something not yet found by richard kingsley nixey

Hi Richard...

Your observation on "expectation of reductionists that some 'super theory' may arise from a reduction of present theories" is highly perceptive and echoes Karen Crowther's essay "When do we stop digging?":

"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."

REF: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3034

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 we do not have a model of minimum units of Space and/or Energy, theorizing "what form 'dark energy' might take" is pure speculation.

Accuracy is definitely a matter of observational scale, and at any given time=t, from the observer's scale of observation, if a condition is apparently un-resolved/inaccurate, it might not hurt to immediately report any disharmony to the Cosmic Computer... i.e. in that Energy/Space distribution for the entire field must resolve on each Source pulse, it can not be said to be deterministic, but some fundamental mechanism is "entirely accurate"... precisely so!

To resolve Energy/Space distribution on each pulse, the pulse rate of the Cosmic Computer clock ticks incomprehensibly fast, and digital technology has made a case that altering a single coded bit, can vastly alter the output/functionality of the program, potentially facilitating spontaneous harmonious resolve, at the observer's scale of events.

Digital technology has also extended "observable scales" by means of virtual visual conceptualization... e.g. a logic reduction to an Energy emission equal in all directions from a single Source point, is now a visually verifiable geometry virtuallity... facilitating a "rational" approach for analysis of "effects found, apparently as a result of what we can't directly observe".

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

Mathematical physics can offer a coherent 'assembly' of the "evidence needed to advance understanding that already exists, but to preserve "Scientific method", that mathematics must provide visual verifiable kinematics from "what we've already found" to the "new way of seeing", and Digital SIM is my computational analysis tool of choice for animating pulsed distribution of minimum units of Energy (QE) over time, as a constant pulse rate, within a CAD environment quantized by a 3D unified field single point origin encapsulation geometry.

REF: Geometry Paradigms http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSReTB.php]

Thanks Richard, for voting as a reductionist in this "What is fundamental?" contest, and for your enthusiastic support of my essay.

Have read only a small fraction of essay's, but gotta get to the poll, so expect a bump soon.

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechaix.com

Richard,

Thanks for your kind comments and being one of the few bothered to apply rational thinking to understand the classical 'QM' revolution. I suspect we'll find old beliefs to embedded in minds and doctrine for it to be rapid, but I've estimated just a few eons.

Top marks for your own essay on it's own merit. It's agreement with mine and your intellectual power and vision is just a bonus. If you can contribute to the project you're as welcome as any others.

Thank you kindly and best of luck.

Peter

Dear Richard

I really enjoyed reading your essay, and also rated it to rated. I would like your comment if you have time, https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3143 it is new way look the matter.

To reveal simplicity of fundamental physical theory by thinking deeply with the Nature's puzzling and related effects is quite difficult, but the most difficult is Human understanding.

Since these two problems are interlinked we should prioritize and focus first to find ontological solution modern physics before finding a answer to fundamental related questions.

My previous essay I have only focused to hypothesis that links theories together in terms of fundamental particle and force. My current essay I focused more than half to point out needs for ontology related issue rather than answering the fundamental question. After evaluation I realized that answer is almost meaningless without good ontological/philosophical ground, that is why give more importance to essays focusing ontological issues.

One very intresting example is that Natural Philosophy set good foundation Nature's fundamentals by quantizing in terms of elementary particle and force equilibrium in terms of neutral and charged including similarities of both macro and micro levels such as;

Formulaions: Newton's and Coulomb's law

Experimentals: Cavendish's and Coulomb's experiments

Implications: Newtonian and Maxwellian (two planet-like systems in different scale).

But things got strange in 20th doe to interpretation without ontology even terminology are somehow affected,

In general I agree your conteptual explanation, some points I appreciated;

"Now we come to the question of 'recognition'. Clearly we can't 'see' anything below detectable levels but we should find all the evidence needed to advance understanding already exists. It just needs coherent 'assembly'. The idiom that physics is not about new findings but finding 'new ways of seeing' what we've already found has invariably proved correct with hindsight. But in advancing understanding we are then left with a seemingly impossible balancing act. All and any idea or theory may be valid, but there are many thousands out there. Most clearly seem not valid when judged against the 'guesses' that have proved most consistent or popular in the past, but it seems clear that one of those will end up proving close to a correct descriptitheory

The Scientific method rather took a back seat since the move to mathematical physics when we couldn't explain effects rationally. Our current approach may then be rather too akin to this; On present theory we say, if wise; "Yes we're aware it's incomplete and has inconsistencies, but it's the best we have so far"Then presented with new concepts we glance at them and often dismiss them, saying; "No that can't be right as it varies from current adopted theory

Our best solution is to maintain recognition that theoretical problems ARE still far from resolved. Perhaps it's that fear of deviating from whatever 'sound basis' we can find is what prevents us from analysing and rationalising what underlies accepted doctrine. Perhaps only when we do so, genuinely look, will we finally find what's truly fundamental in the universe."

It may also be intertersting to look more:

An elementary character of charge (e) rests upon fundamental character of matter (particle), and combination with it's potentail difference 1V becomes elementary energy 1eV = 1.6ﾃ--10^-19J, (our modern probe to quanta) on the other hand mass included 1.782ﾃ--10^-36 kg. see also wikipedia.

Electronvolt

Regarding the context, what is real meaning of "elementary" and it's relations to mass value and energy value.and to Fundamental?.

Best wishes

Bashir.

That is one fine essay -- yes "it is a matter of seeing differently". I love how you point out that science is more like sociology there is a herd mentality.

For example "Your new theory disagrees with our current theory which we know is incomplete yet we will dismiss your new ideas out of hand" ISN'T that the problem -- we know we don't know yet we know enough to say it isn't your ideas that are correct -- a bit circular since they cannot really know what is "the problem" in the first place.

Thank you for reading my essay and you identify the problem here it is maths that is wrong not so much are intuitions in this case.

I feel intuitions come from our evolutionary past and the categories that "our minds" have imposed on "nature" or what is out there.

A fabulous read well done. I have scored you very highly indeed since you made me think a lo. Harri

Hello Richard,

I like these comments you have made:

1. Ether became unfashionable with Einstein's theory of relativity even though Einstein himself said, though it can't modulate light speed, to remove it entirely was 'unthinkable'.

2. Who can say that our physical sense covers all in the infinite universe/s when we have no idea what's going on at anywhere near that scale?

Thanks for pointing that we are looking at the small scale for so long we have become myopic.

Please see my essay for a universe wide quantum particle phenomena that can be considered space-time. Alternatively the distribution of this particle can be considered the ether. This particle is a newly conceived graviton that has mass. Not so strange ...really.

Thanks for your excellent essay,

Don Limuti

Hi Richard

I tried to give you a 10 but the system won't let me rate essays any longer. So you'll have to try winning without my contribution.

Good luck

Steve

If you loose by a wisker then you should declare system fault

Excellent. And if I may add one large fundamental; the pressure that results in like laws throughout the Universe.

Mr. Nixey,

I fully enjoyed the way you put things together it and I think further words are useless.

Rated accordingly.

If you would have the pleasure for a short axiomatic approach of the subject, I will appreciate your opinion.

Silviu

richard kingsley nixey

Thank you Ricard,for your complement, on my essay.

Feel free to contact me for detailed discussions if you feel there is collaboration potential:

Chandra.Roychoudhuri@uconn.edu

Chandra.