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

Gene Barbee: on 4/23/15 at 21:37pm UTC, wrote Hi Jonathan, Thanks for the advise on the need to say whether I am...

Jonathan Dickau: on 4/23/15 at 0:32am UTC, wrote Hello Gene, This is very interesting. It is of course a toy model at this...

Joe Fisher: on 3/31/15 at 15:12pm UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Barbee, I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally...

Gene Barbee: on 3/14/15 at 3:02am UTC, wrote Thanks Peter, I read your essay and responded under your thread.

Peter Jackson: on 3/13/15 at 14:48pm UTC, wrote Gene, Valuable essay again, very underrated again as you've freed yourself...

Sujatha Jagannathan: on 2/16/15 at 9:18am UTC, wrote Your over-view is more on the subject of empty space which co-relates...

Gene Barbee: on 2/16/15 at 3:08am UTC, wrote Dr. Okinbo Ojo, (what a great name) Thanks for reading my essay. I went...

Akinbo Ojo: on 2/15/15 at 12:34pm UTC, wrote Dear Gene, I think I can agree with the part of your interesting essay...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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 assumptions...is 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...


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 14, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: Energy 0, Probability 1, Exchange 2 by Gene H Barbee [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Gene H Barbee wrote on Jan. 16, 2015 @ 21:28 GMT
Essay Abstract

From what I have read man has always had creation myths. They are also called cosmologies and we think they are becoming more accurate with the invention of mathematics and application of the scientific method. We discuss possibilities, obtain data and attempt to fit fundamentals together because we are curious and draw meaning from nature. Over time we understand more and ascribe less to supernatural causes. Nature’s beauty and size is awesome and our cosmology deserves a fresh view. On the surface, physics tells us that mass is solid and distributed throughout space but we also know this observation is mind based information. Natural logarithms, complex numbers and a few conservation laws are all we need to understand most of physics. The topics covered include current questions regarding unification, quantum gravity and cosmology but many of the details are in references due to our 10 page limitation. The title will be explained but it is proposed that mass plus kinetic energy is balanced to zero by field energies and that the number of particles in the universe is explained by probability 1 as an initial condition.

Author Bio

Independent Researcher. Colorado State University Mechanical Engineer, 1965. Career in aerospace and R&D. Contributor to FQXi, viXra, Academia.edu and Amazon Books.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 17, 2015 @ 23:22 GMT
Gene,

We certainly start off together, that "man has always had creation myths", and today's cosmology serves this purpose for many. I also like your observation that "natural logarithm, complex numbers, and a few conservation laws are all that we need to understand most of physics."

I got lost at the information code correlating fundamental energy. I do not doubt that there are numerous such codes that describe specific physical entities, and energies, but I need to understand what such codes are based on. For example I'm interested in how you determined that one of the quarks in the neutron has 13.8 Mev rest mass. Does a proton fit into the same scheme as the neutron?

I suspect that some of the answers to where the numbers came from are in your papers referenced at the back. In particular is the quark you mention a 'generic' quark, or specifically the up or the down quark?

Thanks for presenting your model, on which you've obviously spent quite a bit of time and effort. And I invite you to read my essay and comment on it.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Feb. 15, 2015 @ 12:34 GMT
Dear Gene,

I think I can agree with the part of your interesting essay that says: The initial conditions is energy = 0, probability = 1 and exchange = 2, although I don't quite grasp the exchange part.

I suspect the universe can start from nothing so energy = 0. Also a state of perfect order is equal to probability = 1, and the second law of thermodynamics suggests entropy was probably zero at the big bang. When entropy, S = 0, Probability = 1.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gene H Barbee replied on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 03:08 GMT
Dr. Okinbo Ojo, (what a great name)

Thanks for reading my essay. I went directly to yours and read it with interest. You are versed in the classics undoubtedly and it is refreshing to see the old arguments presented and argued anew.

I am concerned that current physics literature talks a great deal about space and time without ever defining what they are. The reason appears to be...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 09:18 GMT
Your over-view is more on the subject of empty space which co-relates everything from cosmologies driven theories.

But it's a misconception to relate such cosmology theories as myth from which you have made your purport.

Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 14:48 GMT
Gene,

Valuable essay again, very underrated again as you've freed yourself from normal entrenched thinking. In particular I agree the 'nested orbit' concept is central to decoding reality, and the Fibonacci/logarithmic spiral is more fundamental than most have yet seen.

You may like this short but pertinent and packed video http://youtu.be/KPsCp_S4cUs (see the last frame spiral - and do give it a thumbs up!) as well as my own essay, which reveals a hidden mathematical 'switch' trick confounding doctrinal physics.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Gene H Barbee wrote on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 03:02 GMT
Thanks Peter, I read your essay and responded under your thread.

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 31, 2015 @ 15:12 GMT
Dear Mr. Barbee,

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


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 00:32 GMT
Hello Gene,

This is very interesting. It is of course a toy model at this point, or a precursor to a meaningful theory - in Physics terms. When presenting any alternative model, it is essential to repeatedly say 'in this model' or some such, in an expository paper, because it is sometimes unclear where you are presenting your model and when you are speaking about known or accepted Science, but overall your paper was well crafted and enjoyable to read, and the numerical relations are worth investigating further.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Gene H Barbee wrote on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 21:37 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for the advise on the need to say whether I am presenting new science or commenting on known science. Actually, I have gone back to data and re-correlated everything in a new way (with information theory). The difficulty I am having with communicating a new theory across is that people will not read the work. It is just long enough not to fit into the FQXi page limit (I tried in 2012) and the references go unread. People are quick to pick up that it is different and different translates to wrong.

Congratulations on your good score (I helped) but I don't know if any of the essays are good enough to be remembered in 10 years. Physics needs some new thinking. I recently read some of Jack Sarfatti's papers in academia.edu. He quotes Jeans "one giant though" and also quotes Hawking's thoughts about holographic projections. There is more divergence than consensus.

Bookmark and Share



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.