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.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger 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

songjoong df: on 12/27/17 at 7:02am UTC, wrote cara menjadi reseller qnc jelly gamat Cara Menjadi Agen Qnc Jelly Gamat ...

Jason Wolfe: on 10/22/10 at 20:26pm UTC, wrote Tom, Here is some math for the quantum ether. ...

Steve Dufourny: on 1/15/10 at 13:31pm UTC, wrote Hi all , Dear Marcel “The people who are crazy enough to think they can...

Brendan Foster: on 1/14/10 at 19:27pm UTC, wrote In case you haven't read it elsewhere, here it is: Winners in the Essay...

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 1/6/10 at 21:12pm UTC, wrote With the following, physicists can lay claim to the fundamental (or...

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 1/6/10 at 20:59pm UTC, wrote None of you have yet responded to my prior post. What's wrong? We ARE...

Steve Dufourny: on 1/6/10 at 10:49am UTC, wrote And of course the Box is in 3D .......

Jason Wolfe: on 1/6/10 at 7:38am UTC, wrote Dear Marcel-Marie: So in summary, the physics community can only really...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Hanvi jobs: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi BLOGS
May 23, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: What is Ultimately Possible in Physics? [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Anthony Aguirre wrote on May. 16, 2009 @ 02:02 GMT
On the subject of warp drives and the like, we're please to finally announce the second FQXi essay contest, on "What is ultimately possible in physics?" (Go here for details.) More specifically, to quote, "Essays in this competition will explore the limits of physics and the physics of limits. Appropriate topics are those such as, but not limited to: What are the limits of physics' explanatory and predictive power? What does this tell us about the world? What technologies are fundamentally forbidden, or may ultimately be allowed, by physics? What role do 'impossibility' principles or other limits (e.g., sub-lightspeed signaling, Heisenberg uncertainty, cosmic censorship, the second law of thermodynamics, the holographic principle, computational limits, etc.) play in foundational physics and cosmology?" As with the Nature of time, this is a pretty broad topic, and the challenge will be to maintain high relevance by focusing on *ultimate* possibility rather than trying to shoehorn any old interesting topic in.

Since the first contest, we've made a number of changes to how the contest is run, which you'll learn by carefully reading the rules. We've also made a number of changes to the FQXi website as a whole, many of which are apparent if you are looking at this, others that you will notice as you explore, and/or that will come online soon.

As for last time, it will be really interesting to see what the community comes up with. Also, please do let anyone know who you think might be interested -- the more people that get the notice the more fun things will be!

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Brian Beverly wrote on May. 17, 2009 @ 02:46 GMT
Hey Anthony,

I’m excited about the contest because I learned so much from the last one.

“As with the Nature of time, this is a pretty broad topic, and the challenge will be to maintain high relevance by focusing on *ultimate* possibility rather than trying to shoehorn any old interesting topic in.”

In the last contest the essays were to focus on ultimate and foundation questions about time. There was also an example provided it was something similar to:

A new method or improvement for measuring time is topical but not foundational.

What would be an example for this contest of a shoehorned topic?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Anthony Aguirre wrote on May. 17, 2009 @ 23:14 GMT
Hi Brian,

Ultimately, that will be up to the Judges and the evaluators, including you; and I don't think it will be quite as clear cut. But for example, if I read a whole essay about the inflationary multiverse (say), including a paragraph about why it limits physics' ultimate predictive power, then I would say it got a bit shoehorned. But an essay that is centrally about how a multiverse limits physics ultimate predictive power -- or doesn't -- would feel more relevant to me.

Perhaps some of the readers out there can come up with interesting examples that would be fun to discuss.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on May. 18, 2009 @ 01:01 GMT
Anthony,

I realize FQXi is primarily focused on the intellectual compartment of Physics, yet this question raises issues which fall across a rather broad spectrum, from, say neurobiology to anthropology, as well as politics and economics, because what you are really asking pertains to what humanity can attain in the future and any prediction of the future necessarily requires as broad a consideration of our stores of knowledge. For reference, consider what science fiction covers. Technological possibilities are meaningless without any sociological basis that would be the foundation for their development.

I guess this would be my first question about possibilities, vs limitations, as they define what this contest entails.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti wrote on May. 18, 2009 @ 08:58 GMT
Anthony,

I hope there are many up to the challenge of responding to so open a question.

Here are some possible titles:

1. Putting limits on the X-Men?

2. Is everything we can imagine possible?

3. Getting to now?

4. Can the mismatch between math and physics be reconciled OR Can physics

discover the geometrical point.

5. The ultimate limits to physics: Information and Computation.

6. Human limitations and the limits of natural philosophy (physics).

7. The limits of self reference. The art of looking directly at your eyeball.

8. What is a number that a man may know it via natural phenomena.

9. The limits of instrumentation, how far can we extend the senses.

This could be fun :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on May. 19, 2009 @ 02:10 GMT
Existence is somewhere between no possibility, a void or nullity, and all is possible which is chaos. We can only understand what is possible against the backdrop of what is impossible.

I am not going to write on this, but I think there are resource and global environmental issues which may well take down the human species utterly. We appear to be engineering the next planetary mass extinction. If so we may go down with it in what EO Wilson calls the impending bottleneck. The problem is that time frames are impossible to nail down.

So assume the human condition or civilization is going to collapse 50, 75, 100, ... years from now. Is it possible before this time we might be able to understand quantum cosmology? Can we obtain the data to support such a theory? Will such a theory be really a final theory, or just some approximation which works within knowledge limits of the time?

Lawrence B. Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on May. 19, 2009 @ 21:54 GMT
Anthony,

Lawrence states the issue more bluntly, but the question remains whether this topic is limited by the disciplinary strictures of the current field of Physics to speculation about technological fantasies, or can we expand into the realm of human possibilities and how far? For me, trying to isolate the ways in which people can manipulate nature, from the ways in which nature manipulates people, is difficult.

Lawrence,

Thinking is a process of distilling order from chaos. Without chaos to feed on, we would suffer mental starvation. Of course, not being able to discern order in the chaos results in mental breakdown.

We are headed for a bottleneck much sooner than 50 years, but that's part of the cycle.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Anthony Aguirre wrote on May. 19, 2009 @ 22:48 GMT
John & Lawrence:

In my view, the focus of these essays should be more about physics and what is ultimately possible *in physics* rather than what is ultimately possible *using physics*, i.e. technologically attainable in some way. This removes many of the connections to economics, sociology, etc. Thinking about these might be a fun contest, but I think there is a better venue for it, that you indeed suggest: write good science fiction!

Don: Thanks!

Amrit: Your posts are too off-topic and have been removed; sorry. Please feel free to submit your thoughts in an essay.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on May. 19, 2009 @ 23:50 GMT
Anthony: Yes I agree with you about how this should be over fundamental issues. If I write something based on some of my work it will be focused in this direction.

I do find myself wondering whether we can come to some theory of quantum cosmology in the next 25 or 50 years, and whether we can get data to lend support for it. Even if this is an approximate theory, which I think is most likely, it would represent a triumph. Yet while we might be smart enough to understand the foundations of the universe, at least within some limits of our observations and understanding, we might also be so utterly stupid as to destroy our life support system on our planetary "spaceship." The question is whether we can understand the universe before we engineer the next mass extinction, or do a planetary wide "space shuttle crash."

I am reminded of the Doug Adams bit in his "Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy" where the woman figures out the answer to life the universe and everything minutes before the Vogons destroy Earth to put in their interstellar bypass.

Lawrence B. Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on May. 20, 2009 @ 07:15 GMT
Anthoni

My posts are to off-topic?

I would say that a question “Who is the Observer ?” is in a frame of frontier of physics. Observer is a consistent part of scientific experiment and searching for self-observation makes sense.

I send an essay about the subject, I hope will be published. In today physics observer is still experiencing universe and himself in a frame of psychological time past-present-future. In that sense physics today is not ruled by pure reason that is above time. Future physics will be ruled by pure reason, but for that observer needs to be liberated from psychological time. I believe this subject is in the frame of discussion here.

Mathematic is pure reason. In mathematic in equations you will not see symbol t time. Time t enters in physics. Awakened observer is distinguishing between physical time, math time and psychological time and so building up physics of pure reason.

Yours Amrit

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul N. Butler wrote on May. 20, 2009 @ 17:43 GMT
Anthony:

The concept that an adequate description of what is ultimately possible in physics can be accomplished by looking mostly at what is ultimately possible (in physics) rather than what is ultimately possible (using physics) sounds good on the surface, but reality doesn’t work that way. In the real world advancements (in physics) have come in great part due to the use of the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on May. 20, 2009 @ 18:22 GMT
In terms of the essay, I can think of lots of things that are acceptable in terms of physics, but are ultimately not physics. Perhaps naturally occuring phenomena would be a better description. But are those acceptable topics? They can certainly be interesting and even bizarre, but are not likely to be topics in a physics course. On the other hand, if an essay generates stimulating conversation, that, in and of itself, is beneficial and at the very least, enjoyable.

Any thoughts?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on May. 21, 2009 @ 02:32 GMT
Anthony,

Thanks for the guidelines. I suppose I will likely sit this one out. I agree with Paul's assessment that while speculation is linear, knowledge is necessarily cumulative. My interest in physics is to the extent it establishes the foundation of the reality in which we exist, not isolated from that reality.

Limits are necessary for any discipline, so I can understand why it must be this way. For those of us on the outside, such speculation can seem like counting angels on the head of a pin, but than that particular speculation really amounted to a precursor of considering microscopic life forms. We might one day develop methods of faster than light travel, but nature may lead us there first through spiritual exploration and follow with technical innovation. Those other dimensions lay in wait.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristi Stoica wrote on May. 21, 2009 @ 17:01 GMT
Dear Anthony,

When I thought that it would be difficult to come with another topic as interesting as the previous one, FQXi proposed again something great. Congratulations!

Reading the rules, I understand that the ratings given by a Community member will ranging from 1 to 10, and that these ratings will be averaged. Could you provide the formula containing the judges’ ratings, and the weight they carry? Is it something like this

(community_ratings_average + judges_ratings_average * weight)/(1+ weight),

or like this

(sum(community_ratings) + sum(judges_ratings)* weight)/( number_of_community_members_who_rated + number_of_judges_ who_rated * weight)?

(they are not equal, unless weight=1 or 0)

Sorry that I ask, but I could not interpret unequivocally the rules, especially the statement “The final ranking that determines prizes will be determined by Community rating (including weighted ratings from the Judges), rounded to one decimal (i.e., 1.0-10.0)”.

Thank you

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Anthony Aguirre wrote on May. 22, 2009 @ 14:04 GMT
Paul:

I agree with much of what you said. I would say that in my view essays for this contest need not 'answer the question' of what is ultimately possible in physics: they are only meant to address it; clearly it is a huge and multifaceted issue that we may never fully understand... On the essay contest viewing numbers, we'll consider whether there is some sensible way to supply this information.

Jason: Not quite sure what you are getting at.

Cristi: It is like the second: when a judge casts a rating, it is equivalent to (weight) Community ratings being cast.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Chris Kennedy wrote on May. 22, 2009 @ 14:44 GMT
John,

I am going to sit this one out too. However, I have been working on an article that should be done in a week. Would you mind reading it with your usual superior analytical skills and let me know what you think? If there is a breakdown in logic anywhere - you would be the person to find it. If you don't mind - I will post it up as an attachment the next time I chime in.

Thanks

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on May. 22, 2009 @ 16:09 GMT
Anthony,

Since I am challenging the assumption that physics is an absolute that cannot be tampered with, I see possibilities that the rest of you do not.

I’m tempted to try to explain metaphysical phenomena. The problem is: even if I could explain such phenomena as a manifestation of physics, I would be labeled as a “crackpot”. On the one hand, a lot of people think these are important issue (things like a soul, God, etc…). On the other hand, those who don’t think it’s important will declare it as something unrelated to physics.

What is ultimately possible in physics? What if some of the ideas that the “crazies” have been talking about for centuries really are possible? What then?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on May. 23, 2009 @ 17:24 GMT
Chris,

Certainly, though no promises my particular set of obsessions can be definitive.

Jason,

Since the contest is going to be open for awhile, it might be useful to wait and see what others offer. Or rather what others offer that gets accepted. I suspect they are going to have a bit of judging to do, just to set the parameters of this contest. What is possible, vs. impossible opens all sorts of metaphysical, logical and procedural issues. Personally I would probably take the time, since some ideas have been occurring to me, but for the fact they likely wouldn't meet the criteria and watching the next stage of the financial collapse will be absorbing much of my attention.

I might even change my mind at the last minute.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on May. 23, 2009 @ 17:51 GMT
John,

It's like playing chess. One has to create the optimal conditions on the board. Then, within a single move, many possibilities are available. Like I was saying in another post, the physics community has all of these puzzle pieces (measurements), but they can't assemble the whole picture in a way that makes sense. They think the puzzle says: PARTICLES. But they're wrong! It really says: CONNECTIVE VIBRATING STRINGS!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on May. 23, 2009 @ 20:55 GMT
I've been thinking about differential calculus. In the statement

dx/dy = f(x,y), all we know is that if x changes, then y will change by some amount, dx = f(x,y)dy. We have no idea what the causal relationship is. The mathematics doesn't tell us. As it turned out, I was getting a clog out of my vaccuum cleaner while thinking about this. I completely understand that the motor turns (if it's plugged in and current is flowing). As air is pumped out, a vacuum is created that sucks the dirt up the hose and into the plastic container. My -d(dirt on floor) = d(dirt in the bin)f(vacuum pressure, length of hose, etc...)...

Calculus tells us what the relationships are, but it doesn't tell us any causality. Which part of the mathematics deals with causality?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristi Stoica wrote on May. 23, 2009 @ 22:29 GMT
Dear Jason,

You are right, the equation expresses how x changes, when y changes with dy. In my opinion, the mathematics can describe in all detail your vacuum cleaner, without needing to discuss about causality. Yet the causality appears only in our temporal interpretation of the processes. Think for example at a Feynman diagram of an electron: the cause is that it was emitted at A, and the effect is that it is absorbed at B. Or, for an observer with the reversed time, it is not an electron, but a positron, and the cause is that it is emitted at B, while the effect is that it is absorbed at A. The causality is the dependence of the fields on the past events, but the same mathematical relation expressing this dependence also expresses the dependence of the past events on the future ones. Mathematically, saying that a is determined by b and c by a=b+c is equivalent to saying that c is determined by a and b from c=a-b. The causality occurs in our interpretation of the correlations between events. But once we know the equation and the time arrow, the causality follows.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on May. 24, 2009 @ 02:31 GMT
Jason,

What they are really scared of is that it's just fuzzy, interconnected fields. Remember that chess was an attempt to make sense of war. It still boils down to time and how to project it into an indeterminate future, without breaking into multiple realities, when the principles that seem to govern the past are so deterministic. Unfortunately the most stable and prominent aspects of the past are often the most rigid and inflexible, so the future is often a reaction to what we believe.

