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

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 3/9/11 at 22:02pm UTC, wrote Peter, I'm glad someone else is starting to think this way. My month of...

Peter Jackson: on 3/9/11 at 13:04pm UTC, wrote Marcel I was enjoying reading your essay as a well written fresh approach,...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 3/9/11 at 2:53am UTC, wrote This last image contains the charge and spin rules and a few examples of...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 3/8/11 at 4:36am UTC, wrote My charge rule is faulty! It does not even follow my primary u= +2/3 and d=...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 3/8/11 at 4:12am UTC, wrote 2011-03-07 This game has a goal and it is looking at me; the standard...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 3/4/11 at 5:31am UTC, wrote Double OUPS! The .bmp file was too big. Here goes again as .jpeg. Marcel,

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 3/4/11 at 5:26am UTC, wrote Oups! Here is the negative muon decay sequence attached.. Sorry! Marcel,

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 3/4/11 at 5:22am UTC, wrote I needed to find the structure of the muon neutrino. First, I had to figure...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "Thanks for sharing Georgina,it is nice.Friendly" in Alternative Models of...

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

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

Lorraine Ford: "With the “A.I. Feynman” software, Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Georgina Woodward: "Coin toss co-state potentials: With the measurement protocol decided, in..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "If we correlate with the consciousness, can we consider that all is..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Ian Durham, Maybe still for the rankings and the links with this..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...


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 22, 2019

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: The Lost Treasure by Marcel-Marie LeBel [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 15:07 GMT
Essay Abstract

The lost treasure. That’s what it is. Imagine … a few centuries of Greek philosophy, in a box, left behind, unattended! Greek philosophers pounded many questions with logic and they came up with two fundamental questions: What Substance makes the universe and what is the Cause that makes it work? Those Greek philosophers were very popular in those days and for the next thousand years. But little came out of it. Then, from somewhere between Galileo, Newton and Descartes, these questions were slowly put aside, on a shelf. It was found to be very effective to use an empirical approach by forgetting about the two fundamental questions and by treating the universe as a black box. Our experiences of the black box were now described by measurable concepts of mass, time, length, etc. and theories so formulated would lead to actual predictions. You know the rest…. But! But this “black box”, and its unknown content, is still back there, on that shelf where it was left four centuries ago! The content is still unknown, and the two keys to open it, are the two fundamental questions. In order to seriously address the metaphysical questions of “flow of time” and “causality”, I will have to give it a crack; try to open the box and expose its content. The content of the box is nowhere near what you can imagine or let alone accept! So, for now, just take it as entertainment, because, such a crazy idea can only be left on a table for someone to peak over. This essay explores the Flow of Time, Digital description and causality in the light of a Substantial Approach.

Author Bio

BSc Biology 1979, Three years in environment, 25 years in a forensic laboratory in counterfeits.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 23:00 GMT
Hello Marcel-Marie ,

it is good to see that you have entered an essay in the competition.

You have brought a very different philosophical approach to the question and as you say just place it on the table for consideration.I have not yet had the chance to study it in detail.I suspect there is quite a lot we could debate but it would not be constructive to do so here. It is good that lots of alternative opinions can be brought to the table for consideration in a competition such as this.I also think that substance has been overlooked but see from your essay that we differ greatly in what we mean by substance.

I hope that you get lots of interested readers and positive feedback. Good luck, Georgina.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Marcel-Marie LeBel replied on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 00:56 GMT
Georgina,

Glad to see you! Hey! Another biologist!

I wanted to describe a universe that could exist and evolve without the need for our observation, computers etc. I has done so already for a very long time..

It has substance and built-in Cause! The universe does not need anything else!

Good luck!

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share



Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 11:05 GMT
Hi Marcel-Marie, I really liked your opening with regard to the ancient Greek philosphers using logic. I totally agree about the jump from there to Newton and beyond. With regard to modern science thinking, I have a nagging problem with Newton not considering the Archimedes screw as a model for the particle of attraction, i.e. the GRAVITON. He missed a trick from the ancient Greeks imo. We now wouldn't have this spacetime continuum concept set in mathematical stone if it wasn't for this mishap! Nay mind..

Good luck in the competition,

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


narsep wrote on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 14:23 GMT
Dear M-M,

An excellent essay.

If you look to my contribution correlate Substance to Real and Cause to Virtual. I feel that a lot of authors are trying to express the same "thing" according to their personal conceptual method-practice.

I like your second paragraph in Discussion although it may cost you some rate points (we do not like to tell us the truth).

