Essay Abstract

What is "Fundamental"? In physics, as in any other context where this word is used, the answer is "it depends..." The word "fundamental" has several definitions with different meanings; therefore, using it in general and in physics in particular often hinders rather than helps clarify the subject of study since this vagueness may mislead, confuse and obfuscate the study and ultimate understanding of the subject in several ways: applying an unsuitable meaning of the word to the subject will needlessly complicate its already complex study; using different meanings of "fundamental" inadvertently at the same time in reasoning about the subject will result in logical mistakes that will lead just as inadvertently to mistaking the wrong conclusions as the correct ones; finally, none of the meanings of the word "fundamental" may apply to the subject of study leading to the common mistake of forcing together ideas that are (ironically!) fundamentally different and instead wasting endless effort and time unifying them "because they should be the same since they are fundamental!" even when these ideas are mutually and glaringly incompatible. Thus, using the word "fundamental" in these manners can and will prevent the understanding of the complex ideas of modern theoretical physics and ultimately a clear and precise understanding of our Universe and reality.

Author Bio

Yes, I am that "Luis Felipe Patino-Cuadrado from the previous contest. I have a BS in pure mathematics from the University of California in San Diego. I have dedicated my life to learning all I can about our fascinating physical reality with the ultimate goal of understanding it. I have done this mostly on my own time and unpaid much to the detriment of my material well-being. If you like my essay, please vote for it and consider sponsoring me.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Luis Felipe Patino-Cuadrado,

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

Sherman,

Indeed. We must be must be very precise with what we mean by calling some object or property in physics any given names or adjectives. In fact, we need to do so with the same precision as in mathematics: for example, "real" numbers aren't any more real than "imaginary" numbers. Both have precise definitions and meanings having nothing to do with their given names. Thus, language can both help and lead astray. Therefore, we need to ask ourselves what that we really are thinking about every step of our reasoning way.

Of course "what that" should have been just "what" in my previous post. This simple typo is itself further proof that one cannot be too careful with language!

5 days later

Luis,

And a similar roadblock in thinking occurs in the particle world. That is this concern over perceived "imbalance" between matter and antimatter. But as long as someone holds on to this concept of matter and antimatter the next level of fundamental physics is out of reach. The difficulty arises more from the word baggage than anything else.

Sherman

6 days later

Dear Luis F Patino

Very nice OP...."What is "Fundamental"? In physics, as in any other context where this word is used, the answer is "it depends..." The word "fundamental" has several definitions with different meanings; therefore, using it in general and in physics in particular often hinders rather than helps clarify the subject of study since this vagueness may mislead..............." Very Good logical thinking, keep it up.... 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 ....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

Luis,

Posting soon on my essay as it applies to several and should not clutter or detract from all.

Sherman

Luis,

Posting soon on my essay as it applies to several and should not clutter or detract from all.

Sherman

6 days later

Dear Luis

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

"What is "Fundamental"? In physics, as in any other context where this word is used, the answer is "it depends..." The word "fundamental" has several definitions with different meanings; therefore, using it in general and in physics in particular often hinders rather than helps clarify the subject of study since this vagueness may mislead, confuse and obfuscate the study and ultimate understanding of the subject in several ways: applying

an unsuitable meaning of the word to the subject will needlessly complicate its already complex study; using different meanings of "fundamental" inadvertently at the same time in reasoning about the subject will result in logical mistakes that will lead just as inadvertently to mistaking the wrong conclusions as the correct ones". This ambiguity of the natural language is the reason why formal languages are used in science. So we don't really need to define the word, but simply provide the most faundamental possible scientific theory, something close or identical to that TOE that you mention.

"However, calling things "fundamental" can also mean that they are the basic elements of something and so that they are or should be "the same" in a real sense." There is no reason why fundamental things would be the same. Convergence applies between different levels of description not within the same level.

"They have even been encouraged by coming up with theories that unify all interactions carried by particle exchange, but not gravity which is not a force according to the theory that best describes it". The more popular? Yes. The best? No.

    General relativity is not the best description available of what we observe as "gravity"? Am I missing something? What theory would it be then?

    I have come across many people claiming this only to find that they do not have a better theory but just dislike GR because they don't understand it. I hope this is not the case with you.

    Also, I'm showing with my essay other people's confusion when applying the concept of "fundamental". I am not claiming that fundamental things are or should be the same, but precisely pointing out that others do.

    Write a Reply...