FQXi Community

Essay Abstract

In seeking an answer to the question of what it means for a theory to be fundamental, it is enlightening to ask why the current best theories of physics are not generally believed to be fundamental. This reveals a set of conditions that a theory of physics must satisfy in order to be considered fundamental. Physics aspires to describe ever deeper levels of reality, which may be without end. Ultimately, at any stage we may not be able to tell whether we've reached rock bottom, or even if there is a base level – nevertheless, I draft a checklist to help us identify when to stop digging, in the case where we may have reached a candidate for a final theory. Given that the list is – according to (current) mainstream belief in high-energy physics – complete, and each criterion well-motivated, I argue that a physical theory that satisfies all the criteria can be assumed to be fundamental in the absence of evidence to the contrary (i.e., I argue that the necessary conditions are jointly sufficient for a claim of fundamentality in physics).

Author Bio

Karen Crowther is a postdoc at the University of Geneva, where she is investigating questions related to scientific theory-change. Before this, she was a postdoc at the University of Pittsburgh, and before that, she obtained her PhD in philosophy from the University of Sydney. Karen is the author of “Effective Spacetime: Understanding Emergence in Effective Field Theory and Quantum Gravity” (Springer, 2016), as well as a number of peer-reviewed journal articles. She also holds a BA (Hons.) in philosophy, and a BSc (Hons.) in physics, from Monash University, Clayton.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Dr. Karen Crowther,

In qualifying the aim of the ‘What is Fundamental?’ essay contest, Dr. Brendan Foster, the FQXi.org Science Projects Consultant wrote: “We invite interesting and compelling explorations, from detailed worked examples through thoughtful rumination, of the different levels at which nature can be described, and the relations between them.

Real Nature has never had any abstract finite levels.

I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists 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.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

post approved

Karen,

The background independence is somehow nonsensical. How can we require this of a number of events at different scales but essentially happening in the same arena?

“The idea of unification is not just that there be a single theory describing all phenomena, but that it describe all phenomena as the same—as fundamentally stemming from a single origin, e.g., as manifestations of a single entity or interaction.”

In my essay I construct this background arena from a bottom-up logical approach. Logic is scale invariant! A lucid but not weird vision.

Your essay is Well written, informative, a keeper,

Thanks,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 05:59 GMT

Dear Marcel,

Thanks very much for your comments.

Less-fundamental theories may have their arena provided by more-fundamental ones, but this cannot be the case for an absolutely fundamental theory – there is no further “background”, and the theory should be self-contained. As an example, Carlo Rovelli views more-fundamental theories as tending to further relationalism: all structures within a fundamental theory are defined by reference to one another, rather than to a background arena that needs to be specified for the theory.

You view the background arena as fundamental, instead? Or is it constructed from something more fundamental?

Best regards,

Karen

Marcel-Marie LeBel replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 02:25 GMT

Karen,

The background is the fundamental arena for things to exist and happen. In my essay, I create such background from nothingness from the rule of non-contradiction. It is more like a form of fundamental ontology in a bottom-up mode. Please read my essay in full and tell me if asking “why” in this case is the proper question.

Thanks,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Dear Karen Crowther,

It is interesting that you investigate questions related to scientific theory-change. Are you focused primarily on historical instances of such, or on practical obstacles to affecting such today?

I found your discussion of fundamental theories and related issues useful. It's always nice to see thumbnail snapshots of vast theories where it's easy to get lost in details. I believe you accurately describe the situation at hand and would not argue against your points. Rather than expound upon what you said, I will suggest that as 'scientific theory-change' goes, you might enjoy my essay. Einstein's invention of "the relativity of simultaneity" was a monstrous change, and I look at the historical aspects underlying this change. I would be very interested in any comments you might have on the changes discussed.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 05:56 GMT

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Thanks very much for your comments; I am glad to hear that some ideas are useful to your own work. My research is currently focused on the search for quantum gravity – the principles being used both in motivating this search, as well as those serving as constraints on the new theory. But, yes, I am also interested in looking at previous instances of theory-change in order to see what lessons we can bring to the current situation. So, I will have a look at your essay, too.

Best regards,

Karen

We can stop digging when we can create a universe.

Hodge

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 21:19 GMT

What do you mean "create a universe"? And how would that give us a fundamental theory?

John C Hodge replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 13:16 GMT

Create as in cause to come into being like God is supposed to have done.

We would have to have a fundamental (most fundamental?) understanding about cause and effect relationships. Model comes first.

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 12:36 GMT

Ah yes, I see what you mean now. It would obviously be a sufficient condition, but I'd hope it's not a necessary one!

Best,

Karen

Dear Karen Crowther,

You wrote in the Abstract: “In seeking an answer to the question of what it means for a theory to be fundamental, it is enlightening to ask why the current best theories of physics are not generally believed to be fundamental.”

Nature produced one single real unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single dimension that am always illuminated by mostly finite non-surface light millions of years before humanly contrived finite speculation about abstract physics theories ever became evident on earth.

Joe Fisher, Realist.

post approved

Your essay is very well written, well informed, logical and thorough. I appreciated its intelligence. A problem might be that the arena of deep fundamentals is likely well beyond our future ability to perform experiments and beyond normal science – beyond testability. How open should we be to the attempts of string theorists to “redefine science” to include their realm? I tend to be skeptical and wonder if deep theories may end up being partly "faith based."

report post as inappropriate

Karen Crowther replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 05:55 GMT

Thanks very much! Yes, I agree the current situation with quantum gravity seems quite detached from the experimental realm, and this has led to some very interesting questions regarding the status of theoretical physics as a scientific discipline, and the role of non-empirical theory assessment. This is why I wanted to leave open the possibility that what physics currently views as conditions on a fundamental theory may change in the future, due to quantum gravity research.

But I think there is hope in the future that more connections will be drawn between the various QG approaches and the empirical realm. (Remember that it was a while before GR was experimentally verified, for example, too). Rather than being sceptical, we can try to be optimistic that the theories may eventually be indirectly testable, potentially yielding some novel predictions in regimes that are accessible to us. Similarly, we may be able to put more experimental constraints on the theories “from the other direction”, using observations in currently accessible regimes (constraints on violations of Lorentz invariance is a good example of work that has been done on this). "QG phenomenology" is a branch of research that aims at drawing these connections between theory and observation, from both directions, and some good people are working on this -- even "neutrally", without being tied to particular QG approaches.

report post as inappropriate

Hello Karen

Love it. I rate it 9, only because its originality is confined to creating the list. This is not a criticism, just an observation. I hope that you may find my essay satisfies all but one of your criteria. That is, one of my conclusions is weird - even I think it is weird, like changes in time being observer dependent. I would very much value your feedback.

Stephen Anastasi

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 06:01 GMT

Dear Stephen,

Thanks very much! I will also have a look at your essay.

Best,

Karen

Flavio Del Santo replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 17:16 GMT

Dear Karen,

congratulation for one of the few essay that deservers to be called an eassy. Quite original and well structured. I rated it very high.

Although you approach the problem from a very different perspective (you might like to have a look at my essay for comparison), I definitely like your clarity and rogour.

As a curiosity, let me mention that I am a frined of Niels Linnemann (who I also quoted in my essay as an example for proposals of emergent gravity), that I think works on similar things of yours, in Geneva. Do you know him?

Good luck, and I wish you the very best,

Flavio

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Crowther,

Congratulations on a clear and readable essay on the conditions for fundamental theories of physics. I agree with you that the number-one condition should be unity. But I think it is equally important that a fundamental theory be simple, in the sense of Occam’s razor. It is generally believed that no simple theory is possible. In my own essay, “Fundamental Waves...

view entire post

Dear Dr. Crowther,

Congratulations on a clear and readable essay on the conditions for fundamental theories of physics. I agree with you that the number-one condition should be unity. But I think it is equally important that a fundamental theory be simple, in the sense of Occam’s razor. It is generally believed that no simple theory is possible. 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.

In brief, the two aspects of modern physics that have defied simple unification are curved spacetime and quantum entanglement. I argue that spacetime is an unnecessary mathematical construction, and that space and time can be more naturally defined in terms of fundamental quantum waves. I further argue that quantum entanglement is entirely wrong, being a side-effect of an incorrect mathematical construction introduced to explain the exclusion principle. This predicts strong differences from orthodox quantum theory in certain regimes that have not been tested.

This is not merely a philosophical argument. There is a newly developing technology, quantum computing, which depends critically on entanglement for its computational power. Without entanglement, quantum computing will not work. There are billions of dollars being invested in this, and I expect an answer within 5 years. But when I have tried to discuss this with active participants in the field, they react as if I am killing the goose that is laying the golden eggs. No one wants to hear such a negative story, including funding agents. My prediction is that the failure of quantum computing will lead to a reassessment of the entire foundations of quantum mechanics.

Alan Kadin

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 12:23 GMT

Dear Dr. Kadin,

Thanks very much for your comments. Yes, I agree that a fundamental theory should be simple, too. Although I have not explicitly included it as a condition, several of the conditions that I listed are associated with simplicity, e.g., unification, uniqueness, level-comprehensiveness, no-weirdness, and background independence. It may be argued that they each point to different conceptions of simplicity, but the requirement of background independence, in particular, certainly captures the Occam’s razor sense of the term.

I’m curious why you say it’s generally believed that no simple theory is possible? Your essay sounds very interesting, I will try to read it soon.

