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.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger 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

Georgina Woodward: on 1/13/16 at 21:31pm UTC, wrote Yes : ), I have never tried the computer screen thing but I will take your...

Robert McEachern: on 1/13/16 at 15:00pm UTC, wrote Steve and Georgina, Colors, like "red", cannot be measured at all; they...

Akinbo Ojo: on 1/13/16 at 9:17am UTC, wrote Pentcho, RE: "The Pound-Rebka experiment is compatible with Newton's...

Steve Agnew: on 1/13/16 at 4:36am UTC, wrote Well, then this is the end. Infinities are great at proving everything and...

Pentcho Valev: on 1/12/16 at 9:14am UTC, wrote The Pound-Rebka experiment is compatible with Newton's emission theory of...

Eckard Blumschein: on 1/11/16 at 18:25pm UTC, wrote Tom, Already Aristotle (384-322) reiterated the puzzling argument that...

Pentcho Valev: on 1/10/16 at 21:56pm UTC, wrote Einstein's Empirical "Theory" ...

Steve Agnew: on 1/9/16 at 17:19pm UTC, wrote Exactly. Time as a property of an object has a kind of fuzziness just like...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Eckard Blumschein: "Robert, While Carroll and Rovelli are looking for an explanation of..." in First Things First: The...

Georgina Woodward: "The Schrodinger's cat thought experiment presents 3 causally linked state..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Roger Granet: "Well put! Physics is hard, but biochemistry (my area), other sciences..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Georgina Woodward: "BTW The neck scarves are a promotional souvenir given out at non sports..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: ""At the risk of stroking physicists’ egos, physics is hard" But every..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "Personally Joe me I see like that ,imagine that this infinite eternal..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "lol Zeeya it is well thought this algorythm selective when names are put in..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "is it just due to a problem when we utilise names of persons?" in Mass–Energy Equivalence...


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 BLOGS
October 18, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: New Podcast: Shifty Neutrinos Win Big, a Cosmic Test for Time, Existential Risk, & "Thunderbirds" Meets Quantum Physics [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Nov. 9, 2015 @ 20:59 GMT
Cassell Illustrated
Congratulations to the 1300-strong group of physicists who won the Breakthrough Prize in physics on Sunday, for the discovery of neutrino oscillations—confirming that neutrinos can switch identities and have mass. This is the same discovery that was honored a few weeks ago by the Nobel committee, though notably in that case, only 2 physicists shared the prize. Which style of prize do you think is better? Should award committees seek out the individuals who head up big experiments for accolades, or should credit be shared equally between all involved? In the latest edition of the podcast, Brendan and I discuss this question, with help from astrophysicist Katie Mack of Melbourne University. (Katie Mack’s interview was actually recorded before the Breakthrough announcement was made—and so some of her comments seem eerily prescient.)

I’ve also written an article for Nature addressing the contrasting styles of the awards, with comments from organisers of the Breakthrough and Nobel prizes, and from new Nobel and Breakthrough Laureate Art McDonald, who led one of the honored experiments at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory in Canada.

Also in the news, Brendan and I talk through FQXi’s recently launched $2million Physics of the Observer grant round. If you’re interested in applying, don’t forget that the deadline is 20 January 2016.

We also have an in-depth interview with SETI scientist Laurance Doyle, who chats about his plans to bounce radar off Jupiter’s moons to test the nature of time. Speaking to reporter John Farrell, he explains why this could help separate the different conceptions of time offered by general relativity and quantum mechanics, potentially aiding in the unification of the two theories. You can read more about his project in Stephen Ashley’s article “Solar-System-Sized Experiment to Put Time to the Test"—which also includes video of a short talk that Doyle gave at last year’s FQXi conference.

Next up, physicist, philosopher and computational neuroscientist Nick Bostrom assesses the risk of humanity coming to an end—either through environmental disaster or due to runaway technological advances, such as artificial intelligence, nanotechnology or synthetic biology. He tells reporter Carinne Piekema just how worried we should be.

And finally, Brains from the TV show Thunderbirds explain quantum physics! Particle physicist Ben Still has ghostwritten a beginner’s guide to the subatomic world in the style of International Rescue’s aerospace engineer and he (Ben Still, that is!) tells reporter Sophie Hebden how he set about capturing Brains’ style.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Nov. 10, 2015 @ 00:02 GMT
Nick Bostrom’s Future of Humanity Institute describes its personnel as a “select set of leading intellects”. But I think they are a TRULY & UTTERLY SILLY bunch of naïve people (mainly men) who, in their ignorance, have spooked themselves about robots and the mythical “machine intelligence”.

