Ridiculous Simplicity by Peter Jackson

Hi Peter,

You are on to something with relative motion. I come at it with a bit of reverse philosophy. The speed of light does not have relative motion ....why? My answer is that perhaps all observers bring their own frame of reference with them and that is why we need observers (see pic on my essay of what dark matter looks like).

Thanks for visiting my blog. I came late to the contest and am attempting to catch up before the end.

Some thoughts and a queation:

1. Frodo can overcome dogma (gollum) and find the ring :)

2. Your conversation with Terry Bollinger was superb.

3. Thanks for helping to break the mould. Sorry, best pun for today.

4. Can you tell me in a sentence why spheres are "fundamental"?

Hope my vote helps your find the ring.

Thanks for a thought provoking essay.

Don Limuti

Dear Dr. Peter Jackson,

Thank you for your nice essay and stimulating ideas of reductionalism.

I really enjoyed it

With the best regards

Maxim Yu. Khlopov

Dear Peter,

A well-conceived essay. It deserves a good score.

Regards,

Branko

Dear Peter

Thank you for the comment, I will also comment yours soon after reading it

Best regards

Bashir.

Peter, from my thread:

Peter, how glad am I (as previously explained) that I got out early on this stuff! Some thoughts.

Maybe:

1. Sketch it like the Figure in Fröhner that I referred you to.

2. Importantly, sketch each of your beables and interactions on separate sheets of A3 paper; in time sequence: so that details are not lost when you make slides for online display. Supported by 3D models.

3. Recall that, in Aspect and EPRB, the Detector unit-vectors a and b are in 3-space; not necessarily orthogonal to the line of flight.

4. Purely hemispherical or sgn models do not work.

5. Get familiar with the FEW QM models that deal with polarizing particle-field interactions.

6. NB: Understand the BB dynamics via GA and my vector-product approach.

7. Convert your coded scribbles (above) to complete sentences, with all abbreviations defined at the start.

8. Then, please, tell me again what your goal is.

8. Sorry if it looks like I'm saying, "LOOK; over there", as I sneak out .. .. .. ..

Good on you, hang in there, +++, and all the best; it's way past my bedtime; Gordon

Peter Jackson

I really enjoyed reading your essay, and also rated it to highest.

On the other hand, I feel sorry of the the gap between human understading and the effort to approach simplicity by overcoming the difficulties of complexity.

In other word, to reveal simplicity of fundamental physical theory by thinking deeply with the Nature's puzzling and related effects is quite difficult, but what most difficult is Human understanding.

Since these two problems are interlinked we should prioritize and focus first to find ontological solution modern physics before finding a answer to fundamental related questions.

My previous essay I have only focused to hypothesis that links theories together in terms of fundamental particle and force. My current essay I focused more than half to point out needs for ontology related issue rather than answering the fundamental question. After evaluation I realized that answer is almost meaningless without good ontological/philosophical ground, that is why give more importance to essays focusing ontological issues. There are many essays to read but from the ontological point of view, I think that Vladimir I. Rogozhin and Maxim Yu. Khlopov, may be interesting essays

One very intresting example is that Natural Philosophy set good foundation Nature's fundamentals by quantizing in terms of elementary particle and force equilibrium in terms of neutral and charged including similarities of both macro and micro levels such as;

Formulaions Newton's and Coulomb's law

Experimentals Cavendish's and Coulomb's experiments

Implications Newtonian and Maxwellian two planet-like systems in different scale.

But things got strange in 20th doe to interpretation without ontology even terminology are some how affected,

In general I agree your conteptual explanation, some points I appreciated;

"simple components does seem to imply increasing physical dimensions but we'll test the 'more simple' aspect of reductionism, taken down to perhaps it's most ridiculous extreme, to find a most fundamental cause".

"This domain limit is also the lower end of electromagnetic (EM) coupling. Electromagnetism (EM) permeates, lights and connects the universe, interacts with matter and allows communication."

"a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal." and suggested a 'lack of imagination' was the problem, that we should keep looking, and; ""...the new way of seeing things will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us. In any case it seems that the quantum mechanical description will be superseded."

elementary character e rests upon fundamental character of matter (particle), combination with it's potentail difference 1V becomes elementary energy 1eV = 1.6ﾃ--10^-19J, on the other hand mass included 1.782ﾃ--10^-36 kg. see also wikipedia. I think even maximum ratio of wavelengths of electron-photon to the pot.difference and ....

