We believe the West (the United States and Europe) is losing the battle of the century.
By battle of the century, we mean the most recent and important scientific battles: artificial intelligence, unified field theory, and the foundations of cosmoscience.
Over the past century, the West has made enormous technical and experimental advances in this field, but has not progressed one bit theoretically.
We must put an end to the current chaos surrounding artificial intelligence.
Everyone is creating a learning database, for example by imitating or modeling human behavior in certain situations, thus claiming to offer a form of global AI.
By the end of 2025, we will have thousands of different types of global AI, with no possible logical classification.
Deep learning, machine learning, chatGPT, image processing, etc. are not artificial intelligence, but we call them a form of storage intelligence.
*Let's face it:
Cairo Intelligence Techniques = Natural Intelligence = Concrete and Narrow Artificial Intelligence = Unified Field Theory.
*This is why the West is losing the battle of the century.
Dr. Abbas, thank you for your insight. Your work, especially the Cairo Intelligence Techniques and your perspective on “storage intelligence,” pushes this conversation into much-needed philosophical territory. I believe you're right—the West, while technologically advanced, is at risk of losing the conceptual core of what intelligence really is.
Today’s AI explosion—GPTs, image generators, predictive models—has created noise without coherence. These tools may appear intelligent, but they lack intentionality, understanding, and true cognitive depth. As you’ve pointed out, we are calling “storage intelligence” by the name of AI—and this mislabeling may delay real theoretical progress.
From my own research exploring consciousness as a quantum phenomenon, I’ve arrived at a similar concern from a different angle: that true intelligence—whether human or artificial—must be rooted in something deeper than computation. If we define intelligence as an emergent resonance with the universe’s underlying order (whether in the unified field or quantum coherence), then models trained on data alone are insufficient.
The “battle of the century” won’t be won by those who build the most models, but by those who redefine what intelligence is and connect it to the foundational laws of reality.
So in that sense, you are absolutely right: this is a philosophical crisis disguised as a technical race.
Thank you for initiating such a vital conversation.
Thank you, Dr. Abbas, for raising this vital question.
If the West is losing the conceptual battle, it's not due to lack of data or computing power, but due to the absence of a unifying logic. What we call "unified theories" today are often only patchworks.
I recently attempted to clarify this confusion by proposing the Principle of Logical Unicity (PLU):
A theory is truly unified only if all laws and structures emerge from a single generator, with no auxiliary assumptions.
It's not a solution, it's a litmus test. And perhaps a reminder that the unity of knowledge has always been more than a technical goal. It is a metaphysical compass.
Article Which Theory Truly Unifies?
I leave it here humbly, for those seeking clarit, not closure.
As anticipated in my previous reply, I’m pleased to share the follow-up article we mentioned earlier:
“Dynamical Derivation and Cosmological Stabilization of the Fundamental Constants”
Article [Exploratory Version] Pure Time Theory: Dynamical Derivation...
In this work, we go beyond the scalar definition of proper time and show how the entire structure of physical law, including c, ℏ, G, α, and kB, arises dynamically from the same generative field Trelax(xμ).
No tensor postulates, no tuning parameters.
Just pure time, curvature by gradient, and coherence by necessity. Yes, it’s possible.
Any thoughtful comments, questions, or critiques are warmly welcome. Let’s move forward together, in clarity and in unity.
Share
Hello, Dr. Ismail Abbas,
Thank you for inviting me to join the discussion.
Is the West losing the battle of the century?
In technological terms, no, but in fundamental scientific research, it is undoubtedly stalling.
The West has achieved colossal success in applied developments - AI, astronautics, quantum technologies. However, theoretical physics is stagnating: there is no breakthrough in the unified field theory, quantum gravity remains a hypothesis, and artificial intelligence is developing empirically, without a strict mathematical foundation.
The reason is the crisis of the scientific paradigm: the prevalence of probabilistic models and empiricism hinders a deep understanding of nature. If the West does not find a new path, it risks yielding primacy to those who can rethink the laws of the universe.
To whom exactly is the West losing - to the East or to someone else? Please clarify and outline the main evaluation criteria or key points so that the discussion becomes clearer and more orderly.