Best,

Karen

Dear Karen,

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

post approved

Dear Dr. Crowther,

In your approach, I miss the efforts of Garrett Birkhoff and John von Neumann to establish a fundament that emerges into a suitable modeling platform. In their 1936 paper, they introduced a relational structure that they called quantum logic and that mathematicians call an orthomodular lattice. It automatically emerges into a separable Hilbert space, which also introduces a selected set of number systems into the modeling platform. Hilbert spaces can only cope with division rings and separable Hilbert spaces can store discrete values but no continuums. Each infinite dimensional separable Hilbert space owns a unique non-separable Hilbert space that embeds its separable partner. In this way, the structure and the functionality of the platform grow in a restricted way. After a few steps a very powerful and flexible modeling platform evolves. This model acts as a repository for dynamic geometric data that fit in quaternionic eigenvalues of dedicated operators. The non-separable part of the model can archive continuums that are defined by quaternionic functions.

In other words, the foundation that was discovered by Birkhoff and von Neumann delivers a base model that can offer the basement of well-founded theories and that puts restrictions on the dimensions which universe can claim.

Multiple Hilbert spaces can share the same underlying vector space and form a set of platforms that float on a background platform. On those platforms can live objects that hop around in a stochastic hopping path. This adds dynamics to the model.

The orthomodular lattice acts like a seed from which a certain kind of plant grows. Here the seed turns into the physical reality that we perceive.

The Wikiversity Hilbert Book Model Project investigates this approach.

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_
Project

http://vixra.org/author/j_a_j_van_leunen contains documents that treat some highlights of the project.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Karen,

I appreciated your essay, an interesting shift in perspective. In a certain sense, it's a way to answer to a question with another question, but in a productive way, congratulations.

You write that "Physics does and must assume that we are able to formulate a physical description of all phenomena, and that this description is useful to us as far it can be". I wonder if the "useful" parameter should change, for questions intrinsically philosophical as "fundamentality" – but as you pointed with your paper, questions and answers often changes together.

All the bets, and thank you for sharing your interesting point of view,

Francesco D'Isa

post approved

Dear Karen,

I appreciated your essay, an interesting shift in perspective. In a certain sense, it's a way to answer to a question with another question, but in a productive way, congratulations.

You write that "Physics does and must assume that we are able to formulate a physical description of all phenomena, and that this description is useful to us as far it can be". I wonder if the "useful" parameter should change, for questions intrinsically philosophical as "fundamentality" – but as you pointed with your paper, questions and answers often changes together.

All the bets, and thank you for sharing your interesting point of view,

Francesco D'Isa

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 12:22 GMT

Dear Francesco,

Thanks very much! I'm glad you enjoyed reading it. Yes, normally in my work, I adopt a more neutral philosophical standpoint, but for this essay I decided instead to explore the question of fundamentality from the perspective of physics itself. Additionally, I have interpreted physics in a rather pragmatic way. Physics is loath to accept a theory that is not able to be used to generate predictions – and, typically, it is through a theory being applied that it is confirmed.

But, yes, just as you point out, I believe that this question of “usefulness” is open to be re-considered, or reinterpreted in quantum gravity research.

Best regards,

Karen

Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 17:33 GMT

Dear Karen,

thank you for your nice reply, I wish you all the best for your essay!

Bests,

Francesco

report post as inappropriate

Karen--

Very nice essay, well written as well as thoughtful. I do think that some of your criteria for being fundamental are a little overly restrictive, which I think may be related to your focus on QFT and GR as the only theories worthy of attention. I was especially interested in your essay because I wrote an essay with a similar intent, and I am hoping you will take a look at it and offer some feedback. I will not try to elaborate on my observations concerning your criteria at this point because to do so would essentially just rehash what's in my essay, but perhaps we can exchange more thoughts later based on your reaction to the ideas expressed there. Meanwhile, let me just say that I enjoyed reading you essay.

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 12:19 GMT

Dear Gregory,

Thanks very much! OK, I will take a look at your essay and then perhaps we can discuss more.

Best,

Karen

Dear Karen,

congratulation for one of the few essay that deservers to be called an eassy. Quite original and well structured. I rated it very high.

Although you approach the problem from a very different perspective (you might like to have a look at my essay for comparison), I definitely like your clarity and rogour.

As a curiosity, let me mention that I am a frined of Niels Linnemann (who I also quoted in my essay as an example for proposals of emergent gravity), that I think works on similar things of yours, in Geneva. Do you know him?

Good luck, and I wish you the very best,

Flavio

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 12:18 GMT

Dear Flavio,

Thanks very much! Yes, Niels is a colleague and friend, we recently published this article on UV completion, which served as a source of inspiration for the current essay https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.06777

I will try also to give comments and vote on your essay soon.

Best,

Karen

Dear Karen Krowther,

Is the absence of evidence to the contrary really enough or should serious doubts also matter? In mathematics there were many proofs showing the existence of God. I also would likr to remind of G. Cantor's diagonal argument.

Do you accept for instance Klingman's argument on simultaneity as evidence?

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 18:59 GMT

Dear Karen Crowther,

Sorry for misspelling your name. Hopefully you nonetheless understood my point. Let me try and say it with other words:

Let's never stop digging in the treasure of possible corrections.

Admittedly, I am not ready to expect finding any theory to be unified, unique, UV complete, etc. by means of your nine criteria as long as commonly agreed assumptions are treated like a taboo. Elapsed time is definitely more weird to physicists than to common sense.

Kadin pointed to several possibly overlooked treasures. Just a single one out of them seems to be worth digging, at least to me. What about McEachern/Traill?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 12:41 GMT

Dear Eckard,

Thanks. Yes, I'm sorry to say I don't understand what you mean. Could you perhaps elaborate a bit more on what you mean by "possible corrections" and "commonly agreed assumptions", please?

I haven't yet read Kadin's essay, and am unfamiliar with McEachern/Traill.

Best,

Karen

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 14:51 GMT

Dear Karen,

Klingman followed Phipps Jr. who tried to fundamentally correct Einstein and rescue ubiquitous simultaneity. I guess, the treasure of unseen alternatives might be larger. In my essay, I even questioned Maxwell's guess as the correct fundamental of gamma. Being not an etherist, I rather share Michelson's preliminary agnosticism. I feel intrigued by Foucault's pendulum which is nicely to be seen in Magdeburg and also by the late Michelson's experiment.

Kadin questions a lot of mandatory tenets, maybe too many as to get accepted. In particular, I admire his older essay "Just too many people". W"hile I don't feel myself right in political sense, I consider Kadin's judgement as alerting. The money given by "good" people like me to the exploding population in poor regions

does not solve the problem of lacking responsibility, on the contrary ...

When Kadin confronted us with the prediction that QM will never fulfill the hope for hugely improved computers, the cautious reaction here seems to confirm that he again put his finger squarely on a moot point. Szangolies could only point to a DQC1 that is not yet based on entanglement which, if I recall correctly, corresponds to the situation about two decades ago. Others said a lot by saying nothing.

The mentioned hope was theoretically confirmed by Bell. In discussions at FQXi, McEachern gave a completely documented MATLAB simulation with a result that looks at least similar to the result by Traill. McEachern was perhaps deeply disappointed because peers and admins like John Baez simply rejected it. He decided to not participate in the contest this year.

Best,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (3 not shown)

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 09:09 GMT

Addendum:

I just noticed that Bollinger defended entanglement-based quantum technology by hinting to successful protection of secrets. I wonder why there isn't yet also success with computers. In Eastern Germany I witnessed sometimes a bad habit to hide poor work by declaring it top secret. Military and secret services tend to need justification for demanding much money.

Did you in the meantime have a look to the essays I mentioned and to mine?

report post as inappropriate

Terry Bollinger replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 17:40 GMT

Hi Eckard,

Before I retired, my work for the US DoD was almost entirely in the open, since my main role was trying to promote funding for universities and small businesses for a variety of technology areas, including quantum.

What's happened with quantum entanglement is that one use of it, entanglement for encrypting communications, is comparatively much easier (it's still very hard!). It is a sufficiently solved problem that you can now buy commercial communications encryption boxes. Look up for example the company for example Quantique, at https://www.idquantique.com/, or just do a Google search.

Quantum computing in contrast is incredibly more difficult, mostly because instead of just keeping a single pair of photons quantum, you have to keep an entire computer quantum. That is not easy!

But more importantly, because of the huge commercial potential of such devices, the commercial sector has begun investing levels of money that government research groups cannot even begin to compete with. Companies like Google and IBM are where the action is there, not in federal programs. When an area gets hot commercially, government research programs inevitably lose people. I watched that happen first hand when robotics suddenly got "interesting" to the private sector. All of our best demos, in particular Boston Robotics, disappeared!

So, I just wanted to let you know that to the absolute best of my knowledge there is nothing weird going on for quantum computing, and I say that as someone who understands the physics there pretty well. It's just really, really hard... and the solutions to it are and will continue to be far more likely to come from the enormously larger pots of money available from the private sector than from government programs.

Cheers,

Terry

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 19:25 GMT

Dear Terry,

Thank you for your (almost) convincing arguments. Kadin and McEachern/Traill might deal with them. Let me just briefly reveal my reasons to be unsure:

It begun with Pauli's statement that QM is the first disciplin that cannot replace the imaginary unit. I found a strange change in the 1920 decade. They suddenly dropped the Re( ) operation without giving an explanation. Schrödinger had revealed (in the 4rd communication) how he heuristically arrived at his complex wave equation. For a while I was puzzled why Heisenberg/Born's Hermitical square matrices are identical to Schrödinger's picture.

