Hi Emily Christine Adlam

Your discussion of arrow of time other concepts in a simple and thoughtful way of discussion about Fundamental are really excellent…..dear Emily ….. By the way have a look at my essay also and post your esteemed observations there….

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any...

view entire post

Hi Emily Christine Adlam

Your discussion of arrow of time other concepts in a simple and thoughtful way of discussion about Fundamental are really excellent…..dear Emily ….. By the way have a look at my essay also and post your esteemed observations there….

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/ ”

By the way…………………

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.

Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.h


tml

Best Regards

=snp

view post as summary

Hi Emily,

Definitely one of the best essays here – clear, insightful and fun to read. I especially appreciate that it’s historically informed… and I think you do get to the key issue. The question of what’s fundamental is closely tied to the question of what counts as an explanation, and also, of what it is that really needs to be explained about our world. As you suggest, the...

view entire post

Hi Emily,

Definitely one of the best essays here – clear, insightful and fun to read. I especially appreciate that it’s historically informed… and I think you do get to the key issue. The question of what’s fundamental is closely tied to the question of what counts as an explanation, and also, of what it is that really needs to be explained about our world. As you suggest, the questions that really should be most pressing may not even be approachable within the current reductive paradigm.

There are several points you raise that I take up in my current essay. For one, you suggest it’s important to explain why there are the kinds of regularities in the world that allow us to make predications. I would add… that allow us to observe and measure things, which would hardly be possible in a less well-organized environment. Ideally we could ground our explanation of the complex forms these regularities take in some sensible notion of why they exist in the first place.

I particularly liked your thought that maybe “most of the time there simply is no fact of the matter about how things are on a microscopic level, because the universe is efficient, and doesn’t bother answering questions when it doesn’t need to.” I would say, it only answers in situations where the question is actually asked, and where the answer can make a meaningful difference to something, by setting up other such situations.

And finally, your whimsical tag-line that maybe after all it’s atoms that are fundamental, happens to be the main point of my argument. Not fundamental in the sense of indivisible, or independently self-sustaining, of course… but in that the possibility of measuring anything or meaningfully defining any kind of information, in our universe, depends on the remarkable combination of things that atoms can do.

Many thanks for your excellent contribution. If you’re looking for recommends, Karen Crowther, Ines Samengo and Marc Seguin are my other front-runners.

Conrad

view post as summary

Hi Emily -- Wow; that was a really great essay! A much bigger scope (and much better answer) than what I tried to do in mine, although we touched on a few of the same themes. As you probably know, I'm in essential agreement about just about everything here -- and indeed I'm still trying to sort out just how 'under-determined' the micro-reality might be.

Right at the very end, though, I...

view entire post

Hi Emily -- Wow; that was a really great essay! A much bigger scope (and much better answer) than what I tried to do in mine, although we touched on a few of the same themes. As you probably know, I'm in essential agreement about just about everything here -- and indeed I'm still trying to sort out just how 'under-determined' the micro-reality might be.

Right at the very end, though, I couldn't quite tell if you were describing how I think about things or rather something a bit different. You wrote:

" If this is correct, it is no wonder that when we do quantum physics we find it difficult to say anything definite about how things are on a microscopic level: most of the time there simply is no fact of the matter about how things are on a microscopic level, because the universe is efficient, and doesn’t bother answering questions when it doesn’t need to. To ensure the satisfaction of the macroscopic constraints, there’s usually no need to decide how things are on a microscopic level - except of course when human experimentalists start wiggling smaller and smaller things and demanding answers."

I figured you weren't being anti-realist here, which was confirmed by your answer to Matt's question, but I'm still not quite sure what you have in mind. To Matt, you wrote:

" we just have a constraint problem whose solution requires more detail in some places than in others."

That sounds fine to me, but still leaves open the question of what happens when we *don't* look closely, what happens when we don't impose detailed boundary constraints on a microscopic system.

So here's an example: an atom passes through a Stern-Gerlach device, but instead of measuring which path it takes, the two paths are recombined so one can't tell which way it went through the device, even later. I assume this is what you mean by *not* demanding answers -- but what do you mean by saying there's "no fact of the matter about how things are"? Is that just shorthand for saying that there might be some non-particle-like history, some realistic thing (say, a field) that takes *both* paths in this instance? Or are you leaning towards something even more dramatic -- say, that there's nothing corresponding to the atom at all, or that the spacetime locations of the paths aren't even well-defined? I'd be curious to know what you thought about this example.

Thanks again for a great read!

-Ken

view post as summary

Emily,

A logical explanation for the "arrow of time."

We experience reality as flashes of cognition and so think this arrow, or "flow," from past to future, is a fundamental fact of nature, but have difficulty explaining it. Physics has determined it must be a dimension, experienced as duration and so distills it down to measures of duration, which are correlated to measures of...

view entire post

Emily,

A logical explanation for the "arrow of time."

