CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]
TOPIC:
The Fundamental Science Which Lost … Its Own Fundament! by George Kirakosyan
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 21:33 GMT
Essay AbstractWe are talking here on the huge tragic misconception in theoretical physics - that can hardly be remedied in the near future.
Author BioGeorge (Gevorg) Kirakosyan was born 1950, in Armenia. Manager of engineering group in private company, Dubai, UAE. Associate specialist in Physics Department, State Engineering University, Yerevan, Armenia
Download Essay PDF File
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 01:57 GMT
Dear George Kirakosyan,
Thanks for your enjoyable essay. Except for one or two major points of difference, I agree with every word you say. Much of it is regularly discussed here, such as '
math as human creation' versus '
math as God'. And the current popular questioning of causality.
I like that you highlighted the fact that
"
Such eminent physicists as Planck, Schrödinger, Einstein, deBroglie, Heisenberg, Dirac as well as other luminaries have warned that physics transforms into a kind of doctrine that becomes beyond objective criticism by definition. It was quite obvious to them that the above innovation was nothing more than a political decision."
It is generally true that "
all of the old knights of honest science died of grief and the pragmatic scientific bookkeeping began to blossom uncontrollably."
You further note "
another section where physicists also have left aside the causal-logical discussion of phenomena is the so-called relativistic physics that is closely related to the problem of light velocity, with unexplainable properties of so-called 'space-time'…"
I like your suggestion of how to use superstrings. I think that it would be an excellent approach if all physics journals declared a year or two in which, aside from new experimental results,
all theoretical papers must offer
new theories, in detail. I believe that the result would be, as you say, "
you would probably not be looking for [the superstring-wrapped] trash in the future."
But tribal politics, individual investments, and other psycho-social aspects of reality will not allow such a moratorium to occur, so you're effectively just howling in the dark. I probably am also, but I nevertheless invite you to read my review of special relativity and look forward to your comments.
My very best regards, [I will score your paper later]
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Alan M. Kadin wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 02:56 GMT
Dear Dr. Kirakosyan,
I agree with you that there is something rotten in the state of quantum mechanics. You say that classical electromagnetic fields may provide a guide to fundamental physics, and I agree with that as well.
You might be interested in reading my essay,
“Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics”, in which I argue that both GR and QM have been fundamentally misunderstood, and that something close to classical physics should be restored. QM should not be a general theory of nature, but rather a mechanism for creating discrete soliton-like wavepackets from otherwise classical continuous fields. These same quantum wavepackets have a characteristic frequency and wavelength that define local time and space, enabling GR without invoking an abstract curved spacetime.
This neoclassical picture has no quantum entanglement, which has important technological implications. In the past few years, quantum computing has become a fashionable field for R&D by governments and corporations. But the predicted power of quantum computing comes directly from entanglement. I predict that the entire quantum computing enterprise will fail within about 5 years. Only then will the mainstream start to question the foundations of quantum mechanics.
Alan Kadin
report post as inappropriate
Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 03:49 GMT
George,
I agree with lost causality. I would add they also lost substance. My essay is tackling the problem from the old angle of “substance” and “Cause” under the rule of non-contradiction...
Best of luck,
Marcel,
report post as inappropriate
Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 07:17 GMT
Dears Eugene, Alan & Marcel
Thank you for attention!
I will answer you after small time in your pages!
Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 16:20 GMT
Dear George Kirakosyan,
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
post approved
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 00:45 GMT
I agree with your conclusion about seeking a causal principle. I would also say the idea the electromagnetic field has some fundamental aspect is also right. This is because as an abelian field theory it is at the center of what every larger gauge theoretic group one works with. I thought I would boost your vote grade here so maybe a few can read this as well.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 03:03 GMT
Dear Dr George Kirakosyan,
You are trying to go from classical electromagnetic fields to lost causality... is that so....? Dont take my words seriously please... By the way...
Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed...……..….. yours is very nice essay best wishes …. I highly appreciate hope your essay and hope for reciprocity ….You may please spend some of the...
view entire post
Dear Dr George Kirakosyan,
You are trying to go from classical electromagnetic fields to lost causality... is that so....? Dont take my words seriously please... By the way...
Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed...……..….. yours is very nice essay best wishes …. I highly appreciate hope your essay and hope for reciprocity ….You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance
Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :-No Isotropy
-No Homogeneity
-No Space-time continuum
-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy
-No singularities
-No collisions between bodies
-No blackholes
-No warm holes
-No Bigbang
-No repulsion between distant Galaxies
-Non-empty Universe
-No imaginary or negative time axis
-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes
-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically
-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition
-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models
-No many mini Bigbangs
-No Missing Mass / Dark matter
-No Dark energy
-No Bigbang generated CMB detected
-No Multi-verses
Here:
-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies
-Newton’s Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way
-All bodies dynamically moving
-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium
-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe
-Single Universe no baby universes
-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only
-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..
-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass
-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step
-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering
-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet
-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy
-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.
- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true….Have a look at
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.h
tml
I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information……..
Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.
In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from “http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ ”
I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you repliedBest
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Kirakosyan replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 04:31 GMT
Hi dear Gupta
Thank you for your attention to my work.
Your viewpoints are interesting for me, many of them I can welcome only, there is something also that we need to discussing. I will read your essay and I will answer in your page. Be sour my dear!
Regards,
George
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 12:56 GMT
Thank you for the mail Prof George
I am giving maximum appreciation you for your essay 10... Best wishes for the essay...
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 14:31 GMT
Dear George, The title of your essay is the same as the name of the beginning of my asse: "Fundamental without foundation." Your essay is written so convincingly that I would take it as the first chapter for New Cartesian physics.Look at my essay,
FQXi 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. Evaluate and leave your comment there. I highly value your essay; however, I'll give you a rating after viewing my essay Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which wants to be the theory of everything OO.
Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.
report post as inappropriate
Author George Kirakosyan replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 15:50 GMT
Thank you dear Boris for your interesting post.
I will read your work of course and I will comment it in your page.
Regards,
George
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 20:06 GMT
George,
That was fantastic and uplifting. I think and hope you'll be even more uplifted on reading mine!
Great lines;
"physics transforms into a kind of doctrine that becomes beyond objective criticism by definition." and;
"
“new physics” has lost its main analytical tool that was our ability of logical thinking."Maybe not for much longer! See also Declan Traill's short essay with code and plot., But more help is needed...
I hope we can chat on my string. Top marks I think!
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 12:34 GMT
George
Yes, I note you had posted and thanks for your support. I'd forgot I took yours with others away with me to read on a trip and left them & notes there. I hope to get them back soon.
Very best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 18:16 GMT
George,
just to say I think your comment;
“new physics” has lost its main analytical tool that was our ability of logical thinking is the comment of the constest, just above Chandra Royhaudhouri's "
physics progresses one funeral at a time' after Planck).
I think it's time to regain the right skills and escape from
"shut up and use your calculator" which only ever was a provisional measure while things were
"too difficult" to understand (Feynman). I hope a classic QM may help start a revolution - but maybe in a few eons! I hope you'll also support Decaln Traill's computer confirmation of the ontology in mine.
Score boost going on now.
Best of luck in the run-in & judging.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Declan Andrew Traill wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 23:11 GMT
George,
Indeed the Electromagnetic field is everything!
Particles of matter are 3D Electromagnetic standing waves as I have modeled here:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0054v6.pdf
And can explain the effects of Relativity, such as mass increase - shown here:
http://www.gpcpublishing.org/index.php/gjp/article/view
/409.
Thanks for your kind comment & vote on my essay. I have reciprocated in kind...
Regards,
Declan Traill
report post as inappropriate
Author George Kirakosyan replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 06:11 GMT
Dear Andrew,
I am just shocked with this:
//The wave functions presented here describe particles with all the correct properties for an Electron and a Positron and satisfy the requirements of both the Classical and Quantum Mechanical interpretations.// And with the "The rotating vectors" - that is the one effective greatest method! (Most of theorists never using this, but electrical engineers well know it!)
My dear I am just saying the same that you says! What ever you have don that is very right! I no need even to check up all your formulas to say this because your formulas derive from ideas that are out of doubt for me.
