Is There A Fundamental Level? by Joey L and Sophia G

Dear Sophiaa and Joey

If you want to reach a theory of everything, you will waste your time studying contemporary theories in physics. Try well to understand the Philosophies of the Nature of Newton and Boskovic. It's not easy, but it's very useful.

Your essay is serious and you have a good understanding of modern physics.

With best wishes,

Branko

Dear Joey L and Sophia G,

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 Joey and Sophia

Very nice thinking about what is fundamental and correctly deduced......" The fact that this reduction only goes one way distinguishes the fundamental from the non-fundamental....." ... By the way...

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 Joey

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

Oh, and also Dear Sophia

Sorry to neglect your name in my last message

Steve

"While we do not expect a rock or a table to obey the theories of biology, it would be unbelievable, or radically revolutionary, if we find some thing in our world that breaks the predictions of physics." Biologists and physics developed their own laws by studying different sets of systems and phenomena. So there is no reason to believe that one set of laws have to contain the other set of laws and, in fact, models of biology have been incompatible with physical laws. Biologist in the century 19th were studying biomolecules whose structure and stability couldn't be explained by the physical laws known in the epoch. It was needed to wait to the 20th century before physicists developed a new physics, and still quantum mechanics as we know it cannot fully explain molecules. It is pretty obvious that current physical laws cannot explain all biological phenomena and extensions of physics are required. Several people is working in such extensions.

"For instance, the second law of thermodynamics tells us that the entropy of an isolated system can never decrease, but there is a small probability for it to decrease from time to time (according to statistical mechanics)". This is a common misunderstanding of the second law. The second law refers to the average entropy S, not to the fluctuating entropy tilde{S}. Fluctuations in entropy don't violate the second law. This is a mistake repeated ever and ever in low quality textbooks.

"We will start with the idea of the final theory of everything to capture what is fundamental in modern physics". That would be so incorrect as if Maxwell defined a theory of everything around the physics known in his epoch.

Thermodynamics isn't derived from statistical mechanics. Classical thermodynamics elements need to be invoked during the 'derivations'. For this reason some scientists prefer the term statistical thermodynamics.

It doesn't matter how many physicists believe in reductionism. Reductionism has been refuted, and replaced by integrationism. Weinberg's reductionist viewpoints have been discredited by people as Anderson.

Weinberg is plain wrong, as Dirac before him. Chemical reactions don't follow those basic "physical principles" that they believe as Prigogine demonstrated (see attachment). What is more Prigoe and others have developed an extension of both quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. An extension can describe chemical reactions satisfactorily.

"The reason why we do not think that the mere collection of some quantum field quantum theories and theories with the type of general relativity is the fundamental theory is that they are inconsistent when applied to quantum black hole". This is only part of the reason. Those theories are inconsistent also in their separate ranges of validity. Quantum field theory has its own inconsistencies and general relativity has its.

"In physics community, the term theory is often defined as the Lagrangian L of the system in question". The Lagrangian associated to the system is a description of the system. The theory is Lagrangian mechanics and is the same independent of the choice of L.

Lagrangians aren't the basic paradigm of quantum field theories. Lagrangians are only used as a starting point because they satisfy certain symmetries that help to produce models compatibles with certain aspects of Nature. As Weinberg remarks the true object in quantum field theory is the Hamiltonian. It is the Hamiltonian which is used to compute the S-matrix, and thus to describe scattering experiments. The Hamiltonian is the generator of time symmetries in quantum wave theory. Of course this Lagrangian/Hamiltonian description is only valid as approximation. The spontaneous evolution of unstable particles is not described by the usual QFT formalism, which can only produce an approximate description. More general theories (beyond Lagrangians and Hilbert Spaces) are available.

Moreover, those Lagrangians used in quantum field theory only describe fictitious systems in base to unphysical parameters as bare charges eB and bare masses mB. Those initial fictitious systems have to be transformed into real systems before making connection with experiments. And that ignoring that fields are only an approximated description of interactions. No one can really believe that Universe is made of infinite collections of harmonic oscillators, true?

"According to quantum field theory, physical laws are local at their energy scale" That is because field theory only produces an approximated description of interactions U(R(t)) is approximated by U(r,t) in field theory. Moreover, quantum field theory uses tricks to define "locality", such as using a special dummy spacetime, that doesn't represent physical time nor position.

"black hole thermodynamics" is a misnomer. It is a non-thermodynamical theory built over false analogies with a true thermodynamics description. And all this produces funny arguments about how the ordinary second law is violated in black holes and an "extension of the law" is needed.

Besides that, I have always found interesting as the stringy community calls "black holes" to objects aren't the black holes of General relativity. But well, stringy community also like to call "general relativity" to a certain low-energy limit doesn't really correspond to the general relativity developed by Einstein and others.

Duality, being an approximated concept derived into an approximated framework, cannot be used to ask if there is a fundamental level or not.Attachment #1: Prigogine-Dirac.png