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.

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

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

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.

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


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

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

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

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

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

Vladimir Fedorov: on 5/17/20 at 7:29am UTC, wrote Dear Scott, I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad...

Michael muteru: on 4/30/20 at 8:57am UTC, wrote all knowledge starts with a question.. nice work well and simply phrased....

Scott Gordon: on 4/17/20 at 1:52am UTC, wrote Dear Dr Klingman, Everything you have said is completely compatible with...

Edwin Klingman: on 4/16/20 at 21:53pm UTC, wrote Dear Scott S Gordon, You ask why is the speed of light the same in all...

Scott Gordon: on 4/3/20 at 16:11pm UTC, wrote I am not here to convince others... I didn't even mention my theory in my...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 4/3/20 at 15:40pm UTC, wrote Dear Scott Gordon, where did you see here others whom you can convince....

Scott Gordon: on 4/2/20 at 16:55pm UTC, wrote Hi Noson, Appreciate the kind comment... I wrote this essay questioning...

Noson Yanofsky: on 4/2/20 at 11:53am UTC, wrote Dear Scott Gordan, Thank you for a very interesting essay. I was...


Marcel-Marie LeBel: "Georgina, There is no instantaneity along the rod or within the coffee. It..." in The Nature of Time

Stefan Weckbach: "Hi Lorraine, thanks for your explanations. I think I now better..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "Consider ice cream in hot coffee. They stay together, 'in time', as..." in The Nature of Time

Mykel Waggoner: "This is a link to a paper I wrote, as it explains how Quantum Entanglement..." in Alternative Models of...

Lorraine Ford: "Hi Stefan, Replying to your last couple of posts, this is the way I would..." in The Present State of...

Robert McEachern: ""There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in..." in Undecidability,...

Georgina Woodward: "Max? Why?" in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Steve Agnew: "Mueller opens his essay with... "As the argument goes, there are truths..." in Undecidability,...

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.

September 21, 2021

CATEGORY: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020) [back]
TOPIC: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability is not Consistent with the Scientific Method by Scott S Gordon [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Scott S Gordon wrote on Feb. 5, 2020 @ 15:57 GMT
Essay Abstract

Theoretical physics has reached a catastrophic impasse. New ideas to get us beyond this gridlock are constantly being proposed by the best minds and institutes in the world; yet all these ideas are falling short. We are no closer to revealing the big picture that would unite general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM) than we were 40 years ago. Many physicists are throwing up their hands in frustration saying that we are either not sophisticated enough to solve such a daunting problem or that there is no solution possible that would resolve the major schism that exists within our current model of physics brought about by the incompatibility of GR and QM. Some physicists say our experimental approaches (such as colliding particles) will never be helpful. But has anyone considered, what if the answer we seek cannot be reached using decisions, computations and predictions; then the solution we are striving to find cannot be reached using our most reliable, faithful tool... The scientific method! That should give all of us pause to think.

Author Bio

Scott S Gordon BS-Biology, MS-Biomedical Engr, MD, Orthopedic/Hand Surgeon, Humorist, Radio Talk show host, Author, Actor, Keyboard Musician, Music Composer/Arranger/Producer Professional Memberships: APS, AMA, AAOS, ASSH, ASCAP, SAG-AFTRA

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share

Author Scott S Gordon wrote on Feb. 6, 2020 @ 04:14 GMT
Fqxi once again provides an excellent opportunity for people to present new ideas and this topic "Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability" lends itself to the most troublesome aspects of theoretical physics. What if the way to find the solution that everyone is looking for to advance physics beyond its current theoretical impasse, is not accessible through decisions, computations, and predictions? if that is the case, then it is no wonder why physics academia is floundering... because if this is true, it means the Scientific Method is useless to find the solution. That doesn't mean that the scientific method can't be used to subsequently support a theory once it is found, but it does mean that the normal methods of advancing physics will not be fruitful.

This Fqxi essay contest on this topic provides an excellent forum for people in and out of physics academia to present ideas that may seem outlandish because to come up with new ideas does not rely on straight forward decisions, computations, and predictions. There is a reason why theoretical physics has not advanced over the past 40 years and a good reason for that would be that scientific method does not lend itself to tell us where to look for the solution.

