FQXi Community

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Guidelines

FAQ

Essays: read and discuss

Latest FQXi news

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

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

Rick Lockyer: "Our discussion is smogging up Singh’s blog, so I will leave you with..." in Towards the unification...

Stefan Weckbach: "Rick, I have facts, not opinions. One fact is that browsing here and at the..." in Towards the unification...

Georgina Woodward: "This is a repeat of earlier posts. Scott, your thinking is currently..." in Understanding...

Steve Dufourny: "The technological environmentalism seems a key also. The potential of our..." in Global Collaboration

Lorraine Ford: "Thanks Steve." in Understanding...

RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Time to Think
Philosopher Jenann Ismael invokes the thermodynamic arrow of time to explain how human intelligence emerged through culture.

Lockdown Lab Life
Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

Is Causality Fundamental?
Untangling how the human perception of cause-and-effect might arise from quantum physics, may help us understand the limits and the potential of AI.

Building Agency in the Biology Lab
Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

Think Quantum to Build Better AI
Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.

read & discuss all articles

FQXi FORUM

January 23, 2021

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009) [back]
TOPIC: What is Possible for Theoretical Physics? by James A Putnam [refresh]

Author James A Putnam wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 12:32 GMT

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

amrit wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 06:20 GMT

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

Author James A Putnam wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 17:49 GMT

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

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 1, 2009 @ 00:19 GMT

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

Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 1, 2009 @ 12:38 GMT

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

Author James A Putnam wrote on Sep. 1, 2009 @ 15:08 GMT

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

Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 1, 2009 @ 16:47 GMT

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

Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 1, 2009 @ 17:09 GMT

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

Author James A Putnam wrote on Sep. 1, 2009 @ 17:57 GMT

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

Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 18:00 GMT

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

amrit wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 19:26 GMT

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

Author James A Putnam wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 23:13 GMT

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

Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 09:15 GMT

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

Author James A Putnam wrote on Sep. 26, 2009 @ 18:19 GMT

Dear Steve,

Thank you for your offer.

James

Author James A Putnam wrote on Sep. 26, 2009 @ 18:34 GMT

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 assigning mechanical style interpretations to substitute for explaining cause to which I object.

I do not deny the importance of learning effects and using their empirical patterns to predict future effects. However, I think any mechanical interpretation is a low level substitute for understanding the nature of this universe that gave rise to intelligent life. Mechanics by any name will never give us answers that rise above mechanical style effects.

The mechanical style interpretations are accepted as leading, through increasingly complex assemblages of particles, toward more complex effects. Any interpretation, including awareness, is entitled to that same approach. The words awareness, intelligence, and knowing were developed for recognizable intelligence life. Unlike in mechanics, these words are resisted when looking downward and backward to the origins of natural fundamental properties of intelligence.

The irony, for me, is that it is only information and intelligence that we have direct experience with. Everything else that we think exists as part of the nature of the universe is interpreted by our intelligence from information. A complex storm of photons carries this piecemeal information. This is our most directly experienced evidence. I think it makes clear that intelligence is the key property of the real nature of the universe. The idea of a mechanical style nature cannot lead back to the intelligence that created it. It is an irreversible process. Yet current, mechanical style, theoretical physics proceeds on the belief that the process is reversible.

If the universe consisted only of information and intelligence we would not be able to distinguish it, except by the existence of intelligence, from the universe described to us by physicists. If I were to say that one electron knows about the existence of another electron and knows what to do in response to recognizing that it is an electron, that statement should not be dismissed as being inferior, i.e. unnatural, to saying that electric charge causes the electron to move. Electric charge is a theoretical, mechanical style invention. I indicated this in my essay The Absoluteness of Time in the first essay contest The Nature of Time.

With regard to free will for particles, they do not have it. At that low level free will would amount to loss of control and meaningless chaos. The universe is completely controlled. There is no meaninglessness contained within it. I have attempted, at my website, to show that even though the universe itself does not have free will, it does have the ability to give us a property that very closely approximates it. I will not try to defend that statement here.

All the mathematics, stripped of its theoretical baggage must also be successfully applied to developing a universe that has fundamental properties of intelligence. I think this is obvious. It should be embraced instead of used as a reason for denying that these properties could replace the mechanical ideology of theoretical physics. I feel certain that all of this should fit together and make much more sense.

view post as summary

Author James A Putnam wrote on Sep. 26, 2009 @ 18:38 GMT

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 interpretation. However, it will have served the purpose of removing the façade of current theoretical physics.

