Constantin

Great work from a nuclear physicist, but I can't agree 99% is wrong. I maintain Einstein was correct in estimating that we didn't know 1,000th of 1% of what nature HAS revealed (and of course none of what it has not), but I think we may now be close to that.

I also have to ask how we can have theory without observation to axiomise from and test logical consistency with? I suggest we must observe, which means experiment and explore, but it is the current 'interpretations' that are horribly wrong, due, as you say, to wrong assumptions.

I did actually co-write a paper on suppression, published in the Skeptical Intelligencer journal; http://independent.academia.edu/JacksonPeter/Papers/1920871/SUBJUGATION_OF_SCEPTICISM_IN_SCIENCE

Well done for the essay. but I fear that to overcome the problem we have to prove the established assumptions wrong. So I turned to that in my essay. I identify and falsify 8 specific prime assumptions, and show how all theoretical anomalies, paradoxes and inconsistencies can be made to vanish with a logical re-interpretation. I hope you'll read my essay and help at least to get it before the gatekeepers if you see fit.

Very well done, and hope to see your 'star' rising.

Peter

    Dear Peter,

    Thank you for information, I'll site your paper in my next paper about dictatorship in science. I agree with you about 'How can science progress if the mainstream cannot think outside its own box?'

    You write 'I can't agree 99% is wrong'. In fact, all 100% of gravity theories are wrong at least partially, including Newton's and Einstein's theories. For example, Newton's theory is not able to explain the cause of gravitation and phenomena at high velocities/strong gravitation, and GR is not able to explain inertia. From this point of view, all 100% of gravity theories are partially wrong and incomplete. Even the EPR paradox have flaws, in spite of the fact that it is one of the most discussed fundamental problems in physics.

    You ask 'how we can have theory without observation to axiomise from and test logical consistency with?' Einstein has created a great theory using pure theoretical methods only. It is an example that the human mind can create great theories using pure theoretical methods only, without experiments. I am sure that all laws of nature are logically bound. In this context, to discover new laws of nature we need good theoreticians rather than new particle colliders. We know enough experimental information about nature - the properties of particles, fundamental interactions and Universe; using this information, a good theorist could derive most laws of nature. For this reason, we must invest money in intelligence rather than in experiments. It is more profitable to invest money in a good theoretical school, able to educate good theoreticians than in senseless experiments. Since all modern physics is an Experimental Science, I fear that it indicates the general decline of intelligence of human race and backward evolution. The physics must be a Theoretical Science. The remedy I offer is to control the evolution of human race and improve the university teaching. Also, the dictatorship of mainstream theory must be canceled.

    You wrote: 'I fear that to overcome the problem we have to prove the established assumptions wrong'.

    To prove the established assumptions wrong, we must publish the convincing arguments in mainstream journals like Physical Review letters or Nature, but not in the Skeptical Intelligencer journal. However, I'm sure that all criticism will be rejected because scientists care about their positions and reputations. The main cause is that mainstream scientists control all funds and money in Science; Since mainstreams control billions of dollars, I fear that they will continue to search for Higgs boson even the next 100 years. In fact, we must destroy first the community that support these false theories.

    For the present particle theorist to be successful it is not sufficient to propose an interesting idea via written publication and oral presentation, but he also should try to build a community around this false idea. The best protection of a false theoretical proposal against profound criticism and thus securing its longtime survival is to be able to create a community around it. If such a situation can be maintained over a sufficiently long time it develops a life of its own because no member of the community wants to find himself in a situation where he has spend the most productive years on a failed project.

    Sincerely,

    Constantin

    6 days later

    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

      Dear Constantin,

      Nice paper. A few thoughts:

      1. The argument involving the cosmological horizon as a limitation on entanglement (pages 3-4) is interesting, and something I had not thought of before. Thanks for pointing this out.

      2. I agree that the SM is wrong, if only because it's based on a flat static Minkowski space background, which we know is not physically realistic.

      3. I'm not an expert on the quark model, so I appreciate the discussion here.

      4. I'm skeptical of QFT in general, so exchange of virtual particles fall under this.

      5. I agree that black holes are not geometric singularities. Then again, I don't think the manifold structure survives to arbitrarily small scales.

      6. On relativity, I agree with its basic principles, but I think something simpler than a manifold is involved at small scales. I prefer causal structures as a building block.

