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

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

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

Paul Schroeder: on 5/29/20 at 15:47pm UTC, wrote Dear Lockie Cresswell, You have identified the frustration that many of us...

Lachlan Cresswell: on 5/29/20 at 8:39am UTC, wrote Dear Paul, Thanks for reading my essay and for your comments. My essay was...

Lachlan Cresswell: on 5/28/20 at 11:52am UTC, wrote Hi Paul, I have just finished reading your essay (well after the comp. has...

John-Erik Persson: on 5/18/20 at 18:09pm UTC, wrote Paul Thanks for post on my page. Yes i remember our private discussions a...

Paul Schroeder: on 5/17/20 at 14:55pm UTC, wrote Branko, Thanks for reading my paper. Regarding your following statement:...

Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri: on 5/16/20 at 19:53pm UTC, wrote Dear Schroeder: Thank you for making positive comments on my essay. I...

Branko Zivlak: on 5/16/20 at 19:30pm UTC, wrote Dear Paul When you say: "Since space is the content of the universe, so...

John Hodge: on 5/15/20 at 17:49pm UTC, wrote Thanks for your note in my essay. How does you model address interference...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "So what exactly is WRONG with physics, apart from the fact that physics..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "The perception generated of time difference relates to the potential..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Steve Dufourny: "Hello Jim, yes indeed in a sense we have these motions and we have invented..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Jim Snowdon: "Hi Steve, Clearly we have motion in our Universe. It is not..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Steve Dufourny: "You are welcome, thanks too for your words. I have never lost the faith..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "For completeness: Concerning The curved spacetime of GR. Alteration of the..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Georgina Woodward: "Thank you. Good luck." in The Nature of Time

Lorraine Ford: "Rob, As you have not replied, I take it that you now concede that the..." in 16th Marcel Grossmann...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

Can Choices Curve Spacetime?
Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools
Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

The Quantum Refrigerator
A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.


FQXi FORUM
September 17, 2021

CATEGORY: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020) [back]
TOPIC: Un-decidability Implies Alternatives Exist. by Paul Schroeder [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Paul Schroeder wrote on Feb. 2, 2020 @ 23:58 GMT
Essay Abstract

The central concept called ‘The Standard Model’ serves to acknowledge for physics, which tests are proof and it controls any decidable explanation of space. Computability becomes the home of accepted proofs, and predictability gives the total answers to space. Physics has tied themselves to this ideal for decades. The ‘Standard Model’ dictates a reality where one must stay within its boundaries in order to geneGraduate of Beloit College in 1964 - math ced today. Can the revelations of Goedl’s un-decidability results and Turing’s proof of non-computable values help in releasing the binds limiting physics? Can my long ignored ‘Universe is Otherwise’ model gain more believers of new paradigms?

Author Bio

graduate of Beloit College - math in 1964 For decades I have contested Newton's 3 laws, the fixed speed of light, and Dopplar as the influence of EM flow.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share


Author Paul Schroeder wrote on Feb. 9, 2020 @ 20:17 GMT
please note: this abstract was damaged by word processor overlaying the abstract with the bio words. The abstract within the paper is clean.

Paul Schroeder

Bookmark and Share


John Joseph Taylor wrote on Mar. 5, 2020 @ 16:24 GMT
Well written, with some intriguing contemplations.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Schroeder replied on Mar. 20, 2020 @ 15:05 GMT
I appreciate that you chose to read my paper and provide a strength of interest in your response.

I have read and comment on your paper.

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Mar. 12, 2020 @ 13:36 GMT
Dear Paul,

Bold alternative ideas in your essay. Yes, in the basis of physics and knowledge in general, including about the Universe, alternative views are needed. Philosophy is a good helper here.

It’s good to recall the philosophical testament of John Archibald Wheeler: "To my mind there must be, at the bottom of it all, not an equation, but an utterly simple idea. And to me that idea, when we discover it, will be so compelling, so inevitable, that we will say to one another, 'Oh, how beautiful. How could it have been otherwise?' "(JA Wheeler, interview with Timothy Ferris, Coming of Age in the Milky Way)

Best regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Schroeder replied on Mar. 21, 2020 @ 14:07 GMT
Vladimir Rogozhin

I thank you for the depth of thought within your response to my paper. My ideas tend to be too far asunder for readers to form a focused response. Your use of JA Wheeler’s testament makes a startlingly fine overview of my perspective.