This essay contest provided two insights to me:

- The implicite assumption of a phase relative to the chosen reference point t=0 was made about a decade before Heisenberg and Schrödinger. They just herited it.

- Watson pointed me to a paper by Fröhner on a theorem by Riesz-Fejér that links probability theory and quantum mechanics.

I do neither see me a Sherlock Holmes nor able to investigate further. I am just a bit pedantic when it comes to the correct use and interpretation of complex calculus.

May someone else question the superposition principle, i.e. the need to work with interfering wave functions, the absolute squares of which are probabilities? Shut up and calculate? OK, as soon as the fundamentals are safe.

Cheers,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

dear Karen Krowther,

This is certainly a good question and I'm glad you have addressed it.

Should your criteria for fundamental not also include some measure of completeness? I mean one can certainly define a self contained mathematical structure or in the case of the Standard Model a theory that eventually explains all experimental results. However does the theory answer all questions of our human condition?

As Edington's Fish Story points out, the most fundamental will eventually be the construction and methodology of out inquiry?

Thank you for writing this essay

Wolfgang Baer

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 12:17 GMT

Dear Wolfgang Baer,

Thank you for your comments. Yes, I argue that completeness is achieved in principle, by three conditions: 1. UV-completeness, 2. level-comprehensiveness, and 3. the assumption that results for all lower-energy physics can be derived, in principle, from the fundamental theory. But, to what extent this assumption 3 is justified, and how it should be interpreted, is something I have left open – in fact, I am very sceptical of it myself. I don’t think such a theory will answer all the questions we have about the universe, or about the human condition, or even about physics at larger distance scales. Much of my work concerns the question of “emergence”, but for the purposes of this essay, I neglected such issues.

I am intrigued by your question about the fundamental eventually being the construction and methodology of our inquiry… Thanks, I will think about this. Perhaps you have more to say on that point?

Best regards,

Karen

Donald G Palmer replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 14:23 GMT

Hi Karen & Wolfgang,

It is interesting to consider if physical theories are susceptible to limits in Logic - such as Godel Incompleteness. If physical theories are based upon logic, then they may also be limited as to their ability to provide a complete logical explanation.

Don

report post as inappropriate

Wayne R Lundberg replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 21:00 GMT

Karen, all,

It is dangerous to use the word "completeness" in the context of Physics, since Godel proved that, per Hilbert's definition of the word, it is impossible.

Better to seek "consistency" (her 4th condition), which can only be achieved with a finitary mathematical system (Takeuti). This of course requires that all singularities be eliminated.

Thus begins a search for a finite representation geometry for QC/ED, which includes many ideas including a string... and eventually find that a closed band suffices.

Wayne Lundberg

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3092

report post as inappropriate

Dear Karen,

Very well done. Interesting idea, nicely framed & constructed. You soundly argued the grounds for digging and presenting the conditions to stop. But don't you think it may just be for a tea break, and we may then be back to work again on infinite time etc?

I was surprised to find the SM classified as 'a Theory'. I don't mean I'm wedded to it but not sure it qualified!) . I was also surprised to find Special Relativity and QM sidelined, but it was interesting, refreshing and educating to consider from that different viewpoint. We do all learn different physics, or learn it differently, after all (and unlike many I don't insist my own worldview is correct!)

Do you think we'll evolve the intellectual capacity to understand a complete TOE? If a computer needs to be the size of the universe to predict it's future might our brains not need to be rather larger to hold the data?

My own essay suggests that with a little more complexity some things get simpler. Two more momenta identified in OAM seem to remove weirdness (meeting one of your requirements if correct) and the bar for unity with SR. I hope you'll read and analyse (alongside Declan Trail's with the maths code.)

I think yours hit all the scoring criteria well so I have it down for a top score. We share a few concepts, neither of us propound some unfalsifiable theory, and I agree your flexible conclusions.

Very nice job.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 20:03 GMT

Dear Peter,

Thanks very much for reading and commenting on my essay. I usually tend to think of the standard model as a collection of theories, but since it can be written as a single Lagrangian, it seems more usual to call it a theory (even if it is non-unified and rather inelegant one!) I also explored general relativity and quantum field theory instead of special relativity and quantum mechanics, because the latter are held to be less-fundamental than the former (SR being a special case of GR, and QFT being a combination of QM and SR).

If we are talking about a TOE in the sense of a complete theory valid at the most fundamental level, as I do in the essay, then yes I think it is potentially within our power to formulate and understand such a theory. However, if you mean actually using such a theory to get results about everything (i.e., physics at all scales), then this is most certainly not possible. As you say, it would require some incredible level of computational power. In the essay, I used the assumption that it is possible "in principle" but, in honestly, I don't believe that -- in fact, I can't even make sense of such a statement.

Thanks again,

Karen

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 20:45 GMT

Sorry for the formatting in that post. The small "n"s that appear out of place at the start of some sentences were supposed to be new lines. I don't know why that happened, or how to fix it now!

Donald G Palmer replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 14:34 GMT

Dear Karen & Peter,

How could a TOE, that could not present all levels of scale be considered a TOE? Physics seems to have so constricted it's area of applicability, to this or that level, as to no longer cover what a TOE should.

A Theory of Everything should be of Everything, no matter the scale or arena of applicability. Physics appears to no longer strive for such a theory - since it would "require some incredible level of computational power."

Maybe the limitations physics is hitting are not philosophical or experimental, but mathematical. Maybe we do not have the tools needed to cover casual affects that cross between all levels of scale. Maybe this is where further investigation in needed.

Don

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Dear Karen;

Throughout your postulates it can be seen that you are assuming as absolutely valid the reductionist approach. From many angles (epistemologically, methodologically -Bell’s theorem-, and experimentally –double slit experiment, entanglement experiments, etc.) it has been shown that this approach is not appropriate for any TOE.

I like your list of the conditions a physical theory should comply with in order to be considered fundamental; but you are only applying it to the current paradigms applied by the mains stream physics. Mainstream physics is plagued with ill defined fundamental concepts (space, distance, time, mater, etc.) and lacks epistemological and ontological foundation (it is full of contradictions and paradoxes). As a philosopher surely you are very aware of it.

I invite you to check the critique and proposed solutions I make to these problems in my essay “What is Fundamental”. I hope that with your background you would make good contribution to the discussion.

Truly yours;

Diogenes

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 20:42 GMT

Dear Diogenes,

Thanks very much for your comments. Yes, in the essay I assume that it is possible "in principle" to derive results valid at larger length-scales from theories formulated at shorter length-scales. This is one sense of reductionism, but it is not one that necessarily conflicts with the possibly of emergent phenomena, particularly the examples you mention.

Yes, I agree that there are many ill-defined concepts in mainstream physics, and I believe that part of my job is to help clarify these where needed (though being ill-defined is not always a bad thing, nor something that can in all cases be fixed). In this essay, though, I decided to work with the mainstream perspectives (this is also why I used the reductionist assumption, in spite of finding it problematic myself) --- this was partly for reasons of simplicity and accessibility for a short essay, but also because I wanted a better understanding of them. My aim next (i.e., my current project) is to critique these conditions (particularly their motivations, and consequences for other principles) from a philosophical standpoint.

Best,

Karen

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 21:15 GMT

Sorry for the formatting in that post. The small "n"s that appear out of place at the start of some sentences were supposed to be new lines. I don't know why that happened, or how to fix it now!

Dear Karen,

I liked your essay and I think it is a nice idea for this essay contest to make a list for of necessary conditions for a theory to be fundamental. I have some questions and remarks.

I also always thought, that a fundamental theory must be non-perturbative. But I never had a clear justification for that. And in my current essay - very implicitly - I doubt, that a fundamental theory can be non-perturbative for the following reason: fundamental concepts can only be defined in a free theory. This seems to be true for Newtons laws, where the laws are valid only if a system is moving relative to an inertial system. But the definition of the inertial system itself is only possible by postulating the force free laws for it. (This may lead to a conventionalism à la Poincaré.)

Similarly in Quantum field theory, where the fundamental concepts are the free particles, which can only be defined in a free theory. So that the theory of interaction necessarily must be perturbative. Or not?

Another obvious condition for a fundamental theory is: empirical adequacy. Why did you leave this out? To evident? To unproblematic? Or to complicated to discuss?

I think this is not simple. Can a fundamental theory define itself its observable consequences? Or must observational statements be independent of the fundamental theory in order for the for the fundamental to be falsifiable? In my essay I show that in any fundamental theory that has some realistic elements, there are conventional Elements. And that what is an empirical statement and what is a definition is not given by the theory itself.

Best regards,

Luca

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 21:14 GMT

Dear Luca,

Thanks very much for your comments! That's an interesting idea, that a fundamental theory cannot describe interactions. I will have to think about that, but there are simple systems with interactions that can be described without requiring perturbation theory.

In regards to empirical adequacy, I did not think this to be a condition of fundamentality but a requirement for a theory in order that it be considered scientific at all. And, as I mention at the top of page 8, I take it for granted in the essay that we are considering only scientific theories. This saves me from having to explore the problem of demarcation in science, which is too complicated to discuss in a short essay! As you say, too, the issue of connecting theory with observation is certainly not a straightforward one.

Best,

Karen

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 21:16 GMT

Sorry for the formatting in that post. The small "n"s that appear out of place at the start of some sentences were supposed to be new lines. I don't know why that happened, or how to fix it now!