Our minds manufacture order out of chaos. No chaos to feed on and we mentally starve, but if we can't find order in it, we go crazy. Think about that, the next time you are trying to figure out what motivates people. Science, religion, politics. Even economics, because work is being paid to make sense out of chaos. Reality is a process of turning the future into the past.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on May. 24, 2009 @ 13:32 GMT
Causality conditions are given by the light cone. A quantum propagator is defined on the light cone or for an onshell particle with a mass inside of it.

Lawrence B. Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on May. 24, 2009 @ 16:45 GMT
Cristi,

I wish we could call time what it really is: causality. I was having this discussion with my better half. Teddy bears and gum drops just don't appear for no reason. There is always something that caused it; even a chain of causes. I wish we could rename space-time. We should call it causality-space. As for time-travel, from God's point of view it is such a hassle to have to move 10^500 strings around in a way that nobody notices anything wrong. That's why God is so big on forgiveness.

John,

I've been noticing changes the various Wikipedia definitions like Quantum Field Theory, Boson,... They're trying to explain it more clearly (something I do appreciate). But if fuzzy is the result of simplicity and dazzling complexity is the result of rigor, then we're going to be technologically stuck here for a while. But let me try rewording what I've been saying:

N superstrings on a particle D0-brane in a way that constitutes a dyanamically changing network; the connections are determined by what is gravitationally consistent. N is proportional to the particles rest mass. I'm trying to make it un-fuzzy.

Lawrence,

Yes, you're absolutely right. But I have ordered a set of hyperspeed superstrings; they are being shipped from Japan. They are rated at 100c. I am going to use them to test the components of a warp drive. By the way, I may have to borrow somebody's singularity or black hole; does anybody have one I can borrow?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristi Stoica wrote on May. 24, 2009 @ 20:39 GMT
Jason, I am sorry if I answered a rhetorical question. Anyway, I said that mathematical physics can 'describe' (not 'explain') your vacuum cleaner. And I discussed time and charge symmetries, not time travel.

Regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on May. 24, 2009 @ 23:18 GMT
I think the D0-brane is a Planck unit of volume with a quantum bit (letter) in an error correction code. The Q-bit has Skymre field theoretic content and the string is due to the "ropey" flux lines that result. It is not hard to get the 26-dimensional bosonic string from the 24-cell tessellation of Lorentz spacetime. There are Fermi-like surfaces for spin 1/2 fields which define in K-theory p-branes of higher dimension d > 1.

Lawrence B. Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on May. 24, 2009 @ 23:25 GMT
Cristi,

I want physicists in the physics community to be trying to figure out the laws of nature for the purpose of improving the quality of human life. I've already given a few examples. Mathematical physics is one of the tools. Experimental physics is another. Putting together the pieces of the puzzle so that we can better guess what is ultimately possible and achievable is helpful and useful. Can theoretical physics truly add something of value to civilization? I think that physicists are capable of developing advanced technologies. I just don't think they have the inclination to do so.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on May. 24, 2009 @ 23:50 GMT
Jason,

Obviously there is dazzling complexity. The question is whether it explains anything beyond the particular detail. The problem is that our thought processes are finite, linear and reductionistic, but reality is not, so either we focus on detail, which tends to create a fisheye view of reality that blows our point of focus out of proportion to the rest of reality, or we take a generalist view that misses most of the detail, but instills some sense of proportion. What I was trying to say is that the secret fear of the experts is that the generalists will be proven right and their particular life long obsession doesn't really explain very much. History is littered with schools of thought that dried up and blew away. So when the leading lights are seriously talking about multiple universes, etc. it does raise the question of whether they are just that far ahead of the curve, or completely out in left field. Just because many thousands of people spend their lives and much money developing the models isn't proof they are right. Look how many bright people went into banking, yet no one considers that the supply of capital must be supported by healthy demand for it, not just bubbles of debt.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on May. 25, 2009 @ 00:24 GMT
Jason,

That last post was just riffing. Actually I do think reality is a bit more fuzzy than physics cares to admit. To explain I'm posting my argument on the end of time thread against Julian Barbour's essay;

"Can I please be a little nitpicky here?

In Julian's paper he does a very nice job of establishing there is no fixed unit of duration, then at the end, turns around and tries to provide one with the principle of least action. I agree time is a consequence of motion and not the basis for it, so that yes, units of time are no more precise than the methods used to define and measure them and Dr. Barbour clearly understands this, but it just seems that at the last moment, he has a failure of nerve and seeks to grasp something solid. If he has truly established that the principle of least action provides an irreducible unit of time between two configuration points of the universe, doesn't this prove time is a fundamental dimension between any two configurations of the universe, as opposed to saying two configurations of the universe cannot co-exist, therefore the difference is a process where one is becoming, as the other is departing, not an established unit between two specific configurations, because if time is simply a consequence of motion, how can there be dimensionless points of configuration from which to measure, without stopping the very motion that created time in the first place?

Think about this in physical terms. If you freeze framed quantum activity, would it just be a still life of reality as we see it, or would the picture simply vanish like a non-fluctuating vacuum?

Hopefully someone is willing to set me straight in terms I can understand.

post approved"

This is what I really had in mind.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristi Stoica wrote on May. 25, 2009 @ 06:43 GMT
Jason,

“Can theoretical physics truly add something of value to civilization? I think that physicists are capable of developing advanced technologies. I just don't think they have the inclination to do so.”

Even if theoretical physicists would not be an important link in the chain (simplified here) “theoretical physics -> applied physics -> engineering -> entrepreneurship”, their work would be of value.

Even if the only value theoretical physicists (and scientists in general) add to civilization is the courage to expose their ideas deliberately in a form that allows others to test., criticize, and possible reject them, this would be enough for me. I think that civilization and society can gain a lot by cultivating more this openness.

At least, this is the intention, but even physicists are humans, having a limited time and patience. Ideally, they would embrace any criticism, including yours. The fact that you say openly what you have to say may indicate that you trust in their capacity to analyze your arguments, and if it is the case, to change. Even though I am not a physicist, I thank you for trying to improve the things.

Best wishes,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul N. Butler wrote on May. 27, 2009 @ 05:41 GMT
Anthony:

I will appreciate all of the info that you can share with me concerning the viewing numbers. It would be an interesting experiment to include the viewing numbers on the intro to each paper in this contest like the comments numbers were in the last contest and see if that increases or decreases the viewing of papers by the more well known and, or, the unknown authors compared to the contest that was just completed without them. It would be best to do it in the way that would increase overall readership. If giving the numbers in that way decreased the overall readership they could still be given in private to each contestant in future contests, at least concerning his own paper and could also include ranges of readership, such as the average readership levels for the top 25 percent most read papers, and the same for the second, third, and fourth 25 percent ranges so the author would know how his paper did in general. This could be sent by e-mail, etc. either automatically to all or upon request. So far my research in this area suggests that man’s general herd mentality training would result in large readership figures for the well known authors and generally very small readership figures for the unknown authors even when all the papers are displayed with similar introductions. At first I was surprised by that result because I had hoped that scientists would be more inquisitive and open to searching out and evaluating all possibilities than the general public, but after awhile it became apparent that the same social structure that inhibits and limits man in the general public is also prevalent in the scientific community. This is one of the things (along with the amount of time that man has been given, etc.) that will determine the limit of what is ultimately possible for man to understand in physics. This contest is a somewhat different approach than other areas of my research, so it would be interesting to see if the pattern holds here also. I did notice that the contest topic does not mention man in the equation of what is possible in physics. Does that mean that you are also including physics as developed by others? If so you are opening up a much larger topic that could include a range of anything from other types of created beings (interpreted by most to mean aliens) to what God could develop. It would be very difficult, however, to explain what others (that are not inhibited in their development ability in the way that man is) could develop in physics (at least in any way that would not exceed man’s acceptable dispersion factor limit).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on May. 27, 2009 @ 10:17 GMT
Lawrence,

I was using D0-brane to mean a point-like object acting as a Dbrane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-brane). I was trying to find a clear way to say that each and every particle has a very large number of superstrings connecting to it. I'm attempting to explain the Higg's field as a point particle with huge numbers of superstrings coming out of it. The superstrings are transmitting momentum to and from the particle.

Cristi,

I was trying to be as minimally confrontational as possible, but I needed to communicate the idea that physicists skill is a precious resource. The solidification of one's reputation within the establishment carries certain benefits to professional advancement. But know this: there is new physics on the horizon. Some of those who are safely within the establishment will have an opportunity to break from the pack and make a contribution that will outlast them.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on May. 28, 2009 @ 02:22 GMT
I think there is an underlying basis to string theory. A spacetime time can be tessellated with the 24-cell, which is the F_4 group. This embeds the 26-dimensional string in the 52-dimensional irrep of F_4. To capture the other string systems involves a tessellation of AdS by 4-dim dodecahdral polytopes.

Each vertex involves a "letter," or a quantum bit at a Planck unit of volume. These are the D_0's of open strings, and the string is due to topological fluxes between these units.

Lawrence B. Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on May. 28, 2009 @ 13:32 GMT
Hi Lawrence,

I agree that there is an underlying basis to string theory. I suspect that there is tessellated structure - even beyond the membranes that most String theorists expect. It almost implies a mixture of a little bit of membrane theory and a little bit of causal dynamical triangulation. But is Jason's concept of many intersecting strings radically different from the lattice concept that tessellation implies?

It would be nice if the structures were as simple as F4, and some sub-structures may be that simple. I am convinced that it is actually more complicated than Lisi's E8 TOE and the corresponding Gosset lattice.

Each D0 is a new fermion. The 8-dimensional "Wigner-Seitz unit cell" Gosset lattice has 240 D0's. Lisi did not introduce all 240 roots of E8 as fermions. Lisi's E8 has been a great inspiration to me, but I think this is an error. If we expand our Gosset lattice into an infinite lattice, then we introduce an infinite number of new D0 Kaluza-Klein fermions, and an infinite number of dimensions consistent with an infinite-dimensional Kac-Moody E12 or El Naschie E-Infinity algebra.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 28, 2009 @ 17:27 GMT
Ray and Lawrence,

The Standard Model plus Gravity represents a group of data points. Our mathematical models represent attempts to reproduce all of those data points. But there are lots of models that can describe this group of points. Would we be better off coming up with models that are easier to explain to laypersons? Intuitive (mechanistic) models may not be ideal, but they allow us to use more of our brain to ask better questions and come up with better experiements. If you write books, they make it easier for the layperson to understand.

As an illustrative example, electrons are like pinecones because...

Also, be aware that we are all the blind men (people) trying to figure out what the 'physics' elephant is like. Maybe it's a good thing to have 'multiple' intuitive models.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 28, 2009 @ 18:03 GMT
Lawrence,

The tesselation of space-time with mathematical objects to create an 8 dimensional lattice of spheres (like solid state physics) is one possibility.

The possibility I'm suggesting is a highly interconnected network of particle hubs and superstring links. The links vibrate to reproduce quantum mechanics and the Higgs fields. The connections themselves reproduce gravitational interaction, speed of light restriction along the link, bidirectional causality, an arbitrary number of dimensions, quantum entanglement, and a headache for whoever has to create a computer simulation. But the holographic universe model can also be thought of as superstring intersections of the event horizon; the intersections look like information content on a surface because: in a highly interconnected network model, a black hole has superstrings coming out of it. There is clearly an upper limit to the overlapping of superstrings (superstring density). This model also suggests there may be different kinds of superstrings (one for each of the four forces plus).

It's also easier to explain virtual particle momentum transfer as point like events on a connecting superstring. Momentum transfer by virtual particles is such a headache to visualize. But a point like kick from a superstring is easy. If the superstrings can exhibit adhesive qualities, then large extended groups of them could behave like a quantum field.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on May. 28, 2009 @ 20:02 GMT
Hi Jason,

If you subscribe to Einstein’s quote that "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler", believe that there is only one Higgs and the LHC will discover it, and don’t mind any of the following: 1) Relativity and Quantum Mechanics seem incompatible, 2) the Standard Model of Particle Physics SU(3)XSU(2)XU(1) is ugly and doesn’t include gravity, 3) the Weak force is left-handed only, 4) action at-a-distance, and 5) hierarchies, Dirac’s Large Number and an apparently huge gulf between the top mass and the Planck energy; THEN you might be able to honestly say that our current physics theories do a good job of fitting the data points as long as the theories are used in their respective realms of validity. Some well-meaning Physicists fall into this category.

I prefer Occam’s Razor “Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" and feel that simplicity must be balanced with necessity. If it takes 10, 11, or 12 dimensions to explain all of these inconsistencies, then that is a necessary assumption.

And yes, we are all fumbling around in the dark.

Regarding the lattice, Lisi used the 8-dimensional Gosset lattice – I’m using more dimensions, but I can’t give more details on a blog site.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on May. 29, 2009 @ 02:20 GMT
Jason,

"The tesselation of space-time with mathematical objects to create an 8 dimensional lattice of spheres (like solid state physics) is one possibility.

The possibility I'm suggesting is a highly interconnected network of particle hubs and superstring links. The links vibrate to reproduce quantum mechanics and the Higgs fields. The connections themselves reproduce gravitational interaction, speed of light restriction along the link, bidirectional causality, an arbitrary number of dimensions, quantum entanglement, and a headache for whoever has to create a computer simulation. But the holographic universe model can also be thought of as superstring intersections of the event horizon; the intersections look like information content on a surface because: in a highly interconnected network model, a black hole has superstrings coming out of it. There is clearly an upper limit to the overlapping of superstrings (superstring density). This model also suggests there may be different kinds of superstrings (one for each of the four forces plus). "

Wouldn't it be more effective to call it space-temperature? As in a fluctuating vacuum. We like time as a fundamental because we are inherently linear, as that is how we define order, so we are constantly trying to conform reality to our linear thought processes. Rather than trying to compute every possible thread, why not accept it as a field effect in which all the threads are subjective and cannot be incorporated into the same model, just as we, as individuals, co-exist, but do not co-habit the same three dimensional center point. Like molecules of water all moving about in the medium, it's about temperature. Time is just a measure of any one molecule moving against its field of reference. All such points move forward in time, but the conformational states they create go backward in time, from future potential to past circumstance. Time is the measure of the point to its field, not to every other point, because all points move together into the future, so there is nothing to measure. It is only these conformational states which change. That is why it's about the field, not the lattice.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on May. 29, 2009 @ 06:53 GMT
John,

Spacetime tesselation has apeal. It means the universe is built solidly like an 8 dimensional brick house where the bricks are generating space-time. The problem with that is it only takes into account short range phenomena. It doesn't explain quantum entanglement or gravity. The other problem with tesselation is that the mathematics might predict particles, but it doesn't mechanistically explain how they emerge.