As intended, there is much philosophy in this contest. The terminology and history of philosophy are hard to follow and bypass my mind. Somehow my attempt to just apply logic seems to stand outside the world of thought which is attended by philosophers. Clearly someone such as yourself is needed to transfer my logic points into an overview philosophy of the universe.

If your network has physics oriented members who are interested in an overall mega-philosophy perspective of the universe, you might forward some of my papers to them. Thank you so much for what you have written to me!

Best regards

Paul

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 30, 2020 @ 00:16 GMT
Dear Paul Schroeder ,

Thank you for remembering me, thank you for your kind words of appreciation !!

I remember well about our communication. Hope you have done some more work on your "Universe is Otherwise" Model, like developing some more math support etc.... I will go through your paper and I will comment there ASAP. Yes you correctly said, you and I are cosmologists who oppose Bigbang.

Our Universe is Closed, No "energy" or "Matter" goes out of Universe. Well OK.I remember saying it is really good. Infinite Universe do have some problem , if you calculate radiation falling on a unit area due to infinite number of stars/Galaxies, that Unit area will become infinitely bright. I did not remember how you overcame that problem.

I will continue in another post.

Best Regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Schroeder replied on Mar. 30, 2020 @ 13:04 GMT
Light is affected by the gravity of the source which gradually reduces the speed to that of red light and then microwaves. So the unit area you mention would be fully lit except that the arriving beams are mostly microwaves resulting in the cosmic microwave background. (rejoice Olber – paradox found)

Paul

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 30, 2020 @ 01:05 GMT
Dear Paul Schroeder ,

I was just reading your essay, I got some comments. I am witing in accordance with your points....

a. I fully agree , Light will bend, Its Frequency upshifts, and its speed also varies slightly.

b. God is the consciousness of the Universe, for that matter if it is finite or infinite it does not matter, Multiple Universes are not required for that ....

Infinite Universe do have some physical problem , if you calculate radiation falling on a unit area due to infinite number of stars/Galaxies, that Unit area will become infinitely bright. How you overcame that problem........

c. Well said, Gravity is the reason for motion in the Universe.

Infinite Space will provide infinite gravity??? I dont think space is having relation to Gravity. Number of Masses will have number of Gravitational pulls,resultant vector force decides motion of that Mass.

d. Why are you calling gravitational attraction as Push? Probably you mean it is a pull. Hence resultant of Multiple attraction forces (pushes) will make a body to move. This is what exactly Dynamic Universe Model also says

Well argued essay, I just gave highest of appreciation to your essay,

Best wishes

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Schroeder replied on Mar. 30, 2020 @ 13:45 GMT
No – gravity is a push! Everyone fails here.

Use wind as an analogy: Put a fan at point E and aim its wind toward distant point W. The air flow arrives at W. Then place a fan at W aimed at E. centrally between the fans the winds offset. Place a fan at point N aimed at distant point S. Some of the air flow arrives at S and the net flow at the center (point C) is toward S. There is chaos of flows at C. Put a fan at point S aimed at point N and the directional chaos is calmed. But the flows may reflect each other so reflected flow goes elsewhere. We can extend by placing a fan above and one below.

Place a globe called Earth at the center. Now all point sections incur a push toward the middle so inhabitants incur downward attraction. Now place a larger globe near one of the fans, perhaps fan E. The wind from fan E is partially blocked. The net wind flow at the center is toward fan E. This is called solar attraction.

At the center all the flows would seem to reflect off the Earth. But the winds will now be called gravity pressure. Earth happens to have a density that provides only a partial block (say 10%) as the flows penetrate and ultimately exits the earth (also, but say 30% block, for the sun). So now consider a point X at the N side of earth. The flow from N is pushing down that earth point X while the flow from S penetrates earth on the opposite side and exits at X with 90% pressure. The net of 10% pressure upon the earth at surface point N is the net pressure we incur and call attraction.

There is much more.

Paul

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 30, 2020 @ 01:28 GMT
Dear Paul Schroeder ,

There are blue shifted galaxies and red shifted galaxies in the universe.. Universe is rotating. Assume a children's giant wheel in a amusement park, you are looking at it in its plane of rotation.Some buckets come near to you and some will go away. Those which are coming near are Blue shited and going away are red shifted.

Now assume many giant wheels each rotating about its own axis and these wheels are rotating rotating Dynamically in different planes about each other. You are in a bucket in a wheel. then you see the some buckets come near and some go away in all directions. so if you observe only those buckets which are going away you will see expanding , only those coming near to you you will see contracting universe.

