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

Narendra Nath: on 1/13/09 at 17:31pm UTC, wrote Dear Le Rouge, i have posted in response to your post on my essay today....

F. Le Rouge: on 1/6/09 at 16:41pm UTC, wrote - Don Limuti: You can check on C. Rovelli's forum that he does not believe...

Don Limuti: on 1/1/09 at 6:40am UTC, wrote Refreshing essay. I particularly like the comment: Bugs Bunny does...

F. Le Rouge: on 12/31/08 at 18:27pm UTC, wrote - To Narendra Nath: I must quote Descartes just because he is the Matrix of...

Narendra Nath: on 12/23/08 at 6:50am UTC, wrote Dear Le Rouge, i must confess that your point of view is very refreshing...

Eckard Blumschein: on 12/20/08 at 0:35am UTC, wrote Mirroring just creates redundancy. Mistakes unfortunately give rise to...

Chris Kennedy: on 12/18/08 at 14:48pm UTC, wrote To answer your golf question: I could say that the video golf is very real...

F. Le Rouge: on 12/18/08 at 9:05am UTC, wrote 'Mirroring just creates redundancy' as Blumschein says in his forum: this...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "Georgina, 1. What “emerges” from cellular automata algorithms only..." in Agency in the Physical...

Lorraine Ford: "When will people [1] grow up and get over their absurd ideas about..." in Agency in the Physical...

Joe Fisher: "The sad fact is that no physicist has ever studied actual visible physical..." in SciMeter: A New Way to...

My Emilly: "Nice post,i like your article,great way of explanation.Looking for more..." in Collapsing Physics: Q&A...

Chris Roger: "Hi, thanks for your nice article. It's really detailed and helpful gmail..." in What Is Fundamental? –...

Chris Roger: "Superb Information, I really appreciated with it, This is fine to read and..." in SciMeter: A New Way to...

Philip Chester: "Good post. I find out something new and challenging on articles I..." in New Online Course:...

Joe Fisher: "Dear FQXi.org Members, Reality am fundamental. Reality am not..." in Ed Witten on the Nature...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Usurping Quantum Theory
The search is on for a fundamental framework that allows for even stranger links between particles than quantum theory—which could lead us to a theory of everything.

Fuzzballs v Black Holes
A radical theory replaces the cosmic crunchers with fuzzy quantum spheres, potentially solving the black-hole information paradox and explaining away the Big Bang and the origin of time.

Whose Physics Is It Anyway? Q&A with Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
Why physics and astronomy communities must take diversity issues seriously in order to do good science.

Why Time Might Not Be an Illusion
Einstein’s relativity pushes physicists towards a picture of the universe as a block, in which the past, present, and future all exist on the same footing; but maybe that shift in thinking has gone too far.

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


FQXi FORUM
July 21, 2018

CATEGORY: The Nature of Time Essay Contest (2008) [back]
TOPIC: Square Wheels Or Real Dynamics? by François Xavier Le Rouge [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

François Xavier Le Rouge wrote on Nov. 4, 2008 @ 12:59 GMT
Essay Abstract

There are many ‘contact points’ between ‘Quanta Physics’ and ‘Relativity Theory’. The Goal of this short essay is to isolate these contact points and so to explain why ‘Quanta Physics’ and ‘Relativity’ are as much attracted as they seem to split up. Although it seems more difficult to catch subtle Time than an Arrow on the Wing, starting from the Time factor question is the best method. Trying to understand the Nature of Time will enable us to make the step back which is necessary to cross the Rubicon. Physics is deceived by mirages just because of this lack of Height. When the Enigma of the Interference Rings will be solved at least, then we will be able to embrace Science from a radically new point of view, although the frame of this Competition is too confined to do more than half-opening the doors… and conditionally to be ready to loose everything to win everything.

Author Bio

F. Le Rouge is Student at The 'Muni Art School' of Paris and free-lance Author of an Essay about Æsthetics and Physics ('Chrome Orange', 2008).

