Essay Abstract

Mankind today is on the verge of a paradigm shift, in other words, a series of scientific and technological revolution, which entails a change of worldview, value systems, hardware etc. Certainly, this factor must be considered in the formation of civilizational processes in the world. Now there is a demand for another global ideological paradigm. It is necessary to formulate the most important task that could indicate a new vector of human development and ensure scientific and technological revolution This new project may be a transition to the six techno-economic paradigm - to the economy of knowledge. Moreover, the transition to a new technological paradigm is not only and not so much a change of economic and technological paradigm. Such a transition is both radical transformation of social, ideological, political structures and the appearance of new models of society, more or less adequate to the "amount of new technologies", and the rise of entirely new models of social and political relations, and the formation of fundamentally new type of personality (not necessarily better) and etc. The new ideology must have as a priority the need to use the singular breakthrough technologies for improving both the human himself and his environment. The speed of progress to the point of singularity increases gradually in the first time, but the feedback mechanism with each shortens cycle everything quickly leads us to the singularity. Upon reaching the singularity the humankind's abilities become really amazing: full control over the structure of matter on the atomic level, a complete knowledge of biological processes from macro to micro and molecular level, and superhuman artificial intelligence. And it is necessary to evaluate the scientific basis which to a large extent led to a crisis in not only science but also society as a whole.

Author Bio

Alexander M. Ilyanok, born November 29, 1949 in Alma-Ata, Kazahstan. PhD: technical Sci, Professor, Corresponding Member of International Academy of Engineering, Supervisor of the IAE Nano- and Femtotechnology Project in the Republic of Belarus, and nominee for Tang Prize 2014. The Tang Prize is a set of biennial international awards bestowed in a number of categories by panels of judges convened by Academia Sinica, Taiwan's top research institution. The author of 8 international patent applications in the field of nanotechnology, the holder of 15 international patents.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Alexander M. Ilyanok,

Among the professors at this competition your work is by far the best until now. To comment, I'll have to read it again later. congratulations.

Regards,

Branko Zivlak

    Dear Alexander M. Ilyanok,

    You make a very strong case for mathematics generating many absurdities in physics, which, as you remark, conflicts with "the conviction that the quantum theory contains the complete and final truth." I also agree about "rubber physics that could pull any experiment on its model." Nor is QCD exempt! I also found your addition of spin to the Twin Paradox quite interesting.

    All in all you succeed in pointing out numerous absurdities in modern physics, which will almost certainly not allow you to win this contest. But I thank you for your well-written, information-packed essay, and I invite you to read and comment upon my essay.

    Best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      If both math and physics are natural, then the absurdities imply our perception of math needs adjustment. I suggest the division operation (as in 1/3 and 1/r) is not a natural math process. Physics seems to be cause and effect. Probabilities are not natural. Therefore, the models using these produce absurdities.

        I found this essay most refreshing and awarded it a 10.

        You are wearing no man's collar! More power to you.

        Best, Thomas Phipps

          Dear Prof. Ilyanok:

          You make many interesting arguments in your essay, but if I understand your primary theme, you are suggesting that the established mathematical models for some modern physical theories are invalid, and without true experimental verification.

          I make a similar argument in my own essay, and present a counter-example to the established Hilbert-Space Model of Quantum Mechanics. "Remove the Blinders: How Mathematics Distorted the Development of Quantum Theory" presents a simple realistic picture that makes directly testable experimental predictions, based on little more than Stern-Gerlach measurements. Remarkably, these simple experiments have never been done.

          The accepted view of QM is that the physics (and mathematics) of the microworld are fundamentally different from those of the macroworld, which of course creates an inevitable boundary problem. I take the radical (and heretical) view that the fundamental organization is the same on both scales, so that the boundary problem immediately disappears. Quantum indeterminacy, superposition, and entanglement are artifacts of the inappropriate mathematical formalism. QM is not a universal theory of matter; it is rather a mechanism for distributed vector fields to self-organize into spin-quantized coherent domains similar to solitons. This requires nonlinear mathematics that is not present in the standard formalism.

          Alan Kadin

          6 days later

          Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

          Thank you for your kind comment and your encouragement. You definitely understand my point and you clearly also see the problem.

          Unfortunately, as I can see, quantum mechanics and relativity theory, in the form in which they exist today have outlived their usefulness. Scientists have found the gravitational interactions faster than the speed of light. I am writing about this in detail in my work Femtotechnologies. Step I Atom Hydrogen. http://vixra.org/abs/1306.0014.

          I read with interest your work. However, it is contrary to my position in physics. I wish you to win. I am sure that the win not smile me.

          Best regards,

          Alexander M. Ilyanok

          Dear Thomas Erwin Phipps,

          Thank you very much for your kind comment.

          It is hard to go against the flow. I'm glad you understand my point.

          Best regards,

          Alexander M. Ilyanok

          Dear Branko L Zivlak,

          Thank you for reviewing my work. I understand that I'm going against the tide, and never will achieve victory at this competition.

          But uncommon scientists are congregating on FQXi and I wonder to share with them my views.

