Essay Abstract

To find out which properties have a chance to survive in future more fundamental theories, we consider different examples of changes from fundamental theories to approximations. Not surprising at all is the observation that space and time are more stable than the configuration space, which is more stable than the laws of evolution. This holds for the corresponding symmetry groups too. The consideration of a sound analogon of Lorentz symmetry suggests that a global symmetry which becomes localized in a more fundamental theory is doomed to disappear in the next more fundamental theory. This contradicts common opinions about local Lorentz- and gauge symmetries as well as quantum randomness having a deep fundamental character.

Author Bio

Born 1959 in Halle, Germany. Studied mathematics at the Moscow State University. Independent researcher.

Download Essay PDF File

Ilja Schmelzer,

Reliable evidence exists that proves 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

Dear Ilja Schmelzer,

What a pleasure to read your excellent essay. In your approach "What survives theory change?" is unique and probably the best and most informative one I have seen in this contest. You handle random versus deterministic in a deep but almost offhand way, noting that:

"To switch between determinism and randomness is surprisingly easy and happens quite often."

You also state

"... we have no possibility to derive a more fundamental theory from the existing one."

This may be obvious but it is seldom stated. And one tends to forget that the fact that covariance has no physical content was noted over 100 years ago by Kretschmann.

Your discussion of Lorentz symmetry is the most interesting one that I've seen. Thank you. My essay treats the derivation of the Lorentz transform in one inertial frame (all SR derivations used two frames) and then contrast space-time symmetry with energy-time conjugation. I think that you might enjoy my essay as there is considerable overlap with yours, and I would appreciate any comments you might give.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

    thank you for your comment. Regarding the idea of considering relativity in one frame only, this seems to correspond to Bell's "how to teach special relativity" paper, where the main point is also that one gets much better intuitions about his thread between rockets example if one analyses it in a single frame, instead of switching all the time between different frames and confusing oneself in this way.

    My intro to relativity http://ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/LorentzEtherIntro.pdf may be interesting in this context too. I use there the Lorentz transformation, with the speed of sound instead of c, in a single frame to construct a Doppler-shifted solution of the same sound wave equation.

    Dear Ilja Schmelzer,

    thank you for this interesting essay. I particularly like the beginning of your essay: 'The question "what is fundamental" has a quite simple answer: We don't know. What we actually know are two "most fundamental" theories, and they are in deep conflict about which properties are really fundamental'

    In this respect you might like to see some similarities with what I have proposed in mine, as a progressive research for more fundamental conceprt, within a certain methodological chice.

    If you find time to do it, I look forward to discuss with you.

    All the best,

    Flavio

    Ilja Schmelzer:

    Thanks for the link to your site (in a previous reply). Lots to digest.

    I'm interested in the ether as the stuff (physically real) that warps and moves matter in GR and as the background of a Bohm interpretation. I think your ether has a mass-like component (the force exerted is more like a wind where the momentum change and the divergence exert the force - not just the divergence. The universe may be an open system with sources (spiral galaxies) and sinks (elliptical galaxies). Hence, the background is not uniform - obeys the heat equation where the change in the ether density with location and time is analogous to the temperature of the heat equation (no momentum component). This solves many ad hoc and anomalous comology data such as dark matter, dark energy, inflation, etc.

    To make the simulation of the diffraction experiment work (Hodge Experiment - variable intensity of light across the diffraction slit), The speed of the wave in the Bohm interpretation ether (my plenum) needs to be much, much faster the light. Some suggests this for gravity waves, also. Therefore, there is no "local" influence in Bell. All influence is non-local (comment?)

    Of the 2 general approaches to measuring c, those using the left (geometry) side seem flawed compared to those like T. van Flandern.

    One of my next research is the lorentz equations into my model - I think they don't fit.

    Yours is one of the few that addresses the question.A 10 may help.

      My ether follows continuity and Euler equations, thus, its mass is conserved (no sources and sinks). Actually, an analogon of temperature plays no role, the equations are all reversible in time.

      Also one should not expect from the gravitational part anything new for the cold dark matter, at this level, it is equivalent to the Einstein equations of GR. The matter model http://ilja-schmelzer.de/matter/ gives some massive scalar dark matter fields, which is fine if the cold dark matter model is fine.

      While I'm working on my own interpretation, it will be a combination of Copenhagen and Bohm, using all of Bohm's formulas, thus, also the non-locality of these formulas. Non-locality is not a problem for a theory with a preferred frame. So, the preferred frame necessary for any realistic interpretation of quantum theory fits nice with an ether which has a preferred frame too.

      Thanks for your reply. I'm reading the papers on your site.

      I'm looking for the explanation of many cosmological mysteries not the least is the ad hoc assumptions of dark matter (rotation curves which dark matter covers poorly), galaxy redshift which thd Doppler shift explanation covers poorly (0.8 correlation with the galaxies beyond 10 Mpc at 0.3 correlation), and many others.

      Dear Ilja Schmelzer.

      Having enjoyed your distinction between (Einstein's) aether and (Lorentz') ether, I also noticed with pleasure that you wrote "sound-Lorentz symmetry" in the sense of analogy.

      I would like you to agree on restricting the notion symmetry to invariance e.h. under shift, for the sake of simplicity.

      My last Boss blamed a paper of mine for being too fundamental. Why? He got aware that there is a problem that evades solution with approximation and mathematics because it depends on a philosophical alternative between Parmenides and Heraclitos: Is an evolving system system shift-invariant at all?

      My answer is yes in case of models but no in case of reality. To me, there is just one fix point in nature - the current border between the past and the future. Any counterargument?

      Nonetheless, I admire your interesting essay which deserves getting rated high.

