Dear James,
Just now I sent a letter to mail@fqxi.org :
Please remove all the ratings which I made in the FQXi Contest ! Firstly I did not know that ratings averaged in this Contest. Instead of it I supposed that ratings are summed. So all ratings which I gave to participants of the Contest are wrong. In the second why it is impossible to change rating at the page of anyone if my opinion changed?
James, may you do the same and ask FQXi about it?
Dear James,
Just now I sent a letter to mail@fqxi.org :
Please remove all the ratings which I made in the FQXi Contest ! Firstly I did not know that ratings averaged in this Contest. Instead of it I supposed that ratings are summed. So all ratings which I gave to participants of the Contest are wrong. In the second why it is impossible to change rating at the page of anyone if my opinion changed?
James, may you do the same and ask FQXi about it?
Dear Sergey,
I suspect there's not much that FQXi could do to change things in this contest, unless they could possibly identify your ratings and retract them. Again, watching the rankings, I suspect there are others who did not really understand the effect their ratings would have. I'll see what I can suggest to the administrator. I imagine they (I think it's more like 'he') are quite busy at this time - perhaps they'll respond soon. Thanks very much for you efforts in this regard!
Sincerely, Jim
Hi Sergey,
There are guys who have written very nice words prasing other peoples essays, and hinted at deals (mutual high scores) "I scratch your back and you scratch mine". Then there are Community members who have access tothe FQXi main forum where their essays are highlighted. These two groups have not only have high averages a, they have high aggregates A and high number of ratings N. So occasional low rating (say 2 points) has only a very marginal effect of their average. But for those who have left things open for impartial rating, and who have a low number N, a low increment (say 2) to the aggregate has disastrous results.
A/N = a
(A + 2)/(N +1) = a' a' becomes very much lower than a.
I had already challenged an unscupulous canvasser of high scores and in retailiation my position had falllen significantly (just two days back)from about 120th to 160th. Now after your rating it went down about another 40 positions.
By your rating it is those who have already in a position of unfair advantage that gained. These are 'unintended consequences'. I know you did not mean them.
Best regards,
Viraj
Dear Constantinos,
Firstly, the entropy of stars is negative, and if the radius of star is little the entropy is more negative. Secondly we must take into account entropy of gravitational fields itself. Gravitons of low levels of matter carry negentropy to the high levels of matter. According to formula for entropy in the book Fizika i filosofiia podobiia ot preonov do metagalaktik, entropy is proportional to ratio of ordered energy of system to thermal energy of the system. Tensor of entropy has negative components too (the book `The physical theories and infinite nesting of matter`, § 21). I suppose that each scale (level of matter) in the hierarchy may be used as a frame of reference to the scale levels above it and vice versa. For example our reference frame at the Earth can be used for atomic research. I do not agree with idea of the most fundamental level (empty space?). If great metagalaxies interact with each other from the point view of their observers (which so great as the metagalaxies) it seems the space is empty. But in reality in the space a lot of stars and other objects. Speed of propagation of light is real constant for all space direction only in the reference frame 'local' to the 'ether', i.e. in isotropic reference system. In other frames real speed of light is another. See: Marinov S (2007). New Measurement of the Earth's Absolute Velocity with the Help of the Coupled Shutters Experiment . Progress in Physics 1: 31-37. ; Stefan Marinov (1983). The interrupted 'rotating disc' experiment . Journal of Physics A 16: 1885-1888. doi:10.1088/0305-4470/16/9/013. Bibcode: 1983JPhA...16.1885M. ; Eugene I. Shtyrkov (2005). Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with Geostationary Satellites. Proceedings of the NPA, Volume 2, pp. 201-205. Also speed of light is constant in inertial systems if all measurements are made with the help of two-way propagation of light signals.
Sergey Fedosin
I think that all the problems with ratings have origins in FQXi itself. Why at the site of FQXi we can not find information about the method of rating? Some of authors of essays think that there is absolute method when all points are counted, but they are mistaken. Since here is another method of relative score when all points divided to number of peoples who made rating. In this case the rating not is more then 10. The absence of information at the FQXi site about the method of rating do it possible when some group of people vote much for itself and less for other. It is wonderful why such situation conserve at FQXi for some years already.
