Gravity is not fundamental; or is it? by Jonathan J. Dickau

Dear Jonathon,

Your writing of questioning and exploring modern theoretical physics constructs was indeed amusing. I suppose that a 'map' such as what I wrote about would be helpful...

You wrote "It is fairly well-known in the Physics community that the Standard Model can be encoded in the symmetry group formula SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1), but it is not understood how to derive this formula from a deeper underlying structure. There are objects in Mathematics possessing deep and great symmetry, which are already known to be relevant to Physics and are obvious candidates for the seed of a unifying theory."

It turns out that the geometry of a quark, such as the green down quark illustrated in my essay, has a quantum state algebra that is one-to-one with a subgroup of a cross product of two wreath products. This also allows for causality, which is missing in the Std Model.

"I'm still unsure of whether gravity actually is a fundamental force of Physics or not, so I leave determining that up to you." well, good. It _is_ one of several fundamental properties of particles as well as in cosmology.

The central issue of consistency is imposed by observing that the universe is merely the sum of its particles. So the form of each equation must be the same, at least the mass terms must add up to yield macroscopic gravity. A foundational formula is presented for FQXi group review toward the end of my short descriptive essay.

best wishes,

Wayne Lundberg

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3092

Jonathan,

Now I at least know what the Mandelbrot Set is and know a tiny bit about fractals and self-similarity.

So, has anyone ever argued either for or against the idea that physical laws should be scale independent? I know the empirical evidence is that the strong and weak forces are short range only whereas gravity and electro-magnetism are long-range.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Dear Jonathan,

Here we are again all together.

I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.

«all forces are the consequence of just one unified field of interactions - and sub-ranges thereof». Great!

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Dear Jonathan

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don't rate them at all. Infact I haven't issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

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 and my essay 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. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn't then 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 attempt of 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 a 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 formation 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 chemistry processes arose.

By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. 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 explain 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

Dear Jonathan,

I enjoyed reading your essay. You beautifully discuss the nature of gravitational force and its impact on biological evolution. Your argument that the gravitational force may simply be a mathematically consistent basis or simply an exercise of imagination has a value. Thus, 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 to define what we term "absoluteness".

Best regards,

Anil

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for your comments, and for reminding me to comment and rate your essay. I see you got bombed, I was too, especially in the last 24 hours I went from 1 to 11, now I see it's a bit better. Please tell the organizers about the bombs you received, it is against the rules (and also dishonest without comments explaining that it indeed deserved to receive an 1). It is important to read and rate accordingly as many essays as possible, to make the one bombs less relevant, so if you forgot to rate my essay when you commented please do it now according to your evaluation. Nice thoughts about entropic gravity and the fractal properties, about which I replied to you more when you commented on my thread. Good luck in the contest!

Best regards,

Cristi

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for interesting discussion of possible nature of gravity, which I hav enjoyed. It deserves sufficiently high estimation

With the best regards

Maxim Khlopov

Jonathan,

I think we are all contest hooked -- maybe more for the forum and the exchange of great ideas. Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.

Jim

Hi Jonatan:

Thanks for your new comments on my paper.

Rest mass is only possible or definable when photon is at rest. This is the biggest and most serious inconsistency in the mainstream or Maxwell's theory that Photon has energy and momentum but no rest mass and that a photon is born with V=C.

I agree with your assertion that the gravitational pull of nearby masses effect the speed of a photon (bending of light). However, this also is possible if photon has a non-zero mass. A zero mass photon cannot be impacted by the gravity pull of other masses.

Regards

Avtar

I received seven 1 point bombs in the contest, with four of them in the last 24 hours.

A pure abuse of this system. I have protested at length to the organizers as to this harassment.

Hi Jonathan

I concur with your "all forces are the consequence of just one unified field of interactions - and sub-ranges thereof", although our scenarios differ. In the Machian scenario, as I see it, the universe is not expanding, and the energy lost from redshifted tired light forms a coherent field at the zero-point of electromagnetic radiation. This field is the origin of material energy, and matter is carried along by waves in the field - i.e, gravity. The waves would have a speed given by the radial escape velocity of a gravitating object.

By the way, I found the way you rotate the Mandelbrot figures a bit disorienting at first, but I also found that matching the symmetry with our natural left-right symmetry is far more pleasing to the eye. In contrast to your parallels between Mandelbrot and big bang cosmology, I confess to some uneasiness about a universe whose origin apparently cannot be known.

Oh yes, I wanted to mention the symmetry of the circle mapped to the line, but it turns out to be trivial and is complicated by having separate cases for odd and even number of points. O,A,..., etc. are points on the circumference of a circle. On that circle, 0 would be diametrically opposite E.

Symmetry: 0 A B C D E D C B A ... has bilateral symmetry about the diameter 0-E

Antisymmetry: 0 A B C D E d c b a ... where a,b,c,d are the negatives of A,B,C,D. A is laterally accross from a

Antipodal Antisymmetry: 0 A B C D E a b c d ... does not have bilateral symmetry. A is diametrically across from a, etc.

Who knows, this last one may not even be considered symmetry. I saw it in the residual of the Gill-Pearle method of quantum correlation, which really should not have been surprising since it amounts to a directed projection through the center of a circle, having opposite value in the opposite direction. Previous models of quantum correlation had resulted in bilateral symmetry in the residual, and that may be the greater curiosity.

Cheers,

Colin

Jonathan Dickau

Thanks for discussions. Perhaps you are interested in my last blog at:

blog

Regards from ___________ John-Erik Persson