A highly interconnected superstring network explains long range gravitational effects, quantum fields and quantum entanglement. Schrodinger's Equation gives you wavy solutions in arbitrary dimensions. But the solutions are only probability waves, Psi. It takes (Psi*)Psi to have any chance at finding a particle in all of this waviness. If you don't like strings, you can try a quantum ocean, but that suggests an aether which is bad for GR. So at least with strings interconnecting particles, you can get something that (1) enforces the speed of light, (2) can vibrate and act like force mediating particle (so much easier to imagine) (3) can be close enough to a Schrodinger equation solution that QM and GR can be compatible, (4) explains this holographic magical universe stuff as superstring intersections of the event horizon.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason wrote on May. 29, 2009 @ 07:08 GMT
John,

A space-temperature network will smear out (thank heavens) much of the complexity of the model. I say, absolutely, go for it! The only problem with a space-temperature network is that it also smears out conceptual understanding that could lead to attempts to explain c (speed of light), h (planck's constant), as well as mechanistic questions. Maybe superstrings as cylinders have important mechanistic consequences. Maybe some energy could slip into the cylinder's diameter?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on May. 29, 2009 @ 07:41 GMT
Hi to all ,

I read with a lot of interest ,you know I prefer spheres than strings .

But it's not my point of vue ,

I don't understand the multiples dimensions ,really ,who can help me please ,what are thoses extradimensions ,what are their nature ??? What ere their rules ?

Can I have a clear answer about thoses dimensions ,really I have difficukltuies to encircle that ,for me three dimension and a time constant .A clear answer is welcome .

About the Lie Algebras ,really interesting but so far of the truth ,it' more complex in the superimposings more the quantum architecture of sphres .

About the lattices ,the entanglement is specific in correlation with cosmological numbers of spheres ,with their volumes ,nature ,rotation ,mass.....

Furthermore the entanglement can have so many extrapolations ,indeed the space in correlation with time evolution(expansion and contraction) can imply many possibilities ,thus a gauge is important ,between those kissings spheres ,a maximum contact and a our actual system and its spheres in our Universe ,perhaps the quantum architecture is correlated too with galaxies ,thus different quantum architecture of spheres and volumes ,but a sure thing is the center ,the main sphere ,correlated quantum and main central universal sphere .

If we insert the rotation correlated with mass ,all can be linked .

sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on May. 29, 2009 @ 11:06 GMT
I was wondering, considering the outcome of the last competition, whether FQXI wanted to position itself as a serious scientific research organization or as a society for the discussion of the philosophpy of science.

This topic choice provides the answer. Of all the suggestions for a topic that could well tie into contemporary research and be answered with solid mathematical models, the chosen subject was a question without scientific content.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on May. 29, 2009 @ 12:37 GMT
Dear Jason,

You said “Spacetime tessellation has appeal. It means the universe is built solidly like an 8 dimensional brick house where the bricks are generating space-time. The problem with that is it only takes into account short range phenomena. It doesn't explain quantum entanglement or gravity. The other problem with tessellation is that the mathematics might predict particles, but it doesn't mechanistically explain how they emerge.”

BINGO!

This is why I consider 12 dimensions a necessity – because Garrett Lisi’s E8 Gosset lattice describes 8-dimensional Hyperspace, but not Spacetime! Actually, the origin of Quantum Entanglement is the collapse of the 12 dimensions, but we still need to include the inflated Spacetime dimensions in order to explain action at-a-distance. The 8-dimensional Hyperspace lattice may yield interesting phenomena such as CDT (as I think John is implying with “The possibility I'm suggesting is a highly interconnected network of particle hubs and superstring links. The links vibrate to reproduce quantum mechanics and the Higgs fields. The connections themselves reproduce gravitational interaction, speed of light restriction along the link, bidirectional causality, an arbitrary number of dimensions, quantum entanglement, and a headache for whoever has to create a computer simulation”).

I think that your entangled strings have a similar effect as lattices, but we must realize that Spacetime inflated more than Hyperspace, so the “lattice parameters” may be very different from one brane to the next. Thus, it is a very complex lattice with interesting sub-structures such as Lisi’s E8 Gosset lattice.

Dear Spheric Steve,

You said “Furthermore the entanglement can have so many extrapolations”. If String Theory has 10^500 parameters, thus implying the holographic mind, then interactions between pairs of parameters requires an SU(N) algebra with N=10^500, thus implying 10^1000 possibilities. Yes, there are too many extrapolations.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on May. 29, 2009 @ 16:45 GMT
Ray,

I think we should consider replacing Occam's razor with its competitor: "success builds on success". It certainly works for biology/evolution and systems that improve over time.

With the tesselation idea, E12 or E8, I've been told that the vertices and the links represent particle properties. But nobody ever explains how the particles are mechanistically implemented. Somehow, space space just pops out these particles, as if by magic. But it's the mechanisms that we need to understand.



Mathematics is notorious for hiding the mechanisms. If the universe really behaves mathematically and appears to produce observations without a clear mechanism, then the mechanism has to be behind the mathematics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on May. 29, 2009 @ 17:40 GMT
Ray,

I was just quoting Jason with that paragraph.

Jason,

It's not that I'm arguing against lattices, but any model is inherently limited. Yes, all the particles are connected, or there would be no field effect in the first place. To the extent every particle reflects every other particle in differing ways, it creates a field effect, just as you are a field effect of all the physical actions and biological impulses of which you are comprised.

A space -temperature model would be foundational, rather than a smearing of what emerges from that foundation. The same logic which describes time as a fourth dimension, using the speed of light as the relative constant of distance, could be used to say that temperature is another parameter of volume. An example would be the cosmic background radiation, as its temperature decreases proportional to the expanding volume of the Big Bang model universe. So, no, it wouldn't explain the speed of light, because C and time are emergent properties and emergence poses all sorts of questions.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 29, 2009 @ 20:25 GMT
John,

The beauty of creating these models (lattice, space-temperature, tesselation, etc...) is it gets us to debate and ask better questions. What is fundamental? Are there only relationships or is there a hierarchy? Everything in mathematical physics has equal authority, and that's a problem. For example, the Ideal gas law PV=nRT. But if I'm deriving something I can't measure directly, then the persuasiveness of my derivation is relative to how high in the hierarchy the steps of my derivation are. What is most fundamental? We need to wonder about this. But how do we figure out what is most fundamenetal without using more of our brain's resources, not just mathematics.

But I'm curious, if my network interpetation is being referred to as a lattice, then how is it distinguished from a tesselation which reproduces a solid state appearance; which, in solid state physics books, is also called a lattice. Are they the same thing? How?



But these models help us figure out what is really going on with this physics so we can find what we're looking for.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on May. 29, 2009 @ 21:00 GMT
Hi Jason,

Most often, tessellation implies a 2-dimensional lattice and honeycombing implies a 3-dimensional lattice. I think "lattice" is a good general term because we are describing multi-dimensional lattices. If you prefer to think of it as 10^500 intersecting strings (intersecting in 10, 11 or 12 different dimensions at right angles to each other), that may be an appropriate alternative way to approach the problem.

You and I are using "heirarchy" differently. I am using "heirarchy" to describe the largeness of the Planck scale relative to everyday phenomena. Equivalently, we may use "heirarchy" to describe the largeness of Dirac's Large Number. Are you refering to a "heirarchy" of which Theories are best verified and which "theories" are least verified?

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on May. 29, 2009 @ 23:37 GMT
Jason,

"Are there only relationships or is there a hierarchy?"

Can it be both? Reality has a tendency to manifest opposites which define each other. Maybe that's why it's so hard to explain emergence.

I guess the hierarchy would start with the absolute, the universal state from which everything emerges. Say the vacuum, sans fluctuation. Relationships would seem to be necessarily dynamic, otherwise there is no relationship, since everything would exist in isolation. The basic dynamic would seem to be the cycle of expansion and contraction, as that would maintain an overall equilibrium. This would seem to be the basic dynamic which pretty much defines all of reality. Even cosmology, whether its a steady state model, where energy is expanding out from galaxies and collapsing back into them as mass, or the Big Bang model, where the entire universe is expanding out, to what end, we can only postulate, but I suspect some equal contraction is involved. It defines all activity on earth as well, from weather and geologic convection cycles, to biological and institutional life cycles.

so then the question becomes; How are the distinctions, boundaries, constants, etc. established? What sets the rate of expansion of visible radiation, aka, the speed of light? What sets the boundaries of the electron? Is there some interaction with the vacuum, sort of like gravity defining the boundaries of a pendulum's swing, or is it the interaction will other activities? But that does come back to the equilibrium state of the vacuum, ie. matter vs. anti-matter, positive vs. negative.

That's the problem with the absolute. It's the hole at the center. The zero that vanishes when we reach it. So all our attempts to find this hierarchy are like holding water in our hands. And all we have left are the relationships.

It think it's space. It's both absolute and infinite. The great non-being that's the stage and origin of all that is. That's my non-mathematical toe.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 30, 2009 @ 07:49 GMT
Hi Ray,

I am an electornics technician. When I troubleshoot a board, it's like tracking a problem, a phenomena, from the symptom to the cause. If a resistor in a circuit is missing, that is at the top of the hierarchy, to me. That is the first cause. Now if the missing resistor causes an opamp to behave oddly and fry an IC chip, I might notice that the chip is fried, but it will fry again until I discover the first cause. Everything else that manifests is lower in the hierarchy, down to the symptoms.

I had hoped that would work with the Laws of Physics.

John,

Maybe you are right about the vanishing hole in the center. I've been fascinated with physics since I was a kid. I thought it was magical. I thought, if I could understand its deeper meaning, I could manifest anything I wanted, by magic. OK, yes that sounds silly.

But real physics isn't like that. It's ruled by conservation laws and it's highly restricted. Actually, the causality networks are kind of magical, this must happen before that. But physics doesn't operate like that.

Is it possible that we're not looking at the physics right? I can find cool techniques that are almost magical at causing things to happen. Are we, the physics community, asking the best possible questions about what is possible?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on May. 30, 2009 @ 09:17 GMT
Hi all ,

John

"You say "Even cosmology, whether its a steady state model, where energy is expanding out from galaxies and collapsing back into them as mass, or the Big Bang model, where the entire universe is expanding out, to what end, we can only postulate, but I suspect some equal contraction is involved. It defines all activity on earth as well, from weather and geologic convection cycles, to biological and institutional life cycles. "

I think that the contraction is a step of our universal evolution ,that implies a maximum volume .In a whole point of vue ,the temperature ,the pression ,the decrease of space ,the density .....are correlated with this evolution ,a spherization for me .

It's evident that all is linked with this evolution ,in all spherical systems ,the universal interactions are all unified by this evolution ,this complexification ,this optimization towards ultim harmony.

The mass increases and complexificates themselves towards centers ,the notion of center is very important in their specific code (rotations of spheres).

At the begining I named my theory the theory of points ,I imagined all with different density of points in movement or not .

I asked me ,why this mass and this comportment of elementaryn particles .

Now with the spherization ,and this unified link in Time Space evolution ,I rest persuaded ....mv is a constant ,.....that's why we can extrapolate some ideas.

The quantum world has a maximum velocity of rotation of the quantum ultim main central sphere ,this velocity implying mass ,thus gravity .....thus a specific volume of the main sphere ,a speific mass ,a specific velocity ,sense ,direction,.......thus mvx ....in this constant logic ...I imagine the future universal sphere ( the end) without velocity of rotation ,the mass .....all can be unified in this logic .

The mass will be maximum there and the velocity the minimum ,in the quantum is the the other logic velocity maximum and the mass minimum .But an important parameter is tghe time evolution and its sequences .

When we are going to know more about cosmological state ,in the same time we are going to know more about like a symetry the quabntum with our walls of perceptibility .

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on May. 30, 2009 @ 18:57 GMT
If I take my model of spherization .

It could be interesting to class the spheres ,let's begin with our solar system ,some parameters are important to link with the quantum spheres .

If all is in direct correlation ,the extrapoolations shall be so important.

If we had already a classment of our galaxy ,it could be well .But the relativity and the space between stars are there .

Thus the evolution of those polarizations must be analyzed in the evolution logic and the increase of mass towards centers .

I don't see an other quantum logic ,because the quantum architecture is like a code of a system,here the universal sphere .

The evolution in complexification is a reality ,everywhere .With a classment of spheres ,all will be easier .It' s like a universal gauge ,between this Universal sphere in building and the ultim main coded sphere if I can say .

how are our spheres around us ,in us ......liquid ,solid ,gas,volume,velocity of rotations ,sense /universal center,direction,....Our spheres (cosmolog and quantum) are correlated with many constants .

Let's take our solar system ,sun, planets,moons .A specific sequence .

It's possible we have the same kind of arhitecture in the quantum world,the problem is where ,I have some questiopns about the space between and the evolution (thus expansion contraction ),....thus implies a gauge too in the quantum architecture ...maximum contact (entanglement,specific lattices due to spheres)and our actual system and the space between mass .

A taxonomy is neccesary about quantum and cosmological spheres I think ,I have begun but I admit it's not easy ,

I d like have a beautiful 3 D ,with our universal sphere in building and its spheres in rotations ,

small spheres who build others spheres in a sphere .

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on May. 30, 2009 @ 23:27 GMT
Jason,

My fascination with things mechanical has been overcome by my awe at things biological.

E.O. Wilson described the insect brain as a thermostat. I would take it one step further and say that all minds are a thermostat in their parallel processor, right brained, emotional function and a clock in their left brained, serial processor, rational cause/effect function. The combination of these complementary functions causes an explosion of often contradictory input, as we try to create linear rational order out of a profoundly non-linear reality. As predator creatures, we are inherently object oriented, while prey fauna and flora are far more field oriented.

