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

sherman jenkins: on 4/16/15 at 5:57am UTC, wrote Dear Alexander M. Ilyanok, Much of ‘standard theory’ (including ‘big...

James Hoover: on 4/15/15 at 0:03am UTC, wrote Alexander, Time grows short, so I am revisiting essays I’ve read (yours...

Joe Fisher: on 4/7/15 at 15:39pm UTC, wrote Dear Alexander, I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein...

Vladimir Tamari: on 4/2/15 at 1:05am UTC, wrote Dear Alexander, I read your interesting essay and agree with many of the...

James Hoover: on 3/31/15 at 5:10am UTC, wrote Alexander, In your conclusion you mention classical laws explained through...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 3/25/15 at 18:37pm UTC, wrote Dear Alexander, I agree with you 97%. Basic science is going through...

Christopher Horton: on 3/19/15 at 22:18pm UTC, wrote Dear Prof. Ilyanok, I read your paper shortly after it was posted, and it...

Alexander Ilyanok: on 3/13/15 at 17:10pm UTC, wrote Dear John C Hodge I agree with your point of view. There are eternal...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Robert, thank you. I now understand the difference between decisions and..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: "Making a decision, means selecting between discrete, a priori established..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Eckard,you seems persuaded by your Words and thoughts.I don t understand..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "In Darwinism/Weismannism there is no first cause, just a causal chain...." 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...


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 15, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: Mathematics generating absurdities in physics by Alexander M. Ilyanok [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Alexander M. Ilyanok wrote on Mar. 5, 2015 @ 15:45 GMT
Essay Abstract

Mankind today is on the verge of a paradigm shift, in other words, a series of scientific and technological revolution, which entails a change of worldview, value systems, hardware etc. Certainly, this factor must be considered in the formation of civilizational processes in the world. Now there is a demand for another global ideological paradigm. It is necessary to formulate the most important task that could indicate a new vector of human development and ensure scientific and technological revolution This new project may be a transition to the six techno-economic paradigm – to the economy of knowledge. Moreover, the transition to a new technological paradigm is not only and not so much a change of economic and technological paradigm. Such a transition is both radical transformation of social, ideological, political structures and the appearance of new models of society, more or less adequate to the "amount of new technologies", and the rise of entirely new models of social and political relations, and the formation of fundamentally new type of personality (not necessarily better) and etc. The new ideology must have as a priority the need to use the singular breakthrough technologies for improving both the human himself and his environment. The speed of progress to the point of singularity increases gradually in the first time, but the feedback mechanism with each shortens cycle everything quickly leads us to the singularity. Upon reaching the singularity the humankind's abilities become really amazing: full control over the structure of matter on the atomic level, a complete knowledge of biological processes from macro to micro and molecular level, and superhuman artificial intelligence. And it is necessary to evaluate the scientific basis which to a large extent led to a crisis in not only science but also society as a whole.

Author Bio

Alexander M. Ilyanok, born November 29, 1949 in Alma-Ata, Kazahstan. PhD: technical Sci, Professor, Corresponding Member of International Academy of Engineering, Supervisor of the IAE Nano- and Femtotechnology Project in the Republic of Belarus, and nominee for Tang Prize 2014. The Tang Prize is a set of biennial international awards bestowed in a number of categories by panels of judges convened by Academia Sinica, Taiwan’s top research institution. The author of 8 international patent applications in the field of nanotechnology, the holder of 15 international patents.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Branko L Zivlak wrote on Mar. 5, 2015 @ 19:24 GMT
Dear Alexander M. Ilyanok,

Among the professors at this competition your work is by far the best until now. To comment, I'll have to read it again later. congratulations.

Regards,

Branko Zivlak

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Alexander M. Ilyanok replied on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 14:29 GMT
Dear Branko L Zivlak,

Thank you for reviewing my work. I understand that I'm going against the tide, and never will achieve victory at this competition.

But uncommon scientists are congregating on FQXi and I wonder to share with them my views.

Best regards,

Alexander M. Ilyanok

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 6, 2015 @ 00:58 GMT
Dear Alexander M. Ilyanok,

You make a very strong case for mathematics generating many absurdities in physics, which, as you remark, conflicts with "the conviction that the quantum theory contains the complete and final truth." I also agree about "rubber physics that could pull any experiment on its model." Nor is QCD exempt! I also found your addition of spin to the Twin Paradox quite interesting.

