Summary

Looking at what is fundamental for the majority of physics

Foundational time, for happening and agency

EM signals, for perception of 'reality'

The disturbances of the base medium providing all of the fundamental forces

What is fundamental for progress in science and makes science adaptable/ able to develop rather than being 'set in stone'.

Vulnerability of science work

Dear Georgina Woodward,

I like that you jump in at the deep end, "shedding a heap of unnecessary ideas about the universe." In fact, your first two, time stretching from infinity to infinity, and block time in the space-time continuum, are the focus of my essay. [Eckhard also has a lot to say about this.]

I'm with you in assuming only one kind of base existence from which all other kinds are formed. I'm with you on the object universe being at the same time and only time everywhere, i.e., Now.

After dealing with time, you treat electromagnetic radiation, which I too treat in my essay. In fact, I agree with almost all of your essay. You finally conclude by suggesting that Einstein's relativity can be cross examined. That is what I do in my essay. I hope you will read it and find it interesting. It supports your essay quite strongly. Don't worry about the math. It's correct.

It is so good to see the sharp edges get knocked off of our models. They get smoother and smoother with every contest.

Congratulation on a very well written essay.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Edwin, I am glad you and I agree on some important points about time and existence, On existence; what I have proposed, and you are in agreement, is as simple as possible but no simpler as Einstein recommends.

    I am really pleased to find that you also want foundational, sequential time that is fully simultaneous and without past or future. It is necessary but can not by itself account for all observations in physics. So our views diverge.

    Some snippets from the essay related to the points above:

    "EM produced simultaneously (the same uni-temporal Nows) from an object, or collection of objects forming an event can be received at different times (different uni-temporal Nows) by different observers at different distances from the source. This gives the way non simultaneity of seen events occurs but it does not infer the persistence of material objects in time."GW i.e. non simultaneity of observed events but with no material past (only EM signals originating at those past events ), This resolves the temporal paradoxes.

    .".....................The above list of differences between products of EM processing and the fermion based sources of electromagnetic radiation should make clear the need to differentiate them and not treat 'the seen' as the external material existence."GW Not differentiating then is the category error in Relativity. First in SR and transported over to GR with the assumption of externally physically real spacetime. I might say spacetime products are emergent from a process not foundational reality. This understanding makes sense of Barn pole type paradoxes as what is seen is always a visual product and not material object.

    Just because we are both looking at the same theory does not mean our conclusions are compatible. Although you say you agree with my essay from looking at your own I see you do not - but that's OK . We all have our own unique perspectives, notice things that resonate with us and perhaps gloss over the rest. Kind regards Georgina

    Dear Georgina,

    some remarks regarding 'your' conception of time: in wave mechanics (classical and even quantum) the symbol t is a parameter, no metaphysical entity. Its equations describe bodies in mathematical space, which can be known precisely for this reason. That is, in physics (proper) nothing ever 'happens'. The 'things' we know don't happen, they simply are, and whatever 'happens' we don't and cannot possibly know. For example, the individually occurring blackenings on a screen behind a double slit illuminated by low level coherent light are mere happenings (unpredictable events in the future), whereas the shape of the interference pattern is a priori knowledge. What we can observe is our knowledge, not events in time.

    In general, that there is something called historical development from the past to the future ((r)evolution) is a romantic (mainly 18th/19th centuries) idea of historians and sociologists later picked up by biologists. While the concept of natural evolution has meanwhile become dubious in biology by showing that the term 'species' has no empirical equivalent (e.g Hey J., On the failure of modern species concepts, 2006) it is the more surprising that ideas of evolution are thriving in physics.

    Heinrich

    Hi Georgina,

    Good responses. Problem is there's NO assumption that Bob 'already has' any result! He and Alice measure simultaneously, at any polarizer (field) angle they may chose at the last moment, and only actual outcomes are compared. Your explanation is then unfortunately disproved by Bells irrefutable theorem (all the best brains have tried & failed!).

    I'm not claiming to have done so as it's a tautology. Impossible. However there is just ONE way to change the starting assumptions (which include that; "The particles may be formed having opposite unmeasured behavior not characterized as a singular state"). which would circumvent Bells irrefutable logic.

