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

Link re-correction

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

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

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.

Dear Khlopov.

I had once a Dream about Ouroborus, as a giant slowly rotating ring made of Diamonds within Diamonds. I was one of those Diamonds, and the light shined on me for a while, when the giant Wheel rotated, I was 'living'. When I came out of the light I 'died'. The light was 'ethernal', as I understood it, also the Ouroborus Wheel. It tells something about what is time, I Think, a marvellous, glorius Dream.

I also am a part of some simulations, where we see the same repeats again and again in a topological way. There are clearly the same Laws working at all scales of 'reality'. Fascinating.

Thanks.

I commented earlier too, but my comment vanished somewhere. It was a longer comment, but universe tell me to stop, maybe. I cannot repeat it.

Ulla Mattfolk.

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3093

Greetings Maxim,

I note that I have not seen a comment from you, but I hope you got to read my essay before the ratings deadline.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Hi Maxim,

I found it a very thought provoking article revisiting the evergreen topic on a fundamental question. You've touched just the right chord!

Thus, I have the following to say:

1. This is the time in the history of physics that we are realizing the intimate connections of the smallest with the largest, with our mathematical and observational tools. Cosmology and particle physics at two apparent extremes seem to merge.

You have articulated the things so well, especially when you quote Fock, "the equations of theoretical physics are never, and cannot be, absolutely accurate..." I often feel the same way, and wish to add that these are precisely those "white spots" where our ignorance lies, and where we crave for the "beyond standard approach". (I think an approach is "standard" just because it is followed by many scientists who think alike, and not exactly because it closer to the truth). You have correctly mentioned the course of history taking turn and twists. New ideas replacing the old, and often the vice versa in the garb of the newer ones.

2. Thus, would you agree if I say that Fock's viewpoint shows that the quest for so-called "objectivity" in physics is like a wild-goose-chase? The scientific objectivity is nothing more than achieving an agreement of opinions based on our experiments and aggregate of knowledge that we can commonly perceive, carry out, analyse and settle down to conclusions. Could it be possible just due to our common evolution and acquired faculty of brain?

Agreed. The physical rigour is a candid attempt to bring in the new (or sometimes, but not necessarily, the historically old) concepts, as well as the abandonment of the existing ideas. This detachment is quite basic to objectivity. For instance, with the dark matter not observed till date, it should be alright to go for the modification of gravity, along with the dark matter search, and to see if the modified versions lead to scalar fields (scalarons) with some dilatonic couplings with the standard matter in the background. The masses etc, calculated with reasonable constraints such as the age of the universe, lead to further distinctive features. Of course, this must come together with the corresponding mathematical rigour Fock had addressed to. What I think is that our common evolutionary track as human beings of powerful intellect, inescapably, puts us to argue or rationalize and understand in more or less the similar way.