Search FQXi


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

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

Contests Home


Previous Contests

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

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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

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/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Yuri Danoyan: on 9/17/12 at 13:48pm UTC, wrote Dear Ioannis You wrote: "How can a spacetime or other continuum—with...

hadjidakis: on 9/17/12 at 12:14pm UTC, wrote Correction (of corrections): 5th paragraph of discussion: our universe is...

Hadjidakis: on 9/17/12 at 12:09pm UTC, wrote Corrections: 5th paragraph of discussion: our universe is expanding like...

basudeba: on 3/20/11 at 6:04am UTC, wrote Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria – suggestions for...

Constantinos Ragazas: on 3/11/11 at 2:47am UTC, wrote Yianni, Thanks for dropping in on Philiston and giving Nikiforo my...

ioannis hadjidakis: on 3/10/11 at 10:28am UTC, wrote Dear Tobias, Ans.1: What I propose is the use of a new coordination system...

Tobias Fritz: on 3/9/11 at 18:20pm UTC, wrote Dear Ioannis, finally I would also like to get to your essay and ask some...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/9/11 at 12:13pm UTC, wrote Siddartha Gottam shall speak with Seneque about the universal love. Its...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Lorraine, I don't agree that relationships can only genuinely exist..." in What Will Quantum...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi to both of you, in all case an egg is a spheroid, that it is sure and..." in What Will Quantum...

Steve Agnew: "Math gives us a way to predict outcomes from precursors just like religion..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

charlie Ford: "This particular papers fabulous, and My spouse and i enjoy each of the..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

elena smith: "Basic Outlook principles that could save your time Nowadays, everybody is..." in Are We Merging With Our...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Joe, what is mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "Let s extrapolate an universal Lagrangian Hamiltonian correlated with this..." in Alternative Models of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
December 13, 2019

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: Has the Time Come ...? by Ioannis Hadjidakis [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author ioannis hadjidakis wrote on Jan. 3, 2011 @ 15:57 GMT
Essay Abstract

In order to build a reasonable model of our environment one of the first thinks we have to fulfill is to use a reference system our model is to build in. Since 1637 when René Descartes proposed the so called “Cartesian Coordination System”, scientists used this with only few alternatives (spherical and cylindrical systems) for special cases. In this essay some undesirable properties of this system have been shown and a new system called “Natural Coordination System” (NCS) is proposed. After disclose of its basic properties some critical points are discussed, most of them straightly related to the fundamental questions put for the present contest. Above all, NCS has the potentiality to unbind thinkers’ mind in their endeavor trying to unify all aspects of the whole universe in a scientific way of thinking; away from the well known separation between deterministic physical sciences and philosophy or any other “theoretical” science like sociology and theology or even arts e.g. poetry, music etc.

Author Bio

Author is a lecturer in Chemistry department, University of Ioannina in Greece. His interest in fundamental physics started from his early childhood trying to perceive emptiness, in its purest form, during night’s relaxation (he is happy that he is still trying ...).

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 4, 2011 @ 11:21 GMT
Dear Ioannis

Thank you for an excellent essay, and I agree entirely with Bragg. I think you've hit a fundamental point on Descartes simplistic basic co-ordinates. I touch on this in my own essay (2020 Vision), but due to a 'conceptual realisation' have been able to distil it to the simplest of 'reality' based models.

This also allowed completion of the circle to show a role for 'negative' numbers in relativity. This turned out to be analogous to a simple case of Doppler shift one way from 0 entering an inertial frame, (compression or extension) and having a negative formula to renormalise on exiting the frame back to the original state (frame). i.e. Acceleration in opposite directions - allowing a relevance of the term 'deceleration' back into science.

I conclude we've suffered a major failure in conceptual thinking ability and nature really is far more simple and real than we have ever imagined, but that does not make me special, we all think differently, and I'm far from yet entirely grasping the subtleties of your NCS. In principle however I fully support your views, particularly that revealing the solutions depend on re-unification of a nature divided only by man.

My own model is almost to simple to believe but still too demanding of conceptual agility to initially comprehend, I'd be interested in your views, but hope you can conceptualise it better than I have NCS so far!

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 4, 2011 @ 12:42 GMT
Hi and happy new year dear Ioannis,

Congratulations for your beautiful essay.

Descartes was a big rationalist,the method seems essential for the real physicality.

I see the sphere like fundamental.It's logic in fact .

