Essay Abstract

Discovery of the most fundamental level in physics may require the joint efforts of physicists and philosophers. Theories help predict and organize our understanding of physics, but often they add new attributes that result in widening our concepts. Physics needs a narrowing of concepts to a single entity. This paper explores how to achieve a narrowing of the concepts.

Author Bio

Richard Marker lives in Mount Vernon, Washington, USA. He is an active retiree who spent most of his life thinking about how Nature could have built our universe from the simplest of entities. His formal education includes undergraduate degrees in physics and mathematics, and achieving Fellowship in the Society of Actuaries.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Richard L Marker,

Reliable evidence exists that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

Joe Fisher, Realist

It's good to see you here Richard...

I enjoyed your essay greatly, and I think you addressed the essay question posed by FQXi squarely; so I give you credit for that. I also enjoyed the breakdown of levels and the final conclusion that we need to find something featureless, and to study nothing, if we want to truly understand what is fundamental. I can't give you full credit for incorporating all the technical details that would give your essay appeal to scientists, but you have given the rest of us a clear route to progress - which is essential for Science to advance.

I attended a lecture back in 2009 by Gerard 't Hooft where he stated that many of the advances we hope to make in Physics will never come unless there can be cooperation and collaboration that goes beyond the borders of specialization. He said some problems will need not only a comparison among people from different branches of Physics, but also collaboration with people in various areas of Math, engineers and technologists, and computer programmers, but also philosophers. You can't get 'out of the box' thinking from those trained to work inside it, and only someone outside the information silo can see that.

All the Best,

Jonathan

    Jonathan,

    Thank you for your kind words. My presentation does not come close to the great job you did in your discussion of symmetry and gravity.

    In the many years since we last had contact I have thought of you on a number of occasions. I always enjoyed our exchanges. Even this many years later, I feel badly that I could not do the paper that I had agreed to do. It wasn't a choice on my part. Please accept my apology.

    As far as my essay goes, I only learned about the contest a few weeks before the deadline. I intentionally avoided mention of my own findings. They are difficult for someone to grasp in a short period. Others run away when one mentions that they know the structure of space, of the electron, and likely of the quark.

    I don't remember where our discussions left off, but much has happened. You would be amazed and I would love to share it with you (or anyone for that matter).

    Mordehai Milgrom's MOND theory of gravity in spiral galaxies caused me to consider gravity on the cosmological scale. Originally, I had thought that anything other than an inverse square for gravity was really reaching. Eventually I became intrigued by MOND and spent a year attempting to understand it. Three tries later a likely candidate emerged.

    As strange as it might sound, the universe slows down everywhere at the same rate. We don't see it on a relative basis; except, at very long distances from large central masses. The slowing-down effect has a first-order component of inverse linear. This has the effect of increasing the force of the gravity that originated much earlier. The combination of inverse square decrease and inverse linear increase leads to an inverse linear relationship for gravity when it becomes so weak as to be affected by the rate of slowing down of the universe. There is more to it than this, but this gives you the gist.

    Basically, trying to present my findings in an essay here would both not be possible in the space allowed and would likely receive a "pet" theory criticism. To me that criticism applies to guesses on a top-down basis. When one simply follows nature, it seems different than a pet theory.

    If you (or others) have interest in connecting via Skype or Zoom, I would very much enjoy it!

    Best to you,

    Richard

    Thanks Richard,

    I appreciate the insight into your further wanderings. As for myself; I wrote several FQXi essays trying to be thematic, before attempting to work my own pet theories into the writing. Additionally; I found a way to get into and attend a few Physics conferences, to give myself a reason to collate and tighten my ideas so that I could make a poster or create slides to give a talk, and to get an idea of what other people were presenting - including the range of technical detail that would fly.

    Luckily; I discovered that it was very beneficial to see how top scientists dealt with the issues of how to present complex ideas to an audience of people who might be learned, but are not trained in your specialty. The FFP conference series has been especially rich in this area; to see experts at QM talking to condensed matter folks, particle physics experts talking to cosmologists, and so on, is very helpful. This way you are getting the message straight from someone who knows all the technical details, but in a way intended to be more easily accessible or digestible.

    Someone gave me a Skype camera for Christmas... So we'll see.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    Jonathan,

    I suggest we continue this offline. My email is: rlmarker@spaceandmatter.org.

    BTW, Someone suggested Zoom to me as preferable to Skype. It seems better, but I haven't tried it in real time yet.

    Richard

    Dear Marker,

    Thanks for your essay. You described most fundamental entity very well. I fully agree with your views. An alternative concept, I proposed, treats substance as the most fundamental and calls it 'matter'. Pure (unstructured) matter has no properties except its ability to exist. Different characteristic properties of diverse objects are the result of their structures by matter-particles. Whole of this concept is based on a single assumption that 'substance is fundamental and matter alone provides substance to all real entities'. This concept can provide logical explanations to all physical phenomena in all groups as classified by you.

    Best regards,

    Nainan

    Hi Richard L Marker

    Very nice thinking "Theories help predict and organize our understanding of physics, but often they add new attributes that result in widening our concepts. Physics needs a narrowing of concepts to a single entity.", Here I must say that though Dynamic Universe model is a recent theory, it did not introduce any new concept, and left many of the present day concepts in simplifying physics ...dear Richard L Marker

    ............. Yours is 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

      Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

      Thank you for your feedback. This is a hastily made summary of some of the first steps in understanding how nature works at the most fundamental level. I understand there are many claims made in this area so I carefully avoided mention of any in my essay.

      Good luck on your endeavors.

      Richard Marker

      The universe is a single background free dynamic spin structure.

      Dear Richard L Marker,

      You wrote a really wonderful essay with fine words in Abstract like..."Discovery of the most fundamental level in physics may require the joint efforts of physicists and philosophers. Theories help predict and organize our understanding of physics, but often they add new attributes that result in widening our concepts." These words are exactly correct...

      Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay.... I highly appreciate hope 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

      16 days later

      Dear Richard

      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

      Richard,

      I enjoyed your essay, hitting many fundamental points. 2 Highlights;

      "Does quantum mechanics provide us with the deepest possible understanding of fundamental behaviors?

      I find not, and shockingly present a new classical sequence able to reproduce QM predictions in mine. It's a challenge to follow but have a go. Of course dogma will prevent it emerging! See Declan Traill's short essay for the confirmation it works. Then also;

      It seems impossible for everything in physics to be explained by complete simplicity until we think about nature itself. Nature follows a simple path to build complexity from simple beginnings.

      Indeed I start with, as the title; 'Absolute Simplicity". ... but then it sure does get complex!

      Well done.

      Best

      Peter

      Dear Richard,

      I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.

      Your essay allowed to consider us like-minded people.

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

      Vladimir Fedorov

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

      Write a Reply...