I hope this explains...

Please check my blog for further details...

Best regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Schroeder replied on Apr. 2, 2020 @ 17:24 GMT
SNP,

There is no reason to explain red shift and blue shift relative to motion. The problem physics has is that there is more red shift than blue shift so the theory became overall there is motion away. But a static universe says the excess red shift is not caused by motion away. My model says light is affected/slowed by gravity and light from far distant sources will be traveling slower by the time they arrive to us and those rays will show red.

Paul

Bookmark and Share


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Apr. 8, 2020 @ 14:40 GMT
Hello Paul,

I recognized your name by cross-referencing to my library. Without letters on the spine; your book is hard to identify. We must have crossed paths at a conference, perhaps CCC-2 in Port Angeles. You should be made aware that a LARGE number of serious researchers ARE pursuing your ideas, but while openly in secret because they have cast things in very different terms. Of course; I think the universe is inside-out, so your gravity model makes perfect sense. And there was an FQXi essayist a few years back with a sink drain model...

You can find a fairly precise analogy in the work of Dvali and Gomez, because your PAEPs are seen to be gravitons. This is easy to generalize into a full theory of gravity, which I have called "Gravitation by Condensation." But the work of Jacobson, Padmanabhan, and Verlinde on theories of thermodynamic or entropic gravity point in the same direction and are basically examples of external gravitation. This notion is easily combined with Einstein simply by noting lines of space converge to a radius not a point. This then is the surface onto which gravitons settle.

My essay has links to some of this material. There are hundreds of papers to reference though. See Barcelo, Liberati, Visser, papers on Analogue Gravity. See Steinhauer et al for experiments of note.

More later,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Apr. 8, 2020 @ 14:41 GMT
I will get to reading your essay soon,,,

All the Best,

JJD

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Apr. 8, 2020 @ 14:56 GMT
P.S. - don't take too much credit Paul...

If your ideas are correct; you should know the seed was planted by Sakharov way back in 1967, to derive most of what is novel about your work. Most people thought Sakharov's 'Induced Gravity' was a silly notion, superfluous, and quite possibly wrong-headed, even though it was Sakharov telling the story, however.

His original article is short and cryptic, dealing mainly with the idea that quantum mechanical interactions could be a source of curvature terms in the gravitational field. But eventually people got the idea that this tied into BEC formation, and the quantum critical point as event horizon idea was spawned.

But I would revisit your own ideas, after digesting some of what has been written on the subject, and you will discover a richness to the topic you were not aware existed before.

Warm regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Schroeder replied on Apr. 8, 2020 @ 19:39 GMT
Jonathan Dickau,

“You should be made aware that a LARGE number of serious researchers ARE pursuing your ideas, but while openly in secret because they have cast things in very different terms. Of course; I think the universe is inside-out, so your gravity model makes perfect sense.”

It is hard for me to believe what you wrote above and then you gave my contest paper a 1. You do...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Apr. 9, 2020 @ 00:31 GMT
Sorry for the fact you got bombed...

It was not me. I have noticed the bombers often wait for someone else to comment, because that person will be blamed. I have rated 0 papers so far. I usually read at least a dozen before I make any ratings. I passed that mark but have not read your paper yet, nor would I rate any papers without reading them entirely first.

I abhor the shenanigans, and I try not to get drawn in to a ratings war scenario. I like to play it fair, and I don't think I've read a single essay that deserves a 1 or 2 grade, but I have received those ratings myself - judging by the difference before and after. If I say that I like some aspect of your work; you can rest assured you will be given a favorable grade.

I would be happy to give you a more detailed evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of this particular essay - if you like. I thought your book did have some weak points, and it failed to acknowledge some prior work in that direction, but I chose to emphasize some of that above, and to list its strengths, as a kind of general assent that you were on the right track.

Sorry for any confusion,

Jonathan

p.s. - you can verify with the FQXi admin that I have not rated your essay yet. - jjd

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Apr. 9, 2020 @ 00:35 GMT
P.S.

I am behind in my reading right now Paul. I'm sorting things out because my Dad was one of the victims of the pandemic. He passed on Mar. 25th, just a day shy of his 88th birthday. Once I read your paper, and I promise I will; you'll get a fair grade from me.

