Search FQXi

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

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

songjoong df: on 12/27/17 at 7:05am UTC, wrote cara menjadi reseller qnc jelly gamat Cara Menjadi Agen Qnc Jelly Gamat ...

Constantin Leshan: on 1/10/10 at 22:02pm UTC, wrote Dear Anthony Aguirre, Imagine the future of FQXi. What will be the image...

NN: on 11/23/09 at 13:16pm UTC, wrote Woeds are words and deeds are deeds. Many of us are unable to match our...

NN: on 11/4/09 at 5:15am UTC, wrote i now see all my postings back or may be i was mistaken about their...

Jason Wolfe: on 11/1/09 at 17:14pm UTC, wrote Dear NN, I think my idea of a c1-brane, c_2,c_3...c_n brane works. First,...

NN: on 11/1/09 at 4:09am UTC, wrote Frank is true to his name but many of us are not. The name's significance...

Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 11/1/09 at 3:10am UTC, wrote ALL FQXi participants -- IMPORTANT: Francis Bacon: "..., all perceptions,...

NN: on 11/1/09 at 1:04am UTC, wrote Telescopic measurements on distant galaxies , around 12 billion years away,...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jorma Seppaenen: "Hi Georgina, Yes, CMB map is an observation product, it's very essential..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Jim Snowdon: "Of course, the stars would, very slowly, move across the sky as the Earth..." in The Nature of Time

Georgina Woodward: ""The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Jim Snowdon: "On the permanently dark side of the Earth, the stars would appear to stay..." in The Nature of Time

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

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

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

RECENT 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.

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

FQXi BLOGS
May 27, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: What is Ultimately (or at least newly) Possible in Physics (essay contests)? [refresh]

FQXi Administrator Anthony Aguirre wrote on Jul. 17, 2009 @ 22:48 GMT
What is Ultimately Possible in Physics?

That, of course, is the subject of FQXi's current essay contest. FQXi has now approved the first 10 essays, so you should feel free to go to the essay discussion page to check them out, rate, and discuss. Hopefully the discussion going live will encourage essayists to start to get their submissions in: experience from the first contest seems to indicate that early entries got some advantage in voting, and certainly more attention.

A few of my thoughts on what is ultimately possible are below. But first, few notes on the rating and discussion:

1) We've switched from a voting to a rating system (1-10). An advantage of this is that it should provide much more information, as you need not read many essays before rating one. A disadvantage is that it could lead to a judgmental atmosphere, rather than a supportive one. Hopefully the community will make the most of the first, and try to minimize the second.

2) While there will still be an expert panel, more than last time, the results of the contest will be determined by the ratings by the community (see the detailed official rules here. We'll see how this works out!

3) There have been several improvements to the forum system you might want to try out:

(a) LaTeX equations can now be included (and a preview window is available).

$\int e e ?$

(b) Inline subscripts and superscripts are supported.

(c) Very long posts will now be 'stubbified' into expandable stubs, and authors will (soon) be empowered to stubbify (but stubbify only) comments on their own essay.

So what do I think is ultimately (im)possible? I'd say what intrigues me most is the apparent relation between various types of impossibility. Most readers are familiar with the second law of thermodynamics, and its accompanying 'impossibility' statements, e.g. entropy should never (well, almost never) decrease in a closed system, perpetual motion machines are impossible, etc.

But other 'impossibilities' seem to be closely related. For example, faster-than-light or time travel in general relativity would appear to be possible if one had access to a significant supply of negative energy; this could be used, for instance, to hold open the 'throat' of a wormhole, or create a warp drive, etc. But negative energy is very bad (or at least seemingly forbidden) in large quantities. For example, suppose I have some stuff with entropy S. Now turn the stuff into a black hole of mass M. This increases the entropy (in fact, from Bekenstein and Hawking we have a pretty good idea exactly how much entropy should be associated with a black hole, and it's a lot). Now feed a chunk of negative-energy stuff, say of mass (-M), into the black hole. Voila, no more black hole, no more entropy, second law violated.

With negative mass one can also, as far as I can see, easily violate cosmic censorship (the negative-mass Schwartzschild solution has a naked singularity). And cosmic censorship is used in proving the theorem that the total area of black hole event horizons increases, which in turn is used to make sure that the (generalize) second law is upheld.

So there seem to be very deep ties between various things that Nature appears very unwilling to allow us to do. These ties are often somewhat obscure, and rarely worked out in any rigorous detail. But it might it be interesting to try to do so, and I'll leave that as a challenge.

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 21, 2009 @ 09:07 GMT
Hi dear Anthony,

If one people arrives to proof what My Spherization Theory Is false ,I will offer him a beautiful apple from belgium .

But it's impossible to proof that because it's foundamental everywhere in the quantum towards the universe .

