Are you saying that things might not be made of matter? If so, what does that mean? Are they made of something other than protons and electrons?

    His abstract states "All real entities are made of matter. Existence of matter is the solitary phenomenon without prior cause. Therefore, original set of assumptions should be only with respect to matter."

    So your question doesn't seem to make sense.

    It's only Newton's initial idea of Isotropy and Equivalence which gives us the notion that all matter *must be* baryonic, i.e. everyday matter that we are all used to. The centre of stars and planets can't be cut in half for us to have a look unfortunately. It's the biggest assumption of them all imo.

    I don't quite understand the sentence "Existence of matter is the solitary phenomenon without prior cause." It still needs an explanation of where it came from and how it was created.

    I understand that topic of essay competition is 'assumptions in physics' rather than any particular physical phenomenon.

    Alan Lowey,

    Thanks for compliments.

    All concepts have to be based on certain definite preconceived ideas, which we call assumptions. These may be results of our past experience or axioms which are widely believed to be true. In physics, an assumption is a statement that is accepted as truth without logical reasoning. It will not attract questions about rational behind it. However, all further reasoning should be based on it.

    If we analyze contemporary physical theories, we shall notice that presence of physical bodies is common and necessary for all physical phenomena and related theories. Presence of physical bodies is the reason for all other physical phenomena and without physical bodies, nothing would exist. Absence of physical bodies would ensure absence of all physical phenomena (including our existence) and consequently, there will not be any need for physical theories.

    Once, we accept presence of physical bodies, next step would be to answer basic questions like; what? where? when? how? etc. about physical bodies. A physical body, to be real, has to have objective reality in space. Space is an imaginary region, presupposed by rational beings, whenever they envisage real entities. Substance (stuff) gives a physical body, its objective reality in space. By definition, matter provides a body with its objective reality in space. Therefore, matter is the substance that makes physical bodies with objective reality. Thus, presence (or existence) of matter is a basic truth or concept in physics.

    In my view, going beyond this concept is meaningless. Because, by definition, matter is the stuff that makes all physical objects. There is no other entity that can provide substance to a physical body. Matter, being real and ultimate substance, cannot be made out of something else. Hence, existence of matter (in universe) is the ultimate truth. This fact should be accepted as the fundamental assumption. Once it is accepted as such, no other questions about existence of matter will arise. No explanation will be required about its cause, creation or origin. Diverse physical bodies in nature would be structured in logical steps from matter alone. There will not be any prior steps to create matter. Hence, existence of matter is the solitary phenomenon without prior cause. All other phenomena are results of existence of matter.

    Implication of your query arises from widely accepted belief that matter (or mass) is converted from energy. Energy is defined as 'ability to do work'. Ability is a qualification of some real entity (in this case, ability of a matter body to do work). A qualification is a functional entity without objective reality. It is not a physical entity. A non-physical entity cannot be converted to physical entity. Hence, it is illogical to believe that energy can be converted into matter or vice versa.

    Once we accept existence of matter as the basic assumption, explanation on every physical phenomenon in nature should be logical extension of this assumption. Reasoning used for any physical theory should start from this basic assumption. All other secondary assumptions (if any) and explanations will be derived from this single basic assumption. Adding illogical assumptions (whenever certain phenomenon cannot be explained on the basis of basic assumption) to suit observation is not a correct practice.

    Roger Schlafly,

    No, Sir. I would emphasize the point that 'everything real is made of matter and nothing else'. Electrons and protons are superior physical bodies (fundamental particles) made of matter.

    Thanks for your interest,

    Nainan

      Yes, I agree with everything that you say Nainan. In your abstract you say "I will suggest 'actions at a distance through empty space' as the first candidate." Again, I'm willing to agree with you, but what is your alternative to this unwieldy "action at a distance"? Do you have one?

      Alan Lowey,

      Of course, I have one simple concept. But, this is not a forum to discuss it. You may kindly visit my website or contact me directly.

