Hi Thomas,

You're right of course that we can think about and discuss abstract non-spatiotemporal properties and entities; I suppose I meant "imagine" in a more vivid sense, of picturing things. I will amend this in the next version of the essay, thank you.

I didn't say you'd misquoted Einstein. But I apologise for the tone of my last response, and for not backing up my statements. Here is a reference to a relevant paper by a well-respected Einstein scholar: https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Fateful_Prejudice_Final.pdf

Your quote is discussed in Section 3.4 (pp. 48-50), which talks about Einstein's lifelong objections to absolute properties (i.e., those of absolute space you cite), and his frustration that special relativity privileged particular reference frames (and thus possessed some of these objectionable absolute properties).

Dear Scott,

Thank you! And best of luck in your larger project.

Karen

Dear Karen,

I read your paper and found it very interesting in many ways. If taken strictly as presented the nine conditions could possibly identify a most fundamental theory depending on how they are interpreted. As an example, since the universe is constructed as a structural substance hierarchy, although it is possible to generate a complete theory that covers all of the structuring of all of those structural levels, it could be somewhat difficult to work with. It might be easier to still compartmentalize the total theory into parts that specifically deal with each hierarchical level or the interactions between two levels, etc. as needed to minimize the amount of work that would be required to implement it at specific levels. At the same time the overall theory could describe the overall material structural generations, their actions, and their interactions throughout the total complex structure of the universe. Also since some structures, such as energy photons and field structures remain essentially the same throughout all of the hierarchical levels of structure, these entities and their structures and functioning could be considered background fixed structures, but they are existent parts of the universe that would necessarily be a part of any truly fundamental theory.

The most interesting part of your paper to me is your description of the hierarchical tower of theories at different size scales of the universe. You do not mention that there are different hierarchical structural levels of the universe in which basic substance(s) of one level is used in that level to construct what is then the basic substances of the next larger level, etc. At the lowest structural level that man has currently gained an understanding, matter particles are the level's basic substances and are structured together with field structures to form all of the atoms. At the atomic level, the substances of the atoms are structured together with field structures to form the molecules and at the molecular level the substances of the molecules are structured together to form the substances of the large scale objects that we generally work with at our hierarchical level, etc. As you progress up the hierarchical chain, the number of different structures that are produced within each level increases. The lower the level is, therefore, the simpler or more fundamental it is than those levels above it. Any truly fundamental theory would, therefore, need to be able to explain the complete construction of all of the structures at all of the levels in the total structure and the complete progression of substance production from the first level through the last level. One reason that currently accepted theories such as QFT and GR, etc. can't be truly fundamental is that they do not address the substance or the structuring of that substance that produces the the basic entities of matter particles, energy photons, and fields, which make up the currently known lowest hierarchical level of the universe. This is very odd, since there is now (and has been for some time) adequate information in both observational information and also within the mathematical constructions of current theories to allow these things to be extrapolated and understood. It appears that this area has been purposely avoided. I can see reasons why that may be the case, but it is holding back man's progression because hidden within the internal structure of matter particles is the key that can free man from the limited scale problems that you mention. When these things are understood by man, some of the parts of both QFT and GR that man currently considers to be important will be seen to be in error. This will simplify the remaining parts and allow a complete workable theory to be developed. The real question is how long will man hold back this development for what amounts to petty reasons?

Sincerely,

Paul

    Awaiting response of Author, Jaren to xomments of mine and Paul !

    • [deleted]

    • Post #118

    Dear Karen,

    Good to see that your Aussie connections have done no harm: for your excellent essay hits the spot as I work on "wholistic mechanics" (WM), a classical/deterministic reformulation of physics in spacetime. WM = {CM, SR, QM, GR, QFT, QG, EFT, ...|TLR}, my essay being an introduction.

    Identifying your nine conditions as KC-1 to KC-9, it was the last -- no weirdness -- that got me started; ie, I studied EPRB, the experiment analysed in famous Bell (1964), not accepting that the assumptions behind Bell's theorem (BT) were valid in that setting, and rejecting nonlocality.

