Dear Peter,

Good to hear from you. I will reply to some of your comments below:

"Having spent a good part of my career as an instrumentation specialist watching the highly relativistic beams in RHIC, designing pickups to measure their various properties, and spending a little time thinking about just what i was actually looking at, i find your unconventional approach to the implications of SR hard to mix with my pretty much congealed worldview of how things behave relativistically."

First, I am glad that you have an awareness that your views reflect a particular worldview. Since my worldview is probably very different, it is not so easy for me to discern which of the things I mentioned you find "hard to mix" with yours:

a. Dimensional diminution is mathematically consistent with Lorentz contraction at speeds less than c, and dimensional reduction is consistent with the complete Lorentz contraction of a body characterized by v=c.

b. I am unaware that anybody had ever pointed out the invariance of absolute dimensionality or the homodimensionality of space, but I suspect that is just because it was "too obvious".

c. Probably the most novel idea in my paper is that one can assign coordinate frames to speed-of-light objects as long as they are 3D, not 4D, and I made a case that this is not only consistent with SR, but hinted at by other parts of the theory, such as the fact that null-vectors have only 3 independent components. I think the resistance to the idea does not come from SR but because this realization is genuinely foreign to the contemporary worldview; It is like a piece of a jigsaw puzzle that doesn't fit anywhere. My reaction is simply that after over a 100 years, special relativity still holds some surprises (and that is nothing compared to the analogous claim in the second paper, ha!)

d. The claim about magnetic fields being line integrals of dimensionally reduced versions of electric fields seemed visually so obvious to me that I did not bother to design diagrams directly comparing the force field of a Coulomb field and the magnetostatic force field of a current, but I am coming to regret that now because, to my shock and bafflement, apparently it does not seem obvious to others. Let me ask you as well: When you compare the direction of the forces of a Coulomb field and a magnetostatic field of a current, does this relationship not immediately jump out at you? The force field in one has spherical symmetry, and the force field of the other has circular symmetry, which, when integrated over the current, gives you just the relationship I claimed. More complicated field arrangements make this relationship a lot less obvious but that doesn't change anything because this relationship holds at a differential level. Of course, the mathematical evidence in the appendix requires that it is already recognized that v=c implies dimensional reduction. Maybe that is what you had difficulties with?

"Hard to get a sense of just how the pieces fit together, what happens to the scale invariant properties of various models,..."

I am not sure which models you are referring to, but let me say that I reject scale invariance as a fundamental principle of nature because the ratio of different powers of length changes with scale. Most relevantly to us, the relationship between surface area and volume changes with scale. For example, a ball of radius 1 meter has 100 billion times as much volume per unit surface area than a ball of Bohr radius. When you consider this together with density, this profoundly affects the behavior of objects at different scales. I consider this at bottom the reason why, for example, we don't see large rocks floating in the air or why only planet-sized or larger objects eventually turn into round balls. To paraphrase Philip Anderson, as far as I am concerned, bigger is different.

"Assumption i guess has to be that everything you're doing is consistent with SR, that the equivalence is either proven or provable."

I listed the four major claims of my paper above. Tell me please, so I have input from an outside perspective, which of the four you are skeptical about (more than one choice is of course okay)

"Will part two address the quantum? "

Absolutely! This is the reason my paper is getting delayed. I had originally intended to only touch on some quantum concepts, but then I realized that it is really hard to just try to give a brief glimpse without it being confusing. So I have kept adding details, and as the result the paper is getting longer, and I am still not done.

"Clifford algebra is the language of QM. What is missing in mainstream is the geometric interpretation of the algebra. Geometric product of Geometric Algebra mixes dimensionality. For instance the product of two lines is a point and a plane. I'm not aware of any calculations in the literature showing some sort of smooth deformation (of what? geometry of electric and magnetic fields?) during evolution of the geometric product, showing just how two lines gradually morph into point and plane during dimensional abatement or dimensional 'enhancement' (got a better word for this?)"

