Space and Time, Geometry and Fields: An Historical Essay on the Fundamental and its Physical Manifestation by Michaele Suisse and Peter Cameron

Dear Michaele and Peter,

I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand «andpresent details of the new perspective»

It is so close to me. «Of itself the geometry and its algebra are abstractions. It is only with the possibility of excitation by physical fields that the concept of geometric vacuum wavefunction becomes useful».

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

Vladimir Fedorov

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

Dear Michaele, Peter

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

Peter,

Thanks for the link, yes, confirms my thesis. Backward causality is just backward thinking.

I'm afraid I have no access to sophisticated hardware. I can do simple bench top experiments, but consistent with that. Also as in my paper, the controversial 'novel' non singlet state momenta I now find already existing on a 'Poincare sphere'!

Declan just shows the classical mechanistic sequence using that start point produces CLASSICAL QM! But hard to follow without some expertise in Quantum optics etc.

We seem both to have exposed aspects of the same fundamental issues with current theory. Our essays are very close (and mine has just been hit with some 1's!) so I hope, as it seems, we equally agree the high value and fundamentality of each others work and score accordingly. Do comment on my string. I'll be applying scores shortly. Well done for yours.

Very best.

Peter

Peter & Michaele,

You have mentioned bi-vectors and tri-vectors. Can you elaborate on this please. If a bi-vector is the product of two vectors, how is that different from a vector that is perpendicular to both? If a tri-vector is the product of three vectors, how is that different from a scalar?

Thanks,

Gary Simpson

Peter,

You need to follow my essay ontology before analysing Declan's code & plot built from it. I note you haven't commented there yet (Little time left). See also Watson's.

The 1's continue to annoy. A simple added rule I've proposed would solve it! (no post and the 1 may get put back on theirs!) As, though different, we seem to appreciate each others I'm sure we'll both be gentlemen and rate them appropriately highly? I hope to see your comment on mine. To help I posted the below on my page.;

AS MOST STRUGGLE WITH THE CLASSICAL SEQUENCE (TO MUCH TO HOLD IN MIND ALL AT ONCE) A QUICK OUTLINE INTRO IS HERE;

1. Start with Poincare sphere OAM; with 2 orthogonal momenta pairs NOT 'singlets'.

2. Pairs have antiparalell axis (random shared y,z). (photon wavefront sim.)

3. Interact with identical (polariser electron) spheres rotatable by A,B.

4. Momentum exchange as actually proved, by Cos latitude at tan intersection.

5. Result 'SAME' or 'OPP' dir. Re-emit polarised with amplitude phase dependent.

6. Photomultiplier electrons give 2nd Cos distribution & 90o phase values.

7. The non detects are all below a threshold amplitude at either channel angle.

8. Statisticians then analyse using CORRECT assumptions about what's 'measured!

The numbers match CHSH>2 and steering inequality >1 As the matching computer code & plot in Declan Traill's short essay. All is Bell compliant as he didn't falsify the trick with reversible green/red socks (the TWO pairs of states).

After deriving it in last years figs I only discovered the Poincare sphere already existed thanks to Ulla M during this contest. I hope that helps introduce the ontology.

Peter

Dear Peter Cameron,

In a response I had overlooked on my page you asked about my view of quantum gravity. My view of this topic is here: The Nature of Quantum Gravity.

You also mention that Hawking suggests that a 'Planck particle' would have a Compton wavelength thousands of times the observable universe. For me, that's a proof of no Planck particles.

In my quantum gravity theory (post-big bang) events which occasion extreme energy density (such as LHC collisions: Au-Au, Pb-Pb) are "off-center", i.e., "off axis" and hence also occasion high angular momentum in the resulting perfect fluid. The dynamics of turbulent vortices spit out particles along the gravito-magnetic axis (of angular momentum) and these particles have bounded energy. That is, no matter how much energy you bring to a small region, it does not create a Planck particle, but a cascade of real particles. These are the particles (and resonances) of the standard model. Post-big bang there is nothing beyond them! Just as SUSY has never shown up, nothing beyond additional resonances will ever show up. The particle zoo we have is it. We need a theory that calculates the masses and I believe that my quantum gravity can do so. [I am working on it.]

The effective field theories are 'bookkeeping schema'. They ignore the perfect fluid particle dynamics leading to toroidal particles and jump straight to the end result, "creating" and "annihilating" particles from 'quantum fields' in a way that conserves appropriate aspects of the particle. From this perspective, there is no limit on the particle zoo, hence wavelengths 1000 times longer than the observable universe arise. This does not occur in a more fundamental particle dynamics. Quantum theory is statistics. The particle and the wave properties arise from quantum gravity.