Sergey Fedosin
Dear Sergey:
Thanks for your comments on my paper - -" From Absurd to Elegant Universe".
I have posted a response to your kind comments - please read.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh
To All:
My main concern about the ratings is the apparent subjectivity due to a lack of clear and objective criteria for the ratings as expressed in my posting (below) under my paper --" From Absurd to Elegant Universe".
-----------------------
Dear Sergey:
Thanks for your detailed explanation about the ratings calculations.
My main concern is that ratings lack any objective criteria for evaluation and hence are highly biased towards the current mainstream thinking. Such subjectivity would not help the physics community to progress physics towards identifying the critical missing physics, end the current deadlock, and achieving the final universal theory. I have earlier expressed the "lack of objectivity" concerns to FQXi management as described below:
--- --------- ----------------------
SUBJECT: Objective Criteria for Evaluation & Ratings of FQXi Essays
"Questioning the Foundations - Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?" forum provides a great opportunity to advance the state of physics/cosmology marred by irresolvable paradoxes and inconsistencies. However, in order to maximize the benefit of this valuable forum and contest, we must first define benchmark criteria to determine what is fundamental or basic. Without a uniform and consistent bench mark criteria, no definitive determination of the correctness or wrongness of an assumption can be made.
The challenge faced by any judge or community evaluator of the essays is what objective criteria to use to rate an essay. With so many wide ranging assumptions, physical concepts, phenomena, mathematical treatise, type of tests and validation schemes, rigor and depth of description, and impact as well as consequences of using the wrong/correct assumption etc., it is almost impossible to achieve a fair and consistent evaluation and rating of an essay. In the absence of well-defined evaluation criteria, the ratings and evaluations are expected to be highly subjective and biased towards the prevailing widespread mainstream thinking that has failed physics/cosmology in the first place as evidenced by the fact that 96% (dark energy and dark matter) of the universe remains unexplained by the most widely acclaimed mainstream theories today.
A quick look at the most highly rated papers by FQXi community, it is clear that both the level of interest as well as ratings is greatly biased towards the mainstream theories - QM and GR. There is hardly (with only minor exceptions) any consideration given to the missing fundamental physics that renders the addressed assumptions, questions, and answers irrelevant with regard to the ultimate universal physical reality. Without the proper identification and integration of the missing physics, tweaking or patching up the existing assumptions within the current theories may only be futile and wasted effort leading nowhere. A revolutionary out-of-the-box rather than an evolutionary fixer-upper or patch-up approach to physics/cosmology may be needed to avoid its current stigma and dead end conundrum.
The determination of "Which of our basic assumptions are wrong?" must also provide answers to some fundamental questions that remain unanswered on a consistent basis as of today:
1. Does the essay propose any New missing Physics or only evaluates the wrongness of assumptions within the current theories - QM and GR?
2. Are there credible evidence and arguments provided to prove the wrongness - why the assumption is wrong?
3a. Is there a corrected assumption proposed? and, 3b. mathematically formulated in a proposed New theory or within the framework of current theories - QM or GR?
4. Is the proposed approach or theory validated against the observed universe data?
5. Is the proposed approach or theory simple and efficient mathematical description that is demonstrated to be devoid of any singularities and known paradoxes?
6. Does the proposed approach or theory provide definite and consistent answers the following open questions to resolve the prevailing cosmic conundrum?
• Did the universe have a beginning - the Big Bang? Does it have an ending?
• What is the true nature of time and space? Is the universe expansion accelerating?
• Could the speed of light be exceeded? What is C? Do the universal constants vary with time?
• Are there parallel universes and multi-dimensions beyond ordinary three spaces and one time dimension?
• Is uncertainty or randomness the fundamental property of the universe?
• What is the photon mass?
• Why the cosmological constant is so small as compared to that calculated by quantum mechanics?
• Is there non-locality in the universe?
