Fundamental: Light, the Way by James Lee Hoover

Dear Dr. James Lee Hoover,

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 James Lee Hoover,

Thanks for letting us know about your SF book. It's now on my Kindle.

I believe your essay is the first to point out that

"Fundamental ... is irrelevant if a conscious being does not exist to point out that which is fundamental."

For another exploration of this theme see Laurence Hitterdale's essay. As you note, the basic symbol the sentient being uses is the word, and this is projected into our fundamental creation story. This fits with your reminder of "all mysteries that defied the fundamentals of current scientific theories." I also like that you use recent history to show that "for many disciplines fundamental truths changed". And I very much like your

"... fed into supercomputers, humankind's means of building a universe."

Your discussion of "light" as key to consciousness is well done and rings true. The many examples are handled very nicely.

I believe my essay complements yours. It focuses on light and time. The consensus view of "fractured" time derived from Einstein's "relativity of simultaneity", which fractured time as universal simultaneity. The philosophico-religious experience of the integrity and unity of the whole is severely challenged by the idea of attaching a new time dimension to every moving object. I review the historical development of this idea in my essay. I hope you find time to read it and comment.

Best regards

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi James, I think you picked a really good fundamental to focus on and have shown, by the breadth of your discussion, a great many ways it is involved in physics, affects nature and human beings.

You mention photosynthesis, warmth and vision. The adaptions of plants ans animals to light and light variation is a related topic. I realize there is so much in your essay you would not have had room for more.

I wonder whether the biblical creation would have been different if we were a nocturnal species. In that case it would make sense to have brightness in the beginning followed by the addition of darkness.

I think there is an important distinction that can be made between what is considered to be fundamental by human beings, such as the constituents of our models and knowledge, and what is fundamnetal to the function of the universe whether or not there are people to observe or think about it.

Thank you for a good read. I liked the reminder of how many different ways electromagnetism is important. Kind regards Georgina

Dear Lee Hoover

You wrote: "Fundamental then is irrelevant if a conscious being does not exist to point out that which is fundamental",

Nature produced one single real 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 speculation about abstract fundamentalism ever became evident on earth.

Joe Fisher, Realist.

It was a pleasure to read this well composed essay; change is indeed fundamental. The natural fundament of original light seems to be cosmic Vibration, concerning toe.

Dear James,

I think FQXi.org might be trying to find out if there could be a Natural fundamental. I am surprised that so many of the contest's entrants do not appear to know what am fundamental to science, or mathematics, or quantum histrionics.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear James,

Since it is not possible to comment on all the worthwhile topics you discuss in your essay, I will say something about the relationship between fundamentality and consciousness. This is a key relationship, which you state at the beginning: "Nothing fundamental exists without its subject or the conscious being investigating it."

As you are aware from your reading of my essay, I am especially interested in consciousness. I do appreciate the comment you made on that essay.

Thinking about your statement and about your discussion generally, I think that I would draw a distinction between objective fundamentality in things and the conscious appreciation of fundamentality. This is somewhat analogous to the distinction that might be drawn in order to deal with the old question, If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear the fall, does it make a sound? In one sense, Yes, because the molecules of the air vibrate in sound waves. In another sense, No, because there is no sound as perceived in consciousness.

Similarly, we might say that without conscious beings, objective relations of fundamentality would still obtain. Before any conscious beings had any understanding or awareness of natural laws, there was still a difference between fundamental laws and the detailed workings of nature which depend on those laws. Nonetheless, something was missing. As you state at the beginning of your fourth paragraph, "Fundamental then is irrelevant if a conscious being does not exist to point out that which is fundamental." Without a conscious being to be aware of the relations of fundamental-to-derivative, those relations remained in darkness. Only understanding brought the relations into light. This metaphoric way of speaking seems to fit well with your emphasis on light.

Thanks for a stimulating essay.

Laurence Hitterdale

James,

You identified an important fact often ill considered by theorists, that the most fundamental thing about 'fundamental' is that it's in a constant state of change, so a 'moving target'. (You saw my fundamental agreement in "nothing exists without motion". )

You also draw in wide evidence to demonstrate the 'evolutionary' point, and identify light as the catalyst or 'discovery agent' for man to keep up; "scientific knowledge and what we deem the fundamental evolve, requiring constant editing, revision and refinement."

You know I'm concerned we little recognize that truth. We seem to fear and resist theoretical change and advancement of understanding too much. Very clearly written, on topic & currently undervalued I think so you can expect a boost when I apply my scores.

Best of luck.