I do think the point I keep making about time, that it is the series of events going from future to past, rather than an additional dimension along which the present travels from past to future, would make our physical models much simpler. Not that it would make reality any simpler, but would open up our thinking in other ways. In many ways it is a extension of the geocentric, versus heliocentric cosmology, since our clocks and the concept of time they perpetuate, are based on a geocentric model, with the hands traveling left to right across the top of the clock, just as the sun travels east to west across the southern sky, from the northern hemisphere. A clock which would represent the reality of time would have the hand(s) stationary, as a representation of the energy of the present, while the events, signified by the marks on the face of the clock, move by it. Just as it is the earth that is rotating west to east, not the sun traveling east to west.

For one thing, it would sustain the principle of conservation, as the same energy manifests all configurations of events, rather than a dimensional model in which all events co-exist, with our perspective relative to this temporal dimension, as it is to the spatial dimensions. Try creating a coherent cause and effect narrative, when time travel is used as a plot device. Certain current movies show how ridiculous this is.

Suffice to say only those with limited contact to the sciences are receptive to the idea that time is the future becoming the past, while those immersed in the field either ignore it entirely, or mount a barrage of talking points on how time is the proverbial fourth dimension. They simply cannot accept that tomorrow becomes yesterday simply due to the rotation of the earth, as it implodes much other complex dogma.

Steve,

Though I've avoided the subject lately, I'm not entirely a fan of Big Bang Theory. To ask one question; If all of space expands from a point, why is the speed of light otherwise stable and not increasing along with this expansion of space? That it is stable requires that the space it is traveling across is not determined by the redshift of the light from distant galaxies signifying an expansion of that space. There are likely other explanations for this redshift that have not been fully considered.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on May. 31, 2009 @ 06:55 GMT
Hi all

Back in 1987 I was measuring weight change by dead of earthworms. I was verifying my idea that energy of vacuum is more concentrate in living organism and that this energy goes back into space at the time of death. Experiment was part of my research on biological homogeneity of the universe: my idea is that physical homogeneity includes also biological homogeneity and that vacuum energy plays an active role in the evolution of life. Once at the measuring I got strong insight that I observe experiment and I’m not aware of myself as an observer. From 1987 I search in the self-observation. My experience is that observer in science is consciousness itself. Consciousness is a basic frequency of timeless physical space; consciousness is stuff that all universe is made of. Consciousness is a driving force of evolution of life and human evolution. Today humans are still imprisoned in psychological time past-present-future. Only few are aware of timeless nature of the universe. Physics here will play a decisive role in awakening of human race.

Yours Amrit

attachments: 5_IIGSS_BASIC_FREQUENCY.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on May. 31, 2009 @ 18:20 GMT
amrit,

Maybe consciousness is like energy or mass and what isolates us is our density of consciousness makes us think it is absent, when it is only less concentrated? That idea first came to me many years ago, after the death of a favorite aunt and the feeling that she was still around, but fading and that all the details of life just weren't worth the effort of discussing.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 1, 2009 @ 06:44 GMT
Hello,

John,

Me too ,I am not a fan of the Big Bang

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 1, 2009 @ 07:01 GMT
Error of posting sorry

But it's a beautiful idea ,but I see the Big Bang differently than an explosion ,

I think with an universal spherical dynamic ,it's like a balance between this expansion of explosion and after a contraction .Thus imply a strenght of balance between the physical universe and the mathematic unknew if I can say .

In an explosion without strenght of balance ,the expansion and infinity are logics ,but with a kind of membran of wall ,it's different .

In this logic ,there is an acceleration in the begining ,after deceleration towards maximum volume ,after an acceleration of contration ,deceleration towards balance of universal sphere ,where mass are in harmony .

I asked me the link with Dark matter and energy ,thus I have insert quantum spheres ,I see the begining like a multiplication of elementary particles(different spheres) and without rotation ,thus any mass ,but with the time evolution ,an acticvation appears during the expansion and contraction ,and the spheres without rotations activates themselves in correlation with a specific code of becoming near centers .

In resume ,the space is a entanglement of spheres with or without rotations ,space or mass ....in this logic ,when spheres begin to rotate ,it exists an acceleration towards stability of these rotations ,thus mass ansd comportment .

This point of vue implies some extraplations about the space and the Big Bang ,that's why I see The begining of the physical reality like a multiplication of spheres still .And the time like a code of activation of those rotations around themselves of ultim quantum spheres.

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jun. 1, 2009 @ 07:29 GMT
John,

Your distinction between linear thought and thermostat like emotions seems perfetly reasoanble. I don't blame you for being fascinated by biology.

As for time, things change. That doesn't seem like any big deal to me. I have heard that systems at higher energies progress in time more slowly. I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation. It probably has to do with the kinetic energy relationship to information transmission.

Amrit,

I think you are right to notice the influence of consciousness on quantum experiments. I think the quantum universe itself is highly interconnected (in terms of information transmission). That would explain the experiences of many with things like the occult (including my own). The reason all of this spooky stuff, the occult, ghosts, psychic phenomena etc., look like processes of the brain (but are known to manifest the paranormal beyond the brain) is becasue quantum mechanics suggests a naturally occuring neural network; we are literally creations of the big cosmic brain. I think physicists should just admit they know about it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Jun. 1, 2009 @ 16:44 GMT
Steve,

I think the rotational effects which create spherical structures are due to the varying interaction of expanding energy and collapsing mass. Since the push outward of hot energy and the fall inward of cooling structure are never perfectly balanced, rotational effects result. I tend not to see the entire universe as an expanding entity, but that the effect of intergalactic expansion is due to the radiant energy entering it from all directions. This has the effect of creating a cosmological constant to balance gravitational collapse in a cyclical equilibrium.

Jason,

Time passes more slowly for systems in high energy situations, to the extent this slows their internal activity. For example, since nothing can exceed the speed of light, if an atom is propelled to some proportion of the speed of light, the electrons orbiting the nucleus slow down proportional to that speed, so that they don't exceed the speed of light on the part of their orbit that is in the same direction as the atom is traveling. That is why time doesn't exist for photons, as they have no internal activity, since it would exceed the speed of light. On the other hand, time increases when one is measuring an increasing rate of activity, just as time would increase for a system which slowed down externally, so that its internal activity moved faster.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason wrote on Jun. 1, 2009 @ 20:13 GMT
John,

I've been thinking. The aether theory was abandonded because there couldn't be an absolute reference frame. However, 3D(space) + 1D(energy), where energy is describing time, can be described as an absolute reference of space-energy. Tesselation of space-time implies this absolute reference frame (since you can't move your tiles around).

My interpretation of the interconnected superstring network approach is admittedly kind of clunky. But it does account for speed of light as a fixed velocity along these superstring connections. But if the one dimensional links (thought to be superstrings) can be a special case of n-dimensional Schrodinger solutions, then the wave functions can be thought of as, not merely math tools, but real objects with a speed of light restriction.

The Schrodinger equation describes the wave function for a give Kinetic + Potential energy system. You can use one particle, two, or as many as you think you can solve. The tricky part lies in the potential energy. Potential energy goes back to the known four forces.

Consider my proposal:

There is only one unifying ubiquitous wavefunction. Some call it the bulk, others will call it the aether, I will call it the ubiquitous wavefunction. It represents the wave function solution to the Schrodinger wave equation. Each of the four forces (four separate potential energies) are substructures or layers. While this implies total interconnectedness, in reality, there are only degrees of interconnectedness. Your left ear and the neutrino in another galaxy are part of the same "ubiquitous wavefunction" but their degree of interconnectedness is negligible. Quantum entanglement is just the degree of interconnectedness. For physics experiments, there are processes that will isolate as much as possible such interconnections.

Advantages:

1. Speed of light is a built in characteristic.

2. Quantum Field theory, and all fields, are just really big wave functions.

3. The four (or more) forces are related to the Schrodinger's equation by processes that physicists can figure out.

4. Virtual particles are just momentum flowing along the vibrating ubiquitous wave function.

5. Tesselation is another description of the ubiquitous wavefunction, if you can get it to wave or vibrate.

By relating the Schrodinge Equation to the four forces and all of the quantum fields, the next objective is to figuure out the details of wave functions. Wave functions provide configurations of eigenstates. Really big wave functions will lots of eigenstates will begin to smear their eigenstates into free movement space.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Jun. 2, 2009 @ 01:20 GMT
Jason,

I'm not as technically inclined, since I work on a horse farm.

The interconnectedness does create a stability to space and one we might one day be able to manipulate, but before then, our progress is about to take several very large steps back and we are going to have to figure out how to form a more viable social compact. That will be the task of our generation.

And possibly the next several.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jun. 2, 2009 @ 02:00 GMT
John,

I'm just an electonics technician, myself.

You're right about figuring out a better social contract: how should we treat other people. It may take generations. I'm still hoping that the physics community will step back and consider new ideas/approaches to the physics. I would hope that we can do both, over a period of generations. There are a lot of great ideas floating around, and 6 billion people to think about them.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jun. 2, 2009 @ 18:30 GMT
According to my research and life experience time, observer and consciousness are deeply interrelated. From phenomenological point of view you cannot study only one of them but all three together. I see this research one of the challenges of physics that will give us deep insight into the nature of the universe and human being itself.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jun. 3, 2009 @ 11:46 GMT
Hi Jason and John

Might be consciousness is a phenomena at the level of Planck, might be thoughts are transferred via consciousness……..what is important we use consciousness every day and we are not aware of it. Consciousness is activated when we are alert, aware and attentive.

Consciousness is distinguishing between models of the physical world and physical world itself. Observer when becomes consciousness he step out of psychological time past-present-future, he becomes aware that material change run in space only and not in time, time is run of clocks, a scientific tool for measuring duration and numerical order of events in timeless universe.

yours amrit

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jun. 3, 2009 @ 17:53 GMT
Amrit,

You are right to notice that consciousness is becoming an important factor in physics. The deeper into the QM we go, the more interconnectedness we encounter. This increasing interconnectedness will give rise to Planck scale intelligences, great and small, young and ancient. The quasi-material substance (the wave function) is ruled by countless bosons acting upon a myriad of particles (conservation exchanging events). Physics is bumping up against a magical universe that could hypothetically be traversed and acted upon by consciousness alone. The physics community cannot understand the physics of the paranormal because it is embedded with consciousness. But that is ok. There are plenty of talented individuals who will use their instincts to dive into the ocean of quantum mechanics and bring back untold riches.

I will post the sign:

Beyond this point, Mathematical Physics may not work. Procede with Caution.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jun. 3, 2009 @ 18:58 GMT
Jason

Universe is non-dual. Division between matter and consciousness is of the mind. All is energy: matter, electromagnetic radiation, mind, consciousness. Experiencing universe beyond all concepts is an unique experience of oneness that gives us deeper insight into the real nature of the universe. Many of theoretical physicists today do not distinguish between models of the universe and universe itself. Majority is still convinced that space-time is a physical reality although there is no experiment proving its existence. Phenomenology of time, space and observer should be part of education of theoretical physics students. Watching, witnessing the mind should enter science, especially physics, that is the queen of science.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jun. 3, 2009 @ 19:47 GMT
Physics needs to make measurements to make sure that their models exist in reality. Anything that they can measure can be broken down into mathematical rules to build new and better models. That's perfectly reasonable. The problem is that quantum mechanics, which becomes excedingly complicated, mathematically, predicts long distance relationships that appear to be instantaneous: quantum entanglement. They say that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light (perfectly reasonable). But they define information as particle coordinates, momentum, spin, other conserved quantities. But even those have Heisenberg Uncertainty. There is a tug of war between physicists trying to get the point particle measurements to sustain the theory versus the natural wave-like state of the universe where all convservation information is hidden. This is where the physics half of reality ends. The rest of reality has quantum logic and interconnectedness. Physics information spreads out and flows throughout ocean of quantum mechanics.

Perhaps there is another way to give physicists what they want: the ability to manipulate matter more readily. Maybe we should look for processes that manipulate waves/wave functions instead of just particles. Is it possible to build a wave function wave-guide?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jun. 4, 2009 @ 06:46 GMT
Jason myself I’m a phenomenologist. I suppose energy and information transfer at Planck scale is immediate, so with quantum entanglement on distance all is fine. Events happen in time zero. That is the beauty of the universe.

Physicist Fiscaletti helps me to put that idea in math formulation, see on file attached.

attachments: direct_quantum_energy_and_information_transfer_direct_quantum_gravity_and_superluminal_phenomena__Fiscaletti_and_Sorli1.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Neil Bates wrote on Jun. 5, 2009 @ 00:38 GMT
I think that some day, we can examine a single wave function instead of it just determining probabilities of measurements. We might be able to do this by repeated interactions of a photon with a half-wave plate. A HWP inverts the spin of a photon, including superposed states. Hence, RH polarization goes to LH, and vice versa. But a superposition like 0.8 |RH> + 0.6 |LH>, elliptical photon, flips to 0.6 |RH> + 0.8 |LH>. Each time a photon goes through a HWP, the spin flip changes the angular momentum of the HWP (per the Richard Beth experiment.) For a RH photon the plate picks up 2 hbar, and -2hbar for LH (particle convention of handness.) But for a superposed state, the average is intermediate. In the case of 0.8 |RH> + 0.6 |LH>, the average spin transfer to the HWP is 2(0.8^2 - 0.6^2) = 0.56 hbar.

This average shows up if we pass many photons through the HWP. So for 1000 RH photons we get 2000 hbar, and for 1000 of the elliptical photons above, we get 560 hbar, and so on. This is not problematic, just a consequence of the angular momentum of photons. But what if, instead of passing 1000 photons through a given HWP, we passed one photon through it 1000 times? To get the photon to enter for the n + 1 pass with the same state as it entered on the n (and the first) pass, we only need a second HWP to re-flip the photon back to that original state. Now: we can measure the intermediate elliptial character of a single photon by measuring the angular momentum induced in that HWP. We'd get 2000 or -2000 hbar for fully circular states, closer to zero for superpositions (elliptical equivalent), and no spin for linear-polarized photons. This would be very hard in practice, however.

So what? Well, that isn't supposed to be possible, but the argument looks sound. Tell me what you think, thanks.

