Hi Manuel

I really appreciate your comments. Definitely I'll take a look at your essay as soon as I can. I'm just arriving to the contest and there is a lot of material to see. I'm intrigue that you say that GR plays a crucial role at small scales. As I mention in my essay the final goal of physics is to find a unifying theory and if you claim that you have it, I'm open to persuasion.

Thanks again and good luck!

Regards

Israel

Dear Sreenath

Thanks for leaving your comments and for the invitation to read your work. I'll read it as soon as possible. I just arrived to the contest and I already have a pile of essays in my list, including yours.

I wish good luck too!

Best Regards

Israel

Dear Antony

I'm glad that you have enjoyed reading my work. I'm also looking forward to reading yours. I do indeed think is worth trying to recover an intuitive picture of the world. This will give us a new insight of physical reality.

I wish you good luck in the contest!

Best Regards

Israel

Hi Alan

Thanks for reading my essay and leaving your comments, I'm happy that you have found it entertaining. I realized that the topic is controversial and I thought that it would be fun to invite Alice and Bob for a nice chatting.

You: ...thus deriving general relativity in a simple intuitive way. This picture also avoids non-locality, indeterminacy and entanglement.Yes, this is all highly heretical, but is more logically consistent than the orthodox approaches.

I'm curious about how could you derive GR. Heresy is not bad as long as the approach is logically consistent and make the right predictions. I'll definitely take a look at your work. I wish I had more time to read them all, so please give me some time, I'll take a look at it asap.

All the best

Israel

Hello Dr Perez!

It is so nice to see you take part in this contest too. I very much enjoyed reading your essay and sincerely hope it too will be a winner.

I decided to join on the fun in a spur of a moment 2 weeks before the deadline and now, waiting for mine to show, wanted to tell you that, while I was writing this essay, I changed my mind on Absolute Ref Frame -- remember I denied it on practical grounds? Looking at SR as a theory of relativity of information, I suddenly saw that an absolute frame is a very useful, practical, concept, for we could place in it all the info that we know must be there, but is not available to us at the moment. I could not help thinking of you then.

Good luck and have fun :)

    Dear Israel,

    Thank you for the reply. While, as you have seen, we have many points of agreement, your answer developed well the point of disagreement. I am fully for intuition and for pictorial explanations. But I have the feeling that we use different definitions of intuition, and here may lie the difference. For example, mine include bad and god variants of intuition. Intuition can fail us, and can help us. When you say "intuition", you seem to refer to only the good one: it is always correct, and if it is not, the cause is external. You say people's intuition was wrong because they did not have enough information, or because religion influenced them. Therefore, information is obtained by other means, which are experiments and logic. After gathering information about the solar system, it is not hard for intuition to admit that the Earth is moving. So, this kind of intuition seems to be useless, because always states what is believed at that time. The second thing that you say distorted intuition was religion. Well, religion did not come from math or from experiment, it came from people's feelings that the loved ones and us should not really die, that it has to be a divine justice to repair the injustice in the world, etc. In other words, from intuition.

    If some pope during Copernicus's or Galileo's time had the intuition build on the incomplete knowledge at that time, that the Earth is not moving, how could Galileo appeal to pope's intuition to explain that in fact it is moving?

    Similarly, if in the times of Einstein people rejected relativity and tried to explain the same phenomena by using the ether theory, which their intuition said it is right, should Einstein give up and explain everything in terms of the ether? Maxwell's equations are so simple, but trying to explain them by ether or gear mechanisms is so complicated. SR is so simple, define just by a 4x4 matrix. GR is also so simple, just the geometry of a curved 4D space. I don't say they are complete, but much simpler than any alternative tried so far, based on ether etc. And when you train your brain in that math, intuition grows, and you have indeed an intuition for them. It is not true that nobody understands 11D or landscapes. Also, it is half true that nobody understands QM. Some understand it better than others. While I have some inside information that many quantum theorists write articles in the plain formalism of QM, they use "secretly" one or another interpretation of QM. They use the intuition, and get new results, and write them in a pure formal manner. Also, in the most abstract math, people don't derive the results by making blind calculations, which they don't know where will lead. They use simplified models to grasp the ideas, then they apply to more complex and more general structures, and generalize, and get the results. Sometimes, in geometry or GR, they calculate using index notation, then replace it with the modern notations. The most abstract branches of math, and the most difficult branches of physics, advance, even those 11D, because people build their intuition in parallel to technical abilities. Those who are too good to use models and intuition, in general are less successful. Now, what I said so far is based on anecdotal evidence I collected in private conversations, guided by some intuitions I have about the creation process in science. It is not backed by a study or at least a poll (you may remember that recently at least two polls are made about how physicists see QM, and the polls are very contradictory).