Peter

James - I enjoyed your essay, and particularly it's play with the word "light". Humans are visual creatures, so it is no surprise that "light" and its opposite "darkness" are fundamental in the mythology of creation and being in many ancient traditions. Physics, has, however, carefully delimited the concept of "light" to the provenance of photons and electromagnetism - stripping away the depth and richness of its ancient mythological connotation. This is an example of the damage that reductionism can have on our ability to comprehend the universe as it is, and not simply as we want it to be.

Bravo - George Gantz

Hi James Lee Hoover

Your wonderful words in the OP "The fundamental is necessary for existence, whether real, imagined, animate or inanimate. It exists only if both the conscious being studying it and the subject are present" reflect nice philosophical thinking dear James Lee Hoover.

............. very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and 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

............. 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 James Lee Hoover

Thank you for your esteemed fine words on my essay. Thank you for saying that "frequency shifts should not be difficult to observe, given the right resources." Can you please help me further? How to do that?

I am providing " the fundamental relationships of mass and energy in dynamic settings with your proofs." .... As in Dynamic Universe model is nothing but E=mC2 only, which is nothing but Einstein's mass to energy to mass conversion. Now Dynamic Universe Model proposes to have energy to mass conversion this time in this essay.

All my Published Books and essays are available at in "books published" and "papers published" tabs of ....

https://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

And on "Different effects of gravitational lensing as well" ....... "Multiple Bending of light produces multiple images for Galaxies on earth", was published almost about 30 years back .... If you need further information I will give you

Thank you for your blessing words "An different but interesting approach. I am in the review phase of my readings." I am hoping for the best.....

Best Regards

=snp

I hope my earlier papers and blog will provide sufficient proofs...

Best

I love what you say about light and the fundamental. If there is not a sentient being to observe a thing does the thing exist? Would the universe exist if there were no beings to observe it? You approach the idea of fundamental from a unique perspective. As I said in my paper, I believe that we will continue to discover forever, pushing the boundaries of what we know and what we think we know for our entire existence. In some cases we will push too far and find ourselves in a blind alley. But such is the fate of science.

Good job, and I will get your book.

Regard,

Henri Vonn De Roule

James,

Thank you very much for your consideration, especially in Light of the fact we have different views on convention. I'm used to getting negative responses to this.

To offer up a few more observations, the point I make about time and how it is similar to temperature, goes fairly deep into our biology and consciousness. For instance, I would argue the left, linear, rational hemisphere of the brain is based on time, as in sequence, while the right, emotional, intuitive side is thermal, as in feedback with context.

Consider that as energy changes form, it goes past to future, while the form goes future to past. As such reality is this dichotomy of energy and form. Consider that over a few billion years of evolution, we developed a central nervous system to process form/information and the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems to process energy.

Form is top down, while energy and process is bottom up. Our minds are constantly trying to figure out how all those bits of information work together, but they often seem like post-it notes on the wind, as we condense out bits of information from the energy. Otherwise it would whiteout.

As they go opposite directions of time, consider how this describes reality. Consider a factory; The product goes start to finish, while the process goes the other direction, consuming material and expelling product.

Life is similar. As individuals, we go birth to death, our lives in the future to in the past. While the species goes the other direction, on to new generations, shedding old. This operates on infinite layers, as our bodies are constantly generating and shedding cells, as the the environment evolves new species, as old ones go extinct.

As for the relationship of light and consciousness, consciousness is like energy, going from prior to succeeding thoughts, as these thoughts coalesce and dissolve. Much like frames of a movie, going future to past, it is actually the light shining through them we see, but our minds focus on the details.

Since there is only this energy, it is constantly being recycled in never ending feedback loops. Sort of like a tapestry woven from strands pulled from what had already been woven.

Which gets around to the cyclical nature of thermodynamics. Consider a convection cycle, where heat radiates out, as precipitation falls in. Then consider this in relation to that energy constantly expanding and creating new forms, which coalesce and congregate inward.

Then consider galaxies, which consist of radiation expanding out, as mass falls in.

What if what Hubble discovered, with redshift, was Einstein's original Cosmological Constant?

Consider the rubber sheet analogy of gravity. Logically where there is no ball to weight it down, it wouldn't be otherwise flat, or this would ignore the essential premise of relativity. So consider that the rubber sheet is over water and when the ball weighs it down, the sheet pushes back up with equal effect everywhere else. This we would detect as the redshift of light crossing the more empty regions of space. Though it is an effect of the light expanding to fill that space, which we then extract point particles of energy from the field

The reason Dark Energy was proposed is because the Big Bang model assumes the universe began with that initial Bang, resulting in the universe expanding at the speed of light. It was then assumed it cooled off and slowed down at a steady rate, but what was measured is that it slowed rapidly to begin with, then leveled out to a more stable redshift. To use a ballistics analogy, it would be as if the universe were shot out of a cannon and after it slowed, a rocket motor kicked in. This presumed rocket is Dark Energy.

