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

Anton Biermans: on 1/31/12 at 10:09am UTC, wrote As a last remark, I am surprised that nobody (as far as I know) ever...

basudeba: on 3/20/11 at 5:58am UTC, wrote Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria – suggestions for...

Peter Jackson: on 3/11/11 at 18:52pm UTC, wrote Anton Brilliant essay! Absolutely the right approach, ..to science as...

Anton Biermans: on 3/6/11 at 3:52am UTC, wrote Dear Constantin, As to the eclipse, it is not light which bends around...

Dan Benedict: on 3/4/11 at 18:57pm UTC, wrote Anton, "If I understand your term 'cosmic time' correctly, then black...

Anton Biermans: on 3/4/11 at 3:01am UTC, wrote Dear Dan, If I understand your term 'cosmic time' correctly, then black...

Constantin Leshan: on 3/3/11 at 9:38am UTC, wrote Dear Anton, We can speak about the velocity of the photon with respect to...

Anton Biermans: on 3/3/11 at 2:55am UTC, wrote Dear Leshan, ''By definition, the velocity is the rate and direction of...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: "Superpostions are irrelevant to any description of a thing "as it is"; they..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "Be sure Joe ,you are not realist you know,you told us things that nobody..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "Joe, study a Little bit the evolution of this Earth,we have bones analysed..." in First Things First: The...

Georgina Woodward: "What exists unobserved is relevant to QM. Whether it is modeled..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "this second law is so important,my theory of spherisation and these quantum..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "I must explain what is the real meaning of Spherisation in my theory.It is..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Agnew: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." in The Demon in the Machine...


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
October 16, 2019

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: The Impossibility for the Universe to (Not) Exist by Anton W.M. Biermans [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Jan. 26, 2011 @ 10:45 GMT
Essay Abstract

Curious about the nature of reality, I ended up thinking about the reality of nature.

Looking at physics for answers, what struck me was how easily its laws are discarded when it interferes with our theories.

The reason to ignore laws of physics when it suits us seems to be that we don't understand their necessity from an engineering point of view, why a universe needs those particular laws if it is to create itself.

This, however, leads to inconsistencies, problems which as they are of our own making, cannot be solved, but instead generate useless theories of ever-increasing complexity.

The essay aims to show that no violations of laws of physics are necessary to rationally understand the magic, the mechanics of our world, though to follow the tale will take some effort, imagination and a willingness to let go of widely accepted, but essentially pre-Copernican ideas.

Author Bio

I studied chemistry at the Eindhoven University of Technology, terminated halfway between BSc and MSc, and, by self-study, familiarized myself with physics to what I suppose is an undergraduate to BS level.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Karl Coryat wrote on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 02:00 GMT
Anton: I am pleased to find a foundational-thinking essay that argues for the final rejection of absolute physics, and for the full adoption of relational physics. I am convinced that this is what we need to better explain the universe on very small and very large scales, as well as the "origin" of the universe and of life. Have you come across Carlo Rovelli's relational quantum mechanics? That is a formulation which rigorously addresses the problems you exposed, that we assume particles "to be the source of their properties, as if they are the private, mortgage-free owners of their energy" and "our stubborn insistence that a particle exists even outside interactions, as if its energy is a god-given property the origin of which it is not our business to ask." Well said!

You might be interested in reading my essay, which discusses how, in order for anything to "exist," the undifferentiated universe needs to be partitioned into subsystems that can be relational and interact with each other. This is basically a cosmological extension of your point about particles. The endnote is a decoherence thought experiment demonstrating that the most distant features of the Cosmos did not need to be predefined many billions of years ago -- as if we were "inspecting them from the outside" to borrow your words -- for us to observe what we observe. Of course, this is a decidedly non-Copernican view.

At any rate, best of luck in the contest!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 04:00 GMT
Karl: as to "the "origin" of the universe": A self-creating universe has no origin, nor does it need one as it doesn't exist as a whole: it by definition has no origin, no cause as a cause implies that it has passively been produced, created by some outside intervention. If particles create themselves out of nothing, out of each other, then they are each other's origin. Since they owe their existence to each other, to their continuous energy exchange, they are each other's cause.