When a theory is correct ,we can see its applications everywhere .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Jul. 21, 2009 @ 13:14 GMT
There is also a conflict between BH thermo and Lorentz-symmetry violation (which is itself a means of faster-than-"light" effects). See these guys and these weirdos.

I'd like to see (because I won't write it) an essay on the (im)possibility that physics can stay just as it is now, with a classical gravitational field and standard QM for the other stuff. We all assume that something must give, but I would enjoy reading a rigorous case that either gravity must be quantized, or QM must change in a radical way (or more likely, both).

One angle would be to attack semiclassical gravity (where the classical metric is sourced by the expectation value of a suitable quantum operator). There are many conceptual and technical difficulties that seem to preclude viewing it as 'the final answer'. Such as, nonlinearity of GR equations would imply nonlinear evolution for the quantum state of matter, but this turns out to imply nonlocal signalling, problems with 2nd Law, and other oddities. The case is not closed, but I think the issue would make for a good essay. Now, will anyone write it for me?

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Anthony Aguirre wrote on Jul. 21, 2009 @ 14:02 GMT
Hi Brendan,

Very interesting! I start to wonder if eventually the Second Law of Thermodynamics will be the First Law of Everything.

I also very much like your essay idea -- it's very much in the spirit, and this is the perfect sort of forum for such a case to be made. But I won't write it either ;-)

Anthony

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jul. 22, 2009 @ 05:48 GMT
Hello Brendan,

You raise a very interesting question about the need to quantize gravity, or to change QM radically. I will not focus on why we should quantize gravity (this is a relatively easy topic), but instead I will present some arguments about changing QM. Very few people know that QM comes in two very distinct flavors: non-relativistic and relativistic. The standard relativistic interpretation is second quantization and the Fock space, but this is not what I am talking about here. What I am discussing is the structural unification of QM with relativity using a non-division algebra instead of complex numbers. Since in relativity there are null vectors, structural unification with QM cannot be achieved using the standard R, C, H, O division algebras, but by using an algebra called “quantions” by Emile Grgin, and “space time algebra” by David Hestenes. Again, not many people are aware of those results. If general relativity is to be quantized, would it not make sense to start with the unification of QM with special relativity first, and then proceed to tackle the curved case?

Relativistic QM is intimately linked with noncommutative and conformal geometry and while in general one does not have the standard Hilbert space in this case, both non-relativistic and relativistic versions have the same axiomatization in the algebraic approach to QM. Therefore on one hand, the expectation that QM has to be changed is valid, but on the other hand, this does not bring a lot of clarifications in terms of the foundational problems of QM because the relativistic case is conceptually the same as the non relativistic one. The good news however is that the structural unification of relativity with QM singles out the SO(2,4) space (intimately liked with SO(1,3)) and it turns out that structural unification is only possible in our usual 4 dimensionality space-time. No extra dimensions.

All this would make for a nice essay, but we can now attempt an even a bolder task: identify the ultimate principle of physics and derive uniqueness results from them: time, space, quantum mechanics, dimensionality of space-time, and the semiclassical aspects of the electroweak interaction. Hopefully more will follow soon. For details, see my essay: “Heuristic rule for constructing physics axiomatization”. I hope this answers more questions than why we need to quantize gravity or why should we change QM.

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jul. 23, 2009 @ 18:43 GMT
What is ultimately possible in physics is the destruction of humanity via the reconfiguration/replacement/alteration of sensory experience. The dream makes thought more like sensory experience in general. The dream is not under our intentional control. That is the lesson.

Understand in no uncertain terms that the integrated and natural extensiveness of being and experience go hand in hand.

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jul. 23, 2009 @ 19:00 GMT
What about television? It is celebrated as a great creation of what is possible via thought/physics.

However, I have already demonstrated (in detail and with specifics) that television is an extended, interactive, and unnatural extension of the dream (in sight and sound) AS waking experience (in sight and sound). TV is an hallucinatory experience. The vision and sound of television are even more like thought than the vision and sound during dreams.

See the published article entitled Television is an Hallucination. Wake up people. What is it going to take?

Frank Martin DiMeglio (author)

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jul. 23, 2009 @ 19:11 GMT
The unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light occurs in dreams. That is what is ultimately possible in physics. I should win this essay contest.

See the published article entitled The Dream Fundamentally Balances and Unifies Gravity and Electromagnetism. The totality of experience has to be considered.

report post as inappropriate

Leshan wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 09:08 GMT
Dear Anthony Aguirre,

The public voting is not perfect and can be used for fraud. If the author has a large number of friends or the database of emails, he can easy increase its public ratings and obtain an FQXi prize. In this way a swindler will obtain the FQXi prize.

Please take a look at this http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/467

"Being organic chemist, I am not deep into physics. But as friend of him I rated 10 for his essay."