Luca Valeri replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 09:16 GMT

Hi Karen,

I do not think, that a fundamental theory cannot describe interactions. On the contrary. But fundamental concept like mass, spin, momentum etc. are only defined in the free theory. Only if the meaning/definitions of these concepts are given, one can define, what interaction is. For instance force is something, that changes the momentum. I think that was Poincaré’s view. Then whether given specific initial conditions, there exist a non perdurbative solution of the equations depends on the symmetry of that configuration. But I do not think that whether such a solution exists or not can be a criteria for a theory to be fundamental. But that might not be, what you intended to say.

By the way I would be glad, if you could find the time to read and comment on my essay: The quantum sheep - in defense of a positivist view on physics

Best regards,

Luca

report post as inappropriate

Dear Karen,

Excellent essay -- a pleasure to read! And you hit the nail right on the head regarding the question "What is fundamental?".

The "Natural (no “fine-tuning” of parameters)" criteria is interesting. Sure, we might desire a fundamental theory to not contain fine-tuned parameters. But what if, by sheer bad luck, the universe happens to contain such parameters -- such a theory might be unsatisfactory but this doesn't seem like a good reason to rule it out?

Best regards,

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 21:39 GMT

Dear Paul, Thanks very much! Yes, I agree the idea of naturalness is an interesting one for the reason you mention -- it may be desirable to have a theory that doesn't require fine-tuning, but we can't rule out the possibility that, at the fundamental level, we have a theory that is "unnatural". This is true of several of the requirements, including -- most obviously -- those of unification, and "no weirdness". It's very possible that, fundamentally, the world is described by an unsettling, non-unified theory. And yet, if we arrive at a theory that doesn't fulfil these conditions, then we will keep digging for a more satisfactory one. So, actually, it's possible that we have a final theory and yet continue to search in vain for something more. That's an interesting consequence of the epistemic worry that I hadn't considered, so thanks for that. Best, Karen

Member Paul Knott replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 11:19 GMT

Thanks for your reply – I completely agree with what you've said here! Best, Paul

report post as inappropriate

Your essay is a reasonable overview of the questions related to quantum gravity. My only disagreement might be with the issue of weirdness. Quantum mechanics, and I mean plain vanilla QM, is in many ways very weird. Quantum gravity is likely to have a lot of very strange features.

I suspect we may never come up with a completely fundamental quantum gravity that is not on some level an EFT. The Planck length is the shortest length that a quantum bit may be identified, at least in principle. We may be able to arrive at a reasonable quantum gravity close to the Planck scale. The reason for this is that quantum gravity may have close identification with the quantum measurement problem.

Quantum measurement ultimately involves a set of quantum states that encode the quantum states of a system. The occurrence of a classical stable state in the outcome of decoherence is something quantum mechanics is not able to compute. It may be that this process is a form of Godel loop or self-referential system of states encoding states. This then leads to the problem in mathematics of propositions that are true but unprovable. For quantum mechanics it might similarly mean there exist states, such as classically stable states and observed measurements, that are true but not provable by quantum mechanical "computers."

The issues with quantum information and black holes may ultimately reflect something similar. I suspect it could be that quantum gravity as a fundamental theory is not derivable or computable in any formal way.

I offer in my essay what I suspect is an effective theory, and in fact make various approximations, that might result in measurable outcomes in gravitational wave experiments. What is fundamental in the end is just what your feet stand on at the lowest level at the time.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 22:03 GMT

Dear Lawrence B. Crowell, Thanks very much. Your comments touch on several interesting issues. Yes, I wonder about the no weirdness requirement, too, and am still not certain of its inclusion or interpretation. But, the idea generally expressed is that QM is not fundamental, precisely because of its weirdness. Many people (most prominently Penrose) argue that a more fundamental theory is necessary in order to solve these issues, particularly the measurement problem. Quantum gravity, although the moniker suggests otherwise, need not -- and probably, in fact, can not -- be a quantum theory in the usual sense. One reason is because quantum theories utilise space and time, and these are to be modified in quantum gravity. So, another reason why quantum mechanics is supposed to be non-fundamental is because of the expectation of the necessity of QG. If QG contains similar weird features, then this will push people to seek a more-fundamental theory, in turn. But, that said, you are right that QG is likely to be weird! The ideas of a shortest length scale and a shortest time scale are extremely difficult ones -- as is the possibility of formulating a theory that describes a non-spatiotemporal regime. Your suggestion that QG be an EFT valid "close to" this regime, is interesting, too. We would have to think more about the issue of UV completeness in this case. Best, Karen

Hi Dr Karen Crowther

Nice observation on present day Physics…. “Ultimately, at any stage we may not be able to tell whether we've reached rock bottom, or even if there is a base level” … and a checklist is a nice idea… dearDr Karen Crowther

……..….. very nice idea…. I highly appreciate your essay and hope you may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic...

view entire post

post approved

Hello Karen,

Downloaded your essay, browsing it now, commenting on the passing scenery.

Like your application of concept of inversion to non-fundamentals of mainstream physics. Important attribute of Clifford algebra is that it is invertible. If one is a fan of the geometric interpretation of the Hestenes community, then one would expect the invertibility to be easily visualized....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 19:38 GMT

Hi Peter,

Thanks very much! I'm embarrassed to say that I had not heard of Hestenes before, so I'm glad you mentioned his work, it indeed seems very interesting. I'll read up more and see how it can apply to my work, as you suggest. Sorry I'm not sure how to answer your question, though. Will reply to your other post now, too.

Best,

Karen

Dear Karen

Very nice essay and direct to the point, no heavy philosophizing and repeating arguments that has been heard a million times.

I said this in my essay which essentially what you have said

" This structure had to be simple, basic but showed all the present physics in a clear and COHERENT way. That is, what are space, time, mass, charge, spin, interaction and most of all why the electron, the proton and “photons” exist. They should be interrelated aspects of a fundamental system."

My idea takes into account all the requirements that you mention

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3127

Thank you.

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 19:37 GMT

Dear Adel,

Thank you!

I think your quote here captures the requirements that a fundamental theory be simple and that it be explanatory (additionally, the quote suggests how the theory should be explanatory), maybe also the requirement that the theory be self-consistent. I did not explicitly have the requirements of 'being simple' and 'being explanatory' as criteria in my list, although several of the criteria may be related to simplicity (e.g., unification, uniqueness, no-weirdness), and all of them are based on the principle that a fundamental theory not leave anything that apparently requires explanation.

I like your idea that a fundamental theory should explain current physics, I think that is certainly desirable, and unfortunately not something that I discussed enough in my essay.

There are also criteria on my list that I think are not captured by your quote here, though. I will have to read the rest of your essay.

Best,

Karen

Dear Karen,

All of your 9 conditions are very real.

Among all the essays without mathematics, you are among the best.

My essay is tied to Plank's units. I would like you to tell me what conditions do not satisfy my views in the essay.

With best wishes,

Branko

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 19:34 GMT

Dear Branko,

Thank you! OK, I am interested in the heuristic role of the Planck units, so I will try to have a look at your essay. But what do you think, does your approach satisfy these conditions?

Best,

Karen

Dear Karen,

Your contribution to our motley collection of essays here is much needed. You give a clearer picture than most physicists could give of what they’re looking for in a fundamental theory, and I think it’s important to understand how little clarity there is about this. To me what’s most striking about physics is how much our current theories can explain about the world,...

view entire post

Dear Karen,

Your contribution to our motley collection of essays here is much needed. You give a clearer picture than most physicists could give of what they’re looking for in a fundamental theory, and I think it’s important to understand how little clarity there is about this. To me what’s most striking about physics is how much our current theories can explain about the world, while seeming to leave us almost clueless as to why a world should be based on such strange foundations.

I want to mention that your excellent paper on “Decoupling emergence and reduction in physics” is directly relevant to this contest, since these two notions come up in many of these essays, and are usually taken to be directly opposed. Also, I was very glad to find your book/thesis on “Effective Spacetime” – it’s rare to find such in-depth discussion of recent physics that a non-specialist can follow.

I was interested in your comment, “The requirement of unification is hard to justify. Given that our manifest experience of the world is of diversity rather than a sameness of phenomena, seeking an explanation of heterogeneity seems counter-intuitive—surely a unified description would be more striking than a disunified one, and cry out for explanation?” Later you answer this by suggesting it's the “business of physics” to “explain diverse phenomena by appeal to simple, universal laws.” I can’t argue with that – and certainly the quest for unification has led to many an outstanding discovery, most lately in the Standard Model. But in my current essay I’ve tried to show that neither unification nor naturalness are reliable guides to a more fundamental theory. The essential argument is that diverse interaction-structures are necessary to make any kind of physical information measurable, or even meaningfully definable.

I really appreciate the kind of work you’re doing, digging out the real conceptual issues within the technical struggles of current research.

Conrad

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 19:34 GMT

Dear Conrad,

Thanks very much! I'm really happy to hear that there are people out there finding my work useful!

Yes, thanks, I had wanted to bring in some discussion of emergence from that paper for the essay, or at least mention it, but couldn't manage it in the end. So, I'm glad you discovered the paper, as well as the book, and can advertise them here!

I'm intrigued by your arguments regarding unification and naturalness, especially since I'm very interested in better understanding the definitions of each, their motivations and implications myself (I'm quite suspicious of them, in spite of their apparently being so central to the business of physics!), so I'll certainly take a look at your essay when I can.

Thanks again,

Karen

Dear Karen Crowther

Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

My essay is titled

“Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin”. It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

Thank you & kind regards

Steven Andresen

post approved

Dear Karen

Its nice to read an essay about physics that explores the issues without dragging in mathematics - not that I have anything against mathematics - I trained as one. But I do feel the essay ought to be about words and a pleasure to read and I very much enjoyed reading your essay. I'm glad that you pointed out that QFT = QM + relativity as that particular point is not made often enough and it does show that progress has been made in integrating our two most fundamental physical theories. Congratulations on an informative essay!