Also visit http://tyrannogenius.blogspot.com.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jun. 5, 2009 @ 07:44 GMT
At a glance, that's a cool idea. While the mathematical physics has done its job, I think we really need to look at the experiments themselves to try to understand what's really happening in the quantum world. As we look at the contours of the quantum universe, we make quantized measurements; but the resolution required to see the quantum contours is showing up as probabilities. It makes me think that physical/measureable world is quantized, but the shape of something more subtle is only visible as probabilities.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Jun. 5, 2009 @ 16:32 GMT
Neil,

Here is an interesting quote from a rather well known interview with Carver Mead, of Caltech, some years ago;

During a lifetime in the trenches of the semiconductor industry, Mead developed a growing uneasiness about the "standard model" that supposedly governed his field. Mead did not see his electrons and photons as random or incoherent. He regarded the concept of the "point particle" as an otiose legacy from the classical era. Early photodetectors or Geiger counters may have provided both visual and auditory testimony that photons were point particles, but the particulate click coarsely concealed a measurable wave.

Central to Mead's rescue project are a series of discoveries inconsistent with the prevailing conceptions of quantum mechanics. One was the laser. As late as 1956, Bohr and Von Neumann, the paragons of quantum theory, arrived at the Columbia laboratories of Charles Townes, who was in the process of describing his invention. With the transistor, the laser is one of the most important inventions of the twentieth century. Designed into every CD player and long distance telephone connection, lasers today are manufactured by the billions. At the heart of laser action is perfect alignment of the crests and troughs of myriad waves of light. Their location and momentum must be theoretically knowable. But this violates the holiest canon of Copenhagen theory: Heisenberg Uncertainty. Bohr and Von Neumann proved to be true believers in Heisenberg's rule. Both denied that the laser was possible. When Townes showed them one in operation, they retreated artfully.

In Collective Electrodynamics, Mead cites nine other experimental discoveries, from superconductive currents to masers, to Bose-Einstein condensates predicted by Einstein but not demonstrated until 1995. These discoveries of large-scale, coherent quantum phenomena all occurred after Bohr's triumph over Einstein.

Here is the link I used;

http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/People/CarverM
ead.htm

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jun. 5, 2009 @ 18:01 GMT
I've been thinking about a cool thought experiment.

We are bumping up against some information transferral restrictions. I've been thinking about black holes which seem to span time because clocks slow down for higher energy densities.. In effect, the poor astronaut that is caught in the gravitational well is also locked into the future until his eventual demise. But would it be possible to yank him back into the present with knowledge of the future? Let's pretend that there exists a casino aboard the cruise space ship "The Swirling Fortune". Imagine there is a nightly lottery of $1 million dollars. Let's say that Alan and Bob come up with a plan to try to look into the future to see the winning numbers. Alan is going to place a beam emitter that will transmit the winning numbers out towards the direction of the black hole. Bob, who drew the short stick, will be lowered into the black hole with a receiver, will attempt to record the lottery numbers. When Alan brings Bob back to the present, he should have the winning lottery numbers. They can play that number and split the winnings. So will the experiment work?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jun. 7, 2009 @ 16:32 GMT
John (you post to Backreaction and CV too, don't you), thanks for the reply and the links to Carver Mead etc. I checked that out (maybe taking too long to mull over before getting back to you, a common indulgence of mine.) I think Mead and some affiliated thinkers make some good points.

However, IMHO the final point you bring up is not really as bad as it sounds. Yes, the waves have to do just the right things etc. in order for lasers etc. to work. But the projection postulate etc. doesn't really say that the waves themselves aren't clearly defined entities. (BTW that is not to be confused with whether a particle can have both a well-defined position and momentum. The wave description already takes that into account, check up on the issue of harmonics in the wave packet - a small wave packet has a broad spread of momentum harmonics, and therefore a particle with well-defined position has a great uncertainty of momentum.) The PP only says, we can't find out those details about a single wave function, only for a bunch. The waves can go right ahead and work together to get whatever on their own, but any attempt to intrude with a measurement would interrupt this orderly process and force the affected WF/s into a certain state, with a probability. IOW, it's the idea that there's more out there than we can find out. Important distinction, again: position-momentum uncertainty is an actual incompatibility "in the world" per wave harmonics, but other features are considered "real" but just not able to be found out except about an ensemble of same or similar waves.

Hence, we can easily say that a linear wave at angle 20° will interfere nicely "in the world" with another at angle 20°, to ensure for example expected channel hits from a properly adjusted Mach-Zehnder interferometer. But paradoxically (?), we can't find out that the wave has an angle of 20° if we didn't already know it was "supposed to be." We'd have to put up a polarization filter at some angle, and the chance of a hit depends on the relative angle between photon wave and filter. IOW, unless my scheme above works, we can't "look at" the wave to find out its angle directly.

Look up posts by Neil B, Neil Bates etc. on Google Groups etc. and I have that and many other paradoxes and challenges.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Jun. 7, 2009 @ 18:44 GMT
Anon,

I haven't posted at Backreaction and quit posting at CV after Sean start deleting anything I said that was remotely controversial.

Personally, the reason I don't think position/momentum can be precisely measured is because I think time is a consequence of motion, rather than the basis for it. Since this would mean that there is no such thing as a dimensionless point in time, as that would require stopping the very motion being measured, trying to determine the exact position of a particle in motion would be equally fuzzy. In fact, looking at string theory etc, the question might be whether any particles even exist if they are not in motion.

This doesn't mean they can't be measured, rather it is an issue of what is being measured.

My observation about time is that we are looking at it backwards. Does the earth really travel the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates? It is not that time is a linear dimension along which events exist, but it is a process by which events are formed and dissolve. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Jun. 7, 2009 @ 20:22 GMT
Oh, duh! Hi Neil.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 8, 2009 @ 07:17 GMT
Hi all ,

Dear Neil ,

I think that the light is a chief orchestra of the big equation .

In my model ,the mass and the velocity of rotation,are proportionals ,like an universal constant between spheres ,thus mv like a constant .

In this logic ,more the speed will be ,less the mass will be .Of course some parameters are necessary to harmonize this equation ,the quantum spheres and cosmological spheres are directly linked in the evolution dynamic .

This hypothesis implies a conclusion about light ,indeed in this logic the velocity of rotation of light spheres are 0 or very weak ,that's implies a begining of the universal center towards ultim memebran sphere ,thus a link of polarization too .

Its linar velocity without rotation ,is very interesting ,if the velocity is not zero (rotation),thus that's implies an other zero thus a other maximum linear velocity ,of course it's an hypothesis about light and its mass ,the mass is 0 or very weak mass ,and if the light is not the maximum ,thus an other maximum is possible ,furthermore ,the comportment is important with color ,natures.....thus without velocity of rotation and with a maximum linear velocity ,it's possible to have others particles with a big velocity but we don't see them ,perhaps it's the link between Dark matter ,a question is this one ,the space is pertinent with thoses relations .

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jun. 22, 2009 @ 12:30 GMT
My vision is to connect ZEN AND PHYSICS.

yours amrit

attachments: ZEN_PHYSICS__Sorli_2009.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 16, 2009 @ 09:04 GMT
Hi all ,

I made an error about the light ....

If I consider the universal link between the rotations of quantum spheres and the mass ....Thus the 0 future rotation of our Universal sphere implies a maximum mass ,logic because it's the ultim aim .

Thus the mass increases .

If I link all by that thus the mass of an electron for exemple is weak and implies a big velocity of rotation of the quantum spheres around themselves and around too the main spheres (Main central coded sphere volume correlated cosmological evolution and the center of Universe )

Thus my erros was about the mass of light which is very very weak thus a very big velocity of rot of sph .An other possibility is the other extremum gauge linked perhaps with the polarity between universal center and membran ultim sphere ,thus the light begins from the center towards this membran of limits (phys/math/..),Thus in this logic perhaps the velocity of rotation is zero ,paradoxal but possible about the gauge of perceptibility and relativity of the light .

Sometimes I extraplate more far with the ultim centers in the quantum and the cosmol......The main central spheres rotates ...perhaps it's a pure coded light .If I consider the maximum velocity of rotations of the light thus ,we can classed all elementary particles and all cosmological system .A weak mass has a big velocity of rotations of the spheres .

The codes are in all centers .....the main central spheres.............. Universal central sphere is linked with the main coded quantum spheres ,and we continues with others spheres correlated .

The light is fantastic ......the mass too and the energy in increase too evidently in the physical evolution.

All has the same maximum quantity of energy .Paradoxal too we are thus going to the maximum energy in two roads .

1 towards this future ultim universal sphere ,finished if I can say

and 2 towards the main central quantum spheres and fields .In the two roads of limits ,the energy increases.

The rotation of spheres it's the gravity ,the mass the energy .....and our future sphere with zero rotation will have the maximum energy ,a maximum mass ,like if our quantum spheres and space activates themselves towards this maximum energy of maximum interacted mass .

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


SteveDufourny wrote on Jul. 18, 2009 @ 09:16 GMT
The centers are so secrets still .I find this reality magnificent.

We can admit what all has a center ,a coded center .

Sometimes I dream and extrapolate in my mind ,the galaxies which turn around the universal center ,a main central universal sphere where begins the light .

This light goes in all senses towards others centers ,super group of galaxies.....galaxies groups ,galaxies.....

Thus we have a main center where Black hole and probably others secrets in super balck holes ,....stars turn ...planets ...moons and all that by the gravity .

All those spheres turn ,the big turn less than smalls in resume .

Thus the universal link with rotations of spheres .

The contraction of the universal sphere is interesting for the space and the mass and the evolution point of vue towards the complexification of mass .

sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Aug. 5, 2009 @ 17:50 GMT
Hi Anthony,

Cristi Stoica asked about the formula used to rank the essays. My question is this: with the judges weight beying only 1, how can you guard against people taking advantage of the system and manipulate the ratings? For example I find it very disconcerting that the entry "Pursuing the Limits of Failed Symmetry by Alan M. Schwartz" received 21 public ratings while the rest of the entries so far had received between 0 and 3 ratings with an average of 0.54. I may be wrong, but to me this kind ot outlier behaviour indicates that friends of the author were doing a favor and casting a vote, and if true, is this not unfair to the rest of the entries?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 5, 2009 @ 18:13 GMT
Dear Florin,

I agree with you. Is this a contest to see who has the best paper or who has the most friends? Your paper is good. Perhaps you need to e-mail your friends.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 5, 2009 @ 23:06 GMT
I notice this sort of thing in the last contest.

LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Aug. 5, 2009 @ 23:42 GMT
Hi Ray and Lawrence,

The rules are changed now and last time it mattered a great deal what the judges thought, and significantly smaller what the community thought, and in that context this problem was not significant (it did not change the final outcome of the winners).

I also understand where Anthony is coming from in changing the rules; he wanted to correct an imbalance between the community and expert votes from last time and allow more students and non-professional physicists to win.

My suggestion is to use multiple criteria: compute the community average, compute the expert average and have a weighted average of the two for the final score. In this way there is no incentive for the participants to engage in a slippery slope voting war. Everyone has friends and if someone takes advantage of the rules, eventually everyone will do the same. What you want is to discourage that by closing the unintended loophole in the rules.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 6, 2009 @ 09:46 GMT
Lo I solved this problem ,personaly ,I will post any paper ,It's easier like that ,after all ,the aim of sciences is not grants ,awards ,notoriety ...but the truth an its laws ,it's not necessary to publish to find the sciences truth .

But I am going to be very curious about the submited papers ,I will read them with a big pleasure .

Good luck to all and focus on Rotations and spheres you shall find the best results

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Anthony Aguirre wrote on Aug. 6, 2009 @ 19:27 GMT
Florin, Ray, and Lawrence:

Thanks for your thoughts. We thought long and hard as to how to improve the voting/rating/judging system, and became convinced that no system is perfect, but that this one is worth trying.

What's important to keep in mind is that there are two types of voting: 'public' and 'community'. Community voting, open to FQXi members, essay contest entrants, and judges only, will determine the prizes. The 'public' ratings are open more widely and are more easily 'manipulated' (by, say voting for one's buddies), but will not directly lead to prizes. Also, keep in mind that although the judges will cast votes as community evaluators, they will carry an enhanced weight such that the combined votes of the judges count a lot (e.g. if the panel agrees that an essay is fundamentally flawed, or brilliant.)

hope this helps to clarify things,

Anthony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Aug. 6, 2009 @ 21:25 GMT
Anthony,

Thank you for the answer. Your clarifications are reassuring.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Aug. 7, 2009 @ 01:43 GMT
Ray,

Sorry I forgot to mention earlier, but thank you for your good words.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 7, 2009 @ 13:38 GMT
Dear Florin,

No problem. I'm very interested in TOE also. And we can't have a TOE if we can't beat Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem. I have developed different (less universal, more geometrical) axioms from you. Lawrence is currently proof-reading my paper. Perhaps I could share it with you someday.

I have read three of the papers so far. Yours is a difficult theoretical read (I finally finished it on my second attempt), but it is the best I have read so far. There are at least two more papers that I would like to read.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


J.C.N. Smith wrote on Aug. 7, 2009 @ 14:16 GMT
Anthony,

Perhaps it already has been spelled out somewhere in the rules or FAQs or other posts and I've missed it (if so, apologies), but is it possible for a community rater to go back after submitting a rating and amend the rating he or she has given an essay? Or is the rating, once given, unchangeable? Btw, this is being asked purely as a hypothetical question, but I can see how it might come up as an real issue.

Thank you.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 7, 2009 @ 16:52 GMT
Ray ,

Your paper in your theory is very cretive and I d like say to all ,his mathematical development is incredible .Very relevant to read it .

You have a special facility to play with math tools like Lawrence .

The complemenatrity is essential ,I think what if you work together ,Florin ,Ray ,Lawrence and Jason ....your results shall be very relevants .Thus it's better to work in team .

I see in your work many similarities with the work of Lawrence ,with the ideas of you 4 .I am persuaded you are going to ponder a beautiful mathematical model for computing,innovant and interesting for some labs like fermi lab ,Oak Ridge,Warson,almaden,kavli,cambridge(where all is lol).....

For the computing ,I have some ideas ,Like I class all since many years ,I have inserted quantum spheres inside thus I have a specific classment of mass

Quantum sphere ...H D T ..HCNO HCN,H2O,CH4,NH3......proteins adn......evolution...unicells...dedifferenciation.....locomo
tion nutrition,reproduction.....sponges....medusas.....fishes....
.hominids.....planets....stars......sphere.

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 7, 2009 @ 17:06 GMT
Dear Steve,

Thank you for the compliment.

I agree that a problem this big needs a team. There are smarter people than me in this field, but egos often work against the common goal and common good. My ego has been beaten and bruised so many times that I have almost forgotten it.

