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.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Contests Home
Current Essay Contest
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
Previous Contests
Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners
What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners
Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discuss • winners
Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discuss • winners
The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners
Current Essay Contest
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
Previous Contests
Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners
What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners
Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discuss • winners
Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discuss • winners
The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC
Edwin Klingman: on 1/4/10 at 23:41pm UTC, wrote Dear James Arthur Putnam, I note that your next to last comment states...
James Putnam: on 11/11/09 at 3:10am UTC, wrote I mean my clocks began disagreeing. Oh well, thats typical of my progress. ...
James Putnam: on 11/10/09 at 22:07pm UTC, wrote Things have quieted down. I have to wait many months for the next contest....
Steve Dufourny: on 11/10/09 at 9:03am UTC, wrote Dear Ray ,merci ,I am touched and not a little ,many thanks . Friendly ...
James Putnam: on 11/9/09 at 16:59pm UTC, wrote I greatly appreciated being able to particpate in this contest. The...
James Putnam: on 11/6/09 at 20:47pm UTC, wrote The question of natural versus unnatural often comes up. So, I will express...
James Putnam: on 11/6/09 at 20:37pm UTC, wrote Dear Professor Narendra Nath, Thank you for that very kind message. I read...
Ray Munroe: on 11/6/09 at 14:43pm UTC, wrote Dear Narendra and James, It is a beautiful thing that the internet can...
RECENT FORUM POSTS
Georgina Woodward: "Be careful, there are many people who are not who they pretend to be." in Global Collaboration
Georgina Woodward: "The preceding explanation of wavefunction collapse is, I think,..." in Consciousness and the...
jim hughes: "I'm not a mathematician. So what I see here is some smart people who..." in Consciousness and the...
Steve Dufourny: "Hello FQXi, the members and all, I try to do my best to unite and convice..." in Global Collaboration
Georgina Woodward: "Broken machine: What do[es] I see next? The I that was, E.I, has not been..." in The Room in the Elephant:...
Lorraine Ford: "Hi Stefan, I hope that a good leader, and a good political party, is..." in The Present State of...
Lorraine Ford: "We live in an age of computing. But physics, mathematics and philosophy,..." in The Present State of...
Georgina Woodward: "I've copied the comment to the thread where it belongs. This orphan can be..." in The Room in the Elephant:...
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
Good Vibrations
Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.
Reconstructing Physics
New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.
The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves
Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.
The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.
Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.
Edwin Klingman: on 1/4/10 at 23:41pm UTC, wrote Dear James Arthur Putnam, I note that your next to last comment states...
James Putnam: on 11/11/09 at 3:10am UTC, wrote I mean my clocks began disagreeing. Oh well, thats typical of my progress. ...
James Putnam: on 11/10/09 at 22:07pm UTC, wrote Things have quieted down. I have to wait many months for the next contest....
Steve Dufourny: on 11/10/09 at 9:03am UTC, wrote Dear Ray ,merci ,I am touched and not a little ,many thanks . Friendly ...
James Putnam: on 11/9/09 at 16:59pm UTC, wrote I greatly appreciated being able to particpate in this contest. The...
James Putnam: on 11/6/09 at 20:47pm UTC, wrote The question of natural versus unnatural often comes up. So, I will express...
James Putnam: on 11/6/09 at 20:37pm UTC, wrote Dear Professor Narendra Nath, Thank you for that very kind message. I read...
Ray Munroe: on 11/6/09 at 14:43pm UTC, wrote Dear Narendra and James, It is a beautiful thing that the internet can...
RECENT FORUM POSTS
Georgina Woodward: "Be careful, there are many people who are not who they pretend to be." in Global Collaboration
Georgina Woodward: "The preceding explanation of wavefunction collapse is, I think,..." in Consciousness and the...
jim hughes: "I'm not a mathematician. So what I see here is some smart people who..." in Consciousness and the...
Steve Dufourny: "Hello FQXi, the members and all, I try to do my best to unite and convice..." in Global Collaboration
Georgina Woodward: "Broken machine: What do[es] I see next? The I that was, E.I, has not been..." in The Room in the Elephant:...
Lorraine Ford: "Hi Stefan, I hope that a good leader, and a good political party, is..." in The Present State of...
Lorraine Ford: "We live in an age of computing. But physics, mathematics and philosophy,..." in The Present State of...
Georgina Woodward: "I've copied the comment to the thread where it belongs. This orphan can be..." in The Room in the Elephant:...
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
Good Vibrations
Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.
Reconstructing Physics
New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.
The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves
Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.
The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.
Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.
FQXi FORUM
September 29, 2021
CATEGORY:
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009)
[back]
TOPIC: What is Possible for Theoretical Physics? by James A Putnam [refresh]
TOPIC: What is Possible for Theoretical Physics? by James A Putnam [refresh]
Essay Abstract
Mathematics leaves unanswered questions for which theoretical physicists offer educated guesses. We do not know what cause is. Even so, theoretical physicists have stepped forward to explain cause. Should we trust the theoretical interpretations that are placed upon parts of the equations that model the patterns in empirical evidence? Should unity begin with the fundamentals instead of being an afterthought? This essay discusses the role played by imagination in theoretical explanations. It considers the problems and risks that theory encounters. It emphasizes the necessity to account for intelligent life. It suggests a new role for theoretical physics.
Author Bio
I am the author of http://newphysicstheory.com. I write about physics, life and intelligence. I am not affiliated with any institution or organization. I work alone.
Download Essay PDF File
Mathematics leaves unanswered questions for which theoretical physicists offer educated guesses. We do not know what cause is. Even so, theoretical physicists have stepped forward to explain cause. Should we trust the theoretical interpretations that are placed upon parts of the equations that model the patterns in empirical evidence? Should unity begin with the fundamentals instead of being an afterthought? This essay discusses the role played by imagination in theoretical explanations. It considers the problems and risks that theory encounters. It emphasizes the necessity to account for intelligent life. It suggests a new role for theoretical physics.
Author Bio
I am the author of http://newphysicstheory.com. I write about physics, life and intelligence. I am not affiliated with any institution or organization. I work alone.
Download Essay PDF File
In the universe there is no cause and no effect. In the universe there is dynamics which is in permanent equilibrium.
We experience this dynamics as cause and effect because we see it through the liner concept of time that belongs to the mind. Cause and effect as time are mind inventions.
report post as inappropriate
We experience this dynamics as cause and effect because we see it through the liner concept of time that belongs to the mind. Cause and effect as time are mind inventions.
Dear Amrit,
Thank you for your message. I have read your many messages promoting your ideas again and again. I read your essay. I do not agree with your beliefs. I wrote my essay from my own point of view. It does contradict your approach to interpreting reality. I see your universe as another example of an illusion. I will not be joining you in promoting it as representing reality.
Respectfully,
James
Thank you for your message. I have read your many messages promoting your ideas again and again. I read your essay. I do not agree with your beliefs. I wrote my essay from my own point of view. It does contradict your approach to interpreting reality. I see your universe as another example of an illusion. I will not be joining you in promoting it as representing reality.
Respectfully,
James
Hi James, I basically agree with your overall message. I have, in fact, proven it (in detail and with specifics).
You note the importance of the "true, intelligence producing, properties of the universe"... in conjunction with "the fundamental nature of intelligence."
Here are some great facts for you that are right in line with this:
The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sensory experience is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience. Dreams make sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism) more like thought. Accordingly, the unification of Maxwell's and Einstein's theories (in a fourth spatial dimension) is plainly and significantly evident in/as the dream. Dreams involve a fundamental integration and spreading of being and experience at the [gravitational] mid-range of feeling BETWEEN thought AND sense. Dreams add to the integrated extensiveness of being, experience, and thought in and with time.
I keep telling the participants at FQXi that the natural and integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand-in-hand -- in and with time as well. I have proven this definitively.
The self, represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of experience in general. Also, the self represents, forms, and experiences comprehensive approximations of experience in general. If the self did not represent, form, and experience a comprehensive approximation of experience in general, we would be incapable of growth and of becoming other than we are.
Thank you for your constructive and helpful effort.
report post as inappropriate
You note the importance of the "true, intelligence producing, properties of the universe"... in conjunction with "the fundamental nature of intelligence."
Here are some great facts for you that are right in line with this:
The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sensory experience is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience. Dreams make sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism) more like thought. Accordingly, the unification of Maxwell's and Einstein's theories (in a fourth spatial dimension) is plainly and significantly evident in/as the dream. Dreams involve a fundamental integration and spreading of being and experience at the [gravitational] mid-range of feeling BETWEEN thought AND sense. Dreams add to the integrated extensiveness of being, experience, and thought in and with time.
I keep telling the participants at FQXi that the natural and integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand-in-hand -- in and with time as well. I have proven this definitively.
The self, represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of experience in general. Also, the self represents, forms, and experiences comprehensive approximations of experience in general. If the self did not represent, form, and experience a comprehensive approximation of experience in general, we would be incapable of growth and of becoming other than we are.