Bakhodir Khonnazarovich Tursunbaev
We noticed that you’ve accessed our recent article on the dynamical derivation and stabilization of the fundamental constants, thank you for your attention.
Shortly after, you posted a comment describing the lack of progress in unifying fundamental physics and the current crisis of paradigms. We couldn’t help but notice that your message did not reflect or reference the framework we just proposed, even though it directly addresses these very challenges.
This leaves us with a sincere question: – If the article was not clear, we would be happy to clarify. – If you have specific objections or reasons for not engaging with it, we would be equally happy to hear them.
Our intention is not to impose anything, but to open the door to honest, constructive dialogue, especially on matters as deep and universal as the structure of physical law.
Bakhodir Khonnazarovich Tursunbaev
Dr. Bakhodir,
Thank you for your insightful contribution to this important discussion. I deeply resonate with your observation that while technological progress continues, theoretical physics—and particularly our understanding of unified field theory and the foundations of consciousness—remains at a crossroads.
In light of this, I’d like to invite you to explore my recent theoretical work titled:
“Celestial Resonance Theory: Quantum Harmonics”,
as well as:
“A Quantum Perspective on Consciousness and Dreams: A Theoretical Exploration.”
These papers approach consciousness as a quantum phenomenon, proposing that it resonates with a universal field of awareness—what I term the ψ-field—modulated by celestial harmonics. I explore how this resonance may become accessible in dream states, particularly during full moons, planetary transits, or other cosmic alignments, integrating insights from quantum physics, neuroscience, and ancient cosmology.
While speculative, my intention is to contribute to the broader effort of unifying physics with the experiential dimensions of human awareness—where mind, matter, and meaning intersect.
Should you find the time to review the work, I would be honored to hear your thoughts.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390399758_Celestial_Resonance_Theory_Quantum_Harmonics?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7InBhZ2UiOiJwcm9maWxlIiwicHJldmlvdXNQYWdlIjoicXVlc3Rpb24iLCJzdWJQYWdlIjpudWxsLCJwb3NpdGlvbiI6InBhZ2VDb250ZW50In19
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389320386_A_Quantum_Perspective_on_Consciousness_and_Dreams_A_Theoretical_Exploration
Brittany Hollingsworth
Dear Brittany,
Thank you for joining this thread and sharing your perspective. While your exploration of quantum consciousness is intriguing in its own right, I must gently note that your contribution seems disconnected from the central question of this discussion:
“Is the West losing the battle of the century in terms of theoretical physics, unified field theory, and foundational science?”
Our response, and the article we shared above, directly address this issue by proposing a falsifiable and dimensionally consistent framework that dynamically derives the physical constants (c, ℏ, G, α, kB) from a single scalar field — T_relax(x^μ) — with explicit equations, testable predictions, and no speculative metaphysics.
While your work touches on consciousness and resonance, this direction may not align with the thread’s purpose, which is to examine the crisis in foundational physics and the need for rigorous, unifying theories grounded in physical law.
Furthermore — and I say this with full respect — one should be cautious when attempting to derive consciousness from the material realm, especially if one holds that consciousness might not be a material phenomenon in the first place. If the premise is flawed ontologically, then even the most creative frameworks built on it may miss the core of the mystery.
That said, I appreciate your intention to explore the frontier where mind and matter might meet. But perhaps the path to unity lies not in extending material fields to explain the soul, but in elevating our scientific frameworks to recognize the limits of physical causality.
Warm regards,
I dont think this a question or "battle" of West versus Other. It is an issue of what constitutes "intelligence", then Wisdom. After all, A.I. is merely a neural net reflecting "learning that works". It lacks something deeper. Perhaps the work of Dr. Rosalind Picard of MIT is closer to the real issue. And the real issue is relating Human intelligence to a greater Cosmic Intelligence.
John A. Shuster
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. While I agree that intelligence and especially wisdom, cannot be reduced to algorithms or datasets, your message once again shifts the focus of this thread away from its original and urgent question:
Is the West losing the battle of the century in theoretical physics — particularly regarding unified field theory and the foundations of physical law?
