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 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

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
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

Bayarsaikhan Choisuren: on 4/7/17 at 8:58am UTC, wrote Dear Richard J. Benish, I have read you essay and there is something...

Richard Benish: on 4/5/17 at 11:29am UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Klingman, Thank you very much for your kind and generous...

Edwin Klingman: on 4/4/17 at 0:15am UTC, wrote Dear Richard Benish, I very much enjoyed your essay, it's format, and your...

Edward Kneller: on 4/3/17 at 23:07pm UTC, wrote Richard, Thanks for the essay. I liked your Cosmic Everything Chart...

Richard Benish: on 3/24/17 at 19:46pm UTC, wrote Dr. Manthey, Thanks for your compliments on my essay. I would like to...

Michael Manthey: on 3/23/17 at 19:59pm UTC, wrote Hi Richard Benish - I really enjoyed your piece - both for its inside-out...

Richard Benish: on 3/17/17 at 22:13pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Zivlak, Many thanks for pointing out the typo. In my original...

Branko Zivlak: on 3/16/17 at 22:28pm UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Benish Very interesting essay. To me, Rotonians vs Earthians, 1:...


Jason Wolfe: "Hi Steve, It sounds like we have similar interpretations of quantum..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Agnew: "Yes indeed, a wavefunction represents a superposition of locations as well..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Jason Wolfe: "Science is motivated to sever the connection with Deity. They use fluff,..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Robert McEachern: ""But what do scientists hope quantum computers will be good for,..." in What Will Quantum...

Zeeya Merali: "Over the past couple of months there’s been renewed interest, and quite..." in What Will Quantum...

Jason Wolfe: "If I could write an unconventional model of reality, it would come with a..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "the fuzzy spheres are very relevant in fact ,they are non commutative, I..." in Alternative Models of...

Jason Wolfe: "Joe Fisher, I'm not sure reality is sensible. But the NDE/ghost stuff is..." in First Things First: The...

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.

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.

November 22, 2019

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Rethinking the Universe by Richard J Benish [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Richard J Benish wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 17:29 GMT
Essay Abstract

Human ideas of how life and consciousness relate to mathematics and physics are conditioned by the fact that we have lived our lives on a 5.97 x 10^24 kg ball of matter. These ideas would arguably be different if we had evolved instead inside a large rotating world far from astronomical bodies. Contemplating the latter perspective provides some insight on how prevailing views may be in error and how to correct them.

Author Bio

Born in Milwaukee, WI and having done independent research on gravity in California's Bay Area and in Eugene, OR, my continuing mission is to generate interest in performing a gravity experiment that Galileo proposed in 1632. Various accounts of and reasons behind these efforts can be found in documents linked at my website:

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share

Author Richard J Benish wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 15:12 GMT
On page 7, "Figure 5" should read: "Figure 6."

The corrected document can be accessed here:

Bookmark and Share

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 19:38 GMT
Nice essay Benish,

Your ideas are good…

1. The accelerating expansion of Universe

2. Martin Fairweather contemplates the dismal eventualities of pre-1998 big bang cosmology: Inevitable big freeze, or equally deadly big crunch.

3. Solving problems by trial-and-error and playfulness go with each other; they both involve processing information; they both have survival...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 05:10 GMT
Dear Richard J Benish,

You wrote an essay as a great thought experiment with the Roton state in which they live Rotonians. The idea of rotation of the space close to the New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the identity of space and matter. You write: "Briefly described, the model involves a (deSitter�like) exponential expansion—not only of discontinuous (or empty) space, but of space and matter combined such that the average density is a constant"

In New Cartesian Physic void is identified by the assertion that in nature, no rectangular bricks, of which you can lay completely space. Therefore, parts of space are in constant motion to fill these emptiness.

Then you write: "In the end we get a variety of suggestive relationships crowned, perhaps, by these equivalent ways of quantifying the local/universal acceleration of volume per mass":

In New Cartesian Physic gravitational mass is the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration through a closed surface particles. The gravitational constant in this case, factor of its translation in inertial mass.

I will appreciate your essay if you also rate the New Cartesian Physic.

Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Richard J Benish replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 19:26 GMT
Dr. Dizhechko,

Thank you for restating two passages from my essay.

As I've noted in the comment section of your essay, the most important quality of Rethinking the Universe is that it can be tested by performing a simple, feasible experiment. As far as I can tell, your model does not come with any such clearcut test. It seems, rather, to be a virtually untestable reinterpretation of...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 05:48 GMT
Dear Richard J Benish

My model of the physical world is a continuation of the model of Descartes. It is tested that was able to explain the formula for mass-energy equivalence by the opening pressure of the Universe. Through the surface of each corpuscle passes the flow pressure forces of the Universe equals the speed of light on Planck's constant – ch. This flow of force from the Universe is balanced by the flow of the centrifugal force of rotation of the mass inside the particles, the total energy is equal to mc2.

From New Cartesian Physic great potential in understanding the world. To show this potential in his essay I gave materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural. Probably, I made a mistake that has bound New Cartesian physics with the paranormal and supernatural, because it does not attract the attention of others. Hope you rate my essay as high as I am yours. Don't let the New Cartesian Physic in abyss of the unknown.

Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 06:59 GMT
Hi dear Richard

You have presented one nice and serious work devoted to physical essence of gravitation. It is my favorite theme (that is why I have stopped on this, despite it is little out of the contest!) I just advise you to open my essay (it is not about the gravity!) and look there Ref. [3]. You can find there formula (3.38) that gives the theoretical value of G = 6.673 * 10^-11 . I hope You understands what it is mean. If you will see interest here then we just will obligated to analyze and mutually to evaluate our works. I hope on your response in my page.

Best regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Branko L Zivlak wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 22:28 GMT
Dear Mr. Benish

Very interesting essay. To me, Rotonians vs Earthians, 1: 1.

Of course - Humans are semi-autonomous physical things produced by the Universe.

If (4) is true, where is the calculation. Calculation for G you can see here:

You have a typo, (4) or (5).

Cosmic everything chart is very good attempt. I do not understand why the ratio of the densities is connected with alpha.

You may find helpful in further work, a very important attitude R. Bošković:

"The primary elements of matter are in my opinion perfectly indivisible & non-extended points, ... "

Try the usefulness of this attitude to realize in my essay.

Shortened and simplified version of my essay, you can see:



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Richard J Benish wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 22:13 GMT
Dear Dr. Zivlak,

Many thanks for pointing out the typo. In my original posting, subscripts for rho on the right side of Eq. (4) are in error.

The corrected equation should read as follows:


Concerning the density on the Cosmic Everything Chart (Figure 6), given the base atomic/molecular density


(mass of proton within Bohr radius...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share

Michael Manthey wrote on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 19:59 GMT
Hi Richard Benish -

I really enjoyed your piece - both for its inside-out physics and its science-fiction-ey entertainment value. And well-written - always a pleasure! On the other hand, GR has always given me a headache thinking about it, so I've stuck to recasting QM as distributed computation instead! ... cf. my essay "Causality and Teleology".

You commented there that I am depending on standard assumptions about space and time for it all to work. In physics circles this is a cogent kind of objection, but in my particular case it's wide of its mark. The semantics of the Zed3 = {0,1,-1} geometric (Clifford) algebra I use are taken to be identical with their interpretation as a distributed computation, ie. no physical principle is invoked.

The development can be viewed as a purely mathematical exercise, tho it's much easier computationally ... the key observation being that co-occurring events contain information by their very existence, the argument for which proceeds from their time-like indistinguishability, cf. the "Coin Demo" in references [1] or [2] in my essay).

The fundamental connection to physics lies in the concept of exclusion, that certain states literally exclude the simultaneous existence of certain other states. That's it - the rest is just inevitable mathematical conclusions. The resulting structure - mathematical, computational, and physical - is the unique result of discrete combinatorics, and U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3)xSO(4) is a great place to land.

This can all work in your favor, it seems to me, in that here is an explicit mechanism that you can explore, in the understanding that every experiment is therefore a computation.

-Mike Manthey

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Richard J Benish replied on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 19:46 GMT
Dr. Manthey,

Thanks for your compliments on my essay.

I would like to reply to two of your other comments:

First, I don't see how "recasting QM as distributed computation" helps to relieve your general relativistic "headache." Is it relief by avoidance or because you have somehow subsumed GR in one fell computational swoop?

Even if it's the latter, the problem with GR's...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share

Edward Kneller wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 23:07 GMT

Thanks for the essay. I liked your Cosmic Everything Chart showing mass vs. density.

You may be interested in the plots in my essay, The Cosmic Odyssey of Matter, which show mass vs. abundance for a much more limited set of forms, specifically those that fall along the ρA horizontal line in your chart.

link to The Cosmic Odyssey of Matter

Regards, Ed Kneller

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 00:15 GMT
Dear Richard Benish,

I very much enjoyed your essay, it's format, and your intention of revisiting and revising our ideas of gravity. You invented an excellent vehicle for this purpose, the Rotonians.

While I do not necessarily agree with every point you made, I agree with your conclusion, that a new conception of gravity may lead to a new kind of unification that make standard...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Richard J Benish replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 11:29 GMT
Dear Dr. Klingman,

Thank you very much for your kind and generous comments. Given how radical my proposals are, praise is rare, and your comments are without doubt, the most insightful praise I've ever received.

A few more specific responses:

According to standard physics and cosmology, cosmic largeness and gravitational weakness (smallness of Newton's constant) do not...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share

Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 08:58 GMT
Dear Richard J. Benish,

I have read you essay and there is something interesting for me.

Particularly these phrases are nice for me

“Rotonian attempts to understand the gravity of a planet like Earth have led to a whole new cosmology: A Universe in which the arrow of time only increases because the arrows of space and matter also only increase; a Universe which, in its eternal unfolding, must surely be teeming with life. The very existence of life in an edgeless and eternal…..

It seems to be a cosmic fact that critical junctures will arise, at which certain other facts about the physical Universe—utterly key pieces of the puzzle—must be discovered and put properly into place, to enable further progress”

With Best Regards


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.