What Fundamental Should Mean by David Lyle Peterson

David,

All descriptions, models, mathematics are on a need to know basis. The universe need not to know any of it in order to happen.

The Universe only needs to be logical; the boundary condition is simply the rule of non-contradiction. That is fundamental.

Marcel,

Dear David Lyle Peterson,

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 David Peterson,

You are offerng to "understand" from your excellent summaries the deep and deeper fundamental physics, up to what? ToE?, SUSY?, GUTs?

I appreciate you explaining what you learned: "Quantum mechanics began with discrete "action" [Bohr atom, 1913] along with E=hν and with p=h/λ" and adding "a wave has phase φ=kx-ωt=(1/h_bar)(px-Et). Complex numbers then entered for convenience." You did indeed focus on an essential.

However, I would like to ask whether or not complex and hypercomplex numbers are always used and interpreted properly. Moreover I doubt that "deeper and deeper" constructs will ever reach an ultimately deepest fundament.

While I don't expect you immediately agreeing with the attitude of mine in all nine FQXi essays, I hope you have good counterarguments.

Anyway, I highly estimate your essay.

With kind regards,

Eckard Blumschein

Addition:

Still reading in your essay, I would like to add my inverse view on the notion fundamental:

Revealing something as "fundamentally wrong" might often be more promising although usually unwelcome and rarely rewarding.

E.B.

Dear David,

Reality has structure. This structure has a foundation and that foundation must be simple and thus easily comprehensible.

In your approach, I miss the efforts of Garrett Birkhoff and John von Neumann to establish a fundament that emerges into a suitable modeling platform. In their 1936 paper, they introduced a relational structure that they called quantum logic and that mathematicians call an orthomodular lattice. It automatically emerges into a separable Hilbert space, which also introduces a selected set of number systems into the modeling platform. Hilbert spaces can only cope with division rings and separable Hilbert spaces can store discrete values but no continuums. Each infinite dimensional separable Hilbert space owns a unique non-separable Hilbert space that embeds its separable partner. In this way, the structure and the functionality of the platform grow in a restricted way. After a few steps, a very powerful and flexible modeling platform evolves. This model acts as a repository for dynamic geometric data that fit in quaternionic eigenvalues of dedicated operators. The non-separable part of the model can archive continuums that are defined by quaternionic functions.

In other words, the foundation that was discovered by Birkhoff and von Neumann delivers a base model that can offer the basement of well-founded theories and that puts restrictions on the dimensions which universe can claim.

Multiple Hilbert spaces can share the same underlying vector space and form a set of platforms that float on a background platform. On those platforms can live objects that hop around in a stochastic hopping path. This adds dynamics to the model.

The orthomodular lattice acts like a seed from which a certain kind of plant grows. Here the seed turns into the physical reality that we perceive.

The Wikiversity Hilbert Book Model Project investigates this approach.

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_Project

http://vixra.org/author/j_a_j_van_leunen contains documents that treat some highlights of the project.

Dear Dave,

I intended explaining as simply as possible why I don't consider causality a prejudice:

- Any mysticism has proven futil. Alleged experimental evidence for Wigner's delayed choice gedanken don't persuade me.

- I am confident having largely revealed very basic unseen ot ignored inconsistencies in mathematics and physics that gave rise to call causality and simultaneity prejudices to be demolished.

I don't attribute desire and other human properties to nature. Parsimony might rather be an indication of correct modeling. Is a 2x2 matrix most parsimonious? No, I don't think so. Square matices with Hermitian symmetry are equivalent to a likewise redundant representation in complex plane. Restriction to most parsimonious reality can be achieved in IR+ and with triangular half-matrices.

I highly appreciate your flawless command of what physicists have to learn, and I as an EE benefit from the exactness of your text too. Therefore you might wonder why I dare criticizing it: I question not less than the justifiation of the notion time from minus infinity to plus infinity. My argument is simple:

Nobody can predict or influence what already happened. Using MATLAB, I managed to calculate a spectrogram that is - in contrast to all usual ones that are based on the usual notion of time - not affected by obvious indications of non-causality. It is based on the same quantity ELAPSED time that is only available to signal processing by nature in terms of ears.

Being no physicist but on the search for possible fundamental inconsistencies behind at first only the non-causality but meanwhile also the puzzling tenets of Cantor's set theory, SR, and QM, I feel in debt to you for showing how the phase was introduced into QM already BEFORE Kramers, Heisenberg/Born, and Schrödinger. I am claiming that cosine transform in IR+ is sufficient. This means phase at the origin (elapsed time equals zero) is not variable. Isn't this almost too simple as to be true? My last boss understood this implicite question as "sowas von" fundamental.

Regards,

Eckard

Hi David Lyle Peterson

Well said ..."In addition, there is probably a limit to testably-assured knowledge perhaps three to six orders of magnitude in particle energy above present capabilities. If "ultimate reality" lies beyond that, we will never have confidence in identifying it."....dear David Lyle Peterson............. very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope you may 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

Hello David,

Glad to see the interest in Clifford algebra in this year's competition, tho awareness of the 'geometric algebra' interpretation that has grown out of the work of David Hestenes remains less common. Matrix formalism of Dirac equation is much less intuitive, makes it difficult to connect the math with the physics.

The little book of Hestenes from back in 1966, 'Spacetime Algebra', is pretty much all one needs to make that connection. He emphasizes that the role of sqrt(-1) in QM is replaced by the quadvector pseudoscalar of the Dirac algebra, that STA is a real algebra of flat Minkowski spacetime. So early on in your abstract the hypercomplex takes your math in a direction that complicates things unnecessarily, obscures where in the spactime algebra the time/phase information appears. It appears in the 4D element, in the quadvector of the Dirac S-matrix.

At the top of page 2 is the announcement that

"There is no intention here to actually use these algebras beyond just providing a convenient name for the degree of hypercomplex numbers representing the progression from the real to the complex to the Pauli matrices or quaternions to the Dirac matrices to the next deeper levels."

Why not? Suppose one takes the Pauli algebra of 3D space - one scalar, three vectors (3D space), three bivectors, and one trivector - to be the vacuum wavefunction. Describing interactions of wavefunction by the geometric product then gives the Dirac algebra of 4D spacetime. Time/phase emerges from the interactions, in the quadvector. The resulting eight-by-eight Dirac matrix is a geometric representation of the holy grail of physics, the scattering matrix. With no fields it is an abstraction. Give it fields and one has a physically manifested model - agency in the physical world.

Clear to me that you understand group theory much better than Michaele (my co-author) and I. Would love to see you grab onto the physical interpretation that the 'geometric wavefunction interactions' approach and get the math right. One might point out that there is the million dollar Yang-Mills Millenium Prize sitting on that, unclaimed for eighteen years now.

Dear David

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