      Thanks,

      Nainan

      Goodo. It'd be very interesting to compare. I saw your website but will also contact you via email. Thanks.

      The spinning Archimedes screw is the *only* alternative to a mathematical "action at a distance" philosophy.

      5 days later
      • [deleted]

      Alan, you wrote - "It still needs an explanation of where it came from and how it was created".With respect: Does it? Why must it have been somewhere else first and why must it have been something else first; or have come from nothing? In what way is having a working concept of that prior different existence, or miraculous creation from nothing, helpful or necessary?

      9 days later

      Nainan,

      Interesting ideas. Where do dark matter and dark energy fit in your theory?

      Jim

      Nainan

      So as I understand it, the central idea is that physics is currently founded on an ad-hoc set of assumptions that are poorly integrated together. Furthermore mathematical analysis without conceptual reasoning may lead to irrelevant or illogical conclusions. The current paradigm of physics is identified as deficient in its treatment of matter, since existing mathematical methods only use one of its attributes - mass. Hence, if we can find an appropriate set of assumptions about matter, then 'it should be possible to explain all other physical phenomena' in a way that is logical and comprehensive. So the essay identifies that incorrect premises about matter are holding physics back.

      I thought that that was a perceptive analysis. You made a good case, and I think you have a valid point.

      There may be some commonality between your work and ours (essay here).

      Your essay identifies the problem, and then suggests the starting point. In a way our essay continues the narrative, in that it develops a candidate solution based on fresh assumptions about matter. Another commonality is that we also believe in being clear about our assumptions, which we state as a set of lemmas. (These do not appear in our essay, but can instead be found in our other papers). This ensures a logical coherence all the way through. As you said, 'Original assumption(s) should be logical, consistent and without contradictions. They would require no change, addition or modification as our knowledge increases.'

      Whether or not the core idea in our essay is on the right track, it confirms that the approach that you suggest in your essay is useful, because it can indeed be taken forward to generate logical solutions.

      Thank you

      Dirk

        Dear James,

        If assumption of 'existence of matter' alone can explain all physical phenomena, why do we need undefined 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'.

        Nainan

        Dear Dirk,

        Thank you very much. You have indeed summarized essential points in my essay, very beautifully.

        Subject of contest is 'Questioning the Foundations: Which of our Basic Physical assumptions are Wrong'. Rules of contest specifically forbid pet theories by authors. Hence, I omitted mentioning anything about my concept and concentrated on general state of assumptions (currently used in physics) with 'actions at a distance' as most illogical assumption. Only one acceptable basic assumption, required in physics according to my concept, is mentioned in last paragraph, to replace all other contemporary assumptions.

        What I would like to propose is that in a materialistic universe, existence of matter is an undeniable fact. Presuming this to be true, 'existence of matter' has to be part of the basic assumption in physics, which I stated as 'Substance is fundamental and matter alone provides substance to all real entities'. All other explanations have to be based on it and derived from it. For details on how this is done may be gathered from my website/book.

        Thank you again, for link to your essay. I think it is quite scholarly. Unfortunately, it is slightly above my standard of understanding. As I understand, you identified zero-dimensional particles in QM as a wrong physical assumption. To rectify this mistake you have proposed a special type of particle as a new assumption, while retaining almost all of current assumptions used in physics. As QM itself is based on many other assumptions in physics, assumptions used solely in QM may not qualify to be basic assumption in physics.

        Thanking you and with regards,

        Nainan

        8 days later

        Dear naina,

        I agree with your conclusion;

        Only one fundamental assumption that 'Substance is fundamental and matter alone provides substance (stuff) to all physical entities' can provide basis for logical explanations to all physical phenomena in universe.

        In PicoPhysics we give matter another name Knergy. One statement called unary law 'Space contains Knergy' presents universe as five dimensional reality .

        Thanks and Regards,

        Vijay Gupta

          a month later

          Dear Ninan,

          I agree with you that there should be a fundamental assumption. However,there is no way to know that the assumption is correct. For that we have to wait till the whole thing has been explained. Till that time we have to accommodate wrong assumptions.