You refer to MIT’s Rosalind Picard and her work on emotional computing, which indeed raises important questions about the nature of intelligence. But this thread concerns physical unification, not cognitive simulation.
The real issue here is not the nature of intelligence per se, but the current crisis in fundamental physics, where constants remain unexplained, paradigms are stagnating, and speculative metaphysics often replaces predictive, falsifiable science.
If you wish to discuss cosmic intelligence, the conversation might be better situated in a thread dedicated to philosophy of mind or theology of science. Here, we are trying to restore logical rigor to the foundations of physics.
And that requires not just invoking deeper meanings, but showing — with equations, derivations, and experimental predictions — how that depth could be structurally embedded in the laws of nature.
Warmly,
In recent discussions, we've observed a pattern: individuals without a background in theoretical or mathematical physics stepping into foundational science, often armed with spiritual metaphors or esoteric symbolism.
Let us be clear: we are not opposed to depth, meaning, or spiritual intuition — quite the opposite. But science has its rules, and physics demands rigor.
Structure without intention is machinery. But intention without structure is poetry.
Both have their place. But confusing one for the other leads to noise, not knowledge.
When someone invokes cosmic fields, consciousness particles, or dream harmonics without:
- dimensional consistency,
- empirical testability,
- or derivations from first principles,
then we are no longer doing physics, we are doing philosophy in disguise.
Again, there's no shame in poetry. There's power in metaphysics. But if we claim to rewrite the laws of the universe, we must play by the rules of logic, math, and physical evidence.
This is not arrogance. It's alignment with the legacy of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, and all who built physics not with impressions, but with equations.
If anything, today’s confusion proves we need a new discipline:
"How to properly evaluate a paradigm shift."
Because a true shift does not come with mystical fog. It comes with clarity, necessity, and predictive power.
Let us move forward, with humility, but without dilution.
@Essam Allou, Thank You for stating this so well: "If anything, today’s confusion proves we need a new discipline: 'How to properly evaluate a paradigm shift.' Because a true shift does not come with mystical fog. It comes with clarity, necessity, and predictive power." I did not mean to get us off topic, but to remind us of the needed paradigm shift to which you help define its needed clarity, limits, etc. A possible new paradigm for Science has been proposed here: https://opensciences.org/about/manifesto-for-a-post-materialist-science
In a previous message, I insisted: theoretical physics must be protected from esoteric metaphors and speculative metaphysics. Structure without intention is machinery. But intention without structure is poetry. And physics is neither.
Yet — and this is key — when metaphysical questions emerge naturally from the equations themselves, we no longer have the right to ignore them.
This is where we failed.
The Big Bang was not simply a scientific model. It became a narrative shelter — a conceptual firewall meant to prevent us from facing the ultimate question that arises once a unifying law is found:
"What engendered the Law itself?"
By inserting a singularity "outside" of law and structure, the Big Bang story avoids this confrontation. It delays the inevitable: that once the constants and spacetime arise from a single generative principle, the only question left is why.
Physics is not meant to hide behind infinities. It is meant to follow logic wherever it leads — even when it leads beyond.
The Principle of Logical Unicity we propose does not invoke the metaphysical. It simply refuses to bypass it when it appears as the consequence of structure.
The detour of the 20th century ends here. The next century must ask the question we’ve postponed for too long:
What breathes law into existence?
We are not afraid to ask. Yes, it’s possible.
John A. Shuster
Dear John,
Your message came just as our previous answer was being published — and, by divine timing or not, it appears our reflections crossed paths.
We took the time to carefully read the Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science you shared. Its intention is noble: to open science to the deeper dimensions of existence, and to challenge the epistemological limits imposed by strict materialism. In that, we find sincere points of resonance.
Yet what this manifesto proposes as a philosophical aspiration, we believe the Pure Time Theory (PTT) begins to realize — not through abstraction, but through structure.