All in all you succeed in pointing out numerous absurdities in modern physics, which will almost certainly not allow you to win this contest. But I thank you for your well-written, information-packed essay, and I invite you to read and comment upon my essay.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Alexander M. Ilyanok replied on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 13:55 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Thank you for your kind comment and your encouragement. You definitely understand my point and you clearly also see the problem.

Unfortunately, as I can see, quantum mechanics and relativity theory, in the form in which they exist today have outlived their usefulness. Scientists have found the gravitational interactions faster than the speed of light. I am writing about this in detail in my work Femtotechnologies. Step I Atom Hydrogen. http://vixra.org/abs/1306.0014.

I read with interest your work. However, it is contrary to my position in physics. I wish you to win. I am sure that the win not smile me.

Best regards,

Alexander M. Ilyanok

Bookmark and Share



John C Hodge wrote on Mar. 6, 2015 @ 04:44 GMT
If both math and physics are natural, then the absurdities imply our perception of math needs adjustment. I suggest the division operation (as in 1/3 and 1/r) is not a natural math process. Physics seems to be cause and effect. Probabilities are not natural. Therefore, the models using these produce absurdities.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Alexander M. Ilyanok replied on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 17:10 GMT
Dear John C Hodge

I agree with your point of view. There are eternal (physical, not mathematical) problem of zeros and infinity here. The universe has helped us to create a mathematical basis. But on the basis of the existing mathematics we cannot yet reveal a physical secret of the universe.

I am writing about this in detail in my work Femtotechnologies. Step I Atom Hydrogen. http://vixra.org/abs/1306.0014

Best regards,

Alexander M. Ilyanok

Bookmark and Share



Thomas Erwin Phipps wrote on Mar. 7, 2015 @ 01:12 GMT
I found this essay most refreshing and awarded it a 10.

You are wearing no man's collar! More power to you.

Best, Thomas Phipps

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Alexander M. Ilyanok replied on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 14:07 GMT
Dear Thomas Erwin Phipps,

Thank you very much for your kind comment.

It is hard to go against the flow. I'm glad you understand my point.

Best regards,

Alexander M. Ilyanok

Bookmark and Share



Alan M. Kadin wrote on Mar. 7, 2015 @ 12:49 GMT
Dear Prof. Ilyanok:

You make many interesting arguments in your essay, but if I understand your primary theme, you are suggesting that the established mathematical models for some modern physical theories are invalid, and without true experimental verification.

I make a similar argument in my own essay, and present a counter-example to the established Hilbert-Space Model of Quantum Mechanics. "Remove the Blinders: How Mathematics Distorted the Development of Quantum Theory" presents a simple realistic picture that makes directly testable experimental predictions, based on little more than Stern-Gerlach measurements. Remarkably, these simple experiments have never been done.

The accepted view of QM is that the physics (and mathematics) of the microworld are fundamentally different from those of the macroworld, which of course creates an inevitable boundary problem. I take the radical (and heretical) view that the fundamental organization is the same on both scales, so that the boundary problem immediately disappears. Quantum indeterminacy, superposition, and entanglement are artifacts of the inappropriate mathematical formalism. QM is not a universal theory of matter; it is rather a mechanism for distributed vector fields to self-organize into spin-quantized coherent domains similar to solitons. This requires nonlinear mathematics that is not present in the standard formalism.

Alan Kadin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christopher Adams Horton wrote on Mar. 19, 2015 @ 22:18 GMT
Dear Prof. Ilyanok,

I read your paper shortly after it was posted, and it has been reverberating in my head ever since. What a damning indictment of the current state of physics! And I fully identify (as fully as a Yankee can) with your lament that these barriers to our mental progress show up as a dead end in our thinking and reasoning about society as well. Yet your claim that the barriers to our thinking are rooted in a defective system of mathematics is unsupported by any proposal of an alternative, which leaves what you've written as merely a highly educated and elaborated cry of the heart.