We experience reality as flashes of cognition and so think this arrow, or "flow," from past to future, is a fundamental fact of nature, but have difficulty explaining it. Physics has determined it must be a dimension, experienced as duration and so distills it down to measures of duration, which are correlated to measures of distance, resulting in Spacetime. Though cannot explain why it only seems to go past to future, other than the effect of entropy.

A simpler explanation is that it is change turning future to past, as in tomorrow becomes yesterday, because the earth turns. Duration is simply the state of the present, as events coalesce and dissolve.

Energy is 'conserved," because it is always and only present. Past and future are other configurations of the same medium. Given this, causality is redundant. It is the dynamic of this energy which creates these configurations.

As such, energy and the forms it manifests go opposite directions of time. Energy going past to future, as events go future to past. Think of the frames of a movie, versus the projector light shining through them.

Consider a factory, as an example of this relationship between entity and process. As the product goes start to finish, being in the future to in the past, the process points the other direction, consuming material and expelling product. Onto the new, shedding the old.



Life is the same, as individuals go birth to death, while the species moves onto the next generation, shedding the old. As consciousness goes from one thought to the next, these mental forms go future to past.

So time is like temperature, an effect of action. One is the individual frequency, while the other is masses of frequency and amplitude.

Simultaneity was dismissed by observing that different events are observed in different order, from different locations, but this is no more consequential that seeing the moon, simultaneous with seeing stars as they were years ago. It is the energy which is conserved, not the information it carries.

So the reason time is asymmetric is because it is a measure of action and action is inertial. The earth turns one direction, not both.

Regards,

John B. Merryman

view post as summary

Dear Emily,

Yours is one of the most elegant essays in this contest, and it broaches a number of interesting points in an engaging manner.

A few comments:

1. It seems to me that the consequence to draw from the realization that "our ancestors who came up with concept of objective chance cannot ever had anz actual experience of what we now understand to be objective chance" is...

view entire post

Dear Emily,

Yours is one of the most elegant essays in this contest, and it broaches a number of interesting points in an engaging manner.

A few comments:

1. It seems to me that the consequence to draw from the realization that "our ancestors who came up with concept of objective chance cannot ever had anz actual experience of what we now understand to be objective chance" is not that this was "nothing short of miracle", but rather that sometimes the wrong idea can nevertheless lead to the right conclusion. Is that miraculous?

2. I really liked the contrast in conceptualizations of fundamentality as something desirable because it gets rid of unnecessary or superfluous conceptual baggage, but then by the same token as something undesirable because what is being thrown out could actually be precisely that for which there is a value in finding deeper explanations. To me, this reinforces the notion that fundamentality is a purely epistemic notion.

3. On page 5 you ask "Why is it that objective chances seem to be the only thing we have in our arsenal when it comes to explaining regularities without explaining their specific form?" I would like to suggest an answer which you are unlikely to hear anywhere else: I believe that our understanding of the fundamental workings of nature has advanced so much that we cannot go further without integrating some physics-based understanding of being into it.

Questions of existence suffuse the background of any of the contemporary approaches to trying to understand this and related questions, but because existence is currently considered a purely philosophical concept, this aspect is generally simply overlooked by physicists. For instance, the reductionist answer you mention first, which "tells us that global regularities like quantum statistics must be explained in terms of fundamental properties of individual properties" glosses over the fact that our intuitive notions of existence always presuppose having definite properties, but this is already violated (under the textbook interpretations) in quantum mechanics. Sometimes (as in Heisenberg's "Physics and Philosophy") this is vaguely acknowledged, but, as far as I can tell, only within the context of some philosophical verbiage the meaning of which seems hard to apply mathematically to the equations.

4. I agree with you that as we go to ever smaller scales "most of the time there simply is no fact of the matter about how things are on a microscopic level", but I draw from that a completely different lesson than you seem to, namely, that this is an indication that our current conceptual, and to the extent that novel concepts drive the definition of novel mathematical objects, mathematical framework is simply inadequate to represent what is going on at those scales. I really wished I had already completed the second part of the 2-part series of which the first part is my contest entry, because it gives concrete examples of this claim, but regrettably this will still have to wait. Even the antireductionist conclusion of your essay involves considerations of existence in the background: I find it hard to conceive of atoms as more fundamental than quarks unless this was supported by some argument which elevates the ontic status of the latter relative to the former.

5. In my view we do not have to build ever bigger particle accelerators to gain a more fundamental understanding. Rather, I believe there is still ample space to reinterpret some of our current concepts in a different way which reveals connections or insights which were simply not obvious under the prior interpretations. In my entry I attempt to show this with the concrete example of length contraction.

view post as summary

Dear Emily,

Leibniz’ PSR appears in the direct neighborhood of another principle, and I think that they cannot be meaningfully separated, particularly since they are coupled by an AND.

