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.

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

Current Essay Contest

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

Previous Contests

**Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest**

*December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020*

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss • winners

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Media Partner: Scientific American

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Ken Seto**: *on* 4/11/18 at 12:47pm UTC, wrote Dear Marco, I have finished my book. It is now available for viewing for...

**Ken Seto**: *on* 4/21/15 at 16:30pm UTC, wrote Dear Peter, Thank you for your comments. Most of the comments on my essay...

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 4/17/15 at 14:47pm UTC, wrote Dear Ken, I think your excellent essay is grossly undervalued. Even for me...

**Joe Fisher**: *on* 4/1/15 at 18:31pm UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Seto, I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well...

**Ken Seto**: *on* 3/1/15 at 13:25pm UTC, wrote Hi All, I am disappointed that someone gave me a rating of ONE. I think...

**Ken Seto**: *on* 2/27/15 at 14:48pm UTC, wrote Dear Ed, Thank you for your comments. I read your essay briefly. The...

**Vladimir Rogozhin**: *on* 2/25/15 at 20:42pm UTC, wrote Dear Ken Hon Seto, I wish you success in the Contest and in the promotion...

**Ed Unverricht**: *on* 2/25/15 at 20:17pm UTC, wrote Dear Ken Hon Seto, I Just finished my essay and have just begun to read...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Steve Dufourny**: "In your theory wich is an assumption .....and in my theory wich is also an..."
*in* Towards the unification...

**Jonathan Dickau**: "In my theory... Early universe evolution happens under the octonions and..."
*in* Towards the unification...

**John Cox**: ""where work is the coherent component of energy radiated by the qubit." ..."
*in* The energetic cost of...

**Lorraine Ford**: "When are physicists going to stop lying? They CLAIM they believe in..."
*in* Understanding...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Time to Think**

Philosopher Jenann Ismael invokes the thermodynamic arrow of time to explain how human intelligence emerged through culture.

**Lockdown Lab Life**

Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

**Is Causality Fundamental?**

Untangling how the human perception of cause-and-effect might arise from quantum physics, may help us understand the limits and the potential of AI.

**Building Agency in the Biology Lab**

Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

**Think Quantum to Build Better AI**

Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Philosopher Jenann Ismael invokes the thermodynamic arrow of time to explain how human intelligence emerged through culture.

Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

Untangling how the human perception of cause-and-effect might arise from quantum physics, may help us understand the limits and the potential of AI.

Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.

FQXi FORUM

January 27, 2021

CATEGORY:
Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015)
[back]

TOPIC: A Proposed Physical Model for Our Mathematics by Ken Hon Seto [refresh]

TOPIC: A Proposed Physical Model for Our Mathematics by Ken Hon Seto [refresh]

Introduction: In the past 100 years theoretical physics and cosmology development have been conducted almost exclusively on a mathematical basis, leading to non-physical objects or processes such as fields, space-time, curvature in space-time, time dilation, length contraction, virtual particles, action at a distance, curled-up dimensions, Entanglement, Dark Energy, Dark Matter....etc. It is posited that these non-physical mathematical objects must have their origin from one physical model of our universe. A new technique for doing physics called the Pyramid Technique enabled me to find this physical model. The result is Model Mechanics. Model Mechanics gives valid physical processes to replace all the abstractive mathematical objects of the current theories. In addition, it gives rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity called DTG. IRT in combination with DTG can be used to replace SRT and GRT in all applications. In addition the unification of DTG with the electromagnetic and nuclear forces of nature become feasible.

Ken H Seto is a graduate Chemical Engineer. He was a product manager for Protective Treatment company. He developed several major adhesive and sealant products for the automatic and construction industries. He obtained two patents on polymer technology. He published two books on physics and cosmology.

Dear Ken Hon Seto,

I noticed in your comments on another thread that you believe there is a need to change our emphasis from the mathematical development to the physical model development. I have done this in my current essay and invite you to read it and comment. You enumerated many of the nonphysical objects derived almost exclusively from mathematics, noting that these abstract mathematical objects are different physical aspects of one physical model of our universe.

Your essay presents your perspective on a physical model that attacks the problem (as outlined in your abstract). You point out that "the peril of mathematics begins when there is no known physical construct available to guide our interpretation of mathematics." You refer to Schrödinger's "probability wave front" for example. In my essay I quote Matt Leifer's observation that we still, in 2015, do not know what the quantum state is, or even whether it is epistemic (information-based) or ontic (physically real).

