Foundations of cosmology and particle physics in their fundamental relationship by Maxim Yurievich Khlopov

Dear Maxim Yurievich Khlopov, ваша идея об Cosmoarcheology заслуживает внимания.

Cosmoarcheology - search in the astrophysical data for traces of newphysical phenomena in the Universe,

Надеюсь, что РІ ней найдС'С‚ применение принцип идентичности пространства Рё материи Р"екарта.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

I look forward to our future interactions Maxim!

I'm glad I found your essay, and that it serves to renew our friendship.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Dear Maxim:

Congratulations on your intriguing and well-written essay.

Building upon your approach to streamline/integrate cosmology and particle-physics, my paper - "What is Fundamental - Is C the Speed of Light" describes the fundamental physics of antigravity missing from the widely-accepted mainstream physics and cosmology theories resolving their current inconsistencies and paradoxes. The missing physics depicts a spontaneous relativistic mass creation/dilation photon model that explains the yet unknown dark energy, inner workings of quantum mechanics, and bridges the gaps among relativity and Maxwell's theories. The model also provides field equations governing the spontaneous wave-particle complimentarity or mass-energy equivalence. The key significance or contribution of the proposed work is to enhance fundamental understanding of C, commonly known as the speed of light, and Cosmological Constant, commonly known as the dark energy.

The paper not only provides comparisons against existing empirical observations but also forwards testable predictions for future falsification of the proposed model.

I would like to invite you to read my paper and appreciate any feedback comments.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

Hi dear Maxim.

You have presented one of the most attractive articles in the contest, featuring an in-depth and objective-serious review of the current state of physics and with the upcoming problems.

Your strategic approach somehow to break the circle of Ouroboros is a very logical, and, in my opinion too, there just does not have an alternative methodology.

And you write:// From the very beginning to the present time, the evolution of the universe was governed by physical laws, which we still do not know. These laws follow from the fundamental particle symmetry beyond the standard model.//

I see here some your pessimistic expectation from the SM that is intriguing me! So, we can say that SM is not so completed that may to be serve as the fundament to build ours conceptually finalized building of theoretical physics. Then what we need to do?

You says we need to add there (in SM) some new things to be make it more capable that may allow us to finish ours construction. Let me say here the opposite thing - we need to demolish it fully and to try start everything again, from the very - very beginning! I realize that this is very difficult to listening, especially for professionals. But, it is the deepest trouble for the professionals, as will as global trouble of physics ... and somewhat also mine trouble! And I will stop on this ...

I am really very impressed with your professional work and would like to supporting you in this contest!

With deeper respects,

George

Dear Maxim,

Normally one thinks that macro phenomena, such as thermodynamics, are independent of the underlying micro physics, but you make a case for their mutual necessity. I agree with your summarization of problems with the standard model and your approach to resolving these seems to make sense. You also mentioned on page 3 that the face of superluminal expansion in the early universe is suggested. Do you have any hypothesis concerning this? Or any suggested literature?

Thank you for translating Fock. I fully agree with you and Fock that "every physical theory, every physical concept, is essentially only approximate."

And "...generalization of physical theories is associated not only with acquisition of new concepts, but also with the abandonment of the old ones."

And "any major progress in physical sciences connected not only with the creation of new concepts, but also with the critical revision of the old."

My essay reviews Einstein's development based on Hertz's extension of Maxwell's equations in the spirit that you state so well. I invite you to read it and comment on it.

Thank you for an interesting essay.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Maxim,

I have gone though your nicely written Essay and have, at once, some issues which may be interesting for you as well as for the readers:

1] Your presented Ouroboros diagram is fantastic in connection and connotation to Physics, Astrophysics and Cosmology! It has been immense impact in the history and sociology. Thanks for your idea in the cosmic realm!

2] Relation between microcosm and macrocosm as conceived by you also may have some thread in the Large Number Hypothesis by P.A.M. Dirac through all the physical constants, some of which are really variables as is considered in modern day scientific research, and hence may have deep root for our understanding of the Modern Cosmology as well as the Universe with a holistic view.

Thanks again for your beautiful article in the forum of FQXi...best of your attempt and luck!

Regards,

Saibal Ray

Dear Maxim,

I have read with great interest your deep, comprehensive essay with the analysis of the problems of modern physics and cosmology. You give new basic ideas to overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science, which is reflected in the metaphor of "Uroboros" ("Uroboras problem"): "The need for such a combination of indirect methods is derived from the main issue of both cosmology and particle physics - the Ouroboros problem: Physical basis of modern cosmology is based on predictions of the theory of elementary particles, which, in turn, look to cosmology for their test."... "Thus, the frontiers of our knowledge of macro- and microworld converge, and a mystical 'Ouroboros' snake that eats its own tail symbolizes the cycle of problems which fundamental physics faces in its one-dimensional development. "

Good conclusions: "We can never build an accelerator of elementary particles to energies of the GUT which are naturally realized in the early stages of cosmological evolution. "

"We can conclude that from the very beginning to the modern stage, the evolution of Universe is governed by the forms of matter, different from those we are built of and observe around us. From the very beginning to the present time, the evolution of the universe was governed by physical laws, which we still do not know."

