Hi Domenico,
Despite how brief it was, I feel your essay comes closest to capturing the meaning of 'Fundamental'-my own train of thought took a similar path. (My own article will be uploaded now.)
I think how you speak of not meshing all these fields together and keeping them separate is very astute. What do you have to say about the fundamentality of the fields themselves, however? Can one field be said to be more fundamental than another?
An interesting question.
In the field of physics (if my deductions are right), the fundamental constituent are the laws for the interaction between particles; so that, you ask what is the most fundamental law for a physics.
I have an old theory, and for me, the Einstein field equations are the fundamental laws, and with a small change also become the laws for the electromagnetic field; so that for me Einstein has solved the problem of the unification for gravity and electromagnetism, with a set of equations that describes each field as curvature of the time space.
The laws for the other fields have the same importance (in each field of knowledge) so that a comparison is not possible: for example, is it possible without a legal structure, or with a tyranny, or with a lack of ethics, or with the absence of art, or without economy, to have a cutting-edge scientific research?
Thank you
Domenico
Dear Domenico Oricchio,
Short and sweet. Yours is a very succinct summary of laws, from fundamental Lagrangian physics, to firefighter's laws, all of which represent compact knowledge.
In one of your comments above you say Einstein solved the problem of unification of gravity and electromagnetism. There has been argument as to whether the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light, but the recent detection of colliding neutron stars shows that these are exactly the same speed. I think this argues for electromagnetic waves being stress in the gravitational field, and I touch on this in my essay.
Interestingly you mention that special relativity postulates are unproven. Since my essay discusses the historical development of these unproven postulates, you might find it interesting. I hope you will read my essay and comment and score.
Finally, your last paragraph in response to Dwarkesh above is exquisite. It would've been the perfect conclusion for your essay. It's the best expression of complex reality that I've ever seen.
My very best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Hi Domenico Oricchio,
Thank you for your nice essay on Fundamental Laws your concept is really nice covering STR and GTR, Probably you may have to limit some knowledge fields or laws or they may go infinite....
I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied
I also request you to please have a look at my essay also and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........
Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.
In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "
Best
=snp
Thank you for posting on my essay
Your policy is very good that you don't downgrade other entries, I also do the same, i will give good marks or none...
Thank you for saying my essay is a good essay, and it answers your question also- "What is Fundamental" - it is nothing but Gravitation of the Universe acting on that body at that time... or in other words UGF... the universal gravitation force, instead of just two body gravitation....
Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :
-No Isotropy
-No Homogeneity
-No Space-time continuum
-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy
-No singularities
-No collisions between bodies
-No blackholes
-No warm holes
-No Bigbang
-No repulsion between distant Galaxies
-Non-empty Universe
-No imaginary or negative time axis
-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes
-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically
-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition
-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models
-No many mini Bigbangs
-No Missing Mass / Dark matter
-No Dark energy
-No Bigbang generated CMB detected
-No Multi-verses
Here:
-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies
-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way
-All bodies dynamically moving
-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium
-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe
-Single Universe no baby universes
-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only
-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..
-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass
-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step
-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering
-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet
-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy
-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.
Have a look at
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html
Regards
=snp
Hi Domenico,
Nice summary. I think you made the key points well in less words then some have made them less well. But how do we get laws to evolve correctly, or (in physics) even at all to resolve all the anomalies, paradoxes & unknowns. Do you think the mechanisms in place are adequate?
As an instance my essay shows, shockingly, that a classical derivation of QM's 'weird' predictions IS possible. Yes it seems what we have may now be to embedded for change.
Nice concise job.
Peter
Thank you, Peter for reading my essay.
I wrote the essay thinking like a poetry: my first language is not English, so that I must weight every single word (exactly like a poet), but the rhyme is missing.
I think that the scientific method is the best option for the research, and the darwinian evolutionism of the ideas (through many different minds and artistic ways of thinking) will improve our knowledge of the world through the adaptation of ideas to reality through experiments.
Thank you to make express me these ideas with a right question.
I will try to find the time to read your essay, in the next days, although I went to read a first selection of essays, although not many essays have answered the question of the contest.
Regards
Domenico
I want be clearer.
I think a theory, a legislation, the arts, like an organism with an evolving deoxyribonucleic acid (a code that represent the knowledge) so that the code (the knowledge) change in the time in the real world adapting optimally: if it is so, we must fight to make the change possible listening to new ideas, and criticizing new ideas.
Regards
Domenico
Dear Domenico Oricchio,,
Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.
All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Only the truth can set you free.
Joe Fisher, Realist
You are right that every discipline has its own fundamentals. Physicists like to think that everything can be derived from the laws of physics, but that is not the case. You can't derive the rules of jurispudence from physics. Everything has to be consistent with the laws of physics but sometimes more information is added to form new rules that cannot be derived because they are not uniquely determined. Some people have said that more fundamental laws have more information, but this is not necessarily the case. More information is lost than added when going down to more fundamental layers. The most fundamental laws are the ones with the least information and ultimately none.
Thanks for a nice succinct essay.
Thank you for reading my essay.