    My starting premiss (my classical boundary condition) is true local realism (TLR): the union of true locality (no influence propagates superluminally, after Einstein) and true realism (some existents may change interactively, after Bohr).

    Revising EPR's naive definition of "elements of physical reality", I find determinism in play, refute Bell's theorem, and (from first principles, in spacetime) find the Laws of Malus, Bayes and Born validated. Born's law (an effective field theory, in my terms; in the space of probability amplitudes) can then be tested by confirming the correct result for the EPRB expectation; then the correct DSE results; then onward to the stars.

    In thus eliminating "wavefunction collapse" and nonlocality from QM, it follows that such weirdness need no longer trouble the foundations of QFT; etc. And since my calculations are conducted in spacetime (not Hilbert space), I'm thinking QG is covered automatically.

    Enough: such is my long way of saying that I will welcome your comments at any time.

    With thanks for your stimulating essay, and with best regards from down-under,

    Gordon Watson (determined and free-willed)

      Apologies: it appears reCAPTCHA logged me out when it malfunctioned! GW

      Dear Karin,

      Yes, for the reason that physics has taken to predicting pointer positions from which it conjures up sociologically desirable 'worlds'. Your essay reminds me of the trend in many sciences to deal with secondaries like methodology and the definition of what would count as progress and what it is supposed to look like.

      Since Feyerabend we know that Everything Goes (provided it goes), because otherwise we logically overdetermine the problem and thereby prevent any solution. In other words, physics got stuck in the analytical abracadabra of pseudo-empirism.

      Heinrich

      Dear Karen,

      Your eloquently written essay provides one of the most thorough and thoughtful responses to the contest question of any of the entries, and the list of 9 criteria is a useful way to structure any approach to thinking about fundamentality in physics.

      A few comments:

      1. I wholeheartedly agree with the "more general principle" that a fundamental theory not leave anything apparently in need of explanation, but I would supplement it with the caveat that "questions which are apparently in need of explanation" is a strongly paradigm-dependent notion. As you surely know, to Aristotle, our description of the world would leave a whole lot of questions (particularly in regard to teleology) open. Even to some 19th century physicists, some of our current concerns might seem to miss the point. Of course, I understood that you provided an answer from a physics perspective with the implicit assumption that it is physics within the contemporary paradigm. It is fun to imagine what kind of physics questions our descendants might ask which they feel are in need of an explanation and how these differ from the questions we consider today likewise.

      2. I liked your arms-length discussion of unification as an answer to what is fundamental. Often unification is presented in a quasi-dogmatic way as the future of fundamental physics, but I tend to agree that nature is not "boshaft" (malicious) in the sense that if unification were really the answer, then nature would have given us more robust hints than we have now. In the end, what seems like the most plausible approach to understanding such deeply philosophical questions strongly depend on one's worldview.

      3. The maneuver at the end, that the 9 criteria are inextricably tied to the nature of physics itself (as understood within the contemporary paradigm) is a subject well worth exploring further. I understand that this is not possible under the constraints of this contest, but understanding this deeply may well shed a brighter light on the justification for each of the criteria you named.

      4. My emphasis on the importance of recognizing that we operate within a a particular paradigm springs from my belief that we have already all the elements in place that are needed to transition to the next one, and that the only reason we have not done so far is that the different pieces of the puzzle which already exist have not yet been assembled into a coherent and comprehensive picture. My entry, the first of a 2-part series, is an effort to do such an assemblage for a small number of these pieces, with the second part (regrettably still unfinished) putting a much larger set of them together.

        Dear Karen,

        I too apologize for my previous tone. I'm very passionate on this subject.

        Why argue from secondary sources, when the primary source is quite clear? Einstein objected to special relativity even being called "relativity" since it is a theory of the absolute. I.e., the absolute speed of light in vacuo.

