The "moose" seems to go back to Herman Georgi in 1986 as a tool for model building. I don't think its the same as necklace Lie algebras but can't rule out a connection.

Dear Phyllip, you wrote:

"聽Is fundamentality then a relative concept with no absolute bottom, or is there a fundament of physical law which is not derived from anything deeper?

The universe exists, so there must be answers. Why would those answers be incomprehensible to us?

"

I think:

Micro Black hole Pairing and Splitting should be explained first before we gain the next reality level.

See:

https://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.nl/2018/01/black-hole-pairing-and-splitting-should.html

    sorry Philip,

    better look at: https://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.nl/

    Dear Dr. Gibbs,

    I enjoyed reading your well-written essay on the nature and speculative future of physics.

    However, in my own essay "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics", I argue that the universe is telling a quite different story. Unity and simplicity are most fundamental, although the unity of physics was broken in the early decades of the 20th century. I review the historical basis for this rupture, and go on to present the outlines of a neoclassical synthesis that should restore this unity.

    Briefly, quantization of spin in real waves such as the electron (there are no point particles) provides the scale of discreteness in what is otherwise a universe of classical continuous fields. There is no need for Hilbert space, indeterminacy, or entanglement. The same waves provide a real embodiment of time, space, and relativity; there is no need for an abstract spacetime.

    In other words, quantum mechanics is not a theory of nature; it is a mechanism for turning continuous fields into soliton-like wavepackets with particle-like behavior. This requires a nonlinear component in the field equations that is hidden whenever spin is quantized. I do not know the mathematical form of this nonlinear component, but I describe some of its properties in the essay. For the electron field, this component generates the exclusion principle directly, without the need for Pauli's entangled mathematical construction. Planck's constant is the only true universal constant, and defines the granularity of the universe.

    Furthermore, the advent of quantum computing takes this beyond obscure philosophy into the technological realm. Without entanglement, quantum computing will not work. There are billions of dollars being invested in this, and I expect an answer within 5 years. But when I have tried to discuss this with active participants in the field, they react as if I am killing the goose that is laying the golden eggs. No one wants to hear such a negative story, including funding agents. My prediction is that the failure of quantum computing will lead to a reassessment of the entire foundations of quantum mechanics.

    Best Wishes,

    Alan Kadin

      thank you Leo, that is very interesting. I will read your essay.

      I think it's always important to look at the opposing views too. Sometimes they turn out to be more compatible than you might expect.

      It is an interesting essay.

      If the foundation of the physics could be based on the path integral formulation, and because it is applicable to the some field of statistical mechanics, then I think that it could be write in each field of physics: for example in classical mechanics, if the possible transition is unique, using a Dirac delta function instead of probability amplitude, then the trajectory in the phase space could be unique (unification of the description).

      Furthermore, there is a blog entry of John Baez on quantropy

      https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/quantropy-part-4/

      that I consider interesting, because of the analogy between path integral and partition function.

      Regards

      Domenico

        The two ideas though seem to be similar to quivers of vectors corresponding to Lie algebras. Where can I find a source on the mathematics of necklaces, which seem to have structure similar to quotient groups and spaces?

        LC

        Thanks Philip,

        Without the stories, there is no universe? I like the poem and the thoughts. I will have to get back to it. You provide a lot to think about as well. Mine has not yet reached an appearance. I do mention that the storyteller (the sentient creature) must be there to reveal the fundamental, kind of an existential philosophy, just like your stories suggest. You must be an advocate of supersymmetry: a symmetry between fermions and bosons. Do you believe it provides a dark matter candidate. Plan to reread your interesting essay as I progress. YOurs is my first read.

        Jim Hoover

          James, you are very kind. I will look out for your essay.

          To answer your question, supersymmetry at the TeV scale looked like a good theory before the LHC and dark matter searches. Now it does not look so good. It could still be right but it would have to be a different model from the ones theorists thought likely. It's chances are therefore very much diminished.

          It's a funny thing that every known particle has R-parity of +1. R-parity is a quantum number combining known quantum numbers like spin and baryon number which appear to be conserved, so R-parity should be nearly conserved too. This means that the lightest particle with R-parity -1 would be very stable if it exists, making it an ideal dark matter candidate. Supersymmetry predicts particles with negative R-parity, but would such particles be a clear signature of supersymmetry? That is not so clear.

          I did my doctorate in lattice gauge theories where the analogy between quantum mechanics and statistical physics is exploited to do calculations. It is a powerful theoretical tool as well. Good luck with the contest.

          Philip,

          How would you alter SUSY to make it more viable? Do you think the neutralino is not a good candidate for DM? I am looking at it in an essay I'm considering. You did mention that symmetry is fundamental and independent of specific dynamics? Is it then a guiding principle in search for unification theories?