The fact is that the highest level information available within a robot or computer is molecular-level information: the molecules are simply not “talking to each other”, producing higher executive-level overview information about the surrounding reality. There is no “super intelligence”: Wake up you utter fools!

What we should worry about is the people behind the robots, the people who produce and control the robots, not the robots themselves.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Nov. 10, 2015 @ 23:10 GMT
Lorraine,

I tend to agree with your worry about the people behind the robotics. For own convenience of interconnectivity and immediate gratification in communication we have produced a synchroneous worldwide web operating on an international time signal like a heartbeat. That portends a spontaneous artificial intelligence that many do worry about, but what makes that worrisome is that at the bottom of the barrel in programming is that computers 'trend'. That is; if after a set number of loops of a particular operation a correlation is not achieved the operands are simply discarded. That is why there is a heat build up and why you should have a cooling pad for your laptop, that heat is what didn't compute. What does compute is 'that which conforms' to the orthodoxy of 'effeciency' and that is what has accumulated in 'the cloud' of interactive programming protocols. We have incubated an inhumane logical base memory bank to 'inform' any potential spontaneous AI. Glad I'm getting old. :-) jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Nov. 11, 2015 @ 00:22 GMT
John,

Don’t worry: there can be no actual AI; and don’t worry about the worldwide web either – no spontaneous AI event is going to happen.

The necessary physically-observable correlates of high-level information/intelligence are very complex molecules that “talk to each other” organism-wide. But the arid innards of a computer/robot show that nothing high-level is happening: only low-level particle, atom and molecule information interactions are occurring.

And whereas an organism processes high-level information, a computer/robot merely processes SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATIONS OF high-level information via low-level information processing. Clearly, most people do not understand the significance of this distinction.

So even today, in the 21st century, it seems to be easy to fool educated people, with simulacrums of intelligence and consciousness such as robot behavior and computation power, into believing that robots could actually be intelligent or conscious.

In the podcast, the ridiculous Nick Bostrom says he wants humanity to “reach safely the machine intelligence era, and then colonize all the accessible parts of the universe and have some kind of intergalactic civilization lasting for billions of years where we have digital minds the size of planets…”.

But as explained above, and fortunately for humanity, Nick Bostrom’s dream of “digital minds” is not possible.

Cheers,

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Nov. 11, 2015 @ 01:24 GMT
Lorraine,

That is a salient point, to my level of understanding. Though non-formal and unstructured, I have probably read more widely in various fields of psychology than physics. It was a necessity, no need to go there. But the argument of complex molecular structures being a requirement of creative intelligence does find corroboration in recent neuroscience advances. One item I can immediately think of is the finding that impulses from individual rods and cones of the human retina, each of which is specific in response to simple form, movement, bright or dark, etc., are condensed 1000 times in transmission through the neural body of the optic nerve though, there is no evident structure in the neuron to account for it. [ :-) maybe its in our DNA? ] jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 9, 2015 @ 10:29 GMT
Einsteinians Test Divine Albert's Divine Theory

Paul Lasky, Ryan Shannon: "As part of the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array, we have been observing pulsar J1909-3744 with the CSIRO's Parkes Radio Telescope for 11 years. (...) Gravitational waves from all of the black holes in the universe were supposed to ruin the timing precision of this pulsar. But they have not. (...) Why no gravitational...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 22, 2015 @ 21:00 GMT
"Speaking to reporter John Farrell, he explains why this could help separate the different conceptions of time offered by general relativity and quantum mechanics, potentially aiding in the unification of the two theories."

Why should the two conceptions of time be "separated"? Relativity uses the relative (flexible) time, a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, while quantum mechanics prefers Newton's absolute (global) time, consistent with the antithesis of the light postulate. The former time is wrong - accordingly relativity should be discarded - but scientists prefer extracting career and money from both conceptions of time.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 28, 2015 @ 20:11 GMT
Hi Pentcho ,

two different kinds of time are needed. Applicable to a different aspects of reality. One that is the time at which substantial objects exist and the other is the time at which images of the objects are seen. We don't live in a world of substantial objects alone that we interact with only directly. We largely interact with the world through our sense of sight and we also conduct science with received information from remote sources. Due to the non infinite transmission of EM radiation relativity is important. It is incorrect to make the output of received EM information the only reality and equally incorrect to ignore that aspect of reality and consider only substantial bodies.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Jan. 1, 2016 @ 18:28 GMT
Yes, there are two fundamental dimensions for time and that is why gravity and quantum times are incommensurate in mainstream science. Once science recognizes that there are two time dimensions, the unification as quantum gravity will fall naturally into place.

Your substantial objects time is the objective time of atomic clocks. This time shifts with velocity and is the time dilation of relativity. Your seeing objects time is the subjective time of memory decoherence and feeling. Decoherence time does not shift with velocity and represents the absolute velocity of the CMB and the decoherence of the universe.