          Anyway, I have the same opinion that everything should start with the definition of matter and its properties.Here we can have different assumptions which may be wrong or right, and try to decipher the whole thing.Once it is completed, we will know whether the initial assumptions are wrong or right.

          I have submitted my essay today only, and expect it to be available shortly in this site.I will be contacting you directly.

            Dear Gupta,

            Thanks for comments.

            Your essay is quite thought provoking on many points. However, I shall limit my opinion only on dimensions.

            You define dimension as: "Dimension is an observable parent of a reality. The object is said to have as many dimensions as number of such realities composing the object." And space as "Contemporary space is a residual concept of Cartesian Space on removal of matter (Ether). It is an infinite 3-Dimension continuum which can be measured and fixed (it is neither created nor destroyed)".

            In physics; space is understood as the boundless extent of universe, where all material objects and organisms (including rational beings like ourselves) exist and in which objects and events occur. All material objects in the universe have their relative as well as absolute positions and motions in the space. Space, itself, has no material existence. It cannot provide sensory experience to rational beings, like real entities do. It has no form or structure and it is not tangible. It is a functional entity (pre-supposed by rational beings, whenever they envisage material bodies) that serves the purpose of locating various material bodies in it and where rational beings relate themselves with each other. In this sense, the extent outside three-dimensional material bodies becomes the space.

            In order to locate various material bodies, at any instant, we need to have certain references in space. Therefore space is divided into coordinate sections about a reference point, determined by observer. Generally, we use Cartesian coordinate system to measure spatial dimensions. In this system, space is divided by mutually perpendicular planes through a point of origin and distances to location of a body is measured from all coordinate planes to define exact location of body in space in relation to point of origin. Although, there is a theoretical possibility to divide space by 'n' number of mutually perpendicular planes to define as many spatial dimensions, I do not consider it a real possibility in practice. At the most we may have are three mutually perpendicular planes to divide space into eight parts. This system is known as three-dimensional spatial system.

            I wonder how can there be more than three mutually perpendicular planes, in a system of 360 degree (2pi radians) system of space. Other than in imaginary theoretical concepts, I believe, it is impossible to produce spatial dimensions beyond third order. I do not know much about 'PicoPhysics' (from your essay, I understand that it supports many of contemporary irrational assumptions), to comment on 5D space, you profess.

            I should add that while using spatial dimensions, we are actually measuring departure between two points/bodies rather than space, in between them.

            With regards,

            Nainan

            Dear Jose,

            You are welcome to contact me directly, if you wish.

            An assumption is a statement, which is believed to be true. Hence, you cannot question its correctness unless further developments of theories on various physical phenomena do not contradict the assumption. At any stage of development of these theories, an inconsistency is noticed; assumption is proved incorrect. More than one basic assumption is likely to lead towards contradictions. Having numerous sets of assumptions (used in different theories) can only lead towards chaos in theoretical physics.

            As long as we believe in material world, existence of matter cannot be denied. Hence, having 'existence of matter' as the basic and only assumption is not likely to go wrong. Challenge is to develop theories on various phenomena on this basis, instead of subscribing numerous assumptions, whenever theorists are struck on their way.

            Thanks and with regards,

            Nainan.

            I have gone through your essay and also I have visited your website.The existence of matter is a fact and not an assumption. Regarding its properties (other than mass and volume) we require assumptions.Whether it is made up of one type of fundamental particles or as many as 18 types is an assumption.Whether it can be converted into energy or not is another assumption.So we require many, if not multitudes of assumptions.

            Dear Nainan,

            I read your essay and found it very interesting and well written. I highly appreciate and share your viewpoint.

            All authors in this contest have presented their viewpoints in different styles. In the grand maze of the unknown it is important to consider all possible alternatives and different viewpoints for building a consolidated common approach.

