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

Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri: on 2/27/18 at 0:58am UTC, wrote James Lee Hoover Thanks, Jim, for pointing our similarity in thinking. ...

Jonathan Dickau: on 2/27/18 at 0:46am UTC, wrote Cool Beans Jim, I enjoyed this essay greatly. You could have gone into...

James Putnam: on 2/26/18 at 18:07pm UTC, wrote Dear James, Your thoughtful probing analysis is attractive reading. It...

James Hoover: on 2/26/18 at 5:53am UTC, wrote Thanks, Jeff. Jim

James Hoover: on 2/26/18 at 5:53am UTC, wrote Noson, Thanks for reading and commenting. Jim

Jeffrey Schmitz: on 2/26/18 at 5:28am UTC, wrote James, There are not many essays that can encompass the bible and recent...

Noson Yanofsky: on 2/26/18 at 3:48am UTC, wrote Dear James, Thank you for a nice essay. Your essay is a nice update on...

James Hoover: on 2/26/18 at 0:07am UTC, wrote Thank you, Peter for taking the time to read my essay and for your kind...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Hanvi jobs: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that 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...

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

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

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 22, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Fundamental: Light, the Way by James Lee Hoover [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author James Lee Hoover wrote on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 19:18 GMT
Essay Abstract

The fundamental is necessary for existence, whether real, imagined, animate or inanimate. It exists only if both the conscious being studying it and the subject are present. We must know that the fundamental evolves as its concepts and knowledge advance with discovery. The light of the world leads the way to the discovery of the fundamental and its updates.

Author Bio

James Hoover is retired from the Boeing Company in Huntington Beach, California, working as a systems engineer. His career in aerospace stretches back over twenty years and involves cost analysis, cost modeling and logistics research. In that span of years he has taught college courses in education, economics, computer science and English. Before his aerospace career, he taught high school. He recently published a science fiction novel called Extraordinary Visitors and publishes essays on university websites regarding his scientific interests. His personal interests include studies in particle physics, cosmology and interplanetary technology. He has advanced degrees in Economics and English.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 05:27 GMT
Dear James Lee Hoover,

Thanks for letting us know about your SF book. It's now on my Kindle.

I believe your essay is the first to point out that

"Fundamental … is irrelevant if a conscious being does not exist to point out that which is fundamental."

For another exploration of this theme see Laurence Hitterdale's essay. As you note, the basic symbol the sentient being uses is the word, and this is projected into our fundamental creation story. This fits with your reminder of "all mysteries that defied the fundamentals of current scientific theories." I also like that you use recent history to show that "for many disciplines fundamental truths changed". And I very much like your

"… fed into supercomputers, humankind's means of building a universe."

Your discussion of "light" as key to consciousness is well done and rings true. The many examples are handled very nicely.

I believe my essay complements yours. It focuses on light and time. The consensus view of "fractured" time derived from Einstein's "relativity of simultaneity", which fractured time as universal simultaneity. The philosophico-religious experience of the integrity and unity of the whole is severely challenged by the idea of attaching a new time dimension to every moving object. I review the historical development of this idea in my essay. I hope you find time to read it and comment.

Best regards

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 08:12 GMT
Hi James, I think you picked a really good fundamental to focus on and have shown, by the breadth of your discussion, a great many ways it is involved in physics, affects nature and human beings.

You mention photosynthesis, warmth and vision. The adaptions of plants ans animals to light and light variation is a related topic. I realize there is so much in your essay you would not have had room for more.

I wonder whether the biblical creation would have been different if we were a nocturnal species. In that case it would make sense to have brightness in the beginning followed by the addition of darkness.

I think there is an important distinction that can be made between what is considered to be fundamental by human beings, such as the constituents of our models and knowledge, and what is fundamnetal to the function of the universe whether or not there are people to observe or think about it.

Thank you for a good read. I liked the reminder of how many different ways electromagnetism is important. Kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 11:07 GMT
It was a pleasure to read this well composed essay; change is indeed fundamental. The natural fundament of original light seems to be cosmic Vibration, concerning toe.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Laurence Hitterdale wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 16:45 GMT
Dear James,

Since it is not possible to comment on all the worthwhile topics you discuss in your essay, I will say something about the relationship between fundamentality and consciousness. This is a key relationship, which you state at the beginning: “Nothing fundamental exists without its subject or the conscious being investigating it.”