I am still waiting for your Spherification Theory - A Unified Theory of Spheres. I have heard about it a lot, but have not yet seen a formal paper.

I need to get this TOE craziness out of my system so I can help with your Africa project. I know you have ideas to help the food supply. I have ideas to help the water supply. Of course, war and failed economic systems work against everyone.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 7, 2009 @ 17:20 GMT
Dear Ray ,

I am lost for the administration ,I have many problems ,I have a very very bad business man .

In fact I have never wrote a paper ,I am not a doctor ,I studied in several universities but quickly I change ,thus I am isolated and I don't publish nothing ,How can I don please Ray ,

It's the first one for me .

I d like publish a beautiful resume on Arxiv ,well explained but I don't know how do .I really need help here in Belgium ,a kind of coach and manager .

It's difficult for me ,I must evolve and adapt me on this system .

In fact I speak about my theory everywhere since 7 ans ,on XING since 5 ans .

It's time to organize all that I think .

It's the same for grants ,prizes ,some people say me ,Steve you are going to win many prizes ,let's go Steve ,but I don't know how do for an inscription for Kavli ,Nobel ,Templeton,Cambridge.....

I say me ,Steve it's not important after all .This sciences center is more important than my prizes and notoriety .

But all advices are welcome ,my skills in economy and administration are so bad ,a very big problem in fact in my life .

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 7, 2009 @ 17:25 GMT
Furthermore ,the future paper has minimum ,400 pages more classments (taxonomy )and links ,more pictures ,graphics ......I have an other work in ecology ,and an other about applications and inventions and technology .

All is finished ,I must improve the design simply and correct or improve the english too .

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 7, 2009 @ 17:47 GMT
Dear Steve,

Remember this acronym:

K - I - S - S

Keep It Simple, Stupid! (I did not invent this acronym. Please do not take the "Stupid" part personally - I do not know if it applies to the author or the intended reader?)

You cannot change the world if people cannot (or will not) read your ideas. My bet is that very few people would actually try to read a 400 page long thesis. You must condense it to its most relevant components.

I am aware that you do not have a Doctorate in Physics like Lawrence, Florin and I, but you have studied Geology/ Biology/ Botany and you have done some graduate work. You are an intelligent and interesting person. And these FQXi contests are intended to help people publish new scientific ideas.

If you are not "a good businessman", then ally yourself with people whose abilities complement your own. For instance, you could be "the idea man" (CEO), and you could work with "a money person" (CFO), and a "just-do-it" person (COO), and "a computer person" (CIO). Build the organization that you need to succeed. I understand that you have trust issues to deal with, but these people exist.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 7, 2009 @ 18:31 GMT
Thanks Dear Ray ,

OK the american slogan of scientists ,KISS it's a tradition No in English to use letters ??? DOE TOE KISS ADS ATLAS AdS QCD ....it's good in fact when the letters are maximum 4 and is a name .hihihi it's amazing .And now the TOS the theory of spheres ,spherification and spherisation.thus TOSSS HHIHIHI lol

Keep cools ,keep it simple and stupid .It's interesting .Short,precision and summary.

I am going to try .

Hihihi don't worry ,I have had so many problems due to my qi ,now I am stronger ,fortunaly.

I am conscient of my discovery ,it's important to have a good manager.

I have many propositions on Ecademy ,Xing and others but I don't move .

It's time to change that .

This Theory is revolutionary and need a complete architecture of development in the short ,middle and long term .

I indeed fear of people ,well seen indeed .I knew in the past bad people .

The human nature fears me in fact .Fortunaly I have my friends on Africa and some others groups of writing (I have a big collections of musical compositions and poems ,you know too Ray ).On these art groups where I am moderator ,it exists so interesting people with a beautiful minds .Of course the theatral creations,philosophical essays ,poems are in french .

The sciences are an art dear Ray ,like the nature is an art ,like all in fact .All is there ,when a theory is foundamenatl we see it everywhere .All it's the reason why all must be studied ,the math ,the physic the biolo and chem....all . Without that the whole is not understood .

Bye Ray and good luck with your works ,and don't forget my friends ,work in TEAM without monney ,borders ,differences ,all is there and focus on rotations and spheres ,if you want of course ,you shall find the best results .I am persuaded .

In all case thanks for the advices .It's nice .

sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Aug. 7, 2009 @ 20:30 GMT
Dear Ray,

I would be very interested to read your paper.

Initially I tried to make my essay very accessible, but half way through writing it I discovered the maximum character limit and I was very close to it. So I purged many things from the paper and I crammed a lot of stuff at the end.

If you have questions, I would gladly answer them. (I am trying to answer all questions on my paper within 24 hours.)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Aug. 7, 2009 @ 20:42 GMT
Dear Steve,

I was pleasantly surprised to discover the nice community here at fqxi and I enjoy exchanging ideas with everyone. I think everyone here shares the thirst for deeper understanding of reality and I found this extremely stimulating. I only wish I could participate more in the discussions, but my very busy schedule and many prior commitments get in the way.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 7, 2009 @ 20:48 GMT
Dear Florin,

I have been following the discussion thread about your paper. I think I understand most of it, although my background is more hep-ph than hep-th. It is relevant to get past Goedel. I understand it is difficult to express relevant science in such a limited format. My paper is 34 pages long, and I chose not to try to rewrite it for this competition.

Send me an e-mail at mm_buyer@comcast.net.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 8, 2009 @ 00:01 GMT
RAy,

Since I have your paper you might want to run it through the character counter on the essay website to insure it is within the size requirements. Your paper is dense and lengthy.

As a comment I find it to be fairly reasonable so far.

LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 8, 2009 @ 01:25 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Having read several of these papers, mine seems much longer (and the tabular content is dense). Yes, I might be able to reference Figures and Tables in a way that doesn't drive the character count up.

I'm not big on winning awards. I just want to publish a worthy result. If you can suggest anything to make the paper better, or if you want to write something better together as a team, I'm open-minded.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 8, 2009 @ 02:20 GMT
Steve, with respect, I do not know if you are aware that toss can have the slang meaning of to masturbate in English. (I presume because of the type of motion implied by the word.)As well as a number of other rude slang meanings when combined with other words.Best to avoid the abbreviation in my opinion.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 8, 2009 @ 08:43 GMT
Hello Georgina,

Thanks still ,you are right ,it's better indeed .

Dear Florin,

Indeed this platform is super.A very beautiful website where we can discuss in freedom .It's important for sciences .I was surprised too when I discovered FQXi .

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 8, 2009 @ 21:11 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

As usual, you are the genius and I'm a little slow...

Your suggestion to me is very similar to my suggestion to Steve.

I think I should post my latest paper on arxiv, write a summary paper that ties into the contest theme, and link that paper back to this paper and my book. It will take some time to write a new paper, but I absolutely need the exposure. I would be satisfied to rank high enough in the contest to "get discovered" - sort of like Chris Daughtry - he only finished in fourth place on American Idol but he's a bigger star than most of the contest winners.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 10, 2009 @ 08:41 GMT
Hi Dr Cosmic Ray ,

It's funny your article .hihihi lol.

You shall see when I will create this center ,you are welcome dear Ray ,and we are going to win many prizes ,the team is better than a singularity of human ,if I can say .

There are many roads for grants ,these grants for me shjall be for the center ,nothing for me ,I dislike monney .

I am going to sell me for this cenetr ,I am not crazzy ,it's my main direction of life.

I am persuaded what the results in team are better ,it's logic because the complementarity is foundamental everywhere .

Unttil soon dear friends ,

regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 10, 2009 @ 12:44 GMT
Dear Steve,

I understand your goals for better people and a better society, but we can only change the world one person at a time. Until everyone is on the same page you are on, money is a necessary thing. It is only the "love of money" (over people) that is actually evil. Many people live off of 90%, and give 10% to charity. But if you want to give 50% or more to charity (or the Center or Africa...), that is your choice. I know people who deprive themselves for the sake of a worthy objective.

The beauty of teamwork is that we are all gifted and talented differently - such that talents may complement each other. In this way, two people may accomplish more together than seperately. I know a lot of Theory, but I was a phenomenologist, and Lawrence knows more Theory than I do. This is why you need a CFO that you can trust - you are good with the ideas, but not as good with the money.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 10, 2009 @ 13:38 GMT
There are some question I have about you paper.. I have read more of it, though I have not completed it.

I'll have to look at the requirements for the essay contest. The requirements involve numbers of symbols. I don't knoe if tables and the like are exempt from those requirements.

LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 10, 2009 @ 14:18 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

I'm not sure how tables count, but there is a 10-page content (plus an eleventh reference page) limit. My paper is about three times longer. I think the appropriate thing is to write a summary paper that ties into the "What is Ultimately Possible" theme and hyperlink back to the other paper (if I can get it posted on arxiv or somewhere. Do you have any suggestions?). A summary paper might even be able to sketch out the next steps in filling in the TOE details, such as new Feynman diagrams and Lagrangian contributions.

My wife and daughter are going to the beach (St George Island, FL) next week (and I'm stuck at work except for the weekends), so I will have time to write a short paper next week.

Garrett Lisi's ideas are popular on fqxi. My ideas are related, but more complicated. This contest is an opportunity for more people (who may already be open-minded to a geometrical E8 "TOE") to read my ideas, and give feedback on the relevance of these ideas.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 10, 2009 @ 18:09 GMT
Where I think that Lisi runs into trouble is with asserting a triality condition in E_8, which does exist in the J^3 Jordan exceptional algebra. The commutative centers or centralizers of E_8 are the F_4 and G_2 groups. There is a triality in the SO(8) of F_4. Thre is the F_{4\52} or 26 representation of F_4, but this is not the same as a triality as far as I know. Yet the 26, with a constraint which reduces the 27 dimensional J^3 to 26, has a triality relationship between octonion O_0, O_1, and O_2, and in that sense some element of Lisi's theory might be revised in a supersymemtric form.

In that sense his so called graviweak sector will have a similar framing, but where the gravitational SO(4) or SO(3,1) in the SO(8) is framed with Rarita-Schwinger fields or spin 3/2-gravitinos, and there is a triality dual SO(4) for the weak interactions and the W-ino and Z-ino SUSY pairs. As Lisi has things there is a funny framing of internal and external symmetries without Grassmannian generators.

Lisi's approach is a a worthwhile project, but it can't be regarded as a realistic model at this time. His exercise and its consequences are examples of the all too regrettable tendency in physics to castigate something as totally wrong and worthless. We saw this with bootstrap theory, which was found to be a flat space example of holographic principle, and we see this with the string vs LQG argument. Even if a hypothesis is wrong, the ideas behind it might be still worth something in another guise.

LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 10, 2009 @ 18:44 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Your analysis of Lisi's work sounds similar to Jacques Distler (though he seems to consider it worthless) and Section 6.1 of the paper you are reading. Yes, I also derived an F4 triality, but it did not have spinors or anti-matter.

The important point is don't disregard a potentially fruitful approach because some of the details are wrong. The history of Physics has had a lot of trial and error. Perhaps Lisi's E8 is "wrong", but it leads us to "E12" or E8xH4.

I know that paper is dense in tabular content and you can get stalled out trying to double-check it all. Have you read Chapter 6 yet? Do you have suggestions for improvement? Should we try to work together as a research team, or trade ideas back and forth as individuals?

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 10, 2009 @ 22:44 GMT
The F_4 Lie algebra may be constructed by adding 16 generators transforming as a spinor to the 36-dimensional Lie algebra so(9),. The F_4 group has representations in B_4 = so(9), D_4 = so(8). The B_4 consists of 16 tetrahedral cells plus 8 octahedral cells. The D_4 in F_4 consists of a triplet of 8 tetrahedral cells. The 24 vertices of the 24-cell (Coxeter polytope for F_4) form roots for D_4, and there is a triplet system here (a triality of 8 tetrahedra) of roots for SO(8).



Does this imply F_4 triality? It might at first blush. The Weyl group for F_4 is determined by the system of hyperplanes orthogonal to the roots, which defines a group of order 1152. These roots are quaternions with unit measure. The D_4 is also the 24-cell with quaternions that have length 2. These are duals, the D_4 lattice is dual to the F_4 lattice. So far so good, or so it seems. With the duality (4-volumes to points, 3-volumes to edge links, faces to faces and so forth) each 24-cell for F_4 is centered at a D_4 lattice point and conversely the F_4 lattice point centers at a D_4 vertex. However, there is this 1-2 length issue. So while the roots in the D_4 24-cell are roots for three SO(8)'s they are NOT F_4 roots! There is where the rub lies. It is always the small details which cause such headaches. This is the little bit that I see as the problem with Lisi's enterprise in getting a triality in F_4.

Lawrence B. Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 10, 2009 @ 22:45 GMT
I wrote above D_4 in F_4, when I meant in the 24-cell.

LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 11, 2009 @ 01:05 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Dual lattices relate bosons to fermions and vice versa, so Supersymmetry will solve or doom these "mismatched" symmetries.

The E8 Gosset lattice has itself as a dual. The H4 120-cell has a 600-cell dual. But what is dual to "E12"?

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 11, 2009 @ 13:46 GMT
I have not heard whether the duality between the D_4/F_4 24-cells relate fermions to bosons. Supergenerators Q^A_α, bar-Q^A_α define anti-commutators

{ Q^A_α, bar-Q^B_β’} = 2mδ_{αβ’}δ^{AB}

which define a^A_{α} by division by 1/sqrt{2m}, similarly for its conjugate with bar-Q. Clifford operators for SO(4n) may be defined for anticommuting operators. For n = 2 we have SO(8) and n = 6 gives SO(24).

With F_4 there is a quotient system with B_4 ~ SO(9), and the B_4 representation with 16 roots plus 8 long roots. The 52 dimensional space of F_4 contains the 36-dim of SO(9), and the remaining 16 dimensions is the 16-dimensional Cayley plane. I am less certain about what is meant by F_4/D_4. The quotient with the 28-dimensional SO(8) leaves a 24-dimensional subspace. I am not sure what this is. For the above mention of supergenerators it would take some effort to prove that this space is a set of 24 supergenerators which would exist in some graded algebraic system over {F_4,D_4} defined by the quotient. I can’t say in the moment whether this has any potential basis or not.