You observe that mathematical development alone will not lead to a theory of everything, then begin laying out your own model of physical reality. Your first rule, 3-D of space and one of absolute time, goes against current beliefs, but I've seen some interesting work lately that moves in your direction. I believe your "rules" for development of physics are generally appropriate, although I do not feel special relativity is "wrong" so much as mis-interpreted. Nevertheless, I am in sympathy with your ideas.

Your specific model does not agree with my own model, but that is not surprising.

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

I noticed in your comments on another thread that you believe there is a need to change our emphasis from the mathematical development to the physical model development. I have done this in my current essay and invite you to read it and comment. You enumerated many of the nonphysical objects derived almost exclusively from mathematics, noting that these abstract mathematical objects are different physical aspects of one physical model of our universe.

Your essay presents your perspective on a physical model that attacks the problem (as outlined in your abstract). You point out that "the peril of mathematics begins when there is no known physical construct available to guide our interpretation of mathematics." You refer to Schrödinger's "probability wave front" for example. In my essay I quote Matt Leifer's observation that we still, in 2015, do not know what the quantum state is, or even whether it is epistemic (information-based) or ontic (physically real).

You observe that mathematical development alone will not lead to a theory of everything, then begin laying out your own model of physical reality. Your first rule, 3-D of space and one of absolute time, goes against current beliefs, but I've seen some interesting work lately that moves in your direction. I believe your "rules" for development of physics are generally appropriate, although I do not feel special relativity is "wrong" so much as mis-interpreted. Nevertheless, I am in sympathy with your ideas.

Your specific model does not agree with my own model, but that is not surprising.

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

I have entered this contest with the prime idea that mathematics is misused in physics. I assumed I would be stoned for that. Instead essays like yours are in strong agreement. Could this be a sign that a division is occurring in physics demanding better use of modeling, reality, and mathematics?

Al Schneider

report post as inappropriate

Al Schneider

report post as inappropriate

Hi Al,

Thank you for reading my essay.

For the last 100 years doing physics is conducted almost exclusively on an abstractive mathematical basis. It turns out that the physical approach is much easier. In a short time I was able to come up with a physical model that is a viable candidate for a theory of everything. If you are interested please visit my website for more papers on my theory.

http://www.modelmechanics.org/

Regards,

Ken

Thank you for reading my essay.

For the last 100 years doing physics is conducted almost exclusively on an abstractive mathematical basis. It turns out that the physical approach is much easier. In a short time I was able to come up with a physical model that is a viable candidate for a theory of everything. If you are interested please visit my website for more papers on my theory.

http://www.modelmechanics.org/

Regards,

Ken

Many ideas in your paper are just "invented" you do not have any experimental data to build such proposals.

Real power of physics is creative imagination based on experimenttal data.

report post as inappropriate

Real power of physics is creative imagination based on experimenttal data.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Amrit,

What's wrong with "inventing the model" then do the experiments? All mathematical developments are done this way. Where are the experimental data supporting the String Theories.

Model Mechanics predicts that the universe is in a state of accelerated expansion in 1995 and this was discovered by two groups of astronomers in 1998.

This is a true PREDICTION.

Regards,

Ken Seto

What's wrong with "inventing the model" then do the experiments? All mathematical developments are done this way. Where are the experimental data supporting the String Theories.

Model Mechanics predicts that the universe is in a state of accelerated expansion in 1995 and this was discovered by two groups of astronomers in 1998.

This is a true PREDICTION.

Regards,

Ken Seto

Hi Edwin,

Thank you for reading my essay.

Some abstract math objects or processes can be replaced by Model Mechanics are as follows:

1. Exchange of virtual particles between interacting objects to give a force between them. This can be replace by the Model Mechanical processes that objects moving in the E-Matrix in the same direction gives rise to an attractive force and in the opposite directions give rise to a repulsive force.

2. In GRT gravity is the result of objects follows the curvature of space-time. In Model Mechanics, gravity is the combined result of an attractive electromagnetic force and a repulsive CRE force that is derived from the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. That's why the force of gravity is so weak compare to the other forces.

3. Dark Matters in current theories are the free non-orbiting S-Particles in Model Mechanics.

4. Dark energy in current theories are the result of the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.

I did not say that SRT is wrong. I said that SRT is incomplete. However I reject the notion of relativity of simultaneity. Why? Because it is in conflict with the isotropy of the speed of light in all frames.

I will read your essay again. However, I admit that I am not very knowledgeable in abstract math and will likely not able to offer much constructive comments. CBTW can you give me a brief description of your physical model. Thank you in advance.

Regards

Ken Seto

Thank you for reading my essay.

