One more Copernican Revolution : The World Does not exist by Frank Pohlmann

Constructing theories with a greater area concerning validity between some parameter comes at the charges regarding shrinking the area concerning validity about sordid parameters. This is always the law because regarding the ontological plurality on bodily reality.

help with essay

Dear Frank,

I liked your essay. It is well written and it inspires further thought.

As for your first observation, the role of mathematics in bridging between older and newer theories, I think you miss a point here. The reason that Einstein took care to arrive at the inverse quadratic relation between gravitational force and distance, was not because he wanted to inherit from Newton's theory but because he wanted his theory to be in line with existing observations. If the theory of general relativity would not find the inverse square law for small gravitational fields, it's predictions simply would not match empirical data on planetary orbits, which would immediately refute the theory.

I agree with you that most physicists take the isomorphy between phyical reality and mathematics for granted. In my essay, I also arrive at a peculiar relation between physical reality and mathematics, and I might have a little to contribute to this topic as well.

With kind regards,

Paul Bastiaansen

Dear Frank,

You're right.

"Different physical theories have different, only partially overlapping domains."

But this does not apply to the Philosophy of Nature. For example, the first and best TOE (Bošković's Philosophy of Nature...) covers all domains of forces. That's why it anticipated many later discoveries.

With best wishes,

Branko

Dear Frank Pohlmann,

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 Frank Pohlmann

According to the principle of the identity of space and matter of Descartes, space is matter that moves. When Copernicus began to assert that the Earth revolves around the Sun, he had, according to Descarts, was obliged to add that along with the Earth around the Sun, the entire circumsolar space rotates. Space is what the whole world is built of. Space is the source of information. Look at my page, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. Evaluate and leave your comment there.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Hi Prof Frank Pohlmann

You are exactly correct in your OP...."Different physical theories have different, only partially overlapping domains. Constructing theories with a greater domain of validity in one parameter comes at the costs of shrinking the domain of validity of other parameters.....".

... kindly consider another Gravitation based theory.....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

Dear Frank

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

"But that does not mean that we should ascribe a unique, fundamental structure to physical reality. On the contrary, we should conceive of reality has having a multitude of irreducible different structures, none more fundamental than the other. Physical theories describe these structures in terms of different irreducible concepts (e.g. Hilbert spaces, differential geometry, etc), none of these concepts having any priority over the other. Our best physical theories point to a poly-structured reality, not to the 'unity of nature'." This is confounding the model with reality. Rality is unique our models of they don't need to be unique. For instance, Hilbert spaces are used in the wavefunction formulation of QM. There are alternative formulations of QM without wavefuctions and without Hilbert Spaces, but the physics described is the same, because all those equivalent formulations are describing the same reality.

"Moreover, a supposed isomorphism between the mathematical structure of a theory and physical reality is not required to explain the empirical success of physical theories". Indeed the isomorphism is between reality and models of reality. The underlying mathematical structure of the theory used to build those models is irrelevant, reason why we can have different alternative formulations of essentially the same theory. That is the reason we can describe quantum phenomena without using Hilbert spaces. It is more, it is well-known today that Hilbert spaces are too restrictive to describe quantum phenomena and there is wide research on mathematical extensions of the Hilbert space: sometimes referred as Rigged Hilbert Spaces in the literature.

"Is there progress in physics, in the sense that older theories can be completely reduced to more comprehensive theories?" Yes, modern theories would include older theories as particular instances, but this doesn't imply that (academic) physicists are doing their job correctly. Your mention of general relativity and Newtonian gravity is spot on. NG is not deduced from GR. Textbooks are plain wrong. The 'weak-field' equation that textbooks derive is not a NG equation, but only an superficial analogy. The trick on textbooks consists on ignoring the detailed physical and mathematical details. Textbooks write the GR-derived expression as (a = -grad phi) and write the Newtonian expression as (a = -grad phi) which gives the belief that one theory effectively reduces to the other, but it is only a falser appearance from using the same symbols to denote different mathematical objects and physical concepts. For instance the phi in GR is a function phi(r,t), whereas the phi in NG is phi(R(t)), by writing only "phi" textbooks give the impression that they have derived NG, when they have not.

But GR failing to produce NG is not an argument against the fact scientific knowledge is accumulative, it is simply an example of how facile and non-rigorous has become part of modern physics. It is possible to formulate a relativistic theory that contains NG as a well-defined particular case, but of course that covering theory is not metric; it is not GR. So the next statements aren't correct "the following picture emerges: physical theories are not in a hierarchical relation to each other, where a more 'fundamental theory replaces an older, 'shallower' theory. Rather different theories have different, only partially overlapping domains of validity". There is a single reality and there is a hierarchy of theories with more general theories fully covering less general theories.