The concept of “fundamental” must keep evolving by Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri

Respected Prof Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri Sab,

Thank you for an elaborate nice explanation of present status....

Your excellent words...................

.............. your persistent enquiring mind generating newer questions. That is the key to perpetual evolution of human minds. However, this was consciously discouraged by human tribal leaders around the globe once they settled down after developing agriculture, animal husbandry, etc. The strongest and the most intelligent tribal leaders could be easily replaced by any of their progenitors. The continued management remained in the hands of the privileged intellectuals (ministers). That is why the older tribal leaders employed the most intelligent administrators (ministers), while giving them access to opulent life.

......................................

I definitely support, You are correct sir, the Tribal Leaders and their intelligent administrators (ministers) are controlling the money flow. They are encashing the situation. They got all the finance and they don't allow someone to speak against. I find this sort of things happens in some powerful religion organisations creating fear.

Let me pray God that Tribal Leaders and intelligent administrators (ministers) will NOT just form any NEW religion.......

Your nice example............................

India is the best example that employed this technique earliest in the history. Recall that Veda, Upanishad, Geeta still represents best possible deep-thinking human philosophy. Yet, this knowledge was banned from the masses. That was institutionalization of slavery of Bharatiya masses. It started well before three thousand years ago. That is why Buddha and Jain "rebelled" (~500 years before Christ's birth). But our intellectuals, serving their masters, prevailed. Propagated explanations were brilliant to protect tribalism all over the world (later, feudalism, colonialism, capitalism, etc.). It continues even today with brilliant rationalizations, all over the world, as to why modern Democracy is the best. However, it not facilitating the evolution of all human minds! Subtly, the tribal-cultures, all over the world, have been continuously enhancing the interpretations of democracy to exploit the primitive evolutionary minds of the masses - procreation, survival food, pleasure, a sense of "stable life" and the fear of being deprived of these evolutionary desires. Instead of pro-actively nurturing the evolution of the humans masses, they actively "nurtured" to keep us at the level that we were ten thousand years ago; while enjoying the benefits of most modern technologies, managing our lives with fingers on our smart phones.

........................... Budda and Jain are correct examples who went against religious takeovers, brought free thinking to an upper hand...

..................Your fine words about primitive people......

Human evolution can be traced back to five million years old "Lucy", the first primitive bi-pedal human. Compared to Lucy, we are so much advanced in technology. But, we still are not consciously constructing a purposeful human civilization. I am sure everybody raises their children to have some purpose in their lives. But, those purposes are defined and constrained by to which "social-socket they can get themselves plugged in". Only rare few individuals venture to explore the meaning and the purpose of human evolution in the biosphere and their long-term purposes and roles in the cosmo-sphere. No country has defined a long-term national purpose for their collective citizenry. Our tribal leader-classes have become masters of applying skills of "animal husbandry" to manage the thinking-human masses all over the world.

......................... They are still following the Lucy and Animal Husbandry to manage the thinking-human masses all over the world. Vey correctly said....

.

..................Your wonderful words.............................

Only by systematic re-kindling of the enquiring minds of all humans can we start to evolve again as a thinking species. Almost all one-year-olds demonstrate that they are born with superb enquiring minds, displayed by their persistent original questions. But, we successfully kill the evolution of those genetically ordained minds by the time they graduate from college. We tend to grow a pair of long ears and a pair of horns like the ships we raise!

..... Yes we raise them like Sheep and Chicken ,,,,,,,,,

................. your Nice words.................

The masses are systematically deprived of recognizing the higher purpose of human evolution through our ten-thousand years' of matured culture directed toward living as if we really belong to the "Animal Farm" (George Orwell). I am really not saying anything new or profound.

..................I think so, we really belong to that "Animal Farm" (George Orwell)......

....... Your profound words..............

We need to start thinking along the line of "Evolution Process Congruency" and as system engineers. We humans are here today because the brilliant engineers like Lucy and her husband continued to develop tools and technologies to live better than their "the-then best". That is the core biological evolutionary pressure. Remember, Lucy did not have any mathematics; not even any matured language. But they continued successfully through trial and errors using intuitive thinking to emulate the evolving nature, a marvelous system engineer. When something worked, they were automatically emulating some ontological rule (laws?) of nature.

................. Correct.....We can use copy cat technology like McDonalds..... But to start the McDonalds... we have to do real thinking.......

...................Your thinking on Mathematics............

Yet no large set of (human invented) mathematical rules, or experimental data can gather COMPLETE information about any entity in this world. We are just advanced "Lucie's". We still do not know exactly what the electrons and photons are. However, we have succeeded in ushering in the Knowledge Age by constructing the Global Internet System!

