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

richard nixey: on 2/26/18 at 21:32pm UTC, wrote Bashir, I agree, we need to hunt down the dogma! Nice essay. Well done. ...

Maxim Khlopov: on 2/26/18 at 12:32pm UTC, wrote Dear Bashir Yusuf, Thank you for your interesting essay and discussion of...

Peter Jackson: on 2/25/18 at 16:10pm UTC, wrote Bashir, Thanks for your nice comment and understanding of mine, I agree...

Robert Sadykov: on 2/25/18 at 10:15am UTC, wrote Dear Bashir Yusuf, I thank you for commenting on my essay. Your essay...

Peter Jackson: on 2/24/18 at 10:36am UTC, wrote Bashir, Now I'm getting confused. Too many essays! It wasn't Yee it was...

Peter Jackson: on 2/23/18 at 20:31pm UTC, wrote Bashir, Nice essay, glad I got to it. I think you covered the ground well...

Bashir Yusuf: on 2/23/18 at 18:58pm UTC, wrote Dear Steve Dufourny, Kamal Rajpal and Steven Andresen. Thank you for...

Steven Andresen: on 2/22/18 at 6:30am UTC, wrote Dear Bashir If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jason Wolfe: "Hi Georgina, Steve, What is reality? The humorous answer, almost at the..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Jason Wolfe: "Joe, What you are saying sounds like mathematics. But mathematics doesn't..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Jason, You can only unnaturally make an infinite number of finite written..." in First Things First: The...

Jason Wolfe: "As for religious fundamentalists, I would rather deal with them, then with..." in More on agency from the...

Jason Wolfe: "The best we can do with the environment is to plant more trees and..." in More on agency from the...

gmail login: "Thanks a lot for the post. It has helped me get some nice ideas. I hope I..." in Bonus Koan: A Lake of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, I don't think the quantum representation of the hydrogen atom is an..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

SAJ Real Estate: "Nice one. Real Estate Sales St Kitts" in A Close Encounter


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
November 17, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: FUNDAMENTAL SINGULARITY OF ALL PHYSICAL SCIENCE. by Bashir M. Yusuf [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Bashir Yusuf wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 19:00 GMT
Essay Abstract

This approach tries step forward physics by proposing a new way to look matter and address some dogmatic issues that required to be solved by right interpretation this new theory is simple and may explain all physical phenomenon, and most Nature' underlying fundamentals. Philosophy which was guidance of physical science, since physics and mathematics was a part of natural philosophy before 20th century. Science get developed well time after time, but after the beginning of 20th century we have already experienced imbalance of the knowledge, this means that experimental physics, and mathematics may extremely advanced and be more complex than it's logical meaning, as theoretical part decreases and perhaps will finally be forgotten near future. This aproach points out some risks may go a limit that we can't make any explanation about the Nature fundamental issues. In other words, what was simple to understand before long time is the most difficult one today. Through the advancement and it's complicity the Experimental physics and Mathematics may finally illimitable theoretecal physics and all philosophical views..

Author Bio

Bashir M. Yusuf. Msc Electronics Engeneering, Puntland State University Galkayo Punland Somalia.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 09:53 GMT
Dear Bashir M. Yusuf, in new-Cartesian physics, corpuscles is three-dimensional vortices that, under the influence of the pressure of the Universe, unite into bodies. It recognizes two fundamental forces: the force of the pressure of the universe and the centrifugal force of rotation of space. The remaining forces are their combinations and superposition’s that arise when the corpuscles are combined into bodies. The Coulomb law and Newton's law of gravitation have a common in the inverse square of the distance, and so the surface of the sphere can vary. Consequently, they can be generalized by the Gaussian Law. The law of equivalence of mass and energy in the new-Cartesian physics of corpuscles is explained by the fact that the centrifugal force in the vortex is balanced by the force of the Universe pressure.

Sincerely, Boris

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 18:40 GMT
It is absurd to consider a fundamental particle is an indivisible atom. This terminology only can create confusion.

The photon is no more fundamental than the electron. At contrary one can eliminate all photons from electrodynamic theory and stay with a theory of direct action among charged particles, but one cannot eliminate electrons and use only a theory of photons.

Photons do not have mass.

Dark matter does not exist. It is only a fictitious matter added to the equations to compensate for the lack of certian dynamical terms.

