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

James Hoover: on 2/23/18 at 18:18pm UTC, wrote John, Practical, functional and to the point. Clearly shows that...

Steven Andresen: on 2/23/18 at 13:19pm UTC, wrote Dear John If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the...

Peter Jackson: on 2/22/18 at 14:32pm UTC, wrote John, Hope you found a few more high spots. I haven't found many, and few...

John Hodge: on 2/16/18 at 7:23am UTC, wrote Gordon: Response to your question of 15 Feb.'15 Q1: The older term I used...

Gordon Watson: on 2/15/18 at 20:25pm UTC, wrote Thank you, Hodge, [This is from my essay thread, with 3 small edits: so...

John Hodge: on 2/10/18 at 21:22pm UTC, wrote Gordon: Thanks for your query. I started the STOE development with the...

Gordon Watson: on 2/10/18 at 4:37am UTC, wrote John, hoping this helps when I comment on your essay, this is carried-over...

John Hodge: on 2/6/18 at 22:21pm UTC, wrote Eckard: addendum: This is a short video showing the model and the actual...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Michael Hussey: "https://www.google.com" in New Nuclear "Magic...

Michael Hussey: "it is really difficult to understand what is all about all the things..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Stefan Weckbach: "I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Agnew: "It is interesting that you bring up change in the context of free..." in Cosmological Koans

Roger Granet: "By the way, this post was from Roger." in First Things First: The...

david john: "https://www.google.com google.com/ google.com/" in Black Hole Photographed...

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

Lorraine Ford: "Physics has failed to explain change: physics tries to claim that change is..." in Cosmological Koans


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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.


FQXi FORUM
July 17, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Fundamental principles criteria by John C Hodge [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author John C Hodge wrote on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 19:07 GMT
Essay Abstract

The FQXi 2018 essay contest is to consider what makes a description more fundamental than other descriptions. More fundamental descriptions are simpler, more useful, and apply to the entire universe including areas of mathematics, physical sciences, life, and society. For example, if a principle appears simpler for the data in physics but fails in life and society observations, then the principle is false. Human survival requires creativity for advancement and adapting to a changing environment. Creativity's essence appears to be the synthesis of a large diversity of observational types. The amount of unexplained observational data is huge. We need to think about it.

Author Bio

I sold my electronics company in 1991 (I was 49); retired; retired from retiring; and became an inventor and amateur astronomer. My interest in cosmology developed. I conceived a radical new cosmology model in 2002 and started publishing papers.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 00:17 GMT
John,

“The requirement is for a set of fundamental principles that serve both the big and the small and that outline a different synthesis.”

Here is a clue: Logic is scale invariant.

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 07:42 GMT
Marcel

So how did we come by General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. They don't have the same "logic". But then that is the problem.

So, logic is important but overrated. Analogy among the size scales is better, I think.



"Logic" depends entirely of the postulates. The postulates are the subject of this contest. So the small is better approached by analogy to our size (macro) scale. Thus avoiding all the weird aspects of QM.

For example, we may say the entanglement experiment rejects Special Relativity. Or we may liken photon like a man carrying a message and the communication in entanglement like a sound wave with a unique Fourier pattern in resonance between the entangled partners. Therefore, a medium with a wave speed >> light (photon) speed as suggested by T van Flandern and others experiments.

Hodge

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 19:52 GMT
Dear John,

I think FQXi.org might be trying to find out if there could be a Natural fundamental. I am surprised that so many of the contest's entrants do not appear to know what am fundamental to science, or mathematics, or quantum histrionics.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 11:02 GMT
I'm not. I follow these each year to find just 3 or 4 new original ideas to investigate. So far I'v found just 1 in Peter Jackson's essay. Yhe observation of vorticies in continuous media appears at all scales. The "proof by analogy" suggests vorticies should appear at the sub atomic particle scale also. So, what observation at the small scale is accounted by vorticies? Is there a viscous media at that scale? Or, is the media inviscid?

Bookmark and Share



Philip Gibbs wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 20:55 GMT
John, your main thesis is that simplicity needs to be judged by how it applies to society as well as physics. It is a nice take on the question of how simplicity is determined, but if simplicity is the objective why is the universe not so simple that nothing interesting can happen?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 12:33 GMT
Philip:

A model needs to be judged by its applicability to physics and society. The simplicity part is so humans can comprehend the model to the degree we can understand (explain the observational/experimental evidence) AND to be useful (predict outcomes of actions - wisdom). I see the goal of wisdom is debated in other essays.

I note the fundamental agent of a society is the individual family (not individual of one sex). With such as large, easy to observe agent, we should be able to comprehend and create a society/world-order that can last forever. See how that is working/failing.

That is, we don't know yet. we don't know howto create a universe, yet.