As you are aware from your reading of my essay, I am especially interested in consciousness. I do appreciate the comment you made on that essay.

Thinking about your statement and about your discussion generally, I think that I would draw a distinction between objective fundamentality in things and the conscious appreciation of fundamentality. This is somewhat analogous to the distinction that might be drawn in order to deal with the old question, If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear the fall, does it make a sound? In one sense, Yes, because the molecules of the air vibrate in sound waves. In another sense, No, because there is no sound as perceived in consciousness.

Similarly, we might say that without conscious beings, objective relations of fundamentality would still obtain. Before any conscious beings had any understanding or awareness of natural laws, there was still a difference between fundamental laws and the detailed workings of nature which depend on those laws. Nonetheless, something was missing. As you state at the beginning of your fourth paragraph, “Fundamental then is irrelevant if a conscious being does not exist to point out that which is fundamental.” Without a conscious being to be aware of the relations of fundamental-to-derivative, those relations remained in darkness. Only understanding brought the relations into light. This metaphoric way of speaking seems to fit well with your emphasis on light.

Thanks for a stimulating essay.

Laurence Hitterdale

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Gantz wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 17:24 GMT
James - I enjoyed your essay, and particularly it's play with the word "light". Humans are visual creatures, so it is no surprise that "light" and its opposite "darkness" are fundamental in the mythology of creation and being in many ancient traditions. Physics, has, however, carefully delimited the concept of "light" to the provenance of photons and electromagnetism - stripping away the depth and richness of its ancient mythological connotation. This is an example of the damage that reductionism can have on our ability to comprehend the universe as it is, and not simply as we want it to be.

Bravo - George Gantz

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 16:24 GMT
Dear James Lee Hoover

Thank you for your esteemed fine words on my essay. Thank you for saying that “frequency shifts should not be difficult to observe, given the right resources.” Can you please help me further? How to do that?

I am providing “ the fundamental relationships of mass and energy in dynamic settings with your proofs.” …. As in Dynamic Universe model is nothing but E=mC2 only, which is nothing but Einstein’s mass to energy to mass conversion. Now Dynamic Universe Model proposes to have energy to mass conversion this time in this essay.

All my Published Books and essays are available at in “books published” and “papers published” tabs of ….

https://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/



And on “Different effects of gravitational lensing as well” ……. “Multiple Bending of light produces multiple images for Galaxies on earth”, was published almost about 30 years back …. If you need further information I will give you

Thank you for your blessing words “An different but interesting approach. I am in the review phase of my readings.” I am hoping for the best…..

Best Regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 16:52 GMT
I hope my earlier papers and blog will provide sufficient proofs...

Best

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Henri Vonn De Roule wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 20:44 GMT
I love what you say about light and the fundamental. If there is not a sentient being to observe a thing does the thing exist? Would the universe exist if there were no beings to observe it? You approach the idea of fundamental from a unique perspective. As I said in my paper, I believe that we will continue to discover forever, pushing the boundaries of what we know and what we think we know for our entire existence. In some cases we will push too far and find ourselves in a blind alley. But such is the fate of science.

Good job, and I will get your book.

Regard,

Henri Vonn De Roule

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 23:09 GMT
James,

Thank you very much for your consideration, especially in Light of the fact we have different views on convention. I'm used to getting negative responses to this.

To offer up a few more observations, the point I make about time and how it is similar to temperature, goes fairly deep into our biology and consciousness. For instance, I would argue the left, linear, rational...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 23:10 GMT
Ack. Not sure why that didn't do paragraph breaks. Hopefully it's legible.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 23:08 GMT
James,

Thanks for the review and scoring. I haven't been as diligent, because my brain has trouble dissecting all the various thoughts, models, assumptions, worldviews, etc, flowing through these essays. It is quite a collection. The one trend I did sense is that some of the regulars are starting to concentrate on the presentist, versus eternalist views of time as a significant issue. Obviously I'm biased on that, but I do see it as the primary point where the realist, versus the platonically mathematical worldviews are in most direct conflict. Not holding my breath though.

Regards, John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 09:26 GMT
Dear James Lee Hoover,

Good to meet again in yet another FQXi contest.(I especially liked your essay “Some say the world will end in fire, some say in ice”). We retired researchers are never tired, aren’t we?