Thank you for your constructive and helpful effort.
Hello dear James,
I read your articles and I am happy to see the evolutiion point of vue and the rule of intelligence like a catalyzers of harmony .
It's a very beautiful contests where the whole is demonsttrated with the balance of evolution .We evolve and it's well like that .
F=ma.....Gm1m2/r².....R q1q2/r²......x=x0+v0t+at²/2.....and so on still ....all is linked and has a rule of complementarity ....all fundamenatls equations are linked by quantum and cosmological constants .
The cause and effects are a reality in all systems ,it's evident in Thermodynamics ,mechanics ,......the human locality is different than the whole and it's well like that ,we like our fundamentals and its laws and nothing can change that ,fortunaly .The universal laws or the human laws ,all is a question of balance ,equilibrium between systems ,the coherences ,the invariances were ,are and shall be .
Congratulation James .
Sincerely.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
I read your articles and I am happy to see the evolutiion point of vue and the rule of intelligence like a catalyzers of harmony .
It's a very beautiful contests where the whole is demonsttrated with the balance of evolution .We evolve and it's well like that .
F=ma.....Gm1m2/r².....R q1q2/r²......x=x0+v0t+at²/2.....and so on still ....all is linked and has a rule of complementarity ....all fundamenatls equations are linked by quantum and cosmological constants .
The cause and effects are a reality in all systems ,it's evident in Thermodynamics ,mechanics ,......the human locality is different than the whole and it's well like that ,we like our fundamentals and its laws and nothing can change that ,fortunaly .The universal laws or the human laws ,all is a question of balance ,equilibrium between systems ,the coherences ,the invariances were ,are and shall be .
Congratulation James .
Sincerely.
Steve
Dear Frank and Steve,
Thank you for your kind words and sharing your advice. Best wishes to you both in your endeavors. Why not submit your ideas to the essay contest, keeping the subject in mind, and see what happens. Steve, perhaps your friend Naima can help you with the English.
James
Thank you for your kind words and sharing your advice. Best wishes to you both in your endeavors. Why not submit your ideas to the essay contest, keeping the subject in mind, and see what happens. Steve, perhaps your friend Naima can help you with the English.
James
Hi James ,
You are welcome .
It's nice for the advice ,yes indeed Naima is a sister in fact ,sure she will help me without any doubt ,but she as me we dislike the competition .
We must focus for our movement with our friends ,we have a center to create and we must continue to unite people .It's very difficult but we are strongs and nothing will stop us .
You know I have many ideas for this essay contest but I prefer rest like that .
In all case it's a pleasure to see this kind of essay .
Best regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
You are welcome .
It's nice for the advice ,yes indeed Naima is a sister in fact ,sure she will help me without any doubt ,but she as me we dislike the competition .
We must focus for our movement with our friends ,we have a center to create and we must continue to unite people .It's very difficult but we are strongs and nothing will stop us .
You know I have many ideas for this essay contest but I prefer rest like that .
In all case it's a pleasure to see this kind of essay .
Best regards
Steve
I rate you but I didn't know how do thus I have bad rated you ,I would rate more high ,but like it was my first sorry thus .
I have been too speed ,sorry
Sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
I have been too speed ,sorry
Sincerely
Steve
Dear Steve,
The rating does not matter. I did poorly in the first contest and I do not expect to do well in this contest. The subject is best suited for theoretical physicists who are mathematically exploring other dimensions, strange projections onto the universe, exotic hypothetical properties, and so forth. They are highly skilled at their work. I respect their talents. I do not mind how my ideas are rated by others. I have my opinion and others have theirs. This essay contest does allow me to express my concerns about the directions that theoretical physics has taken for the last hundred years. It is a valuable opportunity that FXQi has made available to us. They are accomodating to the point where authors can say something new. I appreciate FXQi, its contests, and the judges who give their time to make it work. I am satisfied enough that my essay was accepted.
James
The rating does not matter. I did poorly in the first contest and I do not expect to do well in this contest. The subject is best suited for theoretical physicists who are mathematically exploring other dimensions, strange projections onto the universe, exotic hypothetical properties, and so forth. They are highly skilled at their work. I respect their talents. I do not mind how my ideas are rated by others. I have my opinion and others have theirs. This essay contest does allow me to express my concerns about the directions that theoretical physics has taken for the last hundred years. It is a valuable opportunity that FXQi has made available to us. They are accomodating to the point where authors can say something new. I appreciate FXQi, its contests, and the judges who give their time to make it work. I am satisfied enough that my essay was accepted.
James
Hi ,
You are right,the freedom of speech is important when the respect is on the two senses .If not ,it has no sense .
FQXi is an innovant platform for the sciences ,hope the equilibrium will rest ,if not an other platform will take the first place .
It's like that ,the credibility must have fundamentals in all systems ,if not it's chaotic and in a short time like all .
Continue dear James .
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
You are right,the freedom of speech is important when the respect is on the two senses .If not ,it has no sense .
FQXi is an innovant platform for the sciences ,hope the equilibrium will rest ,if not an other platform will take the first place .
It's like that ,the credibility must have fundamentals in all systems ,if not it's chaotic and in a short time like all .
Continue dear James .
Regards
Steve
James I have no beliefs.
That change run in time is belief.
That time is run of clocks with which we measure change is scientific fact.
yours amrit
report post as inappropriate
That change run in time is belief.
That time is run of clocks with which we measure change is scientific fact.
yours amrit
Hi Amrit,
Of course you have beliefs. You believe in space. Your mind receives information about change. You believe in space because your mind draws a picture for you where you think you see space. It does not draw a picture of time. It is continuously interpreting information about changes in distance and time to draw you a picture that includes changes of distance during time. You believe those changes of distance do not require time. You believe that motion creates the image of time. You believe that clocks act first without time and then comes the image of time.
You believe in what you think you see. Yet you see only what your mind visualizes. You do not see what your mind uses to create that visualization. You believe in the reality of the visualization instead of the reality of its cause. The information you use to arrive at this belief includes both distance and time and the intelligence necessary to make use of that information. You cannot separate distance and time except in your visualization and belief. Also, you believe that you are correct. I believe that you are mistaken.
James
Of course you have beliefs. You believe in space. Your mind receives information about change. You believe in space because your mind draws a picture for you where you think you see space. It does not draw a picture of time. It is continuously interpreting information about changes in distance and time to draw you a picture that includes changes of distance during time. You believe those changes of distance do not require time. You believe that motion creates the image of time. You believe that clocks act first without time and then comes the image of time.
You believe in what you think you see. Yet you see only what your mind visualizes. You do not see what your mind uses to create that visualization. You believe in the reality of the visualization instead of the reality of its cause. The information you use to arrive at this belief includes both distance and time and the intelligence necessary to make use of that information. You cannot separate distance and time except in your visualization and belief. Also, you believe that you are correct. I believe that you are mistaken.
James
Hi James ,
If you want of course ,when I will succeed to create the center physically ,you are welcome for synergies to help our fellow man .
The complemenatrity focus on adapted sciences can invent many things in my opinion.
Kinds Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
If you want of course ,when I will succeed to create the center physically ,you are welcome for synergies to help our fellow man .
The complemenatrity focus on adapted sciences can invent many things in my opinion.
Kinds Regards
Steve
Dear Steve,
Thank you for your offer.
James
Thank you for your offer.
James
Dr. Casey Blood,
Part one:
My use of the word particle is intended in a generic sense, much like a pronoun, as a name to symbolically represent some fundamental cause of effects. I do not subscribe to mechanical type interpretations, whether classical particle or wave function. We only know about effects. We do not know what cause is. The names do not matter. It is the practice of...
view entire post
Part one:
My use of the word particle is intended in a generic sense, much like a pronoun, as a name to symbolically represent some fundamental cause of effects. I do not subscribe to mechanical type interpretations, whether classical particle or wave function. We only know about effects. We do not know what cause is. The names do not matter. It is the practice of...
view entire post
Dr. Casey Blood,
Part Two:
I do not think that it should be rushed into without preparation. There is an interim step that should be tried first. That step is to establish that there is just one cause for all effects. It can be expected that it reveals itself in different ways under different circumstances. This effort, when successful, will actually be only another mechanical style...
view entire post
Part Two:
I do not think that it should be rushed into without preparation. There is an interim step that should be tried first. That step is to establish that there is just one cause for all effects. It can be expected that it reveals itself in different ways under different circumstances. This effort, when successful, will actually be only another mechanical style...
view entire post
Dear James Putnam,
Your essay is interesting but I don't see the clear purpose, why you research physics. For example I have the clear purpose; I research physics to make teleportation of matter.
I see that you accept the existence of real space-time. (For example Amrit Sorli denies the existence of space-time). Since we have similar representations about the nature of space-time, maybe my theory about holes in space-time will be interesting for you. Since you are an independent researcher, I invite you to research space-time. Maybe you have some ideas how to create holes in space-time (absolute vacuum). In turn, I'll help you to develop your theory.
