Fundamental is Non-Random by Ken Wharton

Hi Ken:

Completely agree with your conclusion - "Although we use randomness when we don't know any better, a principle of indifference cannot be used to explain anything interesting or fundamental.

The above is vindicated in my paper -"What is Fundamental - Is C the Speed of Light". that describes the fundamental physics of antigravity missing from the widely-accepted mainstream physics and cosmology theories resolving their current inconsistencies and paradoxes. The missing physics depicts a spontaneous relativistic mass creation/dilation photon model that explains the yet unknown dark energy, inner workings of quantum mechanics, and bridges the gaps among relativity and Maxwell's theories. The model also provides field equations governing the spontaneous wave-particle complimentarity or mass-energy equivalence. The key significance or contribution of the proposed work is to enhance fundamental understanding of C, commonly known as the speed of light, and Cosmological Constant, commonly known as the dark energy.

The paper not only provides comparisons against existing empirical observations but also forwards testable predictions for future falsification of the proposed model.

I would like to invite you to read my paper and appreciate any feedback comments.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

Respected Prof Ken Wharton

Wonderful arguments.... " Looking at this problem from a different perspective reveals a natural solution: boundary-based explanations that arguably should be viewed as no less fundamental than other physical laws." Best wishes for your essay sir...

I hope you will not mind that I am not following main stream physics...

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

Ken,

Yours is the first essay I have been able to comprehend, from first word to last, and on first reading. Thank you!

I find that it's fully consistent with Einstein's wish to have boundary conditions that would eliminate the need to specify boundary conditions--and therefore lead to a singularity free general relativity. You write:

" ... the initial state of the universe is often referred to as an 'initial boundary condition'. The only problem is that many physicists want to then explain this boundary condition, via dynamics or randomness."

If it's true, however, that the 3 dimension boundary is identical to the 4 dimension horizon, "(3D spatial volumes have 2D boundaries; 4D spacetime- volumes such as our universe have 3D boundaries.)", the 3-d boundary has one negative element + + + - , i.e. (-1), and the 4-d spacetime - - - +, one positive element (+1) though we always measure changes in relations between center mass points, so the positive mass theorem must apply here, for a non-arbitrary initial condition.

Reduce to a 1-dimensional model, and you have [link:https:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3124] my essay.

All best,

Tom

TH,

You say "....such as our universe have 3D boundaries". The 3D belongs to our reality, not to the universe; there's a difference. The 3D is just the definition of a point like relational observation, the observer. A lot of what we think we learn about the universe is in fact about ourselves.

Bests,

Marcel,

Dear Ken Wharton,

I like your essay, though I don't agree with all of it. You actually get to grips with the concepts, rather than jumping through them, as some do. And I enjoyed your way of writing. I agree that randomness can't be used to explain things, but with one exception - unless one suspects that it's at the very deepest level.

The symmetries and patterns the laws contain, which you mention as perhaps suggesting they didn't arise randomly, might be caused by something underneath that happens to generate a lot of symmetry in the levels further up. If so, how that underlying layer was selected would be a very open question, and in general, the question of how the laws arose is unanswered, and to me separate from these questions.

But looking at randomness within existing physics, at each level of description, there are things that behave with a mixture of randomness and predictability, and these mixtures make patterns. But at the next level of description down, the randomness disappears, and what was random gets predictable. So when we find something very deep that appears partly random, as in QM, we wonder if there's some even deeper level where it goes away. And we've found we can limit the possibilities for that, and that only non-local theories have the option, if they can find a way to do it.

But without knowing what the underlying picture is, if there is one, we don't know if the randomness is fundamental or superficial. I'd say it could be either, and unless one happens to believe one of the existing interpretations for QM (as I don't), one can choose to say it's an open question. I agree with what you say about boundary explanations, and that taking boundaries as fundamental is a possibility.

I'd appreciate it if you'd rate my essay - I've only had four ratings so far, and (although that included high ratings and nice comments from Fabio and Edwin), I've found one needs ten ratings for the average to be taken seriously. The essay deals with what relates the levels of description in physics, and argues that explanation does, alongside emergence. It also looks at questions to do with time, and makes a new point near the top of p2, which I'd say removes emergent time as a possibility.

Anyway, best regards,

Jonathan

Hi Ken,

Great essay as always.

On your explanation of the anthropic explanation coming from Boltzmann's account, you write: ""eventually something like our universe would randomly happen, and we find ourselves here because we're not anywhere else". Of course, this would happen over and over, so depending on how you define "we," we could be somewhere else (as you say, given infinite time anything that can happen will happen, but it will do so again and again). The anthropic part is really that we find ourselves here because conditions permit, not because we aren't anywhere else. Nitpicky I know! And you are right about the problems with this approach in any case.

