Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Paul Butler: on 2/13/18 at 2:15am UTC, wrote Dear Claude, First I will explain the situation about the printing of the...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 2/12/18 at 14:58pm UTC, wrote Claude, The essay of Vladimir Rogozhin is a good introduction to the...

CLAUDE CASSANO: on 2/12/18 at 8:52am UTC, wrote "stuff" may be mathematically defined via quantum field theory as is done...

CLAUDE CASSANO: on 2/12/18 at 6:19am UTC, wrote I am not and have never designed, produced, nor supported the creation of...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 2/12/18 at 2:03am UTC, wrote Claude, I absolutely agree with everything you said about science, physics...

CLAUDE CASSANO: on 2/6/18 at 14:52pm UTC, wrote References: [8] Cassano, C.M., "Analysis on Vector Product Spaces", M.A....

Paul Butler: on 2/5/18 at 23:55pm UTC, wrote Dear Claude, For some unknown reason, every extra line space that was in...

Paul Butler: on 2/5/18 at 23:27pm UTC, wrote Dear Claude, Does your math model tell us the basic substance of which...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jorma Seppaenen: "I find this very interesting topic. I am just a amateur enthusiast of..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Hanvi jobs: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 23, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Understanding Fundamental and Foundational by CLAUDE MICHAEL CASSANO [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author CLAUDE MICHAEL CASSANO wrote on Jan. 10, 2018 @ 21:01 GMT
Essay Abstract

Fundamental and foundational are subjective terms denoting an essential core; or central or primary rule or principle of a subject matter. In the context of physics (as the subject matter), because all physical phenomena are measured and determined empirically. It is natural, indeed imperative, to consider experiments, themselves, as statements within the paradigm. Further, since even at the simplest level, primary rules and principles have mathematical descriptions. If physics is not a mathematical construct, where does the inability to quantify (measure) end and a magical core begin? Thus, a physics paradigm, as a mathematical construct is fundamental and foundational if and only if the essential core is consistent with all statements (experiments) within the paradigm. A process examining a fundamental and foundational core of a physics paradigm, as a mathematical construct is implemented.

Author Bio

Authored several mathematics and Mathematical Physics books and numerous mathematics and mathematical physics videos. Taught mathematics courses at U.C.,Riverside, Crafton Hills College, & University of Redlands from 2005 through 2008 Academic Honors: 2004 SJSU Math Department Hoggatt Award Scholarship 2003 SJSU Math Department Fuller Award Scholarship Earned M. A. Mathematics, SJSU 05/2004 Earned B.A.Mathematics, at CSU, Chico 06/1973

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 23:39 GMT
Cassano,

The language of maths is not accessible to everyone.... Some prosaic conclusion would have been appreciated. On the other hand, I got the following:

Only one force. May I take this as only “one cause”?

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author CLAUDE MICHAEL CASSANO wrote on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 08:23 GMT
Physics is a quantitative science, ergo a mathematical discipline.

From begining courses subject matter: Newton's Laws prescribe mathematical

methods of analyzing projectile motion, the incline plane, friction, etc.;

Lagrangian dynamics, Hamiltonian dynamics, statistical mechanics; and

electromagnetic field theory provide further methods and precision for

analysis; and wave mechanics provides more even into the quantum realm.

Since this essay discusses fundamentals and foundations in the context of

physics (FQXi) if it's discussion is not at a mathematical level it is

easily rebuked, by simply querying how any of the above analytical methods

described above arise from any supposed foundation.

Discussion of fundamentals of language, politics, art or other fields may be

appropriate elsewhere, but are out of the scope of a physics (FQXi)

forum article/essay - except as where physics is a part of fundamentals in

those fields (such as perspective, color, lighting, etc.); but then, again

in those areas fundamental would still undergo analysis as done in the

article/essay.

"So, is this enough for foundational? Some might say yes. Others, that it

only describes two forces." This was an implied quotation.

The previous and later following statements implied:

"... a single vector space algebra manifesting characteristics having an

appearance of distinct forces."

After spending years developing and applying new mathematics, what is

clear and obvious to me requires study of my references to become so to

others. That is why I always include references to my material. Common

mathematics, even at the graduate level, is antiquated mathematics,

insufficient to understand reality. Only through my transcendental mathematics

may the "First Fundamental Design of GOD" be comprehended.

Bookmark and Share


Marcel-Marie LeBel replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 03:45 GMT
Claude,

Physics studies our experience of the universe, but the universe is not made of “experience”; it is made out of stuff! What is fundamental is what the universe IS and DOES before we even look or think about it, and this is the hard part to accept.

Thanks,

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author CLAUDE MICHAEL CASSANO replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 05:47 GMT
How do they make TV's , smart phones , radios , nuclear bombs , etc. ?

How do they know the flight of baseballs, cannonballs, rockets, drones, etc.?

Because they have determined what are referred to as "physical laws" that

the motion of the "stuff" must follow, and even that determines the "stuff".