Keep an eye out for new models and new ideas that do not use anything we already know but leads to what we already know... This essay is one example of that suggestion as it proposes spacetime as an energy medium where the energy of the medium is the base energy tier in a hierarchy of three independent energy tiers.

I am happy to answer any questions and address any interests my fellow Fqxi-er's wish to post.

Bookmark and Share

John C Hodge wrote on Feb. 10, 2020 @ 18:38 GMT

I suggest the answer to your first question is your 6). The STOE answers several of your questions.

One of your question says ..." the problem we have no to determine what that medium is,..."

There must be some postulates in a scientific model (did you address this?) and the assumption of a medium is one many have take. This allows the presumption of the necessary properties to explain experiments. So, the key becomes if such a presumption can result in PREDICTIONS and later confirmation of those predictions.

Does prediction play any part in your 6 steps?

We have seen string theory (speculation) which seems to not satisfy uur 2). It has been popular for some time. Comment?

Same for ad hoc additions such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy (which is being questioned). So, it seem the answer to your question of why the scientific method fails is that the scientists fail the scientific method.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Scott S Gordon replied on Feb. 10, 2020 @ 23:05 GMT
Hi John,

I liked your essay and yes we questioned the same aspects of the approach and what a theory needs to do. I like your conclusion in your post... "Because scientist fail the scientific method"... But let's face it, the reason why they are failing it is because the method itself does not allow out of the box creativity... All the creativity we have seen are methods that use what we already know and then contort them some way to explain a missing ingredient... The better approach would be come up with the missing ingredient. But how can you come up with the missing ingredient using the scientific method if the missing ingredient cannot be mathematically derived from our current knowledge nor can it be experimentally exposed.

I wish you luck on promoting you ideas... Keep an eye out for Hierarchy of Energy theory towards the end of the year when I get the book out for free download. All the best...


Bookmark and Share

John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 12, 2020 @ 15:21 GMT

I have read your article about lack of consistency with Scientific method. I think that you explain the situation well, and also think this to be an important issue.

You regard the speed of light to be the same in all inertial frames. I do not regard this as a fact. The prediction from SRT on GPS is only a few centimeters, and SRT can only apply to preadjustments of clocks. Einstein's postulate is only an unproved axiom.

You refer to MMX. But MMX can be explained by Galilean transform, if you assume no time dilation and doubled FitzGerald contraction. This predicts no effect in both arms and also in stellar aberration. Both useless.

GRT is also a problem! How can you bend NOTHING.

Another problem is that you do not know if light transports energy -- or just draws energy from the ether during absorption.

An ether represented by a frame cannot cause gravity. A spherically symmetric ether wind can do that.

In my interpretation there is no effect of ether wind in the transverse arm in MMX. This was MIchelson's inertial prediction and think that this correct idea was spoiled in 1882 by Potier. He introduced a wrong idea that light must take a longer way. This was a wrong application of Pythagoras' theorem, and this caused the illusion of particles in light.

A regard light as just waves and ether as just particles.

With best regards from ________________John-Erik

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Scott S Gordon replied on Feb. 12, 2020 @ 16:17 GMT
I agree with almost all the aspects you have pointed out. Anything I write has its basis in Hierarchy of Energy theory, the book I mentioned above. While I said the speed of light is measured the same when we measure it within a reference frame. That doesn't mean I consider the speed of light is the same when comparing it between one reference frame to another. Hierarchy of energy theory...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share

John-Erik Persson replied on Feb. 12, 2020 @ 17:50 GMT

I will add that an important part of the problem is that we were locked to the idea that we use use 2-way light, since this was needed for finding a value in c[/c]. I demonstrated this to be impossible. If we assume existence than speed is demonstrated by GPS to have spherical symmetry, and explain gravity.

With best regards from ____________________ John-Erik


The other part was Potire's mistake.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan M. Kadin wrote on Mar. 17, 2020 @ 16:06 GMT
Dear Dr. Gordon,

I read your brief essay with great interest. You ask the right questions.

However, you attribute the difficulties in modern science to shortcomings in the scientific method.

