Crisis of Fundamentality → Physics, Forward → Into Metaphysics → The Ontological Basis of Knowledge: Framework, Carcass, Foundation by Vladimir I. Rogozhin

Dear Vladimir, ...(copied to mine)

I completely agree with you.

«In physics, it is necessary to introduce the Ontological standard of substantiation of fundamental theories».

Ontology studies the fundamental principles of the device of being.

The basis of the universe is the physical vacuum. Conceptual physicists believe that space is empty and has ideal properties to carry the real photon energy billions of years without energy loss. This is a key mistake - all scientists know that there cannot be ideal properties in science, but they do not notice it, or it is global hypnosis, as in Germany at the turn of the 1940s. It is this leads to the justification of the causelessness of processes, science has turned into a fantasy and to what you write.

«The modern crisis of the philosophical foundations of Fundamental Science is manifested as a comprehensive conceptual crisis, crisis of understanding, crisis of interpretation and representation, crisis of methodology, loss of certainty».

When I write about the environment of a physical vacuum, from an ontological point of view, I emphasize its real energy and material basis of the world, instead of an abstract foundation, in the form of emptiness, as well as virtual and quasiparticles.

For example, phonons are generally considered quasiparticles, which form photons that carry real energy. I believe that such supernatural, phantom and abstract concepts should not be in science. All particles are real. If a photon is fixed, this means that in the physical vacuum environment there was a pair of real particles.

On the one hand, matter consists of energy, on the other hand, it is energy that forms the mass. Mass derived from energy, it can be formed, under certain conditions, and may not be formed.

For example, an electron-positron pair is actually a phonon (it is not a quasiparticle) that has energy and mass. "Annihilation" of the electron-positron pair leads to the formation of a pair of massless photons. Each photon carries half the energy of the electron-positron pair. In fact, one photon is the pure kinetic energy of an electron-positron pair. The potential energy of the electron-positron pair is a pair of vast gravispheres from the medium of the physical vacuum, which includes a set of de Broglie waves. Gravispheres form a mass, and their energy is parametrically transformed into a second photon during the "annihilation" process.

Thus, the electron-positron pair has a mass, while the photon has no mass and its temperature is close to zero. At the same time, in the process of "annihilation" only the structure of the elements of matter has changed. For example, for an electron - the toroidal structure has turned into a cylindrical spiral. The electron, as consisted of a nematic sequence of 137 quarks, continues to consist of 137 quarks in the photon. In this case, the cross section of the interaction of a photon with the medium of a physical vacuum decreased by a factor of 137, in comparison with the electron-positron pair. Therefore, a photon is a pair of elements (a pair of baryons) of a deeper neutrino and quark level of the fractal structure of matter. Therefore, an electron in the Cooper pair can move in the equilibrium superconducting state only at a speed 43.6 times slower than the speed of light, and the photons move at the speed of light. A boson from a pair of quarks is a graviton (gluon).

An electron-positron pair can be formed only from a photon with an energy of 1023 keV.

The inverse transformation of photons with an energy of 511 keV into a pair of particles with an energy of 256 keV leads to the absorption of energy from the medium of the physical vacuum for constructing their gravispheres and mass formation. Therefore, laser cooling will allow cooling of the body, practically to zero temperature.

In fact, "annihilation" of particles is the process of their division on the second subharmonic of a parametric transformation with the release of energy, which can be used to synthesize heavier particles with energy absorption.

Thus, the process of division and synthesis of the elements of the physical vacuum environment is the main process of energy circulation in the universe, which leads to parametric resonance and solitons. Phase transformation of the elements of the physical vacuum environment is the cause of self-organization of matter according to the principles of the heat pump.

Thus, the most fundamental parameter in the universe is the energy dissipation coefficient (Hubble parameter) in the medium of the physical vacuum, which determines all the parametric processes in the universe. The stars in the universe are shining, due to the dissipation of energy in the physical environment. For example, the Hubble parameter easily calculates the solar radiation power.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Vladimir,

Thanks for reading my essay and for your kind words. It seems that too many don't take the time to engage in an interchange of ideas.

Jim

Dear Vladimir,

I basically agree with your estimates of modern critical situation in fundamental science necessitating essential changes. As you may know from my essay here, I propose my version of unified mathematical "mother structure" as you call it (my dynamically probabilistic fractal) that underlies all real structures and their evolution by the equally unified law of the symmetry of complexity. I hope these results can be the right starting point for the necessary completion of fundamental knowledge, in accord with the criteria you describe in your essay.

Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for reading my essay. Also I have read your essay, speaking about the question "What is fundametal?", the crisis of science fundamentals. I agree with your thought that Fundamental Science "rested" on the understanding of matter, space, nature of the "laws of nature", fundamental constants, number, time, information, consciousness, as well as "One of the main causes of the modern crisis in Fundamental Science is the domination of epistemic fundamentality and a disparaging attitude toward metaphysics, ontology".

And also as you write that the fundamental is the potential for constructing the architectonics of cognition.

In relation with the "The ontological (absolute) space is the existential-extremum of the absolute forms of existence of matter", as considering the fundamental forces and space time nature including Conversion of Mass to Energy, I would say that the absolute forms of existence of matter may be the space and time itself.