For me the elementary particles are spheres and our Universe is a sphere in optimization.

This evidence is logic, verifiable and rational.Their rotations and volumes imply the complexity and specificity in 3D(That's why I invented the theory of spherization QUANTUM SPHERES .....COSMOLOGICAL SPHERES....UNIVERSAL SPHERE.) and a time constant of evolution.

The NCS is relevant.

Thanks for your essay.

ps the poetry is the cries of hope like the music is a cry of harmony.

Seneque will say to hopes that they are reals and Siddartha Gottama that love and compassion are an other evidence.

The cries of hope above the cries of suffering.

we were we are we shall be..............

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba wrote on Jan. 5, 2011 @ 04:16 GMT
Dear Sir,

We must congratulate you for your original thoughts. We have a totally different view on most of the subjects discussed by you. However, it will help to exchange our views with each other. We have published a book in which we have discussed many of the points raised by you. If you mail your postal address to mbasudeba@gmail.com, we will sent a copy of the same for your reference.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 5, 2011 @ 19:29 GMT
Hi all,

Dear Ioannis,

I liked your essay.

That said ,when you say that universe is expanding and the big crunch will permit a new big bang.

I don't really understand this point of vue.

Because the dynamic is unique and has only one oscillation.

Let's imagine a BB and an expansion, we can imagine an ultim aim for this Universe.Thus after an expansion, a contraction appears at the maximum volume of the dynamic.The mass and density probably.

Thus it exists a contraction towards a kind of perfect harmony between quantum and cosmological spheres.

That's why an unique dynamique is essential.1 exp. and 1 contr.

That implies a contraction, a single contraction.

Now the real ask is this one, are we still in expansion or are we already in the contraction?

If the lattices between entangled spheres are linked in the two senses.Thus we can see this contraction of space (or the expansion.)

In this line of reasoning,the Universal Sphere is seen like a foto of our quantum entanglement and its pure finite number.

The volumes take all their sense of rationality.In the quantization of mass (volumes of entangled spheres),and the volume of the universal sphere.

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author ioannis hadjidakis wrote on Jan. 12, 2011 @ 11:56 GMT
Thank you all for your positive remarks,

Dear Peter,

I will read your essay soon and you will have my views. Preliminary, I would say that our conceptual thinking ability is highly distorted by negative numbers and orthogonality both result of Cartesian coordinates. Hence I would be extremely conscious to any role for negative numbers.

“… nature really is far more simple and real than we have ever imagined…”:

I feel that as far as real part of reality (e.g. length and velocity) is concerned this is true. When virtual part is included (e.g. force, field, wave, energy, entropy) nature is incomprehensible to human mind without accepting any inexplicable axiom.

Dear basudeba,

I would be happy to discus any aspect of the subjects my essay deals with. I sent you an e-mail.

Dear Steve,

I do not know your theory of spherization so my response can’t be based on this.

“Because the dynamic is unique and has only one oscillation.”:

Is the pendulum dynamic (it has not only one oscillation)? I consider it dynamic as it moves with varied velocity.

“Now the real ask is this one, are we still in expansion or are we already in the contraction?”:

Galaxies depart from each other, so we are expanding in real terms.

“If the lattices between entangled spheres are linked in the two senses.Thus we can see this contraction of space (or the expansion.)

In this line of reasoning,the Universal Sphere is seen like a foto of our quantum entanglement and its pure finite number.”:

In figure 5 it is shown the projection of entangled points P and P’ on the plane(infinity/2) for 2D space. If we rotate virtual sphere π/2 round axis S-E, P’ coincides with P (the unique reality of P-P').

In 3D space we could project entangled points on the “present sphere surface” (radius r, see Fig. 8). This projection is actually a foto of our “finite present universe” (finite as our universe is always finite and present meaning the present quantum time – moment).

Best wishes to everybody

Ioannis.

Bookmark and Share


Author ioannis hadjidakis replied on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 12:35 GMT
For P' to coincide P the angle of rotation is π and not π/2.

Sorry,

Ioannis

Bookmark and Share


Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 17:59 GMT
Hi all,

Dear Ioannis,

In fact, we can't consider our Universe like a pendulum ,it's totally different,I say that our univers is a sphere and has only one expansion at the maximum volume and after a contraction, unique also towards the perfect equilibrium between all these spheres(quantum spheres and cosmological spheres ).(, you know for me a sphere is a star, a planet, a moon, a BH, our quantum particles, and this and that like the circle it's foundamental)

You can t compare our Universe as virtual furthermore, our universe is logic and rational.

