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

Lee Bloomquist: on 1/8/17 at 18:16pm UTC, wrote Thank you. After the workshop on business and ARPA applications with Jon...

Lee Bloomquist: on 1/5/16 at 0:12am UTC, wrote The previous post by "anonymous" is mine. I wasn't logged in!

Anonymous: on 1/5/16 at 0:09am UTC, wrote This is a continuation of the previous note in this thread about the paper...

Lee Bloomquist: on 12/27/15 at 14:26pm UTC, wrote I worked on this FQXI essay contest because it suggested to me the idea of...

Lee Bloomquist: on 12/6/15 at 4:01am UTC, wrote It's been a while since I've written notes here. In case anyone reads this,...

Lee Bloomquist: on 6/9/15 at 1:51am UTC, wrote Theory of entropic forces-- each has an opposing force First start to...

Lee Bloomquist: on 5/31/15 at 17:28pm UTC, wrote "a theory that sounds much too simple to be right, yet fits the data...

Lee Bloomquist: on 5/13/15 at 19:26pm UTC, wrote SOME ROUGH CALCULATIONS In the "basement" (see below) the vacuum...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "The preceding posts present arguments against Mach's principle" in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Lorraine Ford: "Ian Durham, Your way of measuring “free will” is based on an..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Georgina Woodward: "Re. my "Arms affected by mechanical forces..." There is the force at the..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "Lie groups, there are SU(N),SO(N),Sp(N), and the exceptional G_2, F_4, E_6,..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Robert McEachern: "Real measurements of what? Bell's theorem is a mathematical theorem, not a..." in The Physics of...

Lorraine Ford: "People like Susan Schneider and Max Tegmark are barking up the wrong tree. ..." in Designing the Mind: Susan...

Steve Agnew: "Here is a nice slide from Gu's talk that shows the superposition of..." in Memory, Causality and...


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
August 20, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: Simple Math for Questions to Physicists by Lee Bloomquist [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Mar. 7, 2015 @ 21:51 GMT
Essay Abstract

This is an example of using simple mathematics to ask physicists (hopefully) interesting questions. A nonstandard model of time illustrates the approach.

Author Bio

Engineer (ret). Now Volunteering as citizen reporter for The Rapidian. Participate on occasion in John Baez's Azimuth blog on the climate anomaly.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Paul Merriam wrote on Mar. 7, 2015 @ 23:49 GMT
Are the objects of the model mathematical objects?

Bookmark and Share
post approved

Author Lee Bloomquist replied on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 01:08 GMT
Good question! It's going to take me a while to think about this.

In the mean time please tell us what you think about the final question of the essay--

Is action more basic than space?

L

Bookmark and Share


Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 13, 2015 @ 10:13 GMT
Lee,

I didn't find your essay easy to read but you do introduce a lot of ideas that are new and intriguing to me. Re.your question, I think it depends on what you mean by basic. Does it mean most simple, or most foundational or of primary importance? I like the idea of stateless coding.I like it because if we were to think about a spinning coin in free fall- it has no singular state as no reference frame is applied, it can be viewed from any direction, and no instant in time or position in space is specified for a measurement of a singular state. It is all states but describing how it should move gives the flux of all states over time and space.

Action needs somewhere and when to occur but the example just given shows that position and orientation in space need not be the primary description. The action is the essence of what is occurring. That's like the flux of a river without the water. Which is the better, not most basic, description of the river? Certainly on a map the water content alone is shown, that's basic position in space info. But it is the flux that gives the rivers character and that has a greater information content than just the water content in space and so is perhaps the greater part of the river. Well I get from that that state in space need not be the primary or most important information. Which is food for further thought, thank you. Kind regards Georgina.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jose P. Koshy wrote on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 08:12 GMT
Dear Lee Bloomquist,

You speak a different language. It will take time to learn the syntax. Any syntax error is a hidden variable that can affect the final result. But the final question is in the normal language. Any answer to it will be independent of what was said earlier by you, unless you translate the initial part into normal language.

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 22:27 GMT
"Are the objects of the model mathematical objects?"

I imagine these streams as "robotic petri nets."

Petri nets that can re-write themselves-- in fact, re-diagram themselves-- on the fly, in real time.

