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

Eckard Blumschein: on 3/24/18 at 9:46am UTC, wrote Ted, My "in" should of course read "is". Sadly I guess, you didn't get my...

Eckard Blumschein: on 3/24/18 at 9:28am UTC, wrote Ted, Admittedly, my understanding of the cochlear amplifier is not based...

Steven Andresen: on 2/23/18 at 13:48pm UTC, wrote Dear Theodore If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the...

Steve Dufourny: on 2/20/18 at 12:17pm UTC, wrote You are welcome, yes I have given a good rating :) best regards

Theodore St. John: on 2/17/18 at 21:54pm UTC, wrote Thank you very much. I hope you gave me a good rating :)

Steve Dufourny: on 2/16/18 at 19:03pm UTC, wrote Hello Mr St John, I liked it, it is logic I work about my theory of...

Theodore St. John: on 2/6/18 at 13:20pm UTC, wrote Avtar, Thank you for your reply and comments. But I think you missed an...

Avtar Singh: on 2/5/18 at 16:33pm UTC, wrote Dear Ted: Thanks for your time and thoughtful comments on my paper. I...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jason Wolfe: "As for religious fundamentalists, I would rather deal with them, then with..." in More on agency from the...

Jason Wolfe: "The best we can do with the environment is to plant more trees and..." in More on agency from the...

gmail login: "Thanks a lot for the post. It has helped me get some nice ideas. I hope I..." in Bonus Koan: A Lake of...

Jason Wolfe: "Joe, I can make a very logical argument that life, biological cells,..." in First Things First: The...

Jason Wolfe: "I don't think Steven Wolfram knows the difference between a pattern, and a..." in First Things First: The...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, I don't think the quantum representation of the hydrogen atom is an..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Agnew: "You are very good at defending a classical macroscopic and objective..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

SAJ Real Estate: "Nice one. Real Estate Sales St Kitts" in A Close Encounter


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 FORUM
November 16, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: A Simple Model For Integrating Quantum And Relativistic Physics with application to the evolution of consciousness by Theodore St. John [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Theodore St. John wrote on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 19:47 GMT
Essay Abstract

If you want to make a cake, you have to know more than just the fundamental ingredients. There’s also a fundamental process involved that has to be followed. Fundamentally, what makes a cell a cell is more than the physical parts. If you reduce a living cell too much, you destroy the process and fundamentally change what you were trying to understand. You have to include the life process in your explanation. Physics is the study of motion and motion is a process that makes a particle a particle. Reducing motion to 3-dimensional space and 1-dimensional time is a fine tool for Newtonian analysis, and it is still the model in relativistic physics (although they are mixed together as space-time), but quantum physics treats a particle as a whole that contains space and time as vibrations (frequency). This essay presents a geometric model of the quantum particle projected onto a background of motion and reveals the mathematical relations between the two perspectives. The secret ingredient is the way in which “past” time is displayed as the inverse of future time rather than the negative as is done on a linear time scale in other models. The result is a new perspective of physical reality as a process that involves an expanding wave function that effectively “reaches out” into the non-moving field of binary light-dark surroundings (vibrations) and collapses information into its own center. This information, stored in DNA molecules, might be what evolves from data cognition through knowledge (re-cognition) to higher levels of consciousness.

Author Bio

Theodore St. John is a retired U. S. Naval officer who served for thirty years, first as a Nuclear Submariner and then as a Radiation Health officer in research facilities, as Science Advisor at the Naval Dosimetry Center, at naval hospitals in Radiology and as a Medical Physicist in Radiation Oncology. Currently, he volunteers as an Adjunct Senior Research Scientist at the Louisiana Accelerator Center (University of Louisiana at Lafayette). He holds a dual BS in physics and electrical engineering, an MS in Physics and a Ph. D. in Nuclear and Radiological Engineering (specialized in Medical Physics).

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 16:22 GMT
Dear St. John,

I enjoyed reading your wonderful article and totally concur with your perspective. I also welcome you to read Consciousness is fundamental Geometry Of Dimensions and hope that you enjoy it too.

We are all just one consciousness enjoying itself from different perspectives.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Theodore St. John replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 23:59 GMT
Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay. I appreciate your kind words and will read yours as well.

Ted

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 21:54 GMT
Dear Dr Theodore St. John,

You wrote: “Is Fundamental the same as irreducible?”