FOR A CONCRETE UNDERSTANDING OF MY THEORY,you must focus on rationality and not on virtuality.

What I say is simple, here is my gauge for beginning.

Quantum spheres.....cosmological spheres....UNIVERSAL SPHERE.you shall see dear that it exists only 1 universe and only one oscillation in a general point of vue for the expansion and the contraction.

I see that like a beating of heart.The uniqueness becomes essential.

Thus of course you shall understand the meaning of relativity in analyzing our past perceptions.

In this line of reasoning, we see indeed the expansions with galaxies.

Now don't forget that we see always our past!!!

It's important for the maximum volume of the universal sphere and the begining of the contraction towards this balance between spheres.You shall understand the increase of entropy, the increase of mass, the decrease of space because it exists an ultim aim for the universal sphere and its universal center, the biggest volume, this central sphere.We turn in a specific dance of rotations spinals and orbitals.The contraction is logic like the expansion but only respecting the unique oscillation.In fact it's the volumes of spheres which become relevant.

ps for the quantum number, this number is finite and the entanglement is a serie of fractalized volumes.The center is the main volume.

Now the rotations are proportionals.IMPORTANT this number for the ultim quantum entanglement is the same than our Universal sphere, and its center and all its cosmological spheres turning around this center also.Like a foto relativistic of our universal sphere.

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 18:11 GMT
In fact, that can be seen like this,

"Spinal and orbital rotations of all spheres, whether quantum or cosmological, explains everything!!!"

If and only if our foundamental and rational and logical equations and laws are respected of course and evidently.

Our quantum spheres build in time space evolution our cosmological spheres and its lifes and consciousness and intelligences....towards this harmony between these evolved mass ,the optimization, the spherization, the improvement are logics .

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 14, 2011 @ 10:15 GMT
Ioannis

"When virtual part is included (e.g. force, field, wave, energy, entropy) nature is incomprehensible to human mind without accepting any inexplicable axiom."

Under current paradigms that is undeniably true. I believe, (in fact it is rather beyond 'belief'!) that I have found the key to allow the mists to be cleared and the logical explanation seen. I think if you read the essay you'll have more chance of finding that eureka moment than most. Do let me know.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 05:36 GMT
Dear Ioannis,

I agree with you in that negative numbers were introduced in physics at the time of Descartes. Perhaps you can tell me some details. Admittedly, I did not yet read much of work by Descartes. I learned from a little booklet that he hesitated using negative numbers. Unfortunately, the booklet was a translation into Russian from an original English written booklet by the Hungarian Corneliusz Lanscos (Loewy) who referred to Einstein. Maybe, you can tell me more.

By the way, I also noticed that Fourier tried to integrate not from minus infinity but from zero to plus infinity.

We have to be careful. I am not sure whether Demokrit or someone else, maybe Moses, was the first who suggested atomism.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author ioannis hadjidakis replied on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 12:24 GMT
Dear Eckard,

A) For the history of negative numbers:

1) http://nrich.maths.org/public/viewer.php?obj_id=5961

2) http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Negative_Numbers

3) “…Lazare Carnot (1753-1823), member of the Academy of Science and famous mathematician:

" to really obtain an isolated negative quantity, it would be necessary to cut off an effective...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author ioannis hadjidakis replied on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 12:29 GMT
(continuation)

Negative numbers seem to “work” when the final result is positive but when the result is negative (

Bookmark and Share


Author ioannis hadjidakis replied on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 12:43 GMT
(Hoping for a success ... in sending this reply)

Dear Eckard,

A) For the history of negative numbers:

1) http://nrich.maths.org/public/viewer.php?obj_id=5961

2) http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Negative_Numbers

3) "Lazare Carnot (1753-1823), member of the Academy of Science and famous mathematician:

" to really obtain an isolated negative quantity, it would be necessary to cut off an effective quantity from zero, to remove something of nothing: impossible operation. How thus to conceive an isolated negative quantity? "; Geometry of position, 1803.

" The numbers can be only positive; it is the quantities that can be negative or positive. A negative quantity is defined by an opposition to a positive quantity: a path in a direction, a path in the contrary direction; a profit, a debt... "

http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/educacion/3/Usrn/penelope
/uk_confboye.htm#elements

Negative numbers seem to "work" when the final result is positive but when the result is negative their physical meaning is none.