If we have to act outside of our wisdom, we'll fail. We don't know ho simple the universe actually is. we know only we have a long way to go.

What I'm addressing is the next step for humanity.

Hodge

Bookmark and Share


Author John C Hodge replied on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 18:15 GMT
As I look at the question, there is a subtility. The human model of the universe is NOT what the universe is. Thinking that our model is what the universe is or that our models even represent the universe is the height of conceit (from Hayek). Humans thought the Earth was at the center of the universe. Later humans thought the Earth was THE center of the universe. Now nearly all models of the universe assume without overtly saying that the universe is adiabatic. Yet, ALL systems in the universe are open. Each system accepts heat from another system and ejects heat to other systems, ad infinitem. So, the model should have the universe as open.

I take models as helping humans understand (explain) and predict (wisdom) outcomes of observations. How can this model discovery be uninteresting if getting better is persued.

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 13:43 GMT
John,

You covered a wide range of valid areas, though often seemingly not entirely tied together. You succeeded in avoiding the error of most ignoring the guidance not to shoehorn in their pet theory, though more references to work other than your own would have benefited. I suspect all may baulk at; "Recently, experimental evidence rejected the wave models of light (Hodge 2014b, 2017)" as poorly phrased. As so much leading edge experimental evidence seems contrary to that I'd have suggested more acceptable to say; "...evidence was inconsistent with the wave models.." and also give the case why before progressing as if it were a 'proof'. Your; "The hod/plenum model is the only...etc" has the same effect, likely edging you to the 'crackpot' bin in the eyes of many!

But enough criticism (helpful I hope). The essay also contained much of value. Certainly; "fundamental descriptions are simpler, more useful, and apply to the entire universe".

"The amount of unexplained observational data is huge. We need to think about it."


The problems with our; "separate and independent disciplines." also

"paradigms are so entrenched that they are barely recognized as a postulate"

and; "The necessary paradigm shift in the fundamental models is long overdue."

I agree all are more 'society' matters and fundamental too better physics.

Well done, and best of luck.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 12:39 GMT
Peter:

Thanks.

I pass the Baez crackpot index (not his kind of crackpot). The STOE model is radical and ouside socially accepted physics. So, it's not going to be accepted any time soon. If it is better, it will be accepted eventually. But until then, I play alone. I doubt if anyone else will join me, but it would be nice.

All the feelgood stuff in the philosophy of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 14:32 GMT
John,

Hope you found a few more high spots. I haven't found many, and few who can rationalise s complex sequence! Indeed mt essay's just been hit with more 1's which is a comment on a few things!

Pleased to now rate yours as promised, giving it a push up the latter.

Very best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan M. Kadin wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 15:45 GMT
Dear Mr. Hodge,

I enjoyed reading your essay on the meaning of “fundamental” in science. I especially noted your emphasis on the importance of simplicity and unity.

One other remark is your citation of Jacob Bronowski’s “The Ascent of Man” at the top of your reference list. This may date both of us, but I remember (about 40 years ago) being extremely impressed with this BBC series, and I went on to read not only the accompanying book, but also Bronowski’s earlier essay series on “Science and Human Values”. These have been largely forgotten, but I remember his argument that science is a dynamic open process, rather than a predefined body of knowledge. This process is now under attack from several sides.

I interpreted the FQXi mandate a bit differently. In my own essay, “Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics”, I argue that unity and simplicity are most fundamental, although the unity of physics was broken in the early decades of the 20th century. I review the historical basis for this rupture, and go on to present the outlines of a neoclassical synthesis that should restore this unity.

This neoclassical picture has no quantum entanglement, which has important technological implications. In the past few years, quantum computing has become a fashionable field for R&D by governments and corporations. But the predicted power of quantum computing comes directly from entanglement. I predict that the entire quantum computing enterprise will fail within about 5 years. Only then will the mainstream start to question the foundations of quantum mechanics.

Alan Kadin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 00:18 GMT
Thanks for commenting on my essay.

I agree the edifice of quantum foundations will fall. I think my diffraction experiment may contribute to that.

However, I suggest the "entanglement" can be viewed in a classical setting. All we need is for gravity waves to travel much faster than light. Photons need not be the only signal mechanism. So, entanglement can continue after the quantum edifice collapses.

Bookmark and Share


Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 16:18 GMT
Dear John Hodge,

Admittedly, I did still not yet read your essay although I tend to agree with some of what I found in your abstract. However, in the discussion with Peter Jackson you referred to a "Hodge experiment" as if it was performed by another Hodge and known to everybody.

I don't pretend being in position to easily understand and judge something that is perhaps based on diffraction.

At least I grasped that you are trusting in entanglement and you are suggesting a superluminal mechanism for it.

