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 Nady, yes, we are on the way to new exciting discoveries of new phenomena in particle physics, while cosmology seem to prove that such phenomena should exist.

      Dear Jonathan, I am also glad to have this occasion to revive our contacts.

      With the best regards

      Maxim

      Thank you for you rcomment. Let me think about this possibility.

      With the best regards

      Maxim Khlopov

      Thank you for your interest to my essay. Some ideas on the physical nature of the inflational stage are discussed in my books

      M. Yu. Khlopov, Cosmoparticle Physics (World Scientific, Singapore, 1999).

      M. Khlopov, Fundamentals of Cosmic Particle Physics (CISP-Springer, Cambridge,2012).

      Be sure that I'll pay due attention to the ideas of your essay

      With the best regards

      Maxim Khlopov

      Dear Vladimir,

      Thank you for your interest to my essay and kind attention to its main ideas. The poetry of physics is in fact very dear to me. However, permit me to note that Occam's razor admits new entities, if they are necessary and the necessity in such entities as inflation, baryosynthesis and dark matter come from both physical motivations of particle theory and from astronomical observations.

      With th ebest regards

      M.Yu.Khlopov

      Dear Steven,

      Thank you for information on your ideas, to which I'll pay due attention

      With the best regards

      Maxim Khlopov

      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 Kamal Rajpal,

        Thank you for comment and information. Indeed dark radiation as well as dark atoms can exist and you are kindly invited to look through e.g. our special issue about that https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ahep/si/925893/

        Be sure that I'll pay due attention to your essay

        With the best regards

        Maxim Khlopov

        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 Dr. Maxim Khlopov,

          Thank you for the wonderful journey in the world of cosmology and particle physics. You explained very well the most important results and difficulties. I particularly like the observation about the Ouroboros complementarity between particle physics and cosmology, and the proposed resolution of Cosmoparticle physics. Also Cosmoarcheology, the search in the astrophysical data for traces of new physical phenomena in the Universe, and seeing the Universe as an immense particle accelerator, provide ways to go much beyond the capabilities of our technology of accelerators. I very much appreciated the discussion of V. Fock's brilliant vision, a very deep and balanced one which values both discovery and continuous questioning and challenging of even the most solid acquisition made by scientific progress. I wish you success with the essay, which deserves much more visibility!

          Best wishes,

          Cristi Stoica, Indra's net

            Dear Bashir,

            Thank you for kind attention to my essay and for drawing my attention to your ideas, to which I'll give my due feedback

            With the best regards

            Maxim Khlopov

            Dear Cristi,

            Thank you for kind estimation of my essay. I should say in return that, as I wrote in the discussion of your essay, I liked very much your interesting approach of Indra's net.

            With the best regards

            Maxim Khlopov

            Maxim,

            I thought I'd posted here as well as discussed on mine. Anyway, great essay, earning top marks. We agree QM will give way to classical mechanics - once theoretical inertia allows! and I hope my essay now shows how.

            I wonder if you may also comment on the recycling model in this published paper shown applicable at stellar, galactic and cosmic scale. Cyclic evolution model HJ.36-6 2013.

            Very best

            Peter

            Hello Maxim,

            I found your essay before the contest ended! and, I was not disappointed.

            Thanks for your review of the history of the relationship of particle physics and cosmology. And thanks for the introduction to V.A.Fock's ideas.

            Do visit my essay, I believe you will find it informative. If you like the essay do visit my website www.digitalwavetheory.com (more out of the box ideas)

            "There are also many different candidates for the role of dark matter particles." So, please allow me to introduce you to the new version of "the graviton".

            It is a treat to have you in this contest.

            Don Limuti

              Dear Professor Maxim Yu. Khlopov:

              Thank you very much for your new clear view of "cosmoparticle physics". I like to make some remarks, between apostrophes is your text:

              "The theory of the Big Bang Universe is now supplemented by at least four additional elements - inflation, baryosynthesis, non-baryonic dark matter and dark energy, based on physical laws predicted by the theory of elementary particles which, however, have not been experimentally verified." I fully agree with this. In my essay, I only use the BB as a reference for a "beginning" that is in fact only a point on a sinusoid, and the inflation as a possible explanation of the emergence of a "reality" as we are experiencing.

              "Why the evolution in causally disconnected regions is identical? It suggests that in the past there was a phase of superluminal (in the simplest case of exponential) expansion in the early Universe." The "casually disconnected regions" are in my perception causally CONNECTED through their emergence from the "Pre Planck Area". As you yourself are searching for a unification of the most stable particle and cosmology, I am trying to make a unification of your "cosmoparticle physics (experienced reality) and its source (the last turtle...?).

              "Cosmoparticle physics reproduces on the largest and smallest scales the fundamental relationship between the microscopic and macroscopic descriptions, typical for theoretical physics. It offers a new level of this relationship, which, for example, takes place between thermodynamics and atomic physics, hydrodynamics and kinetics" IF you could find a way to experimentally prove this it would be a great advance in the understanding of our reality.

              I really thank you for the translation of Fock :"The equations of theoretical physics are never, and cannot be, absolutely accurate: when they are derived, one or other secondary factors are always neglected." and "Thus, generalization of physical theories is associated not only with the acquisition of new concepts but also with the abandonment of the old ones". You are concluding:"We wanted to show that every physical theory, every physical concept, is essentially only approximate.". This is the reason that I would be very happy if you could read, leave a comment and eventually rate my contribution "Foundational Quantum Reality Loops". The idea is under construction but I think it gives already some solutions.

              Thank you for a thought-provoking essay, I appreciated it highly.

              Best regards

              Wilhelmus de Wilde

                Dear Maxim,

                Thanks for visiting my Essay page.

                Your wrote a very interesting and remarkable Essay. I particularly appreciated it because the idea that physical laws governing the micro-world could be the same governing the macro-world was the reason because I decided to become a researcher when I was younger. Thus, I find that your analysis on the fundamental relationship between foundations of cosmology and particle physics is strictly connected with my youth's idea. This is summarized by the Ouroboros problem that "Physical basis of modern cosmology is based on predictions of the theory of elementary particles, which, in turn, look to cosmology for their test".

                Fock statement that "generalization of physical theories is associated not only with the acquisition of new concepts, but also with the abandonment of the old ones" is surely correct. I think that its second part on "the abandonment of the old ones" is the most difficult to achieve in the current status of the scientific community, because there is too much conservatism.

                In any case, you wrote a nice and entertaining Essay, deserving my highest score.

                Good luck in the Contest.

                Cheers, Ch.