Dear Sergey,

You are absolutely right. Time reversibility is not fundamental. The recent XXI Solvay Conference on Physics has been devoted to fundamental irreversibilities in Nature. The proceedings have been published in the volume 122 of Advances In Chemical Physics. The section four, titled "Extension Of Quantum Theory And Field Theory" contains irreversible extensions of the simple time-reversible equations. For instance, an extension of quantum field theory to study unstable particles in quantum states outside of Hilbert space was presented. My own work on the arrow of time must be considered a generalization of the dynamics of correlations developed by the Brussels-Austin School (pages 261-276 of the proceedings).

I am happy to find in this contest so many people that agrees that black holes are only a mathematical idealization. The idea behind strong gravitation is particularly interesting to me. I have read something about the analogies between strong gravity and QCD, but my knowledge of this topic is very superficial. Your remark of that it is related to a Lorentz-invariant theory of gravitation has increased my curiosity and I wait to learn more about this subject in brief. Thank you for the link.

Regards

Dear David,

Thank you for the kindly words. It is really fascinating that we run parallel starting from different foundations and following different ways. I do not consider the proton a fundamental particle, because I am using the Wigner classification. I may confess that I use the ordinary matrix model of the spin and that I have not advanced in the search of a more fundamental model. If it exists I could not find it! Therefore, I am glad to read what others have done.

Regards.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #26

Hi Juan, I specifically voted as a community member and used my code. I took note of your public rating and number of votes before and after I voted. I have no idea why your public rating was changed instead of your community rating. I wonder if this is a bug.

I'm sure there is a log of site activity that the moderators can check on to see what happened. If you know who to contact, maybe you could contact them and explain the situation. I will vouch for it.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #28

It turns out that I had voted on a different paper, earlier, using my email address. Even though I specifically used my key to vote on this paper, the cookies apparently processed the vote as per my previous email vote. I was able to vote a second time on this same paper, using my key, and this time it registered as a community vote instead of a public vote. So I have now voted twice on this one paper.

Dear Juan,

Lorentz-invariant theory of gravitation (LITG) may be used only in weak field approximation and for simple version of quantum gravity. Yes, in the LITG Lagrangian used in Strong gravity after substituting the gravitational constant by \Gamma. In common case instead of LITG must be used Covariant theory of gravitation (CTG). The CTG has Lagrangian where contribution of gravitational and electromagnetic fields has similar form including field tensors. Thanks for the references. By the way what does mean V` in the equation (1) of your paper `Modified Newtonian Dynamics and Dark Matter from a Generalized Gravitational Theory` at viXra.org ? Is it the velocity of massive source m` ? I do not found there decision of 4/3 problem. As it is known the 4/3 problem is difference of mass-energy of field in energy and in momentum of field of a body in motion.

Sergey Fedosin

    Hola Juan

    This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

    This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

    Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

    A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

    An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

    Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

    Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

    Thank you and good luck.

    Vladimir

    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

      James,

      thank you for your interest!

      As I wrote with some detail in my message of day 23 in your own forum, you are completely right when asking for the attractive aspect of gravity. Asking such questions provides a fundamental picture about our universe. It was a pleasure to me to read your essay and found this resonance with my ideas.

      Regards

      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

        Peter,

        I really enjoyed your beautiful and relevant essay, which deserves evaluation by the judges without any doubt. I already stated my opinion about Dark Matter in my essay, but I will answer your specific question in your forum.

        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

        I managed to obtain a copy of an email sent from a member of the FQXi Technical Support (his identity will be disclosed if needed) that confirms that some authors were allowed unlimited voting of others essays. This must explain why some people, including myself, dropped 50-100 positions in about 15 minutes, when all were in the top ranking during one or more weeks.

        The email has date of the day 3 and says "This problem was temporary, and has been corrected." Well, it seems that the problem was not corrected.

        At the same time, I have seen a pair of essays ascending lots of positions (more than 260 positions in one very suspicious case that everyone has noticed) in the same time span.

        Moreover, I have also noticed that my public rating and that of people around me has dropped by someone giving us a "1".

        More info at the contest blog

        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

          12 days later

          • [deleted]

          • Post #43

          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.