Sincerely, Leshan
report post as inappropriate
Your essay is interesting but I don't see the clear purpose, why you research physics. For example I have the clear purpose; I research physics to make teleportation of matter.
I see that you accept the existence of real space-time. (For example Amrit Sorli denies the existence of space-time). Since we have similar representations about the nature of space-time, maybe my theory about holes in space-time will be interesting for you. Since you are an independent researcher, I invite you to research space-time. Maybe you have some ideas how to create holes in space-time (absolute vacuum). In turn, I'll help you to develop your theory.
Sincerely, Leshan
Dear Leshan,
The purpose of my essay and the work it represents is not to find a new single property or prediction based upon current physics theory. Instead, I seek unity beginning with the fundamentals and continuing as a clear central part of all theory that follows. I will welcome, without forcing it, anything new that comes from that effort. The theory I am working on is another mechanical type theory. I accept that for now, because, that is the belief system that theoretical physics is built upon.
What I hope to accomplish with this step is to show that there can be, even in a mechanical style theory, a single cause for all effects. I do not believe that empirical evidence negates or contradicts this possibility. Afterwords, should I be successfull, I will immediately disavow my theory as representing the true nature of the universe. The reason for this next step is that the existence of intelligent life, in my opinion, negates the possibility of the nature of the universe being fundamentally mechanical.
Mechanics of any type, for me, is just one type of result that can be picked out for mathematical analysis. Its great usefulness for solving mechanical type problems, I believe, does not raise it above the lowest level of understanding of the real nature of this universe that gave birth, through its own properties, to intelligent life and human free will.
Presently I have reached a point in my work where I am moving into a re-evaluation and probable redefining of the fundamentals of quantum theory. For now the path I see ahead of me seems pretty clear, at least for the next few steps. I will be pursuing them, for now alone, in the manner that seems laid out before me. Thank you for your generous offer, however, I will be working alone for now. Best of luck to you in your ambitious work.
James
The purpose of my essay and the work it represents is not to find a new single property or prediction based upon current physics theory. Instead, I seek unity beginning with the fundamentals and continuing as a clear central part of all theory that follows. I will welcome, without forcing it, anything new that comes from that effort. The theory I am working on is another mechanical type theory. I accept that for now, because, that is the belief system that theoretical physics is built upon.
What I hope to accomplish with this step is to show that there can be, even in a mechanical style theory, a single cause for all effects. I do not believe that empirical evidence negates or contradicts this possibility. Afterwords, should I be successfull, I will immediately disavow my theory as representing the true nature of the universe. The reason for this next step is that the existence of intelligent life, in my opinion, negates the possibility of the nature of the universe being fundamentally mechanical.
Mechanics of any type, for me, is just one type of result that can be picked out for mathematical analysis. Its great usefulness for solving mechanical type problems, I believe, does not raise it above the lowest level of understanding of the real nature of this universe that gave birth, through its own properties, to intelligent life and human free will.
Presently I have reached a point in my work where I am moving into a re-evaluation and probable redefining of the fundamentals of quantum theory. For now the path I see ahead of me seems pretty clear, at least for the next few steps. I will be pursuing them, for now alone, in the manner that seems laid out before me. Thank you for your generous offer, however, I will be working alone for now. Best of luck to you in your ambitious work.
James
Hi James,
I have a point of view about ultimate unity versus the world we live in (given in the book The Way from Science to Soul).
Suppose you were God (?) and wanted to make a universe in which Intelligence had scope to express itself, but there was still some structure. Then a good candidate would seem to be to “invent” a mathematical structure within which intelligence could operate. That is what I think our physical universe is—a mathematical playground for intelligence to express itself. So I think the mathematics is not misleading—it gives the structure of the playground (but it is not a description of an ultimate unity). My hope is that one can rigorously deduce the existence of the intelligence from the incompleteness of the mathematical structure which describes our physical reality.
About your equation.
It is indeed remarkable that the equation is nearly obeyed.
However, if you use the current values, the errors are
Error in h is .0006%.
Error in kec is .0009%.
Error in h-kec is .075%.
So even though the agreement is strikingly close, it is outside the error bars by a factor of 50.
Note: Mass, energy, momentum, spin, and charge are not such disparate concepts. They are all connected by being labels in group representation theory (the Lorentz group of relativity plus the internal symmetry group).
Casey
report post as inappropriate
I have a point of view about ultimate unity versus the world we live in (given in the book The Way from Science to Soul).
Suppose you were God (?) and wanted to make a universe in which Intelligence had scope to express itself, but there was still some structure. Then a good candidate would seem to be to “invent” a mathematical structure within which intelligence could operate. That is what I think our physical universe is—a mathematical playground for intelligence to express itself. So I think the mathematics is not misleading—it gives the structure of the playground (but it is not a description of an ultimate unity). My hope is that one can rigorously deduce the existence of the intelligence from the incompleteness of the mathematical structure which describes our physical reality.
About your equation.
It is indeed remarkable that the equation is nearly obeyed.
However, if you use the current values, the errors are
Error in h is .0006%.
Error in kec is .0009%.
Error in h-kec is .075%.
So even though the agreement is strikingly close, it is outside the error bars by a factor of 50.
Note: Mass, energy, momentum, spin, and charge are not such disparate concepts. They are all connected by being labels in group representation theory (the Lorentz group of relativity plus the internal symmetry group).
Casey
Dr. Casey Blood,
Thank you for your response. I will post a reply about your ideas in your forum.
I did know, of course, that the equation is not exact. The work I do is still developing at an elementary level, so, I look forward to refining it later. I am not dismissing the margin of error. I know it is important to determine why that is the case. However, the lure of unity is a powerful attractor. I do not mean this in an argumentative manner. My work and its results do not, admittedly, rise anywhere near the level necessary to compete with the high quality of today's theories. Still, I feel certain that the fundamental properties used in those theories are theoretical inventions. It is my problem to demonstrate that that is the case. It won't involve anyone else. When I posted my messages about your essay, I did not mean to involve you in a discussion about mine. I purposefully write my essays so that they do not put my theoretical work forward for consideration. Instead I write those things that I think might help sow the seed of doubt about the givens of today's theories.
The goal, for me, is to discover fundamental unity. I will be working toward this goal, for now, from the fundamental level. The purpose is to drive out all misdirections that have slipped into theoretical physics. It is my opinion that they exist even with f=ma. In my essay, I simply introduce the possibility that misinterpretation might exist at that simple level. I do not develop a case for that possibility. I believe I already know the answer and have worked it out. However, I do not enter these contests in order to promote my work, which is still very elementary and definitely incomplete.
James
Thank you for your response. I will post a reply about your ideas in your forum.
I did know, of course, that the equation is not exact. The work I do is still developing at an elementary level, so, I look forward to refining it later. I am not dismissing the margin of error. I know it is important to determine why that is the case. However, the lure of unity is a powerful attractor. I do not mean this in an argumentative manner. My work and its results do not, admittedly, rise anywhere near the level necessary to compete with the high quality of today's theories. Still, I feel certain that the fundamental properties used in those theories are theoretical inventions. It is my problem to demonstrate that that is the case. It won't involve anyone else. When I posted my messages about your essay, I did not mean to involve you in a discussion about mine. I purposefully write my essays so that they do not put my theoretical work forward for consideration. Instead I write those things that I think might help sow the seed of doubt about the givens of today's theories.
The goal, for me, is to discover fundamental unity. I will be working toward this goal, for now, from the fundamental level. The purpose is to drive out all misdirections that have slipped into theoretical physics. It is my opinion that they exist even with f=ma. In my essay, I simply introduce the possibility that misinterpretation might exist at that simple level. I do not develop a case for that possibility. I believe I already know the answer and have worked it out. However, I do not enter these contests in order to promote my work, which is still very elementary and definitely incomplete.
James
It almost reads like a political manifesto, but its conclusions seem not irrelevant to me.
report post as inappropriate
Andreas Martin Lisewski,
Thank you for letting me know that you see worth to what I have to say. When I write, I feel that I am stating what is on my mind in a conversational manner. However, when I read it after posting it does seem to communicate impatience and confrontation. I will work on trying to come across as someone who appreciates the give and take and the benefit of conversing with others. I have printed your essay and read it once. Yours is challenging for me to follow. So, I will be reading it several times before commenting on it. I wish to use other author's time constructively. Your opinion, ideas, and expertise are appreciated.
James
Thank you for letting me know that you see worth to what I have to say. When I write, I feel that I am stating what is on my mind in a conversational manner. However, when I read it after posting it does seem to communicate impatience and confrontation. I will work on trying to come across as someone who appreciates the give and take and the benefit of conversing with others. I have printed your essay and read it once. Yours is challenging for me to follow. So, I will be reading it several times before commenting on it. I wish to use other author's time constructively. Your opinion, ideas, and expertise are appreciated.
James
James Arthur Putnam,
I believe that I have enjoyed your essay more than any other I have read (and I've read about 40 of them.)
