Essay Abstract

The FQXi 2018 essay contest is to consider what makes a description more fundamental than other descriptions. More fundamental descriptions are simpler, more useful, and apply to the entire universe including areas of mathematics, physical sciences, life, and society. For example, if a principle appears simpler for the data in physics but fails in life and society observations, then the principle is false. Human survival requires creativity for advancement and adapting to a changing environment. Creativity's essence appears to be the synthesis of a large diversity of observational types. The amount of unexplained observational data is huge. We need to think about it.

Author Bio

I sold my electronics company in 1991 (I was 49); retired; retired from retiring; and became an inventor and amateur astronomer. My interest in cosmology developed. I conceived a radical new cosmology model in 2002 and started publishing papers.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear John C Hodge,

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

Marcel

So how did we come by General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. They don't have the same "logic". But then that is the problem.

So, logic is important but overrated. Analogy among the size scales is better, I think.

"Logic" depends entirely of the postulates. The postulates are the subject of this contest. So the small is better approached by analogy to our size (macro) scale. Thus avoiding all the weird aspects of QM.

For example, we may say the entanglement experiment rejects Special Relativity. Or we may liken photon like a man carrying a message and the communication in entanglement like a sound wave with a unique Fourier pattern in resonance between the entangled partners. Therefore, a medium with a wave speed >> light (photon) speed as suggested by T van Flandern and others experiments.

Hodge

Dear John C Hodge,

Nature produced one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single dimension that am always illuminated by mostly finite non-surface light millions of years before humanly contrived finite mathematical information ever became evident on earth.

Joe Fisher, Realist.

John, your main thesis is that simplicity needs to be judged by how it applies to society as well as physics. It is a nice take on the question of how simplicity is determined, but if simplicity is the objective why is the universe not so simple that nothing interesting can happen?

    I'm not. I follow these each year to find just 3 or 4 new original ideas to investigate. So far I'v found just 1 in Peter Jackson's essay. Yhe observation of vorticies in continuous media appears at all scales. The "proof by analogy" suggests vorticies should appear at the sub atomic particle scale also. So, what observation at the small scale is accounted by vorticies? Is there a viscous media at that scale? Or, is the media inviscid?

    Philip:

    A model needs to be judged by its applicability to physics and society. The simplicity part is so humans can comprehend the model to the degree we can understand (explain the observational/experimental evidence) AND to be useful (predict outcomes of actions - wisdom). I see the goal of wisdom is debated in other essays.

    I note the fundamental agent of a society is the individual family (not individual of one sex). With such as large, easy to observe agent, we should be able to comprehend and create a society/world-order that can last forever. See how that is working/failing.

    That is, we don't know yet. we don't know howto create a universe, yet.

    If we have to act outside of our wisdom, we'll fail. We don't know ho simple the universe actually is. we know only we have a long way to go.

    What I'm addressing is the next step for humanity.

    Hodge

    As I look at the question, there is a subtility. The human model of the universe is NOT what the universe is. Thinking that our model is what the universe is or that our models even represent the universe is the height of conceit (from Hayek). Humans thought the Earth was at the center of the universe. Later humans thought the Earth was THE center of the universe. Now nearly all models of the universe assume without overtly saying that the universe is adiabatic. Yet, ALL systems in the universe are open. Each system accepts heat from another system and ejects heat to other systems, ad infinitem. So, the model should have the universe as open.

    I take models as helping humans understand (explain) and predict (wisdom) outcomes of observations. How can this model discovery be uninteresting if getting better is persued.

    John,

    You covered a wide range of valid areas, though often seemingly not entirely tied together. You succeeded in avoiding the error of most ignoring the guidance not to shoehorn in their pet theory, though more references to work other than your own would have benefited. I suspect all may baulk at; "Recently, experimental evidence rejected the wave models of light (Hodge 2014b, 2017)" as poorly phrased. As so much leading edge experimental evidence seems contrary to that I'd have suggested more acceptable to say; "...evidence was inconsistent with the wave models.." and also give the case why before progressing as if it were a 'proof'. Your; "The hod/plenum model is the only...etc" has the same effect, likely edging you to the 'crackpot' bin in the eyes of many!

