Essay Abstract

Einstein's view; "For the time being, we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics, which can be regarded as its logical foundation." 1940 ('Science') corresponds to Karl Poppers views on poor foundational solidity in science,1 to Russell's 'Turtles all the way down' and 'piled' foundations of structures on boggy ground relying on local consistency, friction and inertia. We argue that 'fundamental' is relative not absolute within reductionist hierarchies and may be infinitely recursive. However 'condensation' of massive particle pairs with discrete rotations may occupy a non-arbitrary position in a sequence with no known smallest possible scale. We identify that at it's ridiculously simplest just relative motion may produce & characterise a ground state of matter and provide a detectable foundational mechanism, pehaps valid at all gauges. Most solutions in science seem simple and obvious once discovered. We explore whether a most fundamental cause may exist, also simpler than assumed. Relative motion in viscous fluids produce paired vortices at all known scales. Additional motions and interactions then build increasingly complex 'particulate' momenta. We test the simplest as a candidate for 'most fundamental' using a Reduction by functionalization variant of the severest Nagalian reductionism test; the unification of established theories. The two 'pillars' of science, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, often seen as fundamental, may share a single derivation, perhaps even the most ridiculously simple one. Using plain English we test this proposition analyzing outcomes of interactions between one of the simplest motions spherical rotation. Surprising results close to with Einstein, Bell & Von Neumann's ideas are found and tested.

Author Bio

Studied UKC, UCA, PCL/Westminster widely over 11 years in Sciences, Architecture, Philosophy & Engineering. RIBA, APS, AAS and Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society. Interest include astrophysics, plasma, observational cosmology, aero & hydrodynamics. Consultancy Head & lead consultant on defence, petrochemical & renewable energy etc. projects. Semi-retired to research & mentor students at 2 universities Including to think outside infinite sequences of boxes. UK representative racing yachtsman, RNLI Governor.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Peter,

I enjoyed your essay immensely. Your remark that "time increases local bonds and resistance to motion" seem to be directed to architectural pilings, but is a wonderful metaphor for physics, as I'm sure you intended.

You begin by noting that "calling time fundamental or 'absolute' fails with special relativity", but then point out that Einstein stressed one needs to keep searching for a 'heuristic' logic rationale for SR. I discuss this problem in my essay, which I hope you will read. The 'simple action' may be as simple as realizing that Einstein's ubiquitous clocks actually count cycles and measure energy directly, and time only indirectly.

I like your discussion of linear motion and rotation. "No 'particle' could even exist without its spin motion. Any motion through the continuum may creat the vortices we find in all larger scale fluids." Of course this gravito-magnetic circulation is built-in to Einstein's weak-field equations, and hence implicit in all gravitational field equations, reinforcing the understanding of the field as a perfect fluid.

Your discussion of length contraction as Doppler and of c+v as fields moving within fields, with no violation of c, is compatible with my essay.

Finally, you recall Einstein's "we should be able to explain physics to a barmaid" is valid; barmaids are not bothered with strong beliefs in false premises. Physicists must first get beyond this before even considering alternative concepts. Some can, some can't. As you note

"Deep familiarity with complex (if incompatible or flawed) theory may then dissuade many from adopting new unfamiliar concepts, even, or particularly, if ridiculously simple."

It is ridiculously simple to understand and confirm that atomic clocks measure energy directly, and time only indirectly. The substitution of energy-time conjugation for space-time symmetry in SR retains all relativistic particle physics while rejecting the paradoxes associated with space-time symmetry (a.k.a. 'no preferred frame') and the 'railroad "gedanken" experiments'. Of course 20th century physics is based in relativistic particle physics, while none of the 'railroad' logic has any relevance to real physics.

I believe our essays support each other in SR aspects. I hope you find this so.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Hi Peter,

    You hit the nail on the head... Your statement here sums it all up:

    "The two 'pillars' of science, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, often seen as fundamental, may share a single derivation, perhaps even the most ridiculously simple one."

    You may be interested in reading my essay - The Day after the Nightmare Scenario

    All the best,

    Scott S Gordon, MD

      Dear Peter,

      I have read your essays in the past, and you always have something interesting to say. You have "simplicity" in your title, and I agree that the fundamentals should be simple. However, although you identify many problems with orthodox theories, your solutions are less clear and simple.

      You might be interested in my own essay, "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics". I propose that slight modifications from classical physics give rise to a consistent unified realistic physical picture on all scales. There are no point particles or gravitational singularities; abstract spacetime, Hilbert space, and entanglement 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. This gives rise to the phenomena associated with general relativity and quantum mechanics, without requiring separate mathematical formalisms. This neoclassical synthesis is far simpler than orthodox theory, and is subject to direct experimental tests.

      Best Wishes,

      Alan

        Hi Peter,

        Here we are again all together, thinking about 'what is fondamental"

        I have read your essy with great interest as I read all your thinking.

        Again you touch the foundational differences og our perceptions.

        We architects are always trying to construct the settings of human life, but only creating them is not enough for you and me, we need to EXPLAIN.

