Essay Abstract

For Physics to progress or advance, cherished assumptions about reality and the universe must give way to new notions that allow a better understanding. Ideas from sciences of the past seem quaint or misguided to modern scientists, and today's Science will undoubtedly be seen to contain untruths or half-truths by folks in the future. However; we cannot know which assumptions are erroneous, without sufficient time for exploration and comparison. Scientists learn more by devising experiments that - if performed with care and precision - will reveal which assumptions are wrong. Unfortunately assumptions are hidden by nature, as when we assume ideas are true we take their reality for granted; we believe in them. Beliefs must be carefully separated from what we learn through observation or test by experiment. In Cosmology, there is an additional challenge as scientists cannot experiment with or observe some of the cosmos' wonders up close, and must be content with observation at a distance. Thus; a number of explanations aptly fit the same evidence. Perhaps we need to be more playful with our assumptions. There will always be frontiers in Physics, horizons we cannot reach and must speculate about instead. It is best, therefore, to be aware that any of our cherished assumptions could be wrong, and to remember the assumptions we do not know we have made might be an even greater problem.

Author Bio

Jonathan lives in upstate New York and spends a lot of his time thinking, while caring for his aging parents and trying to run a multimedia business. He has written and lectured on a wide variety of topics including Physics and Math, Cognition and Learning, and Science Education. Jonathan has presented at a number of international Physics conferences, and is on the editorial board of Prespacetime Journal.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Jonathan Dickau,

It's good to finally read your excellent essay! You make so many relevant points, but one of the most succinct and yet most important is that about dealing with linear approximations to non-linear equations. Your specific example:

"[FLRW] did something remarkable by allowing Einstein's Field Equations to be soluble, as they would otherwise be intractable. But if a homogeneous and isotropic universe...is a simplifying assumption they made to do it, it is fallacious to also see it as a prediction of the theory."

As I remark elsewhere, the C-field I focus on interacts with mass and hence with the mass-equivalent of its own energy, hence it is inherently non-linear, and the weak field equations are an approximation. In this regard you say, "Many exciting and paradoxical things are observed when we expand our purview to include non-linear behavior of systems. " Amen.

You also note that often "a number of explanations fit the same evidence." In cosmology this is probably inevitable, given the experimental realities, but in well studied data-intensive fields like nuclear physics Norman Cook probably says it best:

"In the context of nuclear structure theory, the various nuclear models can account separately for different data sets, but the necessity of jumping from one model to another is jarring for anyone who values coherency... and makes me think there are different understandings of what "understanding" means."

In other words, a number of inequivalent explanations is almost proof that we *don't* understand reality.

Even a first reading of your essay is rich in concepts. I may come back with a later comment on the octionic nature of the early universe and evolution of dimensionality, but let me now simply thank you for introducing the idea of entropy as as a 'spread of energy' and providing links to Lambert and Leff.

Finally, your repeated exhortation to "be more playful" reminds me of our friend Ray's trademark close:

Have fun,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Greetings Folks,

    It is my privilege to again be among the contestants in this prestigious Physics essay contest. I will attempt to answer all honest questions and concerns about the content of my essay, and regarding the broader topics it touches on. I will also attempt to read as many of the other essays as I can, and to leave appropriate comments whenever I have something cogent to say.

    This year's contest is shaping up to be a very interesting event, and I applaud all of the excellent submissions I have seen from other authors. I am impressed with several entries, and pleased to be part of this elite group of authors. I think perhaps I had a head start, as the topic chosen was a variation of one of my suggestions for last year's contest, but in my essay you will find out why I made that suggestion. I assure you it is an interesting story!

    My only regret is that friend and colleague Ray B. Munroe can't participate in this year's contest. But I am glad I got to collaborate with him before his passing. I wish all the other authors good luck, and good conversation on each author's forum.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

      hello Edwin and Jonathan,

      Happy to see your essay Jonathan.

      have fun indeed Edwin like said a friend.

      Edwin and Jonathan, you know a little the p-adic numbers? I d like to learn more. Could you tell me more please ?

      Regards

      Thanks very much!

      It looks like I managed to get my 'finger on the pulse' of a lot of interesting and exciting work in progress, some of which other authors have featured heavily. I find it amazing to note the degree of cross-fertilization this year's essays and authors enable. I followed my muse and my gut, but I think I picked good places to press my advantage and also chose well when to be circumspect. But my essay ties in so wonderfully well with several other author's work, it almost seems like a team effort to prove or bracket some points.

      I playfully echo your choice of Ray's closing.

      Have Fun!

      Jonathan

      ps to all, have you seen this robot on Mars. It is a wonderful new.We know that 3 to 4 billions years ago, water was on mars.If it existed water, so the life is rational considering the adatation of H CNO ....CH4 NH3 H2O H2C2 HCN....

      It is fascinating, I will be happy to have datas about minerals,bacterias or this or that. They have alot of chance those people from Nasa. I am persuaded that a lot of discoveries shall be very relevant.Good luck to them.and still congratulations for this success.

        Thanks also Steve!

        Your entry snuck in while I was penning a reply to E.E., but your thoughts and greetings are welcome too. I know a little, but I think the real expert on p-adic numbers is Matti Pitkanen, and that he likes to expound on the subject.

        I hope you are well, and appreciate your comment.

        Jonathan

        Yes Steve, but thanks;

        I congratulate the NASA folks for a successful beginning to the Mars probe's explorations.

        all the best,

        Jonathan

        you are welcome :)

        I am going to learn more about these p-adic numbers and this K theory. It seems relevant.

        Regards

        • [deleted]

        Sorry to hear about Ray. He added a lot.

        • [deleted]

        Jonathan,

        Just started your essay, but it's late, so I'm stopping with a prediction on this comment;

        " While we await more advanced detectors which will reveal the gravitational wave spectrum in greater detail."