      7. Some of the LHC people talked about wormholes to try to get funding, but I don't think anyone takes them very seriously.

      8. Regarding scientific dictatorship, my hope is that over the next few generations independent exchange of information via free, open online archives for new papers will completely replace the dominance of the traditional journals. Funding will always be a problem, but hopefully information can at least be exchanged.

      I enjoyed your essay. Take care,

      Ben Dribus

        Dear Mr. Leshan

        I will comment Your essay can in eight main points:

        1. Your sociological analysis of development of quarks theory and other physics.

        2. Arguments against quarks.

        3. Argument against Higgs boson.

        4. EPR paradox in cosmological expansion.

        5. Only point particles are elementary.

        6. Virtual gravitons do not exist.

        7. Mass of black hole is lower than mass of starting star.

        8. Your Hole theory of gravitation.

        Answers to points:

        1. As I read this, it is fascinating. So, please write more.

        2. It seems to me like science fiction, because a lot of tests of quarks were made, not only scattering of electrons and neutrinos on nucleons. But, if you are correct, my formulae for hadrons are correct.

        3. I need to learn more about Higgs mechanism. I please for more arguments. If you are right, my formula for electron is correct and my theories of quantum gravity and uncertainty principle are correct. They are very simple.

        4. I suspect that you are wrong, but idea is good and need to be corrected. My suspicion is based because you here do not use any speed c of ~>c for communication. This is one thought experiment in semi-quantum gravity and maybe one corrected version will be so successful as Hawking's black hole. I have also one such thought experiment with rocket on photons propulsion.

        5. I think that hadrons are composed particles. But, it is a wide possibility, what is composed particles. For instance in my theory hadrons are built up from pions on some still unknown way.

        6. I agree with you.

        7. My theory is, that interior of black hole does not exist. So this partially eliminates this problem.

        8. I am not sure if you are correct. I need to read more about this.

        It is a problem because I do not have enough time to precisely judge essays. (The problem is also because some judge without messages and arguments.) But, if only one of points above is correct, you deserve 10 points. I hope that this will give you less than 35. order to placing in continuation.

        Best regards, Janko Kokosar

          Dear Benjamin Dribus,

          Thank you for support. You write 'my hope is that over the next few generations independent exchange of information via free, open online archives for new papers will completely replace the dominance of the traditional journals'.

          I fear that these free, open online archives will be overloaded quickly by spam and senseless papers. I am sure that the percentage of false papers in these free archives will exceed 90%; Therefore, all advanced papers sinks in an ocean of spam and false papers.

          For this reason, nobody would be willing to read these papers from free archives because they all are false - therefore it is the failed project. Hence, we need peer review in order to combat spam but without domination of the mainstream theory. Another problem is that many authors of alternative theories don't respect the author's rights.

          Sincerely,

          Constantin

          Dear Sergey Fedosin,

          In my view, the majority vote is the main problem of the rating process. It is generally known that scientific truth is not subject to the governance of majority vote. Scientific truth cannot be established by a majority vote, as history of science shows us again and again. History abounds in cases where only one person was in possession of true knowledge in a certain field while all the rest were mistaken.

          Even Democritus had said that questions of truth could not be decided by a majority vote. For this reason, the majority vote in our contest cannot find the best essay by definition. Another problem is that people are not able to read so many essays ~ 240. Since the best essay (scientific truth) is established by a majority vote, therefore this rating process is wrong.

          In general, the dictatorship of majority is the main danger for humanity.

          In my view, the best essay could be established by the small group of 2 - 3 very intelligent scientists (like Democritus) with different 'scientific outlook', but NOT by the majority vote. The majority vote will reject the best essays always. If FQXI will use the majority vote, they will never find any "top thinkers" in fundamental questions.

          If readers are going to rate my essay then please take into consideration that I have found the most important wrong physical assumptions in accepted physics. In spite of the fact that the EPR paradox is one of the most discussed fundamental problems in physics, I have found a wrong physical assumption even in the EPR paradox. For instance, the hundreds (thousands?) scientists are working on the EPR paradox, therefore it is very difficult to find any flaws here.

