In research on the study into the Physics Of The Observer, the answer must be found to the question: "What is observation?".
What is observation? Observation requires two things, an observer and an observed. Implicitly, it also requires existence of each and a place they exist in.
In a lab humans use the scientific method to observe phenomena under study.
But does it take a human to observe? Clearly, dogs get and bring back balls and frisbees to their owners, so observe. Indeed, survival implies the need to feed - thus, to observe and differentiate prey and follow.
So, all animals observe. But, plants demonstrate tropisms (directional movement responses that occur in response to a directional stimulus); and thus, demonstrate observation.
At a lower level, within animals detection of absence of food is an observation resulting in hunger pangs.
Looking lower, then, into a microscope, microorganisms demonstrate the same survival need to feed; implementing mechanisms of observation.
Thus, the seeds of observation must lie at a distance scale smaller than microorganisms.
At the atomic scale, chemical and photoelectric processes (change of electron orbits) are responsible for the bulk of stimulai (responsible for most low level observation); although magnetic and gravitational fields have been shown to be used by plants and animals, alike.
Within stars, nuclear processes are responsible for both the light of day and the solar wind. The light from the sun and stars is observed, and the solar wind is observed by the upper atmosphere (even though it is not a living thing).
Photosynthesis occurring within plants and the photoelectric effect are also observations by non-living entities. The electron is a fermion, a fundamental particle which in one way or another interacts with every other fundamental particle; which leads to the concept that observation is the interaction between fundamental particles.
Using this concept, the nuclear processes within stars, being interaction between fundamental particles, are observations.
Therefore, in order to know with certainty what observation is; a clear and mathematically sound description of the architecture and interactions of the fundamental particles is required apriori.
It is a self-evident proposition that the bulk of the world may be modeled mathematically.
If there is a sub-mathematical space - magic - underpinning the mathematical surrounding it; where does it start, and where does the mathematical surrounding it begin?
If such exists, at some point it should reveal itself by not resting on axiomatic foundation.
Here is were we find ourselves, now - or since the eighties, when the supersymmetry, supergravity, and string theorists took control of the graduate education in the western nations.
The Wikipedia article "Standard Model (mathematical formulation)" is different than it was a year ago - more than just including the Higgs particle as more than just theoretical.
The apparent symmetry presented by the 4x4 fundamental particle diagram, which has so much going for it, is lost with the Higgs boson hanging off the side.
How many times will the mathematical formulation of the "Standard Model" be changed before it dies of gluttony?
There are still questions unanswered by this "Standard Model".
Why haven't gluons been detected, yet?
What is the axiomatic basis for quark confinement?
What is the axiomatic basis for the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix?
What is the explanation for an apparent "neutrino oscillation"?
(and why isn't the CKM matrix: (1 0 0 ; 0 1 0 ; 0 0 1) (as predicted by Lagrangian mechanics)(even though it is close to this - measurement declares that it is not this). And, why is there such a plethora of arbitrary constants (including the fundamental particle masses) to specify the theory.
And then there's the Occam's razor question: How did such a complicated construction spring into existence?
Surely, it required a creator of vast intelligence, that it didn't explode on the launchpad, or an o-ring give way early in it's flight, at the battle of Waterloo, during the Civil War, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, or will it withstand CERN playing around with super-high energies like it withstood the Manhattan Project: The Trinity Test, July 16, 1945.
Of course, if a simple constructable mathematical foundation exists consistent in theory and with experiment - this question does not arise - reality could arise with or without a creator.
Further, the outstanding questions of unification with general relativity, detection of gravitons, dark matter, and dark energy.
The answer to these questions is that apart from an axiomatic theory, physicists are groping in the dark - and they know this, which is why there is supersymmetry theory, supergravity theory, and string theory - even though after decades their efforts are failures - though string theorists would claim victory without producing a unique theory making phenomena predictions.
So, since there is such a simple constructable mathematical foundation consistent in theory and with experiment (all well posed); investigation into foundation is not only prudent, but important and responsible - as opposed to continuing to follow down the road of experts in theories, in the words of Peter Woit: "NOT EVEN WRONG".