Best Wishes

Mozibur Ullah

report post as inappropriate

Mozibur Rahman Ullah replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 11:43 GMT

It seems that the site slightly mangles up the formatting of posts by removing linebreaks for some reason.

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 19:32 GMT

Dear Mozibur Ullah,

Thanks very much! Yes, I agree, I love mathematics too, but an essay is an essay, and I wanted to make it as accessible as possible. I'm glad you enjoyed reading it.

Yes, you're right that it's easy sometimes for people to forget the origins of QFT. Certainly it is a very successful step towards unifying our most fundamental theories---and, indeed, the most successful framework for physics that we have! And yet it has so many conceptual and theoretical difficulties. Also, it's interesting now to explore how QFT in curved spacetime can give insight into a greater unification of QM with GR, and approximate quantum gravity.

Thanks again,

Karen

Hi Karen,

I like very much your formalism for determining whether a theory is fundamental. It is a high gate to jump over. I believe modern physics does not clear it.

I have a theory of quantum gravity that I believe is easy-peasy. Would you take a look at my theory and see if it clears the gate? I have looked at your credentials and think you can easily "grok" what I propose.

Visit my essay "The thing that is space-time" and give me your opinion on if it clear the gate. I'm interested in what you really think (or feel)...not looking for mutual admiration :)

It was refreshing to read a practical approach to fundamentality.

Thanks,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 19:30 GMT

Dear Don Limuti,

Thank you! OK I will try to have a look at your essay when I can, and let you know whether or not I agree that it's easy-peasy ;)

Best,

Karen

Professor Crowther,

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

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your essay! Positive aspects include:

-- Your razor-sharp focus on answering the FQXi essay question, as opposed to simply using the contest an excuse to propose a personal pet theory of physics. I note with admiration that since with Dean Rickles you have in the past...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 19:29 GMT

Dear Terry Bollinger,

Thanks very much for taking the time to read and vote on my essay, and to provide useful feedback; I really appreciate it. I also greatly appreciate your voting pledge, and will strive to implement it myself more consistently.

Yes, the contest's question drew me in so I used it as an opportunity to explore some new ideas, and to understand issues surrounding...

view entire post

Terry Bollinger replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 03:54 GMT

Karen,

Thank you for your most gracious and informative response! I would have added this reply earlier, but I don’t seem to get any kind of notification from FQXi when someone replies on anything except my own essay thread. I had to search manually for my own name, essay by essay to find responses. Argh! I must be missing something?

You are very generous about my critique points,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 16:35 GMT

Terry -- if you're logged in, you can subscribe to any thread by clicking the button near the top of the page. Then you'll get notifications of any new posts in that thread.

I think your comments about "lumpines" are interesting and connect with the theme of my essay -- but I'll look at your essay first, and comment there.

Conrad

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (2 not shown)

Terry Bollinger replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 18:59 GMT

Conrad,

Thanks for the subscribing tip! It was trivial to find once you alerted me to its existence.

Thank you also for alerting me to your essay. I'll mosey over and take a look at it now...

Cheers,

Terry

report post as inappropriate

Terry Bollinger replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 12:43 GMT

Karen,

A quick addendum to my comments above, which is a hypothesis:

In the absence of perturbative opportunities, the computational costs of fully formal methods for complete, end-to-end solutions trends towards infinity.

The informal proof is that full formalization implies fully parallel combinatorial interaction of all components of a path (functional) in some...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Dear Karen,

Your essay, and many of the comments given, were an enjoyable read which summarizes the frustrations of modern theorists... from differing perspectives.

Very well-written, and it provides 9 clear conditions which, when met, will convince the community of a 'theoretical discovery'. So I rated it very highly.

But my insights and investigations indicate that there are mathematically more formal criteria, which, fully considered, yield a comprehensive theory. In fact they are fewer, as they specify that the theory replicate known successful aspects of existing theory.

Foremost is that it be a causal theory for consistency with GR.

It must use a finite representation geometry to be consistent (no singularities, non-renormalizeble).

The universe is the sum of its particles, so for consistency, the form of the formulae representing each must be the same (as in NBWF).

It must replicate QC/ED particles and interactions when evaluated at their respective space-time scales.

It must replicate GR when evaluated at cosmological scales at the present time.

Note the importance of "evaluated at", which means use of "|" at any physical space-time scale. In particular, an intuitive leap is REQUIRED, since information is lost about the foundational formula when either QFT or GR is derived via |.

I look forward to your comments, best regards,

Wayne Lundberg

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3092

report post as inappropriate

Wayne R Lundberg replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 21:27 GMT

p.s. The simple answer to your question "When do we stop digging?" has more to do with the cost-benefit of experiments. In particular, I note that the discovery of Higgs at SM mass has excluded ALL other fundamental particles from consideration to -5.5 sigma. If CERN/LHC were to collect more detailed data about Higgs, they could achieve -6 sigma, reaching their own criteria to stop searching. At least 'stop digging' in the high-enefrgy direction... some claim that high-luminosity e-,e+ LINACs have more to reveal.

I have also long used the words "beneath" the Std Model, rather than "beyond" because it is the foundation upon which it is built which needs work.

Wayne

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 14:25 GMT

Dear Wayne,

Thanks very much!

In regards to your mathematically formal criteria, I'm interested in what you mean by causality and how you define it? (If you're importing the notion from GR, you mean that you have a spacetime, and that it shares the same topological and metrical structure as GR spacetime? Or something less than this?)

Also, I'm assuming by "non-renormalisable" as a criterion, you mean a theory that doesn't require regularisation, rather than that it actually be non-renormalisaable (because that would mean it has infinities)?

But I'm most interested in what you mean by when you say that the theory must "replicate [older theory] when evaluated at [relevant length scale]", because this is a large part of my own research (which I regret that I didn't have opportunity to include in my essay, due to the various constraints on it). You mean that the older theories should be derivable from the new one, under some relevant conditions, I gather?

And yes, agree with your practical point, that we may stop digging when the cost (whether in terms of energy, time, or money, etc.) is estimated to be greater than the anticipated rewards of continuing beyond a certain point. But of course that's a response to a different interpretation of the question (or perhaps under different assumptions) than what I adopted here.

Best,

Karen

Wayne R Lundberg replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 16:38 GMT

Karen,

My essay leads off with a discussion of causality, in which I refer to

1. J.B. Hartle, S.W. Hawking and T. Hertog, “The Classical Universes of the No-Boundary Quantum State” hep-th/0803.1663v1 March 2008. which formulates a causal particle (lacking QC/ED) and

2. N. Seiberg, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, “Space/Time Non-Commutivity and Causality”,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Hi Karen:

I agree with your statement_ "More generally, if a theory is not internally consistent, or relies on approximations, physicists tend to believe that this is a symptom of there being something missing—some physics that the theory fails to take into account."

I would like to draw your attention to the missing fundamental physics governing - “What causes a photon to accelerate to the speed of light?” I would like to invite you to look into my paper – “What is Fundamental – Is C the Speed of Light”. that describes the fundamental physics of antigravity missing from the widely-accepted mainstream physics and cosmology theories resolving their current inconsistencies and paradoxes. The missing physics depicts a spontaneous relativistic mass creation/dilation photon model that explains the yet unknown dark energy, inner workings of quantum mechanics, and bridges the gaps among relativity and Maxwell’s theories. The model also provides field equations governing the spontaneous wave-particle complimentarity or mass-energy equivalence. The key significance or contribution of the proposed work is to enhance fundamental understanding of C, commonly known as the speed of light, and Cosmological Constant, commonly known as the dark energy.

The manuscript not only provides comparisons against existing empirical observations but also forwards testable predictions for future falsification of the proposed model.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 14:34 GMT

Dear Avtar,

Thank you. Your paper sounds interesting, particularly the potentially empirical aspects.

Best,

Karen

Karen,

I'd posted earlier, was hoping for a reply before commenting further, but unfortunately no further replies have appeared, starting with my post.

So here's my take on your nine requirements as viewed from the perspective of the geometric wavefunction interactions GWI model Michaele and I present in our essay, with details there if you're interested:

1. Unified - yes. Four fundamental forces are seen as one in the GWI model

2. Unique - uniqueness proofs are difficult. How does one show that the same physics cannot be described by a different model?

3. UV complete (nothing beyond" formally) - The model appears valid at the Planck length, and beyond to the singularity.

4. Non-perturbative (exactly solvable) - yes

5. Internally consistent (well-dened formally, with no problematic singularities) - yes

6. Level comprehensive (no gaps and no overlap" in description at the scales that the theory is required in order to describe) - In QFT one is permitted (and required) to define but one fundamental length. In the GWI model that length is take to be the Compton wavelength. It appears that the model is valid at all length scales.

7. Background independent (no fixed structures across all models of the theory) - yes. GWI model is background independent.

8. Natural (no ne-tuning" of parameters) - yes. Requires only five fundamental constants input by hand (one of which is electron Compton wavelength), no free parameters.

9. Not weird - durn. Ya got me on this one. What's the fun of that? How about if it is the dual of not weird, plus the inversion. Very very weird.

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 19:53 GMT

Thanks again, and sorry for the delayed response. Haven't yet read the essay, but this sounds good to me!