        He allowed that the "General laws of nature are covariant with respect to Lorentz transformations." Clear enough. The LT, however, is a mathematical artifact. In a note to the fifteenth edition of the very accessible Relativity, the Special and the General Theory added in 1952, "Physical objects are not in space but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning."

        In the appendix, "In order to be able to describe at all that which fills up space and is dependent on the co-ordinates, space-time or the inertial system with its metrical properties must be thought of at once as existing, for otherwise the description of 'that which fills up space' would have no meaning. On the basis of the general theory of relativity, on the other hand, space as opposed to 'what fills space', which is dependent on the co-ordinates, has no separate existence. Thus a pure gravitational field might have been described in terms of the g_ik (as functions of the co-ordinates), by solution of the gravitational equations. If we imagine the gravitational field, i.e. the functions g_ik, to be removed, there does not remain a space of the type (1), but absolutely nothing, and also no 'topological space'. For the functions g_ik describe not only the field, but at the same time also the topological and metrical structural properties of the manifold.

        A space of the type (1), judged from the standpoint of the general theory of relativity, is not a space without field, but a special case of the g_ik field, for which - for the co-ordinate system used, which in itself has no objective significance - the functions g_ik have values that do not depend on the co-ordinates. There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e. a space without field."

        http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_space.html

        Einstein was quite unambiguous on the non-separability of space and time. My attempt to address the challenge reduces the observable " ... topological and metrical structural properties of the manifold" to a soliton wave.

        Thanks for your comment. You raise many deep questions here that I think are most certainly deserving of further study. I agree, and often try to remind myself that space and time are just concepts we have introduced in order to describe the observed behaviour of observable entities. But it's often tempting to think of them as latching on to something more substantial, especially with the recent detection of gravitational waves, for instance. I think no human concept is absolutely infallible -- of course we could always be wrong in some sense. But our science, and the concepts and tools (including maths) it employs, is incredibly successful, and we could tell the aliens that this is our justification for relying on these concepts and tools -- they serve us well. In fact, a more general justification is that human societies have successfully utilised the concepts of spatial distances and temporal durations for millenia, and these concepts may even be part of the reason for the success of human societies, and their endurance. So, again, this is some justification, however, of course, our concepts could be "wrong" in the sense of not capturing something "real" with independent existence in the world. Of course, it is interesting to think about whether aliens or AI could employ different concepts, and indeed, different human societies have different notions of space and time, too (that differ from those that feature in physics, as well). But if you want to know which, if any, of these is "right", you will need some additional criteria over just their ability to successfully describe the world, and you will need some justification for how these additional criteria help pick out what is "correct". [Please note, I am not claiming any of this in my essay, where the criteria I list are just intended to designate a theory that could possibly be counted, by high-energy physics, as fundamental. I make no further claims about the truth of such a theory.]

        Dear Paul,

        Thanks for your comments. There is a lot in what you have said, and I can't fully respond to all of it, so I'll just make a few comments.

        On the idea of potentially "compartmentalising" the theory into sections that deal with particular phenomena at different scales, in order to simplify its practical implementation. This is complicated, firstly, if we have a unified theory, where all interactions are described in the same way at the fundamental level. Secondly, even in non-unified theories, effective field theory has revealed that identifying the interactions in the fundamental theory that are going to make a difference at lower energy scales is often a non-trivial task, without using techniques like the renormalisation group flow. Additionally, symmetry breaking, for instance, can also profoundly alter the less-fundamental description of a system, compared to the fundamental one, in a way that may not obvious from looking only at the fundamental theory.

        On the idea of a fundamental theory needing to explain how all the less-fundamental entities arise, or how to "construct the structures present at all other levels". This is a deep question that is of great interest to me, and I regret that I was not able to properly address the issues of emergence and reduction in my essay. I hope you will continue to research it, because it is certainly an area worthy of further study.

        I am a bit confused, however, by your claims here,

        This is very odd, since there is now (and has been for some time) adequate information in both observational information and also within the mathematical constructions of current theories to allow these things to be extrapolated and understood. It appears that this area has been purposely avoided.