    Often, intuition in one domain is useful to solve problems in another one. I am thinking at imports from statistical mechanics in QFT, or at the imports from condensed matter. You said "Giving the mathematical analogies of these systems with the quantum vacuum, some physicists have suggested that the vacuum could be indeed a quantum liquid, i.e., a state of condensed matter [17]." I would like to emphasize in what you said "mathematical analogies". The question is, after using an analogy like this, when we want to learn about quantum vacuum, should we also learn condensed matter physics? The analogy is useful to make discoveries, and to explain, but at some point, the analogy may be no longer needed. Even if we want to rewrite everything based on common sense, condensed matter physics also is far from the common intuitions of the lay persons. Intuition has to develop in parallel with the more technical parts. It should not be a Procustian bed to cut the math to fit in our Lego/Meccano/Minecraft-based intuition.

    My intuition tells me that we essentially agree, and the discussion was just to clarify possible misunderstandings :)

    Best regards,

    Cristi

    • [deleted]

    Dear Israel,

    As already noted, I agree with your essay and with the point that common sense and intuition have served us well in the past. But the profession of physics has grown from a relative handful of brilliant individuals to a worldwide industry. And it's questionable whether the physics community (at least the theoretical side of it) could be kept busy if it were constrained to common sense and intuitive physics. By allowing abstract theories of phenomena that are unobservable, either in practice or in principle, there is no limit to the papers that can be published. And if it's too abstract for the funders to understand so much the better. Such physicists can be kept busy forever while producing nothing of practical utility.

    So while your idea is excellent, and, I believe, correct, it is nevertheless unlikely to take hold. On the other hand, the proliferation of abstract nonsense is so frustrating to those who seek understanding (versus professional advancement) that some kind of reaction appears to be brewing. We'll see.

    You mentioned "the worst theoretical prediction in all physics," i.e., the 120 order error in vacuum energy. As I noted in my essay, this has not made a dent in the use of virtual particles in physics, despite the dependence of these entities on local energy. In order for sufficient energy to exist locally to support virtual particles, the vacuum energy must everywhere (i.e., globally) be stronger than it appears to be. On the other hand, the local gravitic energy need be strong only in collisions, where the concentrated energy can produce particle creation and associated jets. This is exactly the physics implied by the non-linearization procedure I describe in my essay.

    But the physics I describe is based on interpretation of the gravitic field as a "material substance". Thus I was happy to see your discussion of the magnetic induction as indicative of materiality of the vacuum, versus some abstract geometric substance-less nature. A very nice example.

    I would also mention that Vishwakarma's current essay discussing the fact that the GR stress-energy tensor does not support either the gravitational self-interaction or the angular momentum of the gravity field. The angular momentum 'is' the C-field, and the nonlinearity of this field is key to particle level concentrations of energy. As you noted on my essay page, the nine page limit constrains the number of equations one can present, but the trail of equations is growing quite long in my theory, and covering a growing number of phenomena. I hope and expect my n-GEM technique to apply to problems in which gravity has not been applied before (successfully!). And these applications are all compatible with intuition and common sense.

    Best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Israel,

      Your article seems to prematurely conclude at the point where it says:

      "A: I got your point. As I see it, this may be a matter of semantics..."

      I must confess, I don't see your point, because the differences between the various theories are not merely a matter of semantics.

