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