    That way starts simply by employing Maxwell's twin paired orthogonal state momenta, (including 'curl') which my experiment proves DOES also exist inversely proportional to 'spin up/down'. Then (here doctrine will struggle to grasp it) it should be understood the measurement is NOT of 'spin' but of values of 'different' momenta, measured orthogonally (the Pm Channels). Only then can logic emerge. BUT, there MUST be a random but definite & opposite oscillation values prior to interaction. (Did you know polarisers can completely REVERSE spin polarity?!) You also have to think in 3D for the x,y, AND z, axes.

    I know that's tricky at first so am trying to understand how best to explain it.

    On LENSES. If you study quantum optics you'll see the jury there returned a verdict decades ago! Wavelengths change on interaction (as the refractive plane of a prism) both due to 'polarization mode dispersion' (PMD) AND due to any relative motion (Doppler shift). i.e. We KNOW Light travels through glass at a DEFINITE SPEED (~0.67c) no matter what it's state of motion through and previous propagation medium! The only problem is few theoreticians seem to do any good revision of quantum optics!

    Your link was dead but as I'm an astronomer that was very much my area. It was recently found that the limit 'c' applies locally to orbiting charges even as the orbit grows, so increasing orbit time, so wavelength found. If you'd like to see a video rationalizing the anomalies without needing acceleration expansion try this; Redshift Video .

    very best

    Peter

    Hi Heinrich, thanks for your points.There are abstract mathematical spaces, such as Hilbert space in QM, and time is used as a parameter. This helps with analysis and calculation but is not the space where the physics is actually happening out in the universe rather than on the 'mathematical stage'. t is used but there is no explanation of what that t is in the universe rather than in the calculation.

    You say, "in physics (proper) nothing ever happens". That comes from using Einstein's space-time continuum or other block time model as the explanatory framework for understanding.I am providing an alternative explanatory framework. That is why "The realm of Newtonian time stretching from infinity to infinity where Newton's eternal God is, always, and Block time and the space-time continuum; Parents of paradox" are put on the, to be (at least temporarily) disregarded, heap at the start of the essay. In the proposed alternative things really do happen because of fondatioanl sequential passage of time. Which is change in the configuration of the entire universe. There can be true agency rather than just the semblance of it. As there is no future, it is fully open/non existent, rather than just waiting to be encountered. The happenings do precede the receipt of signals that lead to production of sensory information by which knowledge of what has happened can occur.

    Over time many different kinds of classification and segregation of species have been developed and they are not all the same.There are different ways of thinking about what a species is, the 3 main are 1. appearance and morphological similarity 2. biological reproductive compatibility (able to produce fertile offspring together) and 3. not being geographically isolated, so reproduction opportunity can occur between the individual with reproductive compatibility. There is obviously over lap between the categories given. There can even be distributions of individuals (such as certain Gulls )so that the extremes at either end of the distribution are different in appearance, seemingly different species, but fully reproductively compatible.

    Personally I don't think there needs to be a singular definition of species but wider recognition that the term does not have one meaning and provision of clarity about how it is being used in a particular situation. What springs to mind is prefixes, giving Identseg-species, Biolseg-species and Geoseg-species, with acknowledgement that there is overlap between the categories. Once familiar the prefixes could be shortened to I, B and G. The good thing about the notion of a species is that it can be evaluated. It is one of those 'Sandcastles', not a failure of science. Kind regards Georgina

    Peter, you are moving the goal posts. You were asking about in your words "WHY Alice appears able to change Bob's results instantly from 3 light years away". Now you are saying "Problem is there's NO assumption that Bob 'already has' any result!." Which of course makes the first inquiry redundant. As I have been saying, to paraphrase -there is no result before the result and that puts classical realism out of the game.

    Thanks for your explanations of your work. I do grasp that the difference in the particles pre-measurement is not in spin, spin being the name giving to the different response to the magnetic field upon measurement.

    I don't have a problem with the characteristic of the behaviour, measured as wavelength, being affected by change of environment.

    Re. potoreceptors: The energy of the photon which is directly proportional to frequency, either is or is not sufficient for chemical change of the pigment.