Lawrence B. Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lev Goldfarb wrote on Aug. 11, 2009 @ 15:12 GMT
Anthony,

Are you sure that it is a good idea to allow the essayists themselves to rank the essays *as members of the community* rather than as members of "public" or some other special category?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


J.C.N. Smith wrote on Aug. 11, 2009 @ 16:32 GMT
Anthony,

Lev Goldfarb's question regarding whether it is appropriate for essay authors to rank one another's essays strikes me as a reasonable question. While we would like to think that we would be objective and dispassionate raters, there might be a temptation to be otherwise, especially with substantial prize money at stake. I, too, would appreciate your thoughts on Mr. Goldfarb's question.

Also, you have not answered the question I asked some time back about whether rankings, once submitted, can later be amended.

Thank you.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lev Goldfarb wrote on Sep. 21, 2009 @ 14:16 GMT
Anthony,

Here is the latest example why it is problematic to allow the participants to rate each other's essays.

Yesterday someone assigned one to quite a few, including several currently top ranked essays.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


J.C.N. Smith wrote on Sep. 21, 2009 @ 23:51 GMT
Anthony,

I fully agree with Mr. Goldfarb's concerns about allowing essay authors to rate each other's essays in the guise of "community raters." As another example of the distortions this may create, I noted one day that five new essays had been added to those previously posted. All five of the newly added essays had been given a rating of "10," and all five had been rated by only one "community rater." Obviously, one or more persons are playing childish games. I'm sure it's all quite amusing to the fun-loving pranksters, but not so much for the rest of us. Better to let essay authors rate essay as public raters or, alternatively, to create a separate category for ratings by essay authors. Thanks.

jcns

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 09:02 GMT
Dear Anthony ,

I agree too ,bizarre this serie of 10 ,the same day .

An angry person ,perhaps.

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Anthony Aguirre wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 18:56 GMT
Dear Steve, Lev, and J.C.N.,

I appreciate your concerns. In planning this, we had to weigh this concern against the fact that the entrants are probably the most enthusiastic participants in terms of reading, discussing, etc. In addition, it is a very direct way of having the essays evaluated by 'a jury of the entrants' peers'. My hope is that

a) More members will become in evolved in the voting, diminishing the impact of any shenanigans,

b) Overall, a few irksome people's voting will get largely lost in the wash.

(Also: we don't have any mechanism for changing ratings later. If there was an egregious error, you can contact foster@fqxi.org. Perhaps we should add a note to this effect, as well as an admonition to take the voting seriously, on the voting page.)

This being said, the type and provenance of each vote is being recorded, and when the judging panel starts its work, they will have available to them information such as the rating of each essay based only on the FQXi membership. (Individual identities of voters will be kept anonymous). The judges, working with FQXi, are empowered to add finalists to the list, and to cast their 'weighted votes' based on all the information they have.

So in short, no voting system is perfect, and I am hopeful that things will work out fairly. I think changing the system now would undoubtedly elicit many howls of protest.

thanks again for your thoughts, and your attention!

best,

Anthony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 20:45 GMT
And who's to say the voters didn't think the essays deserved those 10's and 1's?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 22:48 GMT
It is possible, but not statistically likely.

cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 25, 2009 @ 17:13 GMT
Dear Anthony ,

Some of my post are deleted .

I don't understand .

What is the problem ,we can critic I hope ,if not ,it's sad .

Let's be transparent .

In all case ,I understand but perhaps you can impose some limits for the delete effect .

I understand it's difficult for you to check all but it's fundamental I think .

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Sep. 25, 2009 @ 22:28 GMT
Steve, and Everyone:

We've been maintaining the essay forums to keep them as reader-friendly and on-topic as possible. This task is especially important for this contest, since we expect a lot of the users will not be experts on the essay topics. This does mean that posts will be removed on occasion, if they are too long or too far off-topic. Also if they are rude or insulting to the essay authors--you can disagree, but you can't call them names. You can read all about the forum usage guidelines here.

That said, we're happy you're all joining in the discussions. One week to go!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Owen Cunningham wrote on Oct. 6, 2009 @ 17:27 GMT
Submitters: Tired of constantly checking the FQXI site to see how your paper's doing in the rankings? I've written a simple program that periodically checks the FQXI site and sends you an email if the status of your paper has changed in any way. Here is a sample email:

The following changes were detected in the status of your paper:

* Number of posts in discussion forum went from 0 to 20.

* Community rating went from 0 to 3.4.

* Community vote count went from 0 to 10.

* Public rating went from 0 to 4.3.

* Public vote count went from 0 to 6.

* Community ranking went from being in 0th place to being tied for 16th out of 112.

* Public ranking went from being in 0th place to being tied for 19th out of 112.

You just run the program once, in a command prompt window, and then minimize that window and let it do its thing in the background.

If you're interested in a copy (with source for those who care) drop me a note at ramblinplan@yahoo.com.

Thanks,

Owen Cunningham

P.S. This program requires Windows and the .NET Framework. It has been tested only on Windows XP Service Pack 3 running .NET Framework 3.5, but has a good chance of working with earlier versions.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Oct. 6, 2009 @ 21:26 GMT
The fact that my essay IDENTICAL CRISIS was selected for inclusion in the competition is reward enough for me. Even if I could use your program, I doubt that there will be any movement in the status of my essay. It was considerate of you to provide your program though.

Bookmark and Share
this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate


NN wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 03:20 GMT
Dear Owen,

What a welcome community service you have done for this nice academic Internet forum. Your kind thoughts and compassion is reflected in the effort put in. i shall try logging onto the site mentioned to keep check. Appreciatively

Bookmark and Share
this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate


Lev Goldfarb wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 02:56 GMT
Dear Anthony,

I can’t help but inform you that it appears the rating process is being successfully turned into a *complete* circus, as some of us intuited (see earlier posts). The number of 1’s——which are most likely given by 'a jury of the entrants' peers’ (using your terminology), i.e. by the participants themselves——is increasing ‘almost exponentially’, creating havoc with the community rankings. What a joy to watch this show!

Best wishes,

--Lev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 10:42 GMT
Dear All ,

This community is very well and it must rest like that .

The problem is simple ,when the monney is there thus the win mind with its theories of game or others cause many problems for the fundamentals and its interpretations of the conscious .

It's a reality ,some ones made strategies to win some monney and for their credibility too in their cicle of works .

The human natuire evolves but we are in 2009 and some realities are there unfortunally.

What I find important is what fortunally it exists universal scientists .Only that is important .

The good governance with its pragmatism thus must be essential .If not the center is chaotic .And the monney and the vanity are ctalyzers of chaos .

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 16:00 GMT
Essay administrator here---While I don't agree with Steve's pessimism, I do agree that the Community is well. I've just had a look at my record of voting statistics, and there simply isn't the epidemic of 1's that Lev proclaims. I see a range of values for each essay, not a war of 1's and 8's.

I also see that the total average number of Comm. votes is low. Glancing at the numbers, I estimate that there is an average of just 10 Comm. ratings for each essay--the highest is only 20. But there are 114 essay entrants and close to 150 FQXi Members, all of whom get a vote for each essay. Less than 5% of the votes are cast!

My guess--which is only as accurate as Steve's--is that the few votes cast so far are those due to quick, strong reactions. And in my experience, quick, strong reactions are usually more negative. I expect people to give more time to consider the essays they liked better at first read. Thus, I predict an upward trend in the rating values in the weeks to come, once people have had time to think more on the essays that grabbed them more.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 16:34 GMT
Brendan,

Here is a very simple check:

How many 1's where assigned to the currently top ranked 30 or 20 essays

during the last week and how many of those where assigned by the community members?

Thank you!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 09:50 GMT
Hi dear Brendan Foste ,

You are right ,the reactions must be balanced ,I am young and I evolve hihihihi

I am not pessimist but realist .

But you are right ,I must be more diplomate in fact ,but I am true ,I say what I think ,without any artifices ,the shorter road between two points is the ....of course this kind of truth don't satisfy all people .But it's important for the fundamenatsl scioences to make a kind of borders between these two systems .

In all case ,congratulations for this platform ,a real innovation in the sciences community .

Hope all will be always like that .Pay attention ,when a project is interesting ,the squales arrive ......

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Oct. 15, 2009 @ 15:57 GMT
Florin M. wrote, "Because the public vote can be so easily manipulated... its value should not count toward the final ranking." I don't think it is really that easy to manipulate votes, but indeed, the public vote does not count toward the final ranking.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Florin M. wrote on Oct. 15, 2009 @ 18:29 GMT
Brendan,

Thank you for your answer and clarification. May I suggest to add the clarification on the official rules page?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


J.C.N. Smith wrote on Oct. 16, 2009 @ 15:09 GMT
Fwiw, the official rules page does include (under the heading of Judging) the following:

"Prizes will not be awarded directly on the basis of Public ratings, but it is anticipated that these ratings may influence either Community evaluations or Expert judging."

That's enough to put my mind at ease with regard to public voting, but I still have lingering concerns about allowing essay authors to vote on each others' essays in the guise of "Community Raters." Potential conflicts of interest are simply too evident.

In the final analysis, I do think we simply need to trust "the powers that be" at FQXi to use their good, common sense in making their final rankings. Que sera sera.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 14:52 GMT
Observer and physical reality are parts of the same universe. Ultimate goal of physics is to bring them together. Observer and observed belongs to the same reality that mind can comprehend only partly. For deeper understanding of relation observer/observed activation of consciosness is required. Activation of consciousness means self-awareness of the observer.

yours amrit

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 18, 2009 @ 13:26 GMT
ATTN all FQXi participants and essayists:

1) "The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience."

This is a FACT, and it is perfectly written. The limits of both physics and the understanding in general cannot be properly understood apart from this central and most important...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


J.C.N. Smith wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 14:05 GMT
It has been said that everyone is welcome to have his or her own opinions, but not to have his or her own facts, regardless of how perfectly written. Merely saying something does not make it so.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 04:41 GMT
Is that a fact or merely an opinion?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


J.C.N. Smith wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 20:12 GMT
Yes, without a doubt.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 22:49 GMT
Fact -Something known to have happened, to be true or to exist or something asserted to be true for the purpose of reasoning. The second definition means that the validity of such facts can be debated under usual circumstances.

However Frank does not accept any criticism or disagreement at all. Therefore unfortunately no debate is possible. Rhetorical propaganda speaks for itself. It asserts its own version of the truth, which must not be questioned!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 21, 2009 @ 04:02 GMT
The philosopher Plotinus is also in agreement with this:

"The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience."

I know this to be true from many different angles/perspectives/positions; again, the quoted statement is a fact of great importance and applicability.

It is so much easier to be critical than correct.

Also, read Francis Bacon on the nature of thought/mind/understanding in relation to experience in general.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Constantin Leshan wrote on Oct. 22, 2009 @ 09:00 GMT
Dear Anthony Aguirre,

You wrote: We thought long and hard as to how to improve the voting/rating/judging system, and became convinced that no system is perfect, but that this one is worth trying.

I have an idea how to improve the voting/rating/judging system. I propose to transform FQXi contest into the battlefield for ideas. Every author must review and rate at least two essays.

The review of essay must answer the following questions: Does this essay advance physics? Does an essay contain the new physical ideas? Does the essay contain the logical errors? This information could help us to find the best essay by comparing the merits and demerits of each essay.

I assure you, it is the best voting/rating/judging system. All readers will see the errors and merits of each essay. In this way we'll find the best essay which really advances physics.

The best essay must have the best new ideas and no errors!

Sincerely,

Constantin Leshan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 22, 2009 @ 12:51 GMT
Dear FQXi Friends,

Leshan proposed that every author must review and rate at least two essays. I think there should also be an upper limit to the rating of other authors. As much as I love physics and this blog site, it is not reasonable to read 113 essays (although they are interesting) and offer constructive critiques and a score for all of them. I worry that some of these 113 essays will be (or have been) scored based on their Abstracts alone. Leshan offered critiques for my work, I responded to his critiques, and he gave me a fair score. But I have also received many 1's without a single complaint against my work. In this contest, it seems that "Survival of the Fittest" may have trampled the sharing of original ideas.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Oct. 22, 2009 @ 21:12 GMT
I have not submitted an essay myself but I am still interested in reading and understanding other people's ideas.I must agree with Ray on the impossibility of reading, commenting on and fairly evaluating all of the essays. I feel that my own biased opinions and limited expertise would not allow me to fairly discriminate between all of the essays. The essay authors also vary widely in background and expertise and thus also ability to judge each others work.

The cost- benefit of allocating time is also important to consider. This is not purely a financial consideration but about how one allocates ones time and how this positively or negatively effects ones personal life in all aspects.I think the transparent difficulty of fairly judging such a competition is good. It shows everyone the difficulty that the judging panel themselves are faced with in attempting to give adequate time and thought to the huge range of material without prejudice. As I am hopeful they will.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Constantin Leshan wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 19:53 GMT
Dear Ray Munroe and Georgina Parry,

I do not propose to read 113 essays. I propose that every author should review and rate two RANDOM essays; (or two selected essays by author). In this way, every author read, review and rate two essays. After that we'll have 226 reviews for all the essays; it is fair evaluation for all of the essays. Probably, the best essays will have 10 – 15 reviews (criticisms).

Then we select the best essay with many positive reviews and no negative reviews. It is the best voting/rating/judging system because people cannot take advantage of the system and manipulate the ratings.

This method has the following advantages:

1. All the authors will be engaged in discussion; FQXi will be the battlefield for physics ideas; every author defends its own essay and looks for errors in other two essays.

2. It will be the honest competition because people cannot take advantage of the system and manipulate the ratings; no many 1's without a single complaint against author's work.

3. It will be the very interesting discussion, because every author defends his essay and review other two essays.

4. FQXi will be the example for all World Physics Community; Physics must be the battlefield for ideas, but not for compliments like 'It is the brilliant essay'.

Georgina Parry wrote: The essay authors also vary widely in background and expertise and thus also ability to judge each others work.

It is the Physics contest. If the author is not able to review and rate two essays, consequently he is not physicist. Why FQXi must award the author if he is not able to review and rate two essays? Maybe FQXi will award the best essay and the best review (critique).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 21:09 GMT
I did not mean to imply that there may be authors incapable of reviewing 2 self selected essays. That should be perfectly manageable. If I were a contestant I would already have fulfilled my quota. I am saying that the quality of the feedback and fairness of the rating of an individual essay may depend on the persons particular background and expertise. There are essays that are very accessible to non specialists and others that are very technical but may nevertheless have very worthwhile content, that can only be fully appreciated by another person with training in that particular field.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 23:18 GMT
The discussion centered on Frank dM's essay was moved to the forum for that essay. Let's try to keep the discussion in this forum revolving around the contest in general, like the pros and cons of voting schemes.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 00:55 GMT
The essay that wins this contest should (fundamentally and originally) advance the understanding in regard to sensory experience IN GENERAL (including gravity and electromagnetism/light).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lev Goldfarb wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 12:33 GMT
Anthony,

As you mentioned in your post of Sept. 23, “when the judging panel starts its work, they will have available to them information such as the rating of each essay based only on the FQXi membership”.