As to: "in order for anything to "exist," the undifferentiated universe needs to be partitioned into subsystems that can be relational and interact with each other": I can agree with the idea that subsystems exist with respect to each other (and possibly define each other?), but also that they have some autonomy. However, if particle are subsystems, then this line also betrays our ineradicable belief that they would exist even if they wouldn't interact at all. Though particles certainly can keep existing even if nothing changes, they only exist to each other, to the world at large, for as long as they keep exchanging energy. If we somehow could cut off this exchange, then everything would stop to exist, vanish without trace, like the image on a TV screen would vanish if we cut off the electricity. The line suggests that the subsystems have an existence outside any exchange or interaction, as if besides the interactions it is programmed to execute, it has an additional existence, properties which are independent of anything, which is impossible. It is the classical belief that particles, have such an independent existence, an idea which, together with the idea that the universe is an object which has properties as a whole, lies at the root of the present problems in physics. In insisting that the universe has properties as a whole, in ascribing particles such extracurricular preoccupations, to have an autonomous existence outside of any exchange or interaction, we push them into the realm of metaphysics and make their properties incomprehensible.

Bookmark and Share



Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 02:25 GMT
UPDATE 1 – STRONG FORCE

If particles also are the product of their interactions, if their properties or identity can change if they’re subjected to extreme conditions, then the question is whether we can infer from collider experiments whether baryons (protons and neutrons) are built out of quarks, or if we only create quarks as they collide.

That QED treats the proton as a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


basudeba replied on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 03:02 GMT
Sir,

We are extremely grateful to you for raising some vital questions and giving us an opportunity to explain them.

In our essay we have described the meaning of "the object is in superposition of all possible states". Since all objects are continually evolving in time, and since we cannot know the true state of an object except for the instant we measured its state, we combine all...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba wrote on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 15:44 GMT
Dear Sir,

Kindly forgive our asking some elementary questions. But these are essential for our understanding or rather due to lack of it. We assume that by the statement: “the grand total of everything inside of it, including space-time itself, remains nil”, you mean the opposites cancel each other. But then it leads to two conclusions: perpetual chaos; so that the Universe recreates...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 06:30 GMT
Dear basubeda

As to your question whether there's: “perpetual chaos; so that the Universe recreates itself perpetually, or a one time phenomenon that lasts till the Universe reaches thermal equilibrium”: As the universe doesn’t exist as a whole, it cannot be in any particular state whatsoever: in a self-creating universe, particles have to create themselves out of each other, so they...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


basudeba replied on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 16:37 GMT
Dear Sir,

We cannot understand your logic. We believe that every physical theory must correspond to reality that can be tested and result of such experiment remain invariant under identical conditions. We do not believe that theory should exist independent of observation. Can you give one example of self creating mechanism, where "particles have to create themselves out of each other". Can any body create himself or herself. Whether creator can be creation. This violates the principle of causality, which is proved true from everyday experience. If "there's no inside border to limit that creation either", how can it be "seen" from "outside"? What does the sentence represent?

You say: "There's no need for something to enclose the universe in as it doesn't exist as a whole, as ‘seen’ from the outside". If it does not exist as a whole, how does it exist? By whole if you mean the new creations, then we can never know the whole? How does one define or describe or theorize something that cannot be known? Is there any corroborative evidence to what you describe? Or is it simply one postulate you present for public scrutiny? In that case, the postulate should deal with foundational questions and not flights of imagination.

We have given our views elaborately in various posts under different essays. All our theories are complete and simple and verifiable. We do not believe in high sounding words or propagation of the cult of incomprehensibility.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 02:11 GMT
Dear Basudeba.