Although my knowledge of Clifford Algebra is very little, I tend to think that it might hold the key to some profound insights yet to be discovered. I don't know enough to be able to assess your claim that it is "the language of QM". My first reaction is that we use different mathematical languages of QM depending on our needs. Whether we use Hilbert spaces, Path integrals or Clifford algebra, it seems to me, is dictated by the physics.

As for how the geometric product of two vectors "happens", I suspect that it does not reflect a smooth deformation of the kind you wonder about, but instead reflects a system of symbolic manipulations which exhausts the ways in which two vectors can be usefully combined in a way that conceptually qualifies as a `product'. I take this `exhaustiveness' of Clifford Algebra to be its strength.

"Curious regarding how your ideas might be applied to details of the interaction of two geometric wavefunctions (comprised of point, line, plane, and volume elements)."

Well, one difficulty I see right away is that wave-functions live in configuration space, whereas my ideas apply to real space. If anything, it seems to me that it would have to be the path integral which is affected by them.

Thank you for reading my essay and your thoughtful comments. I will read your essay soon and provide feedback as well.

All the best,

Armin

Greetings MR. Armin Nikkhah Shirazi,

As far as i could understand, you point out, through some obvious facts, the relativity of "what is fundamental" At some point you say that "The mathematical equivalence of the fundamentality of the two sets of quantities suggests that, in general, fundamentality cannot be determined in an absolute sense, i.e. independent of the paradigm within which it is considered. And this gives us a clue for identifying the most fundamental things of a theory within any given paradigm: it has to be those things which point to, or at least hint at, the next paradigm".

Could this quote may be regarded as we may change the understanding of the word "fundamental" and viewing it more like an idea, a point of view or a perspective which will not be fundamental in the search of "what is fundamental"? Will this kind or reasoning suit in what you call the next paradigm? if so,then... if not, please do not let me into "the obscure" and explain my misunderstanding

cheers, Silviu

    Dear Silviu,

    Thank you for reading my essay and commenting on it. to answer your question, yes "fundamental" is a property that I argue is not intrinsic to anything because it depends on the background worldview, the paradigm in which it is considered, and so it can very well be thought of as an idea or point of view.

    I don't quite understand what you mean by saying it "will not be fundamental in the search of what is fundamental", but the most charitable interpretation I can give is in agreement: If something that hints at the next paradigm is supposed to be fundamental, then, once the next paradigm arrives, then it will no longer be fundamental because that term would be reserved for things that point to the paradigm after.

    This presupposes a Kuhnian worldview according to which progress in science is not really a progress toward the truth; although I share a lot of views of Kuhn, on this issue I tend to be skeptical of them. I like to think that in some sense we do progress more toward some kind of truth, which perhaps could be expressed in many ways that seem different but turn out to be equivalent. If that is true, and there is such a thing as a final paradigm, then the conception of fundamentality I proposed will fail at that stage. However, I am not worried about that too much.

    Thank you again,

    Armin

    It seems that you understood very well my simple words but it also seems that you like to have "the last word"

    Respectfuly, Silviu

    Professor Shirazi,

    First, my essay contestant pledge: goo.gl/KCCujt

    Positives of your paper:

    -- It is well written and easy to comprehend.

    -- Your use of equations is orderly and accurate.

    -- You are good about explaining the context of your paper and its connections to other earlier works you have done on this came topic

    -- In terms of physics, I think your observation that there is a unbreakable dimensionality barrier between sub-light (massive) and light speed (massless) particles is a nice alternative way of saying massive versus massless. Since no amount of energy can push a massive particle to c velocity, yes, infinite Lorentz contraction is not possible. You have to change particle type, e.g. annihilate a positron and electron (both massive and... well, sort of 3D, at least if you look at the fields?) to sometimes get two gamma photons (both massless and 2D?)

    Negatives:

    -- I don't see a new invariant in this. I've read your dimensional abatement several times, and every time I get back to the same conclusion: This is still one-dimensional Lorentz contraction, just with more dimensions added. I may be missing something, but I flatly cannot figure out what the advantage is from adding those other dimensions. If anything, it just seems to complicate things by adding dimensions that are orthogonal to the crisply defined Lorentz velocity axis contraction.