The boundaries response is a nice alternative (and I like your conceptual motivation of it), and in line with the top-down approaches I mentioned. Of course, we will want to know "why this boundary?" Especially if there are other apparently possible boundaries.

Good luck!

Best,

Dean

Dear Ken,

A few years ago I derived & published a well fitting cyclic evolution model for galaxies with a mechanism also proving an excellent match to the complex CMBR anisotropies at the larger scale. That suggested a cyclic cosmologyy without the issues of the Penrose and other models. I've been focused on SR/QM but you've reminded me that its specific non-random re-ionisation mechanism also suggests 'cyclic entropy'. I'll pass you a link or pdf if you wish.

Rob Phillips essay identifies the ability to find a Gaussian (or Bayesian) distribution wherever we wish to look. This may seem inverse to your view. I agree both your arguments are correct but see yours as more productively fundamental. What's your view of his?

Most importantly. I ask for your help and advice on QM foundation; Say we endow each pair particle with 4 Maxwell state momenta, which I show exist in inverse cos distributions, and an anti-parallel polar axis (each pair random, but each one opposite) we have A (N/S), B (S/N). We also endow A & B with polariser field electrons and a dial to rotate them, N/S so the fields find either 'SAME' or 'OPPOSITE', switchable by A,B. Then I found the EPR paradox resolves in the way John Bell anticipated. That is Classic QM! The rest including non-integer spin and 'squared modulus' is (astonishingly!) in a full ontological mechanism in my essay.

Can you identify any errors? & Offer any help?

Declan Traill's short essay gives the corresponding code and CHSH >2 plot, plus a 'steering violation' closing the detection loophole and representing a 'pattern underlying the apparent randomness' (so you prevail on Phillips).

I know it "requires.. ..radical conceptual renewal." and is a "...the new way of seeing things will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us. In any case it seems that the quantum mechanical description will be superseded." (J Bell p172 & 27).

Your excellent essay analysis seems consistent with the model but please confirm that. The model, of 'discrete fields' emerged from 'boundary condition' interpretation of SR which allows unification, also consistent with your model as well as with Minkowski and Einstein's 1908 and 1952 conceptions of infinitely many 'spaces within spaces' (as my earlier high rated essays 2011>>).

Thank you and well done for yours.

Peter

Dear Ken,

Thanks for the brilliant essay* from a like-minded** researcher in Quantum Foundations.

* Me hoping there follows something like this: "If the fundamental is non-random then (after existence), the fundamental is determined and law-like!"

** Me relating to this: "The very concept of a "random explanation" is as meaningless as the above suggestions concerning random laws of physics."

For my work on a foundational "wholistic mechanics" (WM) is intended to advance a classical/deterministic reformulation of physics in spacetime. The ultimate goal being WM = {CM, SR, QM, GR, QFT, QG, EFT, ...|TLR},*** my essay being an introduction.

*** My starting premiss (my classical boundary condition) is true local realism (TLR): the union of true locality (no influence propagates superluminally, after Einstein), and true realism (some existents may change interactively, after Bohr). [I'm surprised that naive-realism remains ubiquitous in physics.]

Rejecting the weird claims associated with Bell's theorem (BT), I studied EPRB, the experiment analysed in famous Bell (1964). I did not accept that the assumptions behind BT were valid in that setting, I rejected nonlocality, and (as an aside) time-reversal would not hold.

Then, revising EPR's naive definition of "elements of physical reality", I find determinism in play, refute BT, and (from first principles, in spacetime) find the Laws of Malus, Bayes and Born validated in our quantum world. Born's law (an effective field theory, in my terms; in the space of probability amplitudes and without mystery) can then be tested by confirming the correct result for the EPRB expectation; then the correct DSE results; then onward to the stars.

In thus eliminating "wavefunction collapse" and nonlocality from QM, it follows that such weirdness need no longer trouble the foundations of QFT; etc. And since my calculations are conducted in spacetime (not Hilbert space), I'm thinking QG is covered automatically.

Ken, such is my long way of saying that I will welcome your comments at any time.

With my thanks again for your stimulating essay,

Gordon Watson (determined and free-willed)

Ken,

The clarity of your argument is impressive, and it's given me a lot to think about, relating to the key issue - how do we explain the smooth (but not perfectly smooth) distribution of matter in the early universe? You argue that since it can't be explained by randomness, or by the operation of dynamic laws, any possible explanation has to relate to higher-level constraints - your boundary conditions on the universe as a whole. Then the question is, how are these constraints to be explained?

The point of my essay is to interpret the physics of our universe as constrained by the need to define itself - that is, to provide contexts in which all the various kinds of information it contains are measurable, in terms of each other. I argue that it takes a very special kind of system to support any quantitative measurement, and suggest that the diverse modes of interaction in our universe, along with the fine-tuning of it parameters, will eventually be explained by the stringent requirements on any such system.

