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

Peter Jackson: on 2/23/18 at 16:11pm UTC, wrote Moroslaw, Great job. You show the way we think is absolutely fundamental...

adel sadeq: on 2/3/18 at 14:21pm UTC, wrote Hi MIROSLAW Your essay is useful and better than many of...

MIROSLAW KOZLOWSKI: on 1/31/18 at 11:03am UTC, wrote Branko All what you enumeratic is mystic and out of our heads Regards ...

MIROSLAW KOZLOWSKI: on 1/31/18 at 11:00am UTC, wrote Dear Author of the post Thank you very much for the warm worlds. I will...

Branko Zivlak: on 1/31/18 at 9:03am UTC, wrote Dear Prof. Kozlowski, What follows from your very interesting essay? What...

Joe Fisher: on 1/30/18 at 16:08pm UTC, wrote Dear Fellow Essayists This will be my final plea for fair treatment., ...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 1/26/18 at 4:23am UTC, wrote Prof MIROSLAW KOZLOWSKI You are exactly correct…“objections may be of...

Joe Fisher: on 1/16/18 at 17:46pm UTC, wrote Dear Professor MIROSLAW KOZLOWSKI, You wrote: “The process of theory...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Steve Agnew: "Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 20, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: The Fundamental is Mystic by MIROSLAW KOZLOWSKI [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author MIROSLAW KOZLOWSKI wrote on Jan. 10, 2018 @ 21:01 GMT
Essay Abstract

In the present Essay, I want to point out that sometime lack of rational explanation can be accorded to the enormous success by great scientists when they make decisive progress in theory construction in spite of very serious objections of their own. Such objections may be of a conceptual or of a mathematical nature.

Author Bio

Miroslaw Kozlowski. Professor Emeritus Warsaw University is the Author of above 200 papers devoted to the study of ultra-short transport phenomena

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 04:27 GMT
Hi Miroslaw, I enjoyed your essay. I did not know about Johann J. Balmer. In my opinion: When it comes to the measurement problem, it requires an explanation rather than testable hypothesis. As it is the why ( not the what or the how );That is to say, it is the philosophy that makes sense of the outcome.that is required. The explanation might be judged by whether it is plausible, compatible with other aspects of physics, does not cause additional or other problems, and solves the question that required a solution. Occam's razor might also be applied, so a simple solution is preferable to a highly complex one. Kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author MIROSLAW KOZLOWSKI replied on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 15:46 GMT
Dear Georgina Woodward

Thank you for comments. I agree with you concerning role of experiment in the process of falsification. But in my Essay I argue that the probability for JJ Balmer to find the formula is equal zero!

My best regards

Mirosław

Bookmark and Share



Alan M. Kadin wrote on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 14:23 GMT
Dear Prof. Kozlowski,

I found your essay interesting, but the title is misleading. This is not about mysticism, but rather about the basis for scientific progress. As you indicate, this progress is not gradual evolution toward improved theories, but rather “quantum leaps” into new territories, without a reliable map. Physical intuition may be the only guide to such new territories, incomplete and uncertain though it may be.

In my own essay, “Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics”, I propose that a set of slight modifications from classical physics can give rise to a consistent unified realistic physical picture on all scales. There are no point particles or gravitational singularities; abstract spacetime and Hilbert space are mathematical artifacts. Electrons are distributed wave packets. Space and time are separate, and are defined by frequency and wavelength of these real waves, which can shift in a gravitational potential.

Of course, this requires that I completely ignore much of what has become well established in the past century, especially quantum superposition and entanglement. Many colleagues refuse to discuss this, and others will no longer talk to me at all. But with the advent of quantum computing (and investments in the billion dollar range), this has become a practical issue. This will be settled, one way or the other, within 5 years. If I am right, quantum computing will be a complete failure. The next few years should be interesting.

Alan Kadin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author MIROSLAW KOZLOWSKI replied on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 16:06 GMT
Alan

Chapeaux bas.!Your attitude to Physics is like Schrodinger!. I am on your side. Of course still a lot of work is need. What is concerned title of my Essay I think that is best suited to your work! Probability for a unify physics in one shot is zero. But with your mystic intuity you chose the way.

My congratulations

Mirosław

Bookmark and Share


Alan M. Kadin replied on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 18:17 GMT
Mirosław,

Thank you for your comment and support (although my French is a bit rusty).

