When do we stop digging? Conditions on a fundamental theory of physics by Karen Crowther

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

Karen

Here is a fuller detail regarding QM and GR being centered on study of a singular device, clocks. Just in case it interests you

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 now one device? QM might be surmised, a study of forces. GR might be surmised, a study of time.

Clocks can be thought of as possessing a split personality. They possess a back end mechanical spring, the study of which might be termed QM force. They possess front end hands considered a measure of GR effects time dilation. These split personalities however are connected via a shaft, which makes their respective studies of force and time an equivalent. Which makes perfect sense in terms of the spring drives the clocks function. My earlier message coined the term "force dilation" which represents this property of the spring, which stands equivalent to the term "time dilation".

Force dilation a quantity which is entirely equivalent to effect of time dilation? Which term is more fundamental, or carries more useful meanings? Force dilation is a property of the spring which drives the clock, so that places it at the heart by virtue of being attached to cause. It causes the clocks function, the clock hands but follow. The front end of the clock is superfluous in terms of cause, like a puppet dictated to by a puppeteer. Time, a puppeteers puppet? Not flattering I know, but it makes my intended meanings clear.

Substitute the term of time dilation for the equivalent term of force dilation, then General Relativities effect is translatable as Quantum Mechanical effect. Theory can then be summarized in terms of, Clocks are QM devices (made of QM) which measure variable QM behaviour (force dilation) in relative motions and relative gravitational environments. One fundamental theory of the world, one fundamental theory that describes all behaviours exhibited by clocks.

QM is a study of forces, and relativity is redressed as a QM study of forces of bodies in relative motions and relative gravitational environments.

Relativity boils down to being merely the study of the modulation of QM forces.

Steve

Here is a link to a top-level, easily accessible copy of:

[link:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3099#post_145551]The Crowther Criteria for Fundamental Theories of Physics[/link]

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3099#post_145551

Dear Dr. Crowther,

I really enjoyed your essay. I found it to be a very insightful examination of current physical theory and the aspects that make them fundamental or not.

I wonder about some of the requirements, such as being non-perturbative, since some things simply cannot be computed mathematically in a direct fashion. Could such requirements imply that there might never be a fundamental theory?

My group has been working on an attempt at a foundational theory called Influence Theory,

Knuth, K.H., *Bahreyni, N. 2014. A potential foundation for emergent space-time, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 55, 112501. doi:10.1063/1.4899081, arXiv:1209.0881 [math-ph]

Knuth, K.H. 2014. Information-based physics: an observer-centric foundation. Contemporary Physics, 55(1), 12-32. doi:10.1080/00107514.2013.853426. arXiv:1310.1667 [quant-ph]

and you now have me thinking about to what degree what we have achieved so far is fundamental.

Thank you for your excellent essay!

Kevin Knuth

Dear Karen,

Thank you for writing this paper which while it aims at assembling the criteria that are used by working physicists in their construction of fundamental theories is at the same time provocative and gives one a lot to think about.

I am not convinced that this list is best presented as a set of criteria on what high energy physicists look for in a fundamental theory as opposed to a final theory. You are clear at several points in the paper that you think we should not make a distinction between 'fundamental' and 'final'. But I would disagree. It is clear we are far away from a final theory and yet there is an importance to recognizing at least part of current physics as fundamental. Our best physical theories have a special explanatory status not shared by other attempts at characterizing the world that underwrites their status as fundamental. I try to articulate the importance of such characterization in my own essay submission.

I also wanted to ask about "weirdness". Many would argue that any realist interpretation of quantum theories is going to commit us to some weirdness, in forcing us to move beyond assumptions that were previously thought of as obvious. Shouldn't some weirdness be allowed even in a final theory of physics?

Best,

Alyssa

There is both physical evolution as also the biological evolution. Both have followed the logic built in to the Nature! Your essay has touched on both these aspects but have refrained from discussing these two aspects seperately and in conjunction. Evolution is basically a natural event and can not be understood through scientific knowledge which itself is in the process of evolution. Philosophy reflects human thinking but it has also developed a kind of methodology! These are our constraints in ' free will ' understanding! Thus, the questions remain open and 'freedom' of thought and action remains open, without restriction due to history of science that we may have happened to evolve thus far.

Dear Karen,

You are the victim of a targeted attack of massive downvoting. Me too. Also I noticed Andrew Beckwith was attacked too, maybe others, but so far I only noticed you two. This may be the result of a desperate last minute attempt to climb the ladder, but it is dishonest and a violation of the rules of the contest, in which case we are advised to write to the organizers. Which I did, and Andrew did it too. I would encourage anyone who noticed such phenomena to report them.

Good luck!

Cristi

Karen, Christi,

I can ask even if it's awkward for either of you: Does this downvoting appear to be gender related? You both have very good essays, so it's strange to see both of you hit by this.

My observation to any FQXi admins reading this: Please at least consider whether there has been some bias here. All I can say is that the high quality of these two essays has not changed, so a sudden downswing in the last couple of days to me just seems wrong.

Sincerely,

Terry Bollinger (63 year old male codger, since my first name is ambiguous... :)

Dear Karen,

I found your essay very clear! Unlike some others, it came exactly as announced in the abstract. :) I think your text is very accessible and relevant for, e.g., Master students of physics. (I would definitely have enjoyed reading such a survey at that point, to add some global perspective to more detailed courses of QFT, etc.)

Three more detailed comments on section 4:

- On p. 6 it appears that you assume the "problem of missing physics" (as Wilson calls it; i.e., the existence of gaps between theories) is only temporary. (In my own essay I have embraced the patchwork view of physics, as I think it is here to stay.) I am not sure whether rejecting patchwork is necessary for embracing the goal of physics (which you discuss at the bottom of p. 7): searching for a unique, unified, ... theory may well be the goal of physics, but I don't think it is inconsistent to admit at the same time that it is an unattainable one.

- "No weirdness" is a tricky requirement - as you may well be aware of -, since what we find weird or not strongly depends on our training and background knowledge.

- I particularly appreciate how you managed to escape Kantian worries by keeping us focused about what physics is (and isn't) about. So, I fully agree with your comment at the bottom of p. 7: indeed, physics isn't in the business of finding out what are things-in-themselves.

Best wishes,

Sylvia - Seek Fundamentality, and Distrust It.