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

Hi Zoran

Thanks for leaving your comments. Indeed, the FQXi is one those projects that attempts to recover that spirit and at the same time is the result of a splitting in the physics community.

You: 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.

As I mention in my essay there are several proposals that attempt to explain physical observations. The number continues growing and the schism will be worst in the forthcoming years. Only few people have realized where the problem is but we are minority. So, this would take many years more.

I'd be glad to read your essay. I'll write it down in my long list. So, please be patient, I'll try to comment asap.

Best Regards

Israel

Dear Basudeba

Thanks for your comments and for the invitation to read your essay, I'm trying to keep up with the reading, so, it would take some time to read your essay, I'll do it asap.

You: Since the extra-dimensions have not been found even after more than a century, how long shall we perpetuate this fantasy?

This is what I discuss in my essay. Math is used in physics not only to model physical observations but also to quantify. Without math it would be impossible to make quantifiable predictions. The extra dimensions approaches are only models attempting to explain observations and quantify. If one disagrees with such or such view one should make a proposition and follow the scientific protocols. This is what scientists do. In particular, I don't agree with String theory and that's why I'm putting forward my conception of the universe.

I also feel that GR is not fundamentally correct.

Good luck in the contest

Regards

Israel

Hi Peter

Nice to read you again. I'm glad you had fun reading my essay. I'd like to answer your question.

As I mention in essay, there are many physicists who are confident that understanding space can take us out of the present conundrum but it would take some time to finish this titanic task. We just have to do some adjustments to our way of conceiving the intuitive reality.

As you may imagine I a have a long list before reading your essay but I'll try to do it asap. Thanks for reading and commenting my essay.

Best Regards

Israel

Hi Akimbo

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. In relation to your question, we have to keep in mind that classical physics is highly intuitive and goes along with experience and common sense, I would say that relativity starts to depart from common sense drastically and QM is a worst case. But, I'm working in fixing all these "mess".

The issue here is that physics has to quantify and this is why we need to use math as a fundamental tool, without math, physics loses its power of prediction and it would look as pure natural philosophy.

Do not worry, many physicists are confident that we have found the way out of the puzzle. The key is space. Thanks for inviting to read your essay I'll do it asap.

Best Regards

Israel

I found your historical perspective on the development of the ideas of physics to be very interesting - especially how over the centuries we've moved away from a balanced 'intuitive-abstract' take on reality, so that we presently greatly accentuate abstractions.

To pursue your thought, I'd say that we are progressively getting lost in abstraction, and that in a sense physics is painting itself into a corner where no-one can figure out the meaning of the phenomena that are being expressed.

This, I think you'll agree, is how we came to consider that the material universe is simply information. The concept that the universe is a computer-like system can only be taken so far - not very far, and probably not very usefully either.

The computer is cognition, and cognition is an imprint of observed phenomena, whether it occurs in the brain or in a machine.

In what way is the Cosmos an imprint?

I agree with you that our quest for a Unified Field cannot be framed in terms of computers 'taking over', but rather in those terms we have experienced and developed over the evolutionary span.

I was intrigued by the point you make about a vacuum not being devoid of electromagnetic properties. Does this not tie in with the concept of a field of Cosmae, all of which are interacting within a field of energy? Indeed, you speak of the correlation of space and time - and in this regard especially I think you will find much of interest in my essay: 'The Correlation of It and Bit in a Cosmic System'.

In it, I describe how this correlation occurs as a result with our Cosmic system's interaction with the General Field of Cosmae.

I describe our four fundamental forces as being the 'splitting up' of a 'Gravitational-Magnetic Force' that comes from the energy field that envelops our Cosmos - a Force that simultaneously affects each of its Particles individually, and sub-divides them into the three groups that define our Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive entities.

Both the Cosmos and the Observer are similarly affected by this Force, so that it maintains them in Correlation over billions of years.

Thus, the 'single-field' Cosmos (consisting of the Observer viewing the Cosmos) is replaced by a structure that accounts for our participatory Cosmos.

Your argument points us in a common direction: If we must retain the intuitions that are fundamental to our natures as evolving creatures, we must recognize the correlation that has always existed between the Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive realms.