Best,

JJD

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Apr. 9, 2020 @ 09:35 GMT
Please have a look at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_explanations_of_
gravitation

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Apr. 9, 2020 @ 13:46 GMT
Thanks SNP...

That helps flesh out my understanding.

JJD

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Paul Schroeder wrote on Apr. 9, 2020 @ 15:12 GMT
Jonathan

My goodness, am I out of bounds with my response to you. I am sorry for it. Now, with you clarifying things about the grade fog, I realize that you did submit an especially charitable review of my paper. Then your follow up was tender when correcting my miss-understanding. I expect there are worthwhile points in your paper which I will soon read.

Your mention of the ‘quantum mechanical interactions’ confused me until I was reminded that mechanical referred to pushing gravity itself. I had solved the issues stopping LeSage and Fatio theories. You will see that is a chapter in my book. Looking up the ‘mechanical’ term also reveals Tom Van Flanders and Matthew Edwards, both of who I had numerous conversations with. Your name is vaguely familiar but not from CCC-2, perhaps the NPA or Meta Physics.

The ‘researchers pursuing my ideas -- in secret’ is so seductive and so unlikely. Getting any feedback is unusual.



The concept of bombers in the contest who intentionally drag down their competition is awful. They hurt grading but cannot stop useful detailed evaluation of other’s works. Criticism can be constructive and lead to interchanges, possibly ours.



Your loss of your father before his time is a tragic result of this awful virus scorching the world. I am sorry for you.

Best wishes

Paul Schroeder

Bookmark and Share

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Apr. 9, 2020 @ 21:41 GMT
We can only use the time we have...

I got to meet Tom Van Flandern only a month or so before his demise, and he appeared in perfect health at the time. There was a fair amount of discussion about FTL gravity and the evidence for it, at that time, with the final proof or disproof resting on future evidence.

Much to learn before we know...

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michael muteru wrote on Apr. 30, 2020 @ 07:56 GMT
hi shroeder,very well put. that most of what we have as standards is agreed by human's especially in authority to shepherd society.so it's all bias ridding us the essence of reality.pls read/rate how it came to be here https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.thanks all the best

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on May. 8, 2020 @ 23:01 GMT
I am back to rate your essay Paul...

I read the revised version. I still have mixed feelings. You have some amazing insights, some near misses, and some flubs. All in all; I like what you wrote. It is a bit like the works of Faraday that inspired Maxwell to put his words into Math terms. I would not reject the systematization required in this process, but I would urge caution because many who would offer to help would try to push you down a more conventional road, instead of simply turning your concepts into math equations - and seeing what pops out.

Treating gravity as a push is not bad or wrong, only a different way yo treat the problem. Push-push gravity is automatic, if you assume the universe is inside-out. The force of the universe's expansion and the vacuum energy become the driver. I do think that PAEPs could actually be gravitons. A ground state graviton as a single loop could lie flat on a gravitational horizon. As Eddington pointed out; the only real accommodation in going from Newtonian gravity to Relativity theory is that lines of force converge at a radius rather than to a point.

You almost answer the essay question and you present some very interesting work that, while incomplete, has merit. So I can give you partial credit on most of the items where I have reservations. You might enjoy Carlo Rovelli's "Reality is not What it Seems" and get insights into the Faraday-Maxwell story. There is more work to do, to make this idea a complete theory. But if you continue to plant seeds; some of your ideas may catch on.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


paul schroeder wrote on May. 11, 2020 @ 20:53 GMT
Hi again Jonathan,

Thanks for reading my paper. I don’t know why you called it a revised version as it was never revised.

An ideal response for me would be of someone willing to read and discuss the whole model. That type of analysis could be worth some money to me. You mentioned finding misses and flubs, but I don’t think you would find them upon really understanding the pieces of the model. A willing analyst could try applying the words to math equations for some of the pieces. My papers aren’t that far off especially for geometry. Actually one of my published papers is in AIP JMP - journal of mathematic physics. That was 2013 and I get dozens of organizations per year that reference the work there.

You are wrong about the push being automatic with the universe inside out and vacuum plus expansion. The universe is stable and the push comes from flowing EM radiation throughout. Light for example is created and diminishes via gravity (involved).



I don’t understand this sentence which you also used before. ‘As Eddington pointed out; the only real accommodation in going from Newtonian gravity to Relativity theory is that lines of force converge at a radius rather than to a point. ‘In any case both systems are wrong.



