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

James Hoover: on 4/22/15 at 23:07pm UTC, wrote Kimmo, Shark time, so I am revisiting essays I’ve read to assure I’ve...

Gary Simpson: on 4/16/15 at 2:04am UTC, wrote Kimmo, If you have not already done so, please take a look at my essay....

Joe Fisher: on 4/7/15 at 15:49pm UTC, wrote Dear Kimmo, I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was...

Kimmo Rouvari: on 3/18/15 at 5:35am UTC, wrote I think that a mechanical explanation is the way to go. Other choices...

Gary Simpson: on 3/17/15 at 20:32pm UTC, wrote Kimmo, I think of the Aether as a rotational scalar field. I realize that...

Kimmo Rouvari: on 3/17/15 at 6:47am UTC, wrote Hi Gary, It's very delightful to bump into somebody else who has the idea...

Anonymous: on 3/17/15 at 0:11am UTC, wrote Kimmo, A ToE is very ambitious. I am a believer in an Aether. To me, the...

Joe Fisher: on 3/15/15 at 14:34pm UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Rouvari, I did nor rate your essay yet. I know that Newton was...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Yes. The estimate of age of the visible universe, and age of stars, other..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Jorma Seppaenen: "I find this very interesting topic. I am just a amateur enthusiast of..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Hanvi jobs: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 24, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: Mathematics, Physics and Nature by Kimmo Rouvari [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Kimmo Rouvari wrote on Mar. 5, 2015 @ 21:00 GMT
Essay Abstract

Mathematics and physics as sciences are human inventions containing many more or less fortunate discoveries. Contemporary research on common grounds of mathematics and physics is highly evolved and requires years of work to master even its elementary methods, knowledge and skills. Very accurate theories for the very small and the very large have been developed over the decades but we still haven't managed to combine those theories. Is that necessary or even possible? Is there something underneath those theories what we have missed so far? Why mathematical theories in physics are so powerful? Following story is about an idea which potentially gives us a new perspective to Nature, physics and mathematics.

Author Bio

Kimmo Rouvari (M.Sc. in math) is a senior software architect working in a large Finnish ITC company. He's very interested in Nature and researching it is practically his second job. He is also the author of Theory of Everything by Illusion (TOEBI).

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



John C Hodge wrote on Mar. 6, 2015 @ 19:47 GMT
I think there is a physical mechanism underlying QM and relativity theories. Yes, something has been missed. The identity of the `space’ of GR and the wave medium of QM (Bohm interpretation).

Could the FTEP be my Photon diffraction and interference ?

I'll read your vixra papers.

We won’t discover the `True Nature’ until we can create a universe.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Kimmo Rouvari replied on Mar. 7, 2015 @ 05:04 GMT
Hi John,

Could the FTEP be my Photon diffraction and interference?

Let me see... I'll read your essay first.

Bookmark and Share


Author Kimmo Rouvari replied on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 04:53 GMT
Hi,

In my mind, Psi-field could be made of FTEPs.

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 03:12 GMT
Dear Kimmo Rouvari,

Enjoyed your essay and the quote that caught my eye "Most likely there is a layer, or perhaps many layers, under it. Layer underneath QM might include for example realism and point like particles could be concrete, physical, spinning spherical objects."

We share a common background as software architects, perhaps that's why I enjoyed the read. My thoughts always see a computer program running that provides the model of what is being discussed. Your conclusion "TOEBI gives an alternative description of Nature and the root level explanation why mathematics and physics are so linked to each other in so many levels." is different then mine, but has a number of common goals and conclusions.

I take a much more specific look at particles of the standard model and what a model of each particle would have to entail. Hope you get a chance to have a look and offer some comments.

Regards and in my opinion, your essay deserves a good rating.

Ed Unverricht

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Kimmo Rouvari replied on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 04:21 GMT
Hi Ed,

Thanks for your comment. I most definitely read your essay in couple of days. This contest is the perfect venue for exchanging and learning new refreshing ideas.