I very much enjoyed our exchanges, and I'm always excited to see geometric algebra-ists at work.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Michaele and Peter,

I've just discovered that a 2-hr blackout has wiped a long enthusiastic WIP response to your essay -- probably via a valid log-out at FQXi -- and I'm not good at rewritings! So this is short-&-sweet as I look forward to many more ongoing discussions!

Thanking you for a (for me) beautifully presented and breath-taking essay, I regret (just a little; as you'll see) that it follows the mould of Philip Gibbs' lovely essay on "a universe of stories" as against my fondness for "a universe of dialogue" based on stories, poems, observations, dreams, etc. + MATHEMATICS -- such dialogue itself based on a universe of spacetime (a beable), full of beables and interactions -- the more especially when I see our shared fondness for GA, wavefunctions, interactions, observables (7x on p.1), ++++; plus a healthy avoidance of matrices, etc; ps, though I find avoidance of Bell's lovely term "beables" (nb: in spacetime) not good for digestion; neither of food nor ideas; nb: I also like inferables. [Breathing has now forcibly resumed; and with it the truth that much of your essay is currently beyond me.]

Re wavefunctions [WFs] -- and reminding you that (imho, if you like) math is the best logic -- please see Fröhner (1988:639), hyperlinked at Reference [12] in my essay; or via direct link to the PDF Missing link between probability theory and quantum mechanics: the Riesz-Fejér theorem.

Fröhner's work is part of my theory [see essay at ¶11]; so re WFs, see particularly in the vicinity of this on his p.639: " ... Historically, the superposition principle had been established first as a puzzling empirical feature of the quantum world, before M. Born recognised that the absolute square of the wave function can be interpreted as a probability density. ..."

Re this from you: "The resulting geometric wavefunction model permits one to examine the interface between fundamental and emergent." I see that "emergentia" is a favourite theme (at least on p.1): me being here forced -- similar to my distinctive use of "premiss" -- to return to the much more sensible Latin [subject to latin-experts] since the right word here -- emergency -- is misleading in plain English. Though (please NB) maybe it does apply as a primary-concept that we should first sort out: me trusting that we agree with that fundamental and elementary premiss: TLR (true local realism)?

PS: Regretting, with apologies, many other wiped comments (though they can be reconstructed in ongoing dialogues), I'll drop a copy of this onto my essay-thread; hoping you'll do likewise if/when you respond.

With my thanks again, and with best regards; Gordon

Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

Peter, to be clearer re my last above: "[nb: the temptation to re-edit resisted]" should more clearly say: [nb: the temptation to NOW read AND THEN re-edit BEFORE SENDING HAS BEEN resisted]. This next is quick and dirty to get things moving: I'm time-poor on many fronts at the moment.

Now, having begun to read [but needing much more time]: please [in future] number your paragraphs and sub-points as I do in my essay. For there are many points that we hold in common but a few that raise questions.

Re this from you above, with -- [CAPS] -- by me: "I like your logic approach to the problem, in principle should be clear of inadequacies of particle theory models (renormalization comes to mind) -- [YES + AAD, NL AND WFC (WF-COLLAPSE); SO FAR SO GOOD] --, but lacks the intuitive advantage of simple geometric electromagnetic wavefunction model in 3D space -- [GEWM-3D: THIS I MUST SEE] --" for I'm seeking intuitive advances at every step. So please see Fröhner re WFs and superpositions: and tell me about [point me to] the GEWM-3D!

PS: We build a bridge via dialogue! I need to learn about your use of "mechanical-impedance" -- in baby steps please + references to the related online literature (if any): hoping to see the end of "the impedance matrix". TKS; G -- I've brung this from my essay-thread.

Peter,

Thanks for your post on mine. Reply (2nd try!) below;

Just lost the will to live. Spent an hour answering your questions and lost the post!

Most answers, i.e. always LOCAL backgrounds but no 'absolute' one, are clear, consistent and in my prev essays from 2011 and/or archived here; Academia.edu, plus see also This 100 sec video glimpse inc all non-integer spins from 3 axis rotations.

Then come back with probably a better ideal greatly reduced list.

Just checked and I have yours down for a top score, not yet applied, so will do now. Hope you wish to do similar.

Very best

Peter

Hello Michaele and Peter,

I am happy to be able to stretch my time on the last day of the FQXi essay contest to include a reading of your essay.

In the universe of all-there-is - (known and unknown), distinguished from the universe of all-that-is-known, that physicists understandably prefer to embrace for no better reason than 'it marks the boundary [of] interactions that cannot be observed', notwithstanding physicists' reluctance to acknowledge that there must be a 'beyond' - spacetime is simply the correlation of space and time, each of which extends to infinitely in all directions, and always have..