I also enjoyed your response to Steve when he informed you that he had mistakenly given you a low score. Your answer was so gracious that it changed my own attitude of frustration at my relatively low score, and reminded me of the debt we owe FQXi for the...
view entire post
I believe that I have enjoyed your essay more than any other I have read (and I've read about 40 of them.)
I also enjoyed your response to Steve when he informed you that he had mistakenly given you a low score. Your answer was so gracious that it changed my own attitude of frustration at my relatively low score, and reminded me of the debt we owe FQXi for the...
view entire post
Dr. Klingman,
Thank you very much for that kind message. I have read your essay several times and will prepare some comments. I think your work is very important. I have not rated any essays yet. However, I will be giving you a high rating. I was waiting for any temptations, that may or may not have occurred, to pull others down with low ratings to be over with. Now maybe the ratings will rise. I will be posting a message in your forum and another response here in mine. Thank you again.
James
Thank you very much for that kind message. I have read your essay several times and will prepare some comments. I think your work is very important. I have not rated any essays yet. However, I will be giving you a high rating. I was waiting for any temptations, that may or may not have occurred, to pull others down with low ratings to be over with. Now maybe the ratings will rise. I will be posting a message in your forum and another response here in mine. Thank you again.
James
Dr. Klingman,
Thank you for your kind message. I have read your essay several times. I will post a comments message in your forum.
I have been on the Internet for several years. This included participation in science forums and the establishment of my own website http://newphysicstheory.com. The reception has usually been hostile. I do not bother with the science forums any longer....
view entire post
Thank you for your kind message. I have read your essay several times. I will post a comments message in your forum.
I have been on the Internet for several years. This included participation in science forums and the establishment of my own website http://newphysicstheory.com. The reception has usually been hostile. I do not bother with the science forums any longer....
view entire post
James Arthur Putnam,
Thanks for all of your remarks, including the last one.
This is to advise you that I have posted comments on Stefan Weckbach's essay and on Johnathan J Dickau's essay and on Terry Padden's essay, all of which I believe you may find interesting. I have also mentioned your essay on Terry Padden's.
This is proving to be quite an informative and enjoyable contest.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Thanks for all of your remarks, including the last one.
This is to advise you that I have posted comments on Stefan Weckbach's essay and on Johnathan J Dickau's essay and on Terry Padden's essay, all of which I believe you may find interesting. I have also mentioned your essay on Terry Padden's.
This is proving to be quite an informative and enjoyable contest.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Dear James,
I am reading your paper. I understand you have questions about Theoretical Physics. If you are going to dissect the meaning of F=ma, you are undoing Centuries of fruitful work. Whether it is right or wrong, this is how we have been trying to deduce "Natural Philosophy" for Centuries. I do however agree with you that we need to better understand what mass is. You focus so much on...
view entire post
I am reading your paper. I understand you have questions about Theoretical Physics. If you are going to dissect the meaning of F=ma, you are undoing Centuries of fruitful work. Whether it is right or wrong, this is how we have been trying to deduce "Natural Philosophy" for Centuries. I do however agree with you that we need to better understand what mass is. You focus so much on...
view entire post
Dear Ray,
Thank you for reading my essay. I will post a later message to address the major thrust of your message; however, I have just enough time to make one point. That sample equation (or non-equation) was offered as an example. I thought it might be received as something demanding attention. I was wrong. As I wrote to Dr. Casey, that equation was derived within the context of a new theory. With respect to f=ma that is the equation that was re-interpreted and led to the equation posted. Here is my immediate point: There are other equations that also were derived where the units also did not match. More examples of these equations can be viewed at my website http://newphysicstheory.com in the essay titled A Physics Challenge. What I wish to say in this message is that the units do match in the theory that produced them. I don't think that they represent a numbers game. However, your opinion would be valued.
I have been reading your essay. Your work is more sophisticated (skillfull) than mine. So, it is taking some time for me to comment on it. I am impressed with your innovation. As soon as I feel confident I will send you a message in your forum.
James
Thank you for reading my essay. I will post a later message to address the major thrust of your message; however, I have just enough time to make one point. That sample equation (or non-equation) was offered as an example. I thought it might be received as something demanding attention. I was wrong. As I wrote to Dr. Casey, that equation was derived within the context of a new theory. With respect to f=ma that is the equation that was re-interpreted and led to the equation posted. Here is my immediate point: There are other equations that also were derived where the units also did not match. More examples of these equations can be viewed at my website http://newphysicstheory.com in the essay titled A Physics Challenge. What I wish to say in this message is that the units do match in the theory that produced them. I don't think that they represent a numbers game. However, your opinion would be valued.
I have been reading your essay. Your work is more sophisticated (skillfull) than mine. So, it is taking some time for me to comment on it. I am impressed with your innovation. As soon as I feel confident I will send you a message in your forum.
James
Dear Ray,
"If you are going to dissect the meaning of F=ma, you are undoing Centuries of fruitful work."
This is the part of my work that I hesitated to put forward outside of my website. The reason is the same as what you have said above. I think there is no point in trying to say that I am undoing Centuries of fruitful work.
"I do however agree with you that we need to...
view entire post
"If you are going to dissect the meaning of F=ma, you are undoing Centuries of fruitful work."
This is the part of my work that I hesitated to put forward outside of my website. The reason is the same as what you have said above. I think there is no point in trying to say that I am undoing Centuries of fruitful work.
"I do however agree with you that we need to...
view entire post
Dear James,
Yesterday, I posted a friendly critique of your work, and today I will post friendly responses to your responses. My score drops every day - I'm getting a bit tired of this, but I'll be nice...
It is good to question space, time and mass. In another essay, Hans-Thomas Elze is proposing that spacetime may be fundamentally discrete. If this is true, we should expect...
view entire post
Yesterday, I posted a friendly critique of your work, and today I will post friendly responses to your responses. My score drops every day - I'm getting a bit tired of this, but I'll be nice...
It is good to question space, time and mass. In another essay, Hans-Thomas Elze is proposing that spacetime may be fundamentally discrete. If this is true, we should expect...
view entire post
Dear Ray,
Thank you for your lengthy response. I appreciate reading your viewpoint. Since this contest is about the essays that we each posted here, I will try to avoid pressing ideas that I did not cover in my essay. I think I should be working on finishing these essays and try to ask meaningful questions that give the authors an opportunity to say more. I have read each of them one or more times; but, they are challenging reads. There is no need to respond to this message unless you wish to. The rest is for any interested readers.
With regard to my own essay, it was carefully written to present a train of thought. If any point I make along the way doesn't sell, then the rest won't either. So, I will just point any interested readers to my section about the unknown nature of cause. My discussion about f=ma was intended to introduce the idea that we may already be working with contrived units. Since the data that is used to model that equation consists only of distance and time, then, I think the question should be asked: What other valid way or ways could this equation have been interpreted and what units would then have been adopted? I will not refer to kilograms as weird, but rather were they necessary? A new answer would undo centuries of fruitful work; however, perhaps it also would greatly simplify theory and lead us to quicker, easier, and more unified equations. Anyway, it appears clear to me that the original decision was an educated guess instead of a self directing natural advance in theory. For me, that leaves the decision open to question.
James
Thank you for your lengthy response. I appreciate reading your viewpoint. Since this contest is about the essays that we each posted here, I will try to avoid pressing ideas that I did not cover in my essay. I think I should be working on finishing these essays and try to ask meaningful questions that give the authors an opportunity to say more. I have read each of them one or more times; but, they are challenging reads. There is no need to respond to this message unless you wish to. The rest is for any interested readers.
With regard to my own essay, it was carefully written to present a train of thought. If any point I make along the way doesn't sell, then the rest won't either. So, I will just point any interested readers to my section about the unknown nature of cause. My discussion about f=ma was intended to introduce the idea that we may already be working with contrived units. Since the data that is used to model that equation consists only of distance and time, then, I think the question should be asked: What other valid way or ways could this equation have been interpreted and what units would then have been adopted? I will not refer to kilograms as weird, but rather were they necessary? A new answer would undo centuries of fruitful work; however, perhaps it also would greatly simplify theory and lead us to quicker, easier, and more unified equations. Anyway, it appears clear to me that the original decision was an educated guess instead of a self directing natural advance in theory. For me, that leaves the decision open to question.
James
I encourage everyone to read and rate the essay "Fundamental Physics of Consciousness" by Dr Edwin E. Klingman. There is excellent conversation taking place in his forum.
James
James
Me too I agree ,the consciousness is essential .
Some essays are very relevant about the conscious.
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Some essays are very relevant about the conscious.
Best Regards
Steve
F= ma ....I love it ,fantastic universal link between the mass and the acceleration implying forces .The MRU or MRUA ,....I like so much Newton ,for me it's the better with Borh .These laws are universals and shall rest for ever .The motion ,ah this motion implying all .
Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, very very very good ,the royal society with Darwin too has made a good work indeed .Sir Newton thanks a lot .
The gravity and the mass with this motion ,more the rotating spheres are all in an evolution point of vue .Newton and Borh were pragmatics and it is well like that .The pragmatic rests i the rationality ,the team of pseudo sciences and inutile imaginaries extrapolations are on the other side of course .A frontier between them .Fortunally what some people understand .....fortunally for the fundation of sciences .
Mr Borh ,Mr Newton ,Mr Darwin ,.....THANKS.
Regards
Steve
to all what do you think about these equations ?
Let's extrapolate the forces .
report post as inappropriate
Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, very very very good ,the royal society with Darwin too has made a good work indeed .Sir Newton thanks a lot .
The gravity and the mass with this motion ,more the rotating spheres are all in an evolution point of vue .Newton and Borh were pragmatics and it is well like that .The pragmatic rests i the rationality ,the team of pseudo sciences and inutile imaginaries extrapolations are on the other side of course .A frontier between them .Fortunally what some people understand .....fortunally for the fundation of sciences .
Mr Borh ,Mr Newton ,Mr Darwin ,.....THANKS.
Regards
Steve
to all what do you think about these equations ?
Let's extrapolate the forces .
Dear Steve,
I see mechanical style physics theory as representing the lowest level of understanding about this universe that gave birth to intelligent life. Mechanics, for me, is a very useful artifact, but, is no more than a human invention in that it is filled with choices that were educated guesses confined by an ideology. The choices themselves leave the theory open to challenge. More importantly, the existence of intelligent life leave all of the mechanical viewpoint open to challenge.
Dr. Klingman joins mechanics with consciousness in a way that unites them. I tend to think that even if mechanics is artificial as I think it is, the kind of work that Dr. Klingman has developed would still be an important step to take before trying to totally remove the mechanical interpretations. So, while I strongly feel that any mechanical interpretation is no more than a mechanically useful idea for mathematically solving mechanical problems, I cannot yet put forward anything more than just another mechanical type theory. Dr. Klingman should be recognized for successfully bringing consciouness into modern physics theory.
The subject of this essay contest is 'What is Ultimately Possible for Physics' It seems clear to me that if physics is to remain the foundational science that, when fully developed, will lead naturally into the other sciences, then it must free itself from its mechanical ideology and make serious moves to produce more comprehensive theory such as Dr. Klingman has done. His essay should be highly rated.
I encourage visitors to read and rate highly Dr. Klingman's essay 'Fundamental Physics of Consciousness'.
James
I see mechanical style physics theory as representing the lowest level of understanding about this universe that gave birth to intelligent life. Mechanics, for me, is a very useful artifact, but, is no more than a human invention in that it is filled with choices that were educated guesses confined by an ideology. The choices themselves leave the theory open to challenge. More importantly, the existence of intelligent life leave all of the mechanical viewpoint open to challenge.
Dr. Klingman joins mechanics with consciousness in a way that unites them. I tend to think that even if mechanics is artificial as I think it is, the kind of work that Dr. Klingman has developed would still be an important step to take before trying to totally remove the mechanical interpretations. So, while I strongly feel that any mechanical interpretation is no more than a mechanically useful idea for mathematically solving mechanical problems, I cannot yet put forward anything more than just another mechanical type theory. Dr. Klingman should be recognized for successfully bringing consciouness into modern physics theory.
The subject of this essay contest is 'What is Ultimately Possible for Physics' It seems clear to me that if physics is to remain the foundational science that, when fully developed, will lead naturally into the other sciences, then it must free itself from its mechanical ideology and make serious moves to produce more comprehensive theory such as Dr. Klingman has done. His essay should be highly rated.
I encourage visitors to read and rate highly Dr. Klingman's essay 'Fundamental Physics of Consciousness'.
James
Deat James ,
I liked too his essay and his whole point of vue .The consciousness can be interpreted like a result of the building ,this polarisation .
The sciences need this kind of works .
The unification is in all topics with some adaptations of course with the locality and intrinsic parameters .
I think really what the conscious and the complementarity are two fundamentals of our laws .
For the contest ,the title is relevant but I am personally a little sad about the essays ,there is a little lack of creativity this year in the whole .
Nothing about
the astrobiology and the unification of lifes and intelligences in the future ,more the technology ,some extrapolations were interistings about the morphology of adaptation in their environment ....HCNO NH3 CH4 H2O HCN..H2C2 + TIME AND ENERGY create amino acids ...their adaptation is incredible if we link with PV=nRT ....More photosynthetic synthesis,chimio adaptation .....the specific factors are important .
Nothing too about our Earth system and its ecology ,it's an ultim aim too in physic because the physic is everywhere.
The propulsion in our space too ,nothing ,
"I invite all people to take a look about a work of Ray Munroe about the propulsion ,he send me some months ago a work ,very interesting about a new propulsion system "
Nothing about the real evolution of our Universe ,some ideas but .
I didn't see too new energetic systems or an ultim improvement about our health and the dead cells .
Nothing too about our solar system and its planets and our galaxy ,their rules ,their complemnatrities ,....
About the fusion too ,nothing .
There are many possibilities for our future ,even about the universal language which is the music ,nothing ,
Etc etc ....the ultim vegetable ,our future intelligence ,our diversity too ,the ultim computer ,the medicaments ....or therapy .....
Nothing about the artificial intelligence ,impossible for me ,and the consiousness link .
But it was a pleasure to read them ,likeable to see so much skills in fact here on FQXi ,many people are supers.It's the most important .
I think really what 1000 scientists on the same problem,even on the same place ,focus together pragmatically are more efficients than 1000 places in competition with one scientist.
The individualism and our global system decrease the velocity of improvement and the speed of evolution .
I wish you ,like Mr Klingman ,Narendra Nath and otehrs a good luck for the results of this essay contest .
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
I liked too his essay and his whole point of vue .The consciousness can be interpreted like a result of the building ,this polarisation .
The sciences need this kind of works .
The unification is in all topics with some adaptations of course with the locality and intrinsic parameters .
I think really what the conscious and the complementarity are two fundamentals of our laws .
For the contest ,the title is relevant but I am personally a little sad about the essays ,there is a little lack of creativity this year in the whole .
Nothing about
the astrobiology and the unification of lifes and intelligences in the future ,more the technology ,some extrapolations were interistings about the morphology of adaptation in their environment ....HCNO NH3 CH4 H2O HCN..H2C2 + TIME AND ENERGY create amino acids ...their adaptation is incredible if we link with PV=nRT ....More photosynthetic synthesis,chimio adaptation .....the specific factors are important .
Nothing too about our Earth system and its ecology ,it's an ultim aim too in physic because the physic is everywhere.
The propulsion in our space too ,nothing ,
"I invite all people to take a look about a work of Ray Munroe about the propulsion ,he send me some months ago a work ,very interesting about a new propulsion system "
Nothing about the real evolution of our Universe ,some ideas but .
I didn't see too new energetic systems or an ultim improvement about our health and the dead cells .
Nothing too about our solar system and its planets and our galaxy ,their rules ,their complemnatrities ,....
About the fusion too ,nothing .
There are many possibilities for our future ,even about the universal language which is the music ,nothing ,
Etc etc ....the ultim vegetable ,our future intelligence ,our diversity too ,the ultim computer ,the medicaments ....or therapy .....
Nothing about the artificial intelligence ,impossible for me ,and the consiousness link .
But it was a pleasure to read them ,likeable to see so much skills in fact here on FQXi ,many people are supers.It's the most important .
I think really what 1000 scientists on the same problem,even on the same place ,focus together pragmatically are more efficients than 1000 places in competition with one scientist.
The individualism and our global system decrease the velocity of improvement and the speed of evolution .
I wish you ,like Mr Klingman ,Narendra Nath and otehrs a good luck for the results of this essay contest .
Best Regards
Steve
Dear Steve,
I am sure that everyone put forward the best arguments they could within the ten page limit. I could have said much more and so could have everyone else. I plan on returning to comment on Ray Munroe's essay if I think I can say something constructive. I do not believe in nor try to develop that kind of theoretical physics. However, it is for the physics community at large to determine the future direction of their science. So long as symmetry theory is in vogue, then I am interested in learning about it. I save my enthusiasm for theories that move theoretical physics more in line with the higher sciences instead of the higher sciences feeling obliged to distort themselves in an effort to link to the mechanical type ideas of theoretical physics. For whatever it is worth, that is my opinion.
James
I am sure that everyone put forward the best arguments they could within the ten page limit. I could have said much more and so could have everyone else. I plan on returning to comment on Ray Munroe's essay if I think I can say something constructive. I do not believe in nor try to develop that kind of theoretical physics. However, it is for the physics community at large to determine the future direction of their science. So long as symmetry theory is in vogue, then I am interested in learning about it. I save my enthusiasm for theories that move theoretical physics more in line with the higher sciences instead of the higher sciences feeling obliged to distort themselves in an effort to link to the mechanical type ideas of theoretical physics. For whatever it is worth, that is my opinion.
