I don't have a new essay to submit to the contest. I'm glad tat you submitted one though.

My previous paper discusses the tessellation of space: https://vixra.org/abs/1812.0423

Imagine that the amount of dark energy per metre cubed is a measure of how much a crystal (space) undergoes dislocations and deformations. I tessellate space using tetrahedra. Regular tetrahedra cannot be used to cover 3D space, and so there must be irregularities, and those irregularities give way to dark energy. It's pretty simple.

If you introduce quantization of space than you have to know how it is related to the given physical object, you need a variable density of space.

E/c2 = m = (Pmax - Pmin) x V

see my article here, I did not manage to attach it

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-48018-2

Amrit Sorli, at the lowest level there exists the structure of the basic quantum fields (quantized space). The basic quantum fields interchange quantized energy and the result of these created local differences is what we call phenomenological reality. So actually, the properties of the structure of the basic quantum fields - reality at the lowest level - are geometrical mathematical objects.

I know some cosmologists like it to use a fluid model to describe large scale changes in the macroscopic universe. But that's a macroscopic model that is founded upon the results of phenomenological physics (fluid mechanics). I have no intention to advertise a model for cosmologists. Of course, every spatial structure that shows internal transformations can be looked upon a fluid. But as long nobody can prove the origin of the universal constants and the existence of probability with the help of the fluid model, I will not change my point of view.

Dear SE Grimm

A general concern regarding any theory based upon a smallest particle or space: How can a theory that is limited to one slice of reality, say the Planck scale, determine and define the actions at the atomic scale (it should explain this), at the molecular scale (it can do some of this), at the macro-molecular and protein level, at the cellular level, at the ligament and tissue level, at the organ level, at the human body level, at the meteorological and planetary climate level, at the solar, black hole and solar system level, at the galactic level, at the galaxy cluster level?

How can any theory limited to just one slice of this continuum of scale expect to describe and determine the actions and interactions at all these levels?

If you divide up space at, say, the Plank scale, how does this transpose to our scale or to that of stars or galaxies? The proposal is that all space is either divided up only at this tiny scale, or the universe exists only as tiny particles - even when this is not our experience.

How are we to explain, at only the Planck level, the changes in a beach ball rolling down a dune and scuffing on a rock? The (macro) actions are easiest to describe at the level of the beach ball not the Planck level. Do we eschew the simpler explanation for a very difficult and poor explanation of these events? Why would we not expect to have a theory that works at all these levels - especially across these levels, since we experience actions that cross these levels?

We are measuring the universe in thin slices, like measuring only in the plane of Flatland when the universe is three-dimensional.

We have lost sight of what we are attempting to describe (all reality at all scales) - which is likely due to limitations in our tools (mathematical as well as measurement). Without admitting and addressing these limitations, we are going down a rabbit hole.

We need new tools.

Don

    Dear Donald Palmer,

    If the universe is one system, it must have a structure. Without a structure there is no differentiation of properties within its "boundary". Large scale phenomena - e.g. the solar system - are build up by the properties of the basic structure of the universe. In other words, every phenomenon - no matter its seize - must reflect the underlying basic properties of the structure of the universe. Therefore, without understanding the nature of space and time it is really hard to figure out all those confusing facts we have obtained with the help of experiments and observations. So it is wise to concentrate on the universal properties: physic laws, constants and the general behavior of the observable phenomena.

    With kind regards, Sydney

      Sorry, I forgot to push "reply"; my comment is the next post. Sydney

      Dear Sydney,

      Your response suggests you believe the 'basic structure of the universe' exists at the smallest level. That particle physics (or below) is where and only where these structures must exist. However, this presupposes that actions do not move up or down in scale, but all occur or begin at this one level. It presupposes all structure exists at or extends from this one level - when that is not what we perceive, since we perceive structure at all levels.

      What evidence is there for all (explanatory) structure to exist at only one level or that (I guess this is your position) all upward structure is a consequence of structure at the smallest scale?

      How does this one-directional structure creation (from smallest to largest) explain the actions of a beach ball rolling down a dune and scuffing against a rock? How does structure only at the smallest level account for this activity of movement at our level impacting objects and actions at a smaller level?

      It seems far more plausible that structure exists at all levels, that actions at larger levels can impact activities at smaller levels and that physical laws not only apply across levels, but interconnect levels (upward and downward).