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Chris Kennedy wrote on Nov. 25, 2008 @ 15:31 GMT
Hi F. Le Rouge,

I posted a reply to you on my thread.

CJ

Bookmark and Share



Chris Kennedy wrote on Nov. 29, 2008 @ 00:29 GMT
F. Le Rouge,

I have another response on my thread.

Bookmark and Share



Cristi Stoica wrote on Nov. 30, 2008 @ 09:15 GMT
Dear François,

I like your trans-disciplinary vision. Perhaps, the parallel you establish between Zeno and Bugs Bunny was never stronger than in “Case of the Missing Hare”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P7mv31v-hU#t=6m31s

I have in mind, of course, the “Quantum Zeno effect”, which also can be exemplified by this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muLIPWjks_M

and Dr. Who’s Blink episode.

Good luck with your research,

Cristi Stoica

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/322

Bookmark and Share



F. Le Rouge wrote on Dec. 1, 2008 @ 18:22 GMT
- ‘Relativity theory’ is not a ‘Revolution’ as Dr Rovelli says because the new idea that the algebraic conventional reference is more real than reality itself was introduced by I. Newton, R. Descartes, C. Huygens, P. Fermat BEFORE Planck, Poincaré and Einstein.

- The idea that ‘Subjectivity is stronger than Objectivity’ is the same idea. Symmetry, Infinity, Eternity are as many subjective approximations of Nature that is not symmetric, infinite, eternal, full of paradoxes, contrarily to Einstein theory, CLT, Quadratic equations, cells and vectors of time/space…

- This is the reason why the subtle Time -so ‘intimate'- took bit by bit the lion’s share from C. Huygens until the Travel in Time, Big-bang or Higgs Boson hunting illusions.

-In Descartes 'Natural Philosophy' for instance you still have all the stuff from the beginning: ‘Squaring the circle’, ‘Paradox’, ‘Trigonometry’, ‘Translation of Geometry in Algebra’ and ‘String Theory’ too.

- Dr C. Rovelli’s attempt is about the same than many others here such as D. Bundy, Clinton K. Miller, Christine Dantas or Garrett Lisi 248 angles Theory (published in French press) that -to sum up- do consist in strengthening the Time or the Variable but using the same method that introduced the worm in the apple. It is C. Dantas’ duration, G. Lisi’s translation of Algebraic equations in Geometry, C. Miller ‘Hic et Nunc’, Rovelli’s new scale, D. Bundy’s mystic disinfection of ‘Superstring theory’.

- Let us take the snowboard image: it is like a group of snowboarders would love to ski. Some want to forget the board material, others the snow matter, but no one the idea of snowboard itself! I do not even speak about dreamers that believe that video games are more real.

For them the fall will be the harder and there is no paradox in my theory. Just because those do not expect the tree in the middle of the skiing Track.

Bookmark and Share



F. Le Rouge wrote on Dec. 2, 2008 @ 16:08 GMT
To answer to a Question that I am asking myself -Why is Time-Religion of Anglo-Saxon and Italian ruling Science so strong?- I read Rodolfo Gambini's Essay from the beginning until the end and I put a few (heretical) conclusions about it here:

- Major objection against Gambini idea of 'free-will' is that there is no Freedom at all in randomisation, which is a binary algebraic system entirely based on Symmetry. Standard Model of this symmetric system is a Mirror and the deductions are just the hypothesis Reflex to which a factor is sometimes applied.

Some Scientists will take the Sunset (or Particle and Wave), some others will only take the Set, although the sole Sun is part of Nature.

N. Bohr reserve towards A. Einstein, or A. Einstein towards E. Schrödinger Arithmetic, or M. Planck towards Boltzmann and even towards his own conclusion (Boltzmann is the only one to have no reserve in this story), etc. this irresolution is coming from the same looming. Closer you are to the Nature, narrow the Mirage (and the Higgs Boson is so far away from Natural things!).

Fragmenting Energy as M. Planck is doing with Boltzmann Quanta Arithmetic is only possible at the theoretical level.

‘The abrupt change in the wave function’ as Gambini says, this ‘broken wave’ is just a ‘coming back to Nature’: Inflexion of the Reflex!