          Best regards,

          Alexander M. Ilyanok

          Dear John C Hodge

          I agree with your point of view. There are eternal (physical, not mathematical) problem of zeros and infinity here. The universe has helped us to create a mathematical basis. But on the basis of the existing mathematics we cannot yet reveal a physical secret of the universe.

          I am writing about this in detail in my work Femtotechnologies. Step I Atom Hydrogen. http://vixra.org/abs/1306.0014

          Best regards,

          Alexander M. Ilyanok

          6 days later

          Dear Prof. Ilyanok,

          I read your paper shortly after it was posted, and it has been reverberating in my head ever since. What a damning indictment of the current state of physics! And I fully identify (as fully as a Yankee can) with your lament that these barriers to our mental progress show up as a dead end in our thinking and reasoning about society as well. Yet your claim that the barriers to our thinking are rooted in a defective system of mathematics is unsupported by any proposal of an alternative, which leaves what you've written as merely a highly educated and elaborated cry of the heart.

          I would like to suggest that you take a slow, careful look at the deceptively simple "Mathematics of Science" by Rob MacDuff, and consider his construction as a candidate for the foundation of a new and profoundly materialist mathematics. It represents a paradigm shift, in the sense that once you have digested and fully understood his theses, it becomes impossible to think about math and science in any other way.

          As I think about MacDuff's work, one question I have is "why now? Why didn't someone come up with this 100 years ago?" How would history have unfolded differently if it had? Were we as a species simply not ready for it then? But then when I look at the reaction it's gotten on this contest board, I wonder if perhaps the answer is we're just barely ready for it now.

          6 days later

          Dear Alexander,

          I agree with you 97%. Basic science is going through "crisis of understanding", "crisis of representation and interpretation." Cause: The basis of physics and mathematics, the basis of all fundamental knowledge is built on the "home-brewed philosophy."

          Fundamental knowledge, mathematics and physics, requires a deep ontological justification (basification). In fundamental physics is necessary to introduce an ontological standard justification (basification) along with the empirical standard.

          Rabindranath Tagore gave a good hint mathematicians and physicists:

          I ask my destiny - what power is this

          That cruelly drives me onward without rest?

          My destiny says, "Look round!"

          I turn back and see It is

          I myself that is ever pushing me from behind.

          I invite you to see my analysis of the philosophical foundations of mathematics and physics, the method of ontological constructing a new basis of unified knowledge - the primordial generating structure, "La Structure mère" as the ontological framework, carcass and foundation of knowledge, the core of which - the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory. I believe that the scientific picture of the world should be the same rich senses of the "LifeWorld» (E.Husserl), as a picture of the world lyricists , poets and philosophers.

          Is now needed a great synthesis of knowledge accumulated by mankind, including traditional to go to the comprehensive paradigm of overcome "the crisis of understanding", especially in mathematics and physics.

          Kind regards,

          Vladimir

          5 days later

          Alexander,

          In your conclusion you mention classical laws explained through experiment w/o math models. I believe the key to modern discovery works with mysteries of the classical world and utilizes our growing knowledge of the quantum world to explain the mystery in a new field of quantum biology.

          A theoretical physicist and molecular genetics professor began a study with a

          problem of explaining experimentally a natural world mystery: how the European robin managed to navigate back and forth from Northern Europe to Northern Africa in fall and spring.

          Your view seems similar to my own points in my essay as I look at the LHC, DNA and emerging science tools with connections of the human mind, math & computers, and physics.

          The "elegant" math equations you mention seem to be the basis for many of the theories we see in modern physics: string theory, supersymetry and quantum gravity. Not being a mathematician, I assume that it's my ignorance that fails to fathom possible missteps.

          Thanks for giving us the opportunity to share your ideas.

          Jim

          Dear Alexander,

          I read your interesting essay and agree with many of the points you make, particularly about SRT but not all of them. For example not with the possibility of superluminal speeds above c. Yes physics has become a strange world of good results reached by fanciful theories. Mathematics allows that. How do we 'fix physics'? I have many ideas and so do many others, but our voices are not heard, besides, not everything we say may turn out to work! Only time, which I say does not exist, will tell :)

          With best wishes and good luck

          Vladimir

          6 days later

          Dear Alexander,

          I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

          All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

          Joe Fisher

          7 days later

          Alexander,

          Time grows short, so I am revisiting essays I've read (yours 3/31)to assure I've rated them. I find that I did not rate yours, so I will rectify. Seeing many that are unorthodox here, I believe both of ours have a chance. I hope you get a chance to look at mine: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2345.

          Jim

          Dear Alexander M. Ilyanok,

          Much of 'standard theory' (including 'big bang') is overdue for reexamination and adjustment or discard. But we should not toss the baby out with the bath water.

          I do believe that dark matter is real and that it is synonymous with the Higgs field which extends throughout the Universe. As this field structure is warped but not displaced by mass only the warped and concentrated (dark Higgs matter) is noted by our observations. Therefore we would conclude that the total dark matter is much more than that which has been accounted. Also this flexible but solid structure will continually react to the mobile mass of galaxies but not in the same manner as free wheeling massive materials.

          Thanks for great essay,

          Sherman Jenkins

          Write a Reply...