You give the actual thoughts and the conclusion of V. Fock :

«Our review, in which the course of the historical development of mechanics and physics is addressed to a certain extent, may help to understand the historical development of physical concepts. We wanted to show that every physical theory, every physical concept, is essentially only approximate. Any major progress in physical science is connected not only with the creation of new concepts, but also with a critical revision of the old. And if this proves that some of the old concepts are not applicable to newly discovered phenomena, then one should part with them without regret."

And your good conclusion:

«However, the richness of physics Beyond the Standard model can make us to modify strongly this standard picture and our readiness to accept a new vision of reality in complex of astrophysical, cosmological and physical hints will be crucial in approach to full cosmological scenario based on the true particle physics.»

I believe that overcoming the crisis of understanding requires the development of competition of fundamental ideas, primarily in cosmology . The "big bang" hypothesis is a hypothesis without ontological justification (basification). What is the nature of the "laws of nature", fundamental constants, time? Pavel Florensky made a good conclusion, which is topical for physicists and mathematicians: "We repeat: worldunderstanding is spaceunderstanding. / Мы повторяем: миропонимание -- пространствопонимание." ... The crisis of understanding in fundamental science is the ontology crisis, overcoming it on the basis of a constructive method that will lead to ontological structure of space. Modern physics and cosmology produce too many entities without necessity. We need a total unification of matter in all levels of the Universum existence. Therefore, a new ontology of the Universum is needed as an holistic process of generating structures and meanings. This is prompted not only by problems in fundamental science (mathematics, physics, cosmology), but also by the modern Information Revolution, the problems of the nature of information, consciousness. In the fundamental physics it is necessary to introduce the Ontological standard of the justification of theories that pretend to be fundamental. Physicists and poets should have a single picture of the Universum as an holistic generating process, filled with the meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E. Husserl).

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

Dear Maxim

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 Maxim Yu. Khlopov,

I have read your Essay and suggest that for conceptual views on Dark Matter, please read: http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0207v3.pdf

Quantum Mechanics claims that an electron can be both spin-up and spin-down at the same time. In my conceptual physics Essay on Electron Spin, I have proved that this is not true. Please read: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145

Kamal Rajpal

Dear Maxim

"generalization of physical theories is associated not only with the acquisition of new concepts, but also with the abandonment of the old ones. Here it is necessary to note the following psychological factor: refusal of old, habitual physical concepts is given incomparably more difficult than the assimilation of new concepts not associated with such a refusal."

"Any major progress in physical science is connected not only with the creation of new concepts, but also with a critical revision of the old. And if this proves that some of the old concepts are not applicable to newly discovered phenomena, then one should part with them without regret"

"These more than 80 years old ideas do not lose their importance in our current approach to the foundations of cosmology and particle physics in their fundamental relationship".

I agree these points to be some of most important ideas needed to New physics approaches, in addition with terminological review ( since metaphors and overlaps may took place in habitual physical concepts.

Regarding to history of scientific development It has been something normal that scientists at time conclude their work and generalize to equation, based what they so far but second generations must be aware it's validity and if there is new discovery immediately must be profoundly interpreted while taking into account it Philsophical aspect, other wise misinterpretation may lead chain of misconceptions.

A best example is tremendous situation of the separation (due to matter of misinterpretation) between Classical Physics and the Quantum Mechanics.

Linking them to the Fundamental nature of Gravity, there is 232 years old PUZZLE namely Coulomb's Law which have not valid reason last 85 years (since 1932 last nucleon discovery), but I m not quite sure if today's Scientists are aware to it and it's consequences. I think the appropriate and inspiring question is;

Considering to Coulomb's law a statement that says "same type of charge repell and different type of charge attracts".

How Coulomb would conclude his law, if he know that nuclei has protons that same type of charge are attracting each other and with the neutrons? and they can be divided into fractions of charge?.

One may answer freely and open mindedly to the question, but I believe it rests upon all the solution needed, such as; Unification GR and QM and also Forces Unification (GUT).

On the other hand terminological review, redefinition, rethinking...... with ontological/Philosophical aspect would be necessary since modern physics is unbounded from Natural Philosophy.

Here is may essay; FUNDAMENTAL SINGULARITY OF ALL PHYSICAL SCIENCE

Best regards

Bashir.

Dear Maxim

Link re-correction

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3143

Regards

Bashir.