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

Koorosh Shahdaei: on 4/23/15 at 14:55pm UTC, wrote Dear Mr. fisher, I will once again go through your essay. Warm regards ...

Koorosh Shahdaei: on 4/23/15 at 14:32pm UTC, wrote Peter, Thank you for your comments, I'll read your material and will get...

Peter Jackson: on 4/22/15 at 20:44pm UTC, wrote Koorosh, A very interesting viewpoint. I think you sum up the physics of...

Joe Fisher: on 3/31/15 at 15:21pm UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Shahdael, I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally...

Christian Corda: on 3/11/15 at 14:33pm UTC, wrote Dear Koorosh, Thanks for clarifying your argument. Cheers, Ch.

Koorosh Shahdaei: on 3/9/15 at 19:31pm UTC, wrote Dear Akinbo, Thank you for your comment, if you would consider general...

Koorosh Shahdaei: on 3/9/15 at 18:50pm UTC, wrote Dear professor Corda, Thank you indeed for your reading my essay. ...

Christian Corda: on 3/9/15 at 14:39pm UTC, wrote Dear Koorosh Shahdaei, As I promised in my Essay page, I have read your...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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...

Robert McEachern: "Eckard, One Objection. Don't blame Fourier: his original series is..." 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 17, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: World of discontinuity by Koorosh Shahdaei [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Koorosh Shahdaei wrote on Jan. 21, 2015 @ 20:30 GMT
Essay Abstract

Contemporary main stream physics has undoubtedly its focus primarily on inflating universe, multiverse, quantum and string theories. Some believe these would be linked together on a common ground which then takes a further step for enlightenment of our world. Each of the above stated field have lots of challenges to overcome despite the fact that a “Theory of Everything” is not in slightest manner at sight, as physics or more generally science are incapable of explaining the most fundamental questions such uprising of life in material even in its most primitive form. While one of physics’ primarily focus is on particles and fundamental forces and interactions, there are no answers about complex compositions of particles that result in other dimensions such life and self-consciousness which are not even directly measurable. By tradition any such attempt to explain our world beyond physics would be described as metaphysics. In present-day physical science, there are common understandings that there would be hidden dimensions, parallel worlds or multiverses away from our comprehension. Normally we comprehend our world by quantifiable entities which also bridges us to math and physics. The theory of discontinuity would probably be a better rejoinder to the unknowns as it has clear cuts to quantifiable entities while the world would not of any necessity be discontinuous or continuous, but certainly it is not the way we comprehend it.

Author Bio

Double Master's Degree, in physics and management, independent researcher and innovator, member of Swedish physical society

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



John C Hodge wrote on Jan. 23, 2015 @ 01:45 GMT
The Scalar Theory of Everything model

professes to unite the big and the small and serves as a basis for discussing life .

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Jan. 23, 2015 @ 08:51 GMT
Thanks, an interesting point of view.

Bookmark and Share



Sophia Magnusdottir wrote on Jan. 25, 2015 @ 11:42 GMT
Hi Koorosh:

I don't understand what you think is not understood about accelerating particles so that they gain energy. Yes, if a particle gains energy when it is accelerated and then decays (or scatters on another particle), it's the full energy (including the kinetic energy) that goes into the decay products. That's the whole point of building particle colliders.

Also, I think you misunderstood how the Dirac sea works, it's not full with zero energy particles, that doesn't make sense, think about it. You kick out a particle from BELOW zero level to create a particle and a "hole".

Best,

-- Sophia

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Jan. 25, 2015 @ 14:05 GMT
Hi Sophia,

To get red of misunderstanding here, let me clarify what I meant. You need to consider much broader picture. What I wrote about Dirac sea is not wrong, this theory has some interpretations as well as a modern one. The fact here is not the actual interoperation of Dirac sea itself, but to highlight and discuss other aspects.

What I mean is this question: is the vacuum filled with a variety of particles simultaneously everywhere or not? If yes the answer is yes then it is not convincing and if the answer is no then contradictory with the experiments, and my interpretation is the actual mechanism is hidden in another universe apart from our comprehension.

I hope I been able to clarify this matter.

Kind regards

 Koorosh

Bookmark and Share



Colin Walker wrote on Feb. 11, 2015 @ 05:59 GMT
Dear Koorosh,

I liked the theme of your essay - discontinuities both in the world itself and our knowledge of the world in relation to modern physics. One never knows where the edges are.

I must say I think you are right to question cosmological inflation on the grounds of requiring unlimited energy from gravity. It is good to see someone else with that thought.

Cheers,

Colin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Feb. 12, 2015 @ 13:41 GMT
Dear Colin,

Thank you for your comments, indeed more people like us start thinking that physics can’t provide all the answers that today comprising the core of human knowledge and science with fundamental nature. Therefore there is a need for new thinking that brings supplements to physics and also biology for a broader picture.

Kind regards

Koorosh

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 12, 2015 @ 10:21 GMT
Dear Koorosh,

Excellent essay, deep analysis in the spirit of the Cartesian radical doubt. But, in my opinion, still need a deeper ontology and dialectics of continuity and discontinuity, to "grab" (understand) the primordial structure of Universum, a single for physicists, mathematicians and poets. Today, all knowledge requires ontological justification: need a unified ontological framework, carcass and foundation. In fundamental physics is necessary to introduce an ontological standard justification along with the empirical standard.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Feb. 12, 2015 @ 14:17 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you indeed for your comments. I agree to your view, that we need to have a deeper understanding, but one thing is for sure, and I been highlighting that earlier, namely a new thinking which would be shorn of actually that sort of metaphysics that might hypotheses a certain accept as true. It is to say something that is not detectable to us get only an interpretation out of countless others, but the framework itself without interpretation will give us a broader view.