      For example, there is quite a fundamental difference between Tegmark's MUH and the "universe as a simulation" hypothesis. For starters, the universe as a simulation is not even truly compatible with the laws of quantum physics, which show that the period inbetween observations cannot be simulated. Moreover, the concept of a simulation implies that the universe is represented by a configurational state which changes as a function of time -- which again, is contradicted by findings in quantum physics showing that there are temporal dependencies across the time dimension, not to mention that relativity shows us that there is no global reference frame for time. Thus, the only way to represent the whole of spacetime in a formal system is to represent all past and future events simultaneously, which is not really what a simulation is.

        Dear Israel,

        Thank you for the nice reply. You are correct about the theoretical experiments and simulations, especially when the equations have real and imaginary values to be setup initially.

        I feel when you are conducting real observational experiments, there should not be any manipulations. What do you say?

        You got a very good way of presenting things with a smooth flow of English. You made us understand about the current research in a well manner. There are no equations ....

        .....

        .....

        I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

        I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

        Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

        Best

        =snp

        snp.gupta@gmail.com

        http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

        Pdf download:

        http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

        Part of abstract:

        - -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

        Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

        A

        Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

        ....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

        Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

        . . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

        B.

        Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

        Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

        C

        Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

        "Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

        Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

        1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

        2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

        3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

        4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

        D

        Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

        It from bit - where are bit come from?

        Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

        ....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

        Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

        E

        Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

        .....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

        I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

        Best

        =snp

        Hello Dr. Perez.

        Your essay seems to be a call to everyone to go back to basics, or at least change its current direction. I note in other essays references to criticisms which speak to the ever widening gap between scientists and their ability to understand each other, and I suspect if that continues we may see more and more schisms within fields as well as between fields. There are also concerns that the ever growing numbers and the ever diminishing returns in pure science are starting to worry those who see chit chat evolving into squabbles over nothing.

        My essay comes out of left field, and I suspect it is being dismissed out of hand by those too busy to notice, because on first sight it doesn't fit into the normal chit chat. It's title "Hierarchical Space-Time" is not doubt an instant put off, but then I found I had to take ten steps back in order to find a rock solid enough to keep me grounded. I would appreciate any criticisms you may have, because in the end it is better to be criticized than ignored.

        Zoran.

          Hi Israel,

          To follow up -- while it is true that Mach's principle does not figure into the mathematics of general relativity, the philosophy of Mach's principle does motivate GR, as Einstein himself admitted. In fact, Einstein agrees with you that such "common sense" virtue *should* motivate the mathematics by which we make closed logical judgments on how nature behaves.

          It is special relativity that limits the common sense of Mach's principle to local events, which makes it uncommonly hard to unite those events with the global assumptions of Mach. If all physics is local, though, as Einstein avers, I think you will like the part of my essay (it isn't yet approved for posting) that deals with finite sets of infinite things.

          All best,

          Tom

          Dear Sir,

          Your essay begins with a conversation of Alice with her friend and ends with both enjoying the discussion. So is the reader, who is guided through a maze of analysis with suspense in each turn like the experience of Alice in the Wonderland till the reader - laymen included - ends with enjoying the essay. We must admit, midway we cheated and switched to the last para to come back again after being satisfied with the conclusion.

          A computer program is GIGO - garbage in garbage out. It cannot go beyond its programming. Hence it is bound by the ideas of the programmer like a work of fiction. In view of the chaos theory, can we trust simulations without back up data in the shape of independent information? A small mistake or lapse or ignorance in the initial conditions may make giants out of Lilliputians. Incidentally, believing space and time to be discrete does not make them discrete. Taking out pots of water from the ocean does not make the ocean full of pots of water.

          Dimension of objects is the perception that differentiates the "internal structural space" from the "external relational space". Since such perception is mediated by electromagnetic interaction, where an electric field and a magnetic field move perpendicular to each other in a direction perpendicular to both, we have three mutually perpendicular directions. Mathematical space always contains one dimension less than physical space.