Thank you very much for your questions as they help me formulate and explain what I mean. As my ideas have been developing over a long time (and still evolve), to me some conclusions have become so self-evident that I sometimes forget that they must be very strange to the unprepared reader. My problem is how to formulate these new insights in a language which in many of its...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 03:11 GMT
UPDATE 2 – TIME: CAUSE AND EFFECT

Just as there’s no point in space more special than any other (Copernicus), no point in time is more unique than any other: that would only be so if there’d be time outside the universe, a watch on the wrist of some outside Authority who sees the universe evolve as a whole, who sees generations come and go and who’s right now looking at us. However,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Constantin Zaharia Leshan wrote on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 21:26 GMT
Dear Anton,

Thanks for a refreshing essay, you are welcome. Your idea about that a universe can create itself without any outside help out of nothing can be real.

Sincerely,

Constantin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 02:51 GMT
Dear Anton,

Thanks for your post on my page.

One of the puzzling features of quantum theory which I mentioned is the presence of probabilities and the Born proabbility rule, and the related question of the collapse of the wave function during a quantum measurement. I could not figure out from your essay how you propose to resolve this puzzle, and will be grateful if you could elaborate.

Best regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 12:55 GMT
Dear Sir,

We have addressed this issue in reply to a post by Mr. Biermans under our essay. You may like to refer to it.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 02:28 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

Thank you for your question.

I was mainly concerned with understanding the non-causal character of quantum mechanics and its implications, and thus far have neglected specific questions such as yours, which are interesting and important. I'll try to find an answer but as I need to refresh my memory with a peek in Feynmans Lectures, this may take some time.

If...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Dan T Benedict wrote on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 23:23 GMT
Dear Anton,

You have written an interesting essay. It is obvious that you have thought long and searched deeply for the unique ideas expressed in your paper. You have definite and distinctive convictions which are good as long as they don't conflict with observational evidence. It is my opinion that we will probably agree more on your concepts regarding the microscopic nature of reality as apposed to your macroscopic views. In point, you obviously do not believe that we live in a evolving universe. The observational evidence should refute this belief. It is well known in the astrophysical community that the distribution of quasars and gamma ray busters are homogeneous in space but anisotropic in time, that is, these unique objects occur only at high red shifts, which is fortunate for life as these (in particular, the GRBs) are highly energetic objects that could severely effect biospheres of planets up to 3250 ly if their beam was directed at such a planet. How does your self creating universe explain the distribution of these highly unique objects?

Also, it seems to me that a self creating universe would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Does it, or does it not, and if it doesn't, how does entropy continually increase? I saw no reference to this in your essay.

quote per Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington:

"The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations -- then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation -- well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."

I look forward to your respondence.

Best Regards,

Dan

P.S. I have left a response to some of the misunderstandings and poor definitions on my part regarding some of your comments to my essay on my forum. IMO the Evolving Steady State Multiverse explains observations, anomalous and otherwise, better than either the Standard Model, i.e. Big Bang model, or your self creating universe and it does so without abandoning the second law.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Dan T Benedict replied on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 01:27 GMT
Anton,

I'm copying your reply you left for me on my forum and my response, since I believe it is important for the continuity for both of us.

You wrote:

Dear Dan,

Thank you very much for reading and even comprehending (at least partly) what I'm trying to do! What I do not, however, is saying that the universe doesn't evolve. Though things inside of it certainly evolve...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dan T Benedict wrote on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 01:32 GMT
and my response was:

Dear Anton,

After reading your last comment, I don't believe you fully read my essay.

You wrote: " if particles create each other, if they preserve and express their properties by continuously exchanging energy, then they would vanish if we could cut off this exchange like the image on a TV screen when we pull its plug".

I completely agree with this statement. This is why I proposed the FPC, so that particles aren't seen as just their own source. But in that principle, I referred to the universe as a whole, and that is IMO where you must have lost my meaning. By reading the entire essay you missed the most profound part, that is of the role of the BHs in the creation cycles of the universe! The universe doesn't contract in a Big Crunch (that would violate second law), but as it expands the mass-energy that was lost to BHs is eventually recovered in the new cycle. My model actually gives your model a mechanism for self-creation!

Your statement above is exactly why I proposed that mass-energy doesn't actually "fall into" a BH, as orthodox BH theory indicates, because it ceases to have any distinguishable meaning at the event horizons. This makes it a local boundary of the cosmos. I know it's against your philosophy, that the universe can have boundaries, so how does your model deal with BHs and the mass-energy that is lost to them? The universe can have boundaries *and* can still have the self creating aspects in which you embrace.