    -- I don't immediately see the advantage of defining the photon as 2D, even though I find that an intriguing idea. Photons are... odd, and complex, and can push the limits of quantum theory even now if you dig deep into them. (I have a great little book on that that I seem to have lost, hmm...I) For example, if you imagine a photon as a 3D sphere (technically a 2-sphere for purists) with a point orbiting around its equator, you can model all possible polarizations, from linear through elliptical to circular, as nothing more than different orientations of the sphere that is then projected (made 2D) along the axis of propagation. The cohesive value in that model of treating the photon as a 3D sphere before making the final 3D to 2D projective reduction in its dimensionality says to me that one should not simply discard the 3D view as irrelevant even for a particle traveling at c. Transformed, yes; but absent entirely? It doesn't sound right; two-step seems to match observed behaviors better, as with the example of an integrated view of polarization states.

    -- Here's my biggest problem, and it's one that affects many of the large number of submissions this year: You did not answer the question that FQXi asked, which was to explain what makes a theory "more fundamental". Instead, you proposed a physics theory that you feel is a more fundamental than current theories, in this case by proposing a new invariant. However, proposing a new invariant does not address in any obvious way the nature of what makes some idea fundamental.

    Sincerely,

    Terry Bollinger

      Mr. Bollinger

      I beg your pardon sir, I don't want to be disrespectful but you confused me in the end of your comment where you say "... my biggest problem,and it's one that affects many of the large number of submissions this year: You did not answer the question FQXi asked which was to explain what makes a theory "more fundamental" " The confusion arises when the actual title of the contest is read "what is fundamental?". It does not ask anything else besides "what is fundamental?". No theory of something "more fundamental" is required and the explanations of different interpretations are freely chosen by each participant. In this regard it seems that Mr. Shirazi's essay is a personal approach for the question asked by the name of this contest ,"what is fundamental?". Why is that a problem if the content of his way of viewing things is relevant for what we call to be "real"?

      So, either all the essay's that you sustain having the same problem (which will be "other interpretation than yours of something that lets you interpret whatever you want") are wrong in interpretation, and then maybe the contest question is wrongly asked, Or you're on the wrong track of thinking that everybody should think like you in interpreting an open question.

      ...or some third option?

      Respectfully, Silviu

      Silviu,

      To see an outstanding example of an essay that stays razor-sharp in answering the question as asked by FQXi, please look at essay 3034 by Karen Crowther.

      This issue is not complicated. I realize a lot of essayists decided this year to reinterpret the actual question posed by FQXi as an opening for presenting personal physics theories. However, I have not been able to see any interpretation of what FQXi actually asked that supports such a reinterpretation. I have done two special issues of a technical magazine myself, and from that first-hand experience I can assure you first hand that submissions that specifically address the theme as stated are both hugely appreciated and make life a lot easier for the reviewers.

      That said, I enjoyed reading your essay, and in particular your idea that massive versus massless could be reinterpreted as a change in dimensionality. Intriguing!

      Cheers,

      Terry

      Dear Terry (if I may),

      There seems to be a slight mix-up in that you replied to Silviu's response to your comment by name, yet indicated something in your last paragraph which suggests that you may have thought that you were addressing me. Indeed, I am coming a little late to this conversation, but let me thank you right away for taking the time to read my essay and making some thoughtful comments. Also, I am flattered by your appellation, but I am not a professor, just a researcher. I would like to respond to some of your comments in detail.

      First, your essay contestant pledge. What a wonderful idea! I have participated in this essay contest every single time except the last, and I have expressed my distaste for the author rating system both to the moderators and even to Max Tegmark himself. I understand why he does it, but unfortunately it comes at great costs, including that ratings are invariably bound to be influenced by factors other than the rater's best judgement of the essay's quality. With your permission, I would like to forward the pledge to Max, and suggest that either it or something similar be made a requirement for participation in future contests. It won't deter the determined colluders and cheaters, but it will help make the whole thing less farcical, I believe.