I would like to suggest that you take a slow, careful look at the deceptively simple "Mathematics of Science" by Rob MacDuff, and consider his construction as a candidate for the foundation of a new and profoundly materialist mathematics. It represents a paradigm shift, in the sense that once you have digested and fully understood his theses, it becomes impossible to think about math and science in any other way.

As I think about MacDuff's work, one question I have is "why now? Why didn't someone come up with this 100 years ago?" How would history have unfolded differently if it had? Were we as a species simply not ready for it then? But then when I look at the reaction it's gotten on this contest board, I wonder if perhaps the answer is we're just barely ready for it now.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 18:37 GMT
Dear Alexander,

I agree with you 97%. Basic science is going through "crisis of understanding", "crisis of representation and interpretation." Cause: The basis of physics and mathematics, the basis of all fundamental knowledge is built on the "home-brewed philosophy."

Fundamental knowledge, mathematics and physics, requires a deep ontological justification (basification). In fundamental physics is necessary to introduce an ontological standard justification (basification) along with the empirical standard.

Rabindranath Tagore gave a good hint mathematicians and physicists:

I ask my destiny - what power is this

That cruelly drives me onward without rest?

My destiny says, "Look round!"

I turn back and see It is

I myself that is ever pushing me from behind.


I invite you to see my analysis of the philosophical foundations of mathematics and physics, the method of ontological constructing a new basis of unified knowledge - the primordial generating structure, "La Structure mère" as the ontological framework, carcass and foundation of knowledge, the core of which - the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory. I believe that the scientific picture of the world should be the same rich senses of the "LifeWorld» (E.Husserl), as a picture of the world lyricists , poets and philosophers.

Is now needed a great synthesis of knowledge accumulated by mankind, including traditional to go to the comprehensive paradigm of overcome "the crisis of understanding", especially in mathematics and physics.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 31, 2015 @ 05:10 GMT
Alexander,

In your conclusion you mention classical laws explained through experiment w/o math models. I believe the key to modern discovery works with mysteries of the classical world and utilizes our growing knowledge of the quantum world to explain the mystery in a new field of quantum biology.

A theoretical physicist and molecular genetics professor began a study with a

problem of explaining experimentally a natural world mystery: how the European robin managed to navigate back and forth from Northern Europe to Northern Africa in fall and spring.

Your view seems similar to my own points in my essay as I look at the LHC, DNA and emerging science tools with connections of the human mind, math & computers, and physics.

The “elegant” math equations you mention seem to be the basis for many of the theories we see in modern physics: string theory, supersymetry and quantum gravity. Not being a mathematician, I assume that it’s my ignorance that fails to fathom possible missteps.

Thanks for giving us the opportunity to share your ideas.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Apr. 2, 2015 @ 01:05 GMT
Dear Alexander,

I read your interesting essay and agree with many of the points you make, particularly about SRT but not all of them. For example not with the possibility of superluminal speeds above c. Yes physics has become a strange world of good results reached by fanciful theories. Mathematics allows that. How do we 'fix physics'? I have many ideas and so do many others, but our voices are not heard, besides, not everything we say may turn out to work! Only time, which I say does not exist, will tell :)

With best wishes and good luck

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 7, 2015 @ 15:39 GMT
Dear Alexander,

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. 15, 2015 @ 00:03 GMT
Alexander,

Time grows short, so I am revisiting essays I’ve read (yours 3/31)to assure I’ve rated them. I find that I did not rate yours, so I will rectify. Seeing many that are unorthodox here, I believe both of ours have a chance. I hope you get a chance to look at mine: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2345.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


sherman loran jenkins wrote on Apr. 16, 2015 @ 05:57 GMT
Dear Alexander M. Ilyanok,

Much of ‘standard theory’ (including ‘big bang’) is overdue for reexamination and adjustment or discard. But we should not toss the baby out with the bath water.

I do believe that dark matter is real and that it is synonymous with the Higgs field which extends throughout the Universe. As this field structure is warped but not displaced by mass only the warped and concentrated (dark Higgs matter) is noted by our observations. Therefore we would conclude that the total dark matter is much more than that which has been accounted. Also this flexible but solid structure will continually react to the mobile mass of galaxies but not in the same manner as free wheeling massive materials.

Thanks for great essay,

Sherman Jenkins

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.