      Kind regards,

      Eckard Blumschein

      Hi Ilja,

      I think you have taken a very interesting approach. I myself hopped aboard the same train of thought; analyzing the dynamics of theory evolution is, I believe, the correct way to go about answer this question.

      However, it is a logical possibility that we obtain some future theory in such a way that there is no invariant that can be found between the past theory and the future one. What would one do in that case?

      Regards,

      Aditya

        Dear Dr. Schmelzer,

        I enjoyed reading your essay, including your efforts to extract key aspects of classical physics that may be retained in future theories.

        You might be interested in reading my essay, "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics", in which I argue that both GR and QM have been fundamentally misunderstood, and that something close to classical physics should be restored. QM should not be a general theory of nature, but rather a mechanism for creating discrete soliton-like wavepackets from otherwise classical continuous fields. These same quantum wavepackets have a characteristic frequency and wavelength that define local time and space, enabling GR without invoking an abstract curved spacetime.

        This neoclassical picture has no quantum entanglement, which has important technological implications. In the past few years, quantum computing has become a fashionable field for R&D by governments and corporations. But the predicted power of quantum computing comes directly from entanglement. I predict that the entire quantum computing enterprise will fail within about 5 years. Only then will the mainstream start to question the foundations of quantum mechanics.

        Alan Kadin

          Dear Ilja,

          thank you for your essay, it's very interesting and well written. You posit some very good arguments around the idea that everything we think could be fundamental is not so - that's for sure an important first step. I hope to read something from you about the nexts as well!

          Bests and good luck!

          Francesco D'Isa

          I also think that important parts of classical physics should be restored. With my proposals for an ether theory, as for gravity (ilja-schmelzer.de/gravity) as for the standard model (ilja-schmelzer.de/matter) the classical physics have been nicely restored in the relativistic part.

          As the starting point for a revival of classical physics in the quantum domain, I'm working on a reinterpretation, combining formulas from de Broglie-Bohm with Copenhagen. This recovers classical ontology (a trajectory in configuration space). The wave function is interpreted as epistemic.

          But this interpretation also shows that quantum theory is an approximation. This is because the Bohmian velocity becomes infinite near zeros, and infinities do not exist in nature. So, quantum theory has to fail near the zeros. It also follows that quantum computing will fail earlier or later, once it is only an approximate theory.

          But about the time when it starts to fail, I would not make any predictions. (But I hope of course that public key encryption remains safe.) And I also doubt that such a failure would be considered as evidence that quantum theory is wrong. There would be the much simpler explanation that this is simply noise which distorts the computer, and up to now, we have not succeeded to reduce this noise sufficiently.

          Part of my first version (which appeared far too long) was also a consideration what we can have with certainty. One should, of course, not expect much, a version of Kantian necessities of thought.

          But it includes logic, and, after Jaynes, also classical Bayesian probability theory interpreted as the logic of plausible reasoning. In arxiv:1712.04334 I show that this extends also to some formulas which are today associated with "realism" and "causality" so that we can add them too.

          Dear Ilja,

          Your "independent scientist" articles are impressive efforts, and your present essay was one of the most coherent and intelligent I've read so far: For the next levels of fundamentality below the standard model, we can't trust a principle of intrinsic randomness, anticipate preservation of favorite symmetry concepts, and might even deviate from the principle of "no prior geometry" or no "preferred frame in spacetime." Kretschmann is mentioned in most general relativity books but rarely emphasized. Although the "principle of general covariance" is admitted to have "no forcible content," I notice that Ted Jacobson still seems to value it as a guiding principle and others value it for "the simplicity and transparency criterion" --close but not quite in the "useless" category. Einstein was successful in dethroning the aether concept in 1905 but somewhat reintroduced it in 1915 (he thought of g_munu as a new type of "aether") and wished that he hadn't been so forceful earlier. Many others have discussed their own ideas of aether despite mainstream dislike of the word.

          We do desire a sub-quantum theory; and if some sort of preferred-frame became justified, it would at least aid intuitions.

          David Peterson

            • [deleted]

            • Post #17

            Dear David,

            I use general covariance also as a guiding principle, and the simplest expression for the Lagrangian of my own ether theory (see ilja-schmelzer.de/gravity ) is I think the covariant form, with the theory described by a Lorentz metric and the four preferred coordinates as four scalar fields, using the straightforward Lagrangian for scalar fields.

            7 days later

            Dear Ilja Schmelzer

            Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

            My essay is titled

            "Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin". It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

            Thank you & kind regards

            Steven Andresen

            Hi Ilja Schmelzer

            You gave Wonderful words....." we consider different examples of changes from fundamental theories to approximations. Not surprising at all is the observation that space and time are more stable than the configuration space, which is more stable than the laws of evolution. This holds for the corresponding symmetry groups too....... " hope you will have a look at another side also.....

            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

            4 days later

            Ilja,

            It is quite true that we don't know "what is fundamental." Perhaps I generalize the meaning of fundamental as that which is required for existence of the subject (concept or thing we study), but it helps to go from general to specific in such difficult reasoning. When you say in your summary that questioning whether the theory is deterministic or stochastic, it doesn't matter, I agree. But the two determinations -- deterministic or stochastic -- are basically mixing two worlds -- quantum and classical which our fundamental theories, ToE, for example, are trying to bring together. LIGO's queries, which hope to record the BB necessarily use macro tools to discover the quantum and maybe bring this union of quantum and macro together. The LHC is trying to do the same by simulation the seconds after the BB. We don't know if this will happen but I contend that each discovery helps to evolve what is fundamental. Your essay helps to bring together these concepts as we build upon each other's ideas. Hope you have a chance to look at my ideas regarding "fundamental."

            Best Regards.

            Jim Hoover