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

Steven Andresen: on 2/23/18 at 13:51pm UTC, wrote Dear Paul If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the...

Vladimir Fedorov: on 2/23/18 at 4:56am UTC, wrote Dear Paul, …(copied to your and mine) Thanks for visiting my FQXi Essay...

Vladimir Fedorov: on 2/21/18 at 10:17am UTC, wrote Dear Paul, I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay. I...

Paul Schroeder: on 2/16/18 at 16:49pm UTC, wrote Hello Jonathan Dickau, You are correct that all forces are the...

Jonathan Dickau: on 2/13/18 at 3:21am UTC, wrote Hello Paul, I greatly enjoyed your essay and I share some of your opinions...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 2/1/18 at 22:16pm UTC, wrote Dear Paul Schroeder, Thank you for the kid supporting words…….” ...

Paul Schroeder: on 1/31/18 at 18:53pm UTC, wrote Hi Joe, You sign off as a realist but your ideas seem esoteric. I assume...

Joe Fisher: on 1/31/18 at 16:14pm UTC, wrote Dear Fellow Essayists This will be my final plea for fair treatment., ...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jorma Seppaenen: "Hi Georgina, Yes, CMB map is an observation product, it's very essential..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Jim Snowdon: "Of course, the stars would, very slowly, move across the sky as the Earth..." in The Nature of Time

Georgina Woodward: ""The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Jim Snowdon: "On the permanently dark side of the Earth, the stars would appear to stay..." in The Nature of Time

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...


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 27, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Fundamentals relative to 'The Universe is Otherwise' by Paul Schroeder [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Paul Schroeder wrote on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 19:45 GMT
Essay Abstract

Properly redefining the universe leads to more fundamental views of the universe

Author Bio

Numerous papers and presentations within NPA, CNPS and elsewhere. Math major - Beloit Collegeq

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 12:16 GMT
Hi Paul, thank you for sharing your views.You cover a lot but I found your essay an easy read. Your revelations that there is no down in space is important but charmingly childlike in the way it is presented. There are places where you have dismissed ideas without presenting an argument. Eg. about finite space and time (mentioning imagination and nonsense) and asserted your own view, the infinity of the universe. Leaving it as an unsupported opinion. I agree with you about there being no holes in existence itself. I like your iceberg analogy very much. Kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Schroeder replied on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 19:18 GMT
Hi Georgina,

Thank you for commenting about my essay.

When anyone documents their view of things there will be differences for any reader as we all develop differing perspectives. Here you select my ‘unsupported’ opinions about finite space and time as shortcomings. That is a fundamental in depth issue and this is an essay. A more detailed argument is contained on my papers, especially 3 ‘Universe is Otherwise’ papers that discuss infinity, finite borders and provide large number of arguments supporting for infinity vs the finite as used throughout our current cosmologies.

I thank you for your complimentary statements about the readability and other topics. You encourage me greatly. If you or others would be interested in further depth from my papers I will e-mail the 3 recent ones. They remain untechnical but are somewhat less easy read.

Kind regards to you,

Paul Schroeder

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 17:34 GMT
Dear Paul Schroeder,

You accurately wrote: “The universe is absolutely fundamental as it is infinite and there is only one of them.”

I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists 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.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Paul Schroeder wrote on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 19:21 GMT
Joe Fisher,

I especially like your argument for infinity by indicating man has overridden it with his ‘finite complex informational systems’.

Paul Schroeder

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 18:53 GMT
Hi Paul Schroeder,

your view of finite space time and infinite universe are really good. You are a good mathematician who understands the derived concepts…. Really nice…. dear Paul Schroeder….. I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.

I request you please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable &...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Schroeder replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 20:29 GMT
Hi Satyavarapu Gupta,

Wow, you are the first person I have encountered that has such similar views, views which demand corrections to mankind’s metaphysical pretense of physics. I am very happy to hear from you. Finding a common bond with someone when inverting all of physics and hoping for attention from within the sciences has been a lonely path.

Just like your list attached here I have about 50 points that define my system which are attached to the back of my presentation here, in case you missed them. I agree with about 80% of your foundational points. Obviously rejecting many fantasy concepts of science is long overdue. We have much to discuss. I will have a more detailed response message upon reading your FQXi paper – dynamic universe model

.