The popular concept of wave-particle duality is based in a missunderstanding of quantum mechanics. The electron is a particle, an elementary particle, and it always behaves as a particle.

Visual representation of the double slit experiment.

We can detect the arrival of individual electrons, and see how the diffraction pattern emerges as a statistical pattern made up of many small spots. This pattern, a wave-like pattern, is property of the whole ensemble of particles.

One cannot claim that protons and protons are hold togheter by strong force, but gravity helds togheter protons and neutrons.

It is not true that chemical bonding only explains ionic bonding. And van der Waals binding is a particular case of chemical forces.

There are many more issues, but I stop here.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Bashir Yusuf wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 02:16 GMT
Dear All

Error correction at; "Some historical events.

Sir. Isac Newton set the matter in action. He formulated the theory Of Gravity. Theory that is based particles in universe attract, and Henry Cavendish made experimental confirmation later."

Sorry for the names confusion here; Chadwick instead of Cavendish that was just writing mistake.

Dear Dizhechko...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Jouko Harri Tiainen wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 04:09 GMT
Sadly your PDF makes the words very difficult to read.

Your one indivisible atom sounds very odd to me, that means there are no true independents in your model and all collapses to solipsism or one atom as you put it. You do not have a "bird's eye" view to see all, hence you can only establish "relative truths" in your model. We all have "Frog's view" that is within the one atom. Hence we can only have "collective solipsism" which is strictly an oxymoron. I think you should address these issues more directly. Also your model cannot account for why there seems to be "places far away" from us that don't seem to be in temporal communication with us yet are needed by the theory. Also the quantum property of monogamy cannot be established in your model, (how system and subsystem are connected).

If you have time please have a look at my essay What is fundamental is the area of the imaginary unit" -- it looks at global geometric monogamy in one model where we can have both the bird and frog viewpoint at once.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Bashir Yusuf wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 23:03 GMT
Dear Tiainen

Regarding your comment at my current essay;https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3143

Sorry that the changed terms in different feilds of knowledge and interpretations have lost most important fundamental terms of physics discipline, that are necessary to define What is fundamental in physics.

"Your one indivisible atom sounds very odd to me"

I didnt mean...

view entire post


attachments: 4_Bashir_Quantum_Mech_and_Relativity_Theory.pdf

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 02:06 GMT
Dear Bashir,

You cover many aspects of physics in your essay. I interpret your "indivisible atom" to be the fundamental "substance", which you seem to postulate to be the photon. You say all other composite particles have two key categories, "charge and neutral". My suggestion would be to focus on mass and charge, in terms of gravitational fields and electromagnetic fields, as described in equation 1 in my essay. You state that "strong and weak force are both a gravitational force." Since gravitation interacts with itself, while the electromagnetic field does not have charge, so does not interact with itself, we have a linear field and an interacting nonlinear field. I do not believe the situation has been sufficiently explored, but mine is a minority view. Your intuition seems to be good, but I do not believe your basic model will take you as far as you wish to go. Perhaps focus on the non-linearity of gravity in high-density situations will be of some use. I encourage you in your efforts to understand nature.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Bashir Yusuf wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 00:46 GMT
Dear Edwin

Thank you for the comments.

I agree many points in your essay, concerning fundamental question, is very interesting as it gives rationally explanations that focus most imortart fundamental aspects of nature of the Gravity and light which I also have implications of 19th century's benefits of philosophy linked physics namely Classical Physics.

"TK: No. I hope we...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author Bashir Yusuf wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 01:01 GMT


Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 01:55 GMT
Hi Bashir Yusuf

wonderful approach,...."a new way to look matter and address some dogmatic issues that required to be solved by right interpretation this new theory is simple and may explain all physical phenomenon, and most Nature' underlying fundamentals. ..... Best wishes to your essay...

I hope you will not mind that I am not following main stream physics...

By the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Bashir Yusuf wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 14:35 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu

Thank you for comments. I am really pleased sharing knowledge.

Now I am reading your essay with great attention and will comment after complete reading.

Indeed its very important topic.

Best wishes

Bashir.

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 13:15 GMT
Dear Bashir,

You give very interesting and profound ideas that are aimed at overcoming the crisis of understanding in the ontological basis of fundamental science. I invite you to see my ideas .