Some abstract math objects or processes can be replaced by Model Mechanics are as follows:

1. Exchange of virtual particles between interacting objects to give a force between them. This can be replace by the Model Mechanical processes that objects moving in the E-Matrix in the same direction gives rise to an attractive force and in the opposite directions give rise to a repulsive force.

2. In GRT gravity is the result of objects follows the curvature of space-time. In Model Mechanics, gravity is the combined result of an attractive electromagnetic force and a repulsive CRE force that is derived from the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. That's why the force of gravity is so weak compare to the other forces.

3. Dark Matters in current theories are the free non-orbiting S-Particles in Model Mechanics.

4. Dark energy in current theories are the result of the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.

I did not say that SRT is wrong. I said that SRT is incomplete. However I reject the notion of relativity of simultaneity. Why? Because it is in conflict with the isotropy of the speed of light in all frames.

I will read your essay again. However, I admit that I am not very knowledgeable in abstract math and will likely not able to offer much constructive comments. CBTW can you give me a brief description of your physical model. Thank you in advance.

Regards

Ken Seto

Dear Ken Hon Seto,

I read your essay, proposing model mechanics, in which E-strings rotate around E-matrix....and how attractive and repulsive forces arise. You need to specify the E-strings and E-matrix in detail; with the help of figures.

I feel, that you may find my essay in the last year's contest useful for further development of your model. The essay is titled: "On the emergence of physical world from the Ultimate Reality" and located at:

fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2001

With my best regards,

Hasmukh K. Tank

report post as inappropriate

I read your essay, proposing model mechanics, in which E-strings rotate around E-matrix....and how attractive and repulsive forces arise. You need to specify the E-strings and E-matrix in detail; with the help of figures.

I feel, that you may find my essay in the last year's contest useful for further development of your model. The essay is titled: "On the emergence of physical world from the Ultimate Reality" and located at:

fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2001

With my best regards,

Hasmukh K. Tank

report post as inappropriate

Hasmukh K. Tank,

The E-Strings are the E-Matrix. The E-Strings do not rotate around the E-Matrix as you interpreted. The S-Particles orbit around the E-Strings to form observable particles such as the electron and different quarks.

Attractive force and repulsive force are clearly described in my essay. objects moving in the same direction in the E-Matrix give rise to an attractive force. Objects move in the opposite directions in the E-Matrix give rise to a repulsive force.

Regards,

Ken Seto

The E-Strings are the E-Matrix. The E-Strings do not rotate around the E-Matrix as you interpreted. The S-Particles orbit around the E-Strings to form observable particles such as the electron and different quarks.

Attractive force and repulsive force are clearly described in my essay. objects moving in the same direction in the E-Matrix give rise to an attractive force. Objects move in the opposite directions in the E-Matrix give rise to a repulsive force.

Regards,

Ken Seto

Hi Joe,

I disagree with your description of abstract physical processes. By definition

physical constraint cannot be abstractive....it restricts the math abstractions to conform to physical reality. The example I gave in my essay is a good illustrate of this concept....the physical constraint is that a fraction of a person does not exist in our universe and therefore all the solutions involving a faction of a person must be discarded\I.

Model Mechanics is a good physical model. It gives physical constraints for all our mathematics.

Regards,

Ken Seto

Re

report post as inappropriate

I disagree with your description of abstract physical processes. By definition

physical constraint cannot be abstractive....it restricts the math abstractions to conform to physical reality. The example I gave in my essay is a good illustrate of this concept....the physical constraint is that a fraction of a person does not exist in our universe and therefore all the solutions involving a faction of a person must be discarded\I.

Model Mechanics is a good physical model. It gives physical constraints for all our mathematics.

Regards,

Ken Seto

Re

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ken Seto,

I never described "physical constraint." Physical reality cannot have physical constraints. "While Math abstractions can conform to abstract physical constraint, math abstractions confound reality. I agree with you that all fractions of abstract people cannot ever exist in a real Universe.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

I never described "physical constraint." Physical reality cannot have physical constraints. "While Math abstractions can conform to abstract physical constraint, math abstractions confound reality. I agree with you that all fractions of abstract people cannot ever exist in a real Universe.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joe,

I disagree with your claim that physical reality cannot have physical constraint on a math model. Clearly a fraction of a person does not exist physically in our universe and that's the physical constraint placed on the equation x/y=2.

In the case of the super string theories, the physical reality (constraint) is that we have three dimensions of space. So any math model that requires more than three dimensions of space does not exist in our universe. That's why the String Theories cannot be confirmed experimentally.

Model Mechanics stay within the observed physical reality of three dimensions of space and one dimension of absolute time. That's why it can be tested experimentally.