Such hypothetical mechanism is fundamental to your explanation of why you are ar odds e.g. with Traill, McEachern, and Kadin.

I would rather appreciate you to answer the question that my boss kept for too fundamental: Parmenides or Heraclitos?

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 20:32 GMT
Eckard:

What is the question?

Who is your boss/

If the question is which of the two philosophers is closer to me, I suggest Heraclitos.

Superluminal mechanism is what allows the quantum weirdness to be understood by classical analogy. It is much simpler than all the quantum baggage. Further, it suggest all observations are non-local in the sense if Bell's inequality. See how simple the quantum world can be?

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 04:21 GMT
Hi John C Hodge

Very nicely said ” Human survival requires creativity for advancement and adapting to a changing environment. Creativity's essence appears to be the synthesis of a large diversity of observational types. and you have rightly pointed out ” The amount of unexplained observational data is huge. We need to think about it.” You are correct Dr John C...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 18:34 GMT
snp:

What is the link to the papers that compare the Dynamic Universe Model to actual observations?

The STOE did this in STOE model of the universe http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648

Hodge

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 13:26 GMT
Hodge

Thank you for nice questions. Dynamic Universe Model solves with different problems at solar system level, Neutrino level, Galaxy level, Conglomerations of Galaxies level for the last 35 years. Some data is available here on my laptop, some is available with Academia web, some data in available in some floppy disks…., Some old data is in old hand written note books…. Some data is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gary Valentine Hansen wrote on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 18:48 GMT
John,

It is important that the language used to communicate ideas be readily understood by the average educated, non-specialist audience. This is particularly so if specialists wish to gain thoughtful analysis and criticism of their ideas for the purpose of testing, and if necessary modifying them in order to gain broader public acceptance.

The question: What is “Fundamental?” invites a singular response, either in the form of a definition, or as the identification of an all-embracing fundamental entity. Otherwise the question would be framed: What are “Fundamental?”

Best wishes,

Gary.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gordon Watson wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 04:37 GMT
John, hoping this helps when I comment on your essay, this is carried-over from my answer to you at More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

......................

Thank you, John [John C Hodge = JH below]. I appreciate your pointed comments, all the more so for bringing your essay to my attention.

Reading your essay, it seems that our personal...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 21:22 GMT
Gordon:

Thanks for your query.

I started the STOE development with the idea that Bell's inequality proved that action-at-a-distance (ADD) and local (less than or equal to speed of light ) interactions were impossible. (GW-1a) That is, cause and effect interactions happened at a greater than light speed distance. Many experiments appear at local speed because they are close. For...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 20:25 GMT
Thank you, Hodge,

[This is from my essay thread, with 3 small edits: so please post all replies there, too.]

Q1. What do you mean by, and how do you use, "the Reality principle"?

Q2. Is something missing where I have inserted [.....?] below? Because otherwise your qualifying phrase is "impossible" (at the end of the sentence).

"I started the STOE development with the idea that Bell's inequality proved that action-at-a-distance [AAD (edited)] [.....?] and local (less than or equal to speed of light ) interactions were impossible. (GW-1a) That is, cause and effect interactions happened at a greater than light speed distance."

Q3. And elsewhere (as I recall) you wrote that experiments should guide the mathematics. Do you have such mathematics for the Hodge experiment that you show on youtube?

Q4. Without such math, see Q3, why do you believe that conventional math [edit: ie, conventional best theorizing] will not deliver your results? [Let me assure you that they will.]

Q5. You write, "All experiments are non-local." Since you did not put non-local in quotes, what do you mean here?

Q6. Re Q5, since you dismiss infinite speeds, why would you not say that all experiments are, in your opinion, van Flandern-local? (As to the meaning of "local" see my essay for what I mean by Einstein-local; or google it under QM.)

[edit, to be clearer: as I understand your theory, by "local" you mean "NOT superluminal". I use Einstein-local for that. Since you allow speeds that are "superluminal but NOT infinite", I use van Flandern-local for that.]

Tks; Gordon

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 07:23 GMT
Gordon:

Response to your question of 15 Feb.'15

Q1: The older term I used was "the one universe principle" and its corollary that the universe is fractal. Therefore, the quantum world should have analogs in the Newtonian world without weirdness. In addition: since we learn from birth many characteristics of our scale, these become instinctual - more: they become the very definition...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 13:19 GMT
Dear John

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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 18:18 GMT
John,

Practical, functional and to the point. Clearly shows that fundamental embodies simpler, more useful, and more universal rules that involve resources contributing to survival. We need to discard old perceptions and adopt the new. Create more universal models. Nice blueprint for our survival.

We share a number of ideas. Hope you can check out mine in the remaining few days.

Jim

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.