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 18:37pm UTC, wrote Ilgaitis, From another realist, great essay. Enjoyable, spot on and...

Ilgaitis Prusis: on 2/22/18 at 11:46am UTC, wrote Dear Steven, Thanks for visiting my FQXi Essay page. I will read your...

Steven Andresen: on 2/22/18 at 8:59am UTC, wrote Dear Ilgaitis If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the...

Ilgaitis Prusis: on 2/6/18 at 9:13am UTC, wrote Dear SNP Gupta, Thank you for reading my essay. I downloaded your essay....

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 2/5/18 at 23:35pm UTC, wrote Respected Ilgaitis Prusis You wonderfully examined the question dealing...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 2/3/18 at 14:22pm UTC, wrote Dear Ilgaitis, The FQXi Contest is primarily a competition of new...

Ilgaitis Prusis: on 2/1/18 at 11:52am UTC, wrote Dear Gary, Thank you for attention! I have some questions according to...

Gary Hansen: on 1/31/18 at 18:42pm UTC, wrote Ilgaitis, Notwithstanding the enumerable opportunities to apply the term...


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: Fundamental Entities in Physics by Ilgaitis Prusis [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 19:57 GMT
Essay Abstract

The essay examines the question dealing with concepts and naturally occurring entities that are fundamental for general physics. It does not review the entities and concepts which are fundamental for individual theories of various physics branches

Author Bio

Born in 1936 Riga, Latvia. Education: Physics Latvian State University, degree MSC. Institute of physics Latvian Academy of Sciences, degree PHD. Employments: Nuclear reactor of Institute of physics; Riga Technical University, researcher and lecturer. My public record in ORCID is http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1390-4522

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 17:15 GMT
Dear Dr Ilgaitis Prusis,

Reliable evidence exists 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.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ilgaitis Prusis replied on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 17:42 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher,

Thank you for your interest. I agree. I think exactly as you. But I do not understand how this is related to my essay. Please explain.

Best regards

Ilgaitis, Realist too

Bookmark and Share



Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 16:33 GMT
Dear Ilgaitis Prūsis,

Nice try.

But, it is not allowed to differentiate any formula in whole range.

Your formula (1) is not applicable to any r, M, t. Especially not from singularity (Big Bang) to do whole universe. The Plank length and time often associated with the Big Bang have a completely different meaning, which you can see in my essay.

Regards,

Brnanko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 18:06 GMT
Dear Branko,

Mathematically formula (1) is correct in all range of r, M, t. Exception is only singularity. “A singularity is in general a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined” (quote from your essay). In this case singularity is mass point at which r = 0 and t = 0.

According to Big Bang.

The prevailing cosmological model supposes that Big Bang begins with the Planck epoch, when the universe was 1 Planck time old (5.39116(13)×10−44 s) and 1 Planck length in diameter (1.616229(38)×10−35 m), and had a Planck temperature of 1 (1.416808(33)×1032 K). This model is free imagination of human mind.

The facts are only:

1. Age of the universe" — is 13.799 ± 0.021 billion years;

2. CMB at a temperature of 2.72548±0.00057 K.

Some of unsolved problems by hot Big Bang model:

1. Accelerating expansion of Universe;

2. Horizon problem;

3. Arrow of time;

4. Origin of Universe;

5. Locality problem;

6. Dark energy;

7. Origin of pure hydrogen stars etc.

I prefer another model of Big Bang. This follows from the equation (1), because solution is possible only if initial velocity = 0. Therefore temperature is absolute zero at the beginning. This model explains all unsolved questions. There is not any need for Planck units.

Best regards

Ilgaitis

Bookmark and Share



Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 07:53 GMT
Dear Dr Ilgaitis Prusis,

Formula (1) is a very important formula that describes just one case of attraction called gravity. As you know, there are other forces of attraction and repulsion that are significant for the whole of the universe. The curves relating the force as a function of distance you can see here:

Boscovich J. R.: "A Theory of Natural Philosophy", in English, The M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England

What can be differentiated can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differentiable_function

Re
gards,

Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ilgaitis Prusis replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 09:18 GMT
Dear Branko,

There is some kind of misunderstanding - I do not differentiate anything. It is Newton’s gravitation law: F = m*g = m*d^2*r/dt^2 = Gm*M/r^2. I only solve it as differential equation.