In regards to uniqueness... I knew I picked the wrong word here, because of its different uses, but struggled to think of a better one! But, the idea is supposed to be that we have just a single theory, as in alone -- rather than being the only possible theory. So, your model may satisfy this criterion, after all, I think.

As you say, it's difficult to see how we could establish that a given model is the only possible one able to describe the physics. I'm not sure if the problem of underdetermination can be solved -- however, Dawid's book is an extensive argument trying to demonstrate the limitations on theoretical underdetermination (I am still trying to work through his arguments, though).

In regards to "not weird" haha! well, this is the one I am not so sure of myself. I was mainly thinking of it as a response to the general frustration surrounding the measurement problem.... but now I realise that may have more to do with how the theory links back to observations, rather than the weirdness apparently described by QM. Maybe we can be OK with fundamental weirdness if everything else is satisfied, and the weirdness is inherent? I guess it depends on how otherwise happy people are with the approach, whether they'll tolerate some weirdness for its other virtues, or whether they'll keep searching for something else (even if in vain).

peter cameron replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 22:21 GMT

ok, think i get where you're coming from re uniqueness - as opposed to many EFTs needed to cover all length/energy scales?

a different kind of uniqueness from trying to prove no other equivalent model exists.

re weirdness, did you look at our essay yet? It might relieve some of your concerns regarding interpretations of wavefunctions and their interactions. The geometric algebra gives a wavefunction that is simple and intuitive, can be visualized. Take a look. I think you'll like it.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Crowther,

I don't mean to be picky, but on page 5 you say the Planck scale is 10^-32cm. Should it not be 10^-33cm? I'm sure you meant millimeters (I hate when that happens). If this essay wins a prize (which I think it's deserving of) and goes into a book that should probably be amended.

Cheers,

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 19:56 GMT

Dear Peter,

Thanks very much!

ooops!10 ^- 33 cm yes you're right, thanks for pointing it out!

Best,

Karen

Dear Karen.

Thank you for your stimulating contribution. It’s a long way to Tipperary!

My London publisher calls me a philosopher though I didn’t earn this epithet formally. Neither am I a physicist. I am simply attracted to both disciplines because of their all-inclusive presumptions. So I feel quite comfortable in discussing ethereal subjects with you.

I have always loved the essay form as a means by which to clarify my thoughts on any subject that is too complex to organize clearly in my head.

While the goals of the Essay Contest are intended to ‘Encourage and support rigorous, innovative, and influential thinking about foundational questions in physics and cosmology’; one cannot reasonably expect to define what constitutes a fundamental principle or part until one has clearly identified a context within which one can then proceed with the search. Understanding this contingent requirement necessarily admits the prospect of there being as many ‘fundamentals’ as there are contexts within which one can proceed.

We should bear in mind that theories derive from subjective points of view. When we attempt to consolidate theories into a single unifying theory-of-everything we drastically compromise the essential (i.e. fundamental) merits of contributing theories.

However, the FQXi question: What is “Fundamental?” invites a singular response; otherwise the question would be framed: What are “Fundamental?” The only exception to that interpretation is to respond to the FQXi question with the answer: ‘Yes’

Thus I have been led to search for a singular fundamental prerequisite that embraces all-there-is – and that is all there is to it! 

Thanks again, and good luck with this and all your endeavours.

Gary.

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 15:00 GMT

Dear Gary,

Thank you!

I am similar, I find I can only fully understand things, or work out my own arguments, by writing (though it's not always essay form!)

Yes, I agree that there may be many different conceptions of fundamentality, depending on different contexts. For this exercise, I explicitly chose to write from the perspective of high-energy physics, and certainly do not mean to imply that such an account is appropriate for other contexts, or that it is the only perspective on offer. In fact, I am more inclined towards "emergentist" accounts (e.g., those offered by condensed matter theorists), where what is fundamental is scale-dependent, so I agree that much is lost when we consider only a single fundamental "theory of everything" (you may like to see some of my published work on emergence).

However, the FQXi question: What is “Fundamental?” invites a singular response; otherwise the question would be framed: What are “Fundamental?” The only exception to that interpretation is to respond to the FQXi question with the answer: ‘Yes’

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what you're saying here. I read the question as asking about the meaning of the word "fundamental", as in, what it means for something to be fundamental. I don't see how that requires just a one-condition answer? It's just that they are only asking about one word. And what is the interpretation of the question that could be answered by "Yes"?

Best regards, and good luck to you too,

Karen

Gary Valentine Hansen replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 23:25 GMT

Dear Karen,

A belated answer to your bottom line question; 'What is the interpretation of the question that could be answered by "Yes"?'

My answer is that when the question is read as a literal statement of fact requiring confirmation, either the word 'What' is fundamental or it is not. Hence the alternative 'one word' answer is either 'Yes' or 'No'.

Since you didn't respond on my essay page, I am wondering whether you rated my essay. There is something 'going on' on the closing day for the acceptance of essays that suggests that some authors are drastically low-ranking the essays of others in the expectation that they may benefit as a result. If you didn't rank my essay, could you kindly do so, hopefully to return my rank to its former 'high tide' position of 6.8?

Again, you carry my best wishes as you move forward into the sunshine, the final phase of the contest, and far beyond.

Gary.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Karen,

Your essay is great! You characterized perfectly the criteria that determine when we can stop digging. There is nothing to add. The essay is also excellently written, with clear explanations.

What I can say more about this may be only a matter of personal taste. I want to make some points that even if QFT and GR may not survive as they presently are in the final theory,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 14:50 GMT

Dear Cristi,

Thank you!

Yes, for my own research on quantum gravity (which I don't necessarily interpret as a candidate final theory, though) I am very interested in understanding not just the form of the new theory (to what extent, and how, it retains features of GR and QFT), but what aspects of GR and QFT are to be ``recovered'' from it in the relevant domains, and how. So I am...

view entire post

Dear Cristi,

Thank you!

Yes, for my own research on quantum gravity (which I don't necessarily interpret as a candidate final theory, though) I am very interested in understanding not just the form of the new theory (to what extent, and how, it retains features of GR and QFT), but what aspects of GR and QFT are to be ``recovered'' from it in the relevant domains, and how. So I am happy to hear your thoughts on this.

It seems like most of your comments (except perhaps the last two) indicate how our current theories/frameworks, of QM, QFT and GR could each separately be replaced in the domains where they each currently apply. I gather then, that a more fundamental theory (in the sense of being one that describes the Planck scale), will then "recover" (reduce to) each of these (new) theories in the relevant domains (i.e., have them as approximations under the appropriate conditions). So I understand your suggestion as being that the key to finding a more fundamental theory is to first find the "true" formulations of our current theories? If so, I think it's really a groundbreaking approach. I had not considered going about it this way. It would seem to turn everything around and go in from the opposite direction, since at the moment, we tend to imagine that QG will reveal what aspects of current theories are wrong... and if my interpretation of your approach is correct, then you're saying that in order to discover QG, then its necessary to first correct what is wrong with current theories?

I have a couple of suggestions of further literature you may be interested in, as well. Firstly, in regards to your point QFT1, have you read the papers by Fraser and Wallace where they debate the suitability of axiomatic QFT versus conventional QFT for foundational/philosophical work? The debate raises many very interesting questions, I think, including whether or not the mathematical difficulties in conventional QFT are due to the neglect of higher-energy physics, and thus are, in a way, not only unavoidable features, but also "informative" ones.

Secondly, in regards to GR3/GR4, there is some work on this: papers by Callender & Huggett, Mattingly, and Wuthrich, that considers the necessity of quantising spacetime, with the upshot that, indeed, it is not necessary for a theory of QG. So you may be interested in reading these (particularly the Wuthrich paper, which I believe is available on his website or philsci archive).

Thanks again,

Karen

view post as summary

Cristinel Stoica replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 08:42 GMT

Dear Karen,

Thank you very much for the answers and comments, and for the references, which I didn't know and I think are relevant.

You said "So I understand your suggestion as being that the key to finding a more fundamental theory is to first find the "true" formulations of our current theories?"

Yes. I think we should extract the true lessons and to rethink the assumptions...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Karen,

An almost encyclopedic treatment. A couple of things, though. You prescribe conditions for theories, but you left out the premise of a unified spacetime -- " ... independent in its physical properties, having a physical effect but not itself affected by physical conditions." ~ Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity .

If, as you admit space and time are fundamental, why is not spacetime more fundamental?

Nevertheless, good essay.

Mine: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3124

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 15:35 GMT

Hi Thomas,

Thanks for you comment. I'm afraid, though, that there are some misunderstandings here.

Firstly, no, I don't actually argue that space and time are fundamental, and I'm sorry that the opening lines of my essay may give that impression. In these, where I say that QFT describes all the fundamental forces, and that space and time are surely the most fundamental entities imaginable, I am just "setting the scene", as it were. I used the word "imaginable", and that is the key qualifier here: For most people (except when on psychedelics) it is nigh impossible to imagine anything without picturing it "in" space and time. This is a problem when trying to formulate and conceptualise QG theories without spacetime, too -- because of our limitations as human beings, we still rely on spatiotemporal means of presentation, for instance.

If you read the rest of the essay, you'd see that it presents several arguments why QFT and GR are not considered fundamental --- and, hence, why the "fundamental" forces, and spacetime, are not actually to be considered fundamental either.

Secondly, the quote by Einstein that you cite is exactly the (or, really, one) definition of background dependence. It is not a desirable condition. Einstein did not want a spacetime like this, so I think you have misinterpreted his paper, too. It's a very well-known fact that Einstein's desire to overcome this very feature as thoroughly as possible was key to the discovery of GR, with its characteristic feature of general covariance, i.e., background independence. As you see in my own essay, I take background independence as a condition on a fundamental theory, and give arguments for this.