When I was constructing my model, I asked myself, is the universe in a continual mode of creation? I came to the conclusion that it had to be cyclical due to 1) constancy of a finite velocity of light for all observers in the universe, 2) the simplest explanation for redshift is cosmic expansion, 3) the isotropic distribution of unusual astronomical objects only at high red-shift; and I determined that most of the SMBHs in the universe are in a "white hole" mode currently (as in right now), but they only reveal this mode to extremely distant observers (i.e. in the extreme distant future)! This mode is then followed by the quasar/GRB mode and a galaxy forming mode all in the subsequent cycle. This model explains a lot of phenomena. Can your model explain why there are two separate sets of empirical correlations between SMBHs and their galaxies? Does your model give an elegant alternative hypothesis for dark matter? This is what you missed if you didn't read the whole essay.

Perhaps I didn't word like you would have, but if you re-read my essay and look past the statements that you disagree with, you may just see the beauty in it.

Dan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


re castel wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 15:33 GMT
Dear Dan and Anton,

Your discussion is quite interesting.

Perhaps you guys will find my essay interesting in relation to the ideas you are discussing. My essay is about the idea of motion transformations instead of the idea of space-time transformations.

I treat particles and waves, mass and fields as motion constructs. In my discussions I've explained a genesis formula that I derived according to the idea of motion transformations.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 03:36 GMT
Dear Dan,

I admit that I haven't understood you essay completely because my knowledge of GR is very limited. I do see that your FPC in some respects is equivalent to a Self-Creating Universe. However, as in a SCU the grand total of everything in it, including space and time itself, remains nil, it cannot have a beginning as a whole, so if with cosmic time you mean the time since the bang,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Anonymous replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 01:21 GMT
Author Dan T Benedict replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 19:32 GMT

Dear Anton,

I believe we have made much progress in understanding each others positions, and I think we are much closer in agreement than I first thought, although we still have our differences.

You wrote: "so if with cosmic time you mean the time since the bang, then you've lost me."

No, cosmic time only means...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 03:01 GMT
Dear Dan,

If I understand your term 'cosmic time' correctly, then black holes are much older than the 14 billion years of light-emitting objects: the heavier, the older they are.

"Gravity is not the major influence on the universe on the large scale, expansion is."

As to fairy tales, in my essay (and posts to your forum) I try to show that gravity is responsible for both the contraction of masses, the creation of energy at one scale and the simultaneous creation, the expansion of spacetime between the mass concentrations: they are the two sides of the same coin. In my view (weak) gravity powers or is powered by this expansion so we need no dark energy to explain why that expansion doesn't slow down. It is only the bigbang tale which needs inflation and dark energy to keep standing.

As to paradigm's, I think that a lot of theories have been built upon some fundamental misconceptions, theories on which have been built more theories, the latter theories granting the former ones a false respectability nobody dares to doubt anymore. So I find it hard to learn and use the lingo of the present paradigm without succumbing to the same errors. If to dispute the present paradigm requires me to learn it, to believe in assumptions which to me are misconceptions, then I cannot from within that paradigm attack it: I can only ignore it or point to the many contradictions it contains. As I've become suspicious about many statements of present physics, I had no other choice but to try to re-invent physics, starting from the assumption that QM and relativity theory describe the engineering principles of a self-creating universe. I find it easier to start afresh, to try a different approach since following the beaten path apparently hasn't led to any useful idea. As far as I'm concerned, string theory and the Higgs boson are useless as the problems they are supposed to solve are based on some fundamental misconceptions. To study, to learn all the intricacies of these theories knowing that they won't solve anything but are part of the problem, to me seems a waste of time.

Regards, Anton

Bookmark and Share


Dan T Benedict replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 18:57 GMT
Anton,

"If I understand your term 'cosmic time' correctly, then black holes are much older than the 14 billion years of light-emitting objects: the heavier, the older they are."

