Essay Abstract

Seeking "the fundamental" has often been seen as a narrowing, a process of whitling down. For example, many physicists try to find or theorize the "most fundamental" constitutents (quarks, strings etc.) and explain everything else through them, from the ground up. However, the historical development of quantum mechanics as well as some proposals by the author, suggest that entities are not things in themselves. Instead, their character and perhaps even their existential status, depend on interactions and relationships among them.

Author Bio

My experience has been varied, including work at Jefferson Lab in Virginia. Formally I am an amateur interested in foundational questions.

Download Essay PDF File

Readers: First, my apologies that a not-quite-ready draft pdf got submitted instead of a finished version. So, there are some little flaws, including reference to non-existent illustrations (I couldn't get them to work but the description is adequate), and a sort of homeless citation. These are of little consequence, and I hope you will find my essay interesting and thought-provoking.

Neil,

In my opinion, any continuous variable will become quantized under constraint. So, The world is a world of "meetings."`is rather a world of freedom. Lose some freedom and you get quantized. For example, the *direction* of a photon wave is "Free" within its normal distribution.

But, under the constraint of the slits, *direction* become quantized, a quantum number. This comes from the fact that the infinity tails of the normal distribution are shopped-up in the slits, providing now definite boundaries within which a specific regime of wave function can be realized and in which *direction* is now quantized. This makes the double slit experiment a fundamental quantum experiment .. a microscope ..showing . ... quantization on a macroscopic screen...

Best of luck,

Marcel

    Dear Neil Bates, if you are not as old as I, then everything is ahead of you. Doing such thought experiments and reasoning as in an essay, you can go to the main road in physics. In this you will get acquainted with neo-Cartesian physics, which is based on the identity of space and matter of Descartes. He says that space is this matter that rotates. Visit my essay and you will find out what radical changes it offers, give a comment and you will get my rating.

    Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

      Dear Neil Bates,

      FQXi.org is clearly seeking to confirm whether Nature is fundamental.

      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

      Dear Fellow Essayists

      This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

      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

      Dear Mr. Bates,

      You make a number of interesting points in your essay. Your discussion of quantum interference and diffraction reminds me of a paper by Van Vliet that I cite in my own essay. Van Vliet argued that quantum diffraction measurements are not really coherent diffraction in the same sense as classical diffraction. On the contrary, if one regards the mask as a quantum object, then quantum restrictions on momentum transfer generate the standard result regardless of whether the incident beam consists of particles or waves. This is important, but has received virtually no recognition. I take this further and argue that a neutron is a small particle (never a wave), while an electron is a distributed wave (never a point particle), although both show diffraction effects. So wave-particle duality is an illusion.

      You may be interested in reading my essay, "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics". I argue that both GR and QM have been fundamentally misunderstood, and that something close to classical physics should be restored, reunifying physics that was split in the early 20th century. QM should not be a general theory of nature, but rather a mechanism for creating discrete soliton-like wavepackets from otherwise classical continuous fields. These same quantum wavepackets have a characteristic frequency and wavelength that define local time and space, enabling GR without invoking an abstract curved spacetime.

      Best wishes,

      Alan Kadin

        Marcel,

        Thanks for your interest and reply. Yes, direction is important in slit experiments, altho relative phase hitting the slits is the key distinction that the decoherence activists emphasize. Do you have an essay, other work I could look at? tx

        Dear Dizhechko, I will look at your essay soon. Yes, thought-experiments are a royal road to insight. I'm interested in considering anything that offers radical change. Will watch Super Bowl shortly. Actually I'm already 62 but I still want to believe that the best is still ahead.

        Neil,

        I have an essay in the present contest.

        When nature put the squeeze on the freedom of a particle, like electrons in an atom, their variables get quantised; energy levels, etc,

        Similarly, when we apply constraint by observation on the freedom of particles or photons, we create a temporary quantisation of the variable under observation. This variable will then take specific values.

        By applying constraint, we create boundaries that define new realities that will last as long as the constraint does. Please check Ken Wharton idea of boundaries as fundamentals.

