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 - March 16, 2020*

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

read/discuss

**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

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

**Joe Fisher**: *on* 4/9/15 at 16:03pm UTC, wrote Dear Doug, I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was...

**Christopher Horton**: *on* 4/1/15 at 3:12am UTC, wrote Doug, you ask the right question: "what is a number." Generations of...

**Anonymous**: *on* 3/18/15 at 1:37am UTC, wrote Now I have to correct my posts. I don't know why they can't be edited....

**Doug Bundy**: *on* 3/17/15 at 23:49pm UTC, wrote Judging from the increased traffic to my website, I believe people are...

**Doug Bundy**: *on* 3/14/15 at 18:41pm UTC, wrote The fact that we are able to provide a physical, as well as a mathematical...

**Doug Bundy**: *on* 3/14/15 at 0:17am UTC, wrote **POLL:** This essay is only a few days old, so I want to try to jump...

**Doug Bundy**: *on* 3/13/15 at 22:12pm UTC, wrote A corrected and Expanded version of the paper, with 10 more pages and 7...

**Doug Bundy**: *on* 3/12/15 at 12:29pm UTC, wrote Clarification: On page 7, paragraph 4, the statement is made: "However, now...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Lorraine Ford**: "John, You need to be able to explain why mass and energy are represented..."
*in* Emergent Reality: Markus...

**John Cox**: "Lorraine, Then we must agree to disagree about what physically constitutes..."
*in* Emergent Reality: Markus...

**Lorraine Ford**: "Malcolm, I don’t agree for one minute with Rob’s or Georgina’s views..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Hi Malcolm. Robert is not a troll but like everyone who comments on this..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Lorraine Ford**: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..."
*in* Undecidability,...

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.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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.

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

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.

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

January 27, 2020

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

TOPIC: Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Numbers and Motion and Geometry by Doug Bundy [refresh]

TOPIC: Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Numbers and Motion and Geometry by Doug Bundy [refresh]

The adhoc invention of complex numbers is the gift that keeps on giving. However, that may not be a good thing, in the end, if our view of reality has to be a “vastly complicated mathematical structure,” inherent in string theory, as Sir Michael Atiyah has opined.

Doug Bundy is an amateur investigator, President of the Dewey B. Larson Memorial Research Center, in Salt Lake City, UT

Errata: Several errors in the paper went undetected in the rush to beat the deadline. The three most serious are:

1) Page numbers were omitted.

2) Figure 2 is incorrect as shown.

3) There is a textual error on page 8.

Number 1 cannot be helped at this point. Number 2 can be addressed by attachment to this comment, while number 3 can be pointed out.

Error number 3 is found in the third paragraph of the eighth page, in the sentence "This means that the unit space volume goes from zero to unit value and back to zero, in two picoseconds, but the number corresponding to the cubic value of the three-dimensional interval motion (2^3=8) is incompatible with the numerical equation for the volume of a ball;"

The prepositional phrase, "in two picoseconds," should be deleted, and the sentence should read: "This means that the unit space volume goes from zero to unit value and back to zero, but the number corresponding to the cubic value of the three-dimensional interval motion (2^3=8) is incompatible with the numerical equation for the volume of a ball;"

Error number 2 is found in the incorrect labels of the exponents of the number "1" of the tetraktys, which shows them as all zeros. The exponent labels are corrected in the attached figure.

attachments: Tetraktys.jpg

1) Page numbers were omitted.

2) Figure 2 is incorrect as shown.

3) There is a textual error on page 8.

Number 1 cannot be helped at this point. Number 2 can be addressed by attachment to this comment, while number 3 can be pointed out.

Error number 3 is found in the third paragraph of the eighth page, in the sentence "This means that the unit space volume goes from zero to unit value and back to zero, in two picoseconds, but the number corresponding to the cubic value of the three-dimensional interval motion (2^3=8) is incompatible with the numerical equation for the volume of a ball;"

The prepositional phrase, "in two picoseconds," should be deleted, and the sentence should read: "This means that the unit space volume goes from zero to unit value and back to zero, but the number corresponding to the cubic value of the three-dimensional interval motion (2^3=8) is incompatible with the numerical equation for the volume of a ball;"

Error number 2 is found in the incorrect labels of the exponents of the number "1" of the tetraktys, which shows them as all zeros. The exponent labels are corrected in the attached figure.

attachments: Tetraktys.jpg

An Expanded version of Figure 4 might help to understand how one cycle of the expanding/contracting motion of a ball is equivalent to 4π radians of rotation.

Therefore, the expanded version is included here, as two attachments.

attachments: 3DOscillation1a.jpg, 3D_Oscillation2a.jpg

Therefore, the expanded version is included here, as two attachments.

attachments: 3DOscillation1a.jpg, 3D_Oscillation2a.jpg

Clarification: On page 7, paragraph 4, the statement is made: "However, now we know that particles themselves ultimately have dimensions of space and time, or motion, and force is just a quantity of motion."