It's a kind of Category Theory. There's lots about it on John Baez's blog about the climate anomaly.

attachments: 4_image.jpg

Bookmark and Share



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

This is what I find troubling about mathematics. One needs to start with a blank surface. One has to treat that blank surface as always having no value. One cannot treat the blank surface as having a zero value. If one draws a 1 anywhere on that blank surface, there is no problem providing one treats the blank surface as having no value. The problem comes when one tries to represent zero. An incompatible duality is contrived wherein 0 and 1 can coexist simultaneously. This only leads to the chaos of least lowest and highest number, which in turn entraps the mathematician in the insignificant maze of positive and negative and neutral sets of numbers.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 21:51 GMT
Thank you for commenting on my submission, Mr. Fisher.

Like words, all types of mathematics mean language. But whatever the language, I do agree that reality is more than just words.

I read your FXQI submission and perhaps of interest to you may be an ancient, one-sentence fragment from Parmenides. Parmenides was the person Zeno was defending by means of his story about the race...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 21, 2015 @ 20:24 GMT
Dear Nr. Bloomquist,

Parmenides was wrong. Reality is. There is a lot more to abstraction for it to be in any way useful

Joe Fisher..

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Mar. 19, 2015 @ 23:54 GMT
...and therefore:

regarding *dark energy*

Does anyone really believe that it requires no thermodynamic work to run the Universe?

Thermodynamics is very common sense.

First law of thermodynamics:

You can't win, you can only break even.

Second law of thermodynamics:

You can't break even unless you reach the state of absolute zero.

Third law...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 08:50 GMT
proper time

Bookmark and Share



Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 09:25 GMT
Proper time

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 12:02 GMT
Dear Lee,

Very interesting essay and original ideas. Good idea - "system of basic states". You noted in 4: "Having considered" time ", then" space "might seem a good next step. But on Science Friday (2/27/15) - when asked about a concept in physics that he would abandon as being basic- Sean Carroll answered "space".

In conclusion, You have given good words: "But before we can define these maps, we need to understand the basic structure they need to preserve. " (Barwise 1988, 256)

What do you think if to construct such ontologic chain: "basic system (limit, unconditional) states of matter (primordial generating structure)" → "space of limit states of matter (extreme forms of existence)" → structural (ontological) memory of matter (limit states of matter) → phenomena of information and time?

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 02:44 GMT
Greetings Joe and Vladimir,

Thank you for requesting my comments!

To better understand what you are saying is there a diagram you could show me? I think you could upload it as a file in order to accompany any explanatory text you may want to post.

Best Regards,

L

Bookmark and Share



Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Apr. 13, 2015 @ 17:48 GMT
Vladimir, if there were a diagram of what you wrote I believe it would assist thinking about your ideas-- especially (for me at least) if the diagram were based on a language of objects and arrows.

Georgina-- I now see that the paper I submitted to this contest is too terse. More words are needed to clarify. So I will make the attempt. I also hope the result will be a useful example of a...

view entire post


attachments: Petri_net.pdf

Bookmark and Share


Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 14, 2015 @ 02:44 GMT
Lee it is really interesting, thank you. I especially like your description of how the system you drew out led to later connection between proper time and QM.

Regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Apr. 16, 2015 @ 12:43 GMT
Georgina wrote: "Re.your question, I think it depends on what you mean by basic. Does it mean most simple, or most foundational or of primary importance"

"Yes" would be way too cute, of course. I should be able to answer you by examples.

In the context of the paper, I mean using equations without space variables would be more basic than using equations with space variables. Existing...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 17, 2015 @ 02:38 GMT
Lee, thanks for taking the time to explain . It has for the most part gone over my head.

I did watch some of Leonard Susskind's lectures on mechanics so I understand moving from one set of space variables to another. You've just got me thinking that the space variables or coordinates are not needed at all but just the transformation matrix. As that matrix describes how to move, not where to move and so is like the action rather than a body tied to space.

I also wonder about the 'unique constant identity', take for example spin of an electron. It seems that it might be interaction with the measurement apparatus that creates the observed state. Releasing a photon or not could be reaction to orientation and absolute motion of the electron interacting with the apparatus rather than presence of unique constant identity or state.

Thank you for trying to explain you've given me lots to think about even if it isn't exactly what you intended.

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Apr. 17, 2015 @ 23:35 GMT
“…over my head.” Actually me too.

On the equation in previous post—

There’s a horrible mistake in physics.

It’s somewhere in that equation.

And, it’s not a *calculational* error.

It’s a *logical error.*

First let me show you how big this mistake is.

Then you can say whether or not you think it really is horrible.