      What is missing are the proper tools to measure across these levels, the lack of which could give us the impression one level is all we need.

      Sincerely, Don

      Dear Donald Palmer,

      My essay isn't an essay. I had uploaded a new paper to the preprint server Zenodo (CERN). Some minutes later I read the name FQXi in relation to a researcher and when I visited the site I realized that the new "contest" was about the impossibility to simulate phenomena in a 100% realistic way. My new paper described the same topic so I grinned a bit and uploaded my paper "to the contest" (5 minutes). The drawback of my little joke is a lack of explanation about the mathematical reasoning that "advertises" the existence of quantized space.

      Is it possible that our sun can be created out of an enormous cloud of dust and Hydrogen without the existence of the Milky Way? No, because our sun is created by a transformation of local spatial properties that are an evolution of previous spatial transformations. That means that the whole universe transforms at every scale of observable reality. Moreover, our universe is non-local thus every local change of spatial properties is influenced by all the other local changes of spatial properties at exactly the same moment.

      Large scale observable structures change very slow if we relate the amount of change with the shape, size and structure of its appearance. This observation is directly related to the size of the human scale. But every scale structure shares the same rate of change that is caused by the basic properties of quantized space. Because energy is directly related to change. If the quantum of energy is transferred in a linear way the velocity is the constant speed of light. However, there exists no change in our universe that isn't caused by the transfer of energy. In other words, every change in the universe - quanta transfer - has the speed of light.

      The conceptual problem is the way we try to interpret reality. If we use the phenomenological point of view we are convinced that every scale has its own "physic laws". But it we use the all-inclusive point of view there are no scales. There is a continuous transformation of spatial properties that we call "observable reality". Unfortunately, all the models in physics originate from phenomenological reasoning.

      With kind regards, Sydney

      10 days later

      Dear Sydney,thank you for this essay.I am not fully convinced that your initial claim "mathematics is a language to describe reality in an accurate way", is so straightforward. I tend to agree that mathematics is a constructed, creative human activity, but its relation to reality (if there is an independent reality out there) is not so trivial. Perhaps you might also like to have a look at what I discuss in my essay, about the use of different mathematical entities in physics and how this deeply affects the foundations of physics.

      Best,

      Flavio

        Dear Flavio Del Santo,

        Centuries ago meta-physicists have discussed about the relation between mathematics (metrical defined concepts) and physics (observable reality). There is only one conclusion possible: if humans are created by the basic properties of our universe it is impossible that humans can create thoughts that are independent from the basic properties of our universe (and basic properties are mathematical objects). However, this is not an argumentation to state that all the mathematics is physics, like we cannot state that all the physics is corresponding with reality. Every year arXiv.org receives thousands of papers about hypotheses to interpret the observations and experiments (physics). Unfortunately none of these papers shows to be the solution for all the theoretical problems in physics. Fortunately Lee Smolin had published a thoughtful enumeration of the problems in theoretical physics: https://www.thoughtco.com/five-great-problems-in-theoretical-physics-2699065

        I will download and read your paper, thanks for the hint.

        With kind regards, Sydney

        11 days later

        Dear Sydney,

        Very important ideas, well illustrated. But there are questions.

        Undoubtedly, the key question for physics and mathematics is the nature of space and, accordingly, its ONTOLOGICAL structure. Here it is good to recall the philosophical testament of Paul Florensky: "We repeat: worldunderstanding is spaceunderstanding".

        I agree: "However, this has consequences because it is not realistic to assume that the foundations of mathematics shouldn't be identical to the foundations of physics."..."In other words, the existence of observable phenomena everywhere in the universe shows that the underlying structure must be build up on identical basic properties."

        But in your justification of the basic structure there is no deepest ontology of the absolute forms of the existence of matter (absolute, unconditioned states), their connection with the structure of space (ideal entity). It seems to me that deeper dialectical and ontological ideas are needed here. Therefore, the holistic paradigm should come to the aid of the atomistic paradigm that dominates science (part paradigm). A methodology is needed, based on the total dialectical-ontological unification of matter across all levels of the Universe's being as an holistic process of generation of meanings and structures (material-ideal), i.e., construction (modeling) of the primordial generating (basic) structure: framework, carcass, foundation for the whole system of knowledge, and not just for physics and mathematics. We all need to "dig" together - from "phenomena" to basic concept-constructs, to "noumenons".