That façade is obscuring our vision and our thinking. The success of identifying one cause is that, then, we have a chance of following that same line of thinking for learning the development of intelligence. In other words, intelligence at its most fundamental levels, would be substituted as the single original cause.

I am attempting to do this. I am not ready to challenge theoretical quantum physics. I took the approach of redefining the fundamentals following a path similar to the historical development of theoretical physics. I began with f=ma and redefined its interpretation. I applied this new interpretation to developing a new classical style theory. I then moved to redefine the fundamentals of relativity style theory. I am now beginning to move to redefine the fundamentals of quantum theory.

I first prepared the way by learning as much as could be known about the uses of Planck's constant in the new theory, before carrying it over into a review of quantum theory. I am now working on the next step: Reviewing the meaning of the uncertainty principle. It may be that I am not skilled enough to accomplish a revision of quantum physics; however, I am the only person I know of willing to try it. I have come a long way since beginning this effort.

My own essay in this current contest indicates, only minimally, some of the thinking and results of this effort. I included an equation in that essay that I would think should demand attention. Yet, it gets passed over. I presume that others assume that since it does not appear to make sense within the context of current theory, that it must be a fluke without meaning. Its units do not match.

Even though I do not say this in my essay, that equation was derived from the development of new theory. It is a mechanical style theory with just one original cause. The equation makes sense in that theory. Its units match in that theory. It was included in the essay for the purpose of indicating the existence of fundamental unity.

Even if this new theory proved to be superior to current theory, it would still represent just one intermediate step to learning the true fundamental nature of this universe. The final theory must be useful for solving mechanical problems, but, it cannot itself be mechanical. Intelligence must be the one given in the nature of the universe. The final theory will be the story of the development of intelligence from the true natural fundamentals of the universe all the way from its origin to human free will.

James

http://newphysicstheory.com

view post as summary

Leshan wrote on Sep. 26, 2009 @ 21:17 GMT

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

Author James A Putnam wrote on Sep. 27, 2009 @ 19:37 GMT

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

Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 28, 2009 @ 11:48 GMT

Hi dear James ,

You are welcome ,it's sincerely .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Casey Blood wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 13:39 GMT

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

Author James A Putnam wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 15:12 GMT

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

Andreas Martin Lisewski wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 16:28 GMT

It almost reads like a political manifesto, but its conclusions seem not irrelevant to me.

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 18:05 GMT

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

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 14, 2009 @ 22:42 GMT

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

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam wrote on Oct. 15, 2009 @ 21:48 GMT

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

Author James A Putnam wrote on Oct. 15, 2009 @ 22:40 GMT

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. There is a prevalent prejudice toward defending the status quo. The restrictiveness is due to moderators and not participants. Participants are expected to challenge the ideas of others. The moderators tend to not want different viewpoints from their own expressed any longer than it takes for them to offer their viewpoint as proof that the subject thread is not scientifically worthwhile. Also, I do not give out personal information. The reason is because critics often turn to attacking the messenger instead of the message. So, I leave only the message available. They can either criticize it or say nothing. FQXi is definitely different. Their contests and forums are a valuable contribution to science on the Internet.

I said above that the reception has usually been hostile. That is not true for my website. If you were to search the words new physics theory or new theoretical physics you will find my website at the top of the list. Even the words physics theory will result in my being close to or at the top. It stays there due to its own merits. I do not point this out to promote myself here. My work is very much out of the mainstream and is unrecognized by the physics community. Still, many visitors download what I have to say and keep my website at the top. Here is the first reason for bringing this up: I applaud the efforts of physicists who try to push their science beyond mechanics and reach toward including awareness, consciousness, intelligence and life.

Others who attempt this important work do not need to be in agreement with me for me to appreciate their work. I think your essay and some others presented here are very important examples of how one might proceed. I do not know what the correct path is. I have chosen one for myself to follow. However, I have not even begun to free my work from the mechanical mindset. I do not know how to do this. I proceed on the possibility that correct physics theory might indicate the correct path to all properties of the universe. The most I strive for at this time is to establish a theory based upon fundamental unity beginning at the very beginning. If there is only one mechanical source of cause, then hopefully it can be translated into the original source of intelligence. In any case, I look forward to the possibility that the correct mathematical analysis of the universe, even from the mechanical perspective, will be applicable to some important degree to the analysis of intelligent life.