          The graph may represent space, but it is not space itself. The drawings of a circle, a square, a vector or any other physical representation, are similar abstractions. The circle represents only a two dimensional cross section of a three dimensional sphere. The square represents a surface of a cube. Without the cube or similar structure (including the paper), it has no physical existence. An ellipse may represent an orbit, but it is not the dynamical orbit itself. The vector is a fixed representation of velocity; it is not the dynamical velocity itself, and so on. The so-called simplification or scaling up or down of the drawing does not make it abstract. The basic abstraction is due to the fact that the mathematics that is applied to solve physical problems actually applies to the two dimensional diagram, and not to the three dimensional space. The numbers are assigned to points on the piece of paper or in the Cartesian graph, and not to points in space. If one assigns a number to a point in space, what one really means is that it is at a certain distance from an arbitrarily chosen origin. Thus, by assigning a number to a point in space, what one really does is assign an origin, which is another point in space leading to a contradiction. The point in space can exist by itself as the equilibrium position of various forces. But a point on a paper exists only with reference to the arbitrarily assigned origin. If additional force is applied, the locus of the point in space resolves into two equal but oppositely directed field lines. But the locus of a point on a graph is always unidirectional and depicts distance - linear or non-linear, but not force. Thus, a physical structure is different from its mathematical representation. Since the extra-dimensions have not been found even after more than a century, how long shall we perpetuate this fantasy?

          The states of matter are described by their dimension, which differentiate the "internal structural space" - bare mass from the "external relational space" - the radiative mass. It is perceived through electromagnetic radiation (ocular perception), where an electric field and a magnetic field, move perpendicular to each other and also to the direction of their motion. Thus, we have three mutually perpendicular dimensions. For this reason, we classify the states of matter as solid, fluid or gaseous, depending upon whether the dimension is fixed, unfixed or unbound.

          Your argument against multiverse includes argument against the equivalence principle. The light ray from outside can be related to the space craft only if we consider the bigger frame of reference containing both the space emitting light and the spacecraft. If the passengers could observe the scene outside the space-craft, they will notice this difference and know that the space craft is moving. In that case, the reasons for the apparent curvature will be known. If we consider outside space as a separate frame of reference unrelated to the space craft, the ray emitted by it cannot be considered inside the space craft. The emission of the ray will be restricted to those emanating from within the spacecraft. In that case, the ray will move straight inside the space craft. In either case, the description of Einstein is faulty. Thus, both SR and GR including the principles of equivalence are wrong descriptions of reality.

          There is a problem with Tegmark's views. Mathematics explains only "how much" one quantity accumulates or reduces in an interaction involving similar or partly similar quantities and not "what", "why", "when", "where", or "with whom" about the objects involved in such interactions. These are the subject matters of physics. These are not baggage. The left hand side of all equations depicts freewill since we are free to change the parameters. The right hand side depicts determinism, since once the parameters are changed, the outcome is fixed. The equality sign, which links both, depicts special conditions, which must be satisfied the reaction to take place (such as certain temperature threshold).

          You are welcome to visit our essay:

          "INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776" published here on May 31.

          Regards,

          basudeba

            Israel,

            Absolutely excellent essay and wonderfully refreshing approach, right in line with my own thesis. I also enjoyed your presentation method, though it perversely departed from reality somewhat in that Alice hardly got a look in! lol.

            But seriously it was an absolute joy to read. Can you really drag physics back to the physical world? Many other may then understand the propositions in my own essay, which clearly to me provide all required resolutions, but you're clearly correct in the implication, conscious or not, that its not a case of having to FIND the right solutions, it's a case of thinking in such a way that, hiding right before our eyes, they become visible. I believe much may now become visible to you well before most.

            I'll comment no more for now as I'd very much like you to read and comment on mine, but there are a number of compatible themes I'd like to discuss.

            Very well done, and thank you for restoring my faith in at least part of physics.

            Best of luck

            Peter

              Dear Israel,

              An essay with a refreshing approach. Many comments have been expressed on this blog especially those of Peter Jackson, Anthony, Cristinel, Basudeba, etc which I agree with so no need repeating.

              My first and probably only question for you is this: When did we start losing our "common sense"?

              You state that common sense was lost in the XXth century. But I disagree. Someone and his pupil, wrote a book called Elements more than 2000 years ago and upon which ALL current physics is based, geometry, the science of space, being crucial to all physical theories, both quantum and classical.

              In that book, lines were drawn and despite what we could see with our eyes, we were told that though the lines physically existed, they had no breadth. This was hotly disputed but eventually overlooked. And up till today no one has demonstrated a line without breadth or a surface without depth in this world. Or have you seen such a physical (not mathematical) surface or line?