        With kind regards, Vladimir

          Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

          You are right, there is no extensive explanation. That's because it is not an essay, it is a publication; see the explanation in my second post from below. Nevertheless, there are links in the paper to other publications where I have described the subject (or visit https://philpeople.org/profiles/sydney-ernest-grimm).

          If I understand your post well, you are suggesting that I have to describe the conceptual framework of quantized space in relation to the existing scientific literature about the basic structure of the universe. Well, I have done a lot of research in my live - in other branches of science too - but I am afraid your opinion about my capacities is too optimistic.

          With kind regards, Sydney

          ;-))

          It is a bit dangerous to display that opinion in science. But if we both hide it from the others, it will not hurt us.

          Dear Sydney,

          Please tell me which article to read at the link in which your main ontological ideas are presented?

          With kind regards, Vladimir

          Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

          May be the short paper "Empiricism and empirical information" will give you an impression about the basic idea (actually it represents Parmenides' main thought about the difference between observable reality and the underlying creating reality). It isn't that I have tried to further explore Parmenides' work. When I started research long ago I had 2 troubling questions: (1) How do I know that my hypotheses are correct? and (2) Is it possible that phenomenological reality is some kind of an illusion?

          About 35 years later I stumbled on a paper about the work of Parmenides. I was shocked to discover that ~2500 years ago Parmenides had followed the same type of reasoning to answer the second question (2).

          With kind regards, Sydney

            Sorry, Vladimir Rogozhin, I have answered your question without pressing "Reply". My post is below.

            4 days later

            Dear Sydney,

            I first read the article "Empiricism and empirical information". Our views are very close. I believe that the main thoughts that need to be emphasized and adopted (in bold):

            "Parmenides used other terms to describe the existence of set C. Like other philosophers - Leucippus and Democritus - probably meant that the underlying creating reality must have a universal non-destructive structure. "Aristotle made a remarkable contribution because he stated that the underlying reality is in rest and all the observable changes in the sky - the celestial universe - are synchronized (the unmoved mover)."

            Then I read your article "The uniform structure of space and time."

            I believe that we must, at the first stage, to find mutual understanding, using the sharp "Occam's razor" decisively "cut off" time, since it is necessary to consider, like the ancient Greeks, the eternal Universe (Cosmos). Therefore, we should consider only the concepts of "SPACE", "in-FORMA-tion" and from physics - "MATTER", but in the spirit of integrality and generation (Plato) - this is what ALL FORMS ARE BORN from. Since the times of the Platonic Academy, FORMA is the first entity. Therefore, from the conclusion "Space is composed by spatial units with identical properties", I would first take only the first part: "Space is composed by spatial units ..."

            The question remains of how many units? Recall the Pythagoreans, whose first number is "three". Why "three"? Here the idea is generated.

            Dialectics ... Dialectics ...

            Further is not yet obvious and we must find common support with you for "grasping" the structure of space. What structure? ... "Universal non-destructive structure" ... And that means ONTOLOGICAL ...

            Vladimir

            Dear Vladimir Regozhin,

            The relevance of science is the meaning of its results for society. That's why I suppose that concepts - and the terms we use for the concepts - have to be simple. Otherwise the majority of the public isn't interested in understanding science. That is why one of the main problems in science is the confusion we create by using terms that have a lot of different meanings. One of the advantages of physics is the possibility to use a limited number of terms without creating voids in the description of reality. In philosophy many philosophers have coined their own names for slightly different abstract concepts in relation to the concepts their colleges uses. That is why I don't like it to "write like a philosopher". For example, what is ontology? Actually it is the universe. A volume that envelopes everything like a box without walls. In other words, in science we are not only trying to understand reality, we have to force our abstract concepts into simple concepts that represent the "bare" conceptual frame work.

            I have read your essay and I understand and subscribe to your arguments. Moreover, it is really interesting to read about the basic thoughts of so many Russian scientists. Mostly in West Europe we are not fully aware of all the Russian science, partly because of the Russian language. I hope that your essay corresponds with the interests of the panel of FQXi-members who rate the essays (because your approach is founded on philosophical insights).

            With kind regards, Sydney