Yet consider what we actually see and measure. This redshift starts off from our point of view quite slowly, but then gradually builds and eventually goes parabolic. Wouldn't an optical effect, compounding on itself create this very same effect?

Now if redshift is an optical effect, the light from beyond this horizon line of the sources apparently receding at the speed of light would still be reaching us, but it would all be shifted entirely into the black body and radiological spectrums. Which is exactly what we do see, with the Cosmic Background Radiation. So the CMBR would be the solution to Olber's paradox.

As for Dark Matter, what if this is a cycle of expansion and contraction, with both sides logically balanced? Then gravity is not so much a property of mass, as mass is an effect of gravity, this contraction side. Then the contraction effect goes all the way through the entire spectrum, from light being quantized into photons out of a field, so mass spiraling into black holes, like the eye of a gravitational storm. The effect requiring Dark Matter is this overall contraction, through the entire spectrum, not just what qualifies as mass.

More heresy. Fortunately I don't have to make a living from cosmology.

Regards,

John

Ack. Not sure why that didn't do paragraph breaks. Hopefully it's legible.

James,

Thanks for the review and scoring. I haven't been as diligent, because my brain has trouble dissecting all the various thoughts, models, assumptions, worldviews, etc, flowing through these essays. It is quite a collection. The one trend I did sense is that some of the regulars are starting to concentrate on the presentist, versus eternalist views of time as a significant issue. Obviously I'm biased on that, but I do see it as the primary point where the realist, versus the platonically mathematical worldviews are in most direct conflict. Not holding my breath though.

Regards, John

Dear James Lee Hoover,

Good to meet again in yet another FQXi contest.(I especially liked your essay "Some say the world will end in fire, some say in ice"). We retired researchers are never tired, aren't we?

""The word was made flesh and dwelt among us," iii suggesting that God and Jesus are identical but with a human connection and existence." indeed but the beginning of the gospel of John said: "In the beginning was the Word,聽and the Word was with God,聽and the Word was God.". So it means the connection with human consciousness and God in my perception. This is also my approach to the relationship with what I call Total Consciousness and the human consciousness that is restricted by Time and Space.

"Light is the advent of consciousness, the proof of our existence, a kind of a first cause." I perceive light as the upper limit of our reality. Go faster and the "information" can no longer be detected. Because our "material state" cannot go follow it any longer and according to Einstein the information is going into the past, and that cannot be reached neither. For the rest, light is a photon that in my perception is an emergent phenomenon.

"the theory of everything (ToE) is thought to be tied up in the first few seconds of the Big Bang (BB) when the four fundamental forces - the weak, the strong, electromagnetic, and gravitational - were thought to be united into one force at high energies, the ultimate beginning of existence, when the universe was Planck size". I agree with you that the ToE is behind the Planck length and time when there was a minimum of entropy because time and space don't exist "there" when there is no time everything is simultaneous. So the expression "first two seconds" is in my humble opinion not right. Both time and Space are emerging from the Planck area including the "four" (maybe there are more) fundamental forces as you are mentioning also in your essay : "The BB is a time when the whole universe was thought to expand from a Planck size to macro size, forces of equal strength differentiating into four forces, two in the Planck range and two, long-range.". Only the two in the Planck range are not inside but > as the Planck range.

I thank you for a well written thoughtful essay, that I valued and brought up a little in the contest results. I hope that the remarks I made can be a trigger for you to read, comment and maybe rate my essay "Foundational Quantum Reality Loops" where I also TRY to find an answer not only on the HOW but also on the WHY.

Best regards and good luck

Wilhelmus de Wilde

James,

I came to score you, but the machine tells me I have already done so.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi James,

I find your essay very readable and important. Us and light and fundamentality an evolving structure. I am reminded of Max Planck's dictum that the sciences advance one funeral at a time. The Hindu's have a saying that echoes your though "we move from truth to truth never from error to truth.

Question to you: Why have you not responded to any of the posts on your blog?

You were commenting to George Gantz that the voting was sparse and I agree. Could it be that author responses are being removed by marking them "inappropriate" by some demon?

I am concerned that the contest is being undermined. What do you think?

Thanks for yor spot on essay.

Don Limuti