"Although I didn't understand most of the thing he wrote but he's trustworthy! Rated 10."

You see the people vote for their friends (authors), but not for the quality of essay. Therefore, public rating is not perfect and cannot determine the best essay.

To prevent fraud, I propose that each author should give a short review for at least 5 essays. It would engage authors in critical logical analyses of essays and discussion. It could help us to find the best essay by comparing the merits and demerits of all essays.

Can you create a special page (or blog) for reviews only? I can publish a review for two essays already. It will be the help for the Expert Judges.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 17:36 GMT
Hi all ,

Dear Leshan,

It's important what you say,so important ,the sciences indeed aren't a play of notoriety and business.All is there but indeed our world is like that ,a win win hihihihihi incredible reality of the Earth ,a so beautiful spheroid in rotation and even the monney turns in the other sense hihihi lol.

It's the life .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 6, 2009 @ 15:45 GMT
What is ultimately possible in physics necessarily involves the following:

Dreams add to the integrated extensiveness of being, experience, and thought.

In fact, dreams involve a fundamental integration and spreading of being and experience at the [gravitational] mid-range of feeling between thought and sense. It is not only in the dream that the vision of everyone is different. Reality pertains to/involves (in varying degrees, of course) what must be understood as the integrated extensiveness of being and experience (including thought). Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism). The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

The known union of gravity and electromagnetism/light -- in the fourth dimension of space that unites Einsten's theory of gravity with Maxwell's theory of light/electromagnetism -- must be understood as balancing scale by making gravity both repulsive and attractive as electromagnetic energy/light.

Einstein's theory is already balanced, extended, and properly completed/verified by said union.

Moreover, this union of gravity and electromagnetism is already mathematically proven/demonstrated by the addition of the fourth spatial dimension; and, this must be plainly and significantly obvious in our experience; and, it is -- in the experience of dreaming.

Please, comments and questions are very welcome on this most important post.

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 13, 2009 @ 03:18 GMT
What happens when/as our world of experience becomes relatively detached, shifting, variable, disintegrated, and contracted (or lessened) as the result of making experience excessively like thought (and overly intentional)? If you walk away from reality, reality will walk away from you. This "thinkers' world" of experience involves our becoming more inanimate. As just one example, look at TV. It is there that the disintegration, contraction, and detachment of being, experience (including vision), and thought are clearly evident. This is the age of excessive detachment and control; and remember, you only control someone or something by reducing it/them. Remember this as you pick up your remote controls tonight and continue to lose your minds people; the integrated and natural extensiveness of being and experience go hand-in-hand in and with time. I've got news for you all, to the extent that the development of our children is too rapid (as it is), in like measure are we becoming more inanimate. Relatively unconscious experience is excessively combining with waking experience. This involves (and is indicative of) a reduction of experience in general. Thw world requires and involves man.

report post as inappropriate

amritz wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 20:40 GMT
Dear Anthony

Term "negative energy" i see problematic. Energy is not positive or negative. Energy simply is, exists. We have to be attentive and aware which terms corresponds to the physical reality and which are build up on abstract level of the mind and do not have correspondence in physical world.

Physics needs exact revision of basic terms in order to "keep" contact with physical reality.

Terms space-time, negative energy, gravity waves do not pass phenomenological examination. They do not have correspondence in direct physical observation. We can consider them math entities merely.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 12:37 GMT
Hi all ,

I agree with you Amrit ,the enrgy is the energy ,the mass is the mass ,the forces are the forces ....I think what Mr Aguire would tell us ,a balance of polarity between + and - .There the sense always is relevant about quantum entangled spheres even for planck scales .An energy of balance isn't negative but just balanced in two pôles .

About the apples ,anybody for this year ,perhaps the next contest .

Viva el spherisacion ,

I am curious about the results of the essay contest ,some people are good scores and are near .The essays were very interestings this year ,some essays are supers and relevant about the consciouness .

The time will tell us .And still congratulations for this platform.,good luck to all essayists...

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 16:42 GMT
Dear Steve

About consciousness you might have interes to read my recent article on vixra / mind science

Information Transfer Consciousness/Matter.

Consciousness has a rate of Planck length, Atom 10/10.

Rate difference is verz big.

Must be some energz that connects consciousness and matter.

Also dark energy could be that connector.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 17:45 GMT
Dear Amrit ,

Thanks,it's nice, I am going to read it .

I am very interested with the work of some people on the essay contest .Like yours about consciousness too.Good luck besides .

In reading the work of Mr Klingman,I asked me if the elemenatry particles became consciouss when they are fixed in the system of an intelligent animal if I can say ,

or if the informations are encoded in some linear particles,a little if the light with the ultim code drives very weak particles and their informations of consciousness ,like a travel in the spherical linearity of the light .