        I think we will eventually understand that gravity waves are all around us. It's called 'light." The energy released as mass condenses. M=e/c2.

          Yes John,

          He sure did! I will miss Ray and his cheerful commentary. But at least I continue the threads we started a bit, in my essay.

          All the Best,

          Jonathan

          Thanks for that, John;

          Happy you are reading it. Glad to answer any questions you have.

          More later,

          Jonathan

          • [deleted]

          Dear Jonathan,

          I appreciate your emphasis on the topic of this contest; which basic assumptions are wrong?

          Let me stress your certainly correct conjecture; no two two things (in reality) are completely separated, no system is isolated.

          What you expressed with the words playful and child, I called pre-mathematical. In that our views seem to be in very good agreement too.

          You are in the comfortable position advocating nice ideas like emergent dimensionality and fractal large-scale structure. I have to admit tending to question what some mathematicians of the 19th century decided. Could you please explain to me what you meant with Möbius-like? Of course, you did not refer to the syndrome but to the well known strip. I see any coherent strip in reality a 3D object which has exactly two surfaces, an inner and an outer one.

          The ideal complex plane has also two faces. Complex calculus is based on ignoring one of them. I wonder why this has obviously bee forgotten.

          I sincerely hope your essay will be heard and make a difference. Wishing good luck I do not intend expressing doubts.

          Regards,

          Eckard

            Jonathen

            Another masterly overview, and I liked the emphasis on 'play', which I use myself but with different theatrical metaphore's. I also value the content highly, particularly the more cerebral view of entropy. Most in keeping with my own thesis is the concept of connectivity, or how there is no 'empty space' isolating systems. I develop this to consider the whole universe as co-joined media, with motion always creating boundary conditions.

            Finally I agree but also extend the view that it's not just the public who rely on and cling on to 19th century science in the face of evidence and logical analysis.

            But will science not just pay lip service to the ideals and carry on as normal? I propose they need a better and more consistent solution, but one which may take more intelligence than generally available, or at least more freedom in 'play'.

            I very much hope you'll read my own essay and look forward to you comments on content.

            Peter

              Hi Jonathan,

              I enjoyed your easy-to-read essay upto the point where you said "But often, playing with ideas in theory suggests that a greater truth exists, as with Einstein and the study of gravity. Newtons Law of Gravitation is remarkably accurate within certain bounds or barring complications demanding Relativity. If an object and observer share the same local frame of reference and neither is a supermassive object, we dont need a more complicated formula."

              This is much too simplistic a view imo. There are many anomalies and inconsistencies with the orthodox view on gravity. For example, how does your view of Newtonian physics explain the Flyby Anomaly?

              Thanks very much, Eckard;

              They are studying numeracy in early childhood now. It seems we have in innate sense of more or fewer, but need to learn the distinction between none and one of something, in order to learn how to count. If we don't get in the way of the process, children learn some very cool stuff by playing. But it's too easy to get them fixated on finding the one right answer, by playing role model too often, rather than encouraging exploration.

              As to the Möbius-like nature of the 3-sphere, my understanding is this. The non-trivial twist in the Hopf fibration of S3 means that one can find trajectories that allow a smooth or continuous traversal of both the inside and outside face, as with a Möbius strip or Klein bottle. In effect-there is no inner or outer, as one can cross from one face to the other without ever leaving the surface, or passing through the topological boundary or distinction. The point below the surface one arrives at by puncturing the spere is simply the antipode of the point you started on.

              This seems a close relative of a class of figures known as compact tori. When one inflates a tire tube, it gets fatter; but what if you could shrink the center hole and then allow the fattening to continue beyond the center to the opposite wall? While the limitations of objects and surfaces in 3-d space forbid this a 3-sphere lives in 4-d space, allowing the maneuver described above to be accomplished as a simple rotation. That is; it's an easy and natural extension, that gives a sphere torus-like attributes, so long as we allow a rotation in an additional dimension to take place.

              An interesting thought about the complex plane. If one observes the activity of the iterand, when working on points near the border of the Mandelbrot Set, the iterations for points along one wall take place in the opposite lobe, when plotting in the cardioid region, or tend to happen on the opposite side of the Real axis in general. One could make some generalizations about active and passive modes and hemispheres. But the mirror image is just as valid.

              I appreciate the comments.

              All the Best,

              Jonathan

              Thanks Peter,

              Please don't get me started on how many scientists are still making assumptions that come straight out of 19th century Physics, as though the 20th century never happened. One of the life sciences recently celebrated 200 years of success with reductionism, and it was almost enough to make me cry.

              I advocate the view that Science benefits everyone, if approached correctly. But we need cooperation to crack some problems, as well as healthy competition. And we also need the playful exploration of a range of options, rather than encouraging monolithic thinking "so it will look like we know what we are talking about."

              I think that there is some hubris in the air of certainty expressed by many String theory advocates, for example, but perhaps it is that sense that if they can put all the objectors in their place; these guys must know what they are talking about. That air of certainty, and the willingness to resort to intellectual put-downs, may be what is required to get finding these days - as that attitude is familiar to folks in the finance sector.

              I'll read yours some time soon.

              Regards,

              Jonathan

              Whoops,

              that should read.. "what is required to get funding these days."

              Regards,

              Jonathan

              Thanks Alan,

              I agree that Newton's gravity is too simplistic, and I discuss why "we don't need a more complicated formula" is just a convenient approximation in the endnotes. I have a lot of thoughts about the need to extend our understanding of gravity, but no more time to elaborate right now. I know a little bit about the Flyby anomaly, but have not tried to explain it yet.

              Let me know if any questions remain when you are done reading my essay.

              All the Best,

              Jonathan