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

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

Steve Dufourny: "If we correlate with the consciousness, can we consider that all is..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Ian Durham, Maybe still for the rankings and the links with this..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Steve Dufourny: "Georgina,in the past we have discussed about this Fith force after the 3..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "I work about my theory of spherisation with quantum and cosmological..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "An other point very important considering this nature.Ecology is so..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

janey hug: "Vape Juice Wholesale When it pertains to vape juice, you require to obtain..." in Ed Witten on the Nature...

Forever Fiances: "Welcome to Forever Fiances, an invitation company in San Diego. Since 2008,..." in Vita Nuova

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which change is happening, is sequential..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...


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 21, 2019

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]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Doug Bundy wrote on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 20:38 GMT
Essay Abstract

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.

Author Bio

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

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Author Doug Bundy wrote on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 11:28 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share



Author Doug Bundy wrote on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 12:20 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share



Author Doug Bundy wrote on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 12:29 GMT
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."

Bookmark and Share



Author Doug Bundy wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 22:12 GMT
A corrected and Expanded version of the paper, with 10 more pages and 7 figures in total, is now available at the LRCphysics website.

Bookmark and Share



Author Doug Bundy wrote on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 00:17 GMT
POLL: This essay is only a few days old, so I want to try to jump start the discussion of it, by taking a poll:

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

Bookmark and Share



Author Doug Bundy wrote on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 18:41 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share



Author Doug Bundy wrote on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 23:49 GMT
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


Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Mar. 18, 2015 @ 01:37 GMT
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?"

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christopher Adams Horton wrote on Apr. 1, 2015 @ 03:12 GMT
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.)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 16:03 GMT
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

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.