Our brains too are relevant about the informations ,in all case it's fascinating and the word is weak .

Sure the consciouness evolves because the mass increases ,because the light creates ,because when we see around us ,it's evident .

What I find fantastic is the real possible exponentials with these informations of consciousness .Furthermore if a contraction appears ,thus in a thermodynamical point of vue and about the dark matter ,it's relevant .

There the connections ,synergies between mass systems thus shall increase ....

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 21, 2009 @ 17:19 GMT
Dear Amrit ,

I read your paper on vixra ,it's a beautiful extrapolation at the planck scale .

Thus like a conscious near the wall encoded in all .The informations thus are in the ubiquity ,like the light in fact behind our walls ,thus behind our physicality .Now of course how can we hamonize the universal consciousness with the encoded consciousness i particles near this scale ,perhaps they increase with mass ,towards the perfect consciousness in fact behind walls .This light .

It's evident ,simple in fact fortunaly .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Oct. 22, 2009 @ 09:06 GMT
Dear Steve

That consciousness is a basic frequency of quanta of space QS is just a thought experiment. Penrose idea on consciousness is close to this.

On vixra I also have an article on how consciousness communicata with atoms.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 11:05 GMT
Dear Amrit ,

It's intriguing in fact ,how interacts this conscious ,what is the nature of this fixed informations .Where are they ?fixed in the quantum architecture ?

How is fixed this information in the main code .It's just a step of fixation in the quantum sphere .Probably a synchronisation of rotating spheres where the polarity adapts itself .

The light probably too is like a chief orchestra of diffusion .After it's just a synchronization between graity and electromagnetism I think .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 11:36 GMT
Dear Steve

I do not know exactly relation consciousness - electromagnetism - gravity.

Future generations will manage all that. My discovery is that universe is not in time, universe is NOW. To create exact model of life and universe wee need to abandon linear vision of events running in time.

the only time is now

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 12:59 GMT
Dear Amrit ,

Yes indeed ,the relation is complex ,but simple too .

For the link I think it's just a question of polarisation and rotations and synchronizations ,all that in an evolution point of vue .The number of combinations is important .The gravity possesses the coded of synchronuisations.

Where I have some confusions,it's when you don't insert the evolution ,

if you say what we need to abandon this linearity of the time,it's a little confusing for me.I beleive time is a constant , a main piece of the puzzle of evolution .

The events are on a specific sequence of evolutive polarisations of evolution where the mass increases .

But I understand your vision ,your spirituality is high and your interpretation can't be understood for all because you mix the atemporality at the wall and the unknew with our physicality .I think you must explain more for the public and make a difference between the physicality and this eternality with its atemporality .Perhaps you could explain some steps before this scale ,far of us .Like that you adapt your spirituality with the explaination of your subjective reality .There I understand your vision of the now.

In all case ,it's very relevant about our mind ,our soul ,our brain ,our consciousness ,our rule of catalyzer of the universality .

A pleasure to see this kind of spiituality and whole point of vue .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 13:52 GMT
Steve in your life you can be scientist only in present moment bacause only the present moment exists as a physical reality. It is not that present moments follows one after other. Change which run in present moment follows one after other. Present moment is the only one that exist. Clocks run in present moment.

This fact above I present in physics as a timeless quantum space where time is run of clocks.

eternity is now, yours amrit

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 15:03 GMT
Yes ,I agree but we are all the result of a polarisation in time ,the evolution thus has permitted to be in this now in fact ,and the now is to improve the future .

If the evolutive past didin't exist ,thus the now hasn't sense thus the future too because we couldn't improve and evolve .

The now indeed is important like a rule .We can learn from our past ,and our now is better with a pragmatic analyze for our future in fact .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 09:42 GMT
Hi Steve and Amrit: The following will be of use to you in your discussion of the relation between thought, gravity, and electromagnetism.

Gravity and electromagnetism/light are inseparable from the integrated extensiveness of being, experience, and thought.

Desire consists of both intention and concern, thereby including interest as well. This is an important and very...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 16:52 GMT
Frank please explain how time and space are both balanced in a fourth dimension.

thanks, yours amrit

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 21:59 GMT
ATTN: EVERYONE and Amrit. I have demonstrated the equivalency of extension in time and space at a three to one ratio in keeping with the following (below) Amrit. I have shown that the integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand-in-hand in and with time. What I will now demonstrate with regard to time alone is GIGANTIC.

Dreams unify gravity and electromagnetism/light by...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 18:35 GMT
Frank thank you for this explanation.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 18:56 GMT
Hi Amrit ,Frank ,

Yes Frank it exists different polarity + - but it's more complex about the synchronization .But the gravity is always attractive in its whole .You could say ,the quantum interactions can have different step of polarisation .There with different spherical fields thus steps ,it's indeed attyractive or repulsive .