On the contrary, I attribute these difficulties to the fact that most scientists do NOT follow the scientific method, at least not in its original form.

For example, it is central to the scientific method to be skeptical of orthodox theories, and to require that they be testable by direct observation. Belief in abstract, untestable entities is not science, it is religion. The presence of complex mathematics does not make them any more scientific.

For example, you talk about spacetime, but spacetime is not a physical quantity; it is an abstract mathematical entity used to solve equations. In my own essay, I point out that all of relativity (both special and general) can be derived without any reference to spacetime. Time and space are indeed relative, due to the behavior of atomic-level quantum clocks and rulers.

This also enables unification of GR and QM in a simple neoclassical framework. This provides a reinterpretation of GR and a testable alternative theory of QM without entanglement or abstract Hilbert space.

The link to my essay, “The Uncertain Future of Physics and Computing”, is available here.

Alan Kadin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Scott S Gordon replied on Mar. 17, 2020 @ 21:29 GMT
Thanks for you interest Alan... The thing I like about these essay contests is the chatting and sharing of ideas. In your response you state... "but spacetime is not a physical quantity". The perspective you have is reasonable but the reason why it is reasonable is because there is never a net effect that the particles in spacetime can have on spacetime. While we say that mass can bend spacetime, it is not clear on exactly how and what exactly is bending. If there is no net effect on spacetime by the particles that exist in spacetime, then there is no reason to think that spacetime exists as anything other than a mathematical construct. However once we do that, then there is no way to show that while particles have no net effect on spacetime... it doesn't mean that there is no interaction between the energy of particles and the energy of spacetime. If that interaction is taken off the table, then we will never be able to model how a particle creates its specific associated energy fields. (Nor will we be able to come up with the internal energy structure of particles since the energy and structure of spacetime leads to the energy and structure of particles)

In any case I wish you the best of luck on promoting your ideas... GO get 'em!

Bookmark and Share

Paul Schroeder wrote on Mar. 27, 2020 @ 16:32 GMT
Scott Gordon

I really like this. You have set the table for ‘The Universe is Otherwise’, my replacement model for the standard model! You picked the best approach by focusing on the speed of light and pointing how the fixed speed causes a complete break-down of current scientific method approaches to the replacement perspective. Your conversational wording is ideal, softening the confusion of technical and energy treatments.

Breaking the impasse calls for Otherwise. We aren’t just merging GR and QM. The way to the new paradigm arrives if we ignore them. The fixed nature of the scientific method leads us astray.

While your list of steps is not the way, your focus on particle/wave issues helps introduce the thinking and then the ‘medium’ issue arises.

Paul Schroeder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Scott S Gordon replied on Mar. 28, 2020 @ 01:46 GMT
Thanks Paul, You have great insight as you have picked up exactly what I was trying to achieve. I wrote this essay to ease people into first realizing that spacetime is a medium but not easily derived at or revealed experimentally. The next step is introducing Hierarchy of Energy theory which is the theory that I have been recently been promoting to the world of physics academia. In Hierarchy of Energy theory, spacetime is shown to be a energy medium of energy that represents the base energy tier.

Thank you for your kind words and please if you get a chance keep abreast with my progress in bring forward Hierarchy of Energy theory in the years to come.


Bookmark and Share

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 31, 2020 @ 13:12 GMT
Dear Gordon, I read your informative essay and realized that it is with you that I can fruitfully discuss my essay, which contains my answers to your questions.

Theoretical physics has reached an impasse ... but why?

The theories of relativity and the probability of quantum mechanics mesmerized physicists and they became deaf and did not want anything else. They are pleased to be in...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Scott S Gordon replied on Mar. 31, 2020 @ 19:53 GMT
Hi Dizhechko,

Thanks for your interest... Most of us who have come up with a new theory to explain everything will agree on one thing... Those in physics academia are not ready to hear any ideas not arising from within their own ranks. For the most part they have good reasons,... Many of the outside ideas contradict known experimental results, others do not have the math required to...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Apr. 3, 2020 @ 15:40 GMT
Dear Scott Gordon, where did you see here others whom you can convince. Here everyone has his own idea, and he unwaveringly defends it, so it is very difficult to get a high rating if there is no agreement on mutual support with anyone. I give high ratings to those who visit my page and leave her comment on it regarding the neo-Cartesian generalization of modern physics, even if we do not agree.

