Search FQXi

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

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.

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

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

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

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

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Thomas Ray: "(reposted in correct thread) Lorraine, Nah. That's nothing like my view...." in 2015 in Review: New...

Lorraine Ford: "Clearly “law-of-nature” relationships and associated numbers represent..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Information Channel. An example from Jon Barwise. At the workshop..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Please clarify. I just tried to put a simple model of an observer in the..." in Alternative Models of...

Lee Bloomquist: "Footnote...for the above post, the one with the equation existence =..." in Alternative Models of...

Thomas Ray: "In fact, symmetry is the most pervasive physical principle that exists. ..." in “Spookiness”...

Thomas Ray: "It's easy to get wound around the axle with black hole thermodynamics,..." in “Spookiness”...

Joe Fisher: "It seems to have escaped Wolpert’s somewhat limited attention that no two..." in Inferring the Limits on...

RECENT ARTICLES

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

FQXi FORUM
February 23, 2018

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: Is Physics = 4D Space~Time Geometry + Mathematics? by John Philip Wsol [refresh]

Author John Philip Wsol wrote on Mar. 10, 2015 @ 16:07 GMT
Essay Abstract

Cosmos means order. The universe is humming cosmic harmonies. Pioneers of this scientific frontier progressively fine-tune their observational acuity, experimental skillfulness and mathematical expressiveness to see, measure and describe their perceptions. Theoreticians ponder all this data hoping to reveal the hidden mathematical beauty of this cosmic composition. The Quest: 1. to share distinct perspectives gained from Cognitive Science studies; 2. a systematic approach to discovering a deeper understanding of physics equations; 3. to identify a geometric paradigm that can explain many outstanding cosmological questions. Borrowing 8 excellent FQxI questions it will be shown that Mathematics + Combinatorial Quantum-wave Mechanics (CQM) describes the structure of 4D Space~Time and, herein, reveal The Grand Design. 1. Are we missing interesting physical theories because our commitment to a particular mathematical framework? Students, innocently, inherit the previous generation’s mathematical toolboxes that unwittingly limit their thinking to explicit geometric assumptions and hidden presuppositions. 2. What fundamental assumptions did science get wrong? What is the right framework?

Author Bio

John, 6th grade Science Project was a cardboard box planetarium + 36 half-page typed Astronomy booklet. 7th grade build a Binary Digital Computer out of pinball machine parts, won 1st in California State Science Fair, 11th grade won Chemistry Student of the Year, by 12th grade he worked for Physics Computer Development Project, UCI CAI programs: rewrote Complex and helped add memory feature to Quantum, became database system expert, self-studied Hebrew, Cognitive Science, math, physics & cosmology. Independently developing 4D Holographic Space~Time quantum-structured elastic-fluidic model. Founded Combinatorial Quantum-wave Mechanics (CQM) explaining Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Quantum Gravity.

Jacek Safuta wrote on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 15:56 GMT
Hi John,

Your essay is very interesting and enjoyable to read. Our concepts have really a lot in common (this invites to read) however in details there are important differences (that may be inspiring).

We agree that an elastic medium for wave transfer like aether is necessary and that “particles” are simply waves. I have coined Geometrical Universe Hypothesis that can be broken down into:

- the correspondence rule that all interactions and matter are manifestations of spacetime geometry

- the empirical domain - gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear measurements and cosmological observations

- the geometric structure being a set of Thurston geometries with metrics and the wave transfer

If you are interested you can find details in my essay

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2452.

Thank you and good luck in the contest.

Jacek

report post as inappropriate

Author John Philip Wsol replied on Mar. 20, 2015 @ 03:36 GMT
Dear Jacek,

Thanks for taking the time to briefly skim my essay. I do see several areas where our thinking parallels each other. We both agree that Relativity is “aether neutral” and for the need of a medium for waves and for the existence of matter being fundamentally “wave-icle”. (I prefer to use my definition of a 4D Space~Time Medium, rather than aether). However, I don’t...

view entire post

Jacek Safuta replied on Mar. 20, 2015 @ 09:12 GMT
Hi John,

You say: “I was surprised and hurt by your low scoring of 3 for my paper.” I have not scored your paper yet. I intend to vote after reading more essays to have a reference points. Couple of days ago my essay was scored 1! but how can I know who is responsible? And I think your low rating is really unfair.

You claim: “your paper is completely void of ANY measurable...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jacek Safuta replied on Mar. 20, 2015 @ 09:16 GMT
As you like strict answers, I have forgotten to give you the link to Perelman proof: Grisha Perelman, Ricci flow with surgery on three-manifolds

http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0303109

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson wrote on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 20:22 GMT
John,

Thanks for the excellent read. This is a very interesting essay with many novel insights. The many illustrations add a lot of flavor also. Physics could really use an artist right now. There was enough material here for half a dozen more detailed essays. I can almost imagine what Paul Dirac would be like on a sugar rush.

You should read the essay by Colin Walker. He discusses tired light.

Near the end, you present light paths that are curved. This ties in nicely with the cross product term presented in my work.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author John Philip Wsol replied on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 05:03 GMT

“This is a very interesting essay with many novel insights.”

