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.
Flaws in EPR Paradox, Standard Model and Other Theories Indicate That Theoretical Physics Is Dead by Constantin Leshan
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.
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
[deleted]
Your work is mentioned here
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]
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]
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