      Second, some thoughts on your feedback on the essay itself:

      "In terms of physics, I think your observation that there is a unbreakable dimensionality barrier between sub-light (massive) and light speed (massless) particles is a nice alternative way of saying massive versus massless."

      It is actually more subtle than that, as I will try to show In the second part of the 2-part series of which my essay entry was the first part. The second part will, after developing an analogous reconceptualization of time dilation, apply these ideas to quantum mechanics and derive some novel distinctions, including one involving mass.

      "I don't see a new invariant in this. I've read your dimensional abatement several times, and every time I get back to the same conclusion: This is still one-dimensional Lorentz contraction, just with more dimensions added."

      I understand your point of view and agree that by itself, dimensional abatement does not contribute anything not already contained in Lorentz contraction.. However, in the second paper I will combine it with its analog for time dilation to derive certain insights that could not be derived using just the concepts of length contraction and time dilation and use these as a starting point exploring for my real target: quantum foundations.

      "I don't immediately see the advantage of defining the photon as 2D, even though I find that an intriguing idea."

      Thank you, at this stage I agree that the value is more philosophical, but I am glad that you are open-minded enough to consider that this really is an implication of special relativity which has gone unrecognized so far.

      Photons are... odd, and complex, and can push the limits of quantum theory even now if you dig deep into them. (I have a great little book on that that I seem to have lost, hmm...I)

      I agree and I would love to find out which book you have in mind, if you remember.

      "For example, if you imagine a photon as a 3D sphere (technically a 2-sphere for purists) with a point orbiting around its equator, you can model all possible polarizations, from linear through elliptical to circular, as nothing more than different orientations of the sphere that is then projected (made 2D) along the axis of propagation. The cohesive value in that model of treating the photon as a 3D sphere before making the final 3D to 2D projective reduction in its dimensionality says to me that one should not simply discard the 3D view as irrelevant even for a particle traveling at c."

      I was unaware of this model and it sounds very interesting. As you know, while the photon is according to SR completely length contracted, it does have a wavelength and period in the direction of motion, and this can result in 3D-behavior associated with photons, of which certain polarization states like circular polarization are an excellent example. So I agree with you: My claim that photons are dimensionally reduced was not meant to make any 3D conceptualizations of photons irrelevant. Rather, it was meant to elucidate what I believe to be an overlooked implication of special relativity.

      For example, if you imagine a photon as a 3D sphere (technically a 2-sphere for purists) with a point orbiting around its equator, you can model all possible polarizations, from linear through elliptical to circular, as nothing more than different orientations of the sphere that is then projected (made 2D) along the axis of propagation. The cohesive value in that model of treating the photon as a 3D sphere before making the final 3D to 2D projective reduction in its dimensionality says to me that one should not simply discard the 3D view as irrelevant even for a particle traveling at c.

      "Here's my biggest problem, and it's one that affects many of the large number of submissions this year: You did not answer the question that FQXi asked, which was to explain what makes a theory "more fundamental". "

      My answer to the essay question is at the top of page 2:

      "And this gives us a clue for identifying the most fundamental things of a theory within any given paradigm: it has to be those things which point to, or at least hint at, the next paradigm."

      I structured my essay so that the theory I presented was an illustration of that answer. Now, if you had criticized my answer by saying that I did not sufficiently elaborate on it, or that I shoe-horned my own theory into the paper, I might have agreed with you, but to me, it seems a little unfair to say that I did not answer it at all. Be it as it may, my objective in this essay contest is not to win but to reach physicists, mathematicians and philosophers of physics who have a strong interest in foundational physics with some ideas which I believe are going to lead us to the next paradigm.

      Actually, from your comments on another essay I saw, it appears that you do have an interest in the foundations of quantum theory, and so you are exactly part of the core of the target audience I am trying to reach. My essay entry was just meant as an advertisement for the second paper, which uses the ideas of the essay entry and a multitude of novel ideas to provide an ontology for the textbook interpretation of quantum mechanics. My hope is that my essay entry intrigues people enough so that they are willing to invest spending time and thought on the second essay, which is conceptually far more challenging than the first.

