The Politics of Fundamentality by Alyssa Ney

In my view, we should answer this call to ensure our view of science and science

policy lines up with our values.1 And this involves recognizing that our views on the

question of whether one theory or another is fundamental may be used to motivate

policies concerning the allocation of resources. The claim that a certain theory or branch

of science is fundamental has a kind of power. But properly construed, the claim that

physics, or some part of physics, occupies a privileged status, thus earning the honorific

'fundamental' is both theoretically reasonable and ethically defensible, or so I will argue

here. So we shouldn't shy away from making the claim that at least certain parts of

physics do constitute a fundamental

I.e. I see this in your essay and I ask if it is commensurate with a protocol of data analysis as you visualize it?

You can view my essay at December 21, and I would welcome your observations as to purported ethical issues there as well!!

Dear Alyssa Ney,

Many participants in these contests are retired professionals, physicists and otherwise. In view of the nature of FQXi since its founding, politics of the establishment versus 'outsiders' is baked into the cake.

Those participants such as yourself, still employed in Academia, are exposed to a whole different order of politics, which the rest of us have little contact with. Thank you for exposing us to this aspect of 'fundamental'.

I agree that 'explanatory completeness' is almost certainly the grounds on which the war should be fought, both in FQXi and in Academia. I also agree with your emphasis on 'near' physics, as opposed to "truly fundamental theories [that] are merely idealized or several millennia away." You then wisely shift the burden from 'explanatory completeness' to 'explanatory maximality'. If this could somehow be quantified, it would probably serve FQXi well also, but the act of quantifying it would almost certainly generate another political war.

For an example of a war that's been fought for over a century, I invite you to read my essay.

Thanks for an enlightening read,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Alyssa,

Excellent study. I agree with the sentiment of your essay about 96% of the way. And hope I can address the other 4%. Also may offer a theoretical physics research project that I certainly hope some of your students would approve funding.

Sherman

Dear Professor Ney,

Thank you for your beautiful essay, which I very much enjoyed reading!

I wanted to add a couple of remarks relating to how governments view funding for fundamental physics research, especially in the Indian context. I think physicists will agree that the turn-around time from a great physics discovery to its possible applications (if any) to technology is quite long. On the scale of many decades, if not a century or two. This is true for Newton's mechanics, as well as Maxwell's electrodynamics, and even for quantum theory. Since governments want immediate feedback/benefit, say on the scale of five to ten years, we physicists have a hard time convincing them of the relevance of fundamental research. This is particularly true for a developing country like India, where the government desires its fundamental researchers to do that research which contributes to nation-building.

Also, and this is hard to grapple with, when dealing with governments, fundamental research is driven by curiosity, and its long-term impact benefits all of mankind, not one particular nation state. The concept of nation states runs contrary to basic research, with the former being self-limiting, and the latter global. Governments might be all too ready to borrow technology from other nations, and let the bright people of those countries do basic research, and ask its own smart folks to focus on immediate benefits for one's own country men and women. If every government took that attitude, no fundamental research would get done. Some governments might treat curiosity driven research as a luxurious past-time! An ideal world for research would be a one-world government, a utopia!

I had a couple of minor quibbles :-) While dark matter particles have not been found, nor are there any theoretical candidates, I would not use this as an example to say that hence physics cannot explain everything :-) As we know, the observations show non-Keplerian / flat galaxy rotation curves: these could be explained by postulating dark matter, or by modifying Newton's law of gravitation, as for instance in MOND. I would say the problem is very much open, and is a fascinating one for current research, but I am certain one day physics will have an explanation for it.

On a futuristic note, I am not sure if causality will survive in a quantum theory of gravity. Time, as we know it in present day quantum mechanics, is a problematic concept. It is classical, and as such classical entities should not have any place in a satisfactory formulation of quantum theory. Various arguments suggest that trying to put together quantum and gravity takes away the causal nature of events.

Thanks once again, for a brilliant thought-provoking essay.