• What is quantum gravity? Does quantum gravity have an absolute time?
• Is there dark matter or anti-matter? Do black holes exist? Do black holes evaporate -Hawking's Radiation?
• What governs the creation and dilation of matter?
• What governs the quantum versus classic behavior and the inner workings of quantum mechanics?
• What is the ultimate universal reality? Is it digital or analog or else?
• What is the role of consciousness or free will in the universe? How could this be addressed in scientific theories?
In summary, to enhance the benefit of this forum to the real progress in science, only a wholesome and integrated scientific approach that addresses a set of comprehensive and holistic objective criteria must be screened and presented as the top rated papers or essays.
------ --------
Best of Luck and Regards
Avtar Singh
Dear Avtar,
I appreciate your opinion about FQSi as opportunity to advance the modern state of physics/cosmology, and necessity for FQSi to focus not only at the problem of rating procedure which is not clear, but also take into account Objective Criteria for Evaluation & Ratings of FQXi Essays. I am sure that your Objective Criteria may be useful for FQSi to change their policy. The next step is to pass this information to FQSi. At the moment their e-mails do not work.
Sergey Fedosin
Here is the opinion of Constantinos Ragazas at his page http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1406:
Sergey,
Thanks for pointing this out. And I thought it was my controversial topic! The math makes sense. And so does your critic of fqxi rules for selecting the final 35. As I already mentioned to Branden Foster, the number of finalists should be a percentage of the total number of essays submitted. And not a fixed number And there should probably be some broad categories for selecting a greater variety of topics, professional and non-professional, in the final group. Too much emphasis currently is given by the community to the more 'standard theories' with more extreme and exotic extensions of these. But this only gets us deeper in the rabbit's hole of unreality we are in. Raising such questions as my essay and others do, the 'professional physicists' of course would adversely react to what they just don't want to think.
I have no illusions about winning a prize! But just wanted to draw greater attention to the many results and ideas in my papers. Which aim to 'make sense' of physics. `Shut up and calculate` is not acceptable to me. Nor it should be to any other intellectually honest thinker.
Best,
Constantinos
Dear Sergey,
A Self-Creating Universe (SCU) doesn't exist as a whole, as 'seen' from without, so to say, so we cannot even ask, from the outside, whether it has a border.
According to the uncertainty principle, a particle of an infinitesimal energy has an infinite lifetime: as its position in space and hence in time is completely indefinite as long as its energy is infinitesimal, we can say that it always has existed and always will exist, though as the effects of its existence then are infinitesimal, we can as well say that it doesn't really exist. If in a SCU the mass of particles is as much the product as the source of the force between them so is a relative quantity, varying depending on their distance and motion, and they evolve in a trial-and-error process to an ever-increasing energy (which they do by contracting), but start out with an infinitesimal energy, then they have no sharp birth date so to speak, so their universe, their interaction horizon has no sharp border either.
If the mass of the objects within its universe also depends on the mass of the observing particle, the force it feels from and exerts upon such objects, then according to the particle, its universe starts to exist as it starts to exist itself, that is, as it starts to interact.
So whereas in a Big Bang Universe all particles have been created at the same time, in a SCU particles keep creating each other everywhere, always, so while a BBU has a beginning as a whole and hence a border, a SCU, as seen from within, has no border which is the same for all observers: a SCU looks, is different to different observers.
As any particle is at the center of its own interaction horizon, its own universe, two particles don't live in the exact same universe unless they are ate the exact same spacetime point: the farther they are apart, the less their universes overlap, the less what happens within the interaction horizon (which obviously has no sharp border) of one particle is related to what happens within the universe of the other.
Anton
Dear Sergey,
Thanks for your response and references. A lingering curiosity I have with every theory - what in your theory determines "being in the Universe"? And don't you agree this is a fundamental question that every theory must answer? As this determines 'physical existence'. As compared to 'mathematical existence' which never needs to be 'real'.