      Thank you again for your well-considered comments.

      All the best,

      Armin

      Dear Dr Armin Nikkhah Shirazi

      This is a nice discussion and interpretation of "Lorentz contraction" You have correctly devised the four points viz... (1) focuses attention on two fundamental principles overlooked under the current paradigm, (2) permits a more fundamental understanding of speed of light invariance in terms of dimensionally reduced frames, (3) facilitates the identification of magnetic fields as line integrals of dimensionally reduced versions of electric fields, and (4) leads to the identification of a mathematical reason for the observed absence of magnetic charges. Best wishes to your essay...

      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

        Armin,

        Our past agreement that better fundamental understanding of both QM and SR continues. I was fascinated by your original and well argued hypothesis, though I confess I had to read most twice. An excellent job, worth a high score. However I remain unconvinced, for one particular reason; that there seems an even simpler way to solve the problem, with Doppler shifts. Please comment on this;

        I'm an astronomer familiar with plasma, astrophysical shocks, ionospheres, measurement, near/far fields and the great problems of ecliptic plane transitions and stellar aberration.

        If we consider Maxwell's near/far field transition zone (TZ) as the dense turbulent 2-fluid plasmas we find in those positions in space, so electrons absorbing EM in one rest frame k then re-emitting through the zone to eventually re-emit at c in the local electron rest frame there k'. Then the LT is implemented with wavelength Doppler shifted (so 1 sec pulses then found at 1/y sec intervals). Studying the surface of a lense we find exactly the same free surface electrons at the refractive plane increasing in density with speed.

        So we have an infinite sequence of inertial systems in local background frames, complying with SR's postulates and both Minkowski AND Einsteins descriptions (1905 and 1952) yet quire different from doctrinal interpretation. I confess I find that simpler, more satisfying and well evidenced. I can find no reason why it wouldn't produce the effects we find. The question is can you?

        The biggest problem with mainstream seems that once someone derives and publishes something they insist on remaining wedded to it. It's quite natural, and you'll want to defend your idea, but I know you can analyse in an unbiased way.

        The model resolves the big issue of astronomy (your version may to) but insights into QM arose from the TZ interaction process so a final 'test' was to produce a classic QM. It took 4 years but a full ontology doing so is in my essay! See also Declan Traill's for the code and plot. Please attack it at will! There seems little chance of acceptance by mainstream in this eon so there's no rush!

        Very well done for yours. Detailed agreement on content is not a scoring criteria and you hit all those well. I look forward to chatting more.

        Very best of luck in the contest

        Peter

          Hi Armin. I think you are on to something with a theoretical study of dimensional abatement, as you call it.

          There is an aspect of general relativity which might also be interpreted in terms of dimensions in the way you suggest. Bowler shows how length, time, mass, energy, etc. are supposed to vary with the gauge scale factor. Various experiments provide confirmation to first order.

          There is a table in the Endnotes of my essay showing radial and transverse dimensional variability due to a gravitational field. See Ref 7: Bowler M.G., Gravitation and Relativity. Pergamon Press, Oxford (1976).

          Cheers, Colin

            Dear Armin,

            I'm sorry that I'm not well-equipped to appreciate your main argument here, though it seems reasonable and well-argued. Your opening section certainly makes sense to me, and in fact I think your "intelligent alien culture" is onto something by treating distance, duration and mass as derived quantities. I was also intrigued by your treatment of "relative dimensionality" in terms of volume-boundary ratios, but it wasn't clear to me how much is gained by this. Part of my problem is that I don't have any intuitive notion of "dimensionality" as you present it... so while I don't doubt that your two principles are correct, I didn't get a sense of their importance. I'm guessing that you have some strong intuition that put you on this particular path, and I imagine that would be clearer to me if we had the second part of this essay.