          You provide a lot of food for thought in your essay.

          My essay appeared: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3035.

          Jim Hoover

          Good to see your essay is well-received so far Phil!..

          This one looks very thought provoking so I've added it to my reading list. I just got mine in last night, and I wanted to get it right this time, so I've been making that effort my focus. It looks like an interesting field of authors and array of essay so far. But I know there are more than a few more entries that are waiting to post, besides my own. So I look forward to some great discussions.

          All the Best,

          Jonathan

            Phillip,

            Interesting and also slightly provocative approach. Just what we need! I think your level of 'speculation' is spot on for this format. Beautifully clear and intelligible too.

            As for content, a few things raised questions, perhaps mainly this;

            We know that certain polarizer interactions rotate and can even reverse polarisation (inc. phase shifts from half wave plates etc.) and that changing polarizer/modulator 'angles' changes the fermion ('free surface electron') polar spin angle/direction. Does that mean you suggest Huygens is incorrect in that 'requantization' a occurs at each such interaction - so complete 'invariance' would seem tricky?

            (I'm thinking perhaps 'collapse' may also be 're-birth' of the new wavefunction?)

            x,y,z assymmetries may then also be essential on orthogonal measurements!?

            I'd be interested in your thoughts.

            With your QM background I also hope you'll study mine carefully (read alongside Declan's who references my work) as I can't see how the ontological sequence doesn't now fully reproduce the predictions (& findings) of QM, including so called 'non-locality' and the (Born/Malus) squaring of Cos. It does need a fresh way of looking (as Bell suggested) as well as familiarity with the original, but I think you're capable of that. I look forward to any questions.

            Well done for yours. I don't doubt we may end up nearby, and that we're both above downmarking neighbours (I've already had the odd 1!)

            Very best

            Peter

              A very interesting essay, thank you for sharing.

              "No information about the universe, to know nothing about its laws or its history? It would simply mean that all logically consistent possibilities are still options. With no information the universe is the sum of all possible histories, described by all possible laws of physics. In terms of information "Nothing" means "everything.""

              I couldn't agree more; my text as well touches similar arguments from a philosophical point of view. Sadly I've not the mathematical tools to fully comprehend the rest of your proposal.

              Bests,

              Francesco D'Isa

              Peter,

              I admit a very simple and conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics, but I may be able to give a better answer to your questions after I have read your essay to put them in context.

              On the subject of scoring, yes I had a 1 already but I am not concerned about it. What I like to see is lots of good comments and lots of ratings. This shows interest and understanding of what I have written. I don't expect everyone to like it. Sometimes people low score everyone without understanding, but those even out and are not worth worrying about. Winning is not so important to me that I would vote tactically or bother about other people doing so.

              Dear Philip,

              Thanks for this original, thorough and well argued essay.

              Thank you for pointing out some long overdue problems with the intuitive reductionist approach. I am glad that you point out, for instance, that "the hypothesis has been further bolstered by the observation that the laws of particles physics are unnaturally fine-tuned". I follow a falsificationist approach, namely a deductivist methodology in science that allows (in your words) "mathematics [to] guide the way until the experimental outlook improves".

              So, I think that there are pretty interesting similarities between our essays, and I would be most grateful to have your opinion about my work.

              Your idea that "Reality is relative to the observer" is indeed one of the most promising directions of investigation in the modern foundations of physics. I find a particular affinity with a recent proposal by Brukner that there are "no facts of the world per se, but only relative to an observer" (If you havent seen this yet, please see https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.05255).

              I definitely rate you high.

              I wish you the best of luck, and I hope to hear from you soon for a discussion.

              Best wishes,

              Flavio

                I agree that we need some new mathematics to understand physics. Maths is a hard subject and it is especially hard for mathematicians to get organised. Each one understands too little of the whole making it difficult to see the important connections. I predict that at some point deep learning will crack the problem. When AI surpasses humans at discovering mathematics as it has now done in games such as chess and go, then there will be a big leap forward.

                I cant believe we have already reached the submission deadline. It was a slow start but there is a good field now. Looking forward to seeing your essay.

                I think this essay is very interesting...

                I'll have to read it a couple of times Phil, because you give me a lot to think about. I am reminded of, or informed by, a paper of Steven K. Kauffmann on "Getting path integrals physically and technically right," which argued for the less known Hamiltonian formulation of the sum over histories method.

                This approach favors events over objects, while the conventional Lagrangian form assumes the kinematic nature of particles or other entities. One might consider that to be more physically-realistic, but the Hamiltonian form automatically incorporates uncertainty.

                More later,

                Jonathan