Don't take my opinion that my foundation describes so much, the following explanations, derivations, and links declare it so.
Dirac factored the Klein-Gordon equation describing the fermions - apart from the weak interaction, and the actual algebraic architecture of the fundamental particle fermions.
As a part of my generalization of the complex plane using matrices as base vectors, I discovered a Helmholtzian matrix operator pair, which factors the Klein-Gordon in a different way; which does yield the algebraic architecture and interactions of the fermions.
This may be expressed in terms of a vector space, the base vectors of which express the field, and they have simple transformations between the bases.
In a simple flat constructable basis, all "smooth" functions satisfy Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism (flat because the base vectors of the four-dimensional basis are all constants), just as all analytic functions satisfy the Cauchy-Riemann equations in the Complex Plane.
The d'Alembertian matrix operator may be written in terms of a commutative factored pair of matrices (which may be expressed in terms of this basis) with potentials and field strengths as matrix entries; which yields the 4-vector wave equation.
A simple constructable transformation on this same "flat electromagnetic basis" becomes a basis which may, in the same way, form factor pairs with potentials and field strengths as matrix entries; yielding the Helmholtzian factorization of the 4-vector Klein-Gordon equation (which, of course, is a generalization of the wave equation).
All "smooth" functions in this space satisfy a generalization of Maxwell's equations - but with mass terms - in the same way as above.
Further, a simple constructable basis based on Schwarzschild's solution metric yields a general relativity space for all "smooth" functions.
Thus, a unification of the four forces is simply achieved, which has a simple construction.
Masses of the fundamental particles may be expressed by a relatively simple formula.
I have even shown that the Dirac equation (and the factorization) is a special case of my equation (and it's factorization).
For specifics, Google me, or start with links:
http://www.amazon.com/Claude-Michael-Cassano/e/B008MD6CVS
http://independent.academia.edu/CLAUDEMICHAELCASSANO
http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/2583/
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/a-mathematical-preon-foundation-for-the-standard-model-claude-michael-cassano/1029757879
http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/CASSANO_Physics_is_a_Branch.pdf
https://archive.org/details/TheDalembertianAndMaxwellsEquations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFlmF6WWGxE
http://www.amazon.com/Reality-Mathematical-Claude-Michael-Cassano/dp/1468120921/ref=la_B008MD6CVS_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1452019945&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Preon-Foundation-Standard-Model/dp/1468117734/ref=la_B008MD6CVS_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1452019945&sr=1-3
https://www.createspace.com/3754822
http://www.dnatube.com/search/?search_id=cloudmichael
http://www.dnatube.com/video/6867/The-dAlembertian-and-Maxwells-equations
http://www.dnatube.com/video/6877/A-Helmholtzian-operator-and-electromagnetic-nuclear-field
http://www.dnatube.com/video/6907/The-Standard-Model-Architecture-and-Interactions-Part-1
http://www.dnatube.com/video/6908/The-Standard-Model-Architecture-and-Interactions-Part-2
http://www.dnatube.com/video/32115/The-Dirac-Equation-is-a-Special-Case-of-the-Maxwell-Cassano
http://www.dnatube.com/video/32118/Expressing-the-Dirac-Equation-as-a-Generalization-of-Maxwell
http://vixra.org/author/claude_michael_cassano
http://vixra.org/abs/1311.0182
http://vixra.org/abs/1504.0006
http://vixra.org/abs/1504.0012
There is no comparison to the patchwork-quilt of what the standard model has become; requiring Lagrangian with fermion sector, QCD sector, EW sector, & Higgs field & sector; then applied Hamilton's principle.
Plus, then there are the numerous arbitrary constants (including the masses) necessary to fill it out.
Further, string/membrane theory generating these Lagrangians with neither justification for the strings nor sufficient specification of a theory producing the Lagrangians might prompt one to wonder why it is all so complicated.
One might ask, as well, why supersymmetry would be a basis for it all, rather than the symmetries (or supersymmetry) being a result of an underlying foundation.