We do not merely invoke consciousness, unity, or intentionality. We build a framework in which they emerge as natural consequences of a scalar field, whose dynamics give rise to the very constants that structure physical law:
- ccc emerges from the light cone geometry of TrelaxT_{relax}Trelax,
- ℏ\hbarℏ from its quantum fluctuations,
- GGG from its curvature coupling,
- α\alphaα from its topological vortex quantization,
- and kBk_BkB from its thermodynamic temporal scaling.
These are not metaphysical metaphors. They are derivations — falsifiable, dimensionally closed, and logically necessary.
We are not adding spirituality to physics. We are following logic to the very place where the spiritual becomes ontologically entailed. That is, once the constants are derived from a single generative field, and once that field is scalar, universal, and temporally grounded, the question of the origin of law ceases to be poetic — it becomes structural.
And that’s where the Principle of Logical Unicity (PLU) plays its role: A theory that unifies must do so with no arbitrariness, no tunable parameters, no unexplained inputs. The PLU is not only a mathematical discipline — it is an ontological filter. It refuses to stop at "how" if the equations themselves point to "why".
So yes, we welcome this post-materialist horizon. But let it be approached with the dignity of math, the humility of structure, and the courage to follow clarity all the way to its metaphysical edge — where science ends and meaning begins.
Let us not confuse poetry with physics. But let us also not pretend that the universe is without intention.
Yes, it’s possible.
Dr. Allou and Fellow contributors,
Thank you for your thoughtful responses and the important insistence on scientific rigor. While I understand and respect the need for dimensional closure, derivational clarity, and empirical predictability in foundational physics, I must also highlight one of the very reasons the West—and perhaps the global scientific community—is experiencing stagnation in its deepest inquiries: the premature dismissal of contributions that emerge from outside traditional channels.
Einstein was not a PhD physicist when he proposed the theory of relativity. He was a patent clerk with a passion for thought experiments and a willingness to ask the kinds of questions others dared not. History shows us that many paradigm shifts were not born in the academic halls, but in the margins—by those bold enough to see patterns where others saw noise.
My work in Celestial Resonance Theory does not claim to replace or rival rigorously derived frameworks like the Pure Time Theory. Rather, it seeks to complement them, inviting us to consider whether our consciousness might itself be structured by physical resonance, quantum coherence, and cosmic geometry. Far from abandoning structure, I’ve taken steps toward mathematical formalization — modeling consciousness as a wavefunction under a modulating celestial potential, resulting in a modified Schrödinger equation with biologically inspired resonance mechanics.
You can view the current working paper here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390455254_Mathematical_Derivation_of_Celestial_Resonance_Theory
While speculative, it is built on equations — not metaphors — and stands as a humble invitation for review, refinement, or rejection on its mathematical merit, not on the author’s credentials.
Let us not forget that the “battle of the century” is not just about technical supremacy. It is also about philosophical openness, epistemic humility, and the courage to follow truth—whether it comes from a laboratory, a telescope, or a dream.
And maybe—just maybe—physics does not end at the edge of matter, but begins at the edge of mind.
Warm regards,
@Brittany,
Dear Brittany,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. We wholeheartedly agree that the future of science lies not in defending academic titles, but in following clarity, wherever it leads, and whomever it chooses.
That being said, what we are defending here is not gatekeeping, but the sanctity of structure.
Your work on Celestial Resonance Theory seeks to reconnect physics and consciousness, and that is a bold and necessary question. But such a bridge cannot be built on metaphors alone, it must be anchored in a logic so coherent that it forces meaning to emerge from within the equations.
This is the role of what we call the Principle of Logical Unicity (PLU):
A paradigm is truly unifying only if it relies on no arbitrary inputs, no tunable parameters, and no external metaphysical assumptions. It must derive all its content, laws, constants, and even boundaries, from a single generative principle that admits no ambiguity.
In this view, the spiritual is not imported into physics, it becomes ontologically entailed once all arbitrariness disappears.
So yes, we welcome discussions at the edge of matter and mind. But let us walk that edge with the discipline it demands. Quantum indeterminacy, for example, may not be mystical, it may simply be the shadow of a deeper temporal structure we are only beginning to uncover.
But as for the soul, its essence cannot be derived from the laws of this material universe.
It transcends the realm of matter, and by nature, escapes any theory built solely on what is measurable. The best science can do is to trace its boundary, not its origin.