            As you know, with arbitrary assumptions we can build wonderful fantasies. But to come close to building a model of reality, we must use barest minimum of assumptions and such assumptions that are used must be plausible and compatible with physical reality. For this reason I think FQXi has chosen a most appropriate topic for this contest.

            You are also requested to read my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space". Kindly do let me know if you don't get convinced about the invalidity of the founding assumptions of Relativity or regarding the efficacy of the proposed simple experiments for detection of absolute motion. However, you are welcome to disagree with me regarding my proposal for fundamental research in 'Physical Space' because, possibly, that idea may be still ahead of its time!

            Best Wishes

            G S Sandhu

              Dear Jose,

              If existence of matter can be considered as a fact, rather than an assumption, I would say that no assumptions are required in physics. All physical phenomena can be logically explained on the basis of this 'fact' (of existence of matter) alone.

              However, a fact (I believe) is nothing but a statement that is believed to be true. An assumption is also defined in same terms. Once you know matter for a fact, why assume its properties. Properties will be self-evident in definition of matter.

              [Mass is a measure of inertia or it is a mathematical relation between matter-content and change of state of motion of a matter-body. Matter, being a single type of entity, a matter-body cannot have different natures for its most-fundamental particles. There is no unambiguous definition for 'energy'. Whatever energy means, it has to be distinct from matter and hence, they cannot be converted/reverted into each other.]

              I think you presented a brilliant analysis, in your essay, of current affairs in physics and your suggestions on ways out of present dilemmas are very practical. Nevertheless, who will bell the cat?

              With regards,

              Nainan

              Dear Sandhu,

              Thank you very much for compliments.

              I share your view about role played by FQXi towards better understanding of fundamental physics.

              Relativistic ideas were formulated much later in the history of development of physics. They gave physics a mystical aura, reserving rights of contemplation to very few, with knowledge of advanced mathematics. Many lesser scientists were attracted to it due to its mysterious ideas and incredible possibilities for imagination. Academics stick to relativity theories only because it is their bread. Your arguments would certainly influence, at least a minority, who will read them.

              It should not go unnoticed that irrational and baseless assumptions were used in physics even much earlier without much ado. 'Action at a distance through empty space' is an example. No person with little common sense will argue about its irrationality. Yet, physicists accept this assumption with occasional and mild protests. Many a time, their protests appear in the form of use of equally illogical and undefined fields, fluxes, imaginary particles, distortions of form-less structures, etc. On the other hand, anyone who tries to suggest an 'all-encompassing medium of action' is venomously opposed from every quarter. Repeated failures of such ideas, in the past, prompt serious scientists to beware of new ideas. They think it is better to snuff out such attempts early than hope for a logical idea of a universal medium of actions.

              My argument is that a single basic assumption related to materialistic nature of its existence can provide logical explanations to all physical phenomena in universe, including a universal medium of actions. All illogical assumptions, you enumerated in your essay, and others currently used in physics can be replaced by a single and basic assumption that 'Substance is fundamental and matter alone provides substance to all real entities'.

              With regards,

              Nainan

              21 days later

              Nainan

              I agree we must review from scratch when anomalies arise. I've found in Architecture, the slightest change late on means a fundamental re-appraisal of assumptions and the decision making process is essential. In Astronomy, poor theory is buried under multi layer patches on patches. Excellent essay, deserving of a far higher position, which I'll be pleased to help with.

              In applying this I think I've come across a very important finding about matter. If all, including space, is a 'medium', even of very diffuse matter then all old physics is nonsense, and nature is really far simpler. As you say the "cause and effect relations" mean that interactions of fluctuations with matter in motion, over time, at a quantum level produces the effects we call relativity including local CSL.

              I hope you'll read my essay and see if you can put together the 'kit of parts' emerging from dropping a bunch of old assumptions into the ontological construction apparently unifying physics. That, or tell me where I've gone wrong! I look forward to your views (and hope you're ok at kinetic visualisation.)

              Best wishes

              Peter