Every Why Hath a Wherefore by Inger Stjernqvist

Dear M. V. Vasilyeva,

I'm very glad you like my essay! I have fast-read your own essay and am very much attracted by your references to the history of ideas - not to mention that you also go back to the history of arts. I will re-read your essay with afterthough and come back to you within soon. Until then, I wish you too good luck in this contest!

Best regards,

Inger

Dear Inger,

I really enjoyed your essay. I think you make a good point about supersymmetry... I'm not such a fan of it myself, but if it is true, maybe we are looking for the superpartners on the wrong level. After all, no one looks for shydrogen or soxygen.

Regarding spacetime curvature at the fundamental scale, I'd expect curvature would have to be an emergent concept. For example, something like an icosahedron is approximately a sphere, which has positive curvature, but the icosahedron itself has zero local curvature everywhere the local curvature is defined.

Take care,

Ben Dribus

Dear Ben,

Thank you! What you say about the icosahedron makes good sense to me.

Best regards,

Inger

Dar Hoang Cao Hai,

Thank you for having read and commented on my essay! Perhaps I'm not the right person to give a definition of weight, but spontaneously I would say that the weight of a certain unit of mass is a local property. The reasult of the weighing varies, depending on where you carry out the measurement (e.g. on the Earht, at the Moon or in outer space). In other words, weight depends both on the mass and the impact of gravity. Different to weight, mass (that is, the rest mass according to Einstein's formula E=mc2) is a universal property - the same everywhere, as I see it.

Best regards!

Inger

Dear Inger,

Looking over your essay again, I had a couple more remarks:

1. On monopoles and inflation, Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga and Jerzy Krol have essays on this thread about a type of structure ("exotic smoothness structure") that could "serve some of the same purposes as magnetic monopoles" in some respects (charge conservation, etc.) If you read their papers, be prepared for some steep mathematics (I couldn't wade through it in one sitting!)

2. Personally, I think it would be nice to describe "dark matter" and "dark energy" in terms of dynamical effects rather than mysterious "stuff." One of the interesting things about dark matter and dark energy is that they "work in opposite directions," one to "strengthen gravity," and the other to weaken it. I also think it's interesting how different interactions dominate at different scales; we have the weak/strong scale, the EM scale, the gravity scale, the dark matter scale, the dark energy scale...

3. Regarding "new kinds of mathematics," I have some ideas about this myself... I qualitatively describe some of this near the end of my essay here.

Take care,

Ben

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Ben,

I very much appreciate your comments and will surely follow them up.

Best regards,

Inger

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

Inger

Excellent, very enjoyable and pertinent essay. We have Shakespeare in common; 'Much ado about (the quantum vacuum)' http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1330 Copenhagen is logically explained by the Prince of Denmark (all about detection), and also in more detail here; http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1390 I'm pleased to give you top marks, and hope you'll also read and score mine.

I agree with all you say, including yes we do need better maths, but also better conceptions first, and to explore the underlying mechanisms of reality themselves, not abstractions (I assume you are of course well aware that Carrol's Wonderland is a parody of maths by Oxford's Charles Dodgeson).

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Sergey,

Since I'm an amateur in both physics and mathematics, I cannot expect other than low to medium ratings, so I don't worry very much about rating tactics. I'm here to gain knowledge rather than ratings.

Best regards,

Inger

Dear Inger

You have done an excellent job! I really enjoyed reading your essay. First of all, you focus on questions, not on awnsers. And even your proposal are questions. If we are talking about the universe I feel we should always say ''what if?'' instead of ''that´s the way it is''. It could help to treat assumptions as what they are: assumptions. You ask ''How far is it possible for a fairly well-read lay(wo)man like me to understand the problems and stumble stones at the front of research in theoretical physics without being a skilled mathematician?''; Even though I´m not a professional physicist (I´m on my way to become one) I´m impressed by how meaningful your questions are. It seems you´re able to extract the conceptual framework as far as possible without detailed math. Let me now adress some of your points. I have thoughts about your questions on elementary particles and high energy physics, but since I´m far from being an expert on that subject, I won´t take the risk of saying anything.

1.''Can something come of nothing?'' First we should define what do we mean by ''something'', ''come'' and ''nothing''. There is a notion of causal dependence or time flow implicit in this question. But we are not even sure about what time is.

2.''From where does the God particle get its own mass?'' There are some alternatives for mass generation besides the higgs mechanism. I´ve heard of Mario Novello´s work, but I don´t know the details.

3.''How small would the tiniest parts of space-time be? Planck length-time?(...)Have I done some original thinking, or am I simply wrong?''

Loop quantum gravity predicts something similar! From the perimeter institute page: ''Like the quantized energy levels of the hydrogen atom, the admissible values of area are quantized. Volumes of space, as well as its warping and bending, are also quantized. Thus space is not smooth, but rather granular; like atoms of ordinary matter, there are "atoms" of space''

4.''What would the space-time of quantum gravity be like?''

This is the question that motivates me to become a professional physicist. This is really deep. The anwser to this question could be so abstract it would be impossible to express in words, though making perfect sense in a yet unknwon mathematical formalism. But besides mathematical manipulation, conceptual questioning can also be relevant. This is where, as Craig Callender would say, ''physics meets philosophy at the planck scale'' (please see the book with this title). In my essay I´ve proposed that different anwsers to ''what is space?'', ''what is time?'', ''what is motion?'' at the classical level may lead to new physics.

5.''Ever since the mid twenties quantum mechanics has been developed as a

background dependent theory, without regard to the background independence of the general theory of relativity. How come that the background dependence of was not questioned much earlier, as it could have been already in Copenhagen at the time - at least in principle?''

I´m very glad to see this question. It also makes me think very much. The conceptual framework of GR and QM is so different it would inevitably come to a collapse some day, as it did with the problem of quantum gravity.

6. ''Is''shut up and calculat'' the best thing to do?''

I don´t know. It seems to be, since now modern physics has become so abstract that our mundane conceptual reasoning seems impossible to give any help. But whenever the shut up and calculate procedure becomes fruitless, it becomes intereting to find new paths for new physics besides mathematical manipulation. I agree language matters: QFT is based on fields defined on (x,y,z,t). But if Newton had a different conception of what is time, space, etc, then the whole procedure of defining anything on (x,y,z,t) could be seen as wrong. For instance is motion to be conceived in an absolute or relational picture? QM has tight roots with absolute space and time, while GR is intrsically relational. Bue are we restricted to absolute or relational conceptions of motion? This is where maybe language may come and gives us paths for new physics.

Thanks for a very enjoyable essay.

Best Regards

Daniel

Dear Inger Stjernqvist,

An intriguing mix of personal experience and deep questions. Not sure you have said which basic assumption is wrong but you have 'turned over a lot of ground' in the essay. Interesting to see your thoughts on a wide range of subjects.

Kind regards Georgina : )

Dear Daniel!

How wonderful to get your detailed comments! I'm so very glad. I really look forward to read your essay, as soon as I'm back from holidays in rural Sweden - and an Internet that hardly exists. Until then,

Best Regards!

Inger

Dear Georgina!

I'm very glad you like my essay! Best regards!

Inger