Regards,

Ken Seto

I disagree with your claim that physical reality cannot have physical constraint on a math model. Clearly a fraction of a person does not exist physically in our universe and that's the physical constraint placed on the equation x/y=2.

In the case of the super string theories, the physical reality (constraint) is that we have three dimensions of space. So any math model that requires more than three dimensions of space does not exist in our universe. That's why the String Theories cannot be confirmed experimentally.

Model Mechanics stay within the observed physical reality of three dimensions of space and one dimension of absolute time. That's why it can be tested experimentally.

Regards,

Ken Seto

Dear Sir,

You have raised a very vital issue regarding physical constraints on mathematics. Suppose we reverse your example to say every apple is eaten by ½ persons, it is meaningless as there is no such thing as fractional number of persons. Since mathematics is a science of numbers and numbers are a property of all physical objects, it cannot be assigned to unphysical imagery. Hence it...

view entire post

You have raised a very vital issue regarding physical constraints on mathematics. Suppose we reverse your example to say every apple is eaten by ½ persons, it is meaningless as there is no such thing as fractional number of persons. Since mathematics is a science of numbers and numbers are a property of all physical objects, it cannot be assigned to unphysical imagery. Hence it...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi basudeba,

Thank you for your informative comments.

I agree that mathematical development alone outside the constraints of physical reality will not lead to a experimentally verifiable Theory of Everything. That's why I used the Pyramid Technique in the development of Model Mechanics.

Model Mechanics unifies all the forces of nature (including gravity). In addition it leads to a new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity called DTG. The paper in the following link gives a more extensive description of Model Mechanics.

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011unification.pdf

I

will read your essay and give it a rating. Hopefully you will give my essay a rating. Thank you.

Regards,

Ken Seto

Thank you for your informative comments.

I agree that mathematical development alone outside the constraints of physical reality will not lead to a experimentally verifiable Theory of Everything. That's why I used the Pyramid Technique in the development of Model Mechanics.

Model Mechanics unifies all the forces of nature (including gravity). In addition it leads to a new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity called DTG. The paper in the following link gives a more extensive description of Model Mechanics.

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011unification.pdf

I

will read your essay and give it a rating. Hopefully you will give my essay a rating. Thank you.

Regards,

Ken Seto

Dear Ken Hon Seto,

Contests FQXi - this is a competition for new ideas. You put interesting questions and give original ideas. I agree with your search area. In addition to the idea of a "pyramid" may be considered "heavenly triangle" of Plato, as well as the dialectic of "absolute motion" and "absolute rest" of the matter. In basic science "crisis of understanding" (K.Kopeykin), the "crisis of representation and interpretation" (T. Romanovskaya). To overcome the crisis requires a deeper ontology. Fundamental knowledge - Mathematics and Physics require a deep ontological justification. In fundamental Physics is necessary to introduce an ontological standard justification along with the empirical standard.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Contests FQXi - this is a competition for new ideas. You put interesting questions and give original ideas. I agree with your search area. In addition to the idea of a "pyramid" may be considered "heavenly triangle" of Plato, as well as the dialectic of "absolute motion" and "absolute rest" of the matter. In basic science "crisis of understanding" (K.Kopeykin), the "crisis of representation and interpretation" (T. Romanovskaya). To overcome the crisis requires a deeper ontology. Fundamental knowledge - Mathematics and Physics require a deep ontological justification. In fundamental Physics is necessary to introduce an ontological standard justification along with the empirical standard.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

Thank you for your kind comments.

Math development alone will not give a ontological physical model of our universe . I hope that future development of theoretical physics and cosmology will place more emphasis on the development of a physical model of our universe. I feel that the physical model of Model Mechanics is a good candidate for a Theory of Everything.

Regards,

Ken H. Seto

Thank you for your kind comments.

Math development alone will not give a ontological physical model of our universe . I hope that future development of theoretical physics and cosmology will place more emphasis on the development of a physical model of our universe. I feel that the physical model of Model Mechanics is a good candidate for a Theory of Everything.

Regards,

Ken H. Seto

Dear Ken Hon Seto,

I wish you success in the Contest and in the promotion of your ideas!

I invite you to read and evaluate my essay .

Kind regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

I wish you success in the Contest and in the promotion of your ideas!

I invite you to read and evaluate my essay .

Kind regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Your effort on strengthening the foundations of physical reality is a very good approach.

Best of luck!

Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

report post as inappropriate

Best of luck!

Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ken Seto,

Congrats on your essay. There are nuggets of truth in your Model Mechanics. I will discuss more later. For now, consider that it is your CRE force that is keeping the Moon and Earth from crashing into each other under gravitational attraction. Same with Earth and Sun, and Electron and the Atomic nucleus.

