Dear Gregory

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My sail area overpowered. Ordinarily I would have reduced sail, but this day I felt differently. My contemplations were on the forces of nature, and I was ventured seaward increasingly amongst them. As the wind and the waves rose, my boat came under strain, but I was exhilarated. All the while I considered, how might I communicate the role of natural forces in understanding of the world around us. For they are surely it's central theme.

Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me in questioning this circumstance?

My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. for if they didn't then nebula gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

My essay is an attempt at something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up an energy potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists, and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond forming activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemical process arose.

By identifying process whereby atomic forces draw a potential from space, we have identified means for their perpetual action, and their ability to deliver perpetual work. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might apply for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

Hi Gregory,

I like your theory of the fundamental. I think of it as a checklist for sanity when determining what is fundamental.

Derry's attributes of the Fundamental: Generality, Irreducibility, Commensurability, and Fertility. I would add an attribute: Agreeability Without agreement there would be as many fundamentals as there are individuals. Perhaps this would be just a bookkeeping problem?

Here is how I would rate my essay: "The Thing That Is Space-Time"

Generality: very general

Irreducibility: Yes

Commensurability: Yes, pretty good fit QM and GR

Fertility: Future will tell

So, visit my essay and let me know what you think. And thanks for your excellent essay.

Don Limuti

    Dear Gregory,

    Great essay. I agreed pretty well all and it was nicely argued. I'd missed it as it was 'off the radar' but a great late comeback on the outside to nip at my heels!

    Now the contest is over I hope I can persuade you to read my electron OAM based derivation of a classical (non-linear dynamics) ontology reproducing the predictions of QM. It came from testing a momentum exchange model with wider applicability.

    Are you familiar with the concept of 2-fluid plasma and Maxwell near/far field Transition Zone? or the Poincare Sphere?, and the Spin Stats theorem?

    Anyway I hope you can study it carefully and revert. It need help to bring to light. See also my (top scored) 2015 Red/Green Sock Trick and other finalist essays.

    Well done, and thanks in advance. Do contact me direct; pj.ukc.edu@physics.org

    Very Best

    Peter

      6 days later

      Peter--

      Thank you for the kind words, I'm glad you found my essay interesting. I agree it was "off the radar" and I never did figure out why some essays get a huge amount of attention and others (like mine) seem to be ignored. Even authors that I commented on (and gave pretty good, and substantial, questions and comments to) and had good conversations with did not comment on my contribution. Due to time constraints, I didn't have time to give your essay a close reading earlier, but I have now and left a comment there for you to mull over. Thanks.

      --Greg

      Don--

      Thank you for the kind words and interest. Your point is well taken--I just implicitly assumed that the explanations in question are correct (i.e. agree with experiment and observation), but perhaps that should be added explicitly as a criterion so that there is no ambiguity on the point. I am hoping to read your essay in the next day or two, and will leave a comment there after I read it. Thanks.

      --Greg

      5 days later

      Greg,

      Thanks for your comment on mine. Seems we can't now 'view entire' new posts so my reply is in bite sized chunks;

      First; Nothing's 'overthrown'. Dirac's equation stands, so all those finding do to. What it DOES do is remove the need for (EPR paradox) 'non-locality' by reproducing the results from physical mechanism. Many other explanations are implicit; 'Superposition' is simply the Poincare (4 vector) sphere,' 'Measurement' is momentum exchange subject to interaction 'tangent point'. 'Collapse' is just re-quantisation /polarisation, non-integer spins are concurrent z axis rotation, etc etc. It also confirms a far wider model. Viz.

      cont..

      ...In 2010 my top 10 finalist essay '2020 vision' used Maxwell's near/far fields and the 2-fluid plasma we find at field transition zones with speed delta dependent density, only needed re-emission to be at c in each electron centre of mass rest frame to remove all paradox from SR, yet KEEP the postulates! (read that essay and the 3 after). That had the issue you described; how widely powerful was it? It seemed very! It seemed to lift thick mist from many areas, i.e. Stellar aberration was a big one. It even pointed to a solution for the problematic 'excluded middle' in logic, also a cyclic cosmology, natural cosmic redshift, stellar aberration and a tranch of other astrophysics problems! Sounds silly I know, but just look (some in papers not essays).

      So QM was simply a test of an extant model that we'd failed to falsify any other way. I say 'simply', but of course it wasn't, needing more research in photonics, plasma etc. etc. I tested all QM's assumptions and found a flaw; the 'no assumption' assumption for pair morphology.... cont

      ..The data was then wrongly interpreted to suggest 'singlet states' but 'superposed', when the two momenta pairs were REAL state vectors! I knew angular momentum of a sphere (i.e. Earth) varied by Cos Latitude, and it was clear what A,B's (rotatable) polariser electrons DID find; either 'SAME' or 'OPPOSITE' vector for each of the ELECTRONS 4 states! So with antiparallel conjugate pair polar axes; both A and B can independently REVERSE the finding! Einstein wins! (after a draw in the first leg).

      Frankly even with collaboration I can't handle half the implications and papers required. Are you any good at maths? My 2015 Wigner essay did score top, but that doesn't mean I'm a mathematician. So in summary; The 'discrete field' model already has shown it's wider worth. If doesn't need to 'overturn either SR or QM but does allow unification. Of course changing the deeply held beliefs of physicists is quite another matter and likely impossible (see my last yrs essay & 'cognitive dissonance'. '2020' certainly seems optimistic!

      Many links to papers & videos are in the essay posts, or just ask. Many papers are on Researchgate, arXiv or; http://independent.academia.edu/JacksonPeter

      Very best, Peter

      Write a Reply...