After all "negative numbers are distortion of physical logic".

B) Who is the first?

"Leucippus (5th c. BCE) is the earliest figure whose commitment to atomism is well attested. He is usually credited with inventing atomism. According to a passing remark by the geographer Strabo, Posidonius (1st c. BCE Stoic philosopher) reported that ancient Greek atomism can be traced back to a figure known as Moschus or Mochus of Sidon, who lived at the time of the Trojan wars. This report was given credence in the seventeenth century: the Cambridge Platonist Henry More traced the origins of ancient atomism back, via Pythagoras and Moschus, to Moses. This theologically motivated view does not seem to claim much historical evidence, however."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-ancient/#1

Regards,


Ioannis

Bookmark and Share



Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 21:50 GMT
Dear Ioannis,

When your message was cut, you might have used a symbol that is not tolerated here, maybe the symbol for smaller than.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author ioannis hadjidakis wrote on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 07:55 GMT
Dear Eckard,

Thank you for your informative replies (about Vaihinger and Christian Betsch). However, I would like to emphasize that my essay takes the unconceivable reality as a logical (and mathematical) fact (according to Godel's work, although many refuse to accept the reality they can not perceive) and tries to formulate a coordination system that unconceivable part of reality could be accommodated in. The philosophical consequences are left to the readers that unfortunately find to these an easy field of critisism. In other words, I added nothing more, on these aspect, than Godel has found decades before.

Regards, Ioannis

Bookmark and Share


Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 14:19 GMT
Dear Ioannis,

You consider (1) an "unconceivable reality as a logical and mathematical fact" "although many refuse to accept the reality they cannot perceive" (2).

I am still waiting for comments on my essay. Did you find any indication that I might share either (1) or (2)?

Do you arrive at similar or different practical implications as do I? I am favoring as a touchstone for theories and also for some applications a unilateral restriction to just positive elapsed time.

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

narsep replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 10:53 GMT
Dear Eckard,

It is worthless to limit our creativity because of others' different opinions. However we have to persuade them if we think we are right.

I like your essay with its explicit consideration about the use of negative numbers. Although I agree that a great deal of work and social thinking has been spent on aspects that their only utility is to give reasonable and countable results like negative and imaginary numbers based on CCS, my opinion is that this approach has driven human mind to its limits. Science has to follow an alternative path in seeing Nature and this is not to exclude others of getting part in everybody's Nature (either living in e.g. ecology, poverty ... or spiritually thinking about it e.g. not making science for scientists-ourselves). So if we think some parts of science are fault it is our obligation to "fight" them. This is a way for pressing anybody that could propose an alternative.

Best wishes, narsep (ioannis)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

narsep replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 11:05 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I ask for an excuse if you took what I am saying personally. I use any of your (generally) responce to make my point and I agree that sometimes this is overdone.

ioannis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 14:25 GMT
Hi Ioannis, I especially liked your back-to-basics thinking in this essay. Very good work and most appreciated. I wish I'd done my own diagrams and scanned them in now!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author ioannis hadjidakis wrote on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 11:39 GMT
Dear Alan,

I appreciate your kind words. Any contribution in any form is highly welcomed but I feel hand made figures give a personal note to science. Science is personal (in the sense that even physical sciences are related to scientists' philosophy) although this is not the common opinion. I feel better looking at the figures of Newton's books although in some cases accurate graphs are a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 15:22 GMT
Yes, I agree with personal touch of hand-drawn diagrams, which reminds me of Leonardo incidentally. You mention Newton and so I'll quickly give my reason why I think he made a fundamental mistake. With regard to the ocean tides, the concept of a gravitational gradient which causes the Earth to squash into a more oblate shape is only one part of a possible solution imo. There's also the possiblity of a non-standard core of the planets and the sun. This has been totally overlooked. It invalidates the Cavendish experiment, devised to 'weigh' the Earth. This assumes that the central cores of the planets are composed of the same material that is found on the external crust! It ain't necessarily so..

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

narsep replied on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 17:58 GMT
Dear Alan,

My drawings are nothing to compare with Leo's, however his have science in them too (humour). As far Newton's "fundamental mistake" I agree that his prove for his gravitanional theory is totally wrong but his theory seems to be right (I really have not found a reasonable prove of it).