...................... The mathematics should change according new observations and discoveries. That mathematics which explained some will not accommodate all, should continuously evolve, should change...

..............Your works.............

Please, read the Ch. 12 on how to think in the Indian paperback of my book, "Causal Physics: Photon by Nob-Interaction of Waves", Taylor and Francis, Indian Paperback (2017). You can also go to my web and down load the papers where my concepts have been developed over the last five decades. Remember, Lucy did not invent the modern religions five million years ago.

Evolution is collective. Diversity is at the very foundation of biospheric evolution. These are not simply politically expedient expressions. Now that the humans have become thinking animals, it is fundamentally critical for us to allow the diversity of concepts to flourish, as long as they are expressly evolution process congruent. The only certain truth is that no individual humans have ever succeeded in finding the ultimate truth about our Cosmic System, of which, the Solar system is only a minuscule entity. When the Sun becomes a Red Giant, no life will exist in the Solar System. So, humans have to become deep Space-Travelers. Fortunately, we still have a billion years to evolve, provided we do not succeed in exterminating ourselves before becoming deep Space-Travelers!

My papers: http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/

...................I will go through these literature and Come back and post , even if it is after the contest...

Best Regards

=snp

A nice essay. I think you would be interested in my 2012 FQXi essay titled "A Classical Reconstruction of Relativity" located here:

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1363

And my work on modelling the electron/positron wavefunctions as 3D standing waves, located here: http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0054v6.pdf

I also have an essay in this year's contest titled "A Fundamental Misunderstanding" about a Classical explanation for QM entanglement (EPR experiment).

Regards,

Declan Traill

Dear Professor Chandra Roychoudhuri

I was dazzled by your wonderful perception of the Complex Tension Field.

It is just wonderful.

You are so right also when you say "No working theory is complete. No knowledge is final knowledge.", and of course this counts also for your approach, but each new vision has to have a beginning and you have realised already the first important steps.

The question: "whether the universe is fundamentally a cyclic system, or evolving towards an equilibrium, or towards a death!", is one that maybe can be answered by my model of Foundational Quantum Reality Loops (FQRL).

"The basic elementary particles (electrons. protons, neutrons, etc.) are some form of localized complex EM waves, executing harmonic oscillations, but in the shape of a doughnut or similar vortex-like stable structure. The stability of these field-particles comes from their resonant or in-phase self-looped oscillations." This approach gives a solution to a problem that I always struggled with in explaining my perception of reality because it is also my conviction that: "There is no "material" substance in this universe."

"It is true in our CTF model automatically since it is, by definition, the stationary inertial frame of reference for the entire universe."The laws of physics are same everywhere in this universe," is a good formulation where the most important word is "this". "This universe" is in congruence with my perception of emergent realities, where each reality is graphically represented by a so-called "reality loop". It is also the solution for the problem that can arise when the CTF is approached as "infinite" when I am not right pls. correct me

Your expression: "We have also applied IPM-E to logically underscore that our observable universe does consist of emergent oscillations in the stationary Complex Tension Field (CTF)." is of great importance for the further development of my own model. I hope that you will allow me to do so (of course with your reference).

So dear Chandra I hope that you will take some time to read, comment and maybe rate my not yet ready model in my contribution in this contest "Foundational Quantum Reality Loops".

Best regards

Wilhelmus de Wilde

"No finite set of experiment can extract complete information about any particular object. In our evidence (data) gathering experiments , we study an unknown object by letting it interact with a "known" object . We never know any object completely. So we are forced to approximate, assume, etc. We can keep refining our knowledge through diverse iterations. Mathematical theory is immensely helpful. However, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem gives us another limiting block. Hence, our search for fundamental building blocks and fundamental laws of interactions must keep evolving". Not necessarily. Since we can know/extract only a finite amount of information, there is a likely convergence point where the difference between our model and reality will be smaller than what we can measure/describe, making our model a final model FAPP. Similar remarks about Gödel's two theorems.

"How to guide this evolution? A working theory, based upon human created postulates and human invented mathematical theories do not automatically guarantee that we can grasp the ontological reality of the universe." Obviously humans cannot describe completely universe, because we are part of the Universe. A 'complete' description/characterization of the Universe would require the existence of a superobserver living outside the Universe, but since the Universe is by definition isolated, such superobserver is useless. As stated above all what is required by a model is to fit reality. It is useless to talk about the "ontological reality of the universe" outside our human limits.

"One of the acceptable ways to define "fundamental", whether a universal building block, or universal laws of operations behind the incessant cosmic evolution, is, that which will minimize the number of independent postulates necessary to build a unified field theory to cover all observable phenomena. Such a definition will help us understand and appreciate that the universe, after all, is one comprehensible system." This is not an acceptable way to define "fundamental" since fields are crude approximations to real material systems.