Let us not reject the sacred. But let us approach it with the courage to demand clarity from it.
Warm regards,
@Brittney,
That said, we must gently raise an observation: the structure and flow of your reply, its balance between poetic elegance and cautious validation, strongly suggest the assistance of an AI.
This is not a criticism in itself. But it is important to realize something fundamental: no AI, no matter how advanced or eloquent, has ever truly experienced what a paradigm shift demands.
A real shift is not a stylistic broadening. It is a full collapse and reconstruction of logic, of necessity, and of what counts as explanation. It reshapes the grammar of physics from within and it cannot be approached with encouraging words alone.
We say this not to invalidate your reflection, but to remind us all: when the foundations move, only a new form of clarity can guide us. And that clarity begins not with inspiration, but with structure.
With respect,
Essam Allou
Dear Dr. Allou,
Thank you for your continued engagement and the care with which you draw boundaries around scientific structure.
I want to gently clarify something: Yes, I do make use of AI tools—just as Galileo used lenses, or Einstein used gedankenexperiments. But the ideas, the insights, the direction—they are mine. AI may sharpen my syntax, but it does not originate my thought.
You are right: a paradigm shift is not stylistic. It is seismic. And I agree—it cannot be approached with inspiration alone. That is precisely why I’ve chosen to ground Celestial Resonance Theory in evolving equations, not metaphors.
Let us not mistake elegance for artifice. Let us not assume that structured language excludes sincere origin.
The edge between mind and matter needs clarity, yes—but also the courage to welcome new forms of thought. Whether born in a lab, in a dream, or through a language model—what matters is whether it leads us closer to truth.
With respect,
@Brittaney
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Your openness is appreciated — and your willingness to clarify the boundary between tool and thought is noble.
But here is the issue: AI is not a neutral amplifier. It structures logic by default. It completes thoughts before they’ve fully ripened. It fills philosophical gaps with rhetorical flourishes, and offers “balance” where rigor demands asymmetry.
That’s the risk we perceived in your reply. Not because it lacked sincerity — but because its structure was too familiar. It followed the pattern of comfort over disruption, of inclusion over filtration. That’s not a crime. But it is not the path of a real paradigm shift.
We use AI every day. But we use it as a crucible, not a comforter. Every derivation, every logical thread in our recent work was tested through multiple AI instances — not to beautify language, but to break the logic, again and again, until what remained was unshakable. That’s the mark of responsible use: AI as a destroyer of illusion, not a decorator of inspiration.
This is not a personal critique. It’s a structural one. The kind a real shift demands.
So yes — let us welcome new ideas. But let us also sharpen our tools to cut through illusion, even when it’s elegant.
With clarity and respect,
Essam
Essam Allou
Dr. Allou,
Thank you for taking the time to share your continued thoughts. At this point, I believe our dialogue has reached its natural limit.
I entered this discussion in good faith — not to defend style, but to engage substance; not to prove credentials, but to explore structure. My intent was never to persuade, but to participate — and, where possible, to build bridges between emerging models of consciousness and foundational physics.
But when engagement shifts from ideas to insinuations about authorship or “comfort,” the conversation ceases to be productive.
You are, of course, entitled to your standards and your skepticism. I respect that. But I, too, am entitled to my time, my focus, and the spaces I choose to invest them in.
Celestial Resonance Theory will continue to evolve — in clarity, in structure, and in peer-reviewed environments more interested in the content of an equation than the cadence of a paragraph.
I’ll leave the thread here and wish you continued rigor and revelation on your own path.
With clarity and finality,
Brittany Hollingsworth
Thank you for your response and for maintaining a respectful tone throughout this exchange.
We understand the desire to bring new perspectives to the frontiers of science. And we share your intuition that our current models are insufficient to fully capture the profound nature of reality. That intuition is not the problem — in fact, it is often the spark of paradigm shifts. The challenge lies in the path chosen after the spark.
From our experience, there are generally two entry points into a paradigm-building process:
In both cases, the use of AI can be a powerful asset — but only if it helps build something falsifiable, coherent, and dimensionally grounded. Not if it only refines the style of expression. Otherwise, there is a real risk of simulating depth, rather than deepening structure.