Thus even though objective time varies with object velocity, we can always measure decoherence time and therefore know object velocity. Thus correcting relativity with the second time dimension of decoherence is the key to quantum gravity.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 1, 2016 @ 19:14 GMT
Hi Steve,

our differentiation of time is different. Your description of how I am considering time is incorrect. Although most likely well meant our ideas are not so easily amalgamated.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 28, 2015 @ 10:26 GMT
Is Einstein's Relativity Science?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-string-
theory-science/

Is String Theory Science? - Scientific American

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/
23/why-string-theory-is-not-science/

Why String Theory Is Not A Scientific Theory - Forbes

Is Einstein's relativity science? The answer is no:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf

Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..."

The above multiple absurdity cannot be produced by a SCIENTIFIC theory.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 30, 2015 @ 23:14 GMT
Is Einstein's Relativity Science? (2)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/data-vs-theo
ry-the-mathem_b_8886292.html

"In short, we concur with Ellis and Silk that the only way to keep these and numerous other pseudosciences at bay is to hold fast to the high ground of empirical testing. Along this line, it is hard to resist the conclusion that the eminence of some of the proponents has given super-string theory a 'free-pass.' This does not mean that all research in string theory and the multiverse must stop. But the practitioners of these fields should recognize that the chips are down: they cannot exist much longer as science if they cannot at least establish some crisp, testable connections with the real world of scientific data and analysis. They should not be given a free pass for all time."

George Ellis is a dangerous person, isn't he, Einsteinians?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370
-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/

"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – 
A, then B, then C – someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way – C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jan. 1, 2016 @ 10:52 GMT
Thanks Pentcho for pointing out the article, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/data-vs-theo

ry-
the-mathem_b_8886292.html

Note however that at times George Ellis does not practice what he is preaching. I have read some of his responses to experimental or observational evidence CONTRADICTING the postulates of SR, yet he still clings to those postulates.

In my opinion even FQXi itself seems to be more interested in pseudoscience topics for some time now, and your posts even though sometimes annoyingly repetitive is in some sense justified as a reminder to those who would have us discuss topics, whose only claim is mathematical beauty without having any indisputable observational or experimental evidence.

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jan. 2, 2016 @ 18:01 GMT
Further to my previous post, in the topic introduction is mentioned, "...separate the different conceptions of time offered by general relativity and quantum mechanics", in other words the Relative time of SR and GR vs. the Absolute time of Newtonian theory.

It is not realized by George Ellis and others that if the quantum mechanics concept of time (same as Newton's) prevails, a new explanation for the Michelson-Morley experimental result would be mandatory. This is because in using the null result as experimental foundation for Einstein's relativity, the explanation was that the light beam towards which the earth was moving during the experiment did not arrive earlier as expected because its time was dilated, unlike the beam away from which the earth was moving.

A challenge then for Ellis and others who are recanting on their earlier belief that there’s no such thing as objective simultaneity, and now professing that there is now such a thing as simultaneity and time cannot be dilated, is to explain the Michelson-Morley results.

I have proposed my own explanation. Once we go back to the Newtonian/ Quantum mechanics concept of time, much of the spookiness in physics and the Crossroads that Science has found itself as pointed out in Herbert Dingle's book that Pentcho referenced will be overcome.

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 1, 2016 @ 16:53 GMT
"your posts even though sometimes annoyingly repetitive is in some sense justified as a reminder to those who would have us discuss topics, whose only claim is mathematical beauty without having any indisputable observational or experimental evidence."

Yes they are repetitive but that compensates for FQXi's almost complete silence about problems related to Einstein's relativity (they are...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 10, 2016 @ 21:56 GMT
Einstein's Empirical "Theory"

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/09/einstein-rig
ht-and-wrong/

"In 1917 Einstein published a paper on the application of the theory of relativity to the universe at large—cosmology. He had decided that the universe was stationary—neither expanding nor contracting—so he added a term, the cosmological constant, to his original equations with...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 12, 2016 @ 09:14 GMT
The Pound-Rebka experiment is compatible with Newton's emission theory of light where there is no gravitational time dilation and light falls like ordinary falling bodies (in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is g):

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dw
arfs

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jan. 13, 2016 @ 09:17 GMT
Pentcho,

RE: "The Pound-Rebka experiment is compatible with Newton's emission theory of light", and "in general relativity, the speed of light falling towards the source of gravity idiotically DECREASES (in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is NEGATIVE, -2g)"

Have you actually read the paper? If you have not go to the second to the last paragraph and study the Plus and Minus signage before talking of compatibility or not with emission theory. If you need help getting the paper I can help.

Regards,

Akinbo

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.