James
I like my own essay and I appreciate everyone who reads and comments on it. Thank you for your input. I encourage visitors to also visit Dr. Klingman's forum. Please read and rate, I hope highly, his essay 'Fundamental Physics of Consciousness'.
James Putnam
James Putnam
Dear James ,
I think like that too .I am tolerant ,it's important ,sometimes I write too quickly .But even if I don't agree I love read their imaginaries extrapolations ,my favorite are Ray ,Jason and Lawrence ...they are a very good team .
The sciences are like that ,it's the life .All is complementary if we synchronize of course the rationality and the physicality with math tools .
What I find fantastic is the potential of a team of scientists focus on the same objectif .All is there ,we can always accelerate the process .
You know let's take for example here the FQXi friends .Let's focus for example on the creation of a flying car with a system of propulsion .
In one week we have elaborated this car which flies and is balanced in the air .
I have an idea with a add of spheres with holes and pression .Like ten spheres under the car and a systems of small holes .The most important is the system of balance .
In fact all that to say what to work in team and focus is the most important to invent ,innovate ,create ,solve ,harmonize .
It's the ultim complementarity ,work together in fact .It's too a message of the universal consciousness ,the unification is everywhere .
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
I think like that too .I am tolerant ,it's important ,sometimes I write too quickly .But even if I don't agree I love read their imaginaries extrapolations ,my favorite are Ray ,Jason and Lawrence ...they are a very good team .
The sciences are like that ,it's the life .All is complementary if we synchronize of course the rationality and the physicality with math tools .
What I find fantastic is the potential of a team of scientists focus on the same objectif .All is there ,we can always accelerate the process .
You know let's take for example here the FQXi friends .Let's focus for example on the creation of a flying car with a system of propulsion .
In one week we have elaborated this car which flies and is balanced in the air .
I have an idea with a add of spheres with holes and pression .Like ten spheres under the car and a systems of small holes .The most important is the system of balance .
In fact all that to say what to work in team and focus is the most important to invent ,innovate ,create ,solve ,harmonize .
It's the ultim complementarity ,work together in fact .It's too a message of the universal consciousness ,the unification is everywhere .
Best Regards
Steve
Dear Steve,
You once said that you had read my articles, presumably at my website. In those articles I try to raise what I think are very important issues that should be addressed by theoretical physicists. I reveal my own answers in my theoretical work which you would have also seen a link to at my website. My work is revolutionary in the sense that almost all definitions change. Therefore, I cannot be right unless theoretical physics is wrong about almost all definitions. So, I continue on alone pleasing myself with my results.
This is the point that I wish to make about Dr. Klingman to you and all other visitors: Dr. Klingman embraces theoretical physics while also accounting for consciousness. I think this is extremely important. For me, it is less important that others recognize my work, then it is for them to recognize that Dr. Klingman has addressed the problem of intelligence. The point is that it can be addressed by physcists. It has been addressed by some physicists right here in this essay contest. They have the necessary credentials to deserve the respect of reading and listening to what they have to say.
I like my essay. I like the reasoning that I use. I think it is correct. However, I also think that it is far more important that work done by physicists such as Dr. Klingman be understood and brought into mainstream theoretical physics. I like the solutions to practical mechanical type problems. I certainly can appreciate inventions. I have no doubt that these wonderful inventions will continue to appear. Theoretical physics does not reject mechanical innovation. However, so long as it limits itself to mechanical thinking, it will not reveal for us the true nature of this universe that gave birth to intellligent human beings.
Someone like Dr. Klingman is more likely than am I to break the logjam that currently keeps theoretical physics separated from life sciences. Life sciences are studying the most important property in the universe. That property must find its beginning in theoretical physics or theoretical physics is irrelevant for the most important property in the universe.
Dr. Klingman's essay is at: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/561
James
You once said that you had read my articles, presumably at my website. In those articles I try to raise what I think are very important issues that should be addressed by theoretical physicists. I reveal my own answers in my theoretical work which you would have also seen a link to at my website. My work is revolutionary in the sense that almost all definitions change. Therefore, I cannot be right unless theoretical physics is wrong about almost all definitions. So, I continue on alone pleasing myself with my results.
This is the point that I wish to make about Dr. Klingman to you and all other visitors: Dr. Klingman embraces theoretical physics while also accounting for consciousness. I think this is extremely important. For me, it is less important that others recognize my work, then it is for them to recognize that Dr. Klingman has addressed the problem of intelligence. The point is that it can be addressed by physcists. It has been addressed by some physicists right here in this essay contest. They have the necessary credentials to deserve the respect of reading and listening to what they have to say.
I like my essay. I like the reasoning that I use. I think it is correct. However, I also think that it is far more important that work done by physicists such as Dr. Klingman be understood and brought into mainstream theoretical physics. I like the solutions to practical mechanical type problems. I certainly can appreciate inventions. I have no doubt that these wonderful inventions will continue to appear. Theoretical physics does not reject mechanical innovation. However, so long as it limits itself to mechanical thinking, it will not reveal for us the true nature of this universe that gave birth to intellligent human beings.
Someone like Dr. Klingman is more likely than am I to break the logjam that currently keeps theoretical physics separated from life sciences. Life sciences are studying the most important property in the universe. That property must find its beginning in theoretical physics or theoretical physics is irrelevant for the most important property in the universe.
Dr. Klingman's essay is at: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/561
James
Dear James,
As one person who recognizes the the shortcomings of modern theoretical physics to another, do you have to overthrow all of Physics in one giant sweep? It is difficult enough to get enough support to change one little aspect. You will encounter much resistance if you try to overthrow everything.
I know you think that we are opposites. In my conclusion, I said "One version of Occam's razor says "Plurality ought never be posited without necessity."... Are Beauty and Symmetry necessary reasons to trump Simplicity? If Simplicity always trumps Necessity, then we should be satisfied with the "ugly but practical" Standard Model and a separate General Theory of Relativity, and we need to stop talking about such "foolishness" as Theories of Everything or Not Everything."
I know that my ideas look complicated, but I think it is analogous to finding the least common denominator (LCD) so that we can add fractions. If you wanted to add 1/2 plus 1/3 plus 1/6, you would find the LCD = 6, so that 3/6 plus 2/6 plus 1/6 = 6/6 = 1, and the apparently complicated is simplified. Likewise, if we want to unify the four known forces properly into one algebra, then that one algebra must be at least as large as the sum of its individual components. It looks more complicated because it is bigger and predicts new stuff, but the overall picture is simplified - the fundamental forces are placed on a compatible foundation.
You don't have to work alone in a vacuum. There are other mavericks on this blog site.
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
As one person who recognizes the the shortcomings of modern theoretical physics to another, do you have to overthrow all of Physics in one giant sweep? It is difficult enough to get enough support to change one little aspect. You will encounter much resistance if you try to overthrow everything.
I know you think that we are opposites. In my conclusion, I said "One version of Occam's razor says "Plurality ought never be posited without necessity."... Are Beauty and Symmetry necessary reasons to trump Simplicity? If Simplicity always trumps Necessity, then we should be satisfied with the "ugly but practical" Standard Model and a separate General Theory of Relativity, and we need to stop talking about such "foolishness" as Theories of Everything or Not Everything."
I know that my ideas look complicated, but I think it is analogous to finding the least common denominator (LCD) so that we can add fractions. If you wanted to add 1/2 plus 1/3 plus 1/6, you would find the LCD = 6, so that 3/6 plus 2/6 plus 1/6 = 6/6 = 1, and the apparently complicated is simplified. Likewise, if we want to unify the four known forces properly into one algebra, then that one algebra must be at least as large as the sum of its individual components. It looks more complicated because it is bigger and predicts new stuff, but the overall picture is simplified - the fundamental forces are placed on a compatible foundation.
You don't have to work alone in a vacuum. There are other mavericks on this blog site.
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
Dear Ray,
"I know that my ideas look complicated, but I think it is analogous to finding the least common denominator (LCD) so that we can add fractions. ..."
It did strike me that way and I wish I had thought to express myself in the manner you have. I said something about data compression and filing things in folders. I think of unity in a different way. However, I do see how you...
view entire post
"I know that my ideas look complicated, but I think it is analogous to finding the least common denominator (LCD) so that we can add fractions. ..."
It did strike me that way and I wish I had thought to express myself in the manner you have. I said something about data compression and filing things in folders. I think of unity in a different way. However, I do see how you...
view entire post
Dear James,
I understand. Perhaps I am only stretching the existing framework further, or perhaps it will lead to something radically new. I think Lawrence's next paper could lead to something radically new. I am stumped by the hyperdrive problem, but Jason is a bright young fellow - perhaps he can figure it out. Perhaps time, space and mass are all flawed and you do need to overthrow everything.
I would hope we can say what we really think about certain areas of physics and not watch our scores suffer for it. I was an Assistant Professor of Physics up until 1999. I taught Astronomy part-time up until 2003. I gave up being a professional physicist so that I could lead my family's business. This blog site is my contact with the physics community. I respect it, and have spoken with most of the people on this site respectfully. Frank bugs me, but I regret that I was rude towards him. Everyone deserves to speak their piece.
