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

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 3/10/18 at 20:40pm UTC, wrote Dear Prof Chandra Sekhar Sir, I could not download or get any of the...

James Hoover: on 2/27/18 at 6:45am UTC, wrote Chankrasekhar, I think we are all hooked on these contests, maybe more for...

Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri: on 2/27/18 at 0:54am UTC, wrote James Lee Hoover Thanks, Jim, for pointing our similarity in thinking. ...

Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri: on 2/26/18 at 21:06pm UTC, wrote richard kingsley nixey Thank you Ricard,for your complement. Feel free...

richard nixey: on 2/26/18 at 19:52pm UTC, wrote Chandra, Great essay. I was directed to you from Peter Jacksons and glad I...

James Hoover: on 2/26/18 at 18:06pm UTC, wrote Chandra, Evolution of process and thought is high on my list as well, as...

Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri: on 2/25/18 at 18:51pm UTC, wrote Thank you, Dean Rickless, for the reference! I was not aware of...

Dean Rickles: on 2/25/18 at 9:24am UTC, wrote Dear Chandrasekhar, You might be interested to know that the idea that...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "It's difficult for the acrobats to see each other. I want a 3rd party..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Georgina Woodward: "Thinking observers are going to notice their own and the other's arms..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Lorraine Ford: "Ian, I’m sorry for going overboard on the “physicists think that”..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

andrea gonzalez: "Interesting stuff to read. Keep it up. If want to collect free gift card..." in Memory, Causality and...

Ian Durham: "Well, Lorraine, if you insist on seeing it that way, I doubt anything I say..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...

Poker Online: "https://www.jakartapoker.net/" in Downward causation:...

Enquire us: "Your Ro system desires regular maintenance to confirm it’s continually in..." in Agency in the Physical...


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
August 24, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: The concept of “fundamental” must keep evolving by Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 21:28 GMT
Essay Abstract

Physicists have been searching for the fundamental building blocks and the fundamental laws that govern the universe since ancient times. I will define those sets of building blocks and those sets of laws of interactions as fundamental, which are minimum in number and yet models and explains the maximum number of observable phenomena. We have not found such minimal sets. Because we face a permanent information retrieval problem. No finite set of experiment can extract complete information about any particular object. In our evidence (data) gathering experiments, we study an unknown object by letting it interact with a “known” object. We never know any object completely. So we are forced to approximate, assume, etc. We can keep refining our knowledge through diverse iterations. Mathematical theory is immensely helpful. However, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem gives us another limiting block. Hence, our search for fundamental building blocks and fundamental laws of interactions must keep evolving. How to guide this evolution? A working theory, based upon human created postulates and human invented mathematical theories do not automatically guarantee that we can grasp the ontological reality of the universe. We need to adopt system engineering thinking to keep us grounded to ontological reality. If an instrument works, then the working rules behind it are allowed by nature. This is not always true for working mathematical theories. I give an example on how the system engineering thinking, or Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E) applied to mathematical Superposition Principle vs. experimentally observable Superposition Effect, helped me re-discover Non-Interaction of Wave in the absence of interacting media. This has led me to appreciate that space is a Complex Tension Filed (CTF), since it allows both the EM waves and particles to emerge as diverse kinds of its oscillations. CTF is the fundamental field that generates the

Author Bio

ChandraSekhar Roychoudhuri is a Research Professor at the Univ. of Connecticut. He came to USA as a Fulbright Scholar and did his PhD from the Institute of Optics, University of Rochester. He spent 14 years in industries (TRW, Perkin Elmer and United Technologies). His last position in industry was, Chief Scientist, Optics and Advanced Technology Lab, Optical Systems, United technologies. He also served both OSA and SPIE as one of their Board of Directors. Chandra has carried out a wide range of basic experiments on light-matter interaction processes over several decades and re-discovered the generalized property: Non-Interaction Waves (NIW).

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 19:14 GMT
Chandra,

I'd almost given up hope of seeing you here this year. I've printed you essay and will revert, but you already have some points for the abstract (even though it was missing the whole observable universe!!). ..i.e.

"We never know any object completely. So we are forced to approximate, assume, etc. .. Yet so many forget that's how our foundational theories and beliefs are constructed. And;

"We need to adopt system engineering thinking to keep us grounded to ontological reality.

So true. In doing just that I have an apparently shocking result this year which I'd greatly value your assessment of. (please do also look at Declan Trails matching code and plot).

Very Best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 19:27 GMT
Peter:

It is good to learn that you have found my essay.