        Maybe you would like to elaborate more, especially about these "petty reasons" you cite, please? But, from my understanding, yes, of course much is known about GR and our QFTs, but there is also much that is not known, and still areas of active research. In some areas we are still trying to develop the right techniques, and in others, we may not have adequate computing power. Take, for instance, the low-energy limit of QCD, which is extremely difficult to solve.

        Best,

        Karen

        Hi Karen...

        Your essay definitively reflects the position taken by the majority of the essay entries... i.e. "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." ~ Albert Einstein 1940 ('Science')

        REF: Peter Jackson Ridiculous Simplicity "Essay Abstract https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3012

        In that theory is "formulation of apparent relationships or principles of specified observed phenomena... and knowledge of it's principles and methods"~ Webster

        If formulation of relationships requires a Spatial measurement, then a minimum unit of Spatial measurement is fundamental to the theory... i.e. a theory is fundamental only in that it places constraints on formulation.

        In that credentialed opinion is often up for auction, or already under contract, makes theoretical validity by professional consensus and unreliable approach.

        In that our "best theories" are structured on a framework that is "mathematically ill-defined", and "The idea of unification is not just that there be a single theory describing all phenomena, but that it describe all phenomena as the same as fundamentally stemming from a single origin, e.g., as manifestations of a single entity or interaction.", my approach has been to build a kinematically verifiable Spatial mathematical framework stemming from a single Origin point source, and digitally simulating Energy distribution within that environment... i.e. animate pulsed distribution of minimum units of Energy (QE) over time, as a constant pulse rate, within a CAD environment quantized by a unified field single point origin encapsulation geometry... i.e. volumetric singularity as differentiated from point singularity.

        REF: UQS Consciousness Investigation Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSConInv.php

        Although to absolutely/unarguably verify any volumetric singularity quantization CAD environment as "the" Spatial framework, will require an Energy simulated Emission in which a verifiable Hydrogen Proton QE choreography emerges, which may necessitate extensive digital resources, but the approach does yield a theoretical minimum unit of measurement for Space (QI), Energy (QI), Time (QT), and Information (QFI), and simulations out to 75 pulses already verify Entity Spin, separate interactive Inertia and Radiation distribution channels, no limit on single Energy Event Spatial effect, gravity as Mach's principle, unoccupied "dark" Spatial units, etc....i.e. clarifying "the picture of the relevant physics at the scale of interest" in terms of fundamental units of measurement, instead of obscuring.

        Complexity is often a result of application of inappropriate technique.

        In regard to the availability and "ability to use computational resources", in that Calculus does NOT resolve a Point Energy Source 3D Encapsulation geometry that facilitates distribution of Energy equal in all directions from a single point ... i.e. Origin Singularity ... quantized by unified minimum units of Space (QI), there is no way to know if a point Energy Event can, or cannot be, resolved to a Spatially defined object, which suggest that point-like singularities may be being generated by the use of Calculus in Energy/Space analysis... and computational analysis... e.g. determination of the Singularity Sector Differentials of any Emission Node at any specified shell radius... now looks like this:

        IF EN(ENR)X0 AND ABS(EN(ENR)Y) < ABS(EN(ENR)X) AND ABS(EN(ENR)Z) < ABS(EN(ENR)X) THEN SS$= +x

        IF EN(ENR)Y0 AND ABS(EN(ENR)X) < ABS(EN(ENR)Y) AND ABS(EN(ENR)Z) < ABS(EN(ENR)Y) THEN SS$= +y

        IF EN(ENR)Z0 AND ABS(EN(ENR)X) < ABS(EN(ENR)Z) AND ABS(EN(ENR)Y) < ABS(EN(ENR)Z) THEN SS$= +z

        ,,, and as a bonus, visual 3D CAD output facilitates visual verification of the accuracy of one's mathematics.

        Thanks Karen for so elegantly contributing your insights, your comments on my essay would be read with attention, and I will return to rate after I have read as many essays as time permits.

