Search FQXi

If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

FQXi FORUM
May 24, 2013

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2012 [back]
TOPIC: The Big Puzzle by Tuomo Suntola [refresh]

Author Tuomo Suntola wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 11:34 GMT
Essay Abstract

How do we start composing a jigsaw puzzle? It is certainly helpful if we see the picture of the puz-zle when fully composed. If not, we may find it easiest and logical to search out the scheme of the picture from the corners with a wish that the parts will fit with each other when completed. In the big puzzle of physics, we are about to fit the highly tuned parts together to see whether they match, and what the total picture looks like – have we created a monster or a beauty, or something in between?

Author Bio

Tuomo Suntola, PhD in Electron Physics at Helsinki University of Technology (1971). Dr. Suntola has a far-reaching academic and industrial career comprising pioneering work from fundamental theoretical findings to successful industrial applications like the Atomic Layer Deposition method widely used in the semiconductor industry. “Considerations of the philosophy of science and the foundations of physics have been a source of inspiration throughout my career – in search for a ho-listic view of the physical reality”

report post as inappropriate

John A. Macken wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 20:50 GMT
Tuomo,

In your author bio you said, "Considerations of the philosophy of science and the foundations of physics have been a source of inspiration throughout my career - in search for a holistic view of the physical reality". Your essay certainly reflects this pursuit. I have had a similar interest in discovering the foundations of physics but started with a more philosophical question: What is the simplest possible starting assumption if I wanted to build a theory of everything? I have concluded that the simplest possible starting assumption is: The universe is only spacetime. I realized that this might be a wrong assumption, but it is so restrictive that the incompatibility should soon be obvious. However, this has been a very fruitful pursuit that has resulted not only in many new insights into the universe, but there have also been concrete predictions. For example, my essay describes a previously unknown relationship between gravity and the electromagnetic force that actually emerged as a prediction from this effort.

report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 05:28 GMT
Tuomo, John,

I too had the same idea - to find the simplest geometry that could serve as a foundation for the unification of QM, QED, SR & GR.

I would like to point out that if you replace your current SPHERICAL geometries with EQUILATERAL triangular geometries you will find a whole new visualisation of current physics is possible. [see attached]

It is from this simple postulate that I have developed Tetryonics - the charged geometry of EM mass-ENERGY-Matter which was submitted as a separate paper in this forum. This equilateral geometry is in fact reflective of quantised angular momentum [QAM] which has been historically viewed as a rotational vector component of QM. Linear momenta [as used by Newton in classical mechanics] is also present as the square root of these equilateral quanta.

In fact many of physics more mystifying properties such as 'Square' quanta energies, Wave functions, Wave-Particle probabilities and the source of physical constants become readily apparent using this geometry as a basis. [as do the physical geometries of all mass-ENERGY-Matter waveforms]

All of this can be achieved without changing any of the accepted formulations you have used for physical properties and interactions [although it does point out that our current Mathematics, while correct, was based on a mistaken geometry].

I have applied this geometry throughout all the accepted physical theories [QM, QED, Chemistry, SR & GR] and offer it to you as the simple solution you hint at in your paper.

report post as inappropriate

NARSEP replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 08:38 GMT
dear all,

you may have a look at http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1345 for a new spacetime alternative.

report post as inappropriate

Ted Erikson wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 21:17 GMT
Does nature recognize fancy mathematics? Seems as tho mass, length and time it may.

My essay is perhaps overly simplified, but addresses the real problem of Physics. Wherein lies "consciousness"? Very murky, but emergentism (growth) and panpsychism (memory are properties suggested that aligns them with probabilities of a 1-D, 2-D, and 3-D geometric world, where sphere and tetrahedron have identical "activities". See:

To Seek Unknown Shores

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1409

report post as inappropriate

Jose P. Koshy wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 08:08 GMT
I agree with your conclusions. It is time we replaced the concepts like space-time.The physical world is real, and everything here should be expressed in real positive values greater than zero in kilograms, meters, and seconds. If any value is zero, then there is no universe (no matter), only space and time.

report post as inappropriate

Viraj Fernando wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 16:00 GMT
Dear Tuomo,

You have stated that Galileo’s relativity was incorporated into Einstein theory after revising the concepts of time and space. I have to disagree with you. Einstein NEGATED Galileo’s principle and incorporated a fake imitation of it. What Einstein incorporated was the very antithesis of Galileo’s principle. This is why Einstein could not fulfill his own dream of extending...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

hoang cao hai wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 19:32 GMT
Dear Tuomo. I also think that :

"Keeping in mind that the purpose of scientific models is to make nature understandable, alternatives for the unintelligible relativistic spacetime construction and the somewhat artificial wave function would be warmly welcomed".

The ABSOLUTE THEORY of me and an explanation of the nature of the Mass :

Be identified due to the change by the purely feel and rely on

the determination by our measurement equipment.

Must be the impact to get this changes,and the absolutely is only

one the mainly reason,that of course is the impact of a type of

the force.

So: the absolutely nature or the definition of mass would be:

Expression due the impact of force on to the material.

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

Kind Regards !

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 02:20 GMT
Dear Dr. Suntola

I enjoyed reading your essay with its analogy of the state of physics to an unsolved jig-saw puzzle. Another way to present the analogy would be that somehow the pieces from three or more separate puzzles, each complete on its own, were mixed together, and then some parts went missing!

Your masterly mathematical proposal of a 4th dimensional dipole where Planck's law and Maxwell's equations coexist is intriguing. With the time dimension, could that be a form of the Kaluza-Klein 5th dimension? The latter was interpreted as an ether lattice.

In my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory (BU) on which I based my fqxi essay Fix Physics! the entire Universe is made up of identical building blocks made up of dipolar lattice nodes with energy in units of (h).

I wonder if you can find quantitative correspondence between the (BU) and the proposals you made in your essay? With best wishes,

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:32 GMT
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
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
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.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

• Please enter the text of your post, then click the "Submit New Post" button below. You may also optionally add file attachments below before submitting your edits.

• HTML tags are not permitted in posts, and will automatically be stripped out. Links to other web sites are permitted. For instructions on how to add links, please read the link help page.

• You may use superscript (10100) and subscript (A2) using [sup]...[/sup] and [sub]...[/sub] tags.

• You may also include LateX equations into your post.

Insert LaTeX Equation [hide]

LaTeX equations may be displayed in FQXi Forum posts by including them within [equation]...[/equation] tags. You may type your equation directly into your post, or use the LaTeX Equation Preview feature below to see how your equation will render (this is recommended).

LaTeX Equation Preview

preview equation
clear equation
insert equation into post at cursor