Ch.Bayarsaikhan

Dear Vladimir

I read with great interest your remarkable article where I found truthful, in my opinion, the representation of many problematic issues concerning the current state of scientific thinking, to methodology and to natural science in general. This is important that you clearly had point to a stagnant crisis situation in both the humanitarian aspects and the current methodology in natural science. You also see the moral aspects of this global problem, the necessity of which somehow does no accepted to be as the decisive qualitative factor in modern scientific methodology. This is somehow my theme, and I sometimes ask myself a rhetorical question - is it possible (or permissible) to build any science without an initial, definite morality? To whom it will be need such a science, in the sense is it the science is possible to be considered as existing for itself? So, we can put many such questions that shows that we have gone on the some of wrong way that you have well realized and sayed!

I'm just impressed with your level of knowledge, depth and persuasiveness of thinking. It seems to me that you presented one of the best works in the contest. I wish to you good luck in the contest!

Best Regards,

George Kirakosyan

Hi Vladimir,

You have produced an excellent essay and have garnered the best blog responses. A short excellent course in philosophy. I pulled out two items I liked, one from your essay one from your blog:

1. All science, in my opinion, is cosmology, and for me the value of philosophy is no less than science, it is solely in the contribution that it has made to cosmology."

2. I believe that there should be a World Bank of fundamental ideas in all UN languages, with their constant discussion by all members of the world scientific community.

Personally, I like to play with cosmology, do take a look at my metaphysics to physics essay: The Thing That is Space-Time. I think you will enjoy it.

Thanks for your essay,

Don Limuti

MR. Rogozhin

I fully enjoyed the way you put things together it and I think further words are useless.

Rate it accordingly.

If you would have the pleasure for a short axiomatic approach of the subject, I will appreciate your opinion.

Silviu

Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

One can agree with John Wheeler that philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers. Indeed, philosophy plays a very important role in physics. Moreover, physics began with philosophy. A classic example is the philosophy of Aristotle. Every important step in physics took place with the participation of philosophy. This concerns the creation of both classical and relativistic mechanics. Newton was equally a physicist and philosopher. The general theory of relativity was created under the impression of the works of several philosophers, and above all Mach. In addition, philosophy plays an important role in the generalization of the physical knowledge obtained and allows us to look at everything that is happening from the height of the stars.

Best wishes,

Robert Sadykov

Hello Vladimir,

The title of your essay 'Crisis in fundamentality' is well chosen and timely. You only have to read the essays of other contestants to confirm that the notion of fundamentality in science is not generally as fundamental as one might expect.

You have demonstrated that consideration of some of the best thoughts of some of the best minds in the field of consciousness is a very direct and rewarding place to focus one's own mind.

A theory of everything is a fine goal but identifying a goal is just the beginning of something much more worthy: an understanding of the process. To that end there is no better teacher than nature. Science is in the forefront of that endeavour, and physicists curious participants.

If we were to build a tree of fundamentality we would likely start by recognising that existence is a prerequisite for any and all other entities. The highest branches appear to be few but not as clearly independent as one might expect: time, space, energy and matter.

Below these we have a tangle of intertwining branches each claiming in their own special ways entitlements to be recognised as fundamental, i.e. essential, for further developments to ensue.

As Karl Popper noted; "Science does not rest on a rock". A stream of products of evolution have emerged that Popper usefully consolidates into "three worlds".

Cognizance is the foundation of mankind's special claim to an imperative status by virtue of our perceptions, however cloudy, of a totality that extends far beyond our comprehension. However, we cannot deny our dependence upon prior products (i.e. higher branches of the tree) of evolution.

While we accept the notion of 'laws of nature', a more supple term would be 'principles' by which deviations from statistical norms can be admitted, subject to correction when they extend too far from the median condition.

Yuri Vladimirov's contention that "The main goal of theoretical physicists is to build a physical picture of the world on the basis of a single generalizing category" is commendable but in order to accommodate the dynamics of change any such 'picture' would necessarily require to be a continuously changing 'movie'. The principle function of a 'goal' is to establish direction in which to proceed. Goals change as determined by priorities, but processes continue.

The notions of 'the systemic approach' and 'intuition' are utilities that afford assistance in an otherwise chaotic world of unfathomable complexity. Proof in the absolute sense is absolutely unnecessary. We need to identify what we need in the short and longer terms as individuals, collectively, and in support of the greater establishment - and to proceed accordingly.

Yu A. Neretin's comment that "the situation in mathematics and mathematical physics ... is quickly becoming more sinister" echoes Einstein's earlier conviction that 'As far as the mathematical theorems refer to reality, they are not sure, and as far as they are sure, they do not refer to reality.' We are thus inevitably drawn to accept Lee Smolin's conclusion that "The loss of certainty" in mathematics caused "the loss of certainty" in fundamental physics.

Finally, It is important for all specialists to communicate with the public in non-specialist language in order to enhance the degree of understanding and acceptance of ideas.

It was a pleasure to become acquainted with your thoughts.

Good luck,

Gary.

Dear Vladimir Il'ich,

You very deep and phylosophical discussion of the ontological and epistemological problems of the modern physics can find interesting appications in teh approach to the basic element of cosmoparticle physics - the world system, unfying the theory of the Universe with its foundations in particle physics.

Thank you very much for your very nice and comprhensive presentation of phylosophical aspects of the modern science.

It deserves very high estimation

With the best regards

M.Yu.Khlopov