        Your points of view hare helping , but as any point of view they are influenced by the SUBJECTIVE SIMULTANEITY SPHERE that surrounds every agent. Each agent has its own explanation of reality. I liked the interpretations you made very much and hope that you also will take the time to read mine in my essay : FOUNDATIONAL QUANTUM REALITY LOOPS

        I valued your essay high , keep on thinking free

        best regards

        Wilhelmus

          Peter,

          Indeed, often correct explanations in Physics turn out to be ridiculously simple.

          In my 2012 FQXi essay titled "A Classical Reconstruction of Relativity" I show that length contraction (and mass increase too as a result) is caused by Doppler shifting up the upstream and downstream components of matter waves.

          I have found your past essays, and now your latest one, very interesting and helpful in advancing our understanding of how the EPR experimental results are obtained by the combined effects of polarizers and photomultipliers resulting in a cosine squared dependence on angle. My essay this year titled "A Fundamental Misunderstanding" addresses the EPR result and shows conclusively that Classical Physics can fully explain the result, even for the latest 'loophole-free' Steering Inequality experiments.

          Best of luck with your essay...

          Regards,

          Declan Traill

            Peter,

            Einstein's view; "For the time being, we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics, which can be regarded as its logical foundation." 1940

            I offer such logical foundation in my essay. Have a look.

            "We stay focussed on the fermion and consider it first in the simplest way; as a rotating sphere, so as Orbital Angular Momentum (OAM)." ...

            Waves are translating or ... rotating around. Peter, the process of pair annihilation shows the way ... particles as looping rotating waves just opening up and are now translating ....???

            Long Time no "see",

            Best of luck,

            Marcel,

              Edwin,

              Thanks. In saying SR & QM use different 'time' concepts I'm saying one at least is wrong. I look forward to reading your 'energy' approach. I define energy itself as simply relative 'motion', so, as clocks move, your concept looks valid.

              Most first reads will skip over my classic QM proof of CHSH >2 which if correct is a mega breakthrough AND unifies SR!! I hope you might study and help falsify it, even repeat the simple experiment (protocol in end notes). Also see Declan Trail's short essay, which appears to give a full mathematical coding proof consistent with my rationale and finding!

              Interesting times.

              Best

              Peter

              Scott, Thanks. I've found unification very possible. You may have missed a logical and experimental proof in the essay. If so do look again and comment. Your essay sounds interesting. It's now on my list and I look forward to discussing both.

              Peter

              Alan,

              I greatly look forward to reading yours. I never did subscribe to 'point' particles, Hilbert space or 'space-time' as an entity. Have you done any new 'direct experimental tests'?

              I'm sad mine looked "less clear and simple" but all new concepts first will!

              It really IS simple and I hope you'll look less quickly & help to falsify it. Look at this short video, 100 second video Classic QM & non-integer spin, but in a nutshell;

              1. 'Pairs' have random (x,y,z) but parallel polar axes, and each the TWO (Maxwell curl/linear) states, inversely proportional over 90o as I show.

              2. A,B polarizer fermions have the same or opposite axis subject to setting angle.

              3. Momentum (as known), so exchange varies by Cos theta 'latitude' inversely for each state (equivalent to rotational velocity distribution).

              4. An amplitude varying with (x,y,z axis) angle hits orthogonal photomultiplier channel (fields again! but charged). The Cos angle distribution repeats (so Cos2). High energy at any angle = *click* low doesn't.

              5. Click rates are then 'collated' and misinterpreted! Diracs 4 'spinor' equation and offset Cos2 plot is reproduced. CHSH >2 and 'steering equality' >1 so closing the so called 'detection loophole'.

              My experiment (see photo's & end notes) confirms it. Also see Declan Trail's short essay with a perfectly matching maths code & plot!

              Re-emission is always at fermion centre of mass rest frame. Speed c is thus localised by ALL interactions! SR is then implicit (though not quite as present misinterpretation).

              I was counting on your help. Initially to falsify. Do ask questions.

              Best

              Peter

              Wilhelmus,

              Thank you kindly. I greatly look forward to reading & discussing yours.

              Peter

              Declan,

              Thanks. This looks like really game changing physics; You'll have seen the code in yours and the mechanism and protocol in mine match almost perfectly, and for the first time reproduce a >2 inequality with local causality, and no conflict with SR!

              Many don't understand QM (not surprising!) but you have to understand the problem to recognise the solution. Of those who do it seems most are just convinced nature is 'weird' and won't countenance a real physical analogue. That may not leave many so prepare for the most rigorous discussion!! (from those who understand the importance).

              I have an Email for you and sent a message (mine's in an essay you cite) as well as commented on & scored your essay.

              Very best of luck in the contest. It's doing well, which mine was before getting 1 bombed already!

              Peter

              Peter,

              There are some parallels in our thinking but we use different language. Your concept that relative motion is fundamental requires time. I agree with your statement that fermions require spin. In my essay, spin is motion in one direction opposed by a field representing the opposite direction. It takes both to have relative motion. I spent a lot of time with the PDG meson and baryon data and didn't expect that properties would balance to zero but I think it is important. Your illustrations on the ball remind me of parity. The simple rotation (looking down vs looking up) super-imposes two results for the same object.