Constantinos
Dear Constantinos,
For any object its being in the Universe and physical existence is the next: 1). The object was born in the Universe (which as a system is so infinite as it necessary to include all forms and entities which were the base for formation of the object in question). The physical object can not exist without of its previous evolution and development. 2). Any physical object (including wane quanta) consists of matter in the form of substance particles which belong to low levels of matter in comparison with the level of matter of the object. For example a galaxy consists of stars, their planets, moons, asteroids, dust, gas, particles and so on. 3). All the known forces of Universe influence any physical object through its compound particles. 4). We know two long-range fundamental forces in the Universe - gravitational and electromagnetic. These main forces form any object and stationary fields near the objects are observable. The quanta of these forces are waves in fluxes of gravitons. These waves may have rotational structure and carry rotational momentum, energy and linear momentum, for electromagnetic waves they have name photons. As the gravitons we suppose: the quanta of neutrino; photons; relativistic particles similar by their properties to cosmic rays having electric charge. All the gravitons for the strong gravitation and usual gravitation appeared at low levels of matter. When stars of visible universe will transform in neutron star and white dwarfs the radiation of the stars will the base for new gravitons which will influence such great objects which are much more bigger then the metagalaxies. 5). We suppose that strong interaction may be explained with the help of strong gravitation and Gravitational torsion field in gravitational model of strong interaction. And the weak interaction is simply transformation of substance inside of objects under action of fundamental fields, fluxes of the fields or result of collision with other objects.6). The objects are open systems; they interact with fundamental fields and other objects. The flux of negentropy comes to the objects from the low level of matter by means of fluxes of gravitons. At the same time entropy have rise in the processes of collision of objects with other matter objects. 7). We found the reason of redshift in existence of nuons, which have mass about mass of proton and are similar by their properties to white dwarfs: Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. And the other reason is possible - the mutual interaction of wave quanta and dissipation of their energy. In modern cosmology we find unphysical `explanation` of redshift through space expansion. But space is not a physical object and its expansion may help only calculate the process but cannot explain it. The same situation is in general relativity which can not explain the reason of curving of spacetime near objects. And the same we find in quantum chromodynamics which tries fit experiments with the help of about 20 unexplained parameters!??? It is not a physics it is mathematical work only. There are not real substantial models of objects; instead of it we see only mathematical theories based on ideas of symmetry of properties of particles; and based on supposed forces from interaction of particles with virtual the same particles??? (how it is possible to explain interaction of two protons through virtual pions which must appear between these protons?).
Sergey Fedosin
Dear Hoang.
OK
Dear Janko,
Here are answers to your questions:
1.< You included strong gravitational constant which rejects some benefits given by general relativity. They are, the principle of equivalence, background free spacetime etc.> The general relativity may be changed by Covariant theory of gravitation . In view of it the principle of equivalence, background free spacetime etc. are not more benefits given by general relativity.
2. < You do not enough include quantum field theory and quantum mechanics, which are base of our world.> The approach of quantum field theory and quantum mechanics is very limited to waves form of calculation in physics and is probabilistic. It is not a common physical approach.
3. < Where do you obtain 4.3c?> From the similarity relation for speeds, see my essay. The characteristic speed of the proton substance is c and its rest (absolute value of total) energy is [math] M_p c^2 [/math] where Mp is mass of the proton. For the neutron star we have characteristic speed of substance [math]C_s = 6.7 \cdot 10^7 m/s[/math] and absolute value of its total energy is [math] M_s C_s^2 [/math] where Ms is mass of the star. From here the ratio is c = 4.3 Cs. Accordingly, the speed 4.3c is the characteristic speed for the substance inside of the particles which are inside of proton.
4. < I think that idea of strong gravitational constant is to reject contradictions against QM, which arise when black holes are smaller than Plank's mass. Am I correct?> From the theory it follows that Planck mass is equal to product of proton mass and similarity coefficient in size between star and atomic levels of matter. So the Planck mass is not a mass of a real particle, since there is should be similarity coefficient in mass, not similarity coefficient in size. In view of it strong gravitation do not depend on quantum mechanics and its Planck mass.