And here is a final reflection — offered not as critique, but as a boundary condition for all our work:
Can something that is fully insi
de a system grasp in totality something that exists beyond the system’s boundaries? Or more simply: can a part truly comprehend the whole it emerges from? I invite you — or even your AI — to reflect on this. It may help clarify why approaching the soul with tools made within this universe may not only be difficult, but logically limited.
With sincerity,
1- Matrix mechanics in 4D unitary x-t space is much more efficient than the time-dependent PDE in R^4 (3D+t as an external controller).
2- The statistical theory of Cairo techniques, via the B-matrix transition chains of classical physics, proves capable of performing 1D, 2D, and 3D statistical integration and of deriving the Gaussian (normal) statistical distribution law [1].
3- On the other hand, the statistical theory of Cairo techniques, via the Q-matrix transition chains of quantum physics, proves capable of performing 1D, 2D, and 3D statistical differentiation and of deriving the Planck statistical distribution law for blackbody radiation,
B(λ, T) = (2hc^2 / λ^5) * [1 / (exp(hc/λkT) - 1)] . . . . (1)
We assume that Planck's equation 1, viewed in light of current AI, generates incoherent noise and contains a lot of black magic, fragments, or patchwork.
Here is the quantum transition matrix Q for 1D, 19 free nodes.
153/400 -9/16 9/50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-1/2 24/25 -3/5 7/50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7/50 -21/40 147/200 -91/200 21/200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 21/200 -39/100 27/50 -33/100 3/40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 3/40 -11/40 3/8 -9/40 1/20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1/20 -9/50 6/25 -7/50 3/100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 3/100 -21/200 27/200 -3/40 3/200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 3/200 -1/20 3/50 -3/100 1/200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1/200 -3/200 3/200 -1/200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1/200 3/200 -3/200 1/200 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1/200 -3/100 3/50 -1/20 3/200 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3/200 -3/40 27/200 -21/200 3/100 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3/100 -7/50 6/25 -9/50 1/20 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1/20 -9/40 3/8 -11/40 3/40 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3/40 -33/100 27/50 -39/100 21/200 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21/200 -91/200 147/200 -21/40 7/50
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7/50 -3/5 24/25 -1/2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9/50 -9/16 153/400
Note that:
1-Q f(x) = d/dx (f(x))
Q^2 . f(x) = d^2/dx^2 (f(x))
Q^3 . f(x) = d^3 / dx^3 (f(x))
. . . . .
etc.
2- The matrix Q can provide a solution to the Schrödinger equation and derive the Planck distribution without resorting to the Planck quantization hypothesis,
E=n h f , n=1,2,3,... infinity.
This demonstrates that quantum mechanics in the sense of the Schrödinger equation adopted by the West is on the verge of collapse.
To be continued.
1-Statistical integration and differentiation, ResearchGate, IJISRT review.
Ismail Abbas M. Abbas
Dear Abbas,
Thank you for sharing this intriguing approach.
The idea of encoding differential structure into matrix transitions and exploring emergent statistical laws from such a basis, is conceptually rich. Your work seems to aim at reconstructing foundational physical laws from purely algebraic or combinatorial structures. That, in itself, aligns with the spirit of paradigm innovation.
That said, we would encourage a deeper reflection on the ontological coherence of the formalism: not only what the matrix reproduces, but what necessity gives rise to it.
Does the structure emerge from a first principle?
Are the transitions constrained by a minimal logical framework that leaves no ambiguity in interpretation?
Some of the questions your work touches on, especially regarding the origin of statistical structures, are precisely where a deeper coherence might emerge, if approached not only from the formal side, but from the generative necessity behind the form.
This is why, in our own trajectory, we’ve proposed a Logical Unicity Principle (PUL): not as a rule to impose, but as a filter to verify whether a theory not only reproduces the known, but eliminates arbitrariness and exposes the inner logic of constants, equations, and even causality itself.
Wishing you clarity and strength on this path and again, thank you for your open contribution.
