KRAMER
8th November 2004, 11:13 AM
This claim was received in April, 2004. I must admit that I found this one to be uniquely silly.
It was also unnecessarily longwinded, but, let's not quibble.
=============================================
My name is Armin Nikkhah Shirazi and I wish to apply for the JREF prize. About two years ago, I had seemingly out of nowhere a series of flashes or insight or epiphanies that seemed to explain several of fundamental unanswered questions in physics, most notably quantum physics.
Initially, I dismissed these, but after several of these ocurrances, my curiosity was sufficiently aroused to attempt to check whether these ideas were consistent with known physics. Unfortunately, I had only an elementary introduction to physics almost 12 years ago, so it was not easy for me to understand the established theory of quantum machanics at first. To my utter surprise though, after learning a little more about it, the ideas seemed to be not only consistent with it, but actually explained aspects that the sources I consulted did not seem able to explain. If these epiphanies yield a correct theory that permits an approach by which quantum mechanics can be derived from scratch, then this occurance would be so extraordinary that it would seem to qualify me for this contest.
I think if you'd ask any physicists, they would consider it much more likely for a psychic to, say, make an accurate prediction about the future than for a lay person with hardly any background in physics to make a meaningful contribution to the fundamental workings of the universe, let alone to solve something as dramatic as the exact derivation of quantum mechanics which has eluded the greatest minds of the 20th century.
So, the special ability I claim is the following:
I believe that I have had several definitive insights that caused me to make a fundamental leap in theoretical physics, without an appreciable formal training in physics.
I propose that the demonstration of my claim go as follows:
You chose an independent panel of physicists. Then we establish a meeting at which the panel members and I are present. At this meeting I will have an oopportunity to articulate my theory and they will have an opportunity to critically evaluate it. If they have any questions or requests for clarification,, they should be able to ask me at any time, but there will also be a Q&A at the end.
Then, you ask them two simple, clear cut and unabmiguous yes-or-no questions that will constitute the basis for accepting my claim.
The first question would be; "Did you understand the theory presented to you?"
There are three reasons for this question:
1- If they think they did not understand it, they will not be able to answer the second question truthfully.
2- Most people making claims similar to mine seem to try to obfuscate their theories. I can assure you that I will present my theory as clearly as I can, but this question gives you a safeguard by preempting any claims on my part that the scientists knew that they did not understand my theory.
3- This question gives me a safeguard, because I wiash to collect at the conclusion of the test, and regardless of the outcome, from each of the physicists a signed affadavit stating that they heard and understood my theory.
If the answer to any of these three questions is "NO", I should be given the opportunity to clarify the issue until it is settled, at which point you ask this question again.
Once the answers to these questions are unanimously "YES", you ask them the second question. This question should be such that it renders the results of the test self-evident, such as, "Does this theory present a breakthrough in our understanding of quantum physics?
For the purposes of this question, "breakthrough is defined as "a sudden advance especially in knowledge or technique" (Websters).
They answer this question unanimously in writing, so it can be unencumbered by any outside factors. An independent observer collects that answers and reads them out loud. If they chose "NO" then they should point out at least one reason for their response, to which I should have an opportunity to respond. The prupose of this provision is to ensure that the reason is not an aspect of the theory that was misunderstood. Despite my greatest efforts to express the ideas clearly, I am not conversant in physics jargon, one of the primary purposes of which is to communicate ideas in a more precise manner than lay language. So I deem it remotely possible that my use of lay language may create situations where what I meant and what I was understood to say by the physicists differed from each other. This provision should hopefully point out any such circumstances and give me a fair chance to recitfy them.
After my response, follow-up questions and the identification of any additional points that might have been misunderstood, the above question and procedure should be repeated and if the answer is still unanimously "NO", then I can be conmsidered to have failed to demonstrate my ability for the purposes of this challenge. If they unanimously chose "YES", I can be considered to have succeeded. In the unlikely event that the choices are not unanimous, you could use a predetermined, agreed-upon procedure to determine the outcome. One might be simply to let the majority decide, but I am willing to explore with you other possibilities, if you wish. In the interest of maintaining the impartiality of the process, I would like to request the following with respect to the selection of the panel;
1- The panel should consist of at least three members.
2- None of the individuasl panel members nor I should know each other's identities ahead of time.
3- the individual members should be from different institutions and not have co-authored papers together.
Finally, I am myself still in disbelief about how I could conceive of these ideas without any advanced training in physics. I hope that you will accept my application and look forward to your response.