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 Theodore St. John replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 00:05 GMT
Joe,

Thank you for reading my essay and posting a reply. I'm not sure I understand what you mean, or if it refers to my essay, but you seem passionate about it and I appreciate it.

Ted

Bookmark and Share



Gene H Barbee wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 23:15 GMT
Theodore,

I read your essay a few days ago and have been working on some of your ideas. I am also interested in DNA coordination. Literature says that neurotransmitters and hormones coordinate cells but I think you are suggesting that something more fundamental is occurring. It is clear to me that the visual cortex constructs an internal image of the information it receives. You...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Theodore St. John replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 23:56 GMT
Gene,

Thank you very much for your comments. I just wanted to reply briefly to let you know that I appreciate the post and intend to reply, but I have been preoccupied with a major project away from home and want to wait until I can give it the attention it deserves. I expect to be home in a few days.

Ted

Bookmark and Share


Author Theodore St. John replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 20:52 GMT
Gene,

I hadn’t read about DNA coordination until you mentioned it, so I looked it up and it appears to me that yes, something more fundamental is occurring. If DNA replication and recombination is controlled, as you mentioned by neurotransmitters and hormones, then it must be a very complicated process. But in order to maintain genome stability and thus avoid mutation and disease it has...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Christophe Tournayre wrote on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 21:58 GMT
Hi Theodore, I enjoyed how you start your essay, looking at the process rather than its irreducible components. I am more in “state of unknown” when it comes to your last chapter. The reason is that personally I am unable to define what “consciousness” is. I do not have a background in this field and I did not read books on this subject. Do you see it as information processing? Your input is welcome. Kind regards, Christophe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Theodore St. John replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 23:24 GMT
Christophe,

Thank you very much for reading and commenting on my essay. The dictionary defines consciousness as “1) the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings and 2) the awareness or perception of something by a person.” I think people tend to use the word “consciousness” and “awareness” interchangeably, but for my purposes, I’d say that the word...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 21:41 GMT
Hi Theodore St. John

Sir, you have wonderfully integrated from Newtonian Physics to consciousness…“ The result is a new perspective of physical reality as a process that involves an expanding wave function that effectively “reaches out” into the non-moving field of binary light-dark surroundings (vibrations) and collapses information into its own center. This information, stored in...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Theodore St. John replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 00:47 GMT
Hello SNP,

Wow! I am amazed at your list of foundational points. Just glancing at them I can see that we are very much in agreement on many points. I just returned home from a trip that had me preoccupied for 2 weeks and have some catching up to do, but I will definitely read and comment on your essay and your post.

Ted

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 09:51 GMT
Dear Theodore St. John,

Thank you for the nice support.

CMB is starlight , Galaxy light etc… No bigbang generated microwave radiation. These Noble prizes are more of political nature

I am working on No Black hole collision paper also…

What about Blue shifted Galaxis?

What are other points you are having still doubts , lets have some discussion

Best Regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 16:16 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


Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 22:37 GMT
Dear St. John,

I found your clear and honest post, on the space Mr. S.N.P. Gupta.

I generally agree with Mr. Gupta and with you too. But we are not politicians to agree and send compliments to each other. I came to these attitudes by binding the relations of the great physicists (Newton, Planck, Einstein ...) with simple mathematics, which is partially shown in the essay. Just one example: CMB temperature 2.7 is not a relic of the Big Bang, it is the geometric mean of all temperatures in the universe (shown by the formula).

You are right about motion and time and space time too. They are not fundamental.

I also noticed that contemporary physics deals too much with particles and other irrelevant phenomena. It was not so, through the history of science.

Good essay, congratulations.

Regards,

Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 09:52 GMT
Thank you Branko....

Regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Theodore St. John replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 19:28 GMT
Branko,

Thank for your comments and for pointing out that we are not politicians. I hope I didn't seem harsh or arrogant. I don't comment on all of the essays that I read, but since SNP commented on mine and asked me to read his, I felt obliged to comment with honesty. And I didn’t disagree with him. I just want to know how he (and you for that matter) can support the idea that there was no big bang. Intuitively I fully agree. I think it is fairytale physics. But I am not educated in cosmology and I haven't published much. My MS research was in ion-implantation (see “Surface oxygen implanted in titanium by recoil collisions with 1 MeV gold ions”) and my Ph. D. thesis was in stereotactic radiosurgery (see “A geometrically based method of step and shoot stereotactic radiosurgery with a miniature multileaf collimator”). I hope to eventually present my paper to the physics faculty in a seminar, and if it comes up I want to be able to say that the concept of big bang (as well as black holes) is not correct. Personally, I think they comes from the use of the zero origin in space versus time. I haven't read your essay, but if your argument about the CMB is solid, that would be great.