Regarding the context, what is real meaning of "elementary" and it's relations to mass value and energy value.and to Fundamental.

Best wishes

Bashir.

Hi Peter,

After the poll closes, on my essay page, I will post a somewhat detailed/lengthy/hard to read response to your inquiry as to whether a "falsified Cartesian" "boxes within a boxes" configuration would resolve the issue I have with the Cartesian coordinate system's inability to resolve closure of a point Source Volumetric Singularity in a manner that inherently defines the unified/uniform geometry of a minimum unit of Space (QI).

Hopefully individual essay pages are maintained until the contest is concluded in May, and you will pay me a virtual visit when essay reviews are no longer prioritized by rating deadline.

REF: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3000

I must admit I get entangled in reviewing each essay I read, and have not read as many as I would have liked to, but am unwilling to rate what I have not reviewed, and it is now time to go to the poll.

Expect a 10 bump on your essay in a few minutes, and may qualified "reductionism" take the "What is fundamental" contest field.

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Peter

Thanks for following up on that discussion. I couldn't determine if you were recognizing that which I referred too. Telling me that the poles weight is an overall constant was irrelevant to my point. But yes, you do understand me now. The transition of weight for the top end of the pole, as it is leaned over. You refer to as torque.

I am not familiar with how this consideration of torque relates to a spheres? That is something I will have to follow up with you. And it sounds as though Ulla has something interesting to contribute in this regard. I will follow up on this also.

So yes. A poles top end weight transition as it is leaned over in a gravitational field, creates the same curve as a Photons probability distribution (at the same respective angle). The question is, is this a meaningful observation? Does it tell us anything about the photons properties or behaviours?

The pole and the Earths gravitational field is representative of an interaction between two systems, which gives a variable value for weight (top end of pole). The same can be said for the Photon and the detector, they represent an interaction between two systems, which gives a variable value for Quantum probability. They are both values obtained from twin systems.

Let us focus on the nature of force interactions. We might use the example of the pole in Earths gravity to build a model for consideration. The simplest distillation of force interaction considerations is represented by (forces applied to bodies, and bodies resistance to forces applied) or (forceful influence, and resistance to forceful influence).

The poles weight transition is a consideration of the poles resistance to pull of Earths gravity at various angles. Simple!

Is it possible this is the nature of the relationship between a photon and detector, that gives variable quantum probability? The prospective origin of Bells Inequality. Photons possess force, and it makes sense this is coupled with the ability to resist forces applied toward changing its state, angle. And we know that the detector is applying force to the photon, because it does change the Photons state, angle.

If all force interactions do possess component of (force and resistance to force), and the photon and the detector are a force interaction, then the answer is (of course the photons angle can effect its ability to resist the forces acting to change its state, angle.

These are ultra-simple observations and conservative claims. And they do provide the prospective basis for decoding Bells Inequality. A pole in a gravitational field decodes a photons quantum probability. A simple geometry (pole) coupled with considerations of (forces applied and resistance to forces applied). To decode massive particles requires varied geometries (spheres) but the same force considerations apply as for the Photon.

Peter, in my view your work represents the needed geometric considerations. However could benefit for the force dynamics. Physical interactions are about geometries, but also the "force interactions". There can be no interaction without forces. Force interactions include the dynamic of "resistance" which does contribute a necessary component.

I'm glad I could say this for you. I wasn't sure we were on the same page the other day, so I didn't see the point in going further. The beauty is in how simply these considerations are retro fitted to your current body of work. It just clicks on. That is part of the reason I was so impressed by your work, and its prospective validity. But also allows you to begin your sequence of decoding geometries from a simpler basis geometry (poles), that then leads on to your higher level decoding efforts of massive particles (spheres). The simpler your starting position, the more fundamental your basis, the more justified and easy to interpret is your argument/theory.

Think about Incorporate force interaction dynamics into your hypothesis.

Steve

Whoops!!

I actually bumped your essay rating yesterday, got logged out, then nterrupted, and forgot to edit the above before I posted it today.

Good luck in the final moments of the essay open poll!!!

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Dear Peter,

An interesting essay with some evidence in support. I had to read this twice and then read some of the posts in order to gain a better understanding of it.