Regarding Schrodinger, here is a story you might appreciate, that involves Schrodinger, Einstein, and von Neumann, from the late 1930s. At this time both Einstein and Schrodinger had published papers critical of quantum entanglement, and Einstein and von Neumann were down the hall from each other at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. Ironically, there are no photographs of Einstein and von Neumann together, and little evidence that they spoke. However, a historian found a letter in Schrodinger’s file from von Neumann. Von Neumann wrote that Einstein had shown him Schodinger’s paper questioning quantum entanglement, but that von Neumann was convinced that both Schrodinger and Einstein were wrong – quantum entanglement was not a problem. Of course, von Neumann was a mathematician, while Schrodinger and Einstein were masters of physical intuition. I would place more faith with the latter two.

Regarding my essay, I am keeping track of the ratings, and someone just rated it a ‘1’. I don’t think this was one of the commenters. Someone seems to object to the heresy of questioning orthodoxy.

Best Wishes,

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author MIROSLAW KOZLOWSKI replied on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 19:56 GMT
Alan

As you I am in opposite to the evolution of modern physics. I love your idea on nonlinear equation. On my page ( M.Kozlowski Researchgate, Institute of Electron Technology) we Prof Jorge Macias-Diaz and me have the special project entitled:Supratransmission in fractional nonlinear systems. I think it may be interested for your research

Best regards

Miroslaw

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 04:23 GMT
Prof MIROSLAW KOZLOWSKI

You are exactly correct…“objections may be of a conceptual or of a mathematical nature.” The Fundamental is progress… you have correctly identified it…. dear prof MIROSLAW KOZLOWSKI

…..….. very nice idea…. I highly appreciate your essay and I request you please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author MIROSLAW KOZLOWSKI replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 11:00 GMT
Dear Author of the post

Thank you very much for the warm worlds.

I will do it

Miroslaw

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 16:08 GMT
Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 09:03 GMT
Dear Prof. Kozlowski,

What follows from your very interesting essay? What is fundamental?

This is not the "fundamental number of hydrogen" because it is fundamental only to hydrogen. What Balmer discovered? He discovered a relationship that exists independently of his discovery. Balmer's relation to hydrogen is inevitable. The same applies to Newton's relations, Kepler relations, Maxwell ... Well, then what is fundamental? This is what is common to all previous discoveries. It is a fundamental relation between entities that exists independently of our knowledge. It is thus mathematically inevitable that there is no beginning of the universe, because there were always relations like Balmers for hydrogen. I also found your essay interesting, but the title is misleading.

Regards,

Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author MIROSLAW KOZLOWSKI replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 11:03 GMT
Branko

All what you enumeratic is mystic and out of our heads

Regards

Miroslaw

Bookmark and Share



adel sadeq wrote on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 14:21 GMT
Hi MIROSLAW

Your essay is useful and better than many of the philosophical arguments repeated in this contest. Anyway, please see if my essay makes any sense to you. Thanks

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3127

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 16:11 GMT
Moroslaw,

Great job. You show the way we think is absolutely fundamental to advancing understanding. Do you think we may need a 'NEW' SM starting with suspension of embedded assumptions, beliefs and mental models? I argued that last year.

On Wigners statement, my (top scored) 2015 essay (red/green sock trick) suggested he was only superficially correct showing we often even fool ourselves with maths!

But more important! You commented above; "Probability for a unify physics in one shot is zero." I agree. But asked how many shots to reach a 50:50 probability? I corralled the issues and tested with hundreds of shots. I hope you might study a recent result in my essay which looks shocking.

A classical mechanistic sequence (Bell compliant) reproduces the whole of QM's predictions from a certain set of different assumptions; Poincare sphere not 'singlet states'; anti parallel axes, measurement by (field of) spinning electrons & momentum transfer giving 'SAME or OPPOSITE' output & amplitude, and a few more. Declan Traill's short essay confirms the code and plot give CHSH>2 with closed 'loopholes'.

Few seem able or willing to challenge assumptions by checking through the ontology. I then challenge you to suspend beliefs and test it!

Very well done and thank you for yours. I think your score is way below what it deserves so mine will help redress it. I hope you make the finals.

I hope to chat on my string. It's tricky to hold all in mind at once so you should have questions.

Very best

Peter

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.