That...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 23:03 GMT
Update:

Interacting dark matter:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/04/new-evidence-t
hat-dark-matter-could-be-self-interacting/

If Born infomorphisms are ordered commutative monoids, here's how they can be assembled into resources--

https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/r
esource-convertibility-part-1/

E.g.,



On the right hand side of the equation is the core of an information channel, from Channel Theory (in the references for the paper).

On the left hand side of the equation might be quarks.

Bookmark and Share



Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on May. 13, 2015 @ 19:26 GMT
SOME ROUGH CALCULATIONS

In the "basement" (see below) the vacuum catastrophe does not exist.

Because the machinery at that level works only with what exists.

And because "vacuum," there, means "the absence of anything that exists."

***

How many hydrogen atoms are there? "The result is approximately 10^80 hydrogen atoms." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

For a rough calculation I'll ignore the rest.

In the calculation I imagine the hydrogen atom to be like a building with three floors and a basement.

In the basement, thermodynamic machinery connects by pipes and cables to the upper floors. And because of these information channels, the upper floors convey information about the basement; similarly the basement conveys information about the upper floors.

In more detail, each floor supports a different type of particle. The top floor supports particles governed by Quantum Chromodynamics. The second floor supports particles governed by Electroweak Theory. The ground floor supports particles governed by Quantum Electrodynamics. The basement supports Born infomorphisms-- governed by Informationalism (the paper). Each particle on the top three floors is connected by the pipes and cables to its very own Born infomorphism in the basement.

In the paper by SE Rugh, H Zinkernagel (2002. The quantum vacuum and the cosmological constant problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 33 (4): 663–705) the results are presented of calculations of vacuum energy for the top three floors, assuming that the vacuum energy is indeed located only on those floors.

But here the calculation assumes that all of the vacuum energy is in the basement. So each Born infomorphism not only has its own proper time (the paper), but also each Born infomorphism has its own background energy (previous post).

Only part of the vacuum energy calculated for the top three floors conveys information about the posited background energy in the basement.

The portion of the vacuum energy for particles in the top three floors which carries information about the background energy of the Born infomorphisms in the basement is just the portion of the vacuum energy held in the volume occupied by the particle(s) housed in the upper floor.

The calculations answer the following two questions:

For each floor, what volume in the Universe would a particular type of particle require in order to resolve the vacuum catastrophe?

Is there anything interesting about this volume?

First the volume of the Universe:

4*10^83 liters

Here's the equation I'll use to get the size needed for each type of particle in order to resolve the vacuum catastrophe:

(numberOfParticlesOfThisTypeInTheUniverse)

times

(
the ratio of

(volumeNeededForThisTypeToResolveTheVacuumCatastrpoheWithD
iameterInMeters)

to

(volumeOfTheUniverse))

times

(theOrderMagnitudeUsuallyCalculat
edforThisTypeParticle)

must equal

1

Quantum Chromodynamics:

"One thus frequently estimates: ρQCD vac ∼10−3 −10−2GeV4 ∼ 1035 −1036erg/cm3 which is more than 40 orders of magnitude larger than the observational bound (3) on the total vacuum energy density." (SE Rugh, H Zinkernagel, p. 16)

((((10^(80))((4/3)*3.14159*(d*100/2)^3)/1000))))/(4*10^(8
3)))*10^(40)=1

d=9*10^(-14) meters

Perhaps of interest:

From http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(length)

R
ange (m) from 10^-15 to 10^-12, "atomic nucleus, proton, neutron"



Electroweak Theory:

"we are left with a Higgs vacuum energy density of the order of ρHiggs vac =−µ4/4g = −gv4 ≈−105 GeV4 =−1043erg/cm3 which, in absolute value, is roughly 52 orders of magnitude larger than the experimental bound on Λ" (SE Rugh, H Zinkernagel, p. 15)

((((10^(80))((4/3)*3.14159*(d*100/2)^3)/1000))))/(4*10^(8
3)))*10^(52)=1

d=9*10^-18 meters

Perhaps of interest:

From http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-physical-size-of-a-Higgs-bo
son

"The most appropriate length scale I'd associate with the Higgs is about 10^-17 m."