§30. Our reasonings are based on two great principles, that of contradiction, in virtue of which we judge that which involves a contradiction to be false, and that which is opposed or contradictory...

view entire post

Dear Emily,

Leibniz’ PSR appears in the direct neighborhood of another principle, and I think that they cannot be meaningfully separated, particularly since they are coupled by an AND.

§30. Our reasonings are based on two great principles, that of contradiction, in virtue of which we judge that which involves a contradiction to be false, and that which is opposed or contradictory to the false to be true.

§31. And that of sufficient reason, by virtue of which we consider that we can find no true or existent fact, no true assertion, without there being a sufficient reason why it is thus and not otherwise, although most of the time these reasons cannot be known to us. (from Stanford Encycl. of Phil., para. numbers corrected acc. to original)

Based on §30 and the truism that contradiction does not exist, Leibniz says that that which is opposed or contradictory to the false (the non-existent) is true, and hence existent. So, existence is the opposite (complement?) of contradiction, which is basically what Spinoza had said. But then in §31 Leibniz goes on to speculate about the existent, namely, that there is a reason why it is thus and not otherwise, and he concludes the sentence by saying that the reason for this being so in most cases cannot be known to us. Hence what the PSR says is that there always IS a reason which, in general cannot be known, however. Then the question is why that? And the answer is in §30, because the existent is defined by non-contradiction and not positively! Does Leibniz suggest that the reason (cause) is virtual? Don’t forget that for Leibniz necessary truths are a priori (true). That is, for him there are assertions that are a priori true, because they are non-contradictory. Pulled together, §30 and 31§ mean: every non-contradictory assertion is a priori true. Since, however, the positive proof of such a priori truth is not for us to know, it becomes clear why already Aristotle believed contradiction to be the most powerful logical argument there is.

So, I’m not sure whether PSR effectively supports your ideas.

Heinrich

view post as summary

Dear Emily

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My...

view entire post

Dear Emily

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My sail area overpowered. Ordinarily I would have reduced sail, but this day I felt differently. My contemplations were on the forces of nature, and I was ventured seaward increasingly amongst them. As the wind and the waves rose, my boat came under strain, but I was exhilarated. All the while I considered, how might I communicate the role of natural forces in understanding of the world around us. For they are surely it’s central theme.

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 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. for if they didn’t then nebula 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 an attempt at 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 an energy 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 forming 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 chemical process arose.

By identifying process whereby atomic forces draw a potential from space, we have identified means for their perpetual action, and their ability to deliver perpetual work. 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 apply 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

view post as summary

Dr. Adlam

Hi. I agree with your statement:

"...and try as we might,we could not find satisfactory explanations for the quantum probabilities. So we stopped trying, and began applying the term ‘fundamental’ to cover our lack of understanding.The word ‘fundamental’ become a disguise for our confusion."

but then you seem to say that really it's okay to stop trying and...

view entire post

Dr. Adlam

Hi. I agree with your statement:

"...and try as we might,we could not find satisfactory explanations for the quantum probabilities. So we stopped trying, and began applying the term ‘fundamental’ to cover our lack of understanding.The word ‘fundamental’ become a disguise for our confusion."

but then you seem to say that really it's okay to stop trying and to give up on the idea of their being a reason, or a "why" for things in nature because at the smallest level, it's all just chance:

"...we will see that the universe simply could not have been otherwise. It is an immensely attractive prospect, but also, surely, an impossible one..but there is no similarly pressing need to explain why these regularities take some particular form rather than another."

This is certainly possible, but it seems to suggest that we "stop trying". We say that fundamentally, there is no answer why things are at the smallest levels. It's just chance. For me, I can't accept this. I think there is a definite mechanism for how things happen at small levels, and these lead to the appearance of chance. I like to think about the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and all the time run up against people saying: It's insoluble; it's just a brute fact; the question makes no sense, etc. It's frustrating, and I disagree but think this attitude comes about because it is a hard question and people give up trying after awhile.

In regard to the appearance of chance at the smaller levels, it seems possible that some very small existent entities are the atoms of not only space but of location. Before these entities were there, there was no space, no volume and no location. We can't say ahead of time where these entities will be formed because before they form, there is no location and no "where". Once they form and cause locations to come into existence, we can look back after the fact, and say they could have been formed in any of an infinite range of locations. We're applying a coordinate system of locations to a situation where there were no locations. So, we think it's just chance why some formed in those locations and that there is no underlying mechanism. Instead, I agree that it was chance but that there is a mechanism for what causes those entities and those locations to form. Once we can figure out the mechanism, we can figure out why it seems like it's all random.

I think Bohm and DeBroglie were advocates of this type of thinking. Anyways, while I'm just an amateur, I'm going to keep trying to figure things out. Thanks for making me think. Sorry for the shameless plug for my website below. Although, the site has many things from previous FQXi essay contests.

Roger

https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/filecabinet/wh
y-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing

view post as summary