          Sincerely,

          Constantin

          Dear Janko Kokosar,

          You wrote that: 'If you are right, my theories of quantum gravity and uncertainty principle are correct'. There are hundreds of gravity theories which doesn't use the Higgs boson. In this context, there is a small (~1/100) probability that one of these theories is true.

          You wrote: 'My suspicion is based because you here do not use any speed c of ~> c for communication'. There is a method called 'Hole Teleportation' in my theory for superluminal teleportation of matter. However, your idea is very strange, about that the absence of superluminal communication may indicate that the entire theory is wrong.

          You wrote that:'It seems to me like science fiction, because a lot of tests of quarks were made, not only scattering of electrons and neutrinos on nucleons'.

          If some (quark) model tries to explain the internal structure of massive particles then all massive particles must have the same internal structure. Since a part of massive particles (hadrons) is made of quarks while the rest of massive particles (leptons) don't have any internal structure, then it is a fantasy only. And their scattering experiments prove nothing, since free quarks are not found, it is the misinterpretation of experimental data only.

          Sincerely,

          Constantin

          In the past contest I have found flaws and errors in ~ 20 essays, including leading essays. However, in this contest'2012 I decided not to judge any essays because Brendan recommended avoiding the judgment atmosphere. Nevertheless, since Dr. Crowell estimates my essay, I also have the right to estimate his essay.

          I saw Dr. Crowell's essay; it is a collection of statements copied from textbooks and Internet. For example 'The acceleration is directly proportional to a force applied to it. The momentum of a body is its mass times its velocity p = mv as determined by an inertial observer' - It is the statements copied from a textbook. Or another proposition: "D-branes are composed of strings in a way similar to a Fermi-electron surface in a crystal'. It is a statement copied from brane theory I repeat, it is not the copy/paste operation because he changes the words, but he copies the sense of statements. In the same way, I can show that the most part of his essay repeats the generally known information. Of course, it is not simply the copy/paste operation because the words are changed.

          Dr. Crowell simply republish the generally known information in order to fill his essay. Yes, maybe he changes the words, but actually it is the generally known information from textbooks. Does such essay-story that repeats the generally known information deserve any prize? I can produce 10 such essays-stories during a week.

          Let I illustrate how to prepare quickly an essay using the Crowell's method. For example, first I'll copy the fragments of text from academic papers about Lorentz symmetry, Heisenberg uncertainty, GR, Feynman diagrams. Then I change the words and formulae, and the new essay is ready for publication! Pay attention that it is not a copy/paste because I changed the words! Therefore the essay appears to be 'original' whereas it actually repeats the accepted physics.

          For example, Crowell wrote: 'The coupling constant G of general relativity (GR) with units of area, or G1=2 with units of inverse mass, while quantum field theories (QFT's) are unitless coupling constants in naturalized units'.

          You see, it is simply a story that repeats GR and other theories using other words. The contribution of Crowell is simply that he RETELLS the accepted physics (even if he copies the SENSE but not copy/paste).

          It is very difficult to create an original research with Unique information, but it is very easy to create the simple stories about generally known information like Crowell's essay. I propose to eliminate all such stories from contest because it is a fraud only; In such a way professionals make money.

          Sincerely,

          Constantin

          4 days later

          • [deleted]

          • Post #27

          Dear Mr. Leshan,

          Although (as usual) I substantially disagree with your scientific claims, it is surprising that, this time, I agree with lots of your claims against the wrong teaching at the Universities and against the peer-reviewed journals which reject the original papers contradicting the mainstream dogmas.

          Unfortunately, you are correct on these issues and this is a great problem for Science. In fact, in my opinion dogmas do not exist in physics.

          Best wishes,

          Ch.

            Dear Christian Corda,

            Thanks for the positive comments. I hope that your peer-reviewed journal will accept papers from dissidents.

            Sincerely,

            Constantin

            • [deleted]

            • Post #29

            Dear Mr. Leshan,

            My peer-reviewed journals will accept papers from dissidents if they will be serious papers with plausible axioms and careful mathematical computations. In fact, I am all in favour of being open minded about alternatives, but they must be properly formulated and plausible scientific proposals.

            Best wishes,

            Ch.

            16 days later

            Dear readers,

            Please feel free to evaluate my essay. Now I have found new flaws in accepted physics but it is too late to publish it because the contest is over.

            Constantin

            Write a Reply...