    If you don't mind I'd like to leave it there is this is getting away from discussion of my essay. Regards Georgina

    Id, Bio and Geo would probably do as prefixes. That they are being used to segregate populations, as a part of the species or not, need not be included, just mention somewhere. Eg. 'Biological segregation was used to define the species'. Where identification using a particular classification scheme is used, which one could be mentioned along with the statement that Identification segregation was used to define the species. That would seem to clarify matters. Other way of separating out species and not species, by behaviour springs to mind (that is, individuals would not meet or would not mate together because of behavior differences, despite biological reproductive compatibility and geographic overlap of territory), could just be given another different prefix and appropriate explanation. This allows 'species' to be retained for practical purposes such as analysis of populations and communication but without ambiguity. No need for a singular definition. Georgina

    Georgina,

    Thank you for your kind words. Your essay clearly dispels what is not relevant in you "heap of assumptions," and mentioning right off the necessary foundations. I like it that you mention "vulnerability" is fundamental in that failed theories can serve as stepping stones to further discovery, stating that even Darwinian evolution can be re-examined using epigenetics. This is well-stated.

    Thanks for the good read.

    Jim Hoover

    'Habit-species' would work for the behavioural variant mentioned.

    Some other variants Mus-species, known only from collections, whether museum or private, and Foss-species, known only from fossil remains thought to be extinct. Which will probably also be special cases of I.d.-species.(I meant I.d., for identification, in the earlier post not Id). I have come across 'fossil species' being used. Georgina

    Dear Georgina,

    I think FQXi.org might be trying to find out if there could be a Natural fundamental. I am surprised that so many of the contest's entrants do not appear to know what am fundamental to science, or mathematics, or quantum histrionics.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

      Hi Joe, 'what is fundamental?' is is very open question. There isn't just one answer to it. It depends on how the question is interpreted and where the focus of attention is directed when answering. It is interesting to read lots of different viewpoints and kinds of presentation. I do not find it surprising that there are diverse opinions.

      I have read and commented on your own essay, tying to give both positive feedback and suggestions that might be helpful. I have no more to say about it. I would like to keep this page for discussion of my essay and the subjects I chose to consider. Georgina

      Georgina--

      Your essay is quite interesting and I enjoyed reading it, but I do have a few (hopefully constructive) criticisms and comments. I will be very interested in your response.

      If I understood your approach here, you are trying to eliminate as many presuppositions based on present knowledge as possible, so as to build a sturdy foundation (pun intended) for a description of reality grounded in essential notions. If I've understood correctly, that's where my problem comes in, because you frequently (and quite reasonably) need to invoke a variety of concepts (fermions, EM waves, etc.) that are firmly embedded in the presuppositions that you have previously jettisoned. This happens more subtly in other ways too, e.g. you talk about potential energies, which only have meaning in the context of trajectories through space and time, but also wish to eliminate space and time as necessary concepts. I guess another way to say this is that it's difficult to think about these issues in a manner similar to the pre-Socratic Greeks when we now have the kind of understanding that we do.

      Please let me know what you think about this point, including any misunderstanding I might have about what you are aiming to do in the essay. As I said, it had a lot of points of interest, and I share your ideas about having a firm empirical grounding for concepts.

      --Greg

        Hi Gregory, thank you so much for your question. I am not trying to eliminate as many presuppositions as possible but to put modes of thinking about the physics that aren't compatible or would get in the way of thinking about my own proposition. For example Newtonian time is put aside because I am not suggesting a return to use of Newtonian time although I am suggesting a uni-temporal (same time everywhere), sequential time.

        Reading through the essay the physics that has been put aside is replaced by alternatives that take its place. For example very early on fermion particles are seen as differentiated parts of the base existence. Later on electromagnetism is explained as a particular kind of disturbance of the base medium. Also very early on in the essay foundational time is introduced "Change together with existence provides foundational time, which is the changing configuration of the 'Object universe', that is, the pattern and substance of all concurrent existence, at all scales."

        After talking about electromagnetism I point out "The above list of differences between products of EM processing and the fermion based sources of electromagnetic radiation should make clear the need to differentiate them and not treat 'the seen' as the external material existence.This does mean that as well as the seen, there are unseen sources. " This is a differentiation that was not done in the formulation of Relativity. Resulting in a category error and cause of the paradoxes.The space occupied by the content of the visual product is not the space where the physics of the external material universe is happening. So you see why "Block time and the space-time continuum; Parents of paradox" are put aside at the outset.

        Later in the essay there is discussion of the nature of the space where things are happening. The difficulty of relating to it as a human being and how it can simplified to be made comprehensible.

