Essay Abstract

Fundamental in science takes on many meanings but, the undercurrent for it must be our foundation for what is the true description of reality, to bring clarity and enable scientist to make accurate predictions. The search for what are the fundamentals of our Universe is accomplished with the optimum fundamentals for what the ventures in science constitutes, in the true quest of the fundamental laws needed for formulating hypotheses that accurately describe the universe or phenomena seen.

Author Bio

Gilbert Leon Joseph Beaudry blogs and promotes open science with public collaboration at www.PhysicsOfUniverse.com and as Astrophysics Research Channel on Google and YouTube. On December 9, 2016, at Dallas, Texas, he did an oral presentation, "Energy Radiation vs Thermal Radiation Detected from Electromagnetic Spectrum Observations" at the International Conference on Astrophysics and Particle Physics. He also has submitted to the Open Science Journal a science paper, titled, "Energy Radiation or Thermal Radiation Detected from Electromagnetic Spectrum Observations", that is currently undergoing peer review revisions. Research interest are, but not limited to: Electromagnetic spectrum, structure of the Universe, red-shifting, gamma-ray burst, philosophy of science.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Gilbert Leon Beaudry,

You rightly note that new things can overturn what has previously been accepted as a fundamental concept. For example, Einstein's "relativity of simultaneity" overturned our intuitive understanding of fundamental time as universal simultaneity. My essay reviews the historical development of this in a way that you might find interesting, as it deals with several of the topics you have expressed interest in.

I appreciated your discussion of Visual Universe, Detectable Universe, Mathematical Proposed Universe, and Speculative Universe. Einstein worked in the latter two categories to derive his conclusion.

I invite you to read my essay and hope you will comment on it.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

    I appreciate that, I did think it was a bit harsh, lol. I will certainly read and comment on your essay.

    The essay was purposely kept brief hoping the reader would understand the basic concepts for accepting fundamental laws. I didn't get into a deep discussion on the merits of pursuing science by exploratory mathematics and speculation. Einstein was a genius and he was able to convince his mathematics was correct and much has been useful for a number of applications.

    The classifications are to be useful in clarifying exactly what kind of Universe is being proposed.

    The Detectable Universe gives us theories and hypothesizes that support the fundamental laws for the phenomena described because, they are supported by empirical evident and solid scientific methodologies.

    When the underlying fundamental laws for a theory or hypothesis is proposed, one should consider is it speculation, a mathematical proposal, or a first impression without any supported scientific methodologies or empirical evidence.

    I also commented that normal science described by Thomas Kuhn, is presently stating fundamental laws they say support the observations, but are unable to provide empirical evident or realities that are believable. They are often problematic puzzling realities but propagated as being true.

    I am suggesting that true fundamental laws for those perplexing phenomena are not know, and that the scientist tool box for explaining phenomena is missing the true fundamental underlying laws needed to explain what is being observed.

    The conclusions included are, speculation and mathematics is not the empirical evidence needed to support a hypothesis. It's probably useful sometimes, but as I pointed out the experimenters are frustrated they can't find the proof for much of the speculation.

      Gilbert,

      What is fundamental about the Universe is what it is and does before we even have a look at it. Our senses give us a picture of the universe that does not exist but in our mind.

      But logic we trust as the mother of all sciences and truth making activities. In my essay, I show a bottom-up logical creation from nothingness and what existence means in a substantial logical system...

      Marcel,

      Dear Gilbert Leon Joseph Beaudry,

      In qualifying the aim of the 'What is Fundamental?' essay contest, Dr. Brendan Foster, the FQXi.org Science Projects Consultant wrote: "We invite interesting and compelling explorations, from detailed worked examples through thoughtful rumination, of the different levels at which nature can be described, and the relations between them.

      Real Nature has never had any abstract finite levels.

      I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

      Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

      Dear Gilbert Leon Beaudry,

      In qualifying the aim of the 'What is Fundamental?' essay contest, Dr. Brendan Foster, the FQXi.org Science Projects Consultant wrote: "We invite interesting and compelling explorations, from detailed worked examples through thoughtful rumination, of the different levels at which nature can be described, and the relations between them.

      Real Nature has never had any abstract finite levels.

      I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

      Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

      10 days later

      Science demands that it be described. If you chose not to describe it, then you chose not to take part in science.

      Some descriptions are closer to the truth that others. The philosophies of physics and science tries to determine with rules that will best describe reality in the best pursue of the truth.

      The essay description asked for, "We often consider some of these descriptions "more fundamental" than other more "emergent" ones, and many physicists pride themselves on pursuing the most fundamental sets of rules. But what exactly does it mean?". My essay provided fundamental sets of rules to determined what kind of Universe is being offered for acceptance and weight its relevance in relation to what is the true ultimate description of reality.

      How can something be visible and infinite at the same time? We cannot see into infinity and so your description is flawed.

      You also failed to consider what is occurring at the energy detection level, which is energy effecting real matter which is beyond simple illumination.

      My essay does describes "the different levels of which nature can be described". It qualifies under the rules and goes beyond making a simple statement of what one claims is the truth. It is a set of observations to determine which Universe is being offered for acceptance.

      Your description I would classify as the visual universe - a first impression without any science to back it up.

      Hi Gilbert Leon Beaudry

      You are correct in saying "The search for what are the fundamentals of our Universe is accomplished with the optimum fundamentals for what the ventures in science constitutes, in the true quest of the fundamental laws needed for formulating hypotheses that accurately describe the universe or phenomena seen" ......Dear Gilbert Leon Beaudry.......... very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.

      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

      Dear Fellow Essayists

      This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

      FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.

      Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

      All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

      Only the truth can set you free.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      23 days later

      Dear Gilbert

      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

      Dear Gilbert,

      I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.

      It is so close to me.

      «Normal science practised by academia tends to continue into a psychological phenomenon that is known as group thinking, which is very dangerous as it also actively suppresses dissenting viewpoints and puts up institutionalizes barriers to block or prevent outside influences».

      «Mysteries and abnormalities sometimes exist because of wrong reasoning that cannot soundly resolve the many problems realised. The reasonings are the fundamentals used from the scientist's toolbox to try to pry open the lid for the real descryption of the phenomenon seen. If those fundamentals are wrong - then the pieces will not come together to formulate the correct hypothesis».

      I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

      Vladimir Fedorov

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