        Marcel,

        Alan,

        Thanks for commenting. I'll take a look at your essay. I already am wondering: if an electron can be essentially wave-like but a neutron essentially particle-like, where is the transition? So, would a muon (mass about 200x electron and about 1/6 of neutron) be intermediate? BTW reminder to you all other readers to note my SRT mechanics paradox too, not just the QM examples. Cheers.

        Uh oh, now I see that entering a hard return makes an "n" between words - but Alan, somehow you evaded that. FQXi can you fix that? Also, we used to be able to edit comments, is that gone?

        Neil,

        I think Allan posted before the problem appeared... I had no problem posting before..

        Narcel,

        YEP! just tested it in my own forum and the "n" problem is there as well... I use Chrome...???

        Marcel,

        Dear Prof Neil Bates

        Excellant analysis ...... However, the historical development of quantum mechanics as well as some proposals by the author, suggest that entities are not things in themselves. Instead, their character and perhaps even their existential status, depend on interactions and relationships among them..... Nice work sir, best wishes to your research.....

        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

        Dear Neil,

        I found your essay interesting, not easy to read due to the formatting. In your opinion, what would prevent assuming that a relationship is an entity?

        Kind regards,

        Christophe

          7 days later

          Dear Christophe,

          That is a difficult question in principle, but there is a good answer that can be made without excessive effort. Since I am arguing that a relationship is an entity, I must shift gears to support a critique of that claim. I think a good simple answer for now is: if relationships did not have ontological consequences of note, such as the effective presentment of quantum entities as particles or waves depending upon the nature of interaction (or, the more subtle distinctions of my own essay), then we could say that relationships were not efficacious enough for their results to count as "entities" in some sense. But, we know that relationships do indeed have such radical consequences.

          Yet the critic can still say: "but it is the 'same' entity, since we can find them being 'the same thing' as produced in ensemble" - to which I (now back to being myself, a defender of the thesis) reply: but if a something has different properties, it is effectively a "different thing" even if it has so-called "numerical identity" as not being a truly separate entity.

          IOW, we consider the entities "the same" in the sense of tracking them from origins etc (numerical identity), but "not the same" in the sense of "what are they *like*. QM forces us to consider two different notions of "identity" and being a "thing". Finally: it may nevertheless be better to say that relationships make entities "relative things" rather than that the relationships are "entities" in themselves - but still, the difference is blurred in practice regardless of how one wants to conceptualize it or make the semantics work out.

          The consciousness of the people resists the recognition of the identity of space and matter Descartes, because they used to think that I live in an empty space - it is convenient for them. While there was no reason to think otherwise. However, there will come a time when the level of education of the people will depend on their understanding of this identity. This requires the necessity to eliminate the difficulties in science. Fundamental should save our thinking, i.e. to be simple and straightforward. Physical space, which for Descartes is a matter that is the basis for fundamental theories in science.

          You might like to look at the sky and it seems to you empty infinite space in which it moves large and small body. However, this impression is deceptive. According to the principle of identity of space and matter Descartes, space is matter that moves. When Copernicus asserted that the Earth revolves around the Sun, it had, according to Descartes, to add that along with the Earth revolves around the Sun, all the solar space. Space is what built the world.

          If the believer to ask, where is God? He will answer - in the sky. When you look into infinite space and I think that is the body of God, that needs to be asked, and how it works? The answer is simple, all the changes around and our weight is the result of his actions. In space contains information about changing the world. Time is a synonym of total traffic

          Look at my page, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

          Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which can to be the theory of everything OO.

          Sincerely, Boris.

          Dear Neil,

          I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.

          It is so close to me. «The other reason is the widespread pursuit of realist and neo-determinist approaches» «Now we ask: what does all this mean? As I said, I am not attempting to put together a specific theory or detailed conclusion, but rather to challenge the concept of simplicity and isolation of the constituents of our world. It is clear that "interactions" or meetings are fundamental, and yet it does not mean we are defining "reality" in terms of ensembles».

          I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

          Vladimir Fedorov

          https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

          Dear Neil

          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

          Write a Reply...