-Wether it is done on purpose or not, the Question of the Nature of Time is cleverly skipped in Gambini’s Theory. How? Just because Time presumption is still there in his Epistemology.

A few explanations about this: D. Hume is quoted but E. Kant after or saint Augustine before could be too who are deducing a model of Scientific ‘Understanding’ FROM Time Reference, i.e.: Memory (Past), Intelligence/Contemplation (Present) and Free Willing (Future). Put a dot on a circle for Present or Observer and you will have the sketch of this ‘trigonometric’ epistemology -with the Infinity idea above of course.

-The Question of the Nature of Time is vanishing in the Epistemology but Time does resuscitate everywhere in the Probability Theory, the Quanta Physics and, last but not least, in Einstein’s Theory as arrows, vectors, cells, blocks, waves, entirely conventional scales or variables.

Old problem of ‘Adaequatio rei et intellectus’ is solved in an ‘Adaequatio intellecti et intellectus’ problem.

I am reading the confidence of a French Scientist in a Magazine that is about : ‘Waouw! Quanta Physics is so accurate! It is a miracle!’ No: a Mirage.

- If bad news is that LHC-Experience is just a gigantic video-game for rich Scientists, good news is that I prove so that Science is cheap Sports, not Golf.

Bookmark and Share



Chris Kennedy wrote on Dec. 9, 2008 @ 18:13 GMT
FXL,

If I hit a proton off of a golf tee at a 45 degree angle with maximum velocity and it collided with another proton with equal but opposite velocity, would it produce a larger golf ball? would the ball still have a chance of going in the hole? The answer is that it wouldn't matter for very long (get it?) Now if the collision doesn't produce a larger golf ball, do we scrap the golf game? No! We just question the relative humidity of the air that the golf ball is moving through. The ball, clubs and course would be just as real. The air however - would suddenly become more mysterious.

Bookmark and Share



F. Le Rouge wrote on Dec. 10, 2008 @ 16:55 GMT
Are you speaking about real golf or video game Mr K.? I mean: Is the LHC Engine a Computer or a Golfer?

I read this in a book written by a French specialist of Quanta Physics (Roland Omnès), that 'Spin' is a kinetic function of a Particle that has therefore no motion. Bugs Bunny would not have speak better.

May I suggest you to read the detailed disentanglement below on my forum, have a good Rest after, and wake up then, free from 'Quanta Physics' ideology turning and turning again around the same point since three hundred centuries at least?

Bookmark and Share



F. Le Rouge wrote on Dec. 10, 2008 @ 17:00 GMT
SUNSET OF QUANTA PHYSICS

I want to strengthen here my special demonstration that the many paradoxes of ‘Quanta Physics’ were in the ‘Empiricism’ or ‘Ballistic Science’ born in the XVIIth Century before. That is to say that the ‘Wavefunction’ or the ‘Spinfunction’ are just ideologies diverted from Descartes, Mersenne, Fermat, Huygens, Newton and so one.

This short...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 11, 2008 @ 18:11 GMT
Dear Francoise Le Rouge,

"More real than reality" describes phantasms best.

"Boltzmann is the only one to have no reserve in this story"

So we have to blame someone who already committed suicide?

Maybe you are best able to understand the background of my seemingly just formal mathematical objections.

Great.

Regards, Eckard

Bookmark and Share



F. Le Rouge wrote on Dec. 18, 2008 @ 09:05 GMT
'Mirroring just creates redundancy' as Blumschein says in his forum: this is the key point.

One can add that each Time that a Symmetry is 'observed', there is no Physics, no Observation but just Language. At the end of his life, Bertrand Russell discovered that he was wrong before and that Algebra was not 'pure water'.

Modern Physics and its 'Black Holes', 'String Theory',...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Chris Kennedy wrote on Dec. 18, 2008 @ 14:48 GMT
To answer your golf question: I could say that the video golf is very real while the ghost of John Lennon could be on an actual golf course and argue that none of it is real. (I'm guessing he never had Hellman's Mayonnaise - or Moyeu if you like.)