        Sue Lingo

        UQS Author/Logician

        uqsmatrixmechanix.com

        ok, think i get where you're coming from re uniqueness - as opposed to many EFTs needed to cover all length/energy scales?

        a different kind of uniqueness from trying to prove no other equivalent model exists.

        re weirdness, did you look at our essay yet? It might relieve some of your concerns regarding interpretations of wavefunctions and their interactions. The geometric algebra gives a wavefunction that is simple and intuitive, can be visualized. Take a look. I think you'll like it.

        Rhanks Karen for your detailed reponse to my queries. I feel satisfied with the response as it shows oth humility and depth of understanding you have achieved. Subjectivity and objectivity both control the growth of our understanding and most of all the consensus that results in the community helps us all grow further the professionalism demanded of us. If you can spare soem time responding to our essay here we shall feel obliged, it is ashort contribution of just 2/3 pages only!

        Dear Karen,

        In order to give you an idea of what can be extrapolated from current observational data and theories, I guess it would be best to start at the lowest most fundamental level of physical substance structuring and build up from there. If you look at E=MC^2 where E=energy, M=mass, and C=the speed of light, most who have much familiarity with it would understand that matter particles can be changed into energy photons and vice versa and, of course, it goes much deeper. Energy is not only expressed in the form of energy photons, but is expressed in the form of simple kinetic angular and linear motions, etc. Observational data shows that all of these forms of energy can be converted into each other. If each of them can be converted into any of the others, then each one must contain within it all of the basic substance that is contained within all of the others. This would indicate that one of them would likely be the most basic or fundamental form of this substance.

        It is obvious that the simplest of these structures is the simple linear motion. It only possesses three internal information structures, which are its current position in space, its current direction of travel in space, and the amount of motion that it contains, which I call its motion amplitude. As an example, if two motions leave points on a line simultaneously and travel straight at ninety degrees to that line to another line that is parallel to the first line and one of them possesses twice the amount of motion amplitude that is contained in the other one, it will reach the other line when the other motion reaches the halfway point. You can, of course, choose a specific motion amplitude as a standard motion as man has done by breaking down the cyclical motion of the earth's rotation on its axis, etc. to make it easier to compare different motions with each other, but I start this way to make it clear that motion amplitude is the property possessed by a motion without getting into the concept of time which is really just a relationship between motions as they travel through distances. I could cover more on that later.

        If a basic linear motion is the most fundamental substance from which all other entities are composed, all other entities should be able to be constructed using just linear motions. Fields generally operate in a linear manner without expressing angular motions at angles from their direction of travel. They can, therefore, be constructed of individual simple linear motion particles.

        Energy photons contain a linear motion that travels at the speed of light, but they also contain an angular motion that travels at ninety degrees to its direction of travel in a cyclical back and forth pattern. One way this can be constructed using only linear motion is to consider that the speed of light is a threshold level, such that if you try to add motion to a field particle to get it to travel faster than the speed of light, the excess motion over the speed of light is instead transferred into a small fourth dimension. This dimension connects to the other lower three dimensions at ninety degrees in the same way that they connect to each other with each position in the fourth dimension connected to all points of the other dimensions. The fourth dimension is very small and contains only three positions within it. The center position is connected to our dimensional structure and the two end positions are located outside of our dimensional structure. When a motion enters this dimension it travels back and forth between the ends of the dimension. It bounces off of the ends and, thus travels in a cyclical back and forth pattern. The greater the amount of motion that it contains, the faster it can travel one complete back and forth cycle, which increases its frequency. Since it is still travelling at the speed of light in its linear direction of travel, it will not travel as far in that direction during the faster fourth dimensional motion cycle, which will decrease its wavelength. The greater amount of motion that is contained in its cyclical back and forth motion will allow it to transfer more motion during an interaction with another entity, which gives it a greater dynamic mass effect. If that motion is at an end of the fourth dimension when an interaction occurs, it cannot transfer any of its motion to the interaction because it is located outside of our dimensional system. As it travels from an end, it begins to enter our dimensional system and the farther it is into our system when an interaction happens; the greater is the amount of its motion that can be transferred during that interaction. Its greatest dynamic mass effect occurs when it is completely within our system. As it continues to travel past that point, it begins to move out of our system again on the other side, so its mass effect decreases to zero again at the opposite side of the fourth dimension at which point it bounces off of the end and begins to travel back the other way. The same thing happens again during this half of its cyclical motion flow except interaction effects are in the opposite direction. This is a model of an energy photon composed of only two linear motions.