Just let me say you some important thing - You have still used the "elementary charge" and with this the electrical and magnetic constants. We must be free of them to be explain everything by el.mag field only. It is possible do by understanding the essence and hugest cognitive significance of alpha (1/137). Then everything will become for you clean as spring water! Please look my works (from reference in the end) there you can find what is alpha, then I believe you can finalized your works and bring it to the very comprehensive level to everybody. Why you - because I am not so well with math, also with English, and also I am not so young!
Best wishes!
Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 22:54 GMT
Hi George,
Good to be in another essay with you. I believe this is your best essay so far. I rate it highly because it brings out how an elite has kidnapped physics.
A recent example: A noted scientist Leo has criticized Roger another noted scientist. The criticism went like: -Roger you are correct, but ultimately misguided-. In my opinion Leo represents the physics mafia giving its warning: "Our principles are highest; honor, solidarity and vengeance".
I also get cynical about what I consider the strange physics abandonment of cause and effect. I try to appreciate it as story telling and/or poetry.
Thanks for your essay,
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Author George Kirakosyan replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 04:58 GMT
Hi Don
I am really happy to meet you here again and I am so thankful for your high opinion to my work. But I was thinking till now that you are only a witty critics of our unhappy science that deviated from right way. Excuse me, because I see now you have suggested your own serious approach to greatest mystery of gravity. This very intrigued to me, moreover I am also felt myself as a good friend of not ordinary Dr Roger Penrose!
So, you can be sure - I will carefully read and properly rate your nice work after small time! Best wishes my dear!
Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 07:07 GMT
Dear Don,
I have completed study your work and I have made my duty as I promised (but it is not very important in my view, as they do not preparing prizes for us!)
I can say you many nice words on your work, but both we are critics and we well realize that honest criticism are much more preferable than many empty favorable words.
Your approach can be interesting for specialists, of course, as an alternative way to construct gravity theory. But, if this can have some value for you, my opinion is that we need try to understand in first the essence (or, the physical nature) of gravity phenomenon. I mean - how to connect (to derive) the gravity parameters from known to us forms of materia?
In other words it means - how to get the value of Cavendish constant (gamma = 6.72 x 10^-11) from basic natural constants (c, h, pi, a=1/137).
The matter is there existing already huge quantity of different interpretations, connected with the field, with the ether, with the distorted space-time, with Mach principle, with hypothetical gravitons, or without that, etc. What is interesting here – in all of different kinds of interpretations have used this experimentally opened constant - without asking from where it comes and why it is this much and not other? (and here is the whole mystery of gravity!) And all of this theories has brought to almost the same quantitatively results! But, as a logical people, we can just conclude from aforesaid that actually we have deal with the different names of a same thing, which we can’t yet understand how need to name correctly!
What can I say you better than only that I already saying in my works! Just try to look those (from at last reference) in any best for you time.
Best wishes,
George
Andrei Kirilyuk wrote on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 13:24 GMT
Hello George,
I agree with your description of the critical problems of modern fundamental science originating in its loss of causality replaced by contradictory and broken abstract models, which provide only partial agreement with observations densely mixed with unsolvable "mysteries" and "paradoxes" (now growing in number). As you may have noted through my essay here, I am trying to propose a more coherent, problem-solving picture of reality with dynamically emerging entities and laws, and I believe that it is only such kind of causally complete description (including your own efforts) that can and will lead to the new kind of truly consistent fundamental knowledge.
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 07:55 GMT
Dear George,
Here we are again all together.
I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.
«physics, based on the unshakable fundamental causality principle». Great!
I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.
Vladimir Fedorov
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
report post as inappropriate
Author George Kirakosyan replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 08:23 GMT
Hi dear Vladimir,
It is nice to meet you again and saying thank you for attention!
Of course, I'll read and comment your work after short time.
I will return in your page.
Best wishes!
George
Christian Corda wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 18:18 GMT
Dear George,
Thanks for your visiting my Essay page.
Your wrote a very interesting, provocative and courageous Essay.
