Eight Assumptions of Modern Physics Which Are Not Fundamental by Juan Ramón González Álvarez

Juan,

For this contest, I decided to go through and comment on essays of interest and see what responses I got to my own essay. There are over 250 entries, so I narrowed down my evaluations. For only those who responded, I decided to reread and provide my evaluations before time expired, not making it a popularity contest but keeping in mind that I entered for an exchange of interesting ideas, whether I agree or not. Some concepts are superior and more persuasively supported.

Jim

Juan

I don't agree entirely with your proposals, but a very well written and argued essay, and one of the few, like mine, remaining on theme. Interestingly both of ours have 8 identified assumptions.

I do agree most, but I think Dark Matter remains an open question. I do have a preference for the Yukawa or 'screened Coulomb' potential over the Newtonian curve, but argue that as ions have a refractive index of n=1, are 'self focussing' of light (as in lasers) are otherwise invisible, may arise from pair production due to relative motion, are consistent with gravitational mapping and lensing, and are actually found at high densities where we have explored,.. then they may contribute significantly.

The last point is supported by the excellent Cluster graph and analysis in Richard Kinsley-Nixey's essay (Fig.2.) I'd be very interested in your views on that aspect of my essay, which derives not only CSL and the SR postulates but curved space-time from the quantum mechanism of coupling interaction (Raman scattering).

Thanks for an interesting read. I confirm I think you deserve a good score despite any differences of view. I hope you think similarly of mine. Being close should not mean adversarial scoring, so very best of luck in the results.

Peter

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Juan

I noted your praise of Peter's essay, and now see why you understood it, you were half way there. A good score coming. Well done.

Rich

Juan

Nicely written and argued, if needing to be evolved to match consistently with a real set of mechanisms. Congrats. I hope reading mine may allow consideration of the real measurement problem.

Regards

Matt

Dear Juan Ramón González Álvarez,

Your essay was a pleasure to read. It deals directly and unambiguously with the topic of the essay question and is set out in a very clear and matter of fact way. This is wrong and this is why, eight times and no nonsense. You challenge some very big assumptions and I think it was brave to put space-time right up there at the beginning. It could have scared some readers away, though you can probably say that directly and up front because of your biography, whereas others might be given a harder time.

I see from your biography that you are "working in a unified formulation of physics, chemistry, and biology". It would have been interesting to hear if you have a preliminary unified model or related ideas that could account for all of the mentioned wrong assumptions together and still give the observations that are made. There was no need for it in the essay, which is wonderful because of its simplicity and clarity. It would just have been particularly interesting to me. Well done and Good luck, Georgina.

Dear Juan Ramón González Álvarez,

The basic arena that is considered differently in Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe is the consistency of the matters of universe and its holarchy, in that the scenario of dimensionality of matters is imperative. Thus the following are the comparisons that are analysed with this paradigm:

1. As per this paradigm, space-time is not continuum but discrete on evolving from eigen-rotational string-matter continuum in that proper time observational with moving clock at the peripheral end of an eigen-rotational string-segment emerges with cyclic time for the dynamics of that string-segment. This indicates that the dimensionality that describes the emergence of dimensions from existing one-dimensional string matter is one of the fundamentals as per this paradigm.

2. Incompleteness of unitary evolutions on gravitational singularity and wave-function collapse that is resolved in non-unitary approximations is suggestive of considering eigen-rotational string-matter as one of the fundamentals defined in this paradigm to evolve unitarity.

3. Unreality of macroscopic time reversibility that is defined from microscopic time-reversibility with asymmetric time, reveals that the emergence of discrete cyclic-times in symmetry in the holarchy of eigen-rotational strings-segments; is one of the fundamentals described in this paradigm.

4. As the black hole thermodynamics that is the extension of ordinary thermodynamics is in analogy with the thermodynamics of the segmental universe described in this paradigm, the holarchy of universe is one of the fundamentals described in this paradigm in that black hole singularity and gravitational collapse are not expressional.

5. Inaccuracy of generalizing the Quantum field theory with String theory in state vector expressions is evocative of defining a string dynamics of eigen-rotations of string-matters that is one of the foundational mechanics described in this paradigm.

6. As the derivation of Geometric optics from Physical optics is only an approximation in that General relativity is obtained from Field theory of gravity, the gravity is considered as a tensor product of the string-matter segments on eigen-rotations and that is one of the fundamentals on this paradigm.

7. Discrepancy between the observed dynamics of large astronomical systems and the predicted dynamics by Newtonian gravity and general relativity by vast amounts of data, determines the availability of large quantities of a new kind of unseen matter of Dark matter and this explains that Dark matter is the non-observable real matters rather than fictitious matters by an observer cluster-matter in the holarchy of matters of the universe described in this paradigm.

8. As the chemical potential variability in localities that determines the variability of recession velocity between large structures in the universe is not deterministic of the homogeneity of universe in accordance with thermodynamics, the heterogeneity of cluster-matters of this paradigm is considered as one of the fundamentals on this.

Thus it can be concluded as though the Earth do not occupy an unusual or privileged location within the universe as a whole, it is having a privileged chemical potential in the distribution of that potential in the universe that is causal for the evolution of life on earth by the thermodynamic regulation of the matters of the universe.

With best wishes

Jayakar