    But enough criticism (helpful I hope). The essay also contained much of value. Certainly; "fundamental descriptions are simpler, more useful, and apply to the entire universe".

    "The amount of unexplained observational data is huge. We need to think about it."

    The problems with our; "separate and independent disciplines." also

    "paradigms are so entrenched that they are barely recognized as a postulate"

    and; "The necessary paradigm shift in the fundamental models is long overdue."

    I agree all are more 'society' matters and fundamental too better physics.

    Well done, and best of luck.

    Peter

      Peter:

      Thanks.

      I pass the Baez crackpot index (not his kind of crackpot). The STOE model is radical and ouside socially accepted physics. So, it's not going to be accepted any time soon. If it is better, it will be accepted eventually. But until then, I play alone. I doubt if anyone else will join me, but it would be nice.

      All the feelgood stuff in the philosophy of science/physics is ignored in practice. The STOE has been found to correspond to both GR and QM (so all their successes apply to the STOE); explained many problematic observations that required ad hoc explainations such as dark matter, dark energy, quantum weirdness, inflation, etc.; and made predicions that later were verified (Pioneer Anomally and Hodge Experiment). Well, society rules. It's too bad science society cannot test the outlier models for acceptance as philosophy suggests.

      I think I understand your point about using "reject" (a harsh logic true or false hypothesis judgement) for a whole model, especially a model (from Young's experiment) that is at the core of all quantum mechanics. Only one experiment is needed to reject a model. Many models have their domain and are inconsistant with data outside their domain. Also, many models are inconsistent with some data in their domain, but on the whole are better than competing models. So the problem becomes to explain the experimental results that other experiments seem to support. The STOE does this by repeating the standard experiment (uniform intensity across the slits) and providing a replacement model (simulation). It helps that the replacement model's equations reduce to the Huygens Fresnel model.

      Saying "inconsistent" merely tags an experiment to be ignored - perhaps rightly so. I have used "inconsistent" in other contexts. But, in the context of a core experiment (diffraction of light), "reject" is appropriate because the photon (a matter particle) was shown to produce the same result as Young's Experiment (uniform light intensity across the slit). So, the experiment and its simulation is addressing the whole of QM. Well, as I said it's not going to be accepted any time soon.

      Evidence (experimental observation) is not "inconsistent" with models as if the model is correct and the observation is suspect. This is conditions (2) and (5) that are way too prevalent but socially accepted. I think this phrasing is very widespread. It is the models that are inconconsistent. "The wave model of light is inconsistant with the Hodge Experiment."

      The cases for statements are in the references. I dislike regurgating it again. But then, in looking at the other essays, all they are doing is regurgaing with few exceptions. Even though much is new to me, the statements could be much more concise. But you are correct, that is how it is done.

      Thanks for the one bright spot (vortices) in this contest so far.

      Dear Mr. Hodge,

      I enjoyed reading your essay on the meaning of "fundamental" in science. I especially noted your emphasis on the importance of simplicity and unity.

      One other remark is your citation of Jacob Bronowski's "The Ascent of Man" at the top of your reference list. This may date both of us, but I remember (about 40 years ago) being extremely impressed with this BBC series, and I went on to read not only the accompanying book, but also Bronowski's earlier essay series on "Science and Human Values". These have been largely forgotten, but I remember his argument that science is a dynamic open process, rather than a predefined body of knowledge. This process is now under attack from several sides.

      I interpreted the FQXi mandate a bit differently. In my own essay, "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics", I argue that unity and simplicity are most fundamental, although the unity of physics was broken in the early decades of the 20th century. I review the historical basis for this rupture, and go on to present the outlines of a neoclassical synthesis that should restore this unity.

      This neoclassical picture has no quantum entanglement, which has important technological implications. In the past few years, quantum computing has become a fashionable field for R&D by governments and corporations. But the predicted power of quantum computing comes directly from entanglement. I predict that the entire quantum computing enterprise will fail within about 5 years. Only then will the mainstream start to question the foundations of quantum mechanics.