Tejinder

Dear Alyssa,

thanks for an encompassing postmodern view of science and physics in general. The shift from laws and causation to models and explanations in the early 20th century was the first of many truth-deflationary steps taken in the sciences which eventually led to the plain denial of theory (e.g. by R. Rorty) in favor of plain pragmatic temporalism, i.e. experimentalism. And today even the conservation laws of physics are no longer regarded as sacrosanct by some. That is, truth-deflation removes constraints and thus allows the introduction of 'values' into what once was a rigid, self-contained science. Although I entirely disagree with ideas of physicalism (the world isn't vertical, but horizontal), your proposal of 'explanatory maximality' is another truth-deflationary step suited to align physics to the unbound creativity of the social sciences.

Heinrich

Alyssa,

Physics studies our experience of the universe, but the universe is not made of experience. It is made of real stuff. This is a reversal of the objective - subjective points of view. All that we think is objective we make up ourselves as experience. The object of this experience (underlying reality) is in fact what is real (objective = object).

As far as the OBJECT is concerned, "substance" and "cause" or what the universe is made of and what motivates its spontaneous evolution is out of reach of physics, by definition, and out of metaphysics menu, by ... ignorance, choice, .... (take your pick).

Best of luck,

Marcel,

Dear Professor Alyssa Ney,

FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.

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.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Hello Alyssa,

You wrote: "No present physical theory explains everything, nor is there a good argument to support the claim that any future physical theory will".

You may be interested in the explicit "falsification" of this statement, containing both the "theory" in question and its "good argument", in my essay here and references therein (see also my web page). I am not trying to impose anything, but the provably complete, mathematically rigorous and multiply verified theory I propose provides essential reinforcement for your conclusions. I also like the spirit of realism and logical sense in your approach.

Dear Alyssa Ney,

thank you for your interesting essay, you offer some goods points to think about!

I was wondering how you dismiss the possibility of emergent properties that physics can't explain: do you suppose that it doesn't matter as long as physics has "the greatest degree of scope, accuracy, and precision of all theories that have so far been formulated?"

Moreover, couldn't this definition be circular, since "scope, accuracy, and precision" are parameters that perfectly suits physics? We could (for example, it's not my opinion) tell that religion X has maximality because it has "the greatest degree of comfort, simplicity and holyness of all theories that have so far been formulated".

all the best,

Francesco D'Isa

Dear Alyssa Ney

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

Prof Alyssa Ney

Wonderful words sir,.......I argue that properly construed, the claim that physics, or some part of physics, occupies a fundamental status is both theoretically reasonable and ethically defensible. However, a plausible understanding of the fundamentality of physics must move beyond interpretations of fundamentality as a kind of explanatory completeness. No present physical theory explains everything, nor is there a good argument to support the claim that any future physical theory will......... Hope you will have a look at this essay 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

Prof Alyssa Ney

Sorry mam, by mistake I called sir....

Best

=snp

Alyssa,

Your students in "Understanding Scientific Change" may be inclined to support research in physics and cosmology if they see a very real parallel between what may be the last signals from technically advanced beings millions of light years distant and the size and distribution of planets in our own solar system. I am not aware of any proposed research project asking for government funds to analyze "Gamma Ray Burst Light Curves" with the thought in mind that the multiple peaks in many GRBs may correlate with the mass and distance between planets in distant planetary systems. The students and "hypothetical" funding agencies should know that the length of a gamma ray signal corresponds to the size of the source. That is, a gamma ray pulse from a "Hydrogen Bomb" is very short. But the pulse from a small planet converting to energy would be on the order of the time of a light pulse traveling the diameter of the planet. And it is easy to see that many Gamma Ray Burst Light Curves match with a light speed shock wave radiating across a hypothetical star/planet system. Would WE want to know that self annihilation by "gamma ray photon torpedo" was common in the Universe or would WE collectively prefer to "see what happens?"

That said. It would be nice if more people realized basic research results in unexpected value in many ways.

Sherman

Dear Alyssa

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

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