If you link the gravity (the stability )with the elctromagnetism ,the synchronisation must be in 3D and a time constant .you know Frank the interactions are the same in fact with some differences .The synchronisation is essential .

Personally I like your extrapolations ,but about the gravity I don't agree really ,the sense rests in fact ,the gravity is a stable system in a specific main sense of rotation thus a specific polarity .

On the other side you can say that for the electromagnetism but not the gravity ,really .I find it's important for your model .The angles aren't important just the relativity and accept the limits .

You can improve your model ,it's a beautiful model in fact if you synchronize the fundamentals .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 19:04 GMT
In fact Frank ,the gravity polarises always ,it attracts always and increases its mass .The micro or macro gravity is always attractive .

Now of course if we resume all the stable system by a gravity system ,there different fields are + or - .But not in its pure nature where it exists a force between all mass .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 22:53 GMT
Hi Amrit and Steve:

You are very welcome Amrit. Thank you for your question.

Steve:

How space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is the central and and most valuable physical idea. This is true because dreams make thought more like sensory experience IN GENERAL (including gravity and electromagnetism/light). I have clearly demonstrated that space manifests as...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 11:27 GMT
Hi Dear Frank ,

I think an other think ,perhaps you can insert the biological gravity,different than the universal gravity (a biological system is a part of a sphere ) ,here the human and its brains .There your brain is attractive or repulsive .What do you think ?.You can correlate with the centers (adn,proteins and thus their motions and transfets of informations .)

You can thus link with the center of our Earth ,after the sun ....thus about different kinds of polarisations with the light linearity.Thus like some steps between interactions .There a specific local spherical place interacts + - about the informations and very weak polarisations .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 00:46 GMT
TO: All FQXi participants as well. -- IMPORTANT. -- Hi Steve. I offer you the following in reply to your questions. I quote Einstein and J.C. Maxwell:

"It is the theory which decides what we can observe..."

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

James Clerk Maxwell – "The only laws of matter are those that our minds must fabricate and the only laws of mind are fabricated for it by matter."

Schroedinger was puzzled by life enough to suggest "a new type of physical law." -- p. 258 -- See Paul Davies' book The Fifth Miracle. Also see De Duve: "Life and mind emerge...as natural manifestations of matter, written into the fabric of the universe." -- p.252 thereof. And Darwin: "The principle of life will hereafter be shown to be a part, or consequence, of some general law" -- p.252 thereof. Look at the words "GENERAL law"! --- PERFECT!

IMPORTANTLY, now consider ALL of the above with what follows.

This physical law is said unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light. The physical (and sensory) reality/experience/basis/correspondence of/to this law is dream experience, whereby thought is more like sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism/light). The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sensory experience is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience -- this clearly relates to memory, art, genius, dreams, being "one with the music", and telescopic/astronomical observations.

To think that the unification of General Relativity and Maxwell's Theory of Light -- that is already mathematically PROVEN by the addition of a spatial dimension to Einstein's theory -- is not readily and significantly apparent in our experience is one of the greatest oversights or blunders of common sense that has ever occurred.

Do you agree? -- Yes or no? -- If not, then why? If I am correct (and I am), I am entitled to/deserving of the Nobel Prize in Physics.

Also, do you agree with the following?:

In relation to the increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical/telescopic observations (that makes these observations

possible) -- is there not a uniformity of gravity/acceleration (that would provide an additional binding energy) regarding the outer stars accelerating more than they should be (in, say, spiral galaxies)? Consider this in conjunction with objects near Earth in the invisible/transparent space/sky. Isn't the redshift consistent with/indicative of the increased transparency/invisibility of space that makes such astronomical/telescopic observations possible? Is all of this not true as well? -- Yes or no please? If not, then why? Thanks.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 02:28 GMT
Dear Anthony,

I have an alternative to negative energy as a way to create a hyperdrive, I'd like to get your opinion. The only space-time we've ever experienced is this one, with velocity c. If you don't mind, I'd like to call it the c-brane. This c-brane enforces the laws of motion, Einstein equations, etc. While we have never noticed it, I propose the existence of a c2-brane where the speed of light is twice c. It exists everywhere that our universe exists. Next, there is a c3 brane where the speed of light is the integer 3 times the speed of light; there is c4, c5 etc... There exists a stack of these space times.

The particles that exist on each layer of space-time are photon-invisible to particles on other space-times. In other words, if a meteor in c2 goes by, we don't interact with it via photons, virtual or otherwise. However, we do measure it's gravity, if it has enough mass.

Energy is conserved, so the mass relationship between branes is

E=m1c12=m2c22, etc...

The permitivity and permeability will scale accordingly.