Classical and quantum are strongly connected with the issues of determinism and uncertainty. This discussion goes beyond physics as far as the fields of philosophy. It has also profound implications in the framework of unifications of theories. I strongly appreciated your citing Einstein and some of the other Founding Fathers of the 20th Century physics. From a historical point of view, Einstein believed that, in the path to unification of theories, Quantum Mechanics had to be subjected to a more general deterministic theory, which he called Generalized Theory of Gravitation, but he did not obtain the final equations of such a theory. At present, this point of view is partially retrieved by some theorists, starting from the Nobel Laureate G. ’t Hooft. I agree with both of Einstein and ’t Hooft and I understand that this is also your position. You are also correct in raising the issue that, today, science is sadly dominated by politics.
You wrote a nice and entertaining Essay, deserving my highest score.
Good luck in the Contest.
Cheers, Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Author George Kirakosyan replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 19:27 GMT
Thank you dear Christian, for your valuable comment.
I am happy with your huge respect to greatest Einstein that I am fully shared with you. On this I want added only that he was not only the talanted thinker and an succesfull scientist but he also one dramatic victim of the same politics, that continues endless.
But we need to hope!
Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 07:33 GMT
Dear George
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
Dear George
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 gain.
Beyond my essay’s introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity’s effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?
My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a “narrow range of sensitivity” that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn’t then gas accumulation wouldn’t be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.
Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn’t we consider this possibility?
For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we “life” are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.
My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.
By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.
To steal a phrase from my essay “A world product of evolved optimization”.
Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest
Kind regards
Steven Andresen
Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 05:55 GMT
George,
I'm sure you noted in my essay the pursuit of cause for the question of our beginnings and our existence and the utilization of various forms of electromagnetic force that has led to discovery whether searching for dark matter, dark energy, the first light in our universe, gravity waves, the big bang or just what set our universe in motion. As you suggest the key to our discovery has been the electromagnetic force at different energies. It seems to be the clue to a host of mysteries and causes in ferreting out what is fundamental, something that changes with discovery. In this contest we all contribute to a better understanding of what is fundamental, yours included and I score yours accordingly.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Author George Kirakosyan replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 06:30 GMT
Thank you very much, dear Jim.
You have interpreted everything mainly right.
I will answer some more detailed in your page after some time.
All the best!
corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 09:36 GMT
Very nicely written Mr. Kirakosyan!
I do like your peaceful way of putting things together from an axiomatic point of view. Further words are useless...
I read and rate it accordingly.
If you would have the pleasure to read a related essay (also starting from an axiom) I will fully appreciate.
Silviu
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 13:18 GMT
Dear Gevorg,
Your essay was fun, brilliant, well written, original, and insightful. My only criticism is that your criticism to physicists and their mathematics was too soft.
Best regards,
Cristi
report post as inappropriate
Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 07:48 GMT
To M-r Erik:
You says: //.. theoretical physics of today depends on more than 100 years old assumptions and interpretations of experiments, that are made in error. This article illustrates the need for more critical thinking to reveal old fundamental errors.//
In my view, in this lines contains the main cause of nowadays trouble and deep crisis of theoretical physics and I have tried say almost the same in my critical work. The fortune of critics however not so sweet and not so many people who want to hearing them. Your suggestions on possibility to using nowadays tech opportunities is very right and logic-natural. There however are other question - is this will favorable for the present rulers of modern science or not? We can imagine what huge changes can be follow if they will allow such kinds of global revision in the physics. So, I see the present science as one huge galleon that moves by inertia, which practically is impossible to stop and to change its course! So, I am very pessimistic that anybody will hearing you and me to over-viewed something. But we must try to do our duty hoping it can sometime to be listen. That is why I want to supporting you, (despite I am little bit doubtful to ether) I hope you will find time to check my work and to say some words, that will valuable to me.
So, I wish you successes in this contest!
Best regards
George Kirakosyan
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 08:54 GMT
Dear Gevorg, I came to the conclusion that the source of causation is the physical space, which for Descartes is a matter and the structure of which contains information about how the world will develop. The physical space is found the Foundation for fundamental theories.
