It is amazing that there exist quite some private foundations in the United States who care about science and are enthusiastic about funding scientific projects. However, a lot of them, if not all, don’t seem to know how they should support science in a complementary way when compared to government funding agencies like NSF and DoE.
In a nostalgic review article titled “Twenty years of the Weyl anomaly” [Michael J Duff, Class. Quantum Grav. 11, 1387 (1994)], Duff recalled the history of his discovery of the Weyl or conformal anomaly in quantum theory with Derek Capper. Continue reading “How can a new idea be accepted by eminent physicists?”
The tension between two superpower nations (US and China) is getting more and more severe these days. Obviously, the worse relationship between these two countries is especially bad for chinese americans and to a certain extent, all asian americans. A war between the two, in particular, if escalated to be of nuclear type, will be a disaster to the human race on Earth. Too bad, we are watching a trade and tech war between them now. Yet a hot war, especially in south China sea or around Taiwan, could not be completely ruled out in the future.
The COVID-19 pandemic has made things even worse. The two biggest economies are going down. It is convenient for politicians to play the blame game and turn attention of the population elsewhere, especially against the other nation. Nationalism, fueled by politicians, could be the trigger to a hot war. It is time to test if our education systems have been robust or not. In other words, we’ll see if the overall competence level of the general public is over the “stupidity” hump(s) of the Dunning-Kruger effect or not regarding wars.
I had been totally immersed in further development of my supersymmetric mirror models early this year. The COVID-19 pandemic did not draw my attention until about a month ago when it hit the US really hard. Then all of a sudden it really changed me, not only my life but also my way of thinking. I could not focus well on my favorite mirror-matter projects. I should have finished my invisible-decay paper weeks earlier. Instead it has made me pondering more on what a dream world or society should or could be like. With an open universe of physical objects in mind, what an open world of creatures and an open society of human beings could we imagine?
I am a little bit late to celebrate Einstein’s birthday. But here is my new paper that extends Einstein’s 4-d General Relativity to a 2-d spacetime model with new understanding and studies the black hole as a genuine 2-d object. Unfortunately, arXiv did not help again this time and put my submission on hold one more time. Most likely, they are going to reject it again like my last paper in a few weeks.
The new model predicts a neutron/quark star mass limit of less than 2.5 solar mass that is compatible with observation. For more massive stars, the ever softer equation of state in 4-d spacetime will eventually cause a core collapse to a temperature above 1016 GeV. The 4-d spacetime then undergoes phase transition to 2-d spacetime with much reduced degrees of freedom to re-stabilize the star as a true 2-d black hole.
I just submitted a paper for the essay contest held at FQXi. I focused on topics from quantum indeterminism to no theory of everything, to a dynamic Universe with hierarchical underlying laws, all the way to the justification of our pursuance of open science, open society, and open world.
Gödel’s undecidability results (incomplete theorems) demonstrate that no consistent math system is complete, i.e., one can always construct statements that can not be proved or disproved within the same system. Hilbert’s dream of unification of all mathematics may be busted. Similarly, quantum indeterminism indicates that physics and the Universe may be indeterministic, incomplete, and open in nature, and therefore demand no single unification theory of everything. All my recent works on mirror matter theory and supersymmetric mirror models seem to support such an open world ideology.
To demonstrate the risky or controversial aspects of my work on mirror matter theory, I’d like to share more comments extracted from various review reports from the expert physicists when refereeing my work. See here for early comments on my work. Clearly, the controversies are getting escalated on my new work on a dynamical view of the Universe as even relatively open-mined arXiv decided to deny my submission (see here). The list of the following review comments is sort of in the order from positive to negative.
This subject is a hot topic, and the results are very interesting in light of future experimental measurements for the light quark sector.
Not long ago, I posted one article on how to improve arXiv.org and make it the best science publication system. One of my concerns about arXiv I pointed out was about the issue of over-regulation. Now I feel the issue is more serious than I thought.
I submitted my last paper to arXiv a week ago for the little celebration of the anniversary of my first mirror matter paper. But the administrators decided to put it on hold for an announcement. I don’t know what I did in the paper to trigger such a cautionary action. But it is just a pure scientific paper and probably one of the most important of my works. Apparently they have no interest in solving the issue soon. I have no choice but have also submitted it to a traditional journal. At this moment, I am not sure who will publish it first if they do in the end.
Exactly one year ago, I posted my first paper about mirror matter theory on arXiv.org. I wanted a little celebration and therefore submitted my latest work to arXiv yesterday. It is probably the most complete and astonishing of all – building a dynamic theory or staged models to describe the universe from the very beginning when the arrow of time started all the way to the Standard Model physics we know best about today.
The paper was supposed to show up on arXiv yesterday. Unfortunately, arXiv administrators decided to put it on hold and obviously ruined my anniversary celebration a little bit. It was a surprise to me as this is my first on-hold experience with arXiv. I don’t know what in my paper is so alarming to arXiv administrators or moderators. Maybe they regard it a crackpot? Or maybe this is just another example of over-regulation on the arXiv side. I just hope it won’t become another long ordeal like the ones I have been enduring with the journals.
Modern physicists are used to a perturbative way to solve or understand problems in modern physics. In particular, since the invention of the powerful Feynman diagram technique by Richard Feynman, particle physicists are so fond of this perturbation tool and can seldom talk about physics without showing some Feynman diagrams.
However, there indeed exist some fundamental physical processes that can not be described by Feynman diagrams. These processes are typically called nonperturbative or topological transitions that have been studied since the discovery of “instanton” about half a century ago.
Unfortunately, perturbation theory is planted in the minds of a lot of particle physicists so firmly that they could not think in other possible topological ways. This has to be part of the reasons why some editors and reviewers have been so easy to dismiss my works. It may also be causing other physicists jumping on and off the bandwagon of my theory.