mainly with words, and red socks with green lining.

Best wishes


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Domenico Oricchio wrote on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 19:07 GMT
Thank you for reading my essay, I read them all, and I voted for those who deserve.

I reread your essay, and it is interesting, if I understand well, what you say that the mathematics is only a means to obtain a computer calculus (or in old days hand calculation) of a real phenomenon, so that if we use the brain to create a physical equation then a calculation analogous to organic computation (quantum computer simulation, parallel computer, etc.) could get interesting results to obtain physical equations.

I think that mathematics is pure imagination, pure symbolic play, and the “shut up and calculate” is – for me – a mathematical point of view (you have the game rules, follow them).

The three filter paradox is interesting because it can extend the logic (the filter like brackets), and with different routes I had thought that the logic can be represented by bracketing of symbols (if the elementary operation are binary and asymmetric).

Is it possible quantum calculus, with lasers and semitransparent glass and filters, using Zeilinger apparatus with multiple layers?

A good essay make you think, so your essay is a good essay.


Bookmark and Share

James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 22:48 GMT

Shark time as they pull you down, so I am revisiting essays I’ve read to assure I’ve rated them. I find that I rated yours on 4/11, rating it as one I could immediately relate to. I hope you get a chance to look at mine: as time evaporates.


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.