            Nonetheless I'm glad you're participating again, and I saw (in your comment to Terry Bollinger) that you're planning on taping a presentation on the Default Specification Principle... I'd be very interested to see that. I think this principle expresses a basic shift in how we think about possibility vs actuality, an important step toward making QM really understandable. In fact, I think the second part of my current essay would have made more sense if I'd had the space to include some discussion of this. The basic assumption I make is that everything is possible, to begin with, and the problem of creating a universe is essentially one of defining meaningful constraints. This is the same as what happens with quantum measurement - all the possibilities are there, until there's some constraining context that can specify one of them. The existence of an adequate context is all that's needed for something to become actual.

            I could certainly relate to your Conclusion: "All of these facts are easy to understand, profound, and in retrospect, I believe, utterly obvious." I'm sure you're right that the great obstacle to working out "the next paradigm" is that the clues are so obvious they get taken for granted.

            Best wishes,

            Conrad

              Dear Nikkhah

              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

              Hello Peter,

              You wrote:

              "However I remain unconvinced, for one particular reason; that there seems an even simpler way to solve the problem, with Doppler shifts."

              You never specified what in my essay you were unconvinced about. Reading the paragraph after that, it seems that your objections are to the standard way of interpreting the LT's. Unless your approach turns out to either

              1) have measurable implications that are different from the those of the standard intepretation, or

              2) lead to novel insights which are unavailable under the current interpretation,

              I would say it is neither better nor worse than it.

              The reinterpretation of length contraction which I discussed in my essay falls under the second rubric, with an eye on not just understanding in a novel way a facet of special relativity, but the entire contemporary worldview. What is in my essay is by itself not sufficient to do that, but it is a stepping stone towards it.

              If your preferred interpretation functions in a similar manner, then you should work out those consequences and add them to the arsenal of evidence in favor of your worldview.

              Best,

              Armin

              Dear Colin,

              Great to hear from you, and thank you so much for the reference to the table. I did not know about it, and it certainly looks intriguing. I will have to think some more about it to understand how it relates to my ideas. What I presented here is just, in a way, the tip of the iceberg, but regrettably presenting the rest is taking longer than I expected (also, I am currently traveling, and that does not help, ha).

              I will shortly attempt to comment on your essay as well.

              All the best,

              Armin

              Dear Conrad,

              thank you for your extended comments. I will reply to some of them below:

              "I was also intrigued by your treatment of "relative dimensionality" in terms of volume-boundary ratios, but it wasn't clear to me how much is gained by this."

              Each paradigm is based on certain fundamental ideas which serve as a foundation for everything else that follows. However, without what follows, the significance of those ideas is by no means clear. While I presented some novel things for which relative dimensionality is a conceptual starting point, I admit that there is far more that needs to be shown to appreciate what is to be gained from it. That was supposed to be shown mainly in the second paper. However, my 2012 FQxi paper also alluded to it indirectly (the schema in the appendix uses relative dimensionality within each box as a means of transitioning from the dimensionality of one box to the next).

              "Part of my problem is that I don't have any intuitive notion of "dimensionality" as you present it... so while I don't doubt that your two principles are correct, I didn't get a sense of their importance."

              There are two answers to this:

              1. Within the limited context of my essay, I think that bringing out the consideration of dimensionality elucidates the straightforward geometric relationship between electric and magnetic fields. I had hoped that this would be one of those things where once it is pointed out, people would ask themselves "Why did I not notice this before?". That does not seem to have happened, and I really think that I am bumping into an effect that Kuhn already recognized, which is that scientists operating under a paradigm cannot easily see relationships which require a network of concepts that fall under a different paradigm.

              2. Within a broader context, I think that not seeing the importance of it is not your fault. In part 2 I proposed to analogous principles which seem equally trivial. However, when the four principles are combined together, one arrives at a non-trivial consequence which can be used to rule out certain speculative ideas. I will simply state them here briefly, skipping over a bunch of definitions which are needed to really make the principles meaningful, and ask you to tell me whether this helps see the importance. The two analogous principles are:

              a. The actual existence in spacetime of an object is invariant under spacetime coordinate transformations.

              b. The dimensionality of a timelike hypersurface in spacetime is everywhere the same.