I am eagerly looking forward to detailed critique.

Chandra.

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 12:38 GMT
Chandra,

Detailed critique is rare & valuable hereabouts but I'll try my best.

Overall? Quite brilliant and pleasurable in all aspects & scoring criteria. I agree your "Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology" (IPM-E) would be a valuable tool and hope I've applied it well in my own essay to apparently powerful effect.

You identify well the 'success rut' flawed theory creates and new way of thinking required. I'm in the midst of discussing an SR distinguishability experiment on the LinkedIn 'Theoretical Physics' blog right now. Do take a look. I agree yours is good.

There are a handful of things in areas I've researched inconsistent with my conclusions and coherent rationale, some published. Lets discuss in turn;

1. Stationary Background. As shown by George Smoot (Nobel work), others and NASA & Planck data there's an infinite hierarchy of LOCAL 'stationary' backgrounds, NOT just one universal one. That also unlocks a lot of other anomalies. I don't think it detracts from your case but should strengthen it.

2.'Emission theory' is then consistent in Maxwell's 'near field' but his transition zone is only

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 23:11 GMT
Peter:

Let me comment only one point.

STATIONARY BACKGROUND:

I would appreciate a good reference to Smoot’s “LOCAL 'stationary' backgrounds” related article.

In my essay, I am claiming that there exists only one cosmic stationary background, Complex Tension Field (CTF), which is the FOUNDATION of the entire universe. It holds 100% of the cosmic energy as electromagnetic tensions, which is also capable of sustaining other various potential gradients (forces) generated by the vortex-like self-looped oscillations of this CTF. I am calling the stable, in-phase oscillations as field-particles. EM waves are linear excitation and hence keep traveling forever at “c”, leveraging Maxwell’s “epsilon-not” and “mu-not”. The field particles follow Newton’s first law. They stay as stationary self-looped oscillations, unless acted upon by a potential gradient generated by another field-particle. Newton’s second law comes out of these potential gradients. However, there are no Newtonian “mass” as the “substance contained in the rigid body”; recall m = E/c2. The mass is not an immutable property of anything in this universe. The self-looped oscillation stays manifest with the energy E=hf, where f is the self-looped oscillation frequency. However, the self-looped oscillation must stay in phase to preserve its stability. This has given Schrodinger the mistaken sense of a plane wave, exp [i2πft]. It is just a harmonic oscillator, albeit with quite complex spatial form.

Chandra.

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 11:41 GMT
Chandra,

Are you familiar with Lanikea? You should be, you live there. And the 'Great Attractor'? Mapping of the universe shows there's no ONE single absolute rest frame or background medium at rest but a hierarchy of complex flows at very different speeds and directions. It's not just matter moving IN space (unless you think Earth is unique or central in the universe, so the only place NOT doing millions of kph!) it's whole systems, including any background, 'flowing'. Indeed the logic only works if thought of as the flow 'carrying' the condenses 4% of baryonic litter.

Smoot only analysed up to our local group but had to invoke; 'Frame last scattered' concept. An early paper with Scott included a contorted explanation proving flawed; http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0601307v1.pdf Here's a very good short video going way beyond that; Dynamic flow model of the universe.

Your model needn't change apart from recognising the valid backgrounds are always LOCAL. Sure, the centre will have a rest frame but with zero relevance locally. Speed c is local and a relative quality. (Even most astronomers struggle to understand and apply that as it varies relativistic interpretations - as would yours but less consistently with observation).

Also a Planck paper on 'Bulk Flows' here I haven't re studied yet; On the Statistical Significance of the Bulk Flow Measured by the PLANCK Satellite.

I have an overwhelming stack of stuff on various aspect but hope the above helps. I'm sure you'll see the logic.

Your score seems to need a deserved boost so I'll apply mine now.

Very best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 22:49 GMT
Peter:

I am certainly thankful that you are taking time to give me further references to educate me on Astrophysics (and Cosmology). I sure need to read up more on these.

I have just looked at the paper, referred by you, written by F. Atrio-Barandela. These LOCAL velocities appears to be based upon Cosmological Redshift measurements. My model for the Redshift is dominantly due to the linear distant dependent dissipative loss of energy of the EM weaves. It is not due to Expanding Universe. However, I do accept various LOCAL movements of galaxies and their clusters. My model preserves Hubble Constanta, to accept all Redshift measurements. I explain why the Doppler Shift model is untenable in the papers #2013.4 and #2013.5. Please, download from my web: {Link:http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/].