"We now have too many disjointed theories. Note that all of our most successful theories, from Maxwell's Electromagnetism, to General Relativity, to Quantum Field Theories, all indicate that the universe is emergent out of some complex field." And the three ones are approximate theories which can be replaced by better theories where there is no fields. E.g. Maxwell electromagnetism can be replaced by Wheeler-Feynman electrodynamics or by some superior model.

"Iteraction Process Mapping Epistemology" looks as fancy word vacuous of content, because claims such as it is a "changing system of thinking" and "A map is not the territory" have been present in science since ancient times.

"We never know complete information about anything in this universe. Therefore, we must use our imaginations to create some rational postulates to close the information gap." No, we cannot close the information gap. We can formulate any postulate, but to check if the postulate is correct or not, we have to compare it with reality, and we only can access a part of reality by obvious reasons; which means we cannot really check the postulate. We can imagine anything that we want, but we are not closing the gap. Those imagined postulates, outside the realm of experiment and observation, fall into the scope of philosophy, religion, and similar disciplines whose real contributions to understanding the Universe are easily summarized: zero.

"No working theory is complete. No knowledge is final knowledge." As explained above the possibility of achieving a final theory FAPPP is not ruled out.

"Galaxies are formed slowly through gravitational accumulation of thin gaseous particles. Then the condensed gas creates enormous pressure in its core, igniting a prolong set of nuclear reactions. A star is born. The nuclear reaction then evolves in different directions, eventually creating the demise of the stars through supernova explosions, or through prolong states of red giant. Should we try to re-construct the concept of forces such that they are fundamentally dialectical? This approach may eventually direct us to develop fundamental laws that directs us to better understand whether the universe is fundamentally a cyclic system, or evolving towards an equilibrium, or towards a death!" We need an evolutive vision in physics to describe this cosmic evolution. Prigogine summarized this need of a change of paradigm in the postface of one of his last books:

"Nature has a history-for a long time the ideal of physics was geometry, as implied in Einstein's general relatively. Relativity is certainly one of the great achievement of the human mind. But the geometrical view is incomplete. Now we see that narrative elements also play a basic role. This leads to a different concept of nature in which the arrow of time is essential. After all, this arrow appears as the feature which is common to all objects in the expanding bubble which is our universe. We all age in the same direction; all stars, all rocks age in the same direction even if the mechanism of aging is different in each case. Time, better the direction of time, is the fundamental existential dimension of human life. We discover now that the flow of time is universal. Time is no more separating men from nature."

But this vision doesn't require a change in the concept of force. What we need is an emphasis on the topology of the solutions, including the many instabilities and bifurcations that generate the cosmic evolution.

"Our neural logic system has evolved to assure our comfort and survival within the prevailing scientific enterprise. Our culture trains us to conform to the prevailing working rules and theories. Hence, our enquiring minds have the dominant tendency to create new theories that build upon the prevailing working theories." No. It doesn't have anything to do with culture or neural structures. It has to do with the proper nature of the scientific endeavor. Since theories are confirmed in specific empirical ranges, a new theory designed to explain some phenomena cannot be described by the former theory has only two logical possibilities. Either the new theory is a disjoint theory that only works for the new phenomena or it is a covering umbrella of the older theory. The development of new theories that are covering former theories has a number of advantages and that is why it is the preferred choice in science.

"However, the independent thinking human mind can rebuild theories fresh and anew from a more congruent new set of coherent postulates". Sure, but rebuilding the axiomatic structure of the theory doesn't change the underlying physics. Changing the CKC postulates by the MTE postulates doesn't change the description of thermal phenomena.

There is nothing fundamental in the "fundamental rule of Non-Interaction of Wave (NIW)". Moreover, the physical reason why the wave equation accepts the linear superposition of any linear combination of linear waves is because the wave model is based in an local approximation of the interactions between particles. This local approximation eliminates the nonlinearities associated to correlations that spread over both space and time, and ejects a wave equation which is only valid for times >> than t_corr.

There is not anything "non-causal" in single-particle interference, delayed choice, etc.

"The observable universe consists of various emergent oscillations of the fundamental Complex Tension Field (CTF)". As mentioned above the field-theoretic models are only crude approximations to real phenomena.

"The excited state energies of CTF in the form of EM waves and the field-particles cannot be arbitrarily assimilated by the CTF itself. This provides the rationale for the observed universal law of conservation of energy." As mentioned above, this CRT model is invalid, but even if it was valid, it doesn't provide any rationale for the venerable law of conservation of energy. Stating that excited energies cannot be arbitrarily assimilated by the CFT only provides ground to the trivial concept that d_eE is canceled because the flow is 'conservative', but it doesn't say anything about the existence of a nonzero production. So, as always, the simplest route to introduce the law of conservation of energy in our models is by postulating d_iE = 0.