        You wrote "it's difficult to think about these issues in a manner similar to the pre-Socratic Greeks when we now have the kind of understanding that we do." Yes, that is why the heap of assumptions is put aside at the beginning to make room for different ideas, and avoid confusion by trying to use new ideas in the wrong context.

        I am providing an alternative explanatory framework.It overcomes the incompatibility of Relativity and QM, and dispels the paradoxes. As well as addressing the measurement problem, by explaining that measurables are relative, not sole properties; and measurement is imposing a viewpoint or procedure that outputs a singular limited fixed state or value. The fundamental forces are also unified. Perhaps with all of the above in mind the essay will be more approachable.

        Kind regards Georgina

        Dear Georgina;

        I like your style; you really have put together the best ingredients for an "Universe soup and sandcastles". You have touched all the fundamental aspects necessary for discussing what is fundamental, and have put yourself for so doing in the right position (universe centered instead of human centered approach). But a good cooking requires not just the right ingredients, but the right recipe (right quantity and right moment and way of adding together all the ingredients).

        Adding some formalism to your essay would have made it great. Yours has what mine lacks (mine is arid). The way I see it, we complement each other. In my essay I start by establishing the general concept of "Fundamental". Then I summarize an epistemological critique of the practice of theoretical science, where it is demonstrated the inadequacy of the ways science constructs the fundamental concepts for studying the fine grain of reality. Afterward I propose an expansion of the scope of physical science to include the aspects of reality that cannot be observed directly or indirectly. Then I discusses the concepts of SPACE, DISTANCE,TIME, INERTIA, MASS AND ELECTRIC CHARGE, and develop new concepts for each of these scientific parameters; redefining them in ways that allows the determination of whether or not they could be categorized as Fundamental.

        The interesting thing is that we both discuss the same aspects of reality but with different methodology. I hope we in the future we could put together the two parts.

          Wowow Georgina Woodward!

          Wonderfully matching essay with mine... Thank you...You visited my essay very early and gave a nice comment even!

          Your words "Selecting foundational time and electromagnetic radiation as fundamental, to the working of the Material universe, and the perception of "the universe" respectively. My dear Georgina Woodward !!!!.......... very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity. I am giving the full appreciation... By the way

          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

          Hi Diogenes, thank you for reading and for your appreciation of the essay. I take your point about lack of formalism, I could have made it more obvious. I have put a paper giving some of the background in the additional page, appendix and reference section.

          My aims were; to write something that was an easy, enjoyable, read, addressing the topic and the program of which the competition is part. I also wanted it to be an advance on ideas already expressed not just a reiteration. I really wanted to emphasize the differences between seen or measured and existent unseen, relevant to understanding what is happening in the physics considered by Relativity, and considered by QM.

          The 'Sandcastles' section is about how we ought to regard science that has been superseded or dis-proven. Including continued value of the scientific method, when not previously dis-proven science is shown to have been wrong. In anticipation of inevitable changes that have the potential to be used to discredit science itself. That vulnerability to failure is its strength, and in my opinion needs emphasizing. Allowing adaptation in the light of new knowledge and thence progress.

          I have taken a quick look at your essay and notice there are similarities. I hope to comment on your page. Kind regards Georgina

          6 days later

          Negative results in science are not well enough appreciated. Wrong ideas that could have worked need to be ruled out. This is not a form of failure. Your "vulnerability is fundamental" message explains this nicely, and I think it has a double meaning. Our own vulnerability in the universe is also fundamental to the way the universe works. If life was not vulnerable there would be no evolution. Natures wrong turns with life also have to eliminated.

          Thank you for the different and thought-provoking perspective

            Georgina, sorry for a last correction, but "classical realism" is ONLY put "out of the game"! by QM not assuming a 'pre-result result' for Bob. John Bell discusses that at length.

            The 'goalposts' are set in stone as I show there IS a 'measurable' which would be the same if measured a bit sooner or later, BUT; that quality; ('same' or 'opposite' momentum, i.e. polarity) is REVERSED if Bob's detector field is reversed. That's the key.

            On 'simplicity', if there is no rotation, i.e. no 'motion' then there is nothing! No particles, no matter, no universe! ..Maybe rather fundamental then?

            Very best of luck for yours.

            Peter