In general I would agree with this statement. There is no method to actually determine the age of a BH. For example, an IMBH could have a recent origin from the merging of two or more less massive BHs or it could be quite old. I would say that most SMBHs are old.

"As to fairy tales..."

You should read the third reference from my essay, I think you would really enjoy it. Here a copy of the reference and the link: [3] American Scientist, September-October 2007, Volume 95, Number 5, Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale?, by Michael J. Disney, http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2007/9/modern-co
smology-science-or-folktale


"So I find it hard to learn and use the lingo of the present paradigm without succumbing to the same errors."

I meant that in response to your statement: "I admit that I haven't understood you essay completely because my knowledge of GR is very limited."

GR is fundamental. IMO, it has some misinterpretations that have lead to incorrect understanding in cosmology and BH theory. These misinterpretations are what I'm exposing in my theories.

"I had no other choice but to try to re-invent physics, starting from the assumption that QM and relativity theory describe the engineering principles of a self-creating universe."

You've done a more than admirable job in presenting an alternative. But, my essay would be more comprehendible with a better understanding of GR. How do you know if your lack of GR knowledge hasn't caused you to omit something from your theory? That's all I was implying.

Dan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Constantin Leshan wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 12:42 GMT
Dear Readers,

There are three kinds of essays in our contest: 1) the essays with original physics research where all physics' information was created by their authors. Often such papers contain some errors or unclear propositions because it is very difficult to create a NEW physical theory (information). 2) There are essays-stories about physics which contain physics' information copied from the physics' textbooks or papers (for example authors Jarmo Makela, Singh, Durham, Funakoshi and so on). The author's commentaries like ''this theory is good, or not'' is neither original physics research nor new physics' research. These essays-stories cannot have any errors by definition because all physics' information was copied from the textbooks and other papers. 3) There are essays of mixed type containing mixed information (original research + physics' information copied from the textbooks and papers). It is clear that the authors of the essays-stories have advantages because their essays never contain errors since all Physics' information was copied from the textbooks or other published papers. However, it does not mean these essays-stories are better than essays with original research.

What kind of the essay must FQXi community support? If we support the essays-stories then we'll transform FQXi community into the entertainment community. For example, instead of my ''interpretation of quantum mechanics'' I could send the anecdotes about Bohr, Einstein or stories like Gamov's ''Mr.Tompkins in paperback''. It would be very interesting and fun. Another option is to create essays-discussions with Einstein, Bohr, or Aristotle following the example of Jarmo Makela. In this context, the next logical step is to organize a banquet for the authors of essays where we tell jokes and funny stories about physics. What is Our Purpose?

However, since the goals of the FQXi (the "Contest") are to: Encourage and support rigorous, innovative, and influential thinking about foundational questions in physics and cosmology; Identify and reward top thinkers in foundational questions, therefore I ask readers to vote for essays with original physics research rather than for essays-stories even if the first may contain some unclear information. In this way we'll encourage the fundamental physics research but not entertainment essays.

Sincerely,

Constantin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Dan T Benedict replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 21:35 GMT
Costantin,

I would say that I completely agree. I admit to enjoying the essays of which you are referring, but I haven't rated any essays yet, because I wanted to read them all, which is quite a chore, and then determine the "most qualified" to get the highest scores. Since reading all of the essays is so time consuming, I'll wager that a good number of the community hasn't and won't read them. So is the community rating system appropriate since an essay needs to be within the top 35 to be presented to the judges? Many of the essays that provide fundamentally novel ideas are typically more difficult to fully understand than with just "a brief look". Thank you for helping me determine which essays deserve the best scores. I only hope that those in the community that haven't rated essays yet will read your comments before doing so.

Best Regards,

Dan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 02:53 GMT
Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 10:00 GMT

Dear Anton,

Probably you mean the ''Black Holes'' by the word ''holes'', since I don't found any mention about my vacuum holes in your thread. There is a considerable difference between the orthodox notion of the Black Holes and my vacuum holes.

You wrote in this post ''the speed of light isn't a velocity but rather a property of spacetime''.

