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 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.

Forum Home
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

Bashir Yusuf: on 12/14/10 at 0:50am UTC, wrote modelling of Quantum could be good idea to make things so simple as...

Peter Jackson: on 2/4/10 at 20:24pm UTC, wrote Ooops! That was me above. No Login at the bottom of this page so I assumed...

Anonymous: on 2/4/10 at 20:07pm UTC, wrote Georgina Just to let you know someone did notice your post, value it and...

Georgina Parry: on 3/27/09 at 9:50am UTC, wrote Albert Einstein is quoted as having said... "The supreme task of the...

john baryczka: on 11/26/08 at 16:18pm UTC, wrote re the mark kaufman theory of everything. A spectator at a football match...

Venerando: on 11/22/08 at 21:49pm UTC, wrote Sorry, I didnt see that you were talknig about an article of yours.

Venerando: on 11/22/08 at 21:18pm UTC, wrote In my essay, Time Traveling by Simuverses in the point "1-The nature of...

November 29, 2022

ARTICLE: Hunting for Theories of (Not) Everything [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Venerando wrote on Nov. 22, 2008 @ 21:18 GMT
In my essay, Time Traveling by Simuverses in the point "1-The nature of Time in the architecture of the universe", I expose a theory about the no need for a ToE.

Have you read it?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Venerando wrote on Nov. 22, 2008 @ 21:49 GMT
Sorry, I didnt see that you were talknig about an article of yours.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

john baryczka wrote on Nov. 26, 2008 @ 16:18 GMT
re the mark kaufman theory of everything. A spectator at a football match is not athletic enough to participate in the match itself but has a grandstand seat to view the whole of play more so than any individual player and can actually contribute to the game by fetching a ball that has been kicked out of bounds of the field of play. So too the amateur in a forum such as this (FQXi).

Time has always existed and is constant. Period. Neither the past, the present nor the birth of the Universe could exist without it. Chaos existed and out of it grew the physical (our) universe as well as an unknown number of other Universes. Our parent was born out of chaos by the Creative Waveform and our visible discernible Universe is a product of the parent's shadow in whose shadow we exist, analagous to electromagnetism existing out of phase with its cause. We are of the light so to speak. Time cannot alter it exists always as a constant analagous to a fluid. Cause and effect ruled after the waveform formed a "different state of being out of chaos". "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God", for those inclined that way. The greatest mistake being made is the acceptance of Time as a changeable entity when in fact it is constant. The fact is, I simply have a state of being, I exist. Molecular, atomic, spiritual or whatever form I will always exist as does everything exist all at the same time regardless of its structure.It might undergo cosmetic changes but the sum parts of everything will always exist.The pursuit of cosmology to fit the ideals of men are doomed to failure unless the start point of mans quest is simply that, I exist, I am. The implications of that statement cannot be readily appreciated till we accept the proposition that we are but rather insignificant light formed in the shadow of the Product of the Creative Waveform.A Universal model can then be constructed exhibiting the cause and effect at work to create gravity, the inward force, and the rotation of bodies. The key to understanding the construction of this model is that..."our view of the nature of time is distorted. We simply exist in Time and i do mean "in". However we, all matter, is on a journey to reconnect with the rest of itself. To see the future we must look backwards because that cycle has not happened yet. We journey through to this future, it is a quantifiable mechanism. We are and exist in Time without change,but the cause and effect of our environment changes us and matter is changed to many forms. The understanding of that simple quantifiable mechanism should be the single minded pursuit of every Cosmologist. Regards, baryczka.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 27, 2009 @ 09:50 GMT
Albert Einstein is quoted as having said...

"The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction.There is no logical path to these laws,only intuition,resting on sympathetic understanding of experience can reach them.In this methodological uncertainty one might suppose that there were any number of possible systems of theoretical physics all equally well justified; and this opinion is in no doubt correct,theoretically. But the development of physics has shown that at any given moment, out of all conceivable constructions, a single one has always proved itself decidedly superior to all the rest.