        A matter particle can exist in a stationary form relative to other matter particles. When it is stationary or not moving in relation to other matter particles, it still possesses a mass effect called its static or rest mass. It can also move up to close to the speed of light. In an interaction, its motion increases its mass effect. During an interaction, it can demonstrate an angular motion effect with several different interaction outcomes each of which occurs at its own specific probability of occurrence. This is a dead giveaway that it contains an internal motion structure. In order to contain internal motions, it cannot be a point particle, since there is nowhere within a point particle for a motion to move. The idea that matter particles can be point objects and can spin is nonsense. A point object contains a point about which a spin could occur, but has no extension to spin about that point. In any real world spinning object, such as the earth, the greatest motion amplitude occurs at the point that is farthest from the central axis, such as the equator on the earth. As you move toward one of the axis poles, your motion amplitude (speed) decreases and it reaches zero at the center of the axis of rotation. This idea of point particle spin is one of the greatest errors in man's current theory. Once you realize that matter particles are extended objects that contain internal motions, the next step is to try to understand how they can be constructed using only simple linear motions.

        First, consider that there is a fifth dimension and a threshold fourth dimensional motion level that must be reached to allow motion to travel from the fourth dimension into the fifth dimension, such that an energy photon must contain a great enough fourth dimensional motion to at least make the lowest mass matter particle to allow a motion transfer to the fifth dimension. Once this condition is met, the energy photon must also come into contact with an angular motion, such as when it travels through the field of an atom near its nucleus. Some of its fourth dimensional motion is then transferred from the fourth dimension into the fifth dimension. The fifth dimension is structured, such that the motion that it contains is then transferred into the lower three dimensions in a cyclical way, such that it begins to transfer motion into dimension one increasing linearly from the zero level to a maximum level and then back to a zero level in a linear pattern. As the motion level reaches the maximum level in dimension one, it begins to enter into dimension two in the same way. The motion level in dimension one reaches the zero level at the same time that the motion level in dimension two reaches the maximum level. At this point motion begins to enter dimension three in the same way. As the motion level in dimension two reaches the zero level, the motion level in dimension three reaches the maximum level. At this point motion starts to enter into dimension one again. This is only an example and does not represent the complete motion flow cycle because it is for man to figure that out in detail. When the motion enters into the lower three dimensions from the fifth dimension, it would cause the energy photon to travel faster than the speed of light, but the excess motion over the level of the speed of light is transferred into the fourth dimension. Only the angular component of the motion remains in the lower three dimensions, which causes the photon to travel in a curved path that encloses back upon itself to create a three dimensional cyclical enclosed path structure in which it continues to travel. If the photon's wavelength fits properly into the enclosed path, the angular motion component is present to allow the motion to travel from the fourth dimension back into the fifth dimension and the inter-dimensional motion flow cycle is complete and the matter particle is stable. If it doesn't fit properly, the matter particle is not stable and the motion cannot travel back into the fifth dimension. The motion drains out of the fifth dimension and the curvature that it generated disappears causing the matter particle to become a photon again. The great angular motion in the matter particle generates its static or rest mass effect. You can see that when two matter particles interact, various outcome results can occur depending on the positioning and direction of travel, etc. of the photons within the matter particles at the point of interaction.