By definition, the velocity is the rate and direction of the change in the position of an object. For example, since light travels a distance ct during the time t, it is in agreement with the definition of the velocity.

I can add another flaw in the Black Hole theory: according to the theory, the magnetic field is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. Since the light (virtual photons) cannot escape from a black hole, therefore the Black Holes cannot have the magnetic fields.

Sincerely,

Constantin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 02:55 GMT
Dear Leshan,

''By definition, the velocity is the rate and direction of the change in the position of an object. For example, since light travels a distance ct during the time t, it is in agreement with the definition of the velocity.''

We can only speak about the velocity of an object with respect to objects if and when it interacts with them as it moves. Since the photon has no...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Constantin Zaharia Leshan replied on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 09:38 GMT
Dear Anton,

We can speak about the velocity of the photon with respect to its source and receiver. For example, if the photons were emitted by a star and then hit our detector, then we can speak about the velocity of the photons with respect to the star and detector.

Since the photon has no mass or charge, it cannot express its presence to the objects with respect to which it is supposed to move: having no mass, it cannot have a position. If it doesn't interact, exist to these objects nor the environment to the photon, then it makes no sense to speak about its velocity as there's nothing with respect to which it moves.

The photon has ENERGY, and therefore it curves the spacetime, according to GR. Therefore, a beam of photons curve the spacetime and interact gravitationally with the objects with respect to which it is supposed to move. You see during a solar eclipse that the stars along the same line of sight as the Sun are shifted. It is because the light from the star behind the Sun is bent toward the Sun and the Earth.

Since we assume that the universe evolves as a whole with respect to some clock outside of it, we assume the emission of the photon to (causally) precede its absorption elsewhere, according to that clock.

1) There is neither matter nor clocks outside of the Universe. 2) You try to introduce the Absolute Time measured by God-like clocks placed outside of the Universe. Remember, the Universe has no Absolute Time, no absolute frame of reference, and no absolute space. All is relative.

If particle A emits a photon which is absorbed by B, a transmission changing the state of both A and B, then A sees the state of B change at the time it emits the photon, whereas B sees the state of A change as it absorbs the photon.

''If particle A emits a photon which is absorbed by B…'' if you describe the EPR paradox then this description is not correct; Also, Quantum teleportation transmits quantum state only but not photons or energy, and this teleportation is not instantaneous. The initial photon is destroyed and then is recreated in the finish place.

I agree with you in sense that there are some problems with causality in quantum mechanics, in consequence of its inability to provide descriptions of the causes of all actually observed effects.

Sincerely,

Constantin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 03:52 GMT
Dear Constantin,

As to the eclipse, it is not light which bends around the Sun but spacetime itself which is curved and affects the physical relation between the distant star and the observer. To the photon itself, its path would be perfectly straight if not for the fact that to the photon there is no path, no spacetime distance between the points it is transmitted. If to the photon itself...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 18:52 GMT
Anton

Brilliant essay! Absolutely the right approach, ..to science as well. Reality is essential, and it's about time we left wonderland. 10 points doesn't say it!

I've found a door.... It's near where you envisaged it would be, ...it's astonishing, and proves you correct. It's all in my essay, which has masses conceptually in common with yours. You may enjoy the string too, including identifying particular departures from reality at fault (i.e. the real 'body' x,y and z were once attached to!).

I'm doing very well so far, and consistent with Edwins leading 'Cfield' and Regazas real maths which you should like, also Georgina P (Reality) and others.

Best of luck

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba wrote on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 05:58 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


Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Jan. 31, 2012 @ 10:09 GMT
As a last remark, I am surprised that nobody (as far as I know) ever remarked that adding a decimal to the Planck constant and subsequently settimg it equal to 1 in our equations, actually comes down increasing the magnification power of our 'microscope' with a factot 10, so if the Planck length would be an absolute minimum length (which I argue it is not), then with every new decimal we add to it, we decrease this 'minimum' distance.

If there is no reason why there ever should come an end to the number of decimals we can add to the Planck constant, then there can be no minimum distance.

Bookmark and Share



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.