Turtles all the way down by Kjetil Hustveit

Dear Kjetil Hustveit,

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 Kjetil Hustveit,

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 information about turtles ever became evident on earth.

Joe Fisher, Realist.

Hi Kjetil, I really like the conversational style of your essay and that it is an easy, well structured, well thought out read. You end "It may, if we're able to identify the correct fundamentals help us bridge the gap between what we do observe directly and the foundation of reality and I really think that entanglement, causality and randomness - with the addition of energy is a quite good shot. Yes I agree with you about bridging the gap. Your choice of fundamentals is as you say "quite a good shot". I don't like the entanglement turtle. It is an impostor. Entanglement is only of states or values so there will need to be physical entities or phenomena to which they pertain. Otherwise you only have an abstract universe and not a physical one. It is also rather a special case pertaining to special circumstances. There needs to be existent things or phenomena that can have energy or undergo change, so there can be causality, sequential cause and effect happenings. Not disembodied information alone. Being a computer professional maybe has some bearing on your choice of fundamentals. I also would not have chosen randomness as a greatly important turtle but he is perhaps showing something about the true nature of the universe with which we interact. Which does not have one predictable answer to a measurement or observation inquiry, but what we find depends on both the universe, as it is and as it is happening, and how the question is asked. But each to their own -turtles : ) This competition is showing great diversity of opinions and writing styles. Thank you for an enjoyable read. Kind regards Georgina

Dear Kjetil,

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 Mr. Hustveit,

You brief essay provides a clear identification of three "turtles of reality": entanglement, causality, and randomness.

This is not a surprising selection: causality is built into classical physics, and randomness and entanglement are built into quantum mechanics. However, quantum entanglement is not just relatedness; it is a mathematical construction that requires instantaneous change everywhere based on a local measurement, and is very non-classical. Furthermore, while classical randomness is a consequence of limited precision, quantum randomness is built into the foundations.

As an alternative, I would suggest that unity and simplicity are essential aspects of any fundamental theory of nature, and these have been missing from much of modern physics. Such a unified picture may require reassessment of some key aspects of modern physics.

In my own essay, "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics", I propose that a set of slight modifications from classical physics can give rise to a consistent unified realistic physical picture on all scales. There are no point particles or gravitational singularities; abstract spacetime and Hilbert space are mathematical artifacts. Electrons are distributed real wave packets without entanglement. Space and time are distinct, and are defined by frequency and wavelength of these real waves, which can shift in a gravitational potential. This gives rise to the phenomena associated with general relativity and quantum mechanics, without requiring separate mathematical formalisms.

This is not merely a philosophical argument. There is a newly developing technology, quantum computing, which depends critically on entanglement for its computational power. Without entanglement, quantum computing will not work. There are billions of dollars being invested in this, and I expect an answer within 5 years. My prediction is that the failure of quantum computing will lead to a reassessment of the entire foundations of quantum mechanics.

Alan Kadin

Turtles all the way down by Kjetil Hustveit

Hi Kjetil Hustveit

Very nice essay with deep thinking of quantum mechanics searching for real foundations..."Turtles all the way down" dear Kjetil Hustveit

............. 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

Hello Kjetil,

Very much enjoyed your essay. Your opening specification of requirements for the fundamental is demanding and thought provoking -

"Fundamental must be something that is impossible to divide into subparts, it should not require any prior framework and it must be possible to describe everything we know from it"

This brings the wavefunction to mind.

Delighted to see that you require background independence. Importance of this is so seldom appreciated. And that you have the insight to require "...at least one neighbor." This brings to mind the two body problem, and given the impossibility of exact general solutions to the three body problem due to recursion almost magically leads you to entanglement.

Curious to understand the intuition behind the scenes that brings you so startling fast to these turtles. And from there to causality. Brilliant.

Entanglement and causality are linked by the form of their potentials. Both are local. However non-local entanglement exists only for inverse square potentials - quantum Hall, vector Lorentz, centrifugal, Coriolis, chiral, three body,... In these the resulting motion is perpendicular to direct of applied force - they can do no work, communicate no information, but rather only quantum phase, not a single measurement observable. No violation of special relativity.