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Bashir Yusuf wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 23:37 GMT
Dear Vladimir

I am really pleased to see your profound essay which I think it is most important Idea I know since it creates the real philosophical solution for modern Physics crisis, it creates a comprehensive environment for undertanding and answering fundamental questions including current "What is Fundamental?". Therefore I would recommend all to take this topic seriously, if the question has importance for humanity.

The reason is that the modern physics is far from its fundamental aspect ( philosophical scientific basics) and the current situation seems that, it is almost impossible to answer or even to grasp the answer no matter how simple it is.

I have experienced the need of such ontological ideas after giving simple basic answer (hypothesis) which links together, in 2010 essay. previous essay

After evaluation of the hypothesis, I realized that it was poorly or almost not understood, on the other hand many verifying discoveries happened.

By investigation to the problem I suspectedly wondered, "To address all problems and to put new forward going Idea are two very important actions, but I sometimes wonder which one is most important to focus on first?". My answer become " to address the problem first".

For most part of my current essay, I have focused to point out some important ontological issues.

Terminological metaphors, los in conceptualized mathematics,...... led the phyical reality to be far from the Current Physicist's way of viewing the Nature's Physical phenomenon ( expectations ), and best communication would be Spherical Geometrical modelling (close sphere packing) I think similar principle that the architect and philosopher, Buckminster Fuller used. In other words, ontological presentation of Geometry and simulations of the Nature would be a good way to understand underlying fundamental Principle in both physics and mathematics.

Best wishes

Bashir.

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 11:11 GMT
Hello Mr Yusuf,

Happy to see your essay on this contest.A relevant general WORK, I am wishing you all the best,

Best Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Kamal L Rajpal wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 17:15 GMT
Dear Bashir M. Yusuf,

I have read your Essay and suggest that you read Dark Matter: http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0207v3.pdf

Quantum Mechanics claims that an electron can be both spin-up and spin-down at the same time. In my conceptual physics Essay on Electron Spin, I have proved that this is not true. Please read: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3
.pdf

Kamal Rajpal

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 06:30 GMT
Dear Bashir

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

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Bashir Yusuf wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 18:58 GMT
Dear Steve Dufourny, Kamal Rajpal and Steven Andresen.

Thank you for comments and sharing Ideas.

I have read your essays and commented.

I hope good lucky to all.

Best regards

Bashir.

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 20:31 GMT
Bashir,

Nice essay, glad I got to it. I think you covered the ground well and identified some important fundamental issues. Nice job, nice historical review, right on topic and well arranged.

If you'd like to be early seeing a shocking one - a classical derivation of QM, do check out my essay, but read the last part slowly to reconstruct the full ontological mechanism. (Declan Traill's short essay confirms the output with a code & PLOT). (Of course it likely won't be accepted into doctrine for some eons!) Do ask any questions there.

Well done for yours. Very best

Peter

PS; I just posted a quick mechanism check list on Jeff Yee's string.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 10:36 GMT
Bashir,

Now I'm getting confused. Too many essays! It wasn't Yee it was Walker I posted the quick mechanism checklist on. It's now on my postings too.

Best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 16:10 GMT
Bashir,

Thanks for your nice comment and understanding of mine, I agree all, including the other essays you mentioned. I also commend Declan Traill's, Gordon Watsons, Sue Lingo's, Roychouri Chandras.. & Richard Nixeys among others as you'll see in my posts.

We must find a way to escape the present theory rut to allow advancement. I agree using our brains not just calculators must make a return.

Scoring yours now with a top mark. Hope it makes the finals.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Robert D. Sadykov wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 10:15 GMT
Dear Bashir Yusuf,

I thank you for commenting on my essay. Your essay raises many questions. I agree with one point. Electron and other particles, really, can consist of more elementary particles or quanta, which like a photon have zero rest mass and move at the speed of light. The kinetic energy of these quanta forms internal energy and a nonzero mass of particles. Of course, these quanta are not ordinary photons, but they can be very similar to photons by some physical properties.

Best wishes,

Robert Sadykov

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Maxim Yurievich Khlopov wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 12:32 GMT
Dear Bashir Yusuf,

Thank you for your interesting essay and discussion of potential problems for the fundamental physics.

With the best regards

M.Yu.Khlopov

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


richard kingsley nixey wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 21:32 GMT
Bashir,

I agree, we need to hunt down the dogma! Nice essay. Well done.

Rich

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.