        Matter particles also generate their own field structures. The motion flow of the photon in the matter particle around its enclosed three dimensional path entrains field particles (I call them sub-energy particles because they hold the position in the hierarchical structure of the universe that is just below that of the energy photon.) to travel through the matter particle in a dense packed stream. This creates an input and output for the sub-energy flow on opposite sides of the enclosed path. These travel around on the surface of the particle's path along with the motion of the photon as it travels along that path. This is the internal field structure of the matter particle and it keeps the internal photon motions from interacting between the matter particles within an atomic nucleus. The internal and, therefore, also the external flow of this field is modulated by the frequency/wavelength fourth dimensional motion of the photon within the matter particle to vary the flow from a zero level linearly to a maximum flow rate and then back down to the zero level in a cyclical pattern that produces a series of concentric sub-energy field spheres around the matter particle that vary from a flow rate (particle density) of zero to a maximum flow rate and then back down to the zero rate in a linear manner. The sub-energy flow within each sphere is in all directions around the sphere from the particle's sub-energy internal field output to its input creating a flow that operates at ninety degrees to the direction towards the particle in any direction. The inner most high density sphere contains the matter particles of an atom within it. The outer spheres bind the electrons to the atom. As an electron approaches an atom, it is attracted to its external sub-energy field. As it travels through the sub-energy spheres, it is also attracted in the opposite direction to the spheres that it has already traveled through. When it reaches a point that the attraction of the spheres is equal in both directions for its mass, etc., it will come to rest in the low density area between two high density field spheres. Its motion around the nucleus will be controlled by the motion of the adjacent high density sub-energy spheres in a three dimensional motion pattern. This gives a basic conceptual model view of how matter particles are structured out of basic linear motions and how they function, etc. This completes the description of the lowest hierarchical levels of existent entity construction of the universe starting with its most fundamental basic material substance, which is motion and progressing through to the level of atoms. I hope this gives you adequate information to get a good basic conceptual understanding of how it all works. I have, of course, left out many details and this comment has still grown large as the range of man's comments generally goes, so I will end this comment and leave the other issues for a possible later comment.

        Sincerely,

        Paul

        Hi Karen:

        In a fully dilated space-time, initial and final are the same Zero Point State. It is not the quantum space-time, which is the quantum vacuum that is 120 orders of magnitude higher than the Cosmological Constant state. There are no quantum fluctuations in the Zero Point State.

        Regards

        Avtar

        Dear Karen,

        I enjoyed reading your essay. You beautifully discuss the various components of fundamentalness. To add to your arguments and the proposed checklist of fundamentalness, I will add that the complete comprehension of fundamentalness will entail a deeper journey into the worlds of biological and physical evolutions. I believe they intricately co-exist, co-evolve and are co-dependent.

        Best regards,

        Anil

        Dear Karen, here's some background to the theory that I mention above; Gordon.

        Background to Wholistic Mechanics (WM)

        Whereas QM emerged from the UV-catastrophe ca1905, WM emerges from the locality-catastrophe typified by John Bell's dilemma ca1965: ie, seriously ambivalent about AAD, Bell adamantly rejected locality. He later surmised that maybe he and his followers were being rather silly -- correctly; as we show -- for WM is the local theory that resolves Bell's dilemma [there is no AAD] and proves the Bellian silliness.

        So WM begins by bringing just one change to modern physics: rejecting naive-realism, true realism insists that some beables change interactively, after Bohr's disturbance-dictum. Thus recognising the minimum-action associated with Planck's constant, WM then recognises the maximum speed associated with light: for true locality insists that no influence propagates superluminally, after Einstein.

        The union of these two classical principles -- the foundation of WM -- is true local realism (TLR). Under TLR, EPR's naive criterion for "an element of physical reality" is corrected, then the Laws of Malus and Bayes are validated in the quantum world. Then, via the R-F theorem ca1915, Born's Law is seen to derive from elementary Fourier theory. This in turn allows us to understand the physical significance of Dirac's notation; etc. Thus, beginning with these elementary natural principles, WM's universe-of-discourse focuses on beables in spacetime: with mathematics taken to be our best logic.