Now, the second reason for this lengthy message. If it would be of interest to you, I could provide, at my website, information and links to your work and the work of some other participants here. I have not, in the past, placed the work of others nor any outside links at my website. However, for PhD physicists who are seriously pursuing real connection between physics theory and intelligent life, I would be pleased and honored to help provide Internet exposure for their work. Agreement with my work is definitely not required nor expected. Variety is desirable. It is the quality that matters. Maybe you and others already have the kind of Internet exposure that you are satisfied with. However, if my website could be of value, I am offering it. You will probably want to be aware of how very different my own work is before considering this offer. Take some time and evaluate it. If you prefer to decline it, I understand. I still admire you for your work.

James

view post as summary

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 22:08 GMT

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

Ray Munroe wrote on Oct. 22, 2009 @ 19:07 GMT

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

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam wrote on Oct. 22, 2009 @ 20:44 GMT

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

Author James A Putnam wrote on Oct. 22, 2009 @ 23:22 GMT

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

Ray Munroe wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 13:43 GMT

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 small-scale modifications to Relativity. Certainly, we don't understand the nature of time - FQXi had a contest about that and the entries were quite varied. We don't understand mass. Is there just one Higgs boson? If so, we might understand mass once we discover it and research its properties. But the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model expects a complex scalar doublet coupling to top quarks, and another complex scalar doublet coupling to bottom quarks, and this leads to a family of Higgs particles (light, heavy, pseudoscalar, charged- positive and negative). Discovering and analyzing the properties of all of those Higgs bosons may take a lifetime. To make matters worse, my model predicts a hierarchy of Higgs-like scalar bosons.

Regarding cause and effect - yes, we all had limitations. I understand why you didn't tackle action-at-a-distance or quantum entanglement.

All I am saying is that we have the benefit of Centuries worth of trial and error (an advantage of intelligence coupled with language), and we have inherited a system that seems to work. Does it work like Ptolemy's epicycles and deferents? If so, there may be room for simplification and clarification. I am biased in that I think you need to study a field in order to overthrow it. For example, I purposely studied the Standard Model and Renormalization to try to overthrow those ideas. If you read my book (link on my blog site), you may get a better understanding of the evolution of my ideas on GUT/ TOE. Lawrence Crowell knows General Relativity, and he would be a good person to attack that idea. My friend, Steve Dufourny calls Lawrence and I the two "mavericks". But you also need to think you have insight that others don't have, and dedicate your life to making it happen, because it may take your lifetime to work out the details and convince the rest of the Physics Community that you have a worthwhile idea (Lawrence and I aren't so young anymore). Some of these theoretical ideas are deeply rooted.

I would prefer not to talk about equations with wierd units. Maybe you have discovered a new fundamental constant of order 1 with wierd units, or maybe it is just coincidence. I have seen a lot of numbers that could be just coincidence. Last year, I corresponded with Mohamed El Naschie. He does a lot of things with the Golden Ratio (which is rooted in the icosahedron - which is part of my model) and Fractals that are quite interesting. But without understanding the theory behind the numbers, these coincidences don't really make any sense.

You confuse me some. You seem to make a big deal out of the emergence of life and intelligence, but you never mention the buzz words of Anthropic Principle or Design. I guess you wanted people to read your entire paper and not prejudge you on a buzz word. Michael Behe makes arguments for Design based on irreducible complexity. Using the eye as an example, how can we argue a step-by-step evolution of the eye? For instance, a lowly-evolved eye that functions at only 10% might not be much of an advantage towards survival.

Regarding the emergence of life and intelligence, this involves Physics, Philosophy, Chemistry, Biology, Psychology, Information Theory, Artificial Intelligence, Language, etc. You make a valid point that there is a level of understanding of this phenomeina at the Physics level. It seems to me that most physicists are specialists, and would not tackle such a broad issue. "Its not my job/ goal/ dream."

