Sylvian, thank you for these detailed and interesting points. The only thing I would add at this point is that the fine structure constant does not just affect the chemical bonds. It also affects nuclear stability because the electrostatic repulsion is balanced against the strong force. A small change would have a profound affect on which elements are stable.

I think it would be interesting nut hard exercise to work out the chemistry and nuclear properties of elements as constants vary. Until someone does that I am not sure what the real situation is.

Hello Philip,

I got what I expected. A nice and interesting submission. Looked to me more of a review of the topic. Although your Bio says you are a theoretical physicist, my understanding of your essay seems to make you look more like a 'physical mathematician' than a 'mathematical physicist'.

I have need for some clarification and to learn more...

You talk of Space as being 'emergent'. What does this mean in simple terms?

You also talk of vacua, are you taking vacua and space as synonymous or different?

Then, I challenge you with the question: Since you say the elephant is not to be envisaged as something that existed before the big bang and also ask "How do we exist?", can what exists perish? If not, why not? If yes, can you make out a list of what exists, so we can apply the doctrine of perishability on them?

Best regards,

Akinbo

    Hello Philip,

    I very much enjoyed reading your essay and I am very much in agreement with your view that we are ready for a paradigm shift in fundamental physics.

    My own feeling is that the unification will not come from trying to extend existing models to include gravity but rather by understanding how gravity provides the right model for understanding all fundamental forces.

    I hope you will take the time to read my essay which is titled Solving the Mystery and give me your comments.

    With best regards

    Richard Lewis

    7 days later

    "You talk of Space as being 'emergent'. What does this mean in simple terms?"

    If you were to write down a full mathematical model for the standard models of physics as we knoe them at the present time the first thing you would do is define a 4D spacetime geometry, then you add the particles and their dynamics. When we say spacetime is emergent we mean that at a deeper level that is not how it is done. Instead we would start with some mathematical structure that is not defined in space time, like a network of connected nodes or a matrix. These objects are then subject to some kind of mathematical rules that tell us what weight is given to each configuration. When we study the complex system this provides we would find emergent phenomena which look like the laws of physics we are familiar with including spacetime. This is what we mean when we say that spacetime is emergent. It would only have an aproximate existance that fades away of we examine it very closely.

    An good analogy to this is the surface of a liquid such as the sea. We know that at a microscopic level the sea is just a collection of molecules that interact and when we right down a mathematical mode for this we do not define a surface, just the properties of the molecules, but under the right conditions a liquid surface is formed. The surface is an emergent geometrical phenomena with its own macroscopic dynamics. This does not mean that spacetime is made of something like molecules or that it has to exist within some other geometry. The way it emerges is probably very different but the principle of emergence is the same.

    The ordering of meta-physical aspects is more imposing subject of talk.

    Sincerely,

    Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

    Thanks Philip,

    That analogy was very helpful in understanding the mysterious adjective "emergent". Unfortunately you point out that the analogy does not go all the way down by saying, "This does not mean that spacetime is made of something like molecules or that it has to exist within some other geometry". If you had not put up this red flag, I would have wanted to interrogate your position to see or bring out any illogicalities therein, if present.

    Nevertheless, if I may use the opportunity to do some 'dialectic':

    - is it only space-time that can be entitled to the adjective "emergent" or can space itself before being wedded to time by Minkowski also have a claim to the title "emergent"?

    - In your model, is a length infinitely divisible into positions or is there a finite limit to the number of positions available on a given length?

    - When gravitational waves travel, it is said that spacetime is distorted with alternate lengthening and shortening of a given length orthogonal to the direction of wave travel. If I am right, can something that is not made of anything discrete vibrate? Don't you think that the coincidence of gravitational waves and light travelling at c , may suggest that perhaps they are similarly propagated and share a spectrum, just as the finding that light travel at same velocity as the electro-magnetic waves predicted by Maxwell and verified by Hertz resulted in the classification of light as belonging to the spectrum of electromagnetic waves.

    You may not like my essay being a hard-core physicist but please take a look when you can spare the time. The ideas are directly opposite to your viewpoint. Also you probably find confusing my other questions about what exists subsequently perishing so I spare you the agony, worrying what I mean.

    All the best in the competition. And God bless your idea of setting up your non-discriminatory vixra.

    Regards,

    Akinbo

    "is it only space-time that can be entitled to the adjective "emergent" or can space itself before being wedded to time by Minkowski also have a claim to the title "emergent"?"

    Either or neither or both could be correct. I favour the view that space and time are both emergent as one unified space-time structure. If you want to read about a different point of view you could look at Lee Smolin's essay. His idea is that time is fundamental but space is emergent. I dont like that idea for numerous reasons but we dont know yet how it works so it is good that there are people exploring different possibilities.