““The word was made flesh and dwelt among us,” iii suggesting that God and Jesus are identical but with a human connection and existence.” indeed but the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 09:31 GMT
Hi James,

AS you indicated to have "liked" my essay" I do not understand why you rated me a 2.

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James Lee Hoover replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 21:06 GMT
Wilhelmus,

Having been a victim of a 1 and a 2 score already w/o comments, I keep track of my own scoring. I am now checking my spreadsheet and find that I scored you on 2/7 with a 7.

Regards,

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 10:32 GMT
Jim

I do the same thing as you.

I posted you on 02/07

on 02/07 I received my 13th rating (the former being on 02/02) being a 2.

my 14 rating on 02/08 was a 6

so I cannot see how to change this....

Wilhelmus

(I also posted this on my thread)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 07:24 GMT
James,

I came to score you, but the machine tells me I have already done so.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 17:28 GMT
Hi James,

I find your essay very readable and important. Us and light and fundamentality an evolving structure. I am reminded of Max Planck's dictum that the sciences advance one funeral at a time. The Hindu's have a saying that echoes your though "we move from truth to truth never from error to truth.

Question to you: Why have you not responded to any of the posts on your blog?

You were commenting to George Gantz that the voting was sparse and I agree. Could it be that author responses are being removed by marking them "inappropriate" by some demon?

I am concerned that the contest is being undermined. What do you think?

Thanks for yor spot on essay.

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James Lee Hoover replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 17:47 GMT
Don,

I always respond in the threads of those that comment after I review their essays since that is where they are notified by email.

Thank you for the kind comments regarding my essay and my comments elsewhere.

Jim HOover

Bookmark and Share


Don Limuti replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 22:47 GMT
Apologies Jim!

Faulty logic on my part.....

Trying too hard to figure why this contest seems "goofy"

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 18:56 GMT
Respected prof James Lee Hoover

Thank you for the Excellent observations and questions with nice words...on Dynamic Universe Model...Your essay is also very good sir....

I am giving maximum appreciation to you for your essay 10... Best wishes for the essay... Now it became 6.4...

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James Lee Hoover replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 19:47 GMT
Satyavarapu,

You are very kind.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share



Christian Corda wrote on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 10:03 GMT
Hi Jim,

Intriguing Essay, from both of the physical and philosophical points of view. Congrats!

You have read my Essay, so you know that I completely agree with you that ToE is the ultimate Fundamental (admitting that a ToE really exists!)

Concerning that LIGO and similar instruments can track back to the BB, you can be interested to this paper of mine, where I show that such a fundamental signal is a direct measure of the primordial Inflaton field.

In any case, I found your Essay interesting and entertaining. It deserves my highest score. Good luck in the Contest!

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Flavio Del Santo wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 19:27 GMT
Dear Mr. Hoover,

thanks for commenting on my essay. It so happens that I have read and rated your already on Jan 20th, when there were a way less essay availalble, and it was still possible to go through all of them with a sense. I found it interesting. The main concern I have is actually your positive conclusion towards a ToE, that I don't think is close to come, and honestly not possible in principle.

I wish you the best,

Flavio

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James Lee Hoover replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 20:58 GMT
Flavio,

I think you are right about the ToE, perhaps even on the scale of cosmic time.

Jim

Bookmark and Share



Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 06:14 GMT
Dear James Lee Hoover, light is the vibration of space, which is the matter, so said Descartes. You due That's interesting. my essayFQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. The principle of identity of physical space and matter allows us to extend physics to living matter. For this we need to pay attention to the fact that matter within the body is the same as outside it. Our brain creates an image of the outside world not within themselves and in the space around themselves. This image of the outside world has an active nature, as it controls the body.

Evaluate and leave your comment there. I highly value your essay, however, I'll give you a rating after becoming acquainted with the Descartes' idea. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, it is end of some questions.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 10:33 GMT
Jim Hoover, many researchers use the concept of ether, which in fact is a physical space, but which according to Descartes is matter. I say these researchers – replace your mythological ether on the physical space, and would be fine. New Cartesian Physics consider these researchers as asset.

For Descartes the physical space is a physical environment, the movement of which can only be a rotation. The transition of rotational movement from one orbit to another is possible when the pull or push. Like a rocket on the ground when she not pushed, she remains.