From this perspective, the low-entropy initial state is one basic condition for a self-defining and self-measuring system to emerge. (I take that as having occurred during the era memorialized in the Cosmic Microwave Background.) I suspect this is not the kind of boundary condition you have in mind, but I don't think your objections to "random explanations" apply. The problem with my proposal is not that the conditions are random or arbitrary, but that they're hard to define from an a priori standpoint. It's fairly easy to see that without atomic structure, for example, no kind of measurement the would be physically possible. But it's not at all easy to list the requirements for any system that can measure its own constituent elements - since we have only one example of such a system to consider, and that quite a subtle and complicated one.

Thanks for a very prize-worthy contribution, and for taking me a level or two deeper into the issue of the meaning of entropy.

Conrad

Thanks Ken, I know you see time differently. I'd like your opinion on a new point about emergent time, which no-one had refuted so far. It's near the top of page 2 of my essay, and boils down to the need to explain a coincidence - if a real or apparent 'flow of time' emerged, then why was it so appropriate that it allowed laws of physics (such as laws of motion), which were already pre-implied in the sequence of the time slices in the block, to function? What were the laws doing, sitting there in the block in this 'just add water' sort of way?

Btw, I'd be grateful if you'd rate my essay - I've only had four ratings so far, although it was at number three a week ago. It seems that without 10 ratings, the average is not taken seriously. Anyway, thanks. Best regards, Jonathan

Sorry, wasn't logged in - that was me. JK

Ken, if/when you reply to my post, please copy it to my essay-thread so that I'm alerted to it. I'm having trouble keeping abreast of many good discussions this year.

Many thanks; Gordon More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

Ken,

Your essay exposes in fact the working of epistemology. In that sense, it is fundamental not only to science and physics, but to all our truth systems.

An impossibility is the boundary that defines or make finite a truth system, all truth systems. The impossibility to measure faster than light (SR), the impossibility to distinguish acceleration from gravity (GR), the impossibility to measure both position and momentum (QM) etc.are examples of this. In that respect, SR, GR and QM are separate truth systems because they are derived from different original boundaries or impossibilities.

Boundaries are fundamental to all our truth systems, geometry, maths, logic etc. But the universe happens by itself, spontaneously. It requires a deeper and ontological explanation or "starting point". This starting point is the law of non-contradiction which the universe's substance follows from its creation to its evolution.

All the bests,

Marcel,

Ken, Thank. Some questions;

Is it best to open mindedly assess theories (SM) or be wedded to a particular one?

I learned the Sci.Method is more important than any past papers. Do you disagree?

Do you think we should consider Bell's own analysis of his proof, or just others?

I'm no Bell denier, but unlike most I also agree with his views! Thing is, your 4 options omit them? Is that by design? I suspect not, in which case you'd need an option 5) "Some starting assumption used for QM is incorrect." Is that fair? He said he 'freely used' (so was testing) QM's assumptions. To further quote him;

"..in my opinion the founding fathers were in fact wrong.. ..quantum phenomena do not exclude a uniform description of micro and macro worlds" p171.

and "..quantum mechanics is at the best, incomplete." p.26.

So it may only be me who'se NOT a 'Bell denier'! I've tested all assumptions and found a hidden one to be is flawed; 'singlet states'. The experiment in my essay shows 4 REAL orthogonal states in OAM, and Ulla Mattfolk has just sent me links where I found the 'Poincare Sphere' which, as Maxwell, had already found them! Bohr! made 'NO' initial assumption on states but then made one; ('superposed/singlet states') without checking for others!!

Now if you follow my ('our') mechanism carefully you'll find the predictions of QM faithfully reproduced in full. No need for anything weird.

If you can't show it wrong it's be great if you collaborated and joined in with an early paper 'developing' your view to be consistent - so being more scientific & less 'religious' All 'camps' will be lost in the flood! unless you can show the crack in the dam I found isn't real! (CSHS >2 with closed detection loophole can't be denied!)

Interestingly the model followed my previous rationalisation of SR, so entirely unifies the two (in QM's 'absolute' time but with Doppler shifted 'signals' from metronome/"clock" emitters on co-moving medium transitions. (Bell did say the solution would 'astonish'!!) But one thing at a time!.

Looking forward to questions.

Very best

Peter

Dear Ken, Peter, etc: re Bell's theorem (BT).

Ken's position is firmly in the camp of retrocausality, with Huw Price.

Peter's position is: Some starting assumption used for QM is incorrect.

My position: BT (1964) is developed in the context of EPRB. BT is false in such settings; see Aspect's experiments, etc. A starting assumption in BT is incorrect.

I provide a concise [half-page] refutation of BT on page 8 of my essay.

I look forward to critical comments, etc, on my refutation and/or my position (above).

I'll happily expand on the refutation if there are steps that are not clear, etc.

Best, Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

Dear Ken

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