But I can address your 2 sentences here. You pass EM radiation near masses, while I have the beams penetrate masses. You use neutrinos. I have backed away from them. You cite the other side of E=MC^2 which is the logical conversion from energy to mass. This is a long time process as discussed in my old book – “The Universe is Otherwise”. I do have a paper that describes continuous formation of elements via very high frequency beams intersecting. You call this Nucleosynthesis. I agree that frequency shift can be dependent on velocity but not exclusively.



Your name sounds familiar. Did you present to NPA about 5 years ago with a pendulum clock and masses placed in a different room modifying the gravity effect on the pendulum?

Best regards,

Paul Schroeder

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 16:14 GMT
Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.

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

Author Paul Schroeder replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 18:53 GMT
Hi Joe,

You sign off as a realist but your ideas seem esoteric. I assume your plea for fair treatment is asking for good ratings. I have not yet rated respondents.

You are categorizing everything as visible and group all things into a single dimension – single surface, which violates the mathematical perspective of dimensions.

As mentioned before, I appreciate your common belief in infinity as fundamental and respect you for that. But you have some components such as ‘logically Nature devised the physical construct of earth’ ‘one single unified visible infinite surface’ that bother me. I did like your earlier ‘infinity overwritten by finite complex information systems’.

Bottom line, rating within a contest is new to me. I don’t know if an average plus rating from me will help you very much. You are competing with 140 papers.

Best regards,

Paul Schroeder

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 22:16 GMT
Dear Paul Schroeder,

Thank you for the kid supporting words…….”

Your paper includes a promising new solution to N body motion problems along with a fine relevant history of mass motions and locations. “

………… Your words………

First off you present frequency shifting in EM radiation. Let’s see if I understand your ‘EM radiation grazing near mass’...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 03:21 GMT
Hello Paul,

I greatly enjoyed your essay and I share some of your opinions about the nature of physical reality, although we disagree on the fine points. The theory I presented at FFP15 also treats gravity as an external force rather than the curvature of space. I just got a post from Avtar Singh, whom I met at CCC-2, reminding me that his ideas also feature a scenario where there is a push resulting from the quantum background and remnants of earlier cosmological eras. In my 'Gravitation by Condensation' I treat gravity as a residual rather than a fundamental force, which explains the title of my essay. But others here, including Bayarsaikhan Choisuren have a view even more similar to yours.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Paul Schroeder wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 16:49 GMT
Hello Jonathan Dickau,



You are correct that all forces are the consequence of one unified field of interactions. Its called GRAVITY!

What better praise could I ask than your enjoyment of my essay? Thank you, Johnathan. My opinion of physical reality is as straight forward as possible and gravity is the specific topic which current theory must address first. There are others here at RQXi that focus on gravity but they complicate it. My system inverts much current theory and is complete as is so I don’t investigate things like you do and I cant relate to your idea of push related to Mandelbrot condensation.

Otherwise I find your paper to be very well done, impressive in detail actually. But obviously I disagree with some of the topics. Entropic and emergent gravity is typical metaphysics. Motion and infinity are requisites. Deep theory, extensive data, and wordiness blurs simple logic and leads to what physics has become. Applying the idea of symmetry in physics is also misleading. Building an overall perspective of the universe cant include concepts like entropy that override disorder.



I appreciate you providing references with ideas. But my model is extensive and unique. It doesn’t connect with relativity, as does My Choisuren, nor does Mr Singh’s quantum background push gravity idea logically fit.



Ultimately people who recognize gravity’s role are key readers whom I seek for support and for selling others on the value of my system perspective. When you read my essay did you see the two follow up pages? Forty plus components of my system are listed there. I hope you go back and review those points, and subsequently respond again. My total system in 3 papers is available for review. My unique perspective seeks further support.



I enjoy much folk music including Pere Seeger.



Best regards,

Paul Schroeder

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 10:17 GMT
Dear Paul,

I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.

I completely agree with you.

«for the term gravity, a force originating as a pushing pressure, becomes the fundamental definition. The term gravity should reference the source which is a pushing pressure.

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 04:56 GMT
Dear Paul, …(copied to your and mine)

Thanks for visiting my FQXi Essay page.

I'm glad that you liked my thoughts. Send your works as you like, you can send it by e-mail fedorovvlad53@gmail.com.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 13:51 GMT
Dear Paul

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My sail...

view entire post


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.