For years now I have quietly pondered cosmological ideas. I’m thankful to FQxI for sponsoring this essay contest; it has helped me focus on getting ideas out of my head onto paper. ...

view entire post

Gary D. Simpson replied on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 12:40 GMT
John,

You are most welcome. Your effort shows. Don't get discouraged about the voting and scores and such. Anything that deviates from what the mainstream believes gets voted down. Early in the voting, I got hit with three 1's and a 2. The key is to interact with other authors and get enough positive votes to over come the haters. For whatever it's worth to you, you were at the top of the rankings for about 30 minutes until someone voted you down ... Sorry, I only get one vote.

If you are having a hard time conceptualizing complex time, take a look at my essay. Near the end, I present a variation of the Lorentz Transform that defines complex time. I have almost worked the math to a point where I can use Geometric Algebra and motion to explain gravity.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Apr. 16, 2015 @ 02:06 GMT
John,

If you have not already done so, please take a look at my essay. There is still a week or so left to vote if you so desire.

Thanks,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 18, 2015 @ 15:58 GMT
Dear Dr. Wsol,

You wrote: “Are we missing interesting physical theories because our commitment to a particular mathematical framework?”

Yes you are. This is the best one by far: “This is my single unified theorem of how the real Universe is occurring: Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 15:54 GMT
Dear John,

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

Branko L Zivlak wrote on Apr. 20, 2015 @ 08:44 GMT
Dear John,

I read your comment at Studencki and decided to carefully read your essay. For the most part I agree with your attitudes. The overall impression (text, images, formulas, attitudes, explanations ...) that you deserve much better score than it is currently. Best regards,

Branko

report post as inappropriate

Tim Litke wrote on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 05:00 GMT
Dr. Wsol,

This paper is impressive both in breadth and how many BIG questions you address. I’m surprised how so much of your math spans quantum amounts and links them to both the physics of Newton and Einstein relativity – AND you suggest even a 3rd relativity theory!

The perspective of the Cosmic Onion is really eye-opening. It makes more sense now how the entire universe expands within this “holographic” spherical area where all the universes before are contained within the one we are now existing in. All space-time relationships are caused by the direct connection of time and space expansion.

Furthermore, I think I get your Dark Energy explanation: it’s NOT that the universe is speeding up; but it is because (as the universe gets bigger) we ourselves expand and move relatively slowly compared to how fast the past is moving. That makes more sense - that action at extreme distances is pushing the galaxies apart. If this bears further scrutiny, your theory will be one to go down in history as revolutionary. Your view of time (correcting your proposed flaw in the Freidman equation) supercedes Stephen Hawking’s “Brief History of Time” and requests a re-assessment of many decades of accepted cosmological theories.

As for quantum gravity (math isn't my great strength,) but as you describe the “probabilistic nature” of the Planck constant increments happening at regular intervals – quantum-like - now that makes sense – making a depression in time which then effectively creates gravity.

I look forward to seeing more of your work!

--Tim

report post as inappropriate

Randall J Urban wrote on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 05:01 GMT
Dear John Wsol,

Since I am a visual thinker, the Cosmic Onion model of space-time expansion really speaks to me. It creates a map to help me wrap my mind around how this all works together.

I love the third theory of relativity where time is a function of space expansion and is ever expanding along with it.

You mention that one implication of this model is “look back curves”. I find this especially intriguing.

I am well pleased to see how many blanks you successfully bridge in what has been other “understandings” of the cosmos up to this point. Further, I find it refreshing that you communicate it all in terms that someone like me can get without being a career mathematician. If anyone manages to shoot down the mathematical agreement you have presented here I would be rather stunned.

Thank you,

-Randall

report post as inappropriate

Patrick Tonin wrote on May. 25, 2015 @ 15:47 GMT
Dear John,

Sorry for the delay in replying but I have been very busy lately.

I am very pleased to see that you also think that everything is expanding (time included). As you say, our models have some good similarities. The big difference is that yours is 4D and mine essentially 2D/3D. Also, in my model, past/present/future co-exist, you don't seem to include that in your model. Do you have any views on that topic ?

I see that you worked with computers and databases, what do you think of my purely "information based" approach ?

I am 100% convinced that we are correct about time expanding with space, I wish that the mainstream will take a serious look at our models one day but I don't have much hope, it is too unconventional.

All the best,

Patrick Tonin

PS: the formula you put in my thread did not come out properly, can you send it to me separately ?

report post as inappropriate

Author John Philip Wsol replied on May. 27, 2015 @ 04:59 GMT
Yes, Patrick, Although I introduce the idea of the Now-Manifold as expanding within the Cosmic Onion, its existence is spread across time. (Thus, Einstein's often misunderstood statement that "The distinction between the past, present, & future is a stubbornly persistent illusion." From an eternal perspective the whole span of time exists simultaneously.

However, physically, we seem to all be caught up in the flow-of-Now -- the local rate that time proceeds forward. This tells me that time MUST be treated differently from spatial dimensions. Thus I believe it is not proper think of time as being "shared" with one of the spatial dimensions. Physically, we exist in 3-space PLUS one-time. (Above, and beyond that I consider higher dimensions as having and interface with physical reality: dimensions of mind, soul and spirit.

As for pattern searching here is one I found back on 28-Jan-2013:

$\underline{22.99859}034 = \frac{27}{\sqrt[3]\phi} \approx \alpha^7 \left( \frac {m_p}{m_e}\right)^5$

Compare this to the 2007 & 2010 CODATA values of 22.99859141 and 22.99859213 (This has an uncertainty of less than 4.6x10-8)

-- Cosmologically yours,

-- John Wsol