The 1/r Coulomb and 1/r^3 dipole potentials are local only. They do the work, communication the information. Here you have causality.

Randomness comes from the fact that quantum phase is not a single measurement observable, and it is the relative phase of interacting wavefunctions that determines the states into which they will collapse. QM is deterministic, but it is an unobservable determinism, just as the enigmatic wavefunction itself is unobservable, but rather only changes of the wavefunction, the lump of energy we get when we collapse it.

so far you're on solid ground. The way you introduce dynamics via 'energy' is not so strong, but still quite remarkable that you see the need.

A remarkable intuitive essay. Congratulations. Very much under-rated by our community.

Dear Kjetil Hustveit,

You have done a good job in your brief essay wherein you have defined the three turtles - entanglement, causality and randomness as the foundation of reality.

QM claims that an electron can be both spin-up and spin-down at the same time. In my conceptual physics Essay on Electron Spin I have proved that this is not true. Please read: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3.pdf

Kamal Rajpal

Kjetil,

Great little essay, ideas and analysis. An excellent job for a non-professional physicist. I particularly liked and agreed with;

"Location and time have to be emergent from the really fundamental building blocks".

"..Describing everything in a very fundamental and simple way could probably be done with vertices and edges."

" change also need some structure. So when a change happens it will have some consequences....to have structured change, causality is the turtle of choice.

it is possible to deduce a lot without direct observation".

I disagreed with invoking 'entanglement', but then there's good reason for me considering it to be just poor understanding & analysis, which you'll find if you get to my essay. Result may be rather more 'unusual' than yours or any!

Well done. Score to low I think, I have it down for a boost.

Very best,

Peter

Hi Kjetil,

I believe you misquoted Douglas Adams who commented: "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."

If you double an illusion you get a truth! Therefore, the "Lunchtime" turtle needs to be included in the fundamental list! (IMHO)

This is just a minor point. Otherwise, you have a well thought out humorous essay.

Thanks,

Don Limuti

Dear Kjetil

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My sail area overpowered. Ordinarily I would have reduced sail, but this day I felt differently. My contemplations were on the forces of nature, and I was ventured seaward increasingly amongst them. As the wind and the waves rose, my boat came under strain, but I was exhilarated. All the while I considered, how might I communicate the role of natural forces in understanding of the world around us. For they are surely it's central theme.

Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me in questioning this circumstance?

My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. for if they didn't then nebula gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

My essay is an attempt at something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up an energy potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists, and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond forming activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemical process arose.

By identifying process whereby atomic forces draw a potential from space, we have identified means for their perpetual action, and their ability to deliver perpetual work. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might apply for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

Hello Kjetil,

Your essay is brief and concise, i.e. to the point, but not too brief to miss the point and not too pointed to assume that you have the final answer - for all of which I thank you.

Your question 'Could it not be that there is really something that goes on forever?' rings bells in my ears. Infinite regression is not fundamentally necessary; it is not possible. What, for example, is the 'Turtle' that 'Existence' stands upon?

Notwithstanding the popular presumption that the 'universe' is limited in size and expanding without admission that there is anything beyond (a matter of definition); the contrary view that I prefer is that time and space are limitless and that the word 'Universe' is so constructed to represent the notion that it too is limitless and embraces all-there-is, hence the prefix 'Uni'.

Concerning the functionality of the universe, it is sufficient to account for the dynamics of change by attributing the causes to the interaction of unevenly distributed energy and matter.

Time and space do not 'have to be' emergent. They can just exist. Further, I have no reason to challenge the premise that energy and matter enjoy the same status; they simply exchange their forms as dictated by local circumstances.

I remind you that the FQXi question 'What is' seeks a singular answer, otherwise it would be framed 'What are'. This disposes of the 'truly fundamental property: entanglement.'

The notions of 'chance' and 'randomness' are merely admissions that we do not know unknown or unknowable causes. These are simply comfortable misnomers arising from our limited individual and collective knowledge bases (aka ignorance).

Lonesome George was a male Pinta Island tortoise in the Galapagos archipelago and the last known individual of the species. So there you have it - and there you don't.

Best wishes,

Gary.