It seems that Mark Kaufman does not agree with Albert Einstein on this matter.He is not alone.Intuition and logical deduction do not appear to be held in high regard.So many scientists despair of finding the solution that will answer the fundamental questions of physics.After all, as Einstein said, there are any number of possibilities.

However despite Mark Kaufman's pessimism on the subject, the solution is not too complex to be reached but very simple.Albert Einstein is also quoted as having said .."Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler." However theoretical physics has become increasingly complex, so that it is almost incomprehensible.

It is incorrect to assume that the solution can be found with increasing layers of complexity.Breaking the problem down into falsifiable chunks is a different approach, but sounds akin to a massive exercise in trial and error learning.This can be slow and painful.Though luck can come in to play too.

Rather than using trial and error, I have built up the solution. Starting with time. This was the most obvious candidate as the trouble maker. The grandfather paradox being a big clue that time is inadequately comprehended. I later found that the problem of time consumed Einstein's later years.

After some deviation down the blind alleys of multidimensional time and assumptions of the veracity of universal expansion, I realised that the problem lay in 3 different concepts being muddled together.This then allowed a new understanding of what the 4th dimension represents. From here more and more pieces came together to form a very simple, self consistent explanatory model.

I am optimistic that the main premises of the model will be upheld even if the detail is falsified or deemed unacceptable.There are 3 concepts of time muddled together.


4 dimensions.(3n+1)

2 realities.(separated by Prime reality interface.)

Answer to the ultimate question?

Whether the Prime Quaternion model is the single one that proves itself decidedly superior to all the rest has yet to be decided.Perhaps it is just another one of any number of possible solutions.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Feb. 4, 2010 @ 20:07 GMT

Just to let you know someone did notice your post, value it and take it seriously. It's nearly a year, but better late than never.

I believe you were right about many things, but nearly right about just too many. I've been thinking about your own thoughts, and working on a similarly based model, but combining reality with locality for a truly falsifiable unification model.

I had a seminal eureka moment as it all slotted into place, helped by every single rigorous test I gave it, but since then have had so many doubts, as it would need an adjustment of a ruling paradigm.

It had some slightly bizarre predictions, but research shows these are known anomolies which can now be solved! I've produced 3 papers, but of course no peer review journal will even look at them. When the NASA Lunar Laser ranging Gezari papers came out in December, with an unexpected result that was predicted by the model!! I got confidence back and tacked a note about it on the end of the last paper;

I hope you get to read this and have a look. I also had an essay, 'Perfect Symmetry' in the competition. If you'd like a quick review, a few have read the papers, most seem to be supporters, (amazingly) and one has done quite a good short encyclopaedic intro - to the 'Discrete field model (DFM). See attachment.

Please do let me know what you think if you get to look. It'd be nice to know if I'm really a crackpot!


attachments: WDFM21110index.php.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 4, 2010 @ 20:24 GMT
Ooops! That was me above. No Login at the bottom of this page so I assumed I was!

Best wishes


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Bashir Yusuf wrote on Dec. 14, 2010 @ 00:50 GMT
modelling of Quantum could be good idea to make things so simple as possible.

here we propose one

The core Idea we postulate it is that the nature has same fundamentals. In this scientific article we will explore the broad area in physical science in different aspect and compare to existing known scientific theories. There are no remarkable contradictions with accepted theories, instead integrates and interprets to a better Unified theory.

Gravity is the basic interaction and the Photon is the ultimate elementary particle that every thing is made of. Sphere is dominating shape of the Nature. Multi-Dimensions are important issue for sphere Geometry. Dark matter which has two faces is also another face of the universes matter.

We focus particle theory in both astrophysical and subatomic particles including WIMPs MACHOs, Quarks, and Leptons. The Natures Elementary charges characteristic is significant in the charged subatomic particles , such as Proton, Electrons, while it is trivial in the other Neutral particles, such

as Neutron, Neutrino, and Neutron star, this phenomena is seemingly based on quantum of what may called ultimate elementary particles. It is about ODD and EVEN numbers, DISORDERED and ORDERED systems. Our conclusion of particle system hierarchy is that there are two main categories due to quantity of Photons

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.