Newton was not right when he said that he sees further Descartes so as standing on his shoulders. For him, space is an empty in which flying body possessing mass. Descartes physical space is a matter, in which there are no empty. But if they are formed, then closes instantly. Taking into account modern concepts, the speed of light is the limit for any real movements, in the New Cartesian Physics the empty in the space closes to the speed of light. For intelligent people from this moment begins the real physics.

In my essay I showed the relationship between the probability of quantum States and the factor of Lorentz. I believe that this is the first step toward synthesis of quantum mechanics and relativity theory. More show I not could , as it requires a lot of effort which must be highly appreciated.FQXi основополагающих в Новой Декартовой физики Dizhechko Борис Семенович

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 05:15 GMT
Jim Hoover, direct line on which a body is moving uniformly accelerated if operates a force exists only in our imagination. In the real world, such a movement is observed only in a small area and as a component of the real movement. Thus, the Newton was considered a ideal movement in a small area, and Descartes considered real motion, where the uniform motion is in a circular orbit, where it is also necessary to pull the body to the center. Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich and leave a rating.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris .

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 06:22 GMT
Dear Jim Hoover, I appreciate your paper. Light makes the world tangible, as it is a wave of space, which according to Descartes is matter. Moving the waves of space gather information about the objects that they are unable to penetrate.

Thank you for your questions to my Essay. Do not allow FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich go away into nothingness, which wants to be the theory of everything OO.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 17:36 GMT
James,

I always look forward to your thoughtful and poetic essays. This one put me in mind of something Kevin Brown (Reflections on Relativity)wrote: “This image of a photon as a single unified event with a coordinated emission and absorption seems unsatisfactory to many people, partly because it doesn't allow for the concept of a ‘free photon’, i.e., a photon that was never emitted and is never absorbed. However, it's worth remembering that we have no direct experience of ‘free photons’, nor of any ‘free particles’, because ultimately all our experience is comprised of completed interactions. (Whether this extends to gravitational interactions is an open question”.)

In other words, though the world being bathed in electromagnetic radiation gives us the means to view time backward, it doesn't tell us anything about the creation moment. We don't know if a photon was ever emitted.

A delightful, sensitive essay. Thank you.

All best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James Lee Hoover replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 00:24 GMT
Thanks, Tom, for reading my essay and your kind comments.

Jim

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 05:44 GMT
Dear James,

Here we are again all together.

With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of the highest praise.

I am glad for our mutual understanding «most likely will continue to redefine the meaning of fundamental, knowing that scientific knowledge and what we deem the fundamental evolve, requiring constant editing, revision and refinement».

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 Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 10:31 GMT
Dear James,

I read your wonderful essay with great interest. You give deep ideas and make important conclusions aimed at overcoming the crisis of understanding in fundamental science. To "grasp" the original structure of the Cosmos today, it is necessary to maximally support competitive ideas, primarily in cosmology .

“In the Beginning Was the Logos …/ Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος ... " and Philosophy together with Science should give the deepest constructive interpretation to the "Logos / λόγος". Physicists and poets should have a single picture of the Universum as an holistic generating process, filled with the meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E. Husserl). That's right: The Way. It means Meaning. Meaning is the basis of being (Hegel). The Universum is filled with meanings from the "Beginning". Light, the Way, Meaning, Structure are fundamental. The logical structure of a language is identical to the ontological structure of the world. (Wittgenstein). My highest score.

Best wishes!

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James Lee Hoover replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 19:46 GMT
Thanks, Vladimir, for reading and commenting on my essay.

Jim

Bookmark and Share



Kamal L Rajpal wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 12:34 GMT
Dear James Lee Hoover,

I enjoyed reading your interesting and informative Essay. It reflects on your vast and varied experience. I will continue to be in touch with you even after this contest is over.

QM claims that an electron can be both spin-up and spin-down at the same time. In my conceptual physics Essay on Electron Spin, I have proved that this is not true. Please read: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3
.pdf

Kamal Rajpal

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Avtar Singh wrote on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 19:01 GMT
Dear James:

I enjoyed reading your essay and agree with the main theme that understanding light is fundamental. However, as I show in my paper, to understand light (photon), one must answer the question as to how a photon accelerates to the speed of light from zero when it is born. This understanding then changes the whole picture of reality - big bang never happened, universe is eternal, light is the source of dark energy, time is only a relative reality in the frame of matter etc.

This new picture of reality then shows the light, the way, providing a basis for purpose and meaning to the universe and life in it.

