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

Juan Ramón González Álvarez: on 3/10/18 at 23:06pm UTC, wrote It isn't true that the bottom up approach "has already been challenged over...

Steven Andresen: on 2/22/18 at 7:17am UTC, wrote Dear Neil If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the...

Vladimir Fedorov: on 2/22/18 at 6:54am UTC, wrote Dear Neil, I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 2/21/18 at 8:25am UTC, wrote The consciousness of the people resists the recognition of the identity of...

Neil Bates: on 2/17/18 at 22:30pm UTC, wrote Dear Christophe, That is a difficult question in principle, but there is a...

Christophe Tournayre: on 2/11/18 at 6:29am UTC, wrote Dear Neil, I found your essay interesting, not easy to read due to the...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 2/7/18 at 13:13pm UTC, wrote Dear Prof Neil Bates Excellant analysis ...... However, the historical...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 2/6/18 at 18:19pm UTC, wrote YEP! just tested it in my own forum and the "n" problem is there as...


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: Meetings by Neil Bates [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Neil Bates wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 22:34 GMT
Essay Abstract

Seeking "the fundamental" has often been seen as a narrowing, a process of whitling down. For example, many physicists try to find or theorize the "most fundamental" constitutents (quarks, strings etc.) and explain everything else through them, from the ground up. However, the historical development of quantum mechanics as well as some proposals by the author, suggest that entities are not things in themselves. Instead, their character and perhaps even their existential status, depend on interactions and relationships among them.

Author Bio

My experience has been varied, including work at Jefferson Lab in Virginia. Formally I am an amateur interested in foundational questions.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Author Neil Bates wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 01:55 GMT
Readers: First, my apologies that a not-quite-ready draft pdf got submitted instead of a finished version. So, there are some little flaws, including reference to non-existent illustrations (I couldn't get them to work but the description is adequate), and a sort of homeless citation. These are of little consequence, and I hope you will find my essay interesting and thought-provoking.

Bookmark and Share



Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 03:28 GMT
Neil,

In my opinion, any continuous variable will become quantized under constraint. So, The world is a world of "meetings."`is rather a world of freedom. Lose some freedom and you get quantized. For example, the *direction* of a photon wave is “Free” within its normal distribution.

But, under the constraint of the slits, *direction* become quantized, a quantum number. This comes from the fact that the infinity tails of the normal distribution are shopped-up in the slits, providing now definite boundaries within which a specific regime of wave function can be realized and in which *direction* is now quantized. This makes the double slit experiment a fundamental quantum experiment .. a microscope ..showing . ... quantization on a macroscopic screen...

Best of luck,

Marcel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Neil Bates replied on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 22:25 GMT
Marcel,

Thanks for your interest and reply. Yes, direction is important in slit experiments, altho relative phase hitting the slits is the key distinction that the decoherence activists emphasize. Do you have an essay, other work I could look at? tx

Bookmark and Share



Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 11:12 GMT
Dear Neil Bates, if you are not as old as I, then everything is ahead of you. Doing such thought experiments and reasoning as in an essay, you can go to the main road in physics. In this you will get acquainted with neo-Cartesian physics, which is based on the identity of space and matter of Descartes. He says that space is this matter that rotates. Visit my essay and you will find out what radical changes it offers, give a comment and you will get my rating.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Neil Bates replied on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 22:28 GMT
Dear Dizhechko, I will look at your essay soon. Yes, thought-experiments are a royal road to insight. I'm interested in considering anything that offers radical change. Will watch Super Bowl shortly. Actually I'm already 62 but I still want to believe that the best is still ahead.

Bookmark and Share


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 08:25 GMT
The consciousness of the people resists the recognition of the identity of space and matter Descartes, because they used to think that I live in an empty space – it is convenient for them. While there was no reason to think otherwise. However, there will come a time when the level of education of the people will depend on their understanding of this identity. This requires the necessity to eliminate the difficulties in science. Fundamental should save our thinking, i.e. to be simple and straightforward. Physical space, which for Descartes is a matter that is the basis for fundamental theories in science.

You might like to look at the sky and it seems to you empty infinite space in which it moves large and small body. However, this impression is deceptive. According to the principle of identity of space and matter Descartes, space is matter that moves. When Copernicus asserted that the Earth revolves around the Sun, it had, according to Descartes, to add that along with the Earth revolves around the Sun, all the solar space. Space is what built the world.

If the believer to ask, where is God? He will answer – in the sky. When you look into infinite space and I think that is the body of God, that needs to be asked, and how it works? The answer is simple, all the changes around and our weight is the result of his actions. In space contains information about changing the world. Time is a synonym of total traffic

Look at my page, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which can to be the theory of everything OO.