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 03:13 GMT

Karen,

No misunderstanding. Surely it is not true that "For most people (except when on psychedelics) it is nigh impossible to imagine anything without picturing it 'in' space and time." Mathematicians do it routinely, straight and high, and describe it besides. You must not have studied topology.

That quote is from The Meaning of Relativity, Princeton paperback, fifth edition, 1956 p.55, and completely in context. In fact, how dare you. Einstein based general relativity on Mach's principle (a term he coined) and couldn't make it work because there are no isolated systems (which would constitute a background, in your terms).

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 14:28 GMT

Hi Thomas,

You're right of course that we can think about and discuss abstract non-spatiotemporal properties and entities; I suppose I meant "imagine" in a more vivid sense, of picturing things. I will amend this in the next version of the essay, thank you.

I didn't say you'd misquoted Einstein. But I apologise for the tone of my last response, and for not backing up my statements. Here is a reference to a relevant paper by a well-respected Einstein scholar: https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Fateful_Prejudice_Fina
l.pdf

Your quote is discussed in Section 3.4 (pp. 48-50), which talks about Einstein's lifelong objections to absolute properties (i.e., those of absolute space you cite), and his frustration that special relativity privileged particular reference frames (and thus possessed some of these objectionable absolute properties).

show all replies (1 not shown)

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 14:13 GMT

Dear Karen,

I too apologize for my previous tone. I'm very passionate on this subject.

Why argue from secondary sources, when the primary source is quite clear? Einstein objected to special relativity even being called "relativity" since it is a theory of the absolute. I.e., the absolute speed of light in vacuo.

He allowed that the "General laws of nature are covariant with...

view entire post

Dear Karen,

I too apologize for my previous tone. I'm very passionate on this subject.

Why argue from secondary sources, when the primary source is quite clear? Einstein objected to special relativity even being called "relativity" since it is a theory of the absolute. I.e., the absolute speed of light in vacuo.

He allowed that the "General laws of nature are covariant with respect to Lorentz transformations." Clear enough. The LT, however, is a mathematical artifact. In a note to the fifteenth edition of the very accessible Relativity, the Special and the General Theory added in 1952, "Physical objects are not in space but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning."

In the appendix, "In order to be able to describe at all that which fills up space and is dependent on the co-ordinates, space-time or the inertial system with its metrical properties must be thought of at once as existing, for otherwise the description of 'that which fills up space' would have no meaning. On the basis of the general theory of relativity, on the other hand, space as opposed to 'what fills space', which is dependent on the co-ordinates, has no separate existence. Thus a pure gravitational field might have been described in terms of the g_ik (as functions of the co-ordinates), by solution of the gravitational equations. If we imagine the gravitational field, i.e. the functions g_ik, to be removed, there does not remain a space of the type (1), but absolutely nothing, and also no 'topological space'. For the functions g_ik describe not only the field, but at the same time also the topological and metrical structural properties of the manifold.

A space of the type (1), judged from the standpoint of the general theory of relativity, is not a space without field, but a special case of the g_ik field, for which – for the co-ordinate system used, which in itself has no objective significance – the functions g_ik have values that do not depend on the co-ordinates. There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e. a space without field."

http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_spac
e.html

Einstein was quite unambiguous on the non-separability of space and time. My attempt to address the challenge reduces the observable " ... topological and metrical structural properties of the manifold" to a soliton wave.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Dear Karen,

just wondering how much sense it would have made if Ptolemy had defined the conditions for a more fundamental universe…

Heinrich

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 16:06 GMT

Dear Heinrich,

Do you mean that current physics is so wrong in one of its central assumptions, that any speculations about future physics, made from our current flawed perspective, are futile?

Karen

Heinrich Luediger replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 09:42 GMT

Dear Karin,

Yes, for the reason that physics has taken to predicting pointer positions from which it conjures up sociologically desirable 'worlds'. Your essay reminds me of the trend in many sciences to deal with secondaries like methodology and the definition of what would count as progress and what it is supposed to look like.

Since Feyerabend we know that Everything Goes (provided it goes), because otherwise we logically overdetermine the problem and thereby prevent any solution. In other words, physics got stuck in the analytical abracadabra of pseudo-empirism.

Heinrich

report post as inappropriate

Dear Karen,

you've produced an interesting list of conditions for fundamentality (fundamentalness?). Your argumentation is exceptionally clear and down to the point, and you present your points in an enormously comprehensible way that nevertheless never runs the danger of leaving out something important.

I have one question, though, regarding the need for unification: it seems...

view entire post

Dear Karen,

you've produced an interesting list of conditions for fundamentality (fundamentalness?). Your argumentation is exceptionally clear and down to the point, and you present your points in an enormously comprehensible way that nevertheless never runs the danger of leaving out something important.

I have one question, though, regarding the need for unification: it seems possible to imagine a universe ruled by Newtonian mechanics, or a universe ruled by Maxwellian electrodynamics. But it's also possible to combine the two: adding charge to a massive ball and putting it into an electromagnetic field means that its behavior is no longer solely governed by Newtonian gravitation, but that additional effects due to electromagnetism play a role; but both theories seem to be well capable of existing side by side. Furthermore, they seem to do well with respect to the other criteria you mention. So isn't it possible to have a universe with several equally fundamental theories?

It would certainly be aesthetically dissatisfying if the universe were like that, but well, the universe probably isn't under any obligation to appear pleasing to us.

You seem to be dissatisfied with the fact that in such a case, there's something 'left open' to explain; but then, isn't that also true if there is a single fundamental theory? Are we not always left with an ultimate, 'but why this?'

Additionally, your dictum that 'physics does and must, by its nature, assume that we are able to formulate a physical description of all phenomena' strikes me very much like Hilbert's declaration that there can be no 'ignorabimus' in mathematics, and his search of a single, unified axiom system that underlies all of mathematics---which, of course, was shown to be impossible by Gödel.

In my essay, I argue that similar restrictions may well be true of physics---and furthermore, that it's not any more of a problem than Gödel's results have been for mathematics. I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts!

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 17:41 GMT

Dear Jochen,

Thanks very much!

Yes, I completely agree with your comments regarding unification.

The question I sought to answer was just, "What features must a theory possess if it were to possibly convince high-energy physics (by its own current lights) to stop digging for a more fundamental one?" So, yes, it's very possible that such conditions not actually conform to the world! However, given the incredible success of current physics, we like to believe that it is "on track" in its methods and constraints.

That said, yes, I am suspicious of many of the conditions I've listed here (particularly unification, uniqueness and naturalness), in spite of their apparently being so central to the enterprise of physics. I regret that I wasn't able to properly examine them in this essay, but that is the next stage of the project.

In regards to the "dictum", that "physics does and must, by its nature, assume that we are able to formulate a physical description of all phenomena" -- this was a topic of discussion when I presented this recently, and I've realised it may require rethinking. Although physics may (necessarily) hold that all phenomena have physical* explanations, it may not need to hold that we are capable of actually formulating these in all cases -- e.g., for mental processes, it doesn't seem like physics has to assume that its capable of actually writing down a model describing these. (*Reductionists might make this "microphysical")

But, in any case, I certainly didn't mean to imply that it is actually possible for us to formulate a physical description of all phenomena! Certainly it is not. But, if we are to do physics, when we sit down to solve any particular problem, we must assume that it's possible for us to solve it. Otherwise, the enterprise undermines itself.

Thanks again,

Karen

Jochen Szangolies replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 11:38 GMT

Dear Karen,

thanks for the clarification---I think I had misunderstood your endeavor a little: your project is more sociological (working out what current physics does consider to be fundamental) than normative (working out what it should consider fundamental) in nature. I think I like this take better---in a sense, what we're looking for limits what we can find, so if there is some sort of systematic bias in the theories we might accept as fundamental that precludes us from formulating these theories (which is just what seems to be happening with the Higgs mass' failure to be 'natural' at the moment), we should be ready to face these biases and, if possible, remove them.

Although, as I think Putnam remarked when contemplating the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, what good is a metaphysics one can't believe? What if the world is such that if we ever were told its fundamental nature, we'd flat out not believe it? But that's really just idle speculation.

Regarding whether we can formulate all physical explanations, this recalls McGinn's distinction between 'physicalism' and 'physics-alism'---the former being the metaphysical stance that everything is, ultimately, physical in nature, and the latter the epistemological stance that everything admits of explanation in terms of the science of physics. He makes the point that the former doesn't necessarily imply the latter, and that really, we don't have much of a reason to believe the latter ought to be true, save from a certain kind of epistemic hybris. Personally, I think he's got a point there (although I probably would have vigorously rejected it when I started out studying physics).

Anyway, thanks again for your answer, it's really helped put things in focus for me!

report post as inappropriate

Dear Karen and essay readers,

here are some lines of thought I would like to offer as worth thinking about them, since at least for me it seems that they are part of the problem to unequivocally answer the contest’s question at all.

The demand to stop digging is of course the result of the assumption that our best theories are not considered to be fundamental. Your approach to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hello dear Karen,

I loved your relevant philosophical general essay.You have well analysed the importance for a theory of everything and the different problems to find it.

All the best, good luck

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 17:44 GMT

Thanks very much!

Hi Karen:

Congratulations. Excellent paper, well-written, concise, and thoughtful covering all bases and history of physics. Really enjoyed reading and agree with most of it. I have given you the highest grade it deserves. Below are some of my thoughts on and beyond what you have presented.