Best Regards

Avtar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 05:32 GMT
dear Lee

I began to read your interesting article and initially note the sincerity and truthfulness of your thinking. In my opinion these are the main qualities that we have lose in our aspirations to achieve to a perfect and reliable natural science. I sure now that fundamental science has come to a final crisis that is unlikely to be overcome without a deep moral re-education of thinkers. However, I very much doubt that this is a solvable problem for the near future.

I just laugh to invite you to look at my work to exchange our visions on this subject. I hope on your answer.

Best Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Terry Bollinger wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 05:09 GMT
I am sure you mean well, but Eccles. 3:7.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 07:08 GMT
Dear Jam,

You says very important thing: // Fundamental then is irrelevant if a conscious being does not exist to point out that which is fundamental.// From above just derives that the "fundamentality" is a category for the human, so that it can be in development, change with time etc. That I see is very right definition as it also has reflected many times in the history of science. (Maybe you remembering Einstein's exercises with the "card houses!")

I mean the science goes not on the straight line to the known target, but we are forced often to destroy all of almost finished buildings and start again at the very beginning. This opportunity seems in your essay (as I am trying to say the same.) And the idea of starting everything with the light seems to me just as a Great!

Then I can you say welcome and try to support only.

Be well my Dear!

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 10:00 GMT
Nicely written MR. Hoover

Very nice way of putting things together. Your argumentation is clear and I think further words are useless. Read and rate it accordingly.

According to your last words, which say that the concept of "Fundamental" must keep evolving, I will appreciate your opinion, regarding this essay on such a proposal

Respectfully,

Silviu

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 13:24 GMT
James,

As 'nothing exists without motion' I'm pleased to say I'm now now helping move your score along and up a bit (with an 8) as my initial comments (which I can't now seem to find here!??) I believe you did score mine. Thanks.

Best of luck in the run in.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 03:42 GMT
Hi James

I am sorry it has taken me so long to form a reply for you. I had read your essay some time back, however neglected to reply at that time. I am presented with a delema of sorts. On the one hand I greatly appreciate your writing and descriptive style. This aspect of your work I rate highly. The delema I face is that you're highly focused on describing a conventional scientific...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Bauch wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 22:38 GMT
Dear James,

The rule that the speed of light cannot be exceeded is the driving factor in my cosmological concepts so your choice of light as fundamental resonates with mine. Your essay is informative and well written (your English skills show) and deserving of the highest rating I gave it.

Good luck,

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James Lee Hoover replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 00:07 GMT
Thank you, Peter for taking the time to read my essay and for your kind words.

Jim

Bookmark and Share



Member Noson S. Yanofsky wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 03:48 GMT
Dear James,

Thank you for a nice essay. Your essay is a nice update on some recent advances in cosmology and astronomy.

Thank you.

All the best,

Noson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James Lee Hoover replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 05:53 GMT
Noson,

Thanks for reading and commenting.

Jim

Bookmark and Share



Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 05:28 GMT
James,

There are not many essays that can encompass the bible and recent discoveries in science and find an interconnection between all. The only fault is that a theme is used instead of a true thesis, but with this topic that might be the best choice. This is written for a general science readership and stays on topic, that alone should give it high points.

All the best,

Jeff Schmitz

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James Lee Hoover replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 05:53 GMT
Thanks, Jeff.

Jim

Bookmark and Share



James A Putnam wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 18:07 GMT
Dear James,

Your thoughtful probing analysis is attractive reading. It made me consider my own essay by contrast. I always seem to be dealing with nuts and bolts. Or, perhaps I write like I am laying bricks. You write more like a poet. Your style of communication has a rhythm to it. I appreciated reading your ideas. I will vote late.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 00:46 GMT
Cool Beans Jim,

I enjoyed this essay greatly. You could have gone into more detail about the distance ladder and how we know how far we are... The article cited by Ethan Siegel does a good job of that, and Ethan is a cool dude whom I met back in November at FFP15. Fun reading, more to say later, but I want to grace a few more essays and forum threads before the deadline.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 00:58 GMT
James Lee Hoover

Thanks, Jim, for pointing our similarity in thinking.

Feel free to contact me directly, if you feel like.

Chandra.Roychoudhuri@uconn.edu

I will read your essay soon.

I am an experimental optical physicist. May be we can collaborate in some form.

Sincerely,

Chandra.

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.