I am looking for a way to describe mathematically the idea that an object, like a spaceship, in c1-brane, can, with some energy and the right field, be absorbed into the c2-brane, and treated as a particle on c2. With the proper use of this field, the particle in c2 can be absorbed into the c3 brane and enjoy the laws of motion therein.

By doing it this way, I'm trying to change the discussion from tachyons with imaginary mass/negative energy, to a stack of space-times with conversions. Furthermore, if a massive object can be absorbed into the next higher brane, then there has to exist some inherent force that connects the branes of the stack together.

For black holes, there is an information content of its surface proportional to the surface area. I would suggest that a c2-brane can hold the same information content using less surface area. I am pursuing these relationships, trying to determine how each brane is related to its upper and lower brane neighbor.

Any thoughts?

report post as inappropriate

Peter van Gaalen wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 19:36 GMT
Hi Jason,

What do you mean with "While we have never noticed it, I propose the existence of a c2-brane where the speed of light is twice c."

Do you mean 2c or do you mean c2?

And if you mean 2c, why do you propose 2c, 3c, 4c ...? is it a wild guess? Or do you have reasons for that?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 21:27 GMT
Hi Peter,

I've been trying to figure out how a hyperdrive might still be possible in spite of the fact that General Relativity requires enormous amounts of energy to curve space. The Alcubierre drive requires some impossible amount of energy, something like 10x all of the energy in the universe. I don't think that way will work.

My proposal is hypothetical, a best guess of where the laws of physics might hide the hyperdrive from us. I'm considering the implications of what dark matter/dark energy might be telling us. Since the speed of light is so intrinsically tied into the laws of motion in such an absolute way AND because hyperdimensional physics is, as yet, unproven, I am trying another approach to physics.

I want to stack layers of space-time in the same 3D space. We all know about the space-time with a maximum velocity of c. In the same space, and escaping our notice (ability to observe), I want to place a 2c space-time (2X speed of light); then, a 3c, 4c, integer X c, etc... They are all here, all around us. We don't observe them because a 2c space-time produces 2c fermions/bosons which only interact with 2c-photons/W+- particles. Virtual photons make electromagnetism work.

Gravity operates across the stack, thus dark matter and dark energy. If I may call each of these space-time layers a c_i-brane, they all cover the same space. They don't include all of the same particles, but they do include the same gravity.

It's not a wild guess, I would call it a carefully calculated guess.

I believe that the speed of light can be likened to processing power. The Planck constant can be something like a resolution in units of energy-time. The inevitable mass is a "computational cost" for each particle. I'm not saying it's a virtual reality, instead, I'm acknowledging that the universe keeps track of every quantifiable difference as it shuffles through configurations.

I'm suggesting an approach to physics that would be more compatible with high speed travel (FTL), without creating causality violations. From this approach, time travel is still impossible. The best you can do is, if you transmitted something you didn't mean to on the c_1-brane, you might be able to catch it if you jump to the c_2-brane where the velocity of light is 2c.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 06:57 GMT
The speed of light is a strange thing. In the Minkowski metric we have space and time. the 4 terms in this metric have the same dimension. That's why they are called 'proportional'. We hace proportional time and proportional length. Minkowski wrote proportional time as ict, so it has the same dimension as length. But what is proportinal speed? speed = length/time. Proportional speed is (prop. length)/(prop. time) = l/ict = -i v/c.

The proportional speed of light = -ic/c. Yes, it is the (negative) imaginary unit!

When we exceed the speed of light al quantities turn into other quantities.

I think that the speed of ligth is a fundamental border. Only because of the uncertainty principle particles sometimes can exceed the speed of light.

report post as inappropriate

Narendra Nath wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 07:28 GMT
It is intersting to see the comments made on consciousness, speed of light and what not in Physics. To me consciousness is not a physical quantity but is the most common awareness parallel to gravity itseld. As Klingman in his essay has dealt with the two vectors one representing G and the other repesenting Consciouness to derive mathematical relations. The latter have predictability that need to be tested experimentally. I for one believes that not everthing that is experienced can be tested experimenatlly in a physical manner. That is where the human brain distinguishes the emotional, rational and logicaanalytical thinking processes. You can't have rationality of science to rule over the human thinking. here lies the importance of human belief. It simply can not be dispensed with, otherwise man will just become a peculiar raqtionlist and we will stop liking / diliking each other, making the life barren of sorts.