More later.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Congrats on your essay. There are nuggets of truth in your Model Mechanics. I will discuss more later. For now, consider that it is your CRE force that is keeping the Moon and Earth from crashing into each other under gravitational attraction. Same with Earth and Sun, and Electron and the Atomic nucleus.

More later.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akinbo Ojo,

Thanks you for your kind comments.

Indeed the repulsive effect of the CRE force explains why gravity is so weak compared to the other forces. In addition the CRE force in combination with the electromagnetic force generate all the processes of life. A paper on such is available in the following link:

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011life.pdf

I would appreciate if you will give my essay a rating. Thank you.

Ken Seto

Thanks you for your kind comments.

Indeed the repulsive effect of the CRE force explains why gravity is so weak compared to the other forces. In addition the CRE force in combination with the electromagnetic force generate all the processes of life. A paper on such is available in the following link:

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011life.pdf

I would appreciate if you will give my essay a rating. Thank you.

Ken Seto

Dear Ken Hon Seto,

I Just finished my essay and have just begun to read the other essays. It is very refreshing to see models to think about. Especially thought provoking is your model of both the strong and weak force. The illustrations of "The stacked-interactions and the electromagnetic interactions in a proton and a neutron." the talk of decay as "de-coupling of the stacked-interactions"

Found this part of your essay very good. Hope you have a chance to comment on the stacked quarks bonded with gluons making up the mesons and baryons in my essay.

Many regards and keep up the good work.

Ed

report post as inappropriate

I Just finished my essay and have just begun to read the other essays. It is very refreshing to see models to think about. Especially thought provoking is your model of both the strong and weak force. The illustrations of "The stacked-interactions and the electromagnetic interactions in a proton and a neutron." the talk of decay as "de-coupling of the stacked-interactions"

Found this part of your essay very good. Hope you have a chance to comment on the stacked quarks bonded with gluons making up the mesons and baryons in my essay.

Many regards and keep up the good work.

Ed

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ed,

Thank you for your comments.

I read your essay briefly. The graphic is outstanding. However it will take a more careful reading to understand your model.

In my model the stacked interactions of the up-quarks eliminate the need for gluons. Perhaps the processes of stacked interactions are the gluons in your model. In that case we have different interpretations for the same processes and that's to be expected.

Regards,

Ken Seto

Thank you for your comments.

I read your essay briefly. The graphic is outstanding. However it will take a more careful reading to understand your model.

In my model the stacked interactions of the up-quarks eliminate the need for gluons. Perhaps the processes of stacked interactions are the gluons in your model. In that case we have different interpretations for the same processes and that's to be expected.

Regards,

Ken Seto

Hi All,

I am disappointed that someone gave me a rating of ONE. I think that that's not a fair rating of my essay.

Ken Seto

I am disappointed that someone gave me a rating of ONE. I think that that's not a fair rating of my essay.

Ken Seto

Dear Mr. Seto,

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ken,

I think your excellent essay is grossly undervalued. Even for me who understands and agrees with the principles of your model mechanics it was enlightening and well written. It was also right on topic as it's improved or alternative formalisms that I think we should be discussing. From your and my view it looks like the physics community is groping in the dark playing blind mans buff! Perhaps only a really good presentation can show the light. Yours is improving nicely. Full marks.

I think again you'll also like my own essay, which identifies the shortcomings of the mathematical approach, and hope you have a chance to read and score it. Indeed the 'hierarchical 'rules of brackets' formalism I describe has very close connections with your pyramid technique.

I'm pretty sure you'll also like my short video taking physical dynamic modelling to it's natural extreme, and showing the power of the hierarchical model we've both been discussing for some time.

9 minute video.

I hope your score keeps rising in the short time left.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I think your excellent essay is grossly undervalued. Even for me who understands and agrees with the principles of your model mechanics it was enlightening and well written. It was also right on topic as it's improved or alternative formalisms that I think we should be discussing. From your and my view it looks like the physics community is groping in the dark playing blind mans buff! Perhaps only a really good presentation can show the light. Yours is improving nicely. Full marks.

I think again you'll also like my own essay, which identifies the shortcomings of the mathematical approach, and hope you have a chance to read and score it. Indeed the 'hierarchical 'rules of brackets' formalism I describe has very close connections with your pyramid technique.

I'm pretty sure you'll also like my short video taking physical dynamic modelling to it's natural extreme, and showing the power of the hierarchical model we've both been discussing for some time.

9 minute video.

I hope your score keeps rising in the short time left.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.