Good Luck!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
I understand. Perhaps I am only stretching the existing framework further, or perhaps it will lead to something radically new. I think Lawrence's next paper could lead to something radically new. I am stumped by the hyperdrive problem, but Jason is a bright young fellow - perhaps he can figure it out. Perhaps time, space and mass are all flawed and you do need to overthrow everything.
I would hope we can say what we really think about certain areas of physics and not watch our scores suffer for it. I was an Assistant Professor of Physics up until 1999. I taught Astronomy part-time up until 2003. I gave up being a professional physicist so that I could lead my family's business. This blog site is my contact with the physics community. I respect it, and have spoken with most of the people on this site respectfully. Frank bugs me, but I regret that I was rude towards him. Everyone deserves to speak their piece.
Good Luck!
Ray Munroe
Dear James ,,
I like your vision of things .
You know ,to put into practice several models,politic ,economic ,juridic ,ecologic ,energetic ,education ,health ,agriculture ,water ....it's essential to unite skills and to have a real base ,physically speajking and that to produce some adaptes solutions in local places .It's essential to pass above our individualism .Work alone isn't a solution ,because alone we are nothing .
Anybody has the solution but we have the solution ,all is there .
You know personally I know the revolutionary concept of my theory ,but Am I better ,no ,Have I the solution ,no ,all fundamental models complete themselves ,they are in pure physical correlations .
If you want put into practice your model ,thus let's unite and let's act pragamtically .It's only simple like that .They wait our fellow men .Many people have these skills and universalities thus let's unite and let's act ...
Thanks to be like you are , a real universalist thus take care dear James
Hello Ray ,take care too
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
I like your vision of things .
You know ,to put into practice several models,politic ,economic ,juridic ,ecologic ,energetic ,education ,health ,agriculture ,water ....it's essential to unite skills and to have a real base ,physically speajking and that to produce some adaptes solutions in local places .It's essential to pass above our individualism .Work alone isn't a solution ,because alone we are nothing .
Anybody has the solution but we have the solution ,all is there .
You know personally I know the revolutionary concept of my theory ,but Am I better ,no ,Have I the solution ,no ,all fundamental models complete themselves ,they are in pure physical correlations .
If you want put into practice your model ,thus let's unite and let's act pragamtically .It's only simple like that .They wait our fellow men .Many people have these skills and universalities thus let's unite and let's act ...
Thanks to be like you are , a real universalist thus take care dear James
Hello Ray ,take care too
Best Regards
Steve
Dear Ray ,
Your ideas like Lawrence ,Lisi ,Emile ,Florin and some others aren't complicated but only mathematical in the imaginaries with a Lie algebras which aren't fundamentals ,it lacks many things in these imaginaries complexs.
We can't change our laws dear Ray and the maths must be pragmatic with limits ,if not all is falses .They don't exist these higgs Ray ,but I respect your choice to think like that ,I just say my opinion ,these models lack physicality and reality .These extradimensions don't exist too ,the tachyons don't exist ,Ex Ey isn't right simply ,like strings too ,and now the M theory ...no no no all that is false ,like multiverses too ,and after the multispheres perhaps .
Let's be pragmatic please with sciences ,our dynamic is mechanicaly univresal ,complex but simple too .
I don't think you losse your time but I think what whe a superimposing is made ,the pragamatism and the rationality between math and physics must considered with the biggest reason .
3D and a constant of evolution ,the time ,this oscillation is specific and in a pure thermodynamic .The mass don't arrive of the exterior ,no the mass is a effect of a cause ,physical ,the rotations of bodies ,here the spheres ,quantics or cosmologics .
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Your ideas like Lawrence ,Lisi ,Emile ,Florin and some others aren't complicated but only mathematical in the imaginaries with a Lie algebras which aren't fundamentals ,it lacks many things in these imaginaries complexs.
We can't change our laws dear Ray and the maths must be pragmatic with limits ,if not all is falses .They don't exist these higgs Ray ,but I respect your choice to think like that ,I just say my opinion ,these models lack physicality and reality .These extradimensions don't exist too ,the tachyons don't exist ,Ex Ey isn't right simply ,like strings too ,and now the M theory ...no no no all that is false ,like multiverses too ,and after the multispheres perhaps .
Let's be pragmatic please with sciences ,our dynamic is mechanicaly univresal ,complex but simple too .
I don't think you losse your time but I think what whe a superimposing is made ,the pragamatism and the rationality between math and physics must considered with the biggest reason .
3D and a constant of evolution ,the time ,this oscillation is specific and in a pure thermodynamic .The mass don't arrive of the exterior ,no the mass is a effect of a cause ,physical ,the rotations of bodies ,here the spheres ,quantics or cosmologics .
Best Regards
Steve
Dear Steve,
Extra dimensions are how I try to make sense out of this confusion. But when everything is said and done, we must still explain why we observe 3 space plus 1 time dimensions. Our models are different, but could be complementary - the "particle/ wave duality" of a TOE.
I called my idea "A Geometrical Approach Towards A TOE". I only mean TOE in the sense that the 4 known forces, all known bosons, and all known fermions are unified under a compatible framework. We do not know all of the laws of physics yet. And there is more that we do not understand about the Universe.
Do you have plans to publish your ideas? I think you should publish an abreviated version in a Journal, and publish the entire version as a book.
Take Care, Steve!
Take Care, James!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
Extra dimensions are how I try to make sense out of this confusion. But when everything is said and done, we must still explain why we observe 3 space plus 1 time dimensions. Our models are different, but could be complementary - the "particle/ wave duality" of a TOE.
I called my idea "A Geometrical Approach Towards A TOE". I only mean TOE in the sense that the 4 known forces, all known bosons, and all known fermions are unified under a compatible framework. We do not know all of the laws of physics yet. And there is more that we do not understand about the Universe.
Do you have plans to publish your ideas? I think you should publish an abreviated version in a Journal, and publish the entire version as a book.
Take Care, Steve!
Take Care, James!
Ray Munroe
Hi Dear James ,dear Dr Cosmic Ray ,
Thanks ,I think the same indeed about the complemenatrity .You and Lawrence are really two mavericks in knowledges even if I don't agree about your imaginaries tools .Like I said before ,I learned a lot with both of you in math .Even I f I don't insert these complexs and imaginaries ,It's likeable to see these extrapolations and series .
About the publication ,I need help ,really Ray ,I speak a lot but I have a real problem with my adaptation to the system .I am lost in my isolation you know .If I speak like that about my works ,there is several reasons ,I must adapt me too because there at 34 years ,really I am too isolated and I am non utile ,it's frustrating .I don't know where I can publish ,how ,more how resume ,oh lalalal it's a catastrophe .I think that the best solution is to publish a good resume ,a kind of taxonomy with about 30 or 40 pages .After a book of vulgarisation and I continue my 420 pages with all these classments and links .I d like too put into practice my inventions too(you know the vegetal world has many properties ).
In all case thanks Ray it's nice .Viva el complemenatrity .
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Thanks ,I think the same indeed about the complemenatrity .You and Lawrence are really two mavericks in knowledges even if I don't agree about your imaginaries tools .Like I said before ,I learned a lot with both of you in math .Even I f I don't insert these complexs and imaginaries ,It's likeable to see these extrapolations and series .
About the publication ,I need help ,really Ray ,I speak a lot but I have a real problem with my adaptation to the system .I am lost in my isolation you know .If I speak like that about my works ,there is several reasons ,I must adapt me too because there at 34 years ,really I am too isolated and I am non utile ,it's frustrating .I don't know where I can publish ,how ,more how resume ,oh lalalal it's a catastrophe .I think that the best solution is to publish a good resume ,a kind of taxonomy with about 30 or 40 pages .After a book of vulgarisation and I continue my 420 pages with all these classments and links .I d like too put into practice my inventions too(you know the vegetal world has many properties ).
In all case thanks Ray it's nice .Viva el complemenatrity .
Best Regards
Steve
Dear James A. Putnam,
I have responded on my page to a comment from Narendra Nath. It is an extended comment and one that you may find interesting. Thank you for your comments and exchanges in this forum. I have enjoyed all of them immensely.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
I have responded on my page to a comment from Narendra Nath. It is an extended comment and one that you may find interesting. Thank you for your comments and exchanges in this forum. I have enjoyed all of them immensely.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Dr. Klingman,
Yes I read it. I think your work is a definite improvement over the mechanical type theories of the past that failed to address consciousness. I wanted to help raise your ratings; however, I felt that I began to stumble and around that time your rating dropped. So, I decided to leave things alone until after voting closed. I found your books on the Internet. I do still have my own theory that forms a prism through which I tend to analyze the work of others. If gravity is mentioned I think about how my view of gravity would apply. In fact, I am anxious to apply my interpretation of gravity to your equations. It may be a reflection of my prejudice, but I still want to see what happens. You have done more sophisticated work than have I, and I do intend to learn what I can from it.