Now a few thoughts about the constancy of constants like c, h, e, m, etc. The early universe holds the keys about such beliefs. The physics as eveolved in the past few hundred years does not take into account the few facts that have come light for the early universe. The conditions then were quite extremes, unlike later on. Thus, these so-called constants in fact varied during that period of first billion years or so. Isolated cosmic measurements studying light signals from distant objecys around 12 billion years away, indicate that the velocity c was distinctly higher than the accepted value. Similar is the situation about the rati e/m. The palnck's constant h may well be lower than its currently accepted value, following such confirmations. The postulation f a mesomorphic region between classical and quantum physics in a FQXI site essay by Dr. Tejinder Singh has developed such a thoery that is oprn to some difficult experimentation. It requires to be persued andalready a research group based in Vienna has put up a proposal in this regard. It is a very very significant development in Physics that is bound to affect the future of Physics in the days to come.

report post as inappropriate

NN wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 07:42 GMT
Sorry, typographic and other inadvertent mistakes have occured in my above posting but the gist can be ascertained in spite of it by the learned authors, judges, members of the FQXI Institute. Only a widely open mind can lead to the progress of any branch of science, more so Physics. Let us hope for better Physics thanks to FQXI efforts through this website essay competition nad other activities.

report post as inappropriate

Peter van Gaalen wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 17:53 GMT
Narendra "The conditions then were quite extremes, unlike later on. Thus, these so-called constants in fact varied during that period of first billion years or so."

Maybe it will be so, but it's not prooven yet.

And even when ligthspeed has changed, it is still the imaginary unit, and so is the gravitational constant. The Planck constant is a different kind of constant.

It is related to the minimizing quantities like the 'action' divided by the phase. So are the other relatives of the planck constant: mass centre-motion divided by the phase. And also the minimizing quantity string theory uses: the product of length and time. This quantity divided by phase represents also one of the planck constants.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 18:59 GMT
Hi all ,

Dear Frank ,

I think really you can insert some physical laws in a whole point of vue .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 19:05 GMT
Dear Narendra Nath,

It is an interesting line of speculation that some of the constants might have changed since the early formation of the universe. I agree that if physics is going to progress, we have to look at such exotic possibilities. The recent confirmation that the speed of light is constant versus frequency for up to 7 billion lightyears was proof to me that the speed of light is pretty solid foundation from which to build. Since changing the speed of light within this space-time has such catostrophic implications for atoms, I thought it might be better to consider space-time shells or c-branes (finding names for new ideas is challenge too). With my idea, 3 dimensions of space overlayed with an integer number of velocity branes; a c-brane space-time, 2c-space-time, 3c-space-time, etc., where the space is the same, but the speed of light is different-this approach has advantages. The first advantage is that it gives us a chance to look at blackhole surface areas and entropy from a new perspective; for example, what happens to all of that information inside of the event horizon where the speed of light cannot be garuanteed to be c? Second, there is nothing in string theory calculations or General Relativity that says anything useful about faster than light travel. Third, a stack of multiple space-times begs the question: how are these space-times assembled? From here, we might be able to construct a relationship between electromagnetism/charge, where permeability/permittivity are based on c, and gravity which, because of dark energy/matter, is expected to be pervasive between multiple space-times. Fourth, such a theory will help to reveal the truth about physics by revealing what we hadn't really considered before.

As for consciousness, we all have our convictions and personal experiences.

report post as inappropriate

nnath wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 04:44 GMT
just had cheese toast and corn flakes. mind is rushing to pen down something!But what are well-judged comments, i can't be sure. With such wavering of the human mind how can we be so sure of our own opinions that well change with times too. Then there are in-built biases that work subtly in the background, without our full awareness! The same event seen by a large group of intelligent beings will bring forth different versions that may clash even.

Thus concepts evolved in Physics condition its development. When a new concept gets evolved the Physics can change drastically. Physics is not complex, it is our minds that make it so. Nature is simple, smooth and logical in its manifestations.

Jason comments above are worth all the consideration. Both space and time can not be tested unless we get out of their dimensionality and so-assumed homogeneity. Timelessness can change the meaning of space in order to understand a phenomenon. Awareness hold all the secrets as its level can vary from person to person. The common denominator then gets accepted and the extreme behaviors get associated with crackness! The 'crackenss' may well contain elements of innovation. What to do under such circumstances is a problem we all need to attend to. Looking beyond 'ourselves' in an objective manner can help subjectivity to reduce and better truth may get revealed. i really do not know if comments made are meaningful to others, the fault is all mine.

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 05:57 GMT
IMPORTANT -- The increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical/telescopic observations makes these observations possible. None of you get this? Let's move the understanding forward here.

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 06:31 GMT
ATTENTION Look at telescopic/astronomical observations. They are interactive creations of thought to a significant extent. They have significant similarities with dreams. Both involve a telescoping/narrowing of vision -- Jonathan Dickau agrees with this and loved this point. Both involve increasing invisibility/transparency of space.

report post as inappropriate

NN wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 01:04 GMT
Telescopic measurements on distant galaxies , around 12 billion years away, have shown that light signals show a distinctly higher value than measured on earth. Also, the raio e/m measured from such distant galaxies has shown such distinct deviations. This may be considered as more or less established experimentally. The explanation may well lie in changing space curvatures, distortions in space or efen time distortions affecting velocity measurement.