I have some knowledge of Faraday and his feed of ideas to Maxwell. In any case if there is more work to do to make this a complete theory someone has to explain it. Clearly math is limited here, but there are no motion differences (except for c) that need to be compared. The reality is that math connects subsets of a cosmology to its parent. But a completely new cosmology doesn’t connect in many actions so math is simply a stumbling block to protect the questionable standard model.



The effort of thought conversion is too complex and difficult so few read and ponder this whole perspective. I realize you are a mathematician but might you have any ongoing interest?

Paul Schroeder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on May. 11, 2020 @ 21:06 GMT
Hello again,

Saw your comment on my page. I remain open to the possibility for communication. It's always good to triangulate. It helps us figure out where we are.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on May. 14, 2020 @ 04:21 GMT
Dear Paul Schroeder, you brilliantly portrayed in your essay the scientific picture of the universe. However, they did it in their own language, which does not correspond to standard models from physics. Yes, there is a standard for the presentation of the theory that claims to be in textbooks and we cannot get around it in order to be recognized by the scientific community. Perhaps this will happen if you take a fragment from your scientific picture of the universe and bring it into line with what is already in the textbooks on physics. For example, an analogue to your gravitational jolt is already available in physics - this is the Casimir force, equal to the product of the speed of light and the Planck constant - ch. This force in physics is explained by the quantum-mechanical properties of the physical vacuum, which do not exclude your explanation as a stream of shocks from electromagnetic waves (EM). I describe the Casimir force as the flow of force through any concentric closed surface around the corpuscles so that it obeys the law R ^ -2. I suppose that when corpuscles are combined into molecules, into bodies, into planets and so on, this force becomes a gravitational force.

Insert the power of Casimir into your scientific picture of the universe, maybe you can do it better than mine, since I do not speak English. I appreciate your essay and wish you success in the competition.

   Sincerely, Boris Dzhechko.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on May. 15, 2020 @ 10:47 GMT
Dear Paul,

Glad to read your work again.

I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: “Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus”, due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 “Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability”.

I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

Warm Regards, `

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Hodge wrote on May. 15, 2020 @ 17:49 GMT
Thanks for your note in my essay.

How does you model address interference experiments of light, electrons and those experiments that reject the wave nature of light?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Branko L Zivlak wrote on May. 16, 2020 @ 19:30 GMT
Dear Paul

When you say:

"Since space is the content of the universe, so the universe is infinite."

Specify what is infinite, is it space, mass, time…?

Regards,

Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul Schroeder replied on May. 17, 2020 @ 14:55 GMT
Branko,

Thanks for reading my paper.

Regarding your following statement:

'I find that in physics we should eliminate the term infinity, because

the results of mathematical operations with infinite physical values are also undefined values.'

Eliminating infinity Is right on for defining the mathematical world of specific answers/results to specific questions. But any string of questions and answers takes one away from an overall perspective. Overall logic can get lost be it physics, geology or any subject. An example is the universe which is defined as everything, but has become a nonsense term for physics.

In answer to your question, Space is a term of the infinite contents of the infinite universe. Time would also be infinite while mass is not.

I know most physics technical people have little interest in my non-mathematical perspectives in their work. But I think a logical overview

is an important step of education.

Good wishes,

Paul

Bookmark and Share


Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri wrote on May. 16, 2020 @ 19:53 GMT
Dear Schroeder:

Thank you for making positive comments on my essay.

I like your essay very much.

You say that:

“The US remains locked in to the ‘Standard Model’. Meanwhile, in other countries the science world is opening windows for alternate logic.”

No question about the first sentence. Give me name and connections related your second sentence. We can build newer platform and strengthen it slowly, but, steadily.

“Somehow the Doppler idea had captured minds and has hidden gravity.”

Again, agree to some extent. Feel free to down load my “Doppler” paper from the following link:

http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/

Request the paper identified as “2013.5”. You may like it.

“Since space is the content of the universe, thus the universe is infinite. It is properly defined as being everything.”

Download my paper on space as a Complex Tension Field” (CTF). This is a much more advanced concept than old ether.

“Next Frontier in Physics—Space as a Complex Tension Field”; Journal of Modern Physics, 2012, 3, 1357-1368,

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/However, mp.2012.310173

“Actually, light flow slows and becomes lower frequency microwaves etc. due to gravity. Gravitational red-shifting of light is everywhere.”

Does this really explain Cosmological Redshift? Could you kindly give me some references? I am not expert in this field.