"CTF automatically accommodates the effects of the two postulates of Special Relativity, satisfying one key definition of what "fundamental" is". Accommodating the 1st postulate of SR is trivial. One can simply start with the expression of energy for a single particle and obtain the velocity in the massless limit. What is more, we can make add gravitational interactions and then demonstrate that the speed of light is no longer constant, making bogus the claim that "EM waves [...] propagate at the universally constant velocity c". This variability on c can be used to explain phenomena as light bending around massive objects.

"This why the basic laws of quantum mechanics we are finding on earth and our solar system, appear to be systematically valid for all the stars in all the galaxies." Only if we ignore the possibility of those basic laws of quantum mechanics need modifications in presence of massive objects. Penrose and others have detailed some a priori expected modifications.

"Thus, we have accommodated the two postulates of SR as direct causal derivatives of the stationary CTF, rather than as independent postulates." Ignoring again that CTF model is invalid, ignoring that those postulates are more general because are also valid in experimental regimes beyond the scope of field theory. The postulates of SR have not been derived, there is only vague talk about how those postulates would follow from CFT. It is possible imagine a modified CFT model where the CFT is split into regions each one with its own set of physical laws. A true derivation of the postulates of SR would need of invoking extra postulates about homogeneity and isotropy of CFT and more. So we finish with a less economical formal system. But this is really irrelevant because the whole model is invalid as a foundation of reality.

"Stationarity of the CTF will change the very foundation of physics thinking [...] Since all planets spin and rotate, no planet-based laboratories should be considered as inertial frame of reference for physics experiments." This is obviously incorrect. Up to extreme precision we can consider our laboratories as inertial frames. It is the reason why general relativity is unneeded to explain CERN experiments.

Tired-light mechanisms have been disproven again and again.

"Removal of wave-particle duality by differentiating Mathematical Superposition Principle (SP) from the Observable Superposition Effect (SE)". Wave-particle duality is a common misconception of quantum mechanics. Any decent advanced book avoids this duality, because it doesn't exist. So, one doesn't need to invoke new postulates and concepts to remove the duality, only a proper rigorous study of quantum theory is required.

Solutions to Schrödinger equation aren't "waves" but a representation of quantum states. Those representations are often named wavefunctions because of historical accident. The one-particle solution looks as a classical wave, but this superficial analogy is broken when one adds a second particle to the problem and the state jumps to a 6D+1 space is no longer isomorphic to the space where real waves are defined.

The claim that Schrödinger 'waves' (really wavefunctions) are at the foundation of quantum mechanics is also wrong. In the first place one can formulate quantum mechanics without wavefunctions and without the Schrödinger equation. In the second place, the Schrödinger equation and wavefunctions are only valid for non-open systems and for pure states. The quantum state of a molecule in a heat batch is not represented by any wavefunction, and we need more advanced formulations.

"For both the cases of superposition experiments, whether using light beams or particle beams, the dark fringes are generated due to the absence of physical stimulations. This is not, as is historically assumed, due to non-arrival of "photons" or particles at these locations." But we can count particles. So we can count the number of particles in the bright regions and check it agrees with the number of particles emitted, invalidating the model where particles impacted in the dark regions without 'stimulating' the detector.

Dear Chandrasekhar

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

Hi Chandra,

We are both after the same fundamental. There are differences in our approach, and I believe they may be of value to you. What you outlined should be investigated experimentally with a funded organization.

Do visit my essay and let me know what you think.

Wishing you success in the essay,

Don Limuti

Dear Chandrasekhar,

You might be interested to know that the idea that fundamental is that which "minimizes the number of necessary postulates and maximizes the number of observed phenomena covered", though not related to fundamentality in philosophical contexts is essentially identical to the philosophers' "Mill-Ramsey-Lewis" account of laws: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laws-of-nature/#Sys.

Best,

Dean

Chandra,

Evolution of process and thought is high on my list as well, as well as a cosmological approach. We do tend to leverage knowledge of the past w/o remapping what we presently learn for present and future concepts. As our tools of learning are updated (LIGO, for example) we can apply new paradigms of discovery as what is fundamental evolves with this knowledge. System engineering tools are aptly utilized in this process, as I garnered from my aerospace days. Hope you get a chance to check out my essay, as well. High marks for your cogent essay on an ever-evolving fundamental.

Jim

Chandra,

Great essay. I was directed to you from Peter Jacksons and glad I came. Little chance to discuss now but I really don't understand why it's so low. Top job and top rating going on.

Richard

Chankrasekhar,

I think we are all hooked on these contests, maybe more for the forum and the exchange of great ideas than anything else.

Jim