              The consequence of this for physics in a real world is also unaddressed. Mathematicians can enjoy the study of objects in a Platonic world, but this luxury is not open to physicists. Physicists are to study the things in this world and not in a Platonic one.

              Therefore, I argue that if we have to regain our common sense we should start from where we started losing it. A natural consequence is that space will assume substantival properties and other consequences must follow from this. If we start from the XX century, we run the risk of starting all over again after encountering paradoxes again down the line.

              All the best.

              Akinbo

              *If you find the time, comments on my essay will be welcome.

                Dear Tom

                Indeed, Mach's principle was an inspiration for GR. And I also agree that first one should have a picture in mind and then look for the appropriate mathematics. Although, in modern physics, most theoreticians works in the opposite direction.

                Thanks for your comments. I'll look for your essay as soon as it appears.

                Good luck in the contest

                Regards

                Israel

                Dear Satyavarapu

                Thanks for your comments.

                You: I feel when you are conducting real observational experiments, there should not be any manipulations. What do you say?

                I agree, that's professional ethic. In my career, I'm not aware of manipulations of results. It may happen but honestly it is very rare. Nobody will risk his career and reputation for a thing like that. Experimentalist report what they get, whether it agrees or not with theories and models.

                You: And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

                If we knew reality, we wouldn't be doing physics.

                You: We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule..

                I agree. To be honest this is a relatively new field in physics, so we don't know much about the universe. The proposals that you hear are the first attempts to explain the observations, but there are still many speculations. So, you are welcomed to put forward your version of the cosmos. But if you are planning to do that you should do it professionally following scientific protocols.

                I'll try to read your work asap.

                Good luck in the contest

                Regards

                Israel

                Dear Cristinel

                Thanks again for your comments.

                Indeed we can talk about different kinds of intuitions, but in any case I think our mathematical picture of the world should be aligned with our intuitive one.

                You: If some pope during Copernicus's or Galileo's time had the intuition build on the incomplete knowledge at that time, that the Earth is not moving, how could Galileo appeal to pope's intuition to explain that in fact it is moving?

                Strictly speaking, one could easily explain the notion of system of reference which I think is very intuitive too. Well, as I said in my essay, electrodynamics, classical mechanics, thermodynamics, optics, mechanics of fluids, etc. they are very intuitive.

                You: should Einstein give up and explain everything in terms of the ether?

                Lorentz succeeded in explaining (what we now called) relativistic phenomena using the ether. Actually, Lorentz' ether theory reproduces the same physics as special relativity. it was only forgotten because of SR was axiomatic, simpler and easier to handle, but that doesn't mean that Lorentz' theory is wrong. It is still valid.

                You: Maxwell's equations are so simple, but trying to explain them by ether or gear mechanisms is so complicated.

                Well, Maxwell attempted to give a microscopic explanation of the mechanisms involved in electromagnetic phenomena and, actually, to a certain extent he also succeeded, but for practical matters, at that time, his formulation was unnecessary. Today, it is necessary to understand the structure of particles and the quantum vacuum. So in this sense, we are continuing the job that Maxwell did, what are then strings, loops, causal sets, axions, etc.? They are nothing but the modern version of Maxwell job.

                You: It is not true that nobody understands 11D or landscapes..

                Of course, only those who know the math will understand the meaning of this. Same for QM and any other abstract theory. The others will have to conform with the mathematical interpretation which obviously they won't understand. This is my concern, we should look for more credible explanations, 2 or 1000 dimensions in math there is no problem, but are they real or just a mathematical artifice derived from the symmetry and the beauty of the equations? This is the part that many physicists don't buy.

                You: Also, in the most abstract math, people don't derive the results by making blind calculations... ...and get the results.

                Yes, I'm aware how models are constructed, I agree, I just saying that we need to have a clear picture of the physics. For instance, the wave-particle duality. Many people argue, that these two notions are complementary. I would say that light cannot be both things. So, what I'm having in mind is that there is something more fundamental than a particle and a wave that encompasses both concepts. When we understand that a particle and wave have a common source we will dissipate this duality. We intuitively understand what a particle and a wave are, but when we deal with an experiment such as the double slit experiment our picture of light is as a wave, and then when we talk about the photoelectric effect our picture of light is a particle. Obviously, for intuition light cannot be two things. My proposal is then to propose another physical object that reproduces both aspects of light. Then we would have a mathematical formulation of this object and an only one intuitive picture of light. I'm working in this part.

