The Fundamental Science Which Lost … Its Own Fundament! by George Kirakosyan

Dear George,

Thanks for your visiting my Essay page.

Your wrote a very interesting, provocative and courageous Essay.

Classical and quantum are strongly connected with the issues of determinism and uncertainty. This discussion goes beyond physics as far as the fields of philosophy. It has also profound implications in the framework of unifications of theories. I strongly appreciated your citing Einstein and some of the other Founding Fathers of the 20th Century physics. From a historical point of view, Einstein believed that, in the path to unification of theories, Quantum Mechanics had to be subjected to a more general deterministic theory, which he called Generalized Theory of Gravitation, but he did not obtain the final equations of such a theory. At present, this point of view is partially retrieved by some theorists, starting from the Nobel Laureate G. 't Hooft. I agree with both of Einstein and 't Hooft and I understand that this is also your position. You are also correct in raising the issue that, today, science is sadly dominated by politics.

You wrote a nice and entertaining Essay, deserving my highest score.

Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Dear George

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

George,

I'm sure you noted in my essay the pursuit of cause for the question of our beginnings and our existence and the utilization of various forms of electromagnetic force that has led to discovery whether searching for dark matter, dark energy, the first light in our universe, gravity waves, the big bang or just what set our universe in motion. As you suggest the key to our discovery has been the electromagnetic force at different energies. It seems to be the clue to a host of mysteries and causes in ferreting out what is fundamental, something that changes with discovery. In this contest we all contribute to a better understanding of what is fundamental, yours included and I score yours accordingly.

Jim

Very nicely written Mr. Kirakosyan!

I do like your peaceful way of putting things together from an axiomatic point of view. Further words are useless...

I read and rate it accordingly.

If you would have the pleasure to read a related essay (also starting from an axiom) I will fully appreciate.

Silviu

Dear Gevorg,

Your essay was fun, brilliant, well written, original, and insightful. My only criticism is that your criticism to physicists and their mathematics was too soft.

Best regards,

Cristi

Dear Gevorg, I came to the conclusion that the source of causation is the physical space, which for Descartes is a matter and the structure of which contains information about how the world will develop. The physical space is found the Foundation for fundamental theories.

I wish you success! Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris

Dear George,

I read with great interest your extremely interesting and important critical essay, carried out in the spirit of a deep Cartesian doubt with ideas and an outcome that are aimed at overcoming the crisis of understanding in the philosophical foundations of science. The crisis in the foundations of science led eventually to a crisis in Global society. Today, more than ever, it is necessary to compete with fundamental ideas, primarily in cosmology .... 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). I believe that today there is a need for a conceptual Ontological revolution, to which the crisis of understanding and the modern Information Revolution pushes. The key problem is the construction of a comprehensive structure of the "First Beginning" of the Universum or the Great Causal Structure. Look at my ideas .

Best regards,

Vladimir

Dear George Kirakosyan,

I agree with you that "physics transforms into a kind of doctrine that becomes beyond objective criticism by definition". Indeed, physics has become a very inertial science, which does not always notice big and small contradictions. Contradictions also exist in the sphere of relativity and gravity, for example, the problem of the energy of the gravitational field. On the other hand, inertia allows physics not to change the direction of development every few years, as happens with some other sciences. I agree with you that there are a lot of physical assumptions in quantum mechanics that are not logically related to one another. It remains to be hoped that quantum mechanics is at the very beginning of the path, and with time the situation is normalized.

Best wishes,

Robert Sadykov

George,

just to say I think your comment; "new physics" has lost its main analytical tool that was our ability of logical thinking is the comment of the constest, just above Chandra Royhaudhouri's "physics progresses one funeral at a time' after Planck).

I think it's time to regain the right skills and escape from "shut up and use your calculator" which only ever was a provisional measure while things were "too difficult" to understand (Feynman). I hope a classic QM may help start a revolution - but maybe in a few eons! I hope you'll also support Decaln Traill's computer confirmation of the ontology in mine.

Score boost going on now.

Best of luck in the run-in & judging.

Peter

George Kirakosyan

I have read your essay and I am very impressed. I find it important that you state that most of the really prominent scientists were very uncertain about their own ideas. I like your honest approach.

We both seem to be critical thinkers and are prepared to look backwards. Too many so called dissidents only want to INVENT new theories of their own. They are not good at DISCOVERING errors in existing theory.

Do not be too pessimistic. If we can point out a clear new way we can hope for a change.

Regarding the ether I will go further than you. The ether was abolished by someone new in physics, but the same person, after lifelong studies in physics as a professor, wanted the ether back.

Regards from ________________ John-Erik Persson

George Kirakosyan

Thanks again for good words.

You may be right regarding the history behind ether. I am not well informed in that part. What is important is that we today need an ether to describe light and gravity.

We have had a good discussion and I think that some day we can point more clear in a new direction and truth will dominate.

With best regards from _______________ John-Erik Persson

George Kirakosyan

Thanks for interesting discussions. If you read this you may be interested in my last blog at:

blog

Best regards from _____________ John-Erik Persson