Please, quickly read the last paragraph of the FQXi essay, section on "Conclusion and Comment". I believe, we need to find funding to organize a separate research organization, like Perimeter Institute; but devoted to rebuild physics from the very bottom up, starting from the Newtonian Mechanics. Any thoughts on this?

Chandra.

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 17:59 GMT
Chandra,

I agree on redshift, indeed I have a great 3D geometry consistent with a 'discrete field' model naturally producing redshift with expansion of the Schrodinger 'light sphere' surface. Video here; Time Dependent Redshift..& implications

But that's just 'distance'. Peculiar velocities are quite valid. The point is one of logic, distinguishing one 'absolute' background frame (nonsense)from heirarchical LOCAL backgrounds consistent with Minkowski and Einsteins descriptions and SR's postulates (just NOT interpretation!). My other essays here and papers better rationalise and identify overwhelming evidence of the plasma/shock TZ 'surfaces last scattered').

I couldn't find an 'FQXi essay, section on "Conclusion and Comment". Directions? I agree entirely but am not holding my breath on funding. I'm semi retired with houses DB7 & yacht paid for so have time without funding. Indeed I have a small collaboration already which you'd be very welcome to join. We'd first need to review each others papers & eliminate disagreement. I think consortia have 10 times the power of any 'one man theory'. I found yours tricky to find and access. Most of mine are here; Academia.edu/JacksonP

I've explored implication in a wide range of areas and resolutions to anomalous findings do keep flowing out! One big tome is half written and I have a queue of important papers to write; i.e. solving the Stellar Aberration and serious 'Ecliptic Plain' problems. i.e. read p6 here carefully; http://aa.usno.navy.mil/publications/docs/Circular_179.pdf

We must stay in close touch this time. Great to see your essay rising.

Very best.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 11:58 GMT
Dear ChandraSekhar Roychoudhuri, you just barely got to the point at which the New Cartesian Physics begins. You did not notice the identity space and matter of Descartes’, which allows you to affirm that the formula mass-energy equivalence follows from the existence of the pressure of the universe. I agree that 100% of the energy of the universe is in this universal field of CTF, but I notice that humanity has always extracted only it, the other is not.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 19:18 GMT
Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich:

Many thanks for acknowledging that the Complex Tension Filed (CTF) holds 100% of the cosmic energy as “various complex” tensions. Thanks also for underscoring the new developments that you have carried out in “Cartesian Physics”. Sorry, I was not aware of this. I will read your essay and other contributions.

Sincerely,

Chandra.

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 19:53 GMT
Respected Prof Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri sab,

Wonderful words ...."Physicists have been searching for the fundamental building blocks and the fundamental laws that govern the universe since ancient times. I will define those sets of building blocks and those sets of laws of interactions as fundamental, which are minimum in number and yet models and explains the maximum number of observable...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 13:42 GMT
Respected Prof Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri sab,

Thank you for your wonderful Blessings.. and Thank you for these nice words...

I got some questions....

Why Astrophysics and cosmology became "professional"?

Why should these became a religion-like-belief that "the foundation of the edifice of physics has been laid out by GR and QM"?

Why they became , Such controlling culture, which allows only the creation or invention of "new bricks and/or stones that will fit into the existing edifice? Why the GR and QM are extracting only partial truth of nature? Why this science became religion or culture?

Yes I am also very happy that that FQXi is helping to open up enquiring minds again.

Can you please tell me the truth of some these "why"s, I did not really understand them........?

Thank you for your blessings once again sir for Blissful words..."you have developed some logically self-consistent model that are not predicted by the prevailing theories."

Best Regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 18:10 GMT
Dear “SNP”:

“Why they became , Such controlling culture, which allows only the creation or invention of "new bricks and/or stones that will fit into the existing edifice? Why the GR and QM are extracting only partial truth of nature? Why this science became religion or culture?”

I am again impressed by your persistent enquiring mind generating newer questions. That is the key...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 17:16 GMT
Respected Prof Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri Sab,

Thank you for an elaborate nice explanation of present status….

Your excellent words……………….

………….. your persistent enquiring mind generating newer questions. That is the key to perpetual evolution of human minds. However, this was consciously discouraged by human tribal leaders around the globe once they...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 13:46 GMT
Respected sir,

Thank you for the nice analyzing reply and your kind Blessings... I am giving 10, it was 6.6 earlier and now it is 7.2 after 10... Best wishes for the essay....

Best Regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 22:01 GMT
Nicely written, MR. Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri!