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 03:10 GMT
ALL FQXi participants -- IMPORTANT: Francis Bacon: "..., all perceptions, both of sense and mind, are relative to man, not to the universe." That is a FACT that hardly any of you on here get.

Physics will remain lost in a sea of contradiction, incompleteness, and error until you all understand this fundamental fact. Consider this closely in keeping with the following, and don't be impatient or lazy about it either.

Thought is incorporated [bodily] into/as part of WHAT IS A RANGE OF GRAVITATIONAL FEELING. Our very ability to describe gravity is inseparable from our experience of gravity. The 90 degree angle of the body (while dreaming and waking) is inseparable from our ability to describe and understand gravity.

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 another great FACT that hardly any of you on here get -- How do you think that language, dreams, and memory (of feeling, thoughts, emotions, language, etc.) are possible? Dreams are much like memory. Memory integrates experience -- another great FACT.

How can we have a fair essay contest when so many of you do not even understand the very basics of experience?

Telescopes are known to be a sort of big eye. Witness the red Sun and the clear/transparent sky/space around it. See the connection? Why do you think that the LARGER Sun then looks AND feels (on/at the eye) more like the Earth?

Isn't the increase in the transparency/invisibility of space in telescopic/astronomical observations (that is the requirement thereof) consistent with the redshift?

report post as inappropriate

NN wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 04:09 GMT
Frank is true to his name but many of us are not. The name's significance needs to be honored by the person wearing the name. i enjoyed the comments of Frank above but do not feel like making any responses now, just the mood. let us hope we all have participated in this wonderful contest of FQXi in the spirit of sincerity, honesty and frankness that we value but do miss practiing it to the extent we need to.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 17:14 GMT
Dear NN,

I think my idea of a c1-brane, c_2,c_3...c_n brane works. First, it makes it possible to gain insight into what the laws of physics mean. Second, it provides a very useful framework for developing a hyperdrive physics that still conserves energy. In fact, conservation of energy when moving from a c_i to c_i+1 branes makes it easier to explore hyperdrive physics. Just consider the following thought experiment:

You take two identical apples. You drop them from the same height, at the same time. One of the stays inside of the c_1 brane (our space-time). The second one passes through a flat c_2 brane (space-time with a velocity of light 2c).

Question 1: Which apple lands first?

Question 2: When the apple that passed through the c_2 brane returns to the c_1 brane, does it reach the bottom with more energy (mgh), less or equal?

Question 3: What is the relationship between the mass of the apple in c_1 space, m1, versus c2 space, m2?

Question 4: What does the c2-brane do to the gravitational constant of the universe, G?

The answers are really easy, and provide some very interesting insight. If there really is a stack of space-times, one 3D space and n c-branes, then we are on our way to FTL travel.

report post as inappropriate

NN wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 05:15 GMT
i now see all my postings back or may be i was mistaken about their disappearance!

report post as inappropriate

NN wrote on Nov. 23, 2009 @ 13:16 GMT
Woeds are words and deeds are deeds. Many of us are unable to match our words with our deeds. Such contadictions arise and it becomes difficult to defend ourselves. The human tendencies are such that we see only merit in ourseles and shortcomings in others. A balanced view can bring out the truth faster if we all can practice it in both words and deeds. Such is life and its tribulations and we all need to enjoy the same.

report post as inappropriate

Constantin Leshan wrote on Jan. 10, 2010 @ 22:02 GMT
Dear Anthony Aguirre,

Imagine the future of FQXi. What will be the image of FQXi, say, in 2015? To be successful, FQXi must find a scientific DISCOVERY. For example, the new particle has been predicted at FQXi contest. Or, the new type of warp drive has been found at FQXi contest.

To find a discovery, FQXi must eliminate the Dictatorial Regime of the Majority. The majority hates invention of new particles and New Physics. Therefore, FQXi must consider essays with low ratings.

I ask the FQXi to support my theory about the vacuum holes and absolute vacuum. I can prove the existence of holes in space-time by help of FQXi. Then we'll prove experimentally the hole teleportation. It is a great discovery. If FQXi will support the Hole teleportation, it will be the MAIN contribution of FQXi for science. Also I plan to create the warp drive based on holes (levitation). FQXi will remains in the history of science as the first Scientific foundation that supported the Hole Teleportation theory.

If FQXi will support only essays selected by majority (like non-existence of time or quantum mechanics), you’ll never find any scientific discovery.

report post as inappropriate

songjoong sdfsd df wrote on Dec. 27, 2017 @ 07:05 GMT