Regards, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Scott S Gordon replied on Apr. 3, 2020 @ 16:11 GMT
I am not here to convince others... I didn't even mention my theory in my essay - I only pointed out why I think theoretical physicists are in such a bind. I'll make a more concerted effort after the updated version of my book is freely available (the old version has too many "crackpot" aspects - Not in the theory but in the names I applied to the new ideas like calling the component building block of spacetime a GOD Entity, where GOD stands for Gordon Omnipresent Dot. Apparently, that is like kryptonite to them. LOL! In any case, it did serve a purpose by allowing the theory to be out for 5 years. It would be very difficult for anyone to say they came up with it first. I will also be making teaching videos later to go with the new book... That's when the fun starts! In any case - I like seeing the work of others, compare the approaches, etc... All the best to you Dizheckho.

Bookmark and Share

Member Noson S. Yanofsky wrote on Apr. 2, 2020 @ 11:53 GMT
Dear Scott Gordan,

Thank you for a very interesting essay.

I was wondering if you have any suggestions of how to change the scientific method so that we get past this impasse?

All the best,

Noson Yanofsky

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Scott S Gordon replied on Apr. 2, 2020 @ 16:55 GMT
Hi Noson,

Appreciate the kind comment... I wrote this essay questioning the using of the scientific method to find new physics. Many people are assuming that if I am saying that the scientific method in not useful in finding a solution that I do not believe in the scientific method and therefore my ideas are not valid science. Ironically that is not accurate. While the scientific method cannot be used to find a new theoretical physics model... once a new theoretical physics model is found, the scientific method can be used to validate it. So we do not need to change the scientific method, what we need is for physicists to really get out of their scientific "box".

Even more interestingly, physics academia poo-poo physics philosophers... Lawrence Krause had said very disparaging remarks about that field. He does not seem to realize that it will be philosophy that brings us the complete understanding of physics and the theory of everything.

I have proposed a model in a theory entitled, "Hierarchy of Energy theory" - It is mathematically based. It requires an entire book to learn it and it represents a missing course in undergraduate physics. Like I said, everything can be derived from hierarchy of energy theory but this theory cannot be found using the scientific method. How I came up with this theory would make an interesting story, but in any case, you can read the response I written to Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich above to get an idea of what the theory entails.

All the best to you Noson and please stay healthy


Bookmark and Share

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 16, 2020 @ 21:53 GMT
Dear Scott S Gordon,

You ask why is the speed of light the same in all frames? I think probably because Einstein could not relate frames in relative motion without a ‘standard’ velocity to compare to.

You then say that all waves require a medium yet MM experiments concluded there was no medium. Actually, they concluded that there was no evidence for a universal medium. That leaves room for a local medium for propagation of light.

If one proposes that the local gravitational field is exactly that medium, then all MM experiments would effectively find zero ‘ether wind’, which is exactly what they found. In his 1923 Michelson-Gale experiments, the results are best explained by gravity as ether [see my ref 11].

If the real universe-filling gravitation field is identified with the [abstract] ‘space’ then the ‘energy of spacetime’ is the energy of the field and Einstein said “there is no space absent field.”

It seems that this interpretation is largely compatible with your model, and I agree with you that the best physical model should focus on energy as the prime aspect of reality.

I hope you will read my essay, Deciding on the nature of time and space, and comment on it.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Scott S Gordon replied on Apr. 17, 2020 @ 01:52 GMT
Dear Dr Klingman,

Everything you have said is completely compatible with my essay - I read your essay and I think your ideas and concepts are correct. There is a reason why everyone is stumbling in actually getting to the correct model and the mathematics that expresses it.

I wrote this essay to give the reason why we cannot figure out the correct model. In actuality, I have an...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share

Michael muteru wrote on Apr. 30, 2020 @ 08:57 GMT
all knowledge starts with a question.. nice work well and simply phrased. could realligment of in the philosophy of physics lead us to new physics ?read/rate my take - the best.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on May. 17, 2020 @ 07:29 GMT
Dear Scott,

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, `


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.