The last clause should read "and force is just a*changing* quantity of motion, or acceleration."

The last clause should read "and force is just a

A corrected and Expanded version of the paper, with 10 more pages and 7 figures in total, is now available at the LRCphysics website.

Given that the "novel" concept of pulsating space and time, represented by rational numbers defined herein, logically leads to the graph of figure 4 and the chart of figure 6, in the expanded version of this paper, which in turn leads to a natural and easy understanding of the 4π rotation of the quantum "spin" concept, as illustrated in figure 7, which has never been physically explained before, would you like to see how the algebra of these numbers works, and leads to a model of the first family of the standard model, as shown in the attachments to this post?

Please reply to this post with "Yes" or "No" as the title of your reply.

attachments: STBosons.png, ST3Grps.png

The fact that we are able to provide a physical, as well as a mathematical basis for the concept of quantum "spin," for the first time ever, deserves some notice, I believe.

So, as a further elaboration on the happy fact that π/2 radians of rotation is equivalent to 1/8 of unit volume, enabling the full expansion from 0 to unit volume and back to 0 volume, in the equivalent of 4π radians of rotation, I have a new graphic to illustrate it very simply.

I hope it helps.

attachments: Unit_Volume_Cycle.jpg

So, as a further elaboration on the happy fact that π/2 radians of rotation is equivalent to 1/8 of unit volume, enabling the full expansion from 0 to unit volume and back to 0 volume, in the equivalent of 4π radians of rotation, I have a new graphic to illustrate it very simply.

I hope it helps.

attachments: Unit_Volume_Cycle.jpg

Judging from the increased traffic to my website, I believe people are reading this paper and these comments, at least in part.

There are so many papers to read, so it does not surprise me that one so unorthodox as this one is, is not getting a lot of attention.

I would dearly love to get some feedback on it though. Can an error be detected in the physical concepts or the...

view entire post

There are so many papers to read, so it does not surprise me that one so unorthodox as this one is, is not getting a lot of attention.

I would dearly love to get some feedback on it though. Can an error be detected in the physical concepts or the...

view entire post

Now I have to correct my posts. I don't know why they can't be edited. Anyway I wrote above:

"And who can reasonably argue that what we measure and call distance, or space, is just the past history of motion, the space aspect of it?"

It should read:

"And who can't reasonably argue that what we measure and call distance, or space, isn't just the past history of motion, the space aspect of it?"

report post as inappropriate

"And who can reasonably argue that what we measure and call distance, or space, is just the past history of motion, the space aspect of it?"

It should read:

"And who can't reasonably argue that what we measure and call distance, or space, isn't just the past history of motion, the space aspect of it?"

report post as inappropriate

Doug, you ask the right question: "what is a number." Generations of mathematicians have categorized nmbers as you do and explored their mysterious properties, and asked this question to no avail,

You write: "...at an elementary level, numbers count things, and given two such numbers, one greater than the other, there is always another number, greater than them both. 3 In counting things, it’s possible that the things counted are parts of a whole, where we use two numbers, related to each other."

This is Euclid's answer: “a multitude composed of units.” But it really isn't an answer, or at least not an answer that rises to the needs of modern arithmetic with its operations of multiplication and division.

Newton started out in a different direction, with "By Number we understand not so much a Multitude of Unities, as the abstracted Ratio of any Quantity, to another Quantity of the same kind, which we take for Unity.” This is the direction that Rob MacDuff took in "A Mathematics of Science", entered in this contest. It has been largely forgotten now for some 500 years, but it seems to me that Rob is pointing at the way it still underlies the actual mathematical practice of today's scientists, but undistinguished as such..

If you love fundamental questions, you'll like Rob and his 'sparring partner' David Hestenes (also a contest entrant.)

report post as inappropriate

You write: "...at an elementary level, numbers count things, and given two such numbers, one greater than the other, there is always another number, greater than them both. 3 In counting things, it’s possible that the things counted are parts of a whole, where we use two numbers, related to each other."

This is Euclid's answer: “a multitude composed of units.” But it really isn't an answer, or at least not an answer that rises to the needs of modern arithmetic with its operations of multiplication and division.

Newton started out in a different direction, with "By Number we understand not so much a Multitude of Unities, as the abstracted Ratio of any Quantity, to another Quantity of the same kind, which we take for Unity.” This is the direction that Rob MacDuff took in "A Mathematics of Science", entered in this contest. It has been largely forgotten now for some 500 years, but it seems to me that Rob is pointing at the way it still underlies the actual mathematical practice of today's scientists, but undistinguished as such..

If you love fundamental questions, you'll like Rob and his 'sparring partner' David Hestenes (also a contest entrant.)

report post as inappropriate

Dear Doug,

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 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

Login or create account to post reply or comment.