Sincerely, Boris.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan M. Kadin wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 19:07 GMT
Dear Mr. Bates,

You make a number of interesting points in your essay. Your discussion of quantum interference and diffraction reminds me of a paper by Van Vliet that I cite in my own essay. Van Vliet argued that quantum diffraction measurements are not really coherent diffraction in the same sense as classical diffraction. On the contrary, if one regards the mask as a quantum object, then quantum restrictions on momentum transfer generate the standard result regardless of whether the incident beam consists of particles or waves. This is important, but has received virtually no recognition. I take this further and argue that a neutron is a small particle (never a wave), while an electron is a distributed wave (never a point particle), although both show diffraction effects. So wave-particle duality is an illusion.

You may be interested in reading my essay, “Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics”. I argue that both GR and QM have been fundamentally misunderstood, and that something close to classical physics should be restored, reunifying physics that was split in the early 20th century. 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.

Best wishes,

Alan Kadin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Neil Bates replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 16:56 GMT
Alan,

Thanks for commenting. I'll take a look at your essay. I already am wondering: if an electron can be essentially wave-like but a neutron essentially particle-like, where is the transition? So, would a muon (mass about 200x electron and about 1/6 of neutron) be intermediate? BTW reminder to you all other readers to note my SRT mechanics paradox too, not just the QM examples. Cheers.

Bookmark and Share



Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 01:48 GMT
Neil,

I have an essay in the present contest.

When nature put the squeeze on the freedom of a particle, like electrons in an atom, their variables get quantised; energy levels, etc,

Similarly, when we apply constraint by observation on the freedom of particles or photons, we create a temporary quantisation of the variable under observation. This variable will then take specific values.

By applying constraint, we create boundaries that define new realities that will last as long as the constraint does. Please check Ken Wharton idea of boundaries as fundamentals.

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Neil Bates wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 17:17 GMT
Uh oh, now I see that entering a hard return makes an "n" between words - but Alan, somehow you evaded that. FQXi can you fix that? Also, we used to be able to edit comments, is that gone?

Bookmark and Share



Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 18:11 GMT
Neil,

I think Allan posted before the problem appeared... I had no problem posting before..

Narcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 18:19 GMT
YEP! just tested it in my own forum and the "n" problem is there as well... I use Chrome...???

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 13:13 GMT
Dear Prof Neil Bates

Excellant analysis ...... However, the historical development of quantum mechanics as well as some proposals by the author, suggest that entities are not things in themselves. Instead, their character and perhaps even their existential status, depend on interactions and relationships among them..... Nice work sir, best wishes to your research.....

Here in my...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christophe Tournayre wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 06:29 GMT
Dear Neil,

I found your essay interesting, not easy to read due to the formatting. In your opinion, what would prevent assuming that a relationship is an entity?

Kind regards,

Christophe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Neil Bates replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 22:30 GMT
Dear Christophe,

That is a difficult question in principle, but there is a good answer that can be made without excessive effort. Since I am arguing that a relationship is an entity, I must shift gears to support a critique of that claim. I think a good simple answer for now is: if relationships did not have ontological consequences of note, such as the effective presentment of quantum entities as particles or waves depending upon the nature of interaction (or, the more subtle distinctions of my own essay), then we could say that relationships were not efficacious enough for their results to count as "entities" in some sense. But, we know that relationships do indeed have such radical consequences.

Yet the critic can still say: "but it is the 'same' entity, since we can find them being 'the same thing' as produced in ensemble" - to which I (now back to being myself, a defender of the thesis) reply: but if a something has different properties, it is effectively a "different thing" even if it has so-called "numerical identity" as not being a truly separate entity.

IOW, we consider the entities "the same" in the sense of tracking them from origins etc (numerical identity), but "not the same" in the sense of "what are they *like*. QM forces us to consider two different notions of "identity" and being a "thing". Finally: it may nevertheless be better to say that relationships make entities "relative things" rather than that the relationships are "entities" in themselves - but still, the difference is blurred in practice regardless of how one wants to conceptualize it or make the semantics work out.

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 06:54 GMT
Dear Neil,

I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.

It is so close to me. «The other reason is the widespread pursuit of realist and neo-determinist approaches» «Now we ask: what does all this mean? As I said, I am not attempting to put together a specific theory or detailed conclusion, but rather to challenge the concept of simplicity and isolation of the constituents of our world. It is clear that "interactions" or meetings are fundamental, and yet it does not mean we are defining "reality" in terms of ensembles».

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


Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 07:17 GMT
Dear Neil

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


Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Mar. 10, 2018 @ 23:06 GMT
It isn't true that the bottom up approach "has already been challenged over the last century or so". The approach continues working fine.

"each emitted wave function". Wavefunctions aren't waves they cannot be emitted.

dp/dt=qE is valid for the average momentum not for the fluctuating p.

SR doesn't apply to extended bodies as the wheel. The no-interaction theorem states that LI is not valid for particles with permanent interactions.

Photons don't change mass of wheels. Mass is constant and given by E_0/c^2. Photons change E not E_0.

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.