Here are some recent question/comments I posed to Carlo Rovelli and Julian Barbour:

To Rovelli:

You argue that the origin of time...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 20, 2008 @ 00:35 GMT
Mirroring just creates redundancy.

Mistakes unfortunately give rise to redundant theories.

I attached part 2.

attachments: 2_Microsoft_Word__How_do_part_2.pdf

Bookmark and Share



Narendra Nath wrote on Dec. 23, 2008 @ 06:50 GMT
Dear Le Rouge,

i must confess that your point of view is very refreshing to me. i regret that i could not come to your essay earlier though i did admire your postings on others , including mine. Your post on Gunn Quznetsov essay finally made me reach you better and here i see the freshness, the freedom , the unbiasness from existing 'knowledge'. Only such an approach is most likely to lead to innovations. i likes your preference for subjectivity over objectivity. The latter restricts one often. i also enjoyed your statement 'looking for freedom in 'randomization'. i have ofetn wondered about the logical evolution of the Universe versus the random nature of physical phenomena taking place within! Where has the reality of logic gone if all events of any physical process are 'completely' random in nature and probability rules the roost. i wonder about the effectiveness of the famous Chi-square test that is used to check the validity of the observed process to be governed by 'pure' chance. i wonder if a tiny number of regular events are mixed cleverly along with the dominant random ones, will this test be always successful to isolate a very tiny mixing of regular events!! May i humbly add that you remain what you are and you need not put weight/refer to good old Descarte or even Einstein, except when you quote them specifically. We are all born in the image of the Creator and intrinsically we capable of reaching the ultimate knowledge all by ourselves. it is another matter if the same can be expressed adequately within the vocabulary of words that exist currently. Silence for contemplation is golden and so are the concepts of 0 and infinity. he latter is not that significant as the former, as number 1 repeated an infinite number of times gives infinity. Thus , only 0 and 1 are significant, as in logic too.

Bookmark and Share



F. Le Rouge wrote on Dec. 31, 2008 @ 18:27 GMT
- To Narendra Nath: I must quote Descartes just because he is the Matrix of Rovelli and Smolin. More than three centuries after Descartes they are congratulated for a Theory which is a little bit less logic than Descartes' Statics.

- But I do not believe in Descartes Science and the translation of geometric figures is a big mistake. Can you notice please dear Narendra that I do not believe in Newton's principles either? As a result Statics became Dynamics and Physics became Metaphysics. What is Randomization? Information G. Quetznov is talking about? This is Metaphysics from ballistic idea, that is to say 'military' metaphysics. Nature is beautiful but Nature is not symmetric! Weapons are.

- Who am I to tell to these Officers of Quanta Physics to stop collide and compute trajectories?

Bookmark and Share



Don Limuti wrote on Jan. 1, 2009 @ 06:40 GMT
Refreshing essay.

I particularly like the comment:

Bugs Bunny does not fall if he does not

estimate it is Time to do it.

My intuition says this is very close to the mark.

Bookmark and Share



F. Le Rouge wrote on Jan. 6, 2009 @ 16:41 GMT
- Don Limuti: You can check on C. Rovelli's forum that he does not believe as Bugs Bunny that Space plays its role at a fundamental level (Dec. 12). What is 'fundamental'? Carrots?

Bookmark and Share



Narendra Nath wrote on Jan. 13, 2009 @ 17:31 GMT
Dear Le Rouge,

i have posted in response to your post on my essay today. Kindly see it in the context of science versus spirituality!

Here you have posted something on my post on your essay. I am sorry i don't understand what you wish to say re. Statitics/randomness versus reality/truth/ symmetries of nature. There are asymmetries too in nature,e.g parity non-conservation in weak interactions! Even human face of any individual is not symmetric about the line of symmetry through the middle. In fact, there in so much of individuality in ua all that sometimes i wonder how we are able to manage a community life. Thus, there is both rationality and emotionality that makes the life alive and interesting.

Bookmark and Share



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.