James
Yes I read it. I think your work is a definite improvement over the mechanical type theories of the past that failed to address consciousness. I wanted to help raise your ratings; however, I felt that I began to stumble and around that time your rating dropped. So, I decided to leave things alone until after voting closed. I found your books on the Internet. I do still have my own theory that forms a prism through which I tend to analyze the work of others. If gravity is mentioned I think about how my view of gravity would apply. In fact, I am anxious to apply my interpretation of gravity to your equations. It may be a reflection of my prejudice, but I still want to see what happens. You have done more sophisticated work than have I, and I do intend to learn what I can from it.
James
Dear James,
I admire your approach very much. It is your attitude that I believe, in the end, is productive of the most progress. Let's keep in touch.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
I admire your approach very much. It is your attitude that I believe, in the end, is productive of the most progress. Let's keep in touch.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Since it comes up now and then that the universe originated because 'nothing' is unstable, I will point out that I have not yet seen a theory that began with nothing as its premise. Null points in equations do not result from the activities of, or action carried out upon, 'nothing'. That is, unless 'nothing' is actually something. Where did the something, from which 'nothing' is made, come from? So we return to that same lack of knowledge with which we began.
James
James
This is a copy of a message I left in another essay forum. There has been no response. I stand behind what I said, so I repeat here:
Dear Dr. Vesselin Petkov,
I see you are busy with semester deadlines and with answering other messages that precede mine. However, should you find the time, I chose one item from your essay to pose a question. You said:
"Moreover, Einstein himself described the realization that a person falling from the roof of a house does not feel the force of gravity as the happiest though(t) in his life. ... A conceptual analysis of Newton's gravitational theory could and should have revealed, long before Einstein realized it, that a falling body offers no resistance to its acceleration. This means that the body is not subjected to any gravitational force, which would be necessary if the body resisted its fall. Therefore, the falling body moves non-resistantly, by inertia. But how could that be since it accelerates?"
Even during Newton's time, why would anyone expect that a person in free fall should feel the force of gravity? It appears to me that Newton's theory predicts that no falling object should experience any sensation of a force acting on it even while the force of gravity is acting on it. The force of gravity acts evenly on all parts of the object. If there is no compression or other type of physical distortion, then why would anyone feel an effect due to falling freely due to the force of gravity. Thank you.
James
Dear Dr. Vesselin Petkov,
I see you are busy with semester deadlines and with answering other messages that precede mine. However, should you find the time, I chose one item from your essay to pose a question. You said:
"Moreover, Einstein himself described the realization that a person falling from the roof of a house does not feel the force of gravity as the happiest though(t) in his life. ... A conceptual analysis of Newton's gravitational theory could and should have revealed, long before Einstein realized it, that a falling body offers no resistance to its acceleration. This means that the body is not subjected to any gravitational force, which would be necessary if the body resisted its fall. Therefore, the falling body moves non-resistantly, by inertia. But how could that be since it accelerates?"
Even during Newton's time, why would anyone expect that a person in free fall should feel the force of gravity? It appears to me that Newton's theory predicts that no falling object should experience any sensation of a force acting on it even while the force of gravity is acting on it. The force of gravity acts evenly on all parts of the object. If there is no compression or other type of physical distortion, then why would anyone feel an effect due to falling freely due to the force of gravity. Thank you.
James
Dear Jimmy,
i was literally going to miss going through the beautiful essay you penned down from your head and heart. i enjoyed going through it as it talked about life, intelligence evolution, as compared to the mechanical evolution of the universe. Your logic is straight. yes, we all need to work harder, Klingman, Ray, Tejinder,Steve,.... you and me, if only we can. Why can't we work together, some say we live in different countries, others say we do not have common language and culture, yet some others may say we can not eat common food, and what not! What is the way out. The way out lies in loving the humanity universally and not in an isolated manner. We need to be like birds so that visas are not required, we need to be like a baby who views the world without any bias, we need to be free like air, water,fire,earth and consciousness! The latter can be considered as 'nothing/vacuum' physically speaking.
Narendra Nath
report post as inappropriate
i was literally going to miss going through the beautiful essay you penned down from your head and heart. i enjoyed going through it as it talked about life, intelligence evolution, as compared to the mechanical evolution of the universe. Your logic is straight. yes, we all need to work harder, Klingman, Ray, Tejinder,Steve,.... you and me, if only we can. Why can't we work together, some say we live in different countries, others say we do not have common language and culture, yet some others may say we can not eat common food, and what not! What is the way out. The way out lies in loving the humanity universally and not in an isolated manner. We need to be like birds so that visas are not required, we need to be like a baby who views the world without any bias, we need to be free like air, water,fire,earth and consciousness! The latter can be considered as 'nothing/vacuum' physically speaking.
Narendra Nath
Dear Narendra and James,
It is a beautiful thing that the internet can help unite people of such diverse backgrounds. Steve Dufourny wants to build a Science Center in Belgium where all scientists would be welcome. He also wants to use this scientific potential to help feed and water Africa (of course, war, political systems and disease make this a difficult goal). It would be good if he can overcome his personal financial difficulties and establish such an organization.
What is Nothing? Was there always Something? Even if Spacetime didn't exist before Inflation, even if the Universe had not yet "created" energy via the Free Lunch scenario, "Something" probably existed. Was it the primordial String? Was it God? Can we ever truly fathom a full understanding of our mysterious Universe?
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
It is a beautiful thing that the internet can help unite people of such diverse backgrounds. Steve Dufourny wants to build a Science Center in Belgium where all scientists would be welcome. He also wants to use this scientific potential to help feed and water Africa (of course, war, political systems and disease make this a difficult goal). It would be good if he can overcome his personal financial difficulties and establish such an organization.
What is Nothing? Was there always Something? Even if Spacetime didn't exist before Inflation, even if the Universe had not yet "created" energy via the Free Lunch scenario, "Something" probably existed. Was it the primordial String? Was it God? Can we ever truly fathom a full understanding of our mysterious Universe?
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
Dear Professor Narendra Nath,
Thank you for that very kind message. I read your essay some time ago and gave you a rating of 10. I am wondering if there is a way to bring the free spirits of physics together. I am in favor of people working together; however, I assume that each individual feels drawn to develop their own ideas. The most I would be looking to accomplish at this time is to bring those independent ideas together at one location on the Internet.
Jimmy
Thank you for that very kind message. I read your essay some time ago and gave you a rating of 10. I am wondering if there is a way to bring the free spirits of physics together. I am in favor of people working together; however, I assume that each individual feels drawn to develop their own ideas. The most I would be looking to accomplish at this time is to bring those independent ideas together at one location on the Internet.
Jimmy
The question of natural versus unnatural often comes up. So, I will express my view that nothing is natural until it is proven to exist in the form defined by the person putting it forward for consideration. The 'natural causes' of theoretical physics are not proven in that manner. They are assumed to exist for the practical necessity of solving mechanical type properties. If they receive mechanical type definitions, that is adequate, but not proven, for the mechanical level of understanding. When we look to the universe for guidance, we find that all that is necessary to explain the operation of the universe as we understand it is information and intelligence. These are the natural properties of the universe. They do not have to be proven. However, they are the only things that do not have to be proven. All else is unnatural until proven. Theory is inadequate to distinguish the real from the unreal. It is the pretender to the throne. That is my opinion.
James
James
I greatly appreciated being able to particpate in this contest. The courtesy shown is up there with the quality of the essays. I thought there were several essays by phd's that should have received significantly higher ratings; however, that was the chosen system at work. It will be interesting to see how the judges affect the outcome.
Respectfully,
James
Respectfully,
James
Dear Ray ,merci ,I am touched and not a little ,many thanks .
Friendly
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Friendly
Steve
Things have quieted down. I have to wait many months for the next contest. So, I will return to my theory. I was working on redefining the uncertainty principle. When I left off, the more precisely I defined it the more uncertain I became. When I lost momentum, I began to increase in size. When my energy decreased my clocks began agreeing with each other.
James
James
I mean my clocks began disagreeing. Oh well, thats typical of my progress.
James
James
Dear James Arthur Putnam,
I note that your next to last comment states that you are working on redefining the uncertainty principle. For a fresh look at this, I invite you to revisit my paper, where on page four you will find a generalized uncertainty principle that you may find of interest.
I believe that I saw your name recently on Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe" paper. I plan, in the next few days to add extensive comments to that paper, since I believe it to be important to address his views.
I say again that I have enjoyed our conversations immensely and wish you the best New Year in 2010. I want to keep our connection alive.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
I note that your next to last comment states that you are working on redefining the uncertainty principle. For a fresh look at this, I invite you to revisit my paper, where on page four you will find a generalized uncertainty principle that you may find of interest.
I believe that I saw your name recently on Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe" paper. I plan, in the next few days to add extensive comments to that paper, since I believe it to be important to address his views.
I say again that I have enjoyed our conversations immensely and wish you the best New Year in 2010. I want to keep our connection alive.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Login or create account to post reply or comment.