I wish you success! Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 18:36 GMT
Dear George,
I read with great interest your extremely interesting and important critical essay, carried out in the spirit of a deep Cartesian doubt with ideas and an outcome that are aimed at overcoming the crisis of understanding in the philosophical foundations of science. The crisis in the foundations of science led eventually to a crisis in Global society. Today, more than ever, it is necessary to compete with fundamental ideas, primarily in
cosmology .... 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). I believe that today there is a need for a conceptual Ontological revolution, to which the crisis of understanding and the modern Information Revolution pushes. The key problem is the construction of a comprehensive structure of the "First Beginning" of the Universum or the Great Causal Structure. Look at my
ideas .
Best regards,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Robert D. Sadykov wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 08:07 GMT
Dear George Kirakosyan,
I agree with you that "physics transforms into a kind of doctrine that becomes beyond objective criticism by definition". Indeed, physics has become a very inertial science, which does not always notice big and small contradictions. Contradictions also exist in the sphere of relativity and gravity, for example, the problem of the energy of the gravitational field. On the other hand, inertia allows physics not to change the direction of development every few years, as happens with some other sciences. I agree with you that there are a lot of physical assumptions in quantum mechanics that are not logically related to one another. It remains to be hoped that quantum mechanics is at the very beginning of the path, and with time the situation is normalized.
Best wishes,
Robert Sadykov
report post as inappropriate
Author George Kirakosyan replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 10:54 GMT
Dear Robert
I am fully share your principles of judgments. It is very right your point about controversial of existing interpretation of gravity phenomena, especially on relation to non equality of different representation of gravity energy. It just show that the physical essence of gravity remains still yet unclear on 100% as it has in the time of Great Newton. The successes of GR as will as of many other alternative equal theories we must see as the technical advance only, that we need explain yet from the cognitive viewpoint. From this side, I think really that your approach can be very valuable - i.e. to look gravity as aftermath of some kinetic process.
This is not only empty-favorable words, but the dynamical imagination of gravity can be change everything in this sphere and bring to opening this unsolved great mystery of nature. Thus, I can surely tell that you move on the right way, then I need to wish you success in the contest.
Best Regards
P.S.
Check here
(Article) when you will find good time.
John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 20:05 GMT
George Kirakosyan
I have read your essay and I am very impressed. I find it important that you state that most of the really prominent scientists were very uncertain about their own ideas. I like your honest approach.
We both seem to be critical thinkers and are prepared to look backwards. Too many so called dissidents only want to INVENT new theories of their own. They are not good at DISCOVERING errors in existing theory.
Do not be too pessimistic. If we can point out a clear new way we can hope for a change.
Regarding the ether I will go further than you. The ether was abolished by someone new in physics, but the same person, after lifelong studies in physics as a professor, wanted the ether back.
Regards from ________________ John-Erik Persson
report post as inappropriate
Author George Kirakosyan replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 05:02 GMT
My dear Erik
It's nice to hearing you again, especially with the critical part of your works (and somewhat also of my). That is very remarkable that you honestly opposing to dominating majority, that is why I seen my duty to supporting you as much as it was possible. Thank you for your kindly words which really was valuable for me. And I am a little bit disappointed only that we have a certain difference on relation to ether. You mark that "I follow to patent engineer who had rejected the ether." I want just tell you here - sorry my dear it is not so, because the matter is more serious. By the way, Einstein actually does not remove the ether but he only declare this verbally. And the ether continued functioning in his theories .... just under new name! So, he has say one thing and actually doing an other thing. This fact noticed by other Jewish physicist Mario Rabinowitz - before of me. So, this matter is very interesting that has some history. If you wish then I can send you some references - after this battle of course. And now I can only wish you good healthy and wealthy, in your life!
My best wishes,
George
John-Erik Persson replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 12:02 GMT
George Kirakosyan
Thanks again for good words.
You may be right regarding the history behind ether. I am not well informed in that part. What is important is that we today need an ether to describe light and gravity.
We have had a good discussion and I think that some day we can point more clear in a new direction and truth will dominate.
With best regards from _______________ John-Erik Persson
report post as inappropriate
Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 12:55 GMT
Many thanks for kindly words and nice discussion!
John-Erik Persson wrote on Mar. 13, 2018 @ 18:12 GMT
George Kirakosyan
Thanks for interesting discussions. If you read this you may be interested in my last blog at:
blogBest regards from _____________ John-Erik Persson
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.