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

John-Erik Persson: on 3/13/18 at 18:12pm UTC, wrote George Kirakosyan Thanks for interesting discussions. If you read this you...

George Kirakosyan: on 2/26/18 at 12:55pm UTC, wrote Many thanks for kindly words and nice discussion!

John-Erik Persson: on 2/26/18 at 12:02pm UTC, wrote George Kirakosyan Thanks again for good words. You may be right regarding...

George Kirakosyan: on 2/26/18 at 5:02am UTC, wrote My dear Erik It's nice to hearing you again, especially with the critical...

John-Erik Persson: on 2/25/18 at 20:05pm UTC, wrote George Kirakosyan I have read your essay and I am very impressed. I find...

Peter Jackson: on 2/25/18 at 18:16pm UTC, wrote George, just to say I think your comment; “new physics” has lost...

George Kirakosyan: on 2/25/18 at 10:54am UTC, wrote Dear Robert I am fully share your principles of judgments. It is very...

Robert Sadykov: on 2/25/18 at 8:07am UTC, wrote Dear George Kirakosyan, I agree with you that "physics transforms into a...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "Isn't symmetry simply closely related to redundancy even if physicist may..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Robert Rise: "Meet many types of women on ihookup. Some dates better than others. It is..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Steve Dufourny: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...


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
October 23, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: The Fundamental Science Which Lost … Its Own Fundament! by George Kirakosyan [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 21:33 GMT
Essay Abstract

We are talking here on the huge tragic misconception in theoretical physics - that can hardly be remedied in the near future.

Author Bio

George (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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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,

Bookmark and Share
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!

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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!

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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!

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share



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.

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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.

Bookmark and Share
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!

Bookmark and Share



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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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!

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share


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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 12:55 GMT
Many thanks for kindly words and nice discussion!

Bookmark and Share



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:

blog

Best regards from _____________ John-Erik Persson

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.