Ted

Bookmark and Share



Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 05:31 GMT
Dear Medical Physicist,

Does common sense fit well to your idea "“past” time is displayed as the inverse of future time"?

In contrast to Branko Zivlak, I consider Gupta incorrect. I would appreciate if someone could reveal where my essay is incorrect too.

Incidentally, I am still convinced that the so called cochlear amplifier doesn't amplify an already existing v. Békésian traveling wave but the activity comes from spontaneous movements of the OHCs. Ren admitted that this is a possibility. However the established ideas and persons remain uncorrected. See Ren's paper in nature communications.

Curious,

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 09:57 GMT
Dear Eckard

If you have any doubts that some thing is incorrect in Dynamic Universe Model, lets discuss, They can be conceptual, Theoretical, Mathematical, logical, or any other..... Dont hesitate...

Best Regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Theodore St. John replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 16:33 GMT
Eckard,

Does common sense fit well to my idea of "“past” time displayed as the inverse of future time"? Good question and thank you for asking. My short answer of course is yes, (if by “common sense” you mean “good sense” and not “common opinion”) for the purpose of the STM (space-time-motion) model.

What does not make good sense is the idea of negative time. From...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 24, 2018 @ 09:28 GMT
Ted,

Admittedly, my understanding of the cochlear amplifier is not based on my own experiments. I merely tried to collect and combine arguments by numerous experts of physiology and related disciplines including Pujol in France, Martin Braun in Sweden, Andrew Bell in Australia, Steven Greenberg in USA, Geoffrey Manley in Germany, Sohmer in Israel, Azzi in Italy, Patterson in th UK, ...

I also dealt with the main proponents of v. Békésy's Nobel prize winning model, including Lighthill, Lesnevich, Szekely, and Jont Allen. When I met Jont at NATO advanced study institute in Il Ciocco, he admitted that no model fits all data, and he was shocked that foveas are a problem for the TW model.

In all, I am pretty sure that the TW model in untenable.

Must I always trust in the correctness of decisions of the Nobel prize committee? I don't exclude the possibility that they were correct when they didn't trust in Einstein's relativity.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Avtar Singh wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 16:33 GMT
Dear Ted:

Thanks for your time and thoughtful comments on my paper.

I read your paper and it appears that your ideas are similar but mathematics is different and needs further development to a detailed cosmological model that could then be compared against actual empirical data of the universe observations. Such data validation is necessary to determine its accuracy and consistency.

On a quick note, S=Ct and not S=C*C*t as his will distort all measured data.

The link to my book "Hidden Factor" is as follows:

The Hidden Factor

https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Factor-Avtar-Singh/dp

/14
0339363X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1517847455&sr=8-2&keyword

s=h
idden+factor+singh

Best Regards

Avtar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Theodore St. John replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 13:20 GMT
Avtar,

Thank you for your reply and comments. But I think you missed an important point in my essay. You said: “S=Ct and not S=C*C*t as his will distort all measured data.” But as I tried to explain, upper case S is what I used to represent spherical 3-D space so

.

And upper case T represents time, which is simply a scale of motion, so it must be treated the same as space, i.e. with a component corresponding to motion in each spatial dimension. So



where tx means time as measured in the x direction, etc. Thus



=>


The important point is that In this form, the equation
means that space and time are equivalent, in exactly the same way that
means that mass and energy are equivalent. They are equivalent because they are two different ways of representing the same phenomenon. They are simply different scales for the same process. My equation suggests that time T, is transformed into units of space (actual physical quantities) just as mass is converted into energy. The term
is simply the factor that relates the units of measurement.

About your book, I had already found it on amazon and read what the front matter and part of first chapter. I just wanted to ask about how I could get a signed copy from you.

Thanks,

Ted

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 19:03 GMT
Hello Mr St John,

I liked it, it is logic I work about my theory of spherisation with quant and cosm 3D sphères Inside the universal sphere.Well generalised all this , congratulations, they turn so they are :)

best regards from belgium

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Theodore St. John replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 21:54 GMT
Thank you very much. I hope you gave me a good rating :)

Bookmark and Share


Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 12:17 GMT
You are welcome, yes I have given a good rating :) best regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 13:48 GMT
Dear Theodore

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...

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.