Good luck (to the contest),

narsep (ioannis hadjidakis)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 17:30 GMT
Alana, Narsep,

It's all Greek philosophy and substance. I see it in many essays where they are trying to say it in many different ways, because the question has a definite metaphysical dimension.

Good luck,

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share



Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 04:28 GMT
OK, I think I got it! Remember me saying the sum of the two conjugates of the photon fig. 1 is the Planck. Well, in nature, addition is also geometry. Planets don’t add mass by computing what is around in the vicinity. Planets add mass by getting this mass closer to their surface. Natural Addition, is like when we were kids and counting, and is about grouping closer together, like marbles in a pile. The same way, when I say the “SUM” of conjugates a and b, it means getting them closer. But how close? If conjugates a and b were added completely (no distance), the sum would be zero, because these variations all cancel out.

Then, the two conjugates still remain separated by an extremely small amount of time/distance and they actually never cancel out. This tiny distance is probably the original “spark” I alluded to in the essay.

So, the construction is still a Planck style wave with causal motion, and is therefore the smallest Planck photon possible on the EM scale! Wow!

The whole post explosion expanding universe is just a huge conjugate “a” whose lower causal time is the lowest possible time rate; nothingness / no time at all!

(For maths people) Somehow, the universe was kind of about getting from a zero a +1 and -1 with some time between the two so they never really add up or cancel out.....

Good night!

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share


narsep replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 08:23 GMT
"Then, the two conjugates still remain separated by an extremely small amount of time/distance and they actually never cancel out. This tiny distance is probably the original "spark" I alluded to in the essay.So, the construction is still a Planck style wave with causal motion, and is therefore the smallest Planck photon possible on the EM scale! Wow!"

The photon that is included in a Planck distance (wavelength = Plank Length) is actually the universe to its singularity state. This photon has the amount of all energy-mass the universe has. Notably that Plank length varies with Time Line (distance from Big Bang - Spark) getting longer as we depart from the "Spark".

Good day and deep inspired thoughts,

narsep

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 19:29 GMT
Marcel,

Haven't read the essay, but thought I'd first add a comment on the abstract and this post:

What if zero isn't a point, but blank space? Then the expansion isn't from a point, but that the entire space is in equilibrium and infinite. Now by having just a little disequilibrium, the resulting polarity would create energy and thus expansion, but since the universe is infinite, there is nowhere to expand, since the disequilibrium would manifest everywhere, so then it would have to collapse. The result would be a faint degree of expansion permeating all of space and interspersed with areas of collapse, ie, gravity and mass. Since this mass tends to heat up as it accumulates energy, the energy is radiated back out across space, further agitating the equilibrium. With infinity there is no loss of energy, since entropy only applies to a closed system. In an infinite system, energy radiated away is replaced by energy absorbed from neighboring sources. With a closed system we have to explain its spatial and temporal boundaries. What encloses it and how it forms. So an infinite system resolves those issues, but creates the problems we do have, with an ultimately unbounded system and how to explain it without reference to fundamental boundaries.

As I've mention before, the current oldest discovered galaxy is now at 13.2 billion lightyears and trying to explain how something large enough to shine that far coalescing in just 500 million years is far more an article of faith, than logic. I'm just waiting until they find another, slightly older one, for the issues concerning Big Bang theory to be seriously questioned.

Have to get back to work now, so I'll read your essay when I'm free.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 02:29 GMT
I just wanted to try my hand at the quarks using the time rate variation model... I found it to work quite well within the simple first generation quarks / leptons. In the attached image file I have the structures of the electron, positron, proton, neutron, neutrino and anti-neutrino with rules to go. I have the proton electron capture process and the process of conversion of the neutron to a proton + electron and neutrino.

Rules are simple:

1) Conservation of structures except for neutrinos..

2) Neutrino and anti-neutrino appear out of nothing (maybe a nudge ) and, consequently, they cancel out to nil. They are very useful mediator of transformation.

3) Causality of movement and time rate variations do work except for the neutron (the beast!)

4) The up and down quarks refer to the sign of the slope of the time rate variations.

Here no reference to mass, length etc. “time” only as time rate below and above a local baseline. In the case where “energy” would be of concern, the period T of the variation would be considered; the shorter the T, the bigger the power and “energy”.

Finally, the neutron is a problem! The causality structure for motion point inversely from what the time rate variations indicate!! Top right of the image... Causality points toward the left but the slopes (arrows) indicate a variation that would result from motion toward the right! I tried various tweaks... The only tweak correcting the situation is time reversal!! (time imploding instead of exploding) . Time reversal would change all the slope signs and give a particle d-u-u ( read from the front of the structure) with the proper direction, matching the causality structure. And, I don’t even address the three dimensional structure of these particle rotating...yet.

