What Is ”Fundamental”? : The many paths of ”Fundamentality”... by J. Wiegand

Dear Dr J. Wiegand,

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 J. Wiegand, Я высоко ценю ваше эссе. Some of your questions have an answer in the New Cartesian Physics, which is based on the identity space and matter of Descartes' and wants to be the theory of everything OO. According to Descartes, space is matter, and matter is space that moves. Thus, space is the foundation for constructing fundamental theories. The space has information, which is then realized in the device of the world. Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows this principle. Evaluate and leave your comment there. Then I'll give you a rating as the bearer of Descartes' idea. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

J. Wiegand,

Uniting GR and the quantum world thru TOe seems the key to fundamental regarding your discussion but simulation is left open. Certainly the question is open for all of us. You explain the different paths - visual, scientific and mathematical -- w/o exposing prejudices. My approach perhaps emphasizes more how generally fundamental changes with discovery. Hope you can check it out.

Jim Hoover

As P.W. Anderson notes, biology is not applied chemistry, neither chemistry is applied physics. Even if we ignore that, the idea that a fundamental (complete) theory of physics would allow us to understand everything without leaving no questions unanswered is invalid. The concept of TOE goes against the very essence of what is science.

"All known physics is made of vibrations in one way or another"? This is far from true and the claim that "All matter is made of vibrations" would be repaced by the claim that matter often vibrates.

Vibration and energy are not two faces of the same coin. Vibration is a kind of movement, energy is a property of matter. There are energy models not associated to vibration.

Potential energy is not energy stored by an object. The potential energy is external to the object and shared with the other object (or objects) participating in the interaction. The energy of a compounf object AB is the sum of the kinetic energies (T) of each component plus an interaction term (U)

EAB = TA TB UAB

In many problems one of the objects (e.g. object B) can be taken at rest and its kinetic energy vanishes, then some textbooks take the resulting sum

TA UAB

as the energy of the object A, but in reality U is an external potential.

Is quantum information theory the most fundamental way of describing the universe? Of course no. Not only I can describe the universe without even mentioning information theory, but information requires a material substratum to be stored. Information is not a fundamental concept: matter is.

The same thoughts about informational entropy, whith the add that there is no agreement on a definition for it.

Thinking that information is made of vibration, because information in Internet is transmitted through electromagnetic signals is so incorrect as believing that information was made of rocks in ancient epoch because first humans left messages in caverns.

An empty universe by definition is empty, not something filled with a quantum 'vacuum' with infinite energy. Quantum mechanics does not define such concept, the concept of a quantum 'vacuum' is a concept introduced by quantum field theory and it is a very misguided concept. This fundamental missunderstanding of physicists is what produces nonsensical values for the cosmological constant are out the measured value by 120 orders of magnitude. The biggest error ever!

Not only the current physical interpretation of quantum vaccum is totally wrong, but it would be reminded the mathematical model is based in approximating fields as a collection of harmonic oscillators. Sidney Coleman forgets that there are physical situations cannot be described by harmonic oscillators. Did he ever heard of anarmonicity?

The concept of multiverse is absurd. By definition "uni" in universe means one. Those supposed 'multiverses', even if they were real, would be just parts of a bigger universe.

General relativity does not provide "a purely mathematical and geometrical description of the Universe and its energy content". General relativity ony describes gravity (part of gravity) in terms of spacetime curvature generated by matter. Moreover one can describe the same gravitational phenomena without any appeal to geometry (Weinberg approach) or one can even replace general relativity by a non-geometrical graviton theory (Feynman approach).

Finally I do not find any relevance on the non-scientific speculation we live in a simulation generated by some God-like entity outside to the Universe. Not only this speculation does not solve anything, but it opens new problems such as of what is made that entity, where the simulation is run, why the simulation was started,...

This kind of modern speculations must seem 'cool' to some because they use recent concepts from computers (information, simulation) and some esoteric ideas about quantum theory, but they have the same validity (i.e. none) than ancient philosophical and theological ruminations about how many angels can stand on the point of a needle.

J. Wiegard,

Undoubtedly, there are many paths of fundamental but my definition involves fundamental being that which is necessary for existence which narrow it down. Yet, like you, I believe so-called fundamental theories must be approached with skepticism.

I feel every concept contributes to an understanding of "fundamental," so I am reviewing my own sketchy evaluations to help my understanding and see if I have rated them. I find that I did not rate yours and will remedy that today. Hope you get a chance to check out mine.

Jim

Dear Dr J. Wiegand

Wonderful Op ....." Different paths and different points of view yield different answers. After discussing the ubiquity of vibration and energy in the physical world, we notice the universe can be described in terms of information on the one hand and by geometry and mathematics on the other hand........... The "fundamentality" of consciousness and the importance of time, events and causality is also addressed. The beauty is that all these concepts are related to each other (by logic and physical laws)...... " Very nice concepts....

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

Dear J Wiegand

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