Focusing upon your discussion of 'emergence', and recognizing that the FQXi essay theme is focusing on the identification of a singular "Fundamental" (otherwise the theme would be 'What ARE "Fundamental?''); it is not difficult to trace causes, events and effects backwards in time to the point where there are no more 'causes'.

Time and space are neutral with respect to making any contributions to 'causes'. They simply punctuate events by according each a 'when' and a 'where'.

That leaves our old friends 'energy' and 'matter' as the sole causes of all events and effects leading to subsequent causes.

The question then arises what are the origins of energy and matter? In the universe of all-there-is, (distinguished from the universe of all-we-know, a definition popular to physicists);

if we can accept the possibility that 'energy' and 'matter' exist in the universe in unknown and unknowable quantities, and always have, then we have arrived at the conclusion that all that is required for this to be so - our singular "Fundamental" - is Existence.

Physics and mathematics can then be understood to be the means by which mankind attempts to organize complexity into comprehensible order and to sweep unwanted 'stuff' into the waste basket with a stroke of Occam's razor.

History is a worthy foundation to build a future upon, but it is not fundamental to progress. Imagination and risk are more likely to serve our best interests in expanding our knowledge bases in the interest of improving the human condition.

I shall look forward to learning that you have received your just rewards shortly.

Thank you both, go well, and keep going.

Gary.

Peter,

Sigh, in a universe where supposed intelligent people throw 1 bombs about it seems us decent folk are destined to do the opposite! But at least we can live with ourselves. Excellent if rather off the thoroughfare essay.

Peter Jackson pointed me your way and it seems he was right, though less familiar to me than QM. He was good enough to score mine up over his, but his is far better so I did the same to his. Now with you one below me I must do the same to yours! All quite bizarre, but at least QM doesn't have to be any more, at last! Yes I spent time checking out his mechanism and it works brilliantly.

I trust you've supported it. Of course all will squeal or ignore it, as with any advance. I think your insights stand even less chance of penetrating mainstream but my score should help infinitessimally. (if you get a chance to read my short offering, like it and can spare the odd bit of change above it's rating I'd be delighted.

Very best of luck in the judging, but don't hold your breath - from past evidence the playing field is clearly as level as the 'big air' olympic snowboard ramp!

Best of luck anyway. Hold tight for a sec..

Rich

Peter,

Shame you seemed to drop away at the end. Answers to your questions on my post.

1. "How does your understanding of relative motion relate to the concept of background independence?" Not needed, always a LOCAL background, one of an infinite heirerchy. The LT is at Maxwells 'REAL' near far field 2 fluid plasma TZ, subject to J D Jackson/ Ewald-Oseen extinction distances.

2. "'Of What' - relative motion of what?" Vortices all the way down (as up!)

3. "Most Profound" SR. & has to properly account for.. nonlocality..." SR itself isn't profound, it's unifying it with QM with CSL that is. Seems you missed that non-locality has gone! Think harder; Alice & Bob can each get reverse results by rotating their dial!

4. Motion - the notion that a particle requires 'spin' to exist is new to me. I should hope so! No such real thing as a 'function' just use a vector algorithm. spherical rotations on x,y,z, can produce any and ALL 'spins' inc non-integers. See the video and my recent post on Bolliger.

5. OAM. Yes, Background independence not needed as c is localised by constant requantization. Forget all but AE (later) & Minkowski's 'spaces in motion within spaces'.

6. Transition Zone. Great. Solves all the above and far more.

7. QM. Simple; Use Earth; At any point on the surface there's 0-1 LINEAR rotational 'speed' but ALSO 1-0 ROTATIONAL rate (+1 -1 at poles). They change inversely by Cos Latitude (& 'through coloured', so at all radii). All interactions are at some Tan point, which dictates momentum exchange. See my last yrs essay figs.

Helicity, Go back a few essays to; It from Bit; 'The Intelligent Bit'. Notional 'charges' on spinning sphere describe a helix when also translating, which will have some degree of helicity, which gives 2 inverse axis values when 'measured' by orthogonal polarizer channels. Occams razor rules! just needs familiarity.

Give it a try; About 2/3rd-3/5ths of present theoretical assumptions are shown to include nonsense and just about all paradoxes and anomalies resolve. It's far to much for me to handle alone so pick any bit you like to collaborate on. As soon as we've had enough funerals we may even get advancement started again!

Very Best

Peter

That was me. It lied. It told me I was logged in!

Do mail me direct;

pj.ukc.edu@physics.org

Peter