One thing that can be inferred from contemporary physics is singularities and discontinuities in many fields and likewise for natural science when it comes to queries like life and consciousness and the intersection of all those that comprise our world. We need to address all these consecutively for having a better picture of our world.

Warm regards

Koorosh

Bookmark and Share



Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 09:38 GMT
Great collection of thoughts still the important adjacent aspects feels restoring.

Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba mishra wrote on Feb. 27, 2015 @ 06:36 GMT
Dear Sir,

Discontinuousness is generally attributed to objects under observation. However, as you have rightly pointed out, our measuring instruments and processes are capable of measurement only in phases. Thus, the discontinuities are due to us and not due to the object of measurement. Since whole is not only the sum of its parts (water is more than hydrogen and oxygen), combining the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Feb. 27, 2015 @ 22:31 GMT
Dear Sir,

Thank you for your comment, Actually what I mean be discontinuity in this essay is as it was explained here and not by other means. I have brought up some theories and askes some critical questions without direct conclusion or if the these theories will be valid in future, generally I refer to a broader picture and a need for new thinking and the fact that physics alone can't give us the whole picture.

Furthermore I meant, there are hidden parts in our world that can't be observed by us or our instrument, simply only considering the diver behind the genetics or anihilation of particles considering the true mechanisem, or emergence of life etc. I hope I have been able to provide a clearer explanation.

I'll your essay shortley.

Kind regards

Koorosh

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 12:47 GMT
Dear Koorosh,

Well done on your interesting essay. I will pick on the point where you mentioned dark matter.

If dark matter exists and is very abundant within a galaxy, since its density distribution can be enhanced around gravitational objects could it have played a role in earth-based light experiments like those of Michelson and Morley?

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 19:31 GMT
Dear Akinbo,

Thank you for your comment, if you would consider general relativity it would because of space curvature, but for short distances it would be neglectable, assuming dark matter should have similar effect then it would be impossible to be measured. Unfortunately I am not a fun of dark matter theory and I haven't read anywhere whether this theory regards curvature of space as GR does, but the fact that it is hypothesized that there exist a non baryonic particle, then it is not clear whether this hypothesized particle would have similar properties like ether or similar even so such particle doesn't intractable with matter, so what about light?

Kind regards

Koorosh

Bookmark and Share



Christian Corda wrote on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 14:39 GMT
Dear Koorosh Shahdaei,

As I promised in my Essay page, I have read your nice Essay. Here are my comments:

1) Although I work principally on main stream physics, I am not particularly interested on inflating universe, multiverse, and string theories. I find indeed general relativity and quantum theory as the most interesting.

2) This should have been an interesting Essay also in previous contests "It From Bit or Bit From It?" and "Is Reality Digital or Analog? ".

3) Concerning your statement that "we leave in a closed universe with substantial amount of curvature with regards to its gravitational properties considering present gravitational theories such as Einstein’s general relativity", you cold be interested to this paper of mine: http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.1373.

4) I agree with your statement that the standard model has challenges to overcome.

5) I find intriguing your idea we have our foundations in few distinct and discontinued universes and can only understand distinct chunks from few domains while some other domains are hidden to us. I suggest you to attempt to supply mathematical rigor to your theory of discontinuity.

In any case, your Essay gave me fun. Thus, I will give you a high score.

Best luck in the Contest, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 18:50 GMT
Dear professor Corda,

Thank you indeed for your reading my essay.

Regarding your comment: " I suggest you to attempt to supply mathematical rigor to your theory of discontinuity". The main argument is "quantity" itself that bridges us to math and physics. For instance conceousness or teleportation or similarly the driver behind genetic world, don't have quatities and can't fit into math. But what we can inffer is the fact that we have discontinuity and clearly we have e.g. conceousness which doesn't fit into math and physics because of absence of "quantity" in the physical world that we otherwise can measure.

Hope I have been more clear.I will score your essay shortley and wish you good luck.

Warm regards

Koorosh

Bookmark and Share


Christian Corda replied on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 14:33 GMT
Dear Koorosh,

Thanks for clarifying your argument.

Cheers,

Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 31, 2015 @ 15:21 GMT
Dear Mr. Shahdael,

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

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 14:55 GMT
Dear Mr. fisher,

I will once again go through your essay.

Warm regards

Koorosh

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 20:44 GMT
Koorosh,

A very interesting viewpoint. I think you sum up the physics of current fundamental assumptions very well. It's entirely incoherent.

However I think I can well demonstrate to you that the problem is purely one of ignorance and theoretical entrenchment, so that such a theory would be 'giving up'.

There is a different and consistent set of assumptions which provide the 'code' to fit the whole jigsaw puzzle together. The first thing you'd need to do is look at my last 5 (all finalists) essay here, and the video. Various other bits (all of which you identify plus others) are tidied into place in other papers archived on Academia.edu. My 2010-11 essay ('2020 vision') suggested it would take 10 years of intellectual evolution to penetrate current doctrine, we're only half way there and on target.

I challenge you to study the model and then claim it isn't POSSIBLE to adjust interpretations to make our understanding of nature coherent.

New 9 minute video.

Webarchive papers on most aspects of the 'Discrete Field' model (DFM).

This years essay really just takes the mathematical (& QM) aspects of the complete ontology. The scoring suggests it's now better understood.

Very well done for highlighting the disunified nature of current doctrine and models. That was an essential task and most seem genuinely to not believe it's the case! We shouldn't score on 'agreement' with theories, and I have half a mind that your essay may have been satirical!? But a good score anyway.

best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 14:32 GMT
Peter,

Thank you for your comments, I'll read your material and will get back.

Good luck

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.