Other weird structures... e-neutrino is u-u and e-anti-neutrino is d-d.... All fun and games for now...

Marcel,

attachments: Wave_time_Quarks_.jpg

Bookmark and Share



Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 05:22 GMT
I needed to find the structure of the muon neutrino. First, I had to figure out the negative muon itself from its decay products based on conservation of structure. It is similar to the game “MasterMind”. The final structure of the negative muon in the attached figure causally moves toward the left. From the breakdown we see what the structure of the muon neutrino is. I have to check other decay process but, I suspect that the muon neutrino also can appear from nothing along with its anti-particle.

Rule allows flipping horizontally i.e. staying on the same side of the local time line (horizontal line, x axis) and keeping the time variation slope.

As usual, time variation changing direction carries a charge. In pairs, they cancel out. For example, in the negative muon of the attached figure, conjugate 1-2 carries a negative charge that cancels the positive charge of conjugate 3-4. The conjugate 5-6 left gives the negative charge of the negative muon. The magnetic moment would be related, in part to the number of variations present; odd= magnetic, even=non magnetic. I am exploring both the magnetic and electrical approach to those decay processes. For example, in electron-positron annihilation, the electric field collapse may create a kind of neutrino all sitting above (or below the local time line) which then flips into a full conjugate....

Now, with the structure of the muon neutrino, I can figure out many more decay modes and large particles. As mentioned before, the mass and “energy” is not considered at this moment. But remember that most of the mass is relativistic to begin with. The actual (rest) mass may be just the logically substituted time...

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share



Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 05:26 GMT
Oups! Here is the negative muon decay sequence attached..

Sorry!

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share



Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 05:31 GMT
Double OUPS! The .bmp file was too big. Here goes again as .jpeg.

Marcel,

attachments: wave_muon_.jpg

Bookmark and Share



Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 04:12 GMT
2011-03-07

This game has a goal and it is looking at me; the standard model table of particles. Here I got a table from Particle (elementary) Wiki and my wave model table is underneath.

I have a rule for Charge / Quadrant and one for Spin / Quadrant.

Charge and spin works o.k. for U C T , odd number of quadrants, taking first quadrant as U and fourth quadrant as U (different color U). Number of quadrants taken counter-clockwise ..

Second row, d s b, odd number of quadrants, requires the inverse charge/quadrant rule ... and then, spin & charge works o.k.

Third row, even number of quadrants, is of course charge=0.... But the spin +1/2 is not there???? Another rule??

Fourth row, odd number of full conjugates, 1,3,5. Charge is o.k. but Spin is -1 ??

Strangely, proton and neutron, from which a few of those structures were inferred, do not obey these spin and charge per quadrant rules ... Just a game ....

Marcel,

attachments: wave_model_elementary_Particles.jpg

Bookmark and Share



Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 04:36 GMT
My charge rule is faulty! It does not even follow my primary u= +2/3 and d= -1/3 !! How did I mix that up?

first quadrant charge = +2/3

second quadrant charge = -1/3

third quadrant charge = -1/3

fourth quadrant charge = +2/3

I tested it and proton charge = +1 and neutron charge = 0 !

I check it with the (my)charm and it failed ... back to the drawing board.....

I have to redo all these structures...

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share



Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 02:53 GMT
This last image contains the charge and spin rules and a few examples of structures produced using them.

Marcel,

attachments: wave_model_elementary_Particles_02.jpg

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 13:04 GMT
Marcel

I was enjoying reading your essay as a well written fresh approach, but I suddenly realised that it was a different view on a reality I propose in my own essay. (a good mark improved to a top one!)

The 'condensate' vacuum medium represents time in that it condenses oscillators to change it, measured by a simple wavelength change, or Doppler shift. Time is constant except where matter condenses to do this.

Astonishingly it is possible that this better describes both SR and GR, via the time shift (quantum) mechanism.

I hope you may also enjoy and highly rate my own essay, (I need the points!) It uses a rather different, but falsifiable approach, and has interesting parallels. (but the conceptual dynamics are at first hard to picture so don't rush it if you do). Do look at the lively string too.

Many thanks, and besy of luck.

Peter http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 22:02 GMT
Peter,

I'm glad someone else is starting to think this way. My month of March is crazy and I will try to squeeze in the study of your essay.

Did you have a look at my game with the standard Model table of "elementary" particle??

What do you

Marcel,

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.