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

Dear Peter,

Thank you very much for compliments.

As you have rightly pointed out, contemporary physics is developed on the basis of layers and layers of irrational and false assumptions. In any sphere of physics, it has no idea what a phenomenon is but it has many theories and explanations on all its properties and actions.

Nature is simple and logical. It cannot work on contradictory principles/theories. All phenomena have to develop from a basic reason, in logical steps. Everything, except original existence of matter, has to have 'cause and effect' relation. Even space, structured by real matter and acts as a medium, has to have a real existence, structure, form, ability to act and ability to be acted upon.

Dropping few assumptions at a time can only help to increase confusion. Instead, a new basic assumption or a new set of (non-contradictory) fundamental assumptions should be derived and all further theories should be based strictly on it/them.

I am obliged for your offer to help. Kindly read one or few of my articles (links are provided at my website) before deciding to encourage with my "silly" ideas.

I will read your essay and try to understand ideas expressed in it, with comments in appropriate forum. Thanks.

With regards,

Nainan

5 days later

  • [deleted]

  • Post #25

Dear Nainan,

I cannot agree with you more about your statement "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.' It is a wonderful essay. Very easy to read and up to the point. It points out the basic problems of how we tackle physics problems.

I am also an engineer and spent last 15 years self studying physics. I think I finally struggled through some of the mathematical and abstract ideas in physics which I found very difficult to understand at the beginning. The essay I presented Is there really no reality underneath quantum theory is also to search for reality for matter that a deterministic model can generate a bosonic field. Although our approaches are different, I hope you will find it interesting. Like you, I hope non-professional like us can make a contribution to the physics community one day.

Sincerely

Hou Yau

    Dear Hou Yau,

    Thank you very much for compliments. If you are interested to see how my claim is substantiated, kindly read few articles, links for which are provided at my website.

    I read your essay. I am not comfortable with imaginary particles and mathematical supports propping them up. If ordinary physical entities and simple mechanical interactions between them can explain all physical phenomena, why do we need mysterious particles and exotic theories behind them?

    With regards,

    Nainan

    • [deleted]

    • Post #27

    Dear Nainan,

    Thanks for taking time to read my essay. The particle is actually real and not imaginary. The idea is that the amplitude of matter wave actually can be interpreated as vibrations in space and time which are real physical quantities. (The probabilitistic interpretation of the Bohr' postulate is the root of the difficulties of understanding quantum mechanics.) By taking this assumption, we can show that the system has the same properties of a quantum field. The underlying system is fully deterministic and the amplitude of wave is real. The probablistic nature of quantum theory emerges after "information loss". The idea of information loss is proposed by 't Hooft from the holographic prinicple which is widely used in Emergent Quantum Mechancis.

    In this model, a rest particle has fluctuating time rate. Because of this fluctuation, the particle can affect the surrounding space-time. The geometry can be calculated and compare with a rest mass in general relativity. In addition, unlike the majority of theories proposed nowadays, the new model has propteis that are not predicted by quantum mechancis and can surface to the lower energy level. (e.g. string theory has no prediction beyond the Planck level.) As an engineer, I also try to use real physical entities to describe a deterministic system. However, in order to show proof to the community, mathematical supports are needed to show how the idea can be related to the sophisticated caluclations in quantum theory. My attempt is return reality back to quantum mechanics. It is a very brief summary and hope it clarify your questions. I will also take a look at your web site.

    Sincerely,

    Hou Yau

    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 [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] 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

    Dear Nainan,

    I quite agree with yours: < 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.> The same is in the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter which is the subject of my essay. I rated your essay in good way.

    Sergey Fedosin

      • [deleted]

      • Post #30

      Dear Hou Yau,

      Thanks for your reply.

      I believe, only matter can provide a particle with objective reality in space. As it is made of pure matter, it will have an integral body. Hence, rest-particles with wave nature are imaginary particles. Imaginary particles include all those, which are not perceivable by senses (instruments are extensions of senses). For them, conceptual reasoning fails and mathematics take over. You may be right mathematically. That will not substitute for conceptual understanding, without which mathematics become nothing but pure science.

      With regards, Nainan.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #31

      Dear Fedosin,

      Thank you very much.

      I read through your essay. However, I could not did quite see where the said assumption is adhered to. Instead, many other contemporary assumptions are used liberally, to advance further improvements in various theories. May be I missed the point. I will try to read other papers, mentioned in references, to see where our concepts have something in common.

      With regards, Nainan.

      Write a Reply...