              But what separated directions so that we can have relative motion? As I mentioned, I use P=exp(iEt/H)*exp(-iEt/H) based on the MIT reference (search MIT22 Evolution of Function Chapter 6). My neutron model finds the E's in the equation, t is time around a circle and H is Planck's unreduced constant. I placed an excerpt from the proton model below. The values of E that satisfy P=1 are 13.797, 5.076, 101.947 and 0.687 MeV. For example 5.076 MeV comes from the equation E-2.02e-5*exp(12.432).

              There are 4 E's, and P=1=psi*psi*psi*psi=exp(13.797it/H)*exp(5.076it/H)*exp(-101.947it/H)*exp(-0.687it/H). The imaginary numbers multiply out and each Et/H=1. The equation also represents energy zero. (13.8+88.15=101.95+0.687 (MeV)). I believe that probability 1, energy zero was an initial condition but I can't escape association with collapse of a wave function and consciousness. It seems to me that consciousness is the intersection of P=psi*psi*psic*psic=1. This is a busy intersection as consciousness develops since fermions make things we recognize. The "quantum circles" probably represent a plenum of information from which we develop an internal model of the things around us. The P evolves and separates nature into many possible concepts.

              Do you have thoughts about what "sees" the relative motion?

                Gene,

                Interesting. Yes, motion does need time, but I see time as unphysical and focus on the physical, even if at sub matter scale.

                That brings us to; "what "sees" the relative motion? I assume you mean to 'define' it, so before all 'detector' fermion interactions. Yes. I invoke that sub-matter scale 'dark energy' that's 84% of the universe. It CAN have some 'rest frame' as long as it doesn't couple with EM, so Dirac's 'new ether', but not 'lumeniferous'.

                So perhaps in the beginning, simply; "something moved". Once something had moved the vortices started (more movement) and there went the whole neighbourhood! before you know it (just a few billion yrs) we've got a massive messy universe of motion! Does that gel with you at all?

                Our views on consciousness are compatible. Mine was rationalised on terms of interaction layers and feedback loops in last years essay leading to much discussion but pleasingly no dissent (yet!). I like your description to.

                Have you looked at Declan Trail's mathematical proof of my ontology for classical QM yet? That looks like a major advancement but I'm very disappointed it seems it's scared off any comment so far! Any thoughts?

                Best

                Peter

                Dear Peter,

                I read with great interest your deep analytical essay with important ideas and conclusions aimed at solving the problem of a single "foundation" of knowledge. Only I believe that the "big bang" hypothesis must be subjected to a very deep philosophical doubt in the spirit of Descartes.

                Good luck!

                Yours faithfully,

                Vladimir

                  Vladimir,

                  Thank you kindly. Nice to hear from you. I agree your BB doubts. Indeed the model leading to a Classical QM derivation previously showed a recycling cosmology as far more consistent, though including regular 'big whooshes' very much like a scaled up version of active galactic nuclei (AGN's, so opposing quasars jets re-ionizing most matter).

                  Recycled galaxies are one gauge down giving a full evolutionary cycle. Around 70% of the mysteries of the current Concordance/BB model can then be simply explained. I published jointly on it with Minkowski if you haven't read it yet; DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4540.5603

                  How does that fit with your thinking?

                  I greatly look forward to reading your essay.

                  Very best

                  Peter

                  Marcel-Marie,

                  I agree, duality is explained. But considering the fermion as spherical rotation with seperable momenta state pairs is also critical to allow a classical derivation of QM's predictions. I disagree photons and any 'signals' are particulate until re-quantized by interaction ('measurement').

                  I have yours on my list.

                  Peter

                  Peter,

                  I will definitely look at the article. Here is an open letter on the "big bang" issue... I recall the good thought of Karl Popper: "I, however, believe that there is at least one truly philosophical problem that any thinking person is interested in. This is the problem of cosmology - the problem of knowing the world, including ourselves (and our knowledge) as part of this world. 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."

                  All the best.

                  Vladimir

                  I just want to thank you again for looking at my theory... I re-read you essay and I just would like to say - The reason why the theory of everything has not been found is because everyone seems to think that it can be derived from current math or through explaining an new experimental finding - Those methods will not work.

                  I can tell immediately if a person is on the right track or not.... If a known equation is used - it's over. All known equations must be derived from the primordial ingredient and energy - My book does just that and answers basic questions - What is distance? Why does spacetime has three spatial dimensions? WHat determines Straight? How are energy fields created? And I derive the math of maxwell's equations, GR and QM but under one model.

                  I entered this contest for people to be introduced to my work. I don't need the money - I am an orthopedic surgeon and my wife a cardiologist. I also entered because I will eventually be writing a book about how long it took for my work to be recognized. To show how my essay came in last place will be quite the irony in my story! LOL!

                  All the best!

                  Hi Peter,

                  I highly appreciate Your statement "

                  The two 'pillars' of science, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, often seen as fundamental, may share a single derivation, perhaps even the most ridiculously simple one."聽

                  We are on the same track!

                  see my introduction:

                  Neil Turok: "And so we have to go back and question those founding principles and find whatever it is, whatever new principle will replace them.". Cheers Leo