              It is not difficult to derive from these four principles, that physical existence is partitioned into equivalence classes of existence in given n+1 dimensional spacetimes. Thus, the only objects that can actually exist in 4-dimensional spacetime are 3 dimensional objects. Similarly, the only objects that can actually exist in, say, 11-dimensional spacetimes are 10-dimensional objects. Consequently, speculations which suppose that 4-dimensional objects could exist in 11-dimensional spacetimes either violate one or more of the trivial principles, or are wrong. That is one of the most immediate of the important consequences of these principles. The partition of physical existence was already implicitly assumed in the schema of my 2012 paper, but now I can derive it from a set of fundamental principles.

              " I saw (in your comment to Terry Bollinger) that you're planning on taping a presentation on the Default Specification Principle... I'd be very interested to see that."

              Thank you for your interest, I will notify you when it is uploaded.

              I will read your essay shortly and leave a commment.

              All the best,

              Armin

              Armin,

              Yes indeed. Already done. Identified across a wide range of sciences. Even cosmology, papers published and essays here scored top 10 inc. 1st & 2nd. I recall you made good connection with some.

              The problem is that even when an established theory leaves anomalies and paradoxes no better fit theory can replace it due to the way our minds work; We build mental models and compare input to those. It its a poor fit we reject it.

              That's the 'cognitive dissonance' I discussed last year. It's just the human condition and current state of our intellectual evolution. Indeed, (like you so far!), many don't bother to even look! Those who do, properly, are rewarded.

              Yes, it goes well beyond SR, i.e. replacing the 'Law of the Excluded Middle' to remove all paradox from logic, solves Stellar Aberration at last, etc. etc. All published & archived, some on arXiv, i.e. Resolution of Kantor and Babcock-Bergman Emission Theory Anomalies . and in videos. I decided if it was correct it should do the impossible; Unify SR and QM. That's what this years essay does. If you get to read it first see the 8 part sequence I've just put on my posts to familiarise yourself with an outline to fit the ontology to.

              It's an amazing discovery (in Bells words & as he anticipated) so I hope you get to study it.

              Very Best, and well done for yours, very good and agreeable apart from that one point. But 'agreement' isn't a scoring criteria of course (so I pencilled it in for well above its present level)

              Hope yours gets in the top group. Very best.

              Peter

              Armin, thanks for your response. To your point 1. - I agree. Within the current paradigm of course it's understood that there's a basic connection between electric and magnetic fields, and that makes it harder rather than easier to see the possibly more radical relationship you're pointing out.

              Likewise with your four principles... though I'm unclear about the concept of a "timelike hypersurface," otherwise my first reaction is, sure, why would this not be true? That makes it harder to see what's going on in your argument - as you say, 'this may even be alleged to be so obvious as to be trivial." For example, it does seem obvious that "the only objects that can actually exist in 4-dimensional spacetime are 3 dimensional objects." It's not until you take the next step and say an 11-dimensional spacetime can not contain 4-dimensional objects that it ceases to seem trivial.

              I'm not suggesting your arguments are trivial, only that the method of presentation may be backwards, for readers new to your approach. It might make sense to begin with the consequences that are clearly different from what we expect to be true, and show they're grounded in principles that seem clearly true.

              Now I know from experience that in working out fundamentally new ideas, one rarely has a lot of choice about presentation. I've done the best I can with my own FQXi essays, but I've never been able to stand back and say, I could have done this very differently... at least, not till after the contest was over - then (with help from friends and commenters) I gradually gain some clarity about my errors in strategy.

              And I face a problem that's maybe very similar to yours: for me, everything follows from the simple fact that things in our universe are observable and measurable. Hard to find anything more obvious and seemingly trivial than that! So maybe once this contest is over I'll be able to take my own advice about presentation.

              Thanks again - I look forward to seeing your further development of these thoughts.

              Conrad

              24 days later