Elusive Fundamental? by Henri Vonn De Roule

Dear Henri Vonn De Roule, You state:«So for right now, "Fundamental" remains a moving target.» In this chain is not enough the principle of the identity of space and matter of Descartes. 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 it according to your fundamental concept and leave your comment there. Then I'll give you a rating. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

The current standard model of particles is misleading. E.g. bosons are not fundamental. One can eliminate photons or gravitons and describe all the known physics with the same accuracy and precision. The same happens with antiparticles and virtual particles; so you are rigth they are just "breaking things into inconsequential pieces".

Chemistry does not only deal with atoms. H is a fundamental part of chemistry, but it is not an atom. Nuclear chemistry has existed for a while...

The properties of individual atoms do not make up a substance. The keyword here is emergent properties. We could study the properties of a single atom during all our life and know nothing about properties of molecules that contain that atom: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts".

Those emergents properties which don't exist on the lower level invalidate the idea that "all the sciences is physics - specifically particle physics". I recommend reading the article More is Different by P.W. Anderson.

Dark energy and dark matter do not exist. Dark matter is the modern analog of the old Vulcan planet. Astronomers and astrophysicsts use dark matter because it helps to fill a hole in their equations.

Dear Henri Vonn De Roule,

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

Henri,

As you mention, "fundamental" varies by subject and does change with each discipline studied and does also change as our understanding of science advances. That perception is also important in my essay for the perception of "fundamental" seems to be a moving target in all discipline: the four forces of nature are bound to change as knowledge grows; the nature of gravity changed with Einstein; the hydrogen element has a new state; Jupiter is not what we though before the latest probe, etc.

Hope you get a chance to read my essay as well. I am at the survey stage in my reading.

Jim Hoover

Henri,

The hyperlink to mine:

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3035

Jim Hoover

Dear Henri,

Your essay felt to me like a leisurely walk through the gardens of biology, chemistry and physics, touching on some of the key fundamental ideas in each discipline, and coming to the conclusion that fundamentality remains "a moving target". I agree, to the extent that I believe fundamentality is a profoundly context-dependent concept. As we learn new things, the context becomes refined, and this, in turn, influences how we conceptualize the meaning of "fundamental". I believe that, as described by Thomas Kuhn, every once in a while our fundamental understanding of the world changes dramatically, and this effects a concomitant dramatic change in our understanding of the meaning of that word. In particular, the "target" may at that point move on an entirely different plane.

All the best,

Armin

Henri,

Seems to be sparse reviewing and rating in this essay contest. I am revisiting those I have reviewed and see if I have scored them before the deadline approaches. I find that I have not scored yours and have remedied it today. Thanks for checking mine out.

Jim Hoover

Henri,

The problem of time is that since we experience reality as flashes of cognition, we think of time as the point of the present, "flowing," past to future. Physics codifies this as measures of duration, between events. A simpler and more effective explanation is that it is change turning future to past, as in tomorrow becoming yesterday because the earth turns. Different clocks can run at different rates because they are separate actions. A faster clock/action uses more energy. As an animal with higher metabolism ages quicker than one with a slower rate, yet both remain in the same present. Duration is simply the state of the present, as events coalesce and dissolve. Time is asymmetric because action is inertial. The earth turns one direction, not both. This makes time an effect of activity, similar to temperature. Which is no small issue. One could say the left, linear, sequential hemisphere is the brain is based on time, while the right, emotional, intuitive side is based on temperature and thermodynamic feedback. We could correlate measures of volume and temperature, using ideal gas laws, but temperature is not conceptually foundational to narrative, logic, history and civilization, only to our emotional, bodily and environmental reality, so we assume we are more objective about it. Obviously it goes to other issues as well, such as determinism, since events have to occur, in order for their input to be fully calculated, therefore the future remains probabilistic.

Wow Henri -- a moveable feast of what is basic -- couldn't agree more it is ALL about "context" as to what fundamental is.

Oddly you didn't mention what is fundamental in MATH (number, numbers, set, set membership,.....) so many things were thought fundamental but have gone away.

Also logic is left out, because all relies on the logic system you use. Is the excluded middle basic or its negation basic -- should of been addressed as well.

Also the ending is lacking any "force" as in its conclusion.

Overall a good essay, I have marked it accordingly. Cheers Harri

If you have time my essay What is fundamental is the area of the imaginary unit" considers numbers as fundamental though in a very unusual way.

Henri,

Thanks for your kind words about my essay, As I indicated before, 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 rated yours on 2/4 reflecting my high regard for your contribution.

Jim

Hi Henri,

your essay is really nice, easy reading, covering some interesting aspects of the various sciences. I have always been amazed by the periodic table. It was nice to see the alternative representations.

About viruses not being classified as life: It is not that a bacterium is more fundamental but it is more complete. A virus lacks the cellular apparatus to reproduce itself but must hijack a host cell's apparatus. The host, which is a life form in its own right reproduces the virus, it is not the virus that does that. As reproduction is one of the characteristics of living things, the virus falls between complex chemistry and life, as it is most usually considered and taught.

I think time is important but your essay was fine without considering it. It is not something easy to discuss well in a few sentences. You got across the idea that many different aspects of science can be considered as possibly fundamental. We are a bit spoilt for choice when considering the question, like choosing what to put in the shopping basket at the supermarket. I like your choices, though different from my own.

Kind regards Georgina

Hi Henri Vonn De Roule

Wonderful discussion sir...."For instance in physics, the ancient cultures Greece and India prior to the advent of structural physics, the atom was thought to be the fundamental particle of matter. They were trying to answer questions of philosophy and theology. Experimentation was crude and the equipment for examination and experimentation did not exist so these were what we now call thought experiments. ......... and today we have the Standard Model of physics which is our best current understanding of the universe. One should note: it has holes"..... You are exactly correct....it has holes...!

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 Vonn Henri De Roule,

Time - it's a synonym for total movement. Fundamental is what has Foundation. Physical space, which according to Descartes is matter is the Foundation for fundamental physical theories. I'm here to urge researchers to develop theory of everything, the French philosopher, mathematics, physics Descartes in the light of modern science. 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 the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. Evaluate and leave your comment there. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which wants to be the theory of everything OO.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Hello Henri,

I enjoyed your essay and I think few would disagree with its conclusion: "So, what is "Fundamental"? We do not yet know. All of our experiments -both thought and real -have identified only a fraction of all of the matter that we speculate exists. So for right now, "Fundamental" remains a moving target.

I stretched mysel a bit and have gone after dark energy and dark matter. Very speculative stuff, but I think you will enjoy my essay. Do take a look.

I also like your organization, "The Science Experience" which I just browsed and hit this quote:"Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do." --Goethe

Really nice work in a variety of areas,

Thanks,

Don Limuti

Dear Henri

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