As I am not a proponent of reductionism, a couple comments:

* What if the answer to the recursion of reductionism is to consider the whole continuum that the recursion continues to move through? In this case it is scale. What if reality is a whole and all levels of scale need to be considered as connected - which would mean recognizing an additional direction to reality (that of crossing scale)? Rather than limit the understanding of reality to what physicists currently study, what if we need to consider the continuum of scale across which nearly all disciplines of science work - connecting then all along this continuum?

* A sphere is a geometrically scale independent shape. What you mention for spinning particles, on a very small level, applies to a sphere at any scale. We do not experience reality as working on only one scale (eg. that of particles) and so what needs to be considered is if a sun is spinning in a galaxy, which has a planet spinning around it, which is itself spinning, and on its surface (will it matter at what latitude or longitude?) is a boy spinning a globe, which has spinning particles in it. If pure reductionism is correct, then all we need to consider is the actions at the scale of the particles. I do not see any way or any explanation that all the other motions (at larger scales) will not have an impact upon those spinning particles that make of the globe. We have no theory that can explain these actions across scale and I very much doubt any explanation that only starts from the smallest particles will be able to account for (as in casually explain) such actions at much larger scales. I believe this is a requirement for any 'theory of everything' or fundamental theory.

So I will suggest that the reductionist program so limits any concept of reality to one scale or another that it exempts much of what we experience (and other scientific disciplines study) as being part of reality. The program is, therefore, doomed to fail.

Any fundamental theory of reality must explain the inter-relationships across the vast expanse of scale we have discovered over the course of the last few hundred years. And I do not see where any theory that limits itself to one scale (or even a couple near-by scales) can possibly succeed or be called 'fundamental'.

Don

Many thanks Dear Peter!

And I am very agree with you about of Declan's work that was really impressive for me. That is nice we are not alone in our efforts to understand where is the main root!

Be well, my dear and succeseful in this contest as you doing really a huge work!

Sincerely,

George

Hello Peter,

As an expat in the US, it was a pleasure for me to read a paper written by somebody who cares about English grammar.

Your introduction draws the reader's attention immediately to the fundamental question, 'What IS "Fundamental"?' in the singular, distinguished from 'What ARE "Fundamental"?'

But before we can confidently identify THE 'What", we have recognized the need to disqualify a number of conspicuous candidates. So let's re-visit at a few of them:

'Time' is simply duration, in the absence of which nothing can exist! We subdivide time any way that we find doing so useful. Like space, time extends infinitely in all directions.

Any search for the 'most fundamental' effect is an investigation looking for darkness with a flashlight. What is more fundamental than any effect is a single 'cause' or facilitator in the absence of which there can be no events or effects.

I thought that the notion of 'ether' had been abandoned by most scientists, but if persistence by the few does not bring this idea to an end, it will likely bring us to the end of the beginning.

I agree that 'a solution should look ... 'ridiculously' simple. So maybe we should ask Einstein's barmaid! I don't think that we should be looking for the most fundamental action in physics. That is not the question!

Concerning your 'simple rotating sphere'; time and orientation upon the earth's surface are both local. Dinner time in Quito, Ecuador on Monday is breakfast time in Singapore on Tuesday; just as surely as 'up' in Quito points in the same direction as 'down' in Singapore.

With reference to gravity, again we may be looking in the wrong direction. I suspect that science is going to come into general accord in recognition that gravity is not as fundamental as currently believed.

In matter we find an exhibition of defiance against vacuum (the predominant constituent of the cosmos), the exception that proves the rule. What is the rule? The rule is that vacuum abhors nature, and flows to fill its absence.

RML is an acronym, one of an infinite number. If we want to know what it means we should refer back to the original author. Read My Lips. itsinmybook.com.

Thanks Peter for your good thoughts. Good luck,

Gary

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your essay! That was a wild ride full of so many ideas. It will take some time for them to settle in my mind. I will definitely have to revisit this essay.

I liked your statement "Deep familiarity with complex

(if incomplete or flawed) theory may then dissuade many from adopting new unfamiliar concepts, even, or particularly, if ridiculously simple! "

One of my favorite quotes (anon) is "familiarity breeds the illusion of understanding." This is even true in the case of familiarity with incomplete or flawed theories. It is a dangerous business!

Thank you again,

Kevin Knuth