                You: when we want to learn about quantum vacuum, should we also learn condensed matter physics?

                Well, if this solves the problems and simplifies the physics, the answer is affirmative. But, I don't think it would be necessary.

                Finally, I'm aware that math is fundamental in physics, I don't deny it but from my view the present unifying proposals are failing to give a credible description of the world. Giving this status, I will do as much as possible to create a theoretical framework for a unifying theory that can be as intuitive as Newtonian mechanics. The last section of my essay makes this feasible. However, we have to be conscious that the task is titanic and therefore it would take some time.

                Best regards

                Israel

                Hi Vasilyeva

                It's nice to know about you again. I'm also glad you enjoyed reading my essay. Thanks also for the wishes, it'd be great if my essay make it the finals.

                I just watched that your essay was published, it'll be nice to read it, I was very much delighted last year with your work and I'm sure this time you also did an excellent job. I'll read it asap. Glad to know that you found an advantage of the privilege frame I wish most colleagues did the same (sarcasm).

                At the moment, I only have a request for you, If it is not much to ask, I'd be very happy if you could tell me your name. Thanks

                Best Regards and good luck too!

                Israel

                Hi Edwin

                Thanks for your insightful comments. I'll address them the best I can.

                You: As already noted..., ... appears to be brewing. We'll see.

                I agree with this, but in recent years things are starting to change due to the fact that the abstract approach is not giving the expected results. There exists a moderate movement of important physicists and philosophers supporting the old way of doing physics. Actually, the FQXi project is one the consequences. Of course, the change would take some years more.

                You: i.e., the 120 order error in vacuum energy..

                Since most physicists believe that GR and QM are both correct, they ignore the anomaly. As long as there is no other alternative theory to replace QM or GR, the anomalies remain there until a new theory solves it. Recall for instance, the Michelson-Morley experiment. From the perspective of Maxwell's theory it was an anomaly, and it remained as such from 1887 until 1904-5.

                You: But the physics... ..substance-less nature. A very nice example.

                Yeah, this is clear for many physicists, but some others don't even understand it. It seems that relativity causes a blinding effect.

                You: I would also mention... ...common sense.

                I think you did a great job, and it would be nice if you could publish your results in scientific journals, that would grant scientific status and recognition to your work. Barbour is a case similar to yours. I'll take a look at Vishwakarma essay asap.

                Best regards

                Israel

                Hi Stuart

                Well, if we just fixed our attention to that sentence, we could notice that Alice is not sure at all. She says "may be a matter of semantics". That's her guess based on the poor knowledge she has of the topic. However, in a broader sense the sentence is related to the unification problem. The problem is the same and unique. So, to solve it there are several approaches. LQG proposes a theoretical context with a 3 dimensional space, loops, background independence, etc. whereas string theory contributes with 11 dimensions, calabi-yau spaces, strings, etc. and so on with the other alternatives. In this sense, this is a matter of semantics, because every theory tries to solve the same problem with a different UNDERSTANDING and thus MEANING of the reality.

                You: For example,... ...observations cannot be simulated.

                Indeed, due to the lack of space in my essay I couldn't go into the details and the complications that you are pointing out. I agree, that the computational formalism has many problems. One of them is that it only works with discrete units. The US army and NASA have had a terrible time with this because sometimes accuracy is very important to control the trajectory of projectiles and computers cannot get all the real numbers. This severely limits the scope of this approach.

                You: ...not to mention that relativity shows us that there is no global reference frame for time.

                In this part, I have a disagreement. Indeed SR excludes this kind of frames, but in my previous essay I discussed that the preferred frame of reference is not at variance with the principle of relativity. You may wish to take a look at it: http://www.fqxi.org/community/essay/winners/2012.1#perez. As well you may wish to take a look at Daryl Janzen's essay from the past contest and the present one. He also supports this view and he was one of the winners in the previous contest.

                Regards

                Israel