        NB: Formulated in 1989 in response to a challenging article by David Mermin (1988), many leading Bellian physicists and philosophers have committed to review the foundations of WM and its early results. Since no such review has ever been delivered, I am not yet aware of any defect in the theory. Further, WM provides many ways to refute Bell's theorem (BT): one such is provided on p.8 of my essay.

        PS: To those who dismiss my essay due to an alleged typo in the heading, I follow C. S. Peirce (absent his severity): "It is entirely contrary to good English usage to spell premiss, 'premise,' and this spelling ... simply betrays ignorance of the history of logic."

        Assuring you that critical comments are most welcome,

        Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

        Dear Karen

        You picked a good theme for this years essay, and you are accomplished in that you did the subject good justice. Congratulations of a great essay and a great score. I hit you with a 10 but it wasn't sufficient to move you up to 7.7. But it will have pushed it closer to that tipping point

        I just want to give you a quick run down, why you might read my essay with a view to measuring it by your check list. I'll make this short but the essay, if you should read it, is more comprehensive.

        You have identified the prospect that a Quantum Gravity Theory might present means of unifying Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. With this in mind, please consider the following approach?

        Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, two fundamental theories of one world. However QM and GR have clocks in common, in terms of clocks being a study in QM (made of QM), and GR being a study of clocks (time dilation). Two fundamental theories, servicing one world and two fundamental theories serviced by one device? QM might be surmised, a study of forces (clock springs). GR might be surmised, a study of time (clock faces). But clock springs and clock faces are connected via shaft, from which you can deduce they are locked in proportional motion with each other. When you consider that clock springs drive the clocks function, and the clock hands but follow the springs instruction, (making clock hands superfluous in terms of being a physical cause or influence). Then when you consider how gravitational environments modulate a clocks rate of function, then have your minds eye look past the superfluous clock face, and instead look to what effect is imposed on clock springs. Quantify the springs parameters and you will see the term "force dilation" is justified.

        QM is a study in the clocks back end function, where the forces reside and issue their cause. GR, gravitational environments impose effects on clocks, but consider the prospect of those effects being imposed foremost on clock springs. GR is translated as a consideration of QM force dilation. This is a unifying effort well worth following up on.

        My essay then goes onto extend consideration of force dilation, within context that atomic activity/forces/work are derived from a field energy potential of space. Guv = Tuv representing the nature of the interaction between matter and space whereby space field is converted to atomic forces. Guv field providing Gluons with the capacity to generate force/mass, and Gluons then have the capacity to convert force to motion, "gravitational acceleration". That is a pretty simple and straightforward approach to QG theory that ties QM and GR together.

        The Guv space field owes its origin to Auv, or Dark Energy. Which it is possible to interpret as a continually regenerating universal field. I go onto hypothesis that the Baryon universe might owe its existence to this Auv field, which serves as a natural energy potential Baryons have evolved structure and agency to best exploit. So we arrive at a junction whereby we are inquiring after Darwinian principles to question universal systems, order and process. That the universe might be an example of nature having been given a natural energy potential, it invented a circumstance of Darwinian emergence.

        You place a large emphasis on the challenge faced by fundamental theory, in transcending the length scales. For example, what type of unified field theory might transcend and encapsulate all length scales? Consider biology and how it is serviced by theory which mitigates this issue. Biology is serviced by systems on various length scales, sub cellular, cellular and multicellular, and even societal. And all these systems being modular in building compound biological structure and complex organisms. The theory of Darwinian Evolution connects and translates all of these length scales within a common and seamless context. Darwinian Evolution applied to atomic field theory, would conceivably achieve the same result. Sub atomic, atomic, molecular, cosmological scales all bridged by common context of being an evolved system. Not only unifying the length scales, but conceivably providing the context for rationalizing universal order and complexity, of universal system structure and process.

        I know this will all seam pretty far out there, but there are not many theory types which have prospect of qualifying your listed criteria for fundamental. This theory might be considered for review based on novelty, because logic can be applied to it and it does extend prospective answers to your criteria list. I think you might have some fun with it, and putting your essay rationale to the test.

        Thank you for your consideration

        Kind regards

        Steve

        Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin