The Fundamental is Mystic by MIROSLAW KOZLOWSKI

Hi Miroslaw, I enjoyed your essay. I did not know about Johann J. Balmer. In my opinion: When it comes to the measurement problem, it requires an explanation rather than testable hypothesis. As it is the why ( not the what or the how );That is to say, it is the philosophy that makes sense of the outcome.that is required. The explanation might be judged by whether it is plausible, compatible with other aspects of physics, does not cause additional or other problems, and solves the question that required a solution. Occam's razor might also be applied, so a simple solution is preferable to a highly complex one. Kind regards Georgina

Dear Prof. Kozlowski,

I found your essay interesting, but the title is misleading. This is not about mysticism, but rather about the basis for scientific progress. As you indicate, this progress is not gradual evolution toward improved theories, but rather "quantum leaps" into new territories, without a reliable map. Physical intuition may be the only guide to such new territories, incomplete and uncertain though it may be.

In my own essay, "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics", I propose that a set of slight modifications from classical physics can give rise to a consistent unified realistic physical picture on all scales. There are no point particles or gravitational singularities; abstract spacetime and Hilbert space are mathematical artifacts. Electrons are distributed wave packets. Space and time are separate, and are defined by frequency and wavelength of these real waves, which can shift in a gravitational potential.

Of course, this requires that I completely ignore much of what has become well established in the past century, especially quantum superposition and entanglement. Many colleagues refuse to discuss this, and others will no longer talk to me at all. But with the advent of quantum computing (and investments in the billion dollar range), this has become a practical issue. This will be settled, one way or the other, within 5 years. If I am right, quantum computing will be a complete failure. The next few years should be interesting.

Alan Kadin

Mirosław,

Thank you for your comment and support (although my French is a bit rusty).

Regarding Schrodinger, here is a story you might appreciate, that involves Schrodinger, Einstein, and von Neumann, from the late 1930s. At this time both Einstein and Schrodinger had published papers critical of quantum entanglement, and Einstein and von Neumann were down the hall from each other at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. Ironically, there are no photographs of Einstein and von Neumann together, and little evidence that they spoke. However, a historian found a letter in Schrodinger's file from von Neumann. Von Neumann wrote that Einstein had shown him Schodinger's paper questioning quantum entanglement, but that von Neumann was convinced that both Schrodinger and Einstein were wrong - quantum entanglement was not a problem. Of course, von Neumann was a mathematician, while Schrodinger and Einstein were masters of physical intuition. I would place more faith with the latter two.

Regarding my essay, I am keeping track of the ratings, and someone just rated it a '1'. I don't think this was one of the commenters. Someone seems to object to the heresy of questioning orthodoxy.

Best Wishes,

Alan

Dear Professor MIROSLAW KOZLOWSKI,

You wrote: "The process of theory development in physics is a very complex one."

I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical 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.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Prof MIROSLAW KOZLOWSKI

You are exactly correct..."objections may be of a conceptual or of a mathematical nature." The Fundamental is progress... you have correctly identified it.... dear prof MIROSLAW KOZLOWSKI

.......... very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and I request you please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the 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.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I 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/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

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 must consist 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

Dear Prof. Kozlowski,

What follows from your very interesting essay? What is fundamental?

This is not the "fundamental number of hydrogen" because it is fundamental only to hydrogen. What Balmer discovered? He discovered a relationship that exists independently of his discovery. Balmer's relation to hydrogen is inevitable. The same applies to Newton's relations, Kepler relations, Maxwell ... Well, then what is fundamental? This is what is common to all previous discoveries. It is a fundamental relation between entities that exists independently of our knowledge. It is thus mathematically inevitable that there is no beginning of the universe, because there were always relations like Balmers for hydrogen. I also found your essay interesting, but the title is misleading.

Regards,

Branko

Hi MIROSLAW

Your essay is useful and better than many of the philosophical arguments repeated in this contest. Anyway, please see if my essay makes any sense to you. Thanks

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3127

Moroslaw,

Great job. You show the way we think is absolutely fundamental to advancing understanding. Do you think we may need a 'NEW' SM starting with suspension of embedded assumptions, beliefs and mental models? I argued that last year.

On Wigners statement, my (top scored) 2015 essay (red/green sock trick) suggested he was only superficially correct showing we often even fool ourselves with maths!

But more important! You commented above; "Probability for a unify physics in one shot is zero." I agree. But asked how many shots to reach a 50:50 probability? I corralled the issues and tested with hundreds of shots. I hope you might study a recent result in my essay which looks shocking.

A classical mechanistic sequence (Bell compliant) reproduces the whole of QM's predictions from a certain set of different assumptions; Poincare sphere not 'singlet states'; anti parallel axes, measurement by (field of) spinning electrons & momentum transfer giving 'SAME or OPPOSITE' output & amplitude, and a few more. Declan Traill's short essay confirms the code and plot give CHSH>2 with closed 'loopholes'.

Few seem able or willing to challenge assumptions by checking through the ontology. I then challenge you to suspend beliefs and test it!

Very well done and thank you for yours. I think your score is way below what it deserves so mine will help redress it. I hope you make the finals.

I hope to chat on my string. It's tricky to hold all in mind at once so you should have questions.

Very best

Peter