It is my opinion that exist, for example in jurisprudence, for each population and for each historical era an optimal jurisprudence body (or equivalent jurisprudence); the interaction of the laws with the population (a statistical point of view) permit to obtain, in long time, the optimal jurisprudence body; with little modification of the jurisprudence and observing the effect on the population.
It is my opinion that is not so different from Physics, in this case the experiments are on the population, and the change are ever possible with the change of population opinion: it is not a dynamic law, but a statistical law that constraint the ethical dynamic of the population.
Regards
Domenico
I have a problem with the real minimum simplification of the knowledge to a minimum information: the standard model is huge, is complex, so that the current knowledge have not the minimum information; it seem that the reality is more complex than we think. However, is there the possibility of a minimum information of the standard model? I am thinking that there are infinite Lagrangian that have the standard model like a low order approximation, so that a Lagrangian could exist with a minimum number of symbols (a compact form), that is renormalizable and self-consistent in the low order approximation.
Domineco,
So deeply true! I keep fighting, but this is the world of physics where even listening to new ideas is anathema to most with mainstream doctrine embedded.
i.e. I think my essay, with Declan Trails, clearly and irrefutably reveals a very important way ahead for the understanding of nature. It's there for falsification and critique. Few any authority even deign to look let alone criticise. Change isn't in the personal interests of most. That seems a sad comment on the present academic community.
Nice job on yours. I do hope you'll like and score mine.
Very best
Peter
Domenico,
You have a great penchant for cutting straight to the nub and expressing key points most concisely. Interesting identification of the concept of the successor, and of solutions as trajectories. I agree the importance of both.
Shame you didn't expand a bit, but there's beauty in simplicity so I've noted yours down for rather higher score than at present.
I hope you'll get to read mine, finding massive value in the most ridiculous simplicity.
Very best
Peter
Hi Domenico, (copied from my thread)
Thanks for looking. The fundamental requirement for all and any matter is identified as 'motion' which is a relative concept. Motion then requires some entity, some time period and a background. Without those there can be no matter and no universe at all! Condensed matter (fermion pairs) is then the simplest spherical rotation.
I thought I'd got that across in stating it, but then went on to derive how unbelievably powerful that simplest action could be, the mechanism classically reproducing QM, so removing weirdness!
I'm disappointed but not surprised so few even seem to understand the stupidities of QM and need to resolve them. Ce la vie. Perhaps the solution (Penrose called the 'holy grail) will be lost in space!
Very Best
Peter
Hi Domenico,
First my contestant pledge: goo.gl/KCCujt
You make a good point very succinctly: There is something about our universe that encourages both the preexistence (in physics) and emergent formation (in language) of "compact description[s] of ... knowledge and fundamental objects."
Thus your answer to the FQXi challenge question is (I think) that "fundamental" means any mathematical or linguistic description that compactly captures a large body of behavior or knowledge. That is pretty much how I also define it in my essay "Fundamental as Fewer Bits". I just used up a lot more bits -- I was less compact! -- in my essay.
Structurally, though, the top half of your essay is hard to read and has many assertions that are highly debatable. I think for example that you are trying to say that the ancient concept of defining units of measure (mene, mene, tekel, upharsin comes to mind) is itself an recognition of compact conservation rules, that is, an explicit recognition that certain quantities of the physical universe persist over time without either increasing or decreasing, and so can be measured in a uniform way. But if that is your point, it's hard to extract from the essay
Also, further down you you make assertions about physics that are very hard to interpret. For example, your essay asserts that the experimentally very well-grounded and readily lab-accessible special theory of relativity has postulates that are "unprovable laws". You then rather mysteriously assert that the general theory of relativity, which is hugely less accessible since it operates more at that astrophysics level, is composed of "physical laws". That is very hard logic to follow, whatever your intent may have been.
So, overall: I think you have made and excellent point about the importance of compactness to a rule or description being "fundamental." It makes me feel a bit dumb for taking so long to say the same thing in my own essay. But the essay itself, even in such a short form, is tricky to understand and asserts too many things that are at best dubious assertions. That aspect of your essay distracts from your main point.
And I do I like the boldness of your brevity!
Cheers,
Terry
Finally an effective criticism.
If the metrology has solved the fundamental quantities, the measure units, then this science is closer to the definition of fundamental, that the contest ask for a science in general.
The fundamental quantities are obtained in metrology using a set of rules, the definition of units, that are the laws of metrology: so that, for me, the metrology has solved the problem of the fundamental (with only an increase of the precision) with a set of laws: an assertion, for example, that the meter is obtained using an particular experiment.
The Special relativity assume two postulates: invariant of the physics laws in inertial system and the constancy of the light velocity; these are experimentally true, but an experiment does not prove a theory with certainty, it can only falsify it with centainty. I call these postulates the laws, and these laws can only be falsified, and these laws are true until proved otherwise.
I wanted to say more clearly that any scientific theory is based on assumptions, foundations, which cannot be proved with certainty, and from which everything descends with the mathematics and logic.
Thank you for in-deepth reading.
Domenico
Ma men,
It was a gem. Far better than mine in terms of expressing simplicity. good job again
Joyfully
Hello again Domenico,
I read your comment and if you don't mind I still need your opinion on my reply
Silviu