    Alinbo, I will of course read your essay. For the last few weeks I have been enbroiled in some non-physics matters and only have time to answer a few questions but there is still plenty of time.

    Dear Philip,

    a central point in your essay is universality. A mathematical structure is more universal - more discovered than invented - when it is instantiated in more structures that superficially appear different from one another; and a physical law is more universal when it describes more physical systems that appear different from one another in some aspects (e.g. different particle types in systems that obey the same thermodynamical laws).

    A dense spectrum of universality degrees is envisaged, for which we still lack formal treatment and measure. And yet, the idea to navigate the mathematical universe guided by this compass and reach the top of the hill (or the bottom of the valley), with the idea that the most universal mathematical structure coincide with the meta-laws of physics, is very appealing.

    We have another interesting notion of universality, however, more advanced in terms of possibilities of formal treatment, and simply of a True/False type (no spectrum of degrees): that's of course computational universality (Turing universality) - the ability of a model of computation to reproduce any computation of any other conceivable model of computation.

    To those who attribute a fundamentally algorithmic nature to the universe (thus justifying its mix of order and disorder better, in my opinion, than any other approach) this would be the first choice for a notion of universality. Then, the democratic idea that all vacua, or all mathematical structures, enjoy some form of existence, could perhaps also apply to the multiplicity of universal models of computation.

    There seems to be a very large gap between the idea of an algorithmic uni/multiverse and the scenario that you describe. You place 'algorithms' in your picture below 'games', but still far from the 'point of universality'. I agree that individual algorithms are more invented than discovered, but what about the Universal Turing machine?

    Thanks and best regards

    Tommaso

    P.S. In case the algorithmic paradigm gained credibility in the future, I suggest to replace the elephant with an ant, for its 'minimality', as a metaphor for the head of a Turing machine, and as a reminder of the variety of properties that emerge from the computations of 'turmites' (2D Turing machines), including Langton ant.

      Tommaso, thank you for your comment. It is good to see you in the contest again.

      You have made a very astute point which is not lost on me although space constraints meant I did not say much about it in the essay. If you look at the paper by Seth Lloyd "The universal path integral" which I have cited you will see that he concentrates on algorithms. This may be very close to the kind of approach you are thinking of.

      There are a couple of reasons why I did not want to focus on algorithms myself even though the universaltiy of computing is certainly very relevant here. One thing is that computers tend to run calculations forward in one direction. A normal sequential program has a time ordering in its calculations. This may be relaxed in a parallel programming architecture but there is still a partial ordering which people will inevitably try to link to temporal causality. As I said in my essay I dont think this kind of causality is important. I aknowledge that you could work with algroithms without making this connection.

      The other thing is that path integrals are not just sums over configurations. When you have fermions the sum is replaced with an algebraic integral over grassman varuables. I suspect that the universality we see in maths and physics is also more general in this way. It is an algebraic principle that we do not understand and the kind of universality you get in statistical ensembles is just a good metaphor for that. The universality in computing is a little different again and it fits in somewhere, but here I tried to convey the idea of some other kind of self-referntial, self-organising universality that we understand very little about.

      I look forward to reading your essay a little later

      • [deleted]

      • Post #44

      Dear Philip,

      I read your essay with great interest. I totally agree with you: we need a new paradigm in basic science. To do this, need to consider the "universal point" as ontological "proto- existential - extremum". But not "meta-laws", only one "law of laws" - "Logos". My high score.I think that we must first to consider the proto-structure of the Universum (matter) from the point of view of eternity ("sub specie aeternitatis"), that is, to carry out the ontological structure of matter in the proto-era, "time before times began". When we "grab" (understand) the primordial (ontological) structure of space, then we will understand the nature of time. Therefore, we must move from the concept of "space-time" to the concept of "space-matter-time", which represents the ontological unity of the Universum. The primordial structure of matter determines the structure of the language in which Nature speaks to us, single language for mathematicians, physicists and poets , ie, language that contains all the meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).I invite you to read my essay .

      Kind regards,

      Vladimir

        Thank you Vladimir, I will read your essay, sounds intriguing.

        Dear Dr. Gibbs,

        I read your essay with great interest.

        I note your citing of the parable of the blind men and the elephant, as a metaphor for incomplete knowledge. However, I think that abstract theories inferred from incomplete knowledge can be more pernicious than the lack of knowledge itself. Such mathematical theories can act to narrow the mind and blind the vision.

        You might be interested in reading my own essay, "Remove the Blinders: How Mathematics Distorted the Development of Quantum Theory". I argue that premature adoption of an abstract mathematical framework prevented consideration of a simple, consistent, realistic model of quantum mechanics, avoiding paradoxes of indeterminacy, entanglement, and non-locality. What's more, this realistic model is directly testable using little more than Stern-Gerlach magnets.