The solution shows that gravitation is not only attractive force, but generates repulsive force which is the cause of accelerating expansion of space. The result explains majority of cosmic puzzles.

According to the rule of Occam’s razor there is not need to look at the other forces.

Regards,

Ilgaitis

Bookmark and Share



Gary Valentine Hansen wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 18:42 GMT
Ilgaitis,

Notwithstanding the enumerable opportunities to apply the term ‘fundamental’, the adjective has only one ‘meaning’, that is to say, it is applied to draw attention to the essential qualities of things, including ideas.

Recital of what is not fundamental is potentially endless, and relatively useless, unless one is focusing upon revealing the fundamental aspect(s) of a specific entity.

Similarly, to claim that physical constants are (or are not) fundamental depends entirely upon the contexts within which these statements are made.

I suspect that science is going to come into general accord in recognition that gravity is not as fundamental as currently believed but is the effect of the convergence of vacuum (the predominant constituent of the cosmos) bearing upon matter.



While Time and Space are generally considered to be boundless and form contexts within which other phenomena operate, they rely upon Existence just as surely as existence necessarily applies to something other than itself (e.g. to Time and Space).

Time is merely duration; Space is merely place wherein an event occurs. In the absence of either nothing can exist.

Regardless of what each of us chooses to define as ‘fundamental’, it is important that we keep our minds open to change and the prospects of making justifiable improvements in our

time-sensitive convictions.

Keep searching, and thanks for opening your mind to the FQXi community.

Gary.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ilgaitis Prusis replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 11:52 GMT
Dear Gary,

Thank you for attention!

I have some questions according to your comment.

You write that “gravity is … the effect of the convergence of vacuum”. How do you explain that the convergence occurs only in presence of mass and only in place where the mass is located?

The real cosmic space (vacuum) is not empty. There are gravitation fields, magnetic fields, photons, neutrinos, CMB, other electromagnetic radiations etc. Absolutely empty space (void) is only imagination.

It is known that constituents of all things can be divided in two groups: fermions and bosons. The space is necessary only for fermions. The bosons are self-sufficient and can exist independently.

The current contest is focused on questions related physics and cosmology. The Existence is concept of philosophy. Therefore, I do not consider it.

Regards,

Ilgaitis

attachments: New_concept_of_Space.pdf

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 14:22 GMT
Dear Ilgaitis,

The FQXi Contest is primarily a competition of new alternative ideas on the fundamental issues of knowledge (physics, mathematics, cosmology). In your deep essay, you give such new ideas. This is extremely important. Especially important are new alternative ideas in cosmology . Who will be right is only appreciated by time. I give your ideas the highest rating.

I wish you success in the Contest and in research!

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 23:35 GMT
Respected Ilgaitis Prusis

You wonderfully examined the question dealing with concepts and naturally occurring entities that are fundamental for general physics. Every one should learn these ideas... Best wishes for your essay...

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed...……..….. yours is very nice essay…. I highly appreciate hope your essay and hope for...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ilgaitis Prusis replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 09:13 GMT
Dear SNP Gupta,

Thank you for reading my essay. I downloaded your essay. To enter into your ideas need time. I will read it carefully and will answer you later.

Best regards,

Ilgaitis

Bookmark and Share



Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 08:59 GMT
Dear Ilgaitis

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ilgaitis Prusis replied on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 11:46 GMT
Dear Steven,

Thanks for visiting my FQXi Essay page.

I will read your essay carefully and comment it later.

Best regards

Ilgaitis

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 18:37 GMT
Ilgaitis,

From another realist, great essay. Enjoyable, spot on and entirely agree your conclusions. Scoring it (up) now.

I hope you get to read mine which has a shocking realism. If you follow the ontological mechanism carefully you'll find a classical QM. Nobody's found a flaw yet but that's no guarantee. (Declan Traill's short essay confirms it with a code and plot.)

But if you do get to it do read slowly from the middle on!

Q If 2 rotatable spinning particles meet and exchange momentum, will they give an output; 'SAME' or 'DIFFERENT' relative spin direction, or UP/DOWN !? (is there an 'up' in space anyway!?)

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.