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 05:59 GMT
Kimmo,

Quite interesting concepts. How does a sea of FTEPs figure in the assembly of atoms bonding into molecules and cells in the classical world?

Our essays obviously don't afford that space to describe it.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Kimmo Rouvari replied on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 10:04 GMT
Hi Jim,

Sea of FTEPs = FTE provides the medium which allows all the interactions as well as provides the buffer between (elementary and composite) particles so that they can find more or less balanced positions. In other words, those particles are able to bond.

That was the short and simplified description.

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 15:18 GMT
Dear Mr. Rouvari,

You wrote: “We haven’t discovered the True Nature yet.”

Please behold the true nature of the real Universe. Accurate writing has enabled me to perfect a valid description of untangled unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Kimmo Rouvari replied on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 08:02 GMT
Hi Joe,

Kind of hit & run? :-) You seem to post the same piece to every thread and on top of that you most likely gave me the rate of 1... nice. Good luck with your essay.

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 15, 2015 @ 14:34 GMT
Dear Mr. Rouvari,

I did nor rate your essay yet.

I know that Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract apace/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of abstract NOTHING. I am posting my theorem of unified reality in the hope that it will be understood and accepted by this august body.

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 00:11 GMT
Kimmo,

A ToE is very ambitious. I am a believer in an Aether. To me, the question is simply what properties must an Aether posses in order for reality to be as it is observed.

I have received many rejections for papers ... usually they are just the standard crackpot letter ... no surprise. Occasionally, the editor will actually include a helpful comment. The position taken by science is very straight-forward. Can you explain something that was previously not understood? Can you make a prediction that can be falsified? What does the idea add that science does not already have. Bear in mind that a new idea must also satisfy everything that is already known. It is very difficult!!!

If the answer to any of these is weak then why should anyone consider the idea? I don't fault the gate-keepers for this. They must be very careful in guarding their credibility.

Having said all that, your idea is interesting (to me at least). But how do you account for the mass ratio between the proton and the electron if you think a proton is composed of three electrons? BTW, the mp/me mass ratio is ~1836.15. Also, keep in mind that spin and charge are conserved. Of course, you probably handle that with a combination of an electron and a positron.

Stick with it.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Kimmo Rouvari replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 06:47 GMT
Hi Gary,

It's very delightful to bump into somebody else who has the idea that ether (or aether) is the key element in our Universe. On top of ether my theory needs the physical spinning phenomenon of particles. Very simple, yet very powerful idea.

Three electrons "collect" through this spinning phenomenon a large amounts of FTEPs in between and around of themselves and the amount of "hold" FTEPs dictates proton mass. Naturally I need to prove that rigorously based on FTE properties and particle's spinning phenomenon. I haven't done that yet (too busy with other activities). However, overall spin is dictated by the spinning vectors of the electrons (which are parallel).

in TOEBI, charge emerges from elementary particle's spinning phenomenon. In case of proton and neutron, those three closely packed interacting electrons destroy the wave pattern which in case of two elementary particle interactions play a huge role. I tried to explain the mechanism in my essay but using only words isn't the best way to go.

I want to thank you for reading my essay and I'm going to find your essay and read it.

Bookmark and Share


Gary D. Simpson replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 20:32 GMT
Kimmo,

I think of the Aether as a rotational scalar field. I realize that sounds like some sort of crackpot gibberish but it is the best description that I can give. The rotational terms are the result of the vector cross product from Geometric Algebra. I briefly discuss this in my essay. You have arrived at something similar using a mechanical explanation. What you [resent is similar to the reasoning that Maxwell used in his original work and to the atomic vortices that others have presented.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Kimmo Rouvari replied on Mar. 18, 2015 @ 05:35 GMT
I think that a mechanical explanation is the way to go. Other choices haven't revealed Nature thoroughly.

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 7, 2015 @ 15:49 GMT
Dear Kimmo,

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. 22, 2015 @ 23:07 GMT
Kimmo,

Shark time, so I am revisiting essays I’ve read to assure I’ve rated them. I find that I did not rate yours so I am rectifying. 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


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.