        But questioning the foundations in this way is considered heretical, and is unpublishable in physics journals.

        Alan Kadin

        Interesting essay. You frame a hypothesis of the existence of meta-laws. You write:

        "At the same time technological progress will enable new empirical observations to help us understand inflation, dark matter, proton decay and other subtle phenomena that help to chart our course through the ontological realm to where we stand in it. They will enable us to pick out the universe's particular solution to the algebraic meta-laws."

        AFAIK< and I may be wrong, so far science works the other way around (Higgs particle for example):our models make a prediction and we try to falsify in or verify it.

        You allude to a procedure in which experiments will determine the selection of meta-laws. How can we look for something we do not know what it is? (Knowledge Paradox). Besides, we are far from making experiments at the Planck scale. If meta-laws exist, you think we will find them by experimentation without a formal framework of what we are looking for? Thanks.

          Dear Dr. Gibbs,

          I think the meadow of physics is marred by mathematical demons. So I was happy when FQXI announced the subject for this year's essay competition. The first essay I read was yours. Instantly, I identified you as a 'mathematicalist' trying to impose the rule of mathematics in the domain of physics.

          The way you have written, however, is impressive that any one reluctant will jump into the 'mathematicalist' wagon. That I think is the beauty of the mathematics-oriented thinking coming from somebody who knows the intricacies of both mathematics and physics.

          Your statement "geometry is an angel and algebra is a demon .......... the signs are that the devil rules at the deepest levels of existence" is thought provoking. Can I say that the rules of mathematics are essentially algebraic, and geometry just represents its emergent structures. Then the universality of mathematics is in its rules, not in its structures. Regarding the question, whether mathematics is invented or discovered, I think the rules are discovered, but the structures are invented. For example, in chess the properties of the pieces are invented, but the emergence follows mathematical rules and the overall structure of the game is thus invented. Starting with another set of arbitrary properties, you will obtain a different structure.

          Again I would like to quote another statement "the theory you get by recursively iterating quantisation should be unique" . Without referring to existing Quantum Mechanics, your statement can be construed to be implying that fundamental particles, just because they are quanta, may be obeying a unique law, which is universal. Does it simply mean that starting from qunatised entities, you cannot have an infinite number of emergent structures?

          The 'physicalist' idea that I propose in my essay is this: physics decides the properties, mathematics decides the rules. For the given properties, mathematics decides the emergent structures; for that emergent structures, physics again decides the emergent properties, and so on. Thus, the equations are mathematical, but the variables are physical. Starting from a finite number of variables having finite properties, the number of variables will soon come to the minimum that further emergent structures are impossible. That final structure is the physical world that we observe.

          Somewhere above, you have stated that 'physics emerges from mathematics'. This I think tantamount to saying that 'the physical world emerges from mathematics'. Or, given the basic properties of matter, mathematics decides the final emergent structure. That way, I will have to call you a physicalist. So I am just confused. I have just submitted my essay, and expect it to be available within a few days. I would be awaiting for your comments.

          I claim myself to be an independent researcher. And I find solace in the free-for-all 'VIXRA'. I take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to you for providing an asylum for people like me.

            Philip

            A very nice essay on cutting edge topics that reflect the current unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in physics. The hidden structure behind the amplituhedron, sporadic groups, noncommutative geometry and M-theory is rapidly being revealed. I gave an overview in my essay, through the lens of motives.

            Dear Philip,

            A very interesting approach of the ontology of math indeed.

            As an architect I fully support the idea that it is the geomtrical aspects of the universe we should focuss more.

            Then more thinkig out of the box seem to be possible, which even could lead to our understanding of the golden mean of the penta dodecahedron multiverseAttachment #1: Big_Bang_MWI_1.jpg

            Dear Sir,

            Thank you for the essay but for someone like me who is trained in another field of science is was quite incomprehensible. I thought that FQXi essays target a general audience. Someone once said that if a scientist cannot explain what he means in a few sentences then he probably lack understanding of what he means. I get the impressions you are trying to impress people more than to educate them. With all respect of course...

            Alex Newman

              Dear Dr. Gibbs,

              after a second try I still have to admit not to understand most of your certainly excellent statements. It is a fact that mathematical constructs are difficult to translate into comprehensible physical meaning. Or, is it a trick to confuse those with a desire to understan?

              Anyway, the theoreticians have an easy life. Nobody can refute your theories such as multiverses since there are no empirical facts. It sounds to me more like philosophy or clairvoyance.

              I wish you good luck with your further work

              Best

              Lutz