About the possibility to solve the main problems of theoretical physics by murat Asgatovich gaisin

James Putnam

murat Asgatovich gaisin,

Fixing physics should have a high priority. An improved future for humanity includes understanding the nature of the universe. Empirically unverifiable properties invented by theoretical physicists have been made permanent additions to physics equations. It would be best for the future of humanity for physics to be correct about the nature of the universe. I think that physics should be a firmly empirically based science with empirically unsupported abstractions of theorists removed from its equations. That is my view. I welcome your view. I appreciate your contribution to this contest. Good luck.

James Putnam

murat gaisin

Dear James A Putnam,

thanks for the appreciation of my critics state of modern physics.

Regards,

Murat Asgatovich Gaisin

murat gaisin

Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

I believe that in modern theoretical physics underestimated philosophical thoughts. As a result, the basis of theoretical physics contained errors on the epistemological level.

Regards,

Murat Asgatovich Gaisin.

[deleted]

Dear Murat,

I like some parts of your essay.

1. You gave good five points of Lee Smolin, about the problems in theoretical physics. There fails still the sixth point, unexplained consciousness: My essay 2013 about consciounsess

2. You claim that ''four-dimensional spacetime which is viewed in general theory (GR) of relativity as the physical object''. Many people so interpret GR as physical object, but I disagree. Carroll claim on page 138, that spacetime does not exist without matter. Similarly I claim too: SR explanation, section 4. I claim and tried to prove, that time does not exists without rest matter. In section 5 I wrote another argument that mass should be dimensionless and that this demands connection with space-time.

3. I hope that someone will successfuly attack Higgs Boson. But your argument does not convince me, because short lived and long lived particles are not different in principle. This needs deep understanding of Quantum Theory of Fields. Unfortunately it is not presented so simple as it could be, and we do not understand it enough.

4. You gave good links for measurements about quantum nature of space-time. But, results are logical to me, because spacetime does not exist without matter, and it is a consequence of matter, which is quantized matter: My FQXi essay 2012

I hope that we will read theories of each one further and comment them.

Best regards, Janko Kokosar

My FQXi web site 2014

My FQXi pdf file 2014

My essay 2013 about consciounsess

My proposal for more correct evalulation of FQXi contest

Janko Kokosar

Dear Murat,

I like some parts of your essay.

1. You gave good five points of Lee Smolin, about the problems in theoretical physics. There fails still the sixth point, unexplained consciousness: My essay 2013 about consciounsess

I hope that we will read theories of each one further and comment them.

Best regards, Janko Kokosar

My FQXi web site 2014

My FQXi pdf file 2014

My essay 2013 about consciounsess

My proposal for more correct evalulation of FQXi contest

James Hoover

Murat,

"Therefore, the author believes that the Higgs boson is not a real material object, but a chimera of the standard model." I salute your open-mindedness to other interpretations and, not being a mathematition, give less credence there. I also realize that acceptance of the orthodoxy of the standard theory is very tempting.

In fact, part of my solution relates to "looking beyond" as in using the imagination of your brain, somewhat of a neural universe, to explore the nonconventional somewhat like Einstein did.

I would like to see your views on my essay, Murat.

Jim

James Hoover

Murat,

Thank you for reading and evaluating my essay.

Jim

Chidi Idika

Dear Murat,

Your essay hold bold views. You say for instance:

"What we measure by hours is the measure of reality state change, but there is only reality. That is why the four-dimensional space-time which is viewed in the general theory of relativity as the physical object in fact is the abstract mathematical object."

Yet it seems to me that the more we want our definition of reality to be all-inclusive the more we find that our definition tends towards abstraction. So I ask, how do you define REALITY?

Here is how I myself try. And I will appreciate you questions and comments.

I have decided I will read your essay at least a second time. And I will be here to rate

Wishing you the best,

Chidi

« Previous Page