Sergey Fedosin
As for why you broadcasted "your" concerns on community scoring on "my" essays posting I do not know, however, if this action was to draw attention to your essay .... here you go...
You discuss nesting, but, what you do not say is that it is "information" that is nested (information is all you will ever measure), and, I had given a classical 4D description of information in last years essay (an experiment you can do for yourself should you be more curious using time to comprehend real information rather then warning others of "unduly" scoring methods). Anyway, you will see that you do not require a 5th dimention to "scale" this information, you need a ruler and a clock to measure the radially dependent 4D size of the information space "relative" to another - a ratio of measures.
Also, you say:
"Another objection to the Big Bang model is the inability of appearing in the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter of singularities and black holes as objects, absorbing any substance and not giving anything out [3], [8], [9]."
This in itself appears very confusing. Apparently you have not heard who "won the war" implying that black holes DO emit radiation and particles, and, "do not" swallow information that is forever lost.
You speak of many different mass types, fields, etc., which adds a bunch of smoking mirrors to hide information and make things that were meant to be simple look rather complicated and seperate.
On a good note, I do see the benefits in scaling, however, you seperate out different scales and site relative "importances" for each and site where life occupies ... on your 6th scale. All the scales are alive and each scale comes with different time constants ..... it is all about scaled life that shares duel information....
Regards,
Anthony DiCarlo
Dear Anthony,
thanks for your opinion. I do not believe in existence of virtual particles-antiparticles and in evaporation of black holes. Please take any proton which is not a black hole and have stable mass.
Sergey Fedosin
Dear Sergey Fedosin,
Thank you for taking the trouble to post your written concern about the scoring system being used to rate my essay in this august competition. I believe that one real Universe can only be existing in one real curved dimension located perpetually in one real here for the duration of one real now, once. In my real Universe there is only one real 1 of anything once. The Foundational Questions Institute saw fit to publish my essay uncut once. No realistic system of essay selection could be fairer than that.
Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 04:01 GMT
Dear Sergey,
A Self-Creating Universe (SCU) doesn't exist as a whole, as 'seen' from without, so to say, so we cannot even ask, from the outside, whether it has a border.
According to the uncertainty principle, a particle of an infinitesimal energy has an infinite lifetime: as its position in space and hence in time is completely indefinite as long as its energy is infinitesimal, we can say that it always has existed and always will exist, though as the effects of its existence then are infinitesimal, we can as well say that it doesn't really exist. If in a SCU the mass of particles is as much the product as the source of the force between them so is a relative quantity, varying depending on their distance and motion, and they evolve in a trial-and-error process to an ever-increasing energy (which they do by contracting), but start out with an infinitesimal energy, then they have no sharp birth date so to speak, so their universe, their interaction horizon has no sharp border either.
If the mass of the objects within its universe also depends on the mass of the observing particle, the force it feels from and exerts upon such objects, then according to the particle, its universe starts to exist as it starts to exist itself, that is, as it starts to interact.
So whereas in a Big Bang Universe all particles have been created at the same time, in a SCU particles keep creating each other everywhere, always, so while a BBU has a beginning as a whole and hence a border, a SCU, as seen from within, has no border which is the same for all observers: a SCU looks, is different to different observers.
As any particle is at the center of its own interaction horizon, its own universe, two particles don't live in the exact same universe unless they are ate the exact same spacetime point: the farther they are apart, the less their universes overlap, the less what happens within the interaction horizon (which obviously has no sharp border) of one particle is related to what happens within the universe of the other.
Anton
Dear Anton,
We can not use uncertainty principle for a particle of an infinitesimal energy so it has not an infinite lifetime as you think. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle connects Planck constant as a measure of action, and change of energy with the time of change of the energy. At the level of star is its Planck constant, see
), then there the uncertainty principle take place too. At every basic level of matter there is its own Planck constant. So for very small particles with an infinitesimal energy we have not an infinite lifetime. I am sure the Big Bang is a myth, so I do not agree that particles keep creating each other everywhere in the Big Bang.
Sergey Fedosin