Regards, narsep

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 10:07 GMT
There's a good reason why he's wrong though. It's the explanation for the 100,000 year ice age cycle. Milankovitch cycles are not very good if you look into the subject in detail. See the six major problems that arise. The inclination cycle, the up and down motion of the Earth, is a much better fit than eccentricity, which is described in this excellent paper Spectrum of 100-kyr glacial cycle: Orbital inclination, not eccentricity. The suggested mechanism is wrong, but can be replaced with a non-standard core model of the Earth and Sun. The inclination cycle could generate inclination earth-tides, which would increase the strength of the ocean currents. This is a crucial factor in determining the onset of glaciation. It's a good fit, but no-one seems to have thought of this idea before. It's a lot to understand in one go, but well worth the effort imo. Best wishes, Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author ioannis hadjidakis wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 14:46 GMT
Dear all,

please see file attached

ioannis

attachments: Now_that_the_contest_has_closed_and_the_reading_of_incoming_essays_is_limited_THE_TIME_HAS_COME_to_clarify.doc

Bookmark and Share


Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 19:00 GMT
Infinity/2 ???

You lost me.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ioannis hadjidakis replied on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 06:30 GMT
All the details are in the essay. Please read the full essay and not only the abstract.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 10:32 GMT
perhaps dear Eckard you can explain him the alephs of Cantor and the real distribution of numbers.

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author ioannis hadjidakis wrote on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 13:55 GMT
Let us suppose that you collide two beams of protons with opposite directions with the high energy that Large Hadron Collinder (LHC) can provide, what you would expect, according to NCS, concerning the flight direction of the particles produced. That you would get two groups ("flocks") of particles. The ones that would depart from the point of their generation (BB of their local NCS) and would be within their real reality space (X, Y, Z) (with max angle between them approximately 125 degrees) and their entangled antiparticles directed towards the opposite direction (their virtual space) with the same max angle between them. This is in fact the latest "inexplicable" phenomenon observed during LHC's experiments (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=particles-
that-flock).

Bookmark and Share



Author ioannis hadjidakis wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 09:45 GMT
Please see file attached:

good luck to all.

attachments: holography3.pdf

Bookmark and Share


narsep replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 18:52 GMT
Please in holography3.pdf file above replace the word "radical" with "radial".

Furthermore in order the events to be unique we have to include space expansion as well.

best wishes for all,

ioannis hadjidakis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sridattadev wrote on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 19:08 GMT
Dear Ioannis,

I have read your essay and agree with your explanation. Virtual part of the reality is the intellect and conscious realm in us. Until we include our inner most self in to the equation we will not be able to understand the universe or reality or virtuality fully. Please see the essay titled Theory of everything that I have posted in this contest at your convenience as I would like to share my experience with you.

who am I? I am virtual reality, I is absolute truth.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

narsep replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 17:41 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,

thanks for your thoughts. As an admirer of your country's culture I would say that science is a play during our unrest personal times.Together with arts give something to "think" about for those they do not trapped in aggressive games (way of life) of our times. Unfortunately we are a tiny happy minority we see things like this.

yours,

Ioannis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 12:13 GMT
Siddartha Gottam shall speak with Seneque about the universal love. Its sister the compassion as a torch of all hopes will tell us the truth of a water drop. The real humility is when we listen the wind and its heart.We are walkers of the Universal sphere, Catalyzers of the aim, this physicality in optimization, and we contemplate these creations.At this moment we loose our contemplations and we survive in an ocean of confusions and stupidities. The quiet of minds is difficult due to these lost of our contemplations and creations.We add our bad habits and we continue to imply the chaos.The problem is so simple and so complex in a global and local point of vue.In all case the harmony will take the above,it's logic, never the chaos can continue, it's just a short moment in a locality.Thus of course the universality and its meanders of consciousness shall be the rational road of universal love .We are still youngs at the universal scale, and the future is the pure improvement, the pure optimization of the planetarian spheres and its lifes......The responsability becomes a so important parameter for this optimization of physicalities.The Entropy and its cooling has an aim ......simple and evident....the universal and eternal sphere .....it's the future!

Best Regards thinkers and walkers of stars....and don't forget the humanity is like a rainbow a diversity of colors unified, united in the light....it's difficult to turn off a big fire with one water drop, nevertheless a whole of drops makes Ocean.....Take care brothers of the universe.