- Armin Nikkhah Shirazi
============================================
Oof.
It was also unnecessarily longwinded, but, let's not quibble.
=============================================
My name is Armin Nikkhah Shirazi and I wish to apply for the JREF prize. About two years ago, I had seemingly out of nowhere a series of flashes or insight or epiphanies that seemed to explain several of fundamental unanswered questions in physics, most notably quantum physics.
Initially, I dismissed these, but after several of these ocurrances, my curiosity was sufficiently aroused to attempt to check whether these ideas were consistent with known physics. Unfortunately, I had only an elementary introduction to physics almost 12 years ago, so it was not easy for me to understand the established theory of quantum machanics at first. To my utter surprise though, after learning a little more about it, the ideas seemed to be not only consistent with it, but actually explained aspects that the sources I consulted did not seem able to explain. If these epiphanies yield a correct theory that permits an approach by which quantum mechanics can be derived from scratch, then this occurance would be so extraordinary that it would seem to qualify me for this contest.
I think if you'd ask any physicists, they would consider it much more likely for a psychic to, say, make an accurate prediction about the future than for a lay person with hardly any background in physics to make a meaningful contribution to the fundamental workings of the universe, let alone to solve something as dramatic as the exact derivation of quantum mechanics which has eluded the greatest minds of the 20th century.
So, the special ability I claim is the following:
I believe that I have had several definitive insights that caused me to make a fundamental leap in theoretical physics, without an appreciable formal training in physics.
I propose that the demonstration of my claim go as follows:
You chose an independent panel of physicists. Then we establish a meeting at which the panel members and I are present. At this meeting I will have an oopportunity to articulate my theory and they will have an opportunity to critically evaluate it. If they have any questions or requests for clarification,, they should be able to ask me at any time, but there will also be a Q&A at the end.
Then, you ask them two simple, clear cut and unabmiguous yes-or-no questions that will constitute the basis for accepting my claim.
The first question would be; "Did you understand the theory presented to you?"
There are three reasons for this question:
1- If they think they did not understand it, they will not be able to answer the second question truthfully.
2- Most people making claims similar to mine seem to try to obfuscate their theories. I can assure you that I will present my theory as clearly as I can, but this question gives you a safeguard by preempting any claims on my part that the scientists knew that they did not understand my theory.
3- This question gives me a safeguard, because I wiash to collect at the conclusion of the test, and regardless of the outcome, from each of the physicists a signed affadavit stating that they heard and understood my theory.
If the answer to any of these three questions is "NO", I should be given the opportunity to clarify the issue until it is settled, at which point you ask this question again.
Once the answers to these questions are unanimously "YES", you ask them the second question. This question should be such that it renders the results of the test self-evident, such as, "Does this theory present a breakthrough in our understanding of quantum physics?
For the purposes of this question, "breakthrough is defined as "a sudden advance especially in knowledge or technique" (Websters).
They answer this question unanimously in writing, so it can be unencumbered by any outside factors. An independent observer collects that answers and reads them out loud. If they chose "NO" then they should point out at least one reason for their response, to which I should have an opportunity to respond. The prupose of this provision is to ensure that the reason is not an aspect of the theory that was misunderstood. Despite my greatest efforts to express the ideas clearly, I am not conversant in physics jargon, one of the primary purposes of which is to communicate ideas in a more precise manner than lay language. So I deem it remotely possible that my use of lay language may create situations where what I meant and what I was understood to say by the physicists differed from each other. This provision should hopefully point out any such circumstances and give me a fair chance to recitfy them.
After my response, follow-up questions and the identification of any additional points that might have been misunderstood, the above question and procedure should be repeated and if the answer is still unanimously "NO", then I can be conmsidered to have failed to demonstrate my ability for the purposes of this challenge. If they unanimously chose "YES", I can be considered to have succeeded. In the unlikely event that the choices are not unanimous, you could use a predetermined, agreed-upon procedure to determine the outcome. One might be simply to let the majority decide, but I am willing to explore with you other possibilities, if you wish. In the interest of maintaining the impartiality of the process, I would like to request the following with respect to the selection of the panel;
1- The panel should consist of at least three members.
2- None of the individuasl panel members nor I should know each other's identities ahead of time.
3- the individual members should be from different institutions and not have co-authored papers together.
Finally, I am myself still in disbelief about how I could conceive of these ideas without any advanced training in physics. I hope that you will accept my application and look forward to your response.
- Armin Nikkhah Shirazi
============================================
Oof.