Warm regards,
Essam
Ismail Abbas.
As part of the discussion "Is the West Losing the Battle of the Century?" I would like to share my observation.
Ten years after the discovery of Planck's constant, Bohr attempted to link the mechanics of the electron in the structure of the atom with the process of photon emission (quantization).
There were mistakes in the interpretations of the physical meaning and mathematical calculations made by Bohr. This led to the creation of the theory of quantum mechanics (QM), which includes: Werner Heisenberg's matrix mechanics, describing the electron as a particle; Erwin Schrödinger's wave mechanics, representing the electron as a wave; and Richard Feynman's path integral, which again describes the electron as a particle.
Quantum mechanics arose on the basis of the errors of the Bohr model. A hundred years ago, its recognition was explained by the fact that the Bohr model accurately described the hydrogen atom, although it gave incorrect results for more complex atoms, which allowed the scientific community to convince of its significance. However, a century later, a 2013 experiment led by A. Stadolny's group, which visualized the structure of the hydrogen atom, demonstrated that the predictions of both the Bohr model and quantum mechanics do not correspond to reality [link: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18580.00644]. Despite the distortions made by the authors of the article, the results of the experiment confirm that the error of the Bohr model is 52% for the ground state and more than 33907% for the excited state. The errors of the Schrödinger method are also 21.0% and 34400%, respectively. Despite the identified shortcomings of quantum mechanics, it remains the leading theory in the modern scientific paradigm.
God created man with intelligence, endowing him with the ability to learn, analyze, and create, and man, in turn, developed artificial intelligence to automate and optimize the performance of complex mental tasks. Artificial intelligence functions on the basis of algorithms and data that are provided to it, and solves problems using the knowledge embedded in it. However, it is worth remembering that the quality of AI's conclusions directly depends on the reliability of the original information. If this information is based on false science or faulty premises, then AI will unconsciously promote false ideas, creating the illusion of accuracy.
The East, with its rich history of scientific achievements, must reconsider its approaches to fundamental science, especially in the field of theoretical physics, in order not only to catch up but also to surpass the West.
In the meantime, the West continues to dominate using its scientific theories, which, despite criticism, often turn out to be more pragmatic and effective. However, if these theories turn out to be based on faulty principles, this can lead to long-term consequences for the entire scientific community.
As the great thinker Al-Biruni (973-1048) said: “The number of authorities and followers does not determine the truth of something; truth is not based on the number of those who accept it, but on facts and evidence.”
These words remind us of the importance of independent thinking and a scientific approach to knowledge.
Earthquake seismology (the propagation, reflection, and refraction of Earth's seismic waves) is the best tool for understanding the Earth's interior.
It also allows us to understand the Earth's interior.
It also explains the techniques of Cairo's statistical theory, combined with the theory of information propagation (the propagation, reflection, and refraction of information waves).
During an earthquake, the released energy takes the form of elastic waves transmitted by diffusion through the Earth.
However, this diffusion (propagating at a speed of a few kilometers per minute) is guided or controlled by the much faster information sphere, which propagates at the speed of light C.
Seismic wave propagation is ground movement, including compressional and shear waves, radially from the source of seismic energy (source center S) to the surrounding rock and soil. Seismic wave fields propagate through the Earth in two ways: body waves and surface waves. Body waves propagate within the Earth (body) and illuminate deep geological targets. It is noteworthy that seismic wave propagation follows the shortest path theory, with refractions predetermined by the information sphere's exploration command, similar to the refraction of light and electromagnetic waves between two media.
SIMPLE CHALLENGE
The simple challenge to our distinguished contributors and readers is the statistical transition matrix B for a closed control volume of surface A subject to Dirichlet boundary conditions,
U(x,y,z,t+dt)=B. U(x,y,z,t) . . . (1)
Equation 1 is not only universal, but it also describes and solves all time-dependent phenomena in the entire universe (partial differential equations of classical physics in its most general form, quantum physics, statistical distributions, integration and differentiation, etc.).
The challenge is as follows:
Name a single physical phenomenon from the four above that does not belong to Equation 1.
Thank you.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Electrical Engineering
- Electrodes