Quantum Electrodynamics:

"Assuming this energy to be of the QED zero-point energy type, we get roughly (by inserting the Planck energy in eq.(6) with EP = ¯hωmax), ρPlanck vac ∼(1019 GeV)4 ∼ 1076 GeV4 ∼ 10114 erg/cm3 thus over-estimating the vacuum energy, relative to the observational constraint (3), by more than ∼ 120 orders of magnitude!" (SE Rugh, H Zinkernagel, p. 14)

((((10^(80))((4/3)*3.14159*(d*100/2)^3)/1000))))/(4*10^(8
3)))*10^(120)=1

d= 10^-40 meters

Perhaps of interest:

This size is in the range discussed for "the black hole electron"in this reference:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron


Bookmark and Share



Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on May. 31, 2015 @ 17:28 GMT
"a theory that sounds much too simple to be right, yet fits the data surprisingly well"

John Carlos Baez

https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com

Bookmark and Share



Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Jun. 9, 2015 @ 01:51 GMT
Theory of entropic forces-- each has an opposing force

First start to write down Hamilton's first equation:



As soon as you write down the first two terms on the right hand side of the equal sign, you can see the pattern.

Say that



means "Chariot horsepower" in Parmenides' story. The more horsepower that a chariot has, the more horses will have to vanish before the chariot (existence) stops.

To increase the possibilities for this first information channel is to increase the number of horses pulling the chariot. To have no possibilities at all means death. The higher the possibility count, the farther away from death. Assume:



To increase the information carried by this first information channel is also to increase the number of horses pulling the chariot. To have no information at all means death. The higher the information count, the farther away from death. Assume:



Now look at Hamilton's first equation. To model a constant number of horses pulling the chariot, in Hamilton's first equation it must hold that



Consider two cases: first, the count of possibilities increases in time (dt) by (1).

Then given Hamilton's first equation, how must the count of information change in order to maintain the count of horses as a constant number?

First case:



means that this must hold:



in order to make



Second case:



means that this must hold:



in order to make



In the paper this is the Inverse Principle of Informationalism.

Corollary: Every entropic force must have an opposite.

Bookmark and Share



Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Dec. 6, 2015 @ 04:01 GMT
It's been a while since I've written notes here. In case anyone reads this, I've made the so far it seems successful attempt to delete all comments from others here. Almost every comment was from persons clearly not expert in physics or mathematics. From my experience elsewhere (trying to make some math comments on the Physics of the Observer) this characterizes those making comments in these blogs. So I've deleted all my comments elsewhere on this site. I suspect no one expert in math or physics is reading these comments, and very likely has the opinion that anybody posting in the blog comments on this site is a crackpot.

My purpose here and now is to write some notes on recent findings about dark matter. Infant galaxies have been observed deeply nested in the early web of dark matter.

If dark matter does host ordinary matter (as suggested in the paper here), it seems from this recent observation that not every particle of dark matter is selected to be a host for ordinary matter. Some particles do host ordinary matter. Others do not. The question then becomes: How do the lucky dark-matter hosts of ordinary matter get selected? There is an idea in the paper that might answer this. The lucky particles of dark matter that get to host ordinary matter are those selected to be locations from which dark energy feeds possibilities to ordinary matter particles. Not every particle of dark matter seems to host such a feeding location for dark energy. (Feeding possibilities to the particle of ordinary matter, as described by the probability learning algorithm in the paper.)

And again as in the paper, this describes a thermodynamic engine which drives the time variable in the equations of the Standard Model in one direciton only: forward. The waste dark energy from this thermodynamic engine feeding possibilities to particles of ordinary matter expands the Universe. These ideas from the paper seem compatible with the recent observations.

Who knows, maybe there will someday be a reason to write again.

Bookmark and Share



Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Dec. 27, 2015 @ 14:26 GMT
I worked on this FQXI essay contest because it suggested to me the idea of an information channel from the physical world into some minimum mathematical model, a channel through which information is carried and conserved by means of "infomorphisms." (The references for this term are in my paper for the contest: "Simple math for questions to physicists," which I'll abbreviate as SMQP in the rest of...

view entire post


attachments: 5_image.jpg

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Jan. 5, 2016 @ 00:09 GMT
This is a continuation of the previous note in this thread about the paper "Simple Math for Questions to Physicists" (SMQP).

"Statement: 'The Universe is not a perpetual motion machine. It requires thermodynamic work to actuate time while holding everything that exists inside the constraints of physical law. Hypothesis: The minimum mathematical situation to model this statement involves a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lee Bloomquist replied on Jan. 5, 2016 @ 00:12 GMT
The previous post by "anonymous" is mine. I wasn't logged in!

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.