      Alan Kadin

        Thanks for commenting on my essay.

        I agree the edifice of quantum foundations will fall. I think my diffraction experiment may contribute to that.

        However, I suggest the "entanglement" can be viewed in a classical setting. All we need is for gravity waves to travel much faster than light. Photons need not be the only signal mechanism. So, entanglement can continue after the quantum edifice collapses.

        Hi John C Hodge

        Very nicely said " Human survival requires creativity for advancement and adapting to a changing environment. Creativity's essence appears to be the synthesis of a large diversity of observational types. and you have rightly pointed out " The amount of unexplained observational data is huge. We need to think about it." You are correct Dr John C Hodge.................. very nice idea....

        I highly appreciate your essay and the hope for reciprocity. 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

          Hodge

          Thank you for nice questions. Dynamic Universe Model solves with different problems at solar system level, Neutrino level, Galaxy level, Conglomerations of Galaxies level for the last 35 years. Some data is available here on my laptop, some is available with Academia web, some data in available in some floppy disks...., Some old data is in old hand written note books.... Some data is lost....

          Generally these are large files, many can not be uploaded into publishers web pages...

          You please ask me specific paper, I will search out for you.

          Many of these papers and books are available for free downloads from...

          https://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

          Everything I will have to do you know without guidance, financial or other without any support. I came to fag end of life.... I am not a rich man, just a steel plant employee, I used to go on a bicycle with my wife on the back carrier...

          .............Your words.......

          What is the link to the papers that compare the Dynamic Universe Model to actual observations?

          ..............Reply.......

          Read the above explanation and.....You can see here...

          https://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

          .............Your words.......

          The STOE did this in STOE model of the universe http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648

          I ask because I think it fails to fit data:

          ..............Reply.......

          No, show me the data, I will fit and show for you... what is STOE model...

          .............Your words.......

          Rotation curves are error?

          ..............Reply.......

          Yes, observations not error, interpretation is error

          .............Your words.......

          CMB(background radiation fits black body curve very, very well - not starlight.

          ..............Reply.......

          Lets check calculations, I can take any open challenge

          .............Your words.......

          Other 10 observations of Pioneer anomaly (especially annual and diurnal variation) not accounted.

          ..............Reply.......

          Lets take the data and see openly....

          .............Your words.......

          Several other issues.

          ..............Reply.......

          All such issues can be solved dear Hodge, don't worry, we will do it, you your self can doi with Dynamic Universe Model without any problem, I will guide you. You should know Excel that's it. No expensive software....

          Best regards

          =snp

          John,

          It is important that the language used to communicate ideas be readily understood by the average educated, non-specialist audience. This is particularly so if specialists wish to gain thoughtful analysis and criticism of their ideas for the purpose of testing, and if necessary modifying them in order to gain broader public acceptance.

          The question: What is "Fundamental?" invites a singular response, either in the form of a definition, or as the identification of an all-embracing fundamental entity. Otherwise the question would be framed: What are "Fundamental?"

          Best wishes,

          Gary.

          Dear John Hodge,

          Admittedly, I did still not yet read your essay although I tend to agree with some of what I found in your abstract. However, in the discussion with Peter Jackson you referred to a "Hodge experiment" as if it was performed by another Hodge and known to everybody.

          I don't pretend being in position to easily understand and judge something that is perhaps based on diffraction.

          At least I grasped that you are trusting in entanglement and you are suggesting a superluminal mechanism for it.

          Such hypothetical mechanism is fundamental to your explanation of why you are ar odds e.g. with Traill, McEachern, and Kadin.

          I would rather appreciate you to answer the question that my boss kept for too fundamental: Parmenides or Heraclitos?

          Eckard Blumschein

          Eckard:

          What is the question?

          Who is your boss/

          If the question is which of the two philosophers is closer to me, I suggest Heraclitos.

          Superluminal mechanism is what allows the quantum weirdness to be understood by classical analogy. It is much simpler than all the quantum baggage. Further, it suggest all observations are non-local in the sense if Bell's inequality. See how simple the quantum world can be?