You said "Your approach is opposed to my approach. I do not mean that I think mine is superior to yours. I mean that I need to know what it is that you think and have accomplished. I will continue to digest your essay and comment as quickly as I can. Thank you for your respectful criticism." I don't think we are as different as you imply. We are both questioning the apparent ugliness of an inherited system. I question the ugliness of the Standard Model, and you question the ugliness of Relativistic transforms. We have different insights and mathematical methods, but a common goal of trying to make physics more understandable, more simple, more clear.

Good Luck!

Ray Munroe

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 17:15 GMT

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

Author James A Putnam wrote on Oct. 25, 2009 @ 18:18 GMT

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

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 11:56 GMT

Me too I agree ,the consciousness is essential .

Some essays are very relevant about the conscious.

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 12:10 GMT

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

Author James A Putnam wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 16:15 GMT

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

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 17:04 GMT

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

Author James A Putnam wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 18:12 GMT

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

Author James A Putnam wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 00:26 GMT

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

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 10:45 GMT

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

Author James A Putnam wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 22:00 GMT

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

Ray Munroe wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 01:45 GMT

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

Author James A Putnam wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 18:57 GMT

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 are connecting things together. Those connections sometimes fit with existing particles and sometimes require new ones. So, you have been innovative and have predictions that may validate your work. Does this seem fair to say?

"As one person who recognizes the the shortcomings of modern theoretical physics to another, ..."

I did have a different understanding which shows that I did not understand. I thought you accepted theoretical physics as it has developed and were stretching out and adding onto it. I do think you are doing the stretching as in being innovative. Some of your conversations about hyperdrives and hyperspace made me feel that you were not a maverick. Or, are those subjects what make you a maverick?

"...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 definitely meet stiff resistance. I encounter hostile reactions from moderators of science forums. I encounter low ratings in the essay contests. However, it does not matter. What matters is we can say something new here. Now, with respect to changing one little aspect and working with it instead of blatantly overthrowing all of physics, I tried it the other way. Here is what happened:

I made one change that I thought would work better. It had to do with time. I soon found that I could not touch the theoretical treatment or inclusion of time in equations without changing other parts. Good theory is interconnected in major ways. I changed my approach. I decided to seriously consider that fundamental unity does exist and thought about how to discover it if it really is there. My essay indicates, but does not demonstrate, the path I followed.

Here are a few points that became essential. One is that mass must be defined at the beginning and not left till last. The reason is that if mass is incorrectly interpreted, it affects almost everything that follows theoretically. I did not see how such theory could later reveal the true nature of mass. The second point is that all empirical data consists of units of distance and time. Or, perhaps I should stick, for now, with just pointing out that f=ma was formed to model data that consists only of units of distance and time. For me, this meant that whatever identity I gave to either mass or force must be reducible to units consisting only of distance and time. I can use units of kilograms or newtons for convenience, but their derivations must rely upon the data the revealed them to us. The equation depends fully upon that data. Therefore, force and mass must, in their most fundamental expressions, be expressible solely in units of distance and time. Ultimately, this means that every proposed property must be reducible to units of distance and time. Any units that are fabricated without first finding their roots in distance time are not only artificial, but are impediments when included in our equations. I will leave it there for now. This message will probably cause my rating average to go down some more; however, all that matters is that we get to say our piece in our own way without obstruction. Thank you for your message. Let me know what you think whether positive or negative it is welcome.

James

view post as summary

Ray Munroe wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 19:20 GMT

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

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 11:54 GMT

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

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 12:11 GMT

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

Ray Munroe wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 12:47 GMT

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

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 18:39 GMT

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

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 23:21 GMT

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

Author James A Putnam wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 01:56 GMT

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

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 04:35 GMT

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

Author James A Putnam wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 19:14 GMT

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

Author James A Putnam wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 22:11 GMT

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

Narendra Nath wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 07:47 GMT

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

Ray B Munroe wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 14:43 GMT

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

Author James A Putnam wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 20:37 GMT

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

Author James A Putnam wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 20:47 GMT

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

Author James A Putnam wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 16:59 GMT

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

Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 10, 2009 @ 09:03 GMT

Dear Ray ,merci ,I am touched and not a little ,many thanks .

Friendly

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam wrote on Nov. 10, 2009 @ 22:07 GMT

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

Author James A Putnam wrote on Nov. 11, 2009 @ 03:10 GMT

I mean my clocks began disagreeing. Oh well, thats typical of my progress.

James

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 4, 2010 @ 23:41 GMT

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