So, before the ratings are removed shortly, may the rest of us have access to the same information?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lev Goldfarb wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 12:41 GMT
Anthony,

Also I forgot to ask: What are the reasons for removing the separate ratings during the last week preceding Nov. 6?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 23:54 GMT
I agree that it would be informative to have publicly available those ratings that may influence the judges preconception of an essay's content. The judges own ratings should be based firstly on whether or not the essay has attempted to answer or explore the question in the essay title. That is one of the first things taught about correctly answering an essay question. It does not matter how well written or mind expanding or mathematically or scientifically correct, if the question has not actually been answered or explored. Next the essay must fulfilled the criteria specified on various posts by Anthony Aguirre, which outlined the kinds of essay topics and approach that would be considered more favourably.

If some other judgement criteria are used instead they should have been made available to the contestants so that they could work within those criteria to produce a viable entry. I am fascinated to see who wins this as there is a great diversity of material in the contest of varying relevance to the essay question and the extra specified criteria. As well as a great variety of topics, depth of exploration and styles of presentation.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 16:47 GMT
We won't make any voting statistics publicly available, other than the Public and Community ratings. The reason for hiding the ratings during this last week was just to heighten the suspense---we've decided to leave the ratings separate. As for what criteria will be used by the Review Panel---we will instruct them to compile their ratings based solely on the criteria described in the contest rules.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 13:07 GMT
Hi all ,

Dear Mr Foster ,I am not happy because FQXi for hallowen hasn't designed the platform .Some beautiful pictures on the front page .....Ah lalalal a little lack of creativity .hihihi now let's hope what for christmass ,we shall have some beautiful pictures and designs .A little spheres there ,a fir-tree here ,some snow there,a beautiful music(important the music I invite all to listen the four seasons by Vivaldi very interesting when you extrapolate sciences) ......

No really there for halloween it is inadmissible .

Revolution !!! hihihi

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 13:56 GMT
I was too busy eating all my candy.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Narendra Nath wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 05:11 GMT
My posting on this site has been removed , perhaps because it did not deal with the rules of the Essay competition. As i now understand, it is not the theme of essay that is being discussed on this blog but the administartive aspects only.

i leave it to the FQXI authorities to decide the same. After last year contest 2008, i did make some suggestions and it seems the FQXI has made some innovative changes this year. i have decided not to interfere or suggest such things but simply to participate in it as a helpful promoter of the whole concept of such website competitions. In fact i stand for such competitions to be organised by organisations in other countries too. It is a forum i enjoyed participating in. One should not worry about the prizes aspect at all, as that is not science but humanity. Character and integrity decide that aspect and i hardly find across the whole world, including Nobel Committee, to be free from biases of one kind or the other. There are many things happening in the name of democratic traditions that are somewhat autocratic in implementation, so why pick and choose FQXI which has organised such a nice Competition internationally, besides helping American Physics & Cosmology research in a positive direction through its other mulifarious activities. My heartfelt felicitations to the FQXI organisation, as a whole.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 10:51 GMT
hhihi I imagine indeed ,pay attention for the stomach-ache.

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 14:21 GMT
Narendra Nath----Thank you for your comments. Also, I expect that your comments that you thought were removed are still where they have always been--in the other blog post by Anthony with a similar name, here.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 19:20 GMT
It is never possible to be entirely objective but it is desirable, under circumstances such as judging a contest, to eliminate personal subjective bias as far as possible. If all of the judges do this and their ratings are based solely on the criteria described in the contest rules, which were made available to the contestants,it should be fair as far as is possible.It will be a difficult task to judge. What ever the outcome some people will be disappointed and may assume that the judging was not, after all, fair. That is the nature of competitions. Without any objective evidence with which to analyse the objectiveness of the judging, one can only use faith and trust in FQXi and ultimately unverifiable belief in their objectivity.Ironic.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


J.C.N. Smith wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 20:37 GMT
Voting on essays closes as of 11:59 PM EST today. So one thing I have not seen mentioned anywhere is even a rough "guestimate" as to when winners will be announced. It goes without saying, of course, that authors of essays will remain squarely situated atop pins and needles, and sleepless, until then. (Not that my own essay is even in the running, but can't help being curious and eager to see which essay will win.)

Cheers

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 13:36 GMT
And the winner is Amrit with 10.8

2 Mr Petkov,3 Mr Dijksman/Joakim D M ,4 Ray Munroe,5 Mr Cirkovic/Mr Elze/P Jackson,6 Mr Prati ,7 Florin /Emile Grgin,8 L Goldfarb/Narendra Nath /P Lynds/S Ootsdijk,9 T Singh

Congratulations to all

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lev Goldfarb wrote on Nov. 8, 2009 @ 01:06 GMT
Thank you, Steve, for your kind thoughts! ;-)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 8, 2009 @ 11:33 GMT
You are welcome dear Lev ,

Congratulations to you .

It was a real pleasure for me to read all these essays .Very instructives ,relevants ,creatives .

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


J.C.N. Smith wrote on Nov. 8, 2009 @ 14:50 GMT
So I guess this means it's already time now for those of us who didn't win to begin whining about how unfair and biased the judging was? ;-)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 13:06 GMT
Hello Mr Smith ,

The problem is not FQXi but the human nature always and our young age in an universal point of vue .We add bad habits ,simply .In all systems on Earth ,the human state is not always harmonic .

The individualism ,the vanity ,the monney ,the power ,...all these human comportments are due to our young age ,we are babies of the Universe and we make errors ,simply.

Let's take this wonderful platform ,a real innovation about sciences and transparence .The community is a diversity of thoughts and systems thus it is logic to have these kinds of results .In fact the systems aren't really coordonated ans synchronized .It is very sad for the global sciences community .It is not thus the fault of FQXi but always this human nature .The conscious is thus bad understood .What is the rule of sciences ,we are catalyzers of the truth towards a beautiful harmony between mass systems .What are thus the fundamentals ?

It is so simple and so complex in the same time .

The ultim aim is the total unification of all creations .Thus before that let's improve fondamentaly ,pragmaticaly ,rationaly,universaly in correlation with this evolution of the Universe and its pure thermodynamical laws with their invariances ,coherences and constants.

In this logic what is the importance of a result inside a young system ?

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


J.C.N. Smith wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 15:46 GMT
Mr. Dufourny,

"the human state is not always harmonic"

You have raised some excellent points, and, as usual, I cannot disagree with you. And yes, this truly is a wonderful platform. Long may it continue and prosper!

Cheers

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Owen Thomas Cunningham wrote on Nov. 11, 2009 @ 16:41 GMT
Congratulations to the finalists!

As a non-finalist, according to the contest rules, the only recognition for which my paper might still be eligible would be one of the three "jury prizes" which can be drawn from the entire pool of submissions and don't have to be finalists.

My question to FQXi is, realistically, would a non-finalist ever win such a prize, since the judges aren't on the hook to read anything but finalists?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 12, 2009 @ 11:13 GMT
Hello Mr Smith ,Mr Cunningham,all,

Thanks dear Mr Smith ,it is nice.

Our Earth system will improve itself ,it is a real hope I think this time .The future depends on our present acts in my opinion .The harmonization ,the rationalisation ,the improvement permit to evolve correctly in a total complemenatrity in all centers of interest .

You know Mr Smith ,since some years ,I try to find the best global solutions on Earth .I am persuaded about the synergies between responsible scientists .And the invention of adapted sciences on ground localy is too a main piece if it is focus on the soil mainly .I think really what the soil ,on the surface and IN OCEAN too ,are the key of the global prosperity .The soil ,the water ,the O2 and the eyes and the hands of the men can make many harmonious things .What I find incredible on Earth is the fact to have the solutions and we wait in fact .The problem is more like this simplicity .

Is it just a question of good or bad governance ,perhaps ....thus how can we arrive to implant this global responsability in a total universality without making errors in this method .Indeed we see the actual global chaotic system and of course the parameters and variables thus must be very very well analyzed .We see the road but the road is difficult but it is possible .In all case it is our future ,that is sure ,fortunaly .

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Nov. 12, 2009 @ 16:06 GMT
Many thanks to all the entrants for a collection of good reading. Before everyone packs up, let me mention a few things.

First, the forums are still open for discussion (but try to keep on the topic of the essay contents).

Second, remember that the list of finalists is not just the top 30 ranked. For one thing, it's actually the top 32, because of the tie for the bottom slot. And for another, we the organizers have the option to add an additional 10 based on other criteria---which we did. Thus, there are 42 finalists. And just to give everyone ulcers, we aren't telling who they are.

Finally, the date of decision---we have to give the reviewers time to get through the essays, and we have to find a time for them all to meet. I can't give an estimate for this yet. Not before yesterday, hopefully by next November.

In summary---Stay tuned!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lev Goldfarb wrote on Nov. 14, 2009 @ 01:39 GMT
Brendan,

So, as you yourself said, you are "too busy eating all [your] candy" and giving "everyone ulcers", don't you?

;-))

Cheers,

--Lev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lev Goldfarb wrote on Dec. 3, 2009 @ 04:11 GMT
If it's not a secret, for how long, very approximately, should we "stay tuned" (before the results are announced)?

Thank you!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Dec. 8, 2009 @ 15:43 GMT
Yes, sorry for the vagaries. The Review Panel is currently proceeding smoothly, reading through the group of 42 finalists. The coming holidays make it difficult to pin down exactly when we will wrap-up, especially if there is a need for close deliberation on the front runners. Once we've gotten through the holidays, say by 15 January, we should have a clear idea of when the results can be announced.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 23:13 GMT
These are the essential parameters/requirements regarding the demonstration/proof of what is ultimately possible in physics.

1) Making thought more like sensory experience in general.

2) Space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic energy.

3) Balancing/uniting scale.

4) Exhibiting/demonstrating particle/wave.

5) Repulsive/attractive.

What is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 23:53 GMT
I challenge everyone on here with the following:

Do you understand the GIGANTIC significance of the following three statements taken together?:

1) The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

2) Dreams involve a fundamental integration AND spreading of being, experience, and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Dec. 11, 2009 @ 04:37 GMT
Brendan, Anthony,

Thanks for the timeline. It makes me more relaxed knowing of an approximate date for the results of the essay contest.

Science is empirical. What does it mean? It means that we recognize not knowing about the underlying reality. It means that we accept this ignorance because we have found about 200 years ago a pragmatic approach to this situation. We simply treat this universe as a black box. We ignore the content of the box and concentrate our study on our interaction or experience (empirical) with the box. By studying our experiences with the box we have come up with regularities and some possible image and idea of what the box contains. These are our laws of physics and the models that we can infer from them. But no matters how pointed our empirical method is, no matters how sharp and detailed our models are, they are still modeled and framed on the requirements of proof within the empirical system. In other words, the empirical method was meant to study our experience of the box, never to find its content, which must be addressed in a metaphysical approach. No matter how wonderful our science may appear, it is just child’s play. Without knowing the content of the box, we do not have any idea of what we are really doing. This is the limit of physics. We don’t do or understand as much as we should.

The limits of physics are twofold. First, although physics is essential in providing us with clues, it can never give us directly the content of the box. Secondly, the limit is as much in the minds of physicists who do not understand the meaning of empirical and of what was temporarily sacrificed for the purpose of progress in “doing” over progress in `understanding`.

In summary, the philosophically challenged physicist does not understand what it is that he does not know, what he is missing. He may ask a very good question, but does not really understand the question he asks and would therefore not know how to recognize a good answer ….. I give you: FQXI.

All the bests,

Marcel,

“The people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.”

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 6, 2010 @ 07:38 GMT
Dear Marcel-Marie:

So in summary, the physics community can only really say, "well, this seems to work". Then whose job is it to come up with ideas about what's inside of the black box? I assume that is not the job of the physicists...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 6, 2010 @ 10:49 GMT
And of course the Box is in 3D .......

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 6, 2010 @ 20:59 GMT
None of you have yet responded to my prior post. What's wrong? We ARE talking physics here, are we not? Clearly we are. We are talking physics which, for the most part, none of you have even started to contemplate. No special "outside" reviewers/specialists are required. The requirement is ability to think, learn, and try.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 6, 2010 @ 21:12 GMT
With the following, physicists can lay claim to the fundamental (or physical/sensory) structure of dream experience -- and of memory and genius as well -- with all of the other benefits/explanatory powers that this affords as well. Stop running from what you are unfamiliar with. There are no other experts. Let's go!

I challenge everyone on here with the following:

Do you understand...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Jan. 14, 2010 @ 19:27 GMT
In case you haven't read it elsewhere, here it is:

Winners in the Essay Contest will be announced next Tuesday, 19th January, at 2:00PM EST. Check the Community site for a special blog post. Until then, tell your friends, and keep reading the essays!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 15, 2010 @ 13:31 GMT
Hi all ,

Dear Marcel “The people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.”

It is super these words ,I like say what I am a real crazzy hihihi.Thus if you are crazzy too ,you are welcome when the center is created to improve the quality of life of our fellow men .

I d like say to all what your essay about conscious and spirituality is wonderful like the one of Mr Klingman .

It is so important this universality .It is probably the main piece of the puzzle because that implies a not individualism ,the conscious always in a whole and universal point of vue .

All the best to all for the essays contest .

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 22, 2010 @ 20:26 GMT
Tom,

Here is some math for the quantum ether.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0507/0507118v2.pd
f

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


songjoong sdfsd df wrote on Dec. 27, 2017 @ 07:02 GMT
cara menjadi reseller qnc jelly gamat

Cara Menjadi Agen Qnc Jelly Gamat

manfaat qnc jelly gamat

Obat Tradisional Kista Nabothian Tanpa Operasi

cara menjadi agen qnc jelly gamat

cara menjadi reseller qnc jelly gamat

cara mengobati gondongan pada anak

cara mengobati kanker nasofaring secara alami

obat pembersih sisa janin setelah keguguran

cara mengobati kanker pankreas secara tradisional

obat tradisional benjolan di leher sebelah kanan

obat tradisional tipes untuk orang dewasa

obat tradisional untuk menghentikan haid berkepanjangan

Obat Tradisional Pembekuan Darah Di Otak

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.