What is fundamental? by Matt Visser

Dear Matt,

I enjoyed reading your essay, it offers an interesting historical perspective and worths a good rate. The use you do of the quotes remember me a book by Imre Toth, "No!" - I'm sure you will love it if you haven't read, it's a sort of dialogue about euclidean geometry composed entirely by quotes.

Bests,

Francesco D'Isa

Dear Matt,

the basic illness of modern physics is in its misinterpretation of 'unification' as the search for the 'One' rather than 'Oneness'. Mathematics does a much better job: it keeps its various branches separated although it often seems as if they were somehow connected, i.e. form a whole. Hence progress in one if its branches may well have effect on or create insight in another branch without, however, eliciting ideas of reducing one to the other. Rather, I think, is mathematics organized like the human senses between which zero correlation prevails thus allowing them to be integrated in Oneness. In other words, physical unification is overdetermining the phenomena - TOE is not a tactical but a strategic escape from 'realty'.

Heinrich

Your essay makes an interesting point about whether we can ever find foundations that in effect close physics and cosmology as a finished, or finished FAPP, subject. I have pondered this matter, and suspect the apparent difficulties with reconciling classical information of a measurement with quantum mechanics may be an aspect of Goedel incompleteness where quantum states are encoding information about quantum states. In that sense it is plausible that physics can't ever be closed.

I wrote an essay that proposes what might be foundations that are relevant to this age. I might have as a result engaged in a sort of overkill in technicality. I have thought for some time that quantum mechanics and general relativity were either identical in form or that share complementary features. My essay on GR/QM complementarity explores this possibility.

Bounds on quantum mechanics and no-go theorems such as no-signaling and no-cloning have interesting analogues with spacetime. For instance we have the no-cloning theorem that a quantum state |П€> can't be cloned in a unitary transformation |П€> в†' |П€>|П€>. This can be seen if we write this quantum state as |П€> = a|1> + b|2> so this cloning is

|П€>|П€> = a^2|1>|1> + b^2|2>|2> + ab(|1>|2> + |2>|1>),

but cloning on the basis {|1>, |2>}gives

|П€>|П€> = a^2|1>|1> + b^2|2>|2>.

This means cloning is basis dependent, which violates unitarity. This connects with spacetime physics if we assume we have a spacetime has a wormhole. A wormhole where one opening is transformed under a succession of Lorentz boosts or a send and return motion will exhibit closed timelike curves. It would then be possible to clone a quantum state. An observer with the quantum state |П€> will have a copy appear so that |П€> в†' |П€>|П€> if that observer later throws one |П€> into the wormhole. This means I think that if wormholes are traversable they are unstable under such a transformation, maybe becoming unstable at the Cauchy horizon.

The types of spacetime solutions that may exist could then be constrained by quantum no-go theorems and restrictions on quantum measurements. I wrote a paper last year on a correspondence between the Tsirelson bound and the invariant interval of spacetime and how spacetime is built from entanglements. In general we then have that spacetime physics and quantum mechanics are mirrors of each other. The limits in both of these areas are then specific manifestations of the same constraints. It could be that the ultimate foundations of physics is just plain vanilla quantum mechanics.

It will remain to be seen whether we can arrive at some final foundation or whether so called foundations are relative to the time of those who establish such. We might also never know an answer to this, for even if a foundation is found that lasts for centuries it will never be certain if some big change is or is not lurking around the corner.

LC

Nicely done essay, the use of quotes was the best I seen, too often quotes just brake the flow and the formatting was wonderful. This is the first essay of this topic I have read, so I will not rate this essay until I have read others. Your problem is the same as mine "how the #@$% can I write about fundamental?" From you bio I see that you are a mathematician, this reminds me of solving integrals by using a Fourier transform to change space going around the pole then Fourier transform back again to get the answer. You seemed to change the space of the debate went around the issue then came back again.

Jeff Schmitz

Dear Professor Matt Visser,

Reliable evidence exists that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex 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

Respected Prof Matt Visser,

You wrote in your Abstract...." These ontological shifts in what we regard as fundamental are largely driven by theoretical advances ("what can we calculate?"), and experimental advances ("what can we measure?")." a wonderful idea and analysis....

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... 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

Matt,

Lovely essay, excellent characterisation of all it touched on. Thank you for a nice respite from some very different efforts.

Have you addressed the issue of finding the Lagrangion of QM? I hope you may carefully read my essay and consider if a new (old mechanical ontological methods!) approach looks possible. I (Also see Declan Trails matching code & CSHS >2 plot)

Very Best

Peter

Dear Matt Visser,

Einstein was right when he did not agree with the EPR experiment conclusions and had said, "spooky action at a distance" cannot occur and that, "God does not play dice". Please read Linear Polarization http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0174v5.pdf

I also request you to read my essay on wave-particle and electron spin at: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3.pdf

Kamal Rajpal

Dear Matt

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