The fundamental questions for tomorrow by Samir D. Mathur

Dear Professor Samir D. Mathur,

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

I went through the text of the entire essay. It appears to describe the develpments in Physics in a routinue mannar. There is casualness in treating a topic. Particle Physics connection with cosmology needs elaboration of how one may unite particle stuctures with things on the cosmic scale. There is need to discuss the four types of interactions that appear togovern the obseved processes. As one knows gravity still defies unification with others.Here,one can say something about the the universatility of relative field strengths as measured now with what one may expect in a period closer to creation of the universe. Do you think, the relative field strengths remained unchanged from the ealry universe till the present times billions of years later? What role the vacuum plays as one finds mass in an atom remain clustered within a minuscular nuclear volume . The same appears to e true even on the cosmic scale. Dominance of vacuum has any significance on the totality of the microscopic and macroscopic scenario?

Dear Samir,

I enjoyed your paper. I have a paper in this contest that involves quantum hair on black holes. Quantum hair and fuzzballs are of course much the same category of physics.

I have a few comments and questions. The scalar fields adjust the cosmological parameter Λ(φ,dot-φ) such that as energy is larger the pressure is more negative. The roll off from inflation is a case where dot-φ < 0 and the cosmological parameter decreased slowly. Then reheating is a rapid drop with dot-φ

Prof Mather, Samir,

I thoroughly enjoyed your essay, which focuses on a key topic for cosmology and its mechanisms, particularly the preservation of quantum information within a BH. I recognize that much of the current status points -again- to a need for a causal particle theory which _includes_ QC/ED.

You mention, near the end of sec.2 "..ask ..if the Std Model of particle physics is indeed described by the {QC/ED} gauge groups .., or if string theory is indeed the correct description of quantum gravity." and go on by saying (pg 6 sec.3) "most configurations of strings behave like normal matter.. a collection of particles.." etc

This strikes a chord with me as I have presented material at OSU (@PASCOS 06, the talk really should be published by OSU online...) which proposes to resolve this dilemma by partitioning the string into preon sectors... yet we haven't talked over its significance.

As it turns out, for a string-like theory to replicate QC/ED, it must incorporate STIFFNESS, in which the 'string' is found to actually be a Band! This becomes fundamentally evident when modeling massive neutrino oscillations- ref DPF15 procedings:

"Neutrino Oscillation: A Natural Effect of Band Theory", Proc. DPF `15, http://vixra.org/pdf/1510.0382v2.pdf , October 2015.

It would seem that the band stiffness also adds an energy-like component to the string action which may well resolve this key issue.

To be sure, I didn't follow the "fuzzball paradigm" closely, but do note that the geometry of the Physical Singularity at the kernel of a Black Hole is an important concern. Since time itself stops at this Planck-scale horizon, and is reversed inside, the horizon itself has a minimal geometry - that of a tetrahedron. This explains several things ...

More importantly here, information-preservation is the 'kinetic-to-potential' mass conversion mechanism which is required by cyclic cosmology. The interface also invokes your work on string winding numbers and "fractionalization" of the string in the throat of a BH. So we have many common interests and ideas.

Please, then, take the time to read and comment on my FQXi essay:

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3092

Wayne Lundberg

p.s. I would like to work together with you and OSU students to formulate and possibly resolve (nearly?) Fundamental Questions which still exist at the interface of our respective work.

In fact, OSU has long been a favorite Physics venue, as it is closest to home (only 2hrs away, vs 4 to Ann Arbor and 5 to FermiLab). I'd like to present my work again in a format that facilitates discussions, such as Seminar. I think, in collaboration, we could possibly make large qualitative steps forward.

Respected Prof Samir D. Mathur Sab,

Very nice OP and interesting observation Prof Samir...." Most of the history of physics has been focused on the question: given a set of initial conditions, what is the future evolution of the system? But this quest will come to end at some point, when we would have found the laws governing such evolution....."

By the way Dynamic Universe Model also had a set of initial conditions....I request you to please have a look at the other side also.....

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope your essay ....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

"The conjecture of fuzzball complementarity allows us to recover, in an approximate way, the classical dynamics of the black hole interior." What empirical evidence supports the hypothesis that a black hole has an interior of any type?

Dear Samir

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

Dear Samir D. Mathur,

A black hole consists of 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

"For many centuries the goal of science has been to move towards more and more fundamental laws that will explain all of nature". This is a very narrow (and wrong) conception of science. Only fundamental science has that goal.

"What determines the initial data for the evolution? What principle chooses the laws of dynamical evolution to be the one that we found?". Why would the initial data would be determined? Why would the laws be chosen by a principle?

"Interestingly, the general pattern of Newton's law of motion has changed very little over the intervening centuries. Newton's law is a `second order differential equation', which means that one has to specify two numbers for each particle --- the initial position and the

initial velocity --- for the laws to then determine all future evolution of the particle [...] Quantum theory brought about a change which we may call a simplification: instead of two pieces of initial data, we need just one. Thus when describing a particle, we need to give the wavefunction at an initial time". That second order Newton law can be written alternatively as a pair of first order equations and that pair is equivalent to the single equation

[math]\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} = -iL \rho[/math]

which can be integrated to give the classical state rho(t) at any time t if we know rho(0).

[math]\rho(t) = \exp(-iLt) \rho(0)[/math]

The formal equivalence with the the Schrödinger equation is obvious. What is more, the Schrödinger equation can be rewritten in a way formally equivalent to the classical equation of motion.

"the Schrödinger equation then determines all future evolution of the wavefunction". Ortodox QM defines two kind of evolutions for the wavefunction and only one is driven by the Schrödinger equation. The collapse postulate describes the other kind of evolution of the wavefunction.

"Since the particle's position and momentum cannot be specified at the same time" in wavefunction theory.

"This basic structure continues to quantum field theory and to string theory: in principle we just need to specify an initial `wavefunctional', and then the evolution equations will determine the physics for all times in the future" As long as one ignores any system whose quantum state isn't described by wavefunctions, of course.

"if we know the state at a given time, then there are definite laws to tell us what happens at the next instant of time". If we ignore non-deterministic evolutions.

"one could imagine a theory where one must know the state for an entire segment of time from t1 to t2 before the evolution for times t > t2 could be determined". This is already invented for systems with memory; in such cases the equation of motion involves an integration in time, a convolution.

"but we do feel quite sure that all basic laws of physics will be such that initial data on one time slice will suffice to determine the future". Who is "we"? It isn't me, neither thousand of scientists that disagree with such cheap vision.

Other must be still asking if string theory is the correct description of quantum gravity. I have known for at least one decade that the answer is negative.

"It is at this point that we will have to turn to the new fundamental questions mentioned in the introduction. We will have to ask what determines the initial state, and why the laws of evolution need just the initial state at one time". The second question is rather trivial to answer.

Wavefunctions aren't defined in ordinary 3D space.

Imaginary time puts time on same footing that space only at the metric level. But then the equations of evolution have to be transformed conveniently, which breaks former symmetries between space and time coordinates; so nothing has really changed. Moreover, the proposal of Hartle and Hawking is based in solving an invalid WdW equation.

Since when particles don't interact unless they are near each other? Even assuming particle interact only locally, the 'branch' x>0 of the wavefunction doesn't say that particles have scattered off each other", because there is a non-zero probability that first particle was always traveling on the x