That is what the "fundamental" is.

As noted in a previous...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 03:58 GMT
Hi CLAUDE MICHAEL CASSANO

Wonderful idea “Thus, a physics paradigm, as a mathematical construct is fundamental and foundational if and only if the essential core is consistent with all statements (experiments) within the paradigm. A process examining a fundamental and foundational core of a physics paradigm, as a mathematical construct is implemented” dear CLAUDE MICHAEL CASSANO……...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 21:54 GMT
Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author CLAUDE MICHAEL CASSANO replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 02:46 GMT
(2B) | !(2B) =/= ?

0 - 0 = 0

X=/= 0 => 2B

... a translation to a human understanding:

To Be OR NOT To Be That is NOT the Question.

Nothing form Nothing leaves Nothing

There's got To Be Something If there's To Be.

One might ask how the "one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface" theory manifests the Maxwell's equations, SU(3) symmetry), the Eightfold Way of hadrons, the fundamental particle interactions, the values of the fundamental particle masses and charges, etc. , and every other physical phenomena with reproducible mathematical precision?

Bookmark and Share



Paul N Butler wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 23:27 GMT
Dear Claude,

Does your math model tell us the basic substance of which matter particles, energy photons, and fields are composed or constructed? If so what is it? Does it tell us how this basic substance is structured in each of them to give them their individual observable properties? If so what are those structures?

It would seem to me that if time is a dimension and one could go...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 23:55 GMT
Dear Claude,

For some unknown reason, every extra line space that was in the above comment to you was replaced by the letter n. Can your math theory explain what caused that to happen? When you see the letter n just sitting there by itself just understand that an extra line should be between the text before the n and the text after the n. Isn’t man’s modern technology wonderful? I don’t know if it will happen to this message also or not. I guess we will see.

Sincerely,

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author CLAUDE MICHAEL CASSANO replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 14:52 GMT
References:

[8] Cassano, C.M., "Analysis on Vector Product Spaces", M.A. thesis, San Jose State University, 2004.



[9] Cassano, C.M., "Reality is a Mathematical Model", 2010.

ISBN: 1468120921 ; http://www.amazon.com/dp/1468120921

ASIN: B0049P1P4C ;...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 02:15 GMT
Dear Claude,

First I will explain the situation about the printing of the letter n instead of a line feed because that should be the easiest part. I have used the same copy of Microsoft word to type out my comments for several years and that was the first time that it had that problem, so it could not be due to the word processor’s end of line delimiters, since they have remained the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 02:03 GMT
Claude,

I absolutely agree with everything you said about science, physics and mathematics. But the “smartphone syndrome” is just there to make us believe that we are smart. Toys they are, and we know more than we actually understand. There is a difference. This is 2018 and we still send people into space sitting on huge amount of explosive, hoping they will make it. We won’t get far with rockets. So, if brilliant people like you truly believe rockets are “normal” in 2018, then we are in real trouble.

Anyone, who believes that it is not important to know what the universe is made of and what cause makes it evolve by itself (necessary logical concepts), has got to stand back and consider the big picture. What are we missing and why?

A successes that blinds us is called a failures.

Thanks,

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author CLAUDE MICHAEL CASSANO replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 06:19 GMT
I am not and have never designed, produced, nor supported the creation of rockets.

What I have done, is produce a design of "physics spaces" consistent with the

fundamentals of our four-dimensional-reality; and produce articles and videos

demonstrating such consistency with empirically known data.

As noted in my earlier FQXi article: "Physics is a Branch of Mathematics"

http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/CASSANO
_Physics_is_a_Branch.pdf

"If there is a sub-mathematical space - magic - underpinning the mathematical surrounding it; where does it start, and where does the mathematical surrounding it begin?

If such exists, at some point it should reveal itself by not resting on axiomatic foundation."

Movements of the planets may be predicted with mathematical precision.

Mankind has built skyscrapers and submarines; and all kinds of mechanisms engineered.

Civil engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, etc.

are all irrefutable mathematical tools for creation in everyday life.

So, where's the magic?

Bookmark and Share


Author CLAUDE MICHAEL CASSANO replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 08:52 GMT
"stuff" may be mathematically defined via quantum field theory as is

done in "Quantum Mechanics", 3rd Ed., Eugen Merzbacher - Chapter 21 ...

"... there are two and only two forms of quantum mechanics for identical

particles ... satisfying two classes of commutation relations,

respectively, ... Bose-Einstein statistics and Fermi-Dirac statistics;

respective particles of which referred to as bosons and fermions. ...

Consequences are, that there are no fermion states in which two or

more particles share the same quantum number - i.e., all fermions

satisfy the Pauli exclusion principle (can occupy the same place at

the same time); ... and that bosons satisfy the theory of the harmonic

oscillator. ..."

Bookmark and Share



Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 14:58 GMT
Claude,

The essay of Vladimir Rogozhin is a good introduction to the content of my essay. He explains it better than me.

Thanks,

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.