Steve humble walker.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 23:00 GMT
Yiassou Yianni,

I just had to drop in and say hello! My youngest daughter spend all last year at the University of Ioannina studying Greek. And if she could, she would be there in no time. She loves Greece and the peace of mind and freedom she feels there.

Yia hara,

Constantinos Ragazas

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

narsep replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 17:47 GMT
Yiasou Constantine,

Greece is indeed a country with exceptional culture, although well hidden.

Always welcome, Ioannis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 01:15 GMT
Yianni,

Next time you go to the Castro section of Ioannina, look for Cafe Filistron. There ask for Nikiforo. Give him my greetings and tell him that Melina sends her love!

Constantinos

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

narsep replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 07:44 GMT
I'll certainly do.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Tobias Fritz wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 18:20 GMT
Dear Ioannis,

finally I would also like to get to your essay and ask some questions:

(1) Are your ideas supposed to lead to new theories of physics? Or are you trying to formulate the existing theories in a new way?

(2) According to general relativity and its coordinate invariance, a coordinate system is not a property of a physical system. Rather, as theorists we are completely free to choose any coordinate system we want, and our final physical predictions are going to be independent of the coordinate system used. So why do you attribute this importance to the coordinate system?

(3) Can you motivate the distinction between the "real coordinate system" and the "virtual coordinate system"?

(4) You state on p. 6, "a real observer [...] in 3D space he could conceive [...] 1/16 of the whole 3D space". Can you explain the physical idea behind this? I find the statement confusing, since I, as an observer, can apparently conceive all of 3D space! I do not perceive any holes or corners in space...

By the way, many thanks for the email, much appreciated! I will respond to it in private.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author ioannis hadjidakis wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 10:28 GMT
Dear Tobias,

Ans.1: What I propose is the use of a new coordination system (NCS) that could accommodate all physical interrelations (e.g. holography) among existing physical entities and does not inpose unatural ways of conception (e.g. negative numbers) or excludes physical interrelations by its inabilities. I feel that existing theories of physics could uncover new possibilities when they will be hosted to NCS and may new theories (physical rules) are formulated. So, a staightforward answer is: BOTH.

Ans. 2: In continuation to my previous answer I suggest that most physical constants are not really constants. They are dependent of Universe's age (the distance from NCS' origin ("Big Bang")) and hence there is NO "coordinate invariance" as now physisists think. So, relativity needs to be reconsindered and this is really important.

Ans. 3: As Godel incompletness theorems state we are not able to include everything in a consistent theory and there will always be an unknown part of physical reality. This part can not be whithin our conceivable world because we would sometime be able to know; the only way to accommodate it is to "invent" the "virtual" part of our universe (that happens to explain many unexplicable phenomena in an unexpected simple way).

Ans. 4: I really can not understand your question. Do you conceive the space between electrons? Or velocity? or freedom? I hope your answer is that you can not conceive any of them but you have some (strong) indications of their existance. The same happens with the unconceivable part of our universe; we can not conceive it ("unconceivable") but we have some indications of it.

I am sorry for the abstract way of my expression but I tried to answer as simple and clear as possible (not figures this time).

Best wishes,

ioannis

Bookmark and Share



basudeba wrote on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 06:04 GMT
Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria – suggestions for improvement.

Sir,

We had filed a complaint to FQXi and Scienticfic American regarding Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria and giving some suggestions for improvement. Acopy of our letter is enclosed for your kind information.

“We are a non-professional and non-academic entrant to the Essay...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hadjidakis wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 12:09 GMT
Corrections:

5th paragraph of discussion: our universe is expanding like an expanding sphere with a velocity 2c (instead of c).

6th paragraph of discussion: v=c/r=2.3E-18 sec-1 (not =3*E-6 sec-1). Values of E (energy) and of "mass quantum" should be corrected accordingly.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

hadjidakis replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 12:14 GMT
Correction (of corrections):

5th paragraph of discussion: our universe is expanding like an expanding sphere with a velocity c/2 (instead of c).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 13:48 GMT
Dear Ioannis

You wrote:

"How can a spacetime or other continuum—with continuous symmetries—emerge from a 'digital' description?

What is the nature of space? How would a discrete universe expand without the discreteness becoming evident? Or, does it become evident?"

I thinking about it lot of time until get answer from Stephen Weinberg

see my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

You can read also my old essay

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.