Sincerely,

Chandra.

Prof. Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri

Chandra.Roychoudhuri@uconn.edu

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John-Erik Persson wrote on May. 18, 2020 @ 18:09 GMT
Paul

Thanks for post on my page.

Yes i remember our private discussions a couple of years ago. Yes, I also think it is important to discuss the relation between ether wind (escape velocity) and gravity proportional to squared ether wind. But we should not say ether is not constant, but instead that it is constant in relation to the ETHER - not to the egocentric observer called Albert.

I am glad that you could use my late article, and therefore I send one more.

Regards ________________ John-Erik

attachments: 2_The_Michelson_Question_in_PDF.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lachlan Cresswell wrote on May. 28, 2020 @ 11:52 GMT
Hi Paul,

I have just finished reading your essay (well after the comp. has closed). Good on you for putting your ideas out there!

I also have a complete theory which is the antithesis of yours. It is amazing that an education system can bring up so many diverse views and perspectives. Nobody seems to be interested in my theories, I find it impossible to get published yet I also feel I have something of value to offer. The physicists among us just say get your idea published in a peer reviewed journal. I guess I do not have peers in that community so that is why I entered this essay competition, as it provides a forum for alternative views. Yet I stuck to topic (3 un's) so nobody really knows what my ideas are about. I guess you can sense my frustration.

I cannot argue against your ideas from any perspective except my own and we would eventually agree to disagree. But I wish you well.

Regards

Lockie Cresswell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Lachlan Cresswell replied on May. 29, 2020 @ 08:39 GMT
Dear Paul,

Thanks for reading my essay and for your comments. My essay was based on how the 3 Un's have impacted on my physics, so it was a bit philosophical and not really touching my TOE, which is, of course, my main topic.

My TOE is based on matter particles and aether particles. By the combination of the two I can produce a fundamental description of reality. One particle and one force acting between particles - that is very simple, and like your theory requires very little math. From this theory I can easily produce most of the Standard Model's players (without the quantum field theories). The particles I leave out are the bosons of the strong and weak forces as I explain them simply with another method (structural physics). Gravity comes as a mechanical byproduct of particles spin property. Needless to say it is a 'pull gravity', but different to anything else that has been proposed to explain gravitational action at a distance.

So there we are! We have the Standard Model, we have my 'Structural TOE' and we have your TOE, and maybe there are many other well developed models that do the job. As I said before it is a pity that the hurdles for publication are so difficult for newcomers not affiliated with any organisation. I tried 'Foundations of Physics' but was knocked back on the third occasion with just a brief comment that 'proof' is needed. That wasn't helpful at all! What we seem to need is a mentor who is in the system, who knows the ropes, and who can encourage and suggest, without putting his or her biases to the front. What we all need is open and honest dialog.

May be some FQXI'er reading these posts may come to the party. Time is running out for many of us retirees.

Good luck on your endeavours,

Lockie Cresswell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Paul Schroeder wrote on May. 29, 2020 @ 15:47 GMT
Dear Lockie Cresswell,

You have identified the frustration that many of us theorists feel:

was knocked back on the third occasion with just a brief comment that 'proof' is needed. That wasn't helpful at all! What we seem to need is a mentor who is in the system, who knows the ropes, and who can encourage and suggest, without putting his or her biases to the front. What we all need is open and honest dialog.

I have also dealt with this for years. But I have a tool others don’t have. The Standard Model of Physics is full of holes. If you recall my paper is built around pointing out the errors. I have another major key point today, "the Doppler indefensible as a redshift source". Copying my transverse discussion hasnt worked. The color and figures get lost. See Wiki. For now after reading the summary here. I can e-mail you the whole revelation if interested.Meanwhile:

Important!

Astronomers know of three sources of redshift/blueshift: Doppler shifts; gravitational redshifts (due to light exiting a gravitational field); and cosmological expansion (where space itself stretches). This article concerns itself only with Doppler shifts.

Note that the third source here is cosmological expansion which is the fantasy that came from circular reasoning and may have never existed.

The second source here is the always ignored gravitational redshift which overrides the idea of a constant speed c. The exit from a gravitational field results in a slowing of the speed, thus red shift.

The first source here is Doppler shifts which can arrive from various relative motions of stars. So we can choose ‘the sky of all-stars’ is in circular motion around earth. (or any other central body one chooses)

Best of luck Lockie.

Paul Schroeder

Bookmark and Share


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.