Since you essentially conclude, I believe, that we cannot truly choose between 'Bit to It', or 'It to Bit' - is there not then simply a correlation between information and the physical universe? And in searching for a Unified Field, are we not simply searching for this correlation - not only as it applies to space and time, but also to the Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive realms?

I hope you will let me know if you think the points you raise are resolved in the Paradigm I've developed: Is it credible, does it contradict nothing that is known, and is it usefully applicable to all foundational questions - paving the way for these to be explored empirically?

Like you, I particularly value credibility - an equilibrium between intuition and abstraction that has always been, and will always be, a very strong and useful component in our evolution - and in the future of Physics.

    Dear Dr. Perez, this year I dared to to print my name bellow the title in my essay :)

    As an outsider I am a crank by definition lol. It's enough for me that my friends ridicule my participation in this contest. But I can't talk to them about physics. That's why I very much value your feedback and was thrilled to have talked to you last year.

    Thank you,

    -Marina

    Dear Hoang

    Thanks for leaving your comments and the invitation to read yours. I'll will try to read your essay asap.

    I agree with some of your points, the new theory should be as simple as possible, considering an absolute system of reference. Although as Newton discussed, we can only measure relative quantities. Objects have two motions absolute and relative.

    A theory should be written in mathematical language in order to quantify phenomena if a theory doesn't display a mathematical formulation it is not a scientific proposal (at least in physics). I recommend that you implement calculations in your theory. I wish you good luck in the contest.

    Best Regards

    Israel

    Dear Israel,

    You wrote "If space were trully Minkowskian, one would expect null electromagnetic properties." Can you please explain this to me?

    In your previous essay you argued in favor of something like a liquid ether. Trying to find out what can explain some inconsistencies in Einstein's belief concerning time and spacetime, I checked Michelson's expectation and got aware that the already corrected after a hint by Potier version was still incorrect. However, my suspicion was wrong. The incorrectness cannot account for the null result. Einstein followed Lorentz's hypothesis of length contraction/time dilution. I see a different and perhaps so far overlooked possibility. Will you be fair enough as to admit that it might be an alternative to your common sense view?

    Regards,

    Eckard

      Israel,

      If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

      Jim

        Hi Marina

        Beautiful name! It's sad that you have no friends to discuss about physics and nature, I understand why you are here though. I'm glad that you have found a place to discuss about your interests.

        Good luck in the contest!

        Regards

        Israel

        Dear Israel,

        I think that you are right that intuition plays an important role in our understanding of nature. I hope my essay does not disappoint.

        Best wishes,

        Antony

        Dear John

        Thanks for reading my essay and leaving your comments. I'm glad you enjoyed it. Please find my comment below.

        You: To pursue your thought, I'd say that we are progressively getting lost in abstraction, and that in a sense physics is painting itself into a corner where no-one can figure out the meaning of the phenomena that are being expressed.

        This scenario is starting to change, abstraction is not giving the expected results. The FQXi project is the result of it.

        You: ... This, I think you'll agree, ...and probably not very usefully either.

        Yeah, I agree, that proposal is just a vogue in physics, soon it will lose interest.

        You: In what way is the Cosmos an imprint?

        I think that computers are computers. I don't think the universe is a computer, so it doesn't imprint.

        You: Does this not tie in with the concept of a field of Cosmae, all of which are interacting within a field of energy?

        Like I said, space is not empty and we can conceive it as a pervading material field and ocean of energy so to speak. The idea is to see particles not as independent objects from this field but as excitations of it. This is very much aligned with quantum field theory in which particles are created from the field.

        From what you told me I'm curious about your essay. You mention: ...and sub-divides them into the three groups that define our Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive entities.

        Well, in physics we don't make distinctions such as organic or inorganic these are chemical concepts and not fundamental.

        You: Both the Cosmos and the Observer are similarly affected by this Force, so that it maintains them in Correlation over billions of years.

        Indeed, everything is correlated but there is a point in which one can assume, for the sake of simplicity in the theory, that those quantities or objects are not correlated.