Read and rated. Further words are useless

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

corciovei silviu replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 22:05 GMT
if you are interested in a related essay, here you have it

Respectfully, Silviu

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Declan Andrew Traill wrote on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 02:05 GMT
A nice essay. I think you would be interested in my 2012 FQXi essay titled "A Classical Reconstruction of Relativity" located here:

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1363

And my work on modelling the electron/positron wavefunctions as 3D standing waves, located here: http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0054v6.pdf

I also have an essay in this year's contest titled "A Fundamental Misunderstanding" about a Classical explanation for QM entanglement (EPR experiment).

Regards,

Declan Traill

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 18:33 GMT
Dear Professor Chandra Roychoudhuri

I was dazzled by your wonderful perception of the Complex Tension Field.

It is just wonderful.

You are so right also when you say “No working theory is complete. No knowledge is final knowledge.”, and of course this counts also for your approach, but each new vision has to have a beginning and you have realised already the first...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 01:59 GMT
"No finite set of experiment can extract complete information about any particular object. In our evidence (data) gathering experiments , we study an unknown object by letting it interact with a “known” object . We never know any object completely. So we are forced to approximate, assume, etc. We can keep refining our knowledge through diverse iterations. Mathematical theory is immensely...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 00:15 GMT
Juan Ramón González Álvarez;

Thank you for wising me on several issues. I will ponder on some of them.

However, it does appear that we have strongly different opinions about the current state of the physics theories.

To remain brief, let me mention that I am not personally fond of "tired light". However, I do disagree with the notion that the expanding space creates...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 06:50 GMT
Dear Chandrasekhar

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


Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 02:23 GMT
Hi Chandra,

We are both after the same fundamental. There are differences in our approach, and I believe they may be of value to you. What you outlined should be investigated experimentally with a funded organization.

Do visit my essay and let me know what you think.

Wishing you success in the essay,

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Dean Rickles wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 09:24 GMT
Dear Chandrasekhar,

You might be interested to know that the idea that fundamental is that which "minimizes the number of necessary postulates and maximizes the number of observed phenomena covered", though not related to fundamentality in philosophical contexts is essentially identical to the philosophers' "Mill-Ramsey-Lewis" account of laws: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laws-of-nature/#Sys.

Best,

Dean

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 18:51 GMT
Thank you, Dean Rickless, for the reference!

I was not aware of "Mill-Ramsey-Lewis" philosophy. Actually, I have never read any serious philosophy. I am an experimental physicist.

I will read your citation carefully and cite them as references in my future articles.

Re-realization of patterns in nature has been happening for thousands of years, which is a good sign that ancient people were at least as smart as we think we are!

Chandra.

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 18:06 GMT
Chandra,

Evolution of process and thought is high on my list as well, as well as a cosmological approach. We do tend to leverage knowledge of the past w/o remapping what we presently learn for present and future concepts. As our tools of learning are updated (LIGO, for example) we can apply new paradigms of discovery as what is fundamental evolves with this knowledge. System engineering tools are aptly utilized in this process, as I garnered from my aerospace days. Hope you get a chance to check out my essay, as well. High marks for your cogent essay on an ever-evolving fundamental.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri replied on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 00:54 GMT
James Lee Hoover

Thanks, Jim, for pointing our similarity in thinking.

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

Chandra.Roychoudhuri@uconn.edu

I will read your essay soon.

Sincerely,

Chandra.

Bookmark and Share



richard kingsley nixey wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 19:52 GMT
Chandra,

Great essay. I was directed to you from Peter Jacksons and glad I came. Little chance to discuss now but I really don't understand why it's so low. Top job and top rating going on.

Richard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 21:06 GMT
richard kingsley nixey

Thank you Ricard,for your complement.

Feel free to contact me for detailed discussions if you feel there is collaboration potential:

Chandra.Roychoudhuri@uconn.edu

Chandra.

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 06:45 GMT
Chankrasekhar,

I think we are all hooked on these contests, maybe more for the forum and the exchange of great ideas than anything else.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 10, 2018 @ 20:40 GMT
Dear Prof Chandra Sekhar Sir,

I could not download or get any of the essays in your web page.... I saw

https://soundcloud.com/syntalk/tdal-the-darkness-around-l
ight-syntalk

Can you please send some essay or paper which will be clarifying some of the fundamental concepts your work to me to

snp.gupta@gmail.com

Do you say light rays are different from other electromagnetic radiation ?

Hope you will not mind my questions now....

Best

=snp

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.