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.
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.