        You: Since you essentially conclude, I believe, that we cannot truly choose between 'Bit to It', or 'It to Bit' - is there not then simply a correlation between information and the physical universe?

        From my view, the it from bit and bit from it is a matter of semantics or perhaps of taste. So it is irrelevant which one we chose, however, the first case implies a reformulation of our reality in terms of computer language. So, I wouldn't chose to switch to a different approach. Of course, there is more than just matter out there and I'm not sure what would be the right answer to your question. I'm sorry, I couldn't help with that.

        You: And in searching for a Unified Field, are we not simply searching for this correlation - not only as it applies to space and time, but also to the Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive realms?

        Yes, that is the final goal, to simplify the physics proposing a fundamental field, but, in my view, the field here plays the role of space itself. This is the connection. As I conceive time is nothing but change, but nobody understand change and what physical thing is changing.

        You: I hope you will let me know... ...these to be explored empirically?

        I'll put your essay in my list and leave you some comments asap. Thanks for commenting on my essay. I do agree that there should be a balance between math and common sense.

        Best Regards

        Israel

        Hi Israel,

        Indeed: ''Why should we believe that the information is more important than the stuff the universe is made of? ''

        I have yet to read an essay which treats the question where all information comes from, how information becomes information. What I mean is this: If there would be only a single charged particle among uncharged particles in the universe, then it wouldn't be able to express its charge in interactions. As it in that case it cannot be charged itself, charge, or any property, for that matter, must be something which is shared by particles, something which only exists, is expressed and preserved within their interactions. If particles, particle properties (its) are both cause and effect of their interactions, of the exchange of bits, if particles only exist to each other if and for as long as they interact, exchange information, then you cannot have one without the other nor can one be more fundamental than the other.

        If the information as embodied in particle properties and the associated rules of behavior a.k.a. laws of physics must be the product of a trial-and-error evolution, then information only can survive, become actual information when tested in practice, when molded into physical, material particles (whatever we may mean with 'material'), particles, 'its' which exist to each other only if and for as long as they interact, exchange information, bits. Part of the confusion originates in the supposition that particles randomly emit and absorb virtual photons and gravitons to communicate forces between them. In this view they only would exist, receive information about particles in their environment at the times they absorb a virtual particle, but not in the periods in between. This supposition is the expression of the belief that particles, particle properties only are the cause, but not also the effect of their interactions, as if they would keep existing even when isolated from interactions, as if 'to be' is a passive state which requires no effort on the part of the particles, a noun instead of an activity, a verb. If we insist that particles at all times exist to each other, if they express and at the same time preserve their properties by interacting, then it is this continuous exchange of information which preserves the status quo, an exchange without which particles would vanish from each other's universe: being too inconspicuous to even suspect its existence, it in fact manages to do what the so-called 'hidden variables' are thought not to do.

        As to the unification of forces: If particles are both the source and product of interactions, of forces between them, then a force obviously cannot be either attractive or repulsive, always. As long as we regard particles, particle properties as being only the cause of interactions, of forces (which is the assumption classical mechanics is based upon), we will never be able to unify forces even in principle.

        Regards, Anton

          Dear Eckard

          Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. I'm glad you find it interesting. I'll do my best to answer your questions.

          Just keep in mind that geometrical spaces represent total emptiness, nothingness. They don't represent substance (material or any other). In Newtonian mechanics total emptiness was represented by Euclidean space. In this vision, space was conceived as an EMPTY CONTAINER which in turn was filled with matter and electromagnetic fields. Later in 1908 the Euclidean space was replaced by Minkowski space-time, which is also an empty container. Mathematically speaking, this space doesn't have intrinsic electromagnetic properties associated with it. And again, this container is filled with matter and fields. So, if space were of this kind, we would expect that the magnetic permeability and the electric permittivity of empty space were zero, but they are not.

          You: Will you be fair enough as to admit that it might be an alternative to your common sense view?

          Yes, actually there are many alternatives, we just have to decide which one sounds more cogent. I hope I have clarified your doubts.

          Regards

          Israel

          Hi Jim

          Thanks for your comments. I'll try to read your essay asap.

          Regards

          Israel