What is fundamental is not a theory but the end state or physical reality it is supposed to...

view entire post

Hi Karen:

Congratulations. Excellent paper, well-written, concise, and thoughtful covering all bases and history of physics. Really enjoyed reading and agree with most of it. I have given you the highest grade it deserves. Below are some of my thoughts on and beyond what you have presented.

What is fundamental is not a theory but the end state or physical reality it is supposed to depict or predict. A theory should be considered “fundamental” if the end state predicted by it is fundamental. Hence, we must define the most fundamental reality first, which in my view is the absolute Zero Point State (ZPS) that is invariant in space-time i.e. fully dilated with zero space-time. Since, a finite mass has a finite non-zero space-time, mass should also be zero in the ZPS. Such a fundamental state or reality would be immeasurable since it is absolute and not relative. A theory that predicts and bridges this absolute ZPS state with the relative (non-zero mass-energy-space-time) states of the comprehensible universe should be defined as the “Fundamental” theory. Remember, “Fundamental” refers to the predicted end state and not to the theory itself. You rightly state that quantum theories (QFT, EFT) predict arbitrarily large vacuum energy and hence are not fundamental.

In my paper– “What is Fundamental – Is C the Speed of Light”, I propose the missing physics of spontaneous mass-energy conversion (as observed in wave-particle behavior) that bridges the observed relative mass-energy-space-time states to the ZPS while resolving the paradox of the missing dark energy that is revealed as the relativistic kinetic energy, the paradox of the collapse of the wave function that is explained via transition to the classical space-time from the fully dilated space-time when a measurement is made, the black hole singularity of GR eliminated via mass dilation at small R, and solution to other current inconsistencies as well as weirdness of mainstream theories as described in my book.

I would greatly appreciate your time and feedback on my paper as to which of your criteria it satisfies?

Thanking you in advance,

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 12:37 GMT

Dear Avtar,

Thank you very much!

Your idea about the fundamental being the final, zero state of the universe sounds interesting. Why the final state instead of the initial one, or are they the same? Would it be a quantum state of spacetime? Would it be subject to fluctuations?

I'll try to check your essay before the deadline, but please forgive me if I run out of time, since I have a lot to get through at the moment.

Best,

Karen

Avtar Singh replied on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 19:16 GMT

Hi Karen:

In a fully dilated space-time, initial and final are the same Zero Point State. It is not the quantum space-time, which is the quantum vacuum that is 120 orders of magnitude higher than the Cosmological Constant state. There are no quantum fluctuations in the Zero Point State.

Regards

Avtar

report post as inappropriate

Nicely written, Mrs. Karen Crowther.

Read and rated. Further words are useless. Here[/link} is a related essay, if you would like to read one (more)

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 12:38 GMT

Thank you!

Brilliant essay Karen: best response I've read to the question, and I reckon the rightful winner.

A few of the essays argue that going "deeper" does not necessarily imply going "smaller", but your way is definitely more in line with current physics.

Cheers,

Dean

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 12:41 GMT

Thanks, Dean!

Hi Karen,

You essay lays out quite nicely what a "Fundamental theory" or possible a "Theory of Everything" must address:

• Unified;

• Unique;

• UV complete (“nothing beyond” formally);

• Non-perturbative (exactly solvable);

• Internally consistent (well-defined formally, with no problematic singularities)

The problem is that the training to become a physicists makes it highly unlikely that a physicist will find the theory of everything even though they know what a more fundamental theory has to address.

I have found a theory that checks off everything on your list. It is so unique that it requires physicists to wipe the slate completely clean before they read it... (It starts with only one ingredient and energy) If physicists try to use their current knowledge of physics (before the theory derives it) their preconcieved notions will lead them astray and not allow the new concepts to be accepted.... especially the biggest stumbling block of all, "The Ruby Slipper Conundrum".

I do not expect anyone to jump on board now but eventually it will happen - so I have put an essay into this contest for people to be exposed to the theory even though they will not give it a second thought. (The Day After the Nightmare Scenario) This essay reveals only the tip of the iceberg as it takes an entire 350 page textbook to learn the theory.

Best of luck to you - I hope you win -

Scott S Gordon, MD/Engr

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 14:35 GMT

Dear Scott,

Thank you! And best of luck in your larger project.

Karen

Space and time are the concepts introduced into science by we humans in order to enable us to study nature as it is seen and sensed by us. our instruments. How can we rely upon is a question an alien may ask us!One needs to be an external observer in order to picturise the universe we live within! I wonder we talk of other verses and have been attempting Artificial Intelligence a discipline to deal with it! Reading your essay was refreshing but it made me wonder if we can go wrong in conptualising the postulates of the scienctific methodology er have adopted to study it. Is it conditioning us in some way the free will considered essential philosophy to develop innovatively any subject of study. I am in minority as an experimentalist in this context, as most scientists participating are thereticians and depend on Maths as their tool for progress in science! Can we innovate our tools of operation now? Are these the best options we have already chosen? If you find time, you may visit our very short essay of 2/3 pages and provide us your comments and rating on the same~

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 14:16 GMT

Thanks for your comment. You raise many deep questions here that I think are most certainly deserving of further study. I agree, and often try to remind myself that space and time are just concepts we have introduced in order to describe the observed behaviour of observable entities. But it's often tempting to think of them as latching on to something more substantial, especially with the recent detection of gravitational waves, for instance. I think no human concept is absolutely infallible -- of course we could always be wrong in some sense. But our science, and the concepts and tools (including maths) it employs, is incredibly successful, and we could tell the aliens that this is our justification for relying on these concepts and tools -- they serve us well. In fact, a more general justification is that human societies have successfully utilised the concepts of spatial distances and temporal durations for millenia, and these concepts may even be part of the reason for the success of human societies, and their endurance. So, again, this is some justification, however, of course, our concepts could be "wrong" in the sense of not capturing something "real" with independent existence in the world. Of course, it is interesting to think about whether aliens or AI could employ different concepts, and indeed, different human societies have different notions of space and time, too (that differ from those that feature in physics, as well). But if you want to know which, if any, of these is "right", you will need some additional criteria over just their ability to successfully describe the world, and you will need some justification for how these additional criteria help pick out what is "correct". [Please note, I am not claiming any of this in my essay, where the criteria I list are just intended to designate a theory that could possibly be counted, by high-energy physics, as fundamental. I make no further claims about the truth of such a theory.]

Narendra Nath replied on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 01:35 GMT

Rhanks Karen for your detailed reponse to my queries. I feel satisfied with the response as it shows oth humility and depth of understanding you have achieved. Subjectivity and objectivity both control the growth of our understanding and most of all the consensus that results in the community helps us all grow further the professionalism demanded of us. If you can spare soem time responding to our essay here we shall feel obliged, it is ashort contribution of just 2/3 pages only!

report post as inappropriate

Dear Karen,

I read your paper and found it very interesting in many ways. If taken strictly as presented the nine conditions could possibly identify a most fundamental theory depending on how they are interpreted. As an example, since the universe is constructed as a structural substance hierarchy, although it is possible to generate a complete theory that covers all of the structuring of...

view entire post

Dear Karen,

I read your paper and found it very interesting in many ways. If taken strictly as presented the nine conditions could possibly identify a most fundamental theory depending on how they are interpreted. As an example, since the universe is constructed as a structural substance hierarchy, although it is possible to generate a complete theory that covers all of the structuring of all of those structural levels, it could be somewhat difficult to work with. It might be easier to still compartmentalize the total theory into parts that specifically deal with each hierarchical level or the interactions between two levels, etc. as needed to minimize the amount of work that would be required to implement it at specific levels. At the same time the overall theory could describe the overall material structural generations, their actions, and their interactions throughout the total complex structure of the universe. Also since some structures, such as energy photons and field structures remain essentially the same throughout all of the hierarchical levels of structure, these entities and their structures and functioning could be considered background fixed structures, but they are existent parts of the universe that would necessarily be a part of any truly fundamental theory.

The most interesting part of your paper to me is your description of the hierarchical tower of theories at different size scales of the universe. You do not mention that there are different hierarchical structural levels of the universe in which basic substance(s) of one level is used in that level to construct what is then the basic substances of the next larger level, etc. At the lowest structural level that man has currently gained an understanding, matter particles are the level’s basic substances and are structured together with field structures to form all of the atoms. At the atomic level, the substances of the atoms are structured together with field structures to form the molecules and at the molecular level the substances of the molecules are structured together to form the substances of the large scale objects that we generally work with at our hierarchical level, etc. As you progress up the hierarchical chain, the number of different structures that are produced within each level increases. The lower the level is, therefore, the simpler or more fundamental it is than those levels above it. Any truly fundamental theory would, therefore, need to be able to explain the complete construction of all of the structures at all of the levels in the total structure and the complete progression of substance production from the first level through the last level. One reason that currently accepted theories such as QFT and GR, etc. can’t be truly fundamental is that they do not address the substance or the structuring of that substance that produces the the basic entities of matter particles, energy photons, and fields, which make up the currently known lowest hierarchical level of the universe. This is very odd, since there is now (and has been for some time) adequate information in both observational information and also within the mathematical constructions of current theories to allow these things to be extrapolated and understood. It appears that this area has been purposely avoided. I can see reasons why that may be the case, but it is holding back man’s progression because hidden within the internal structure of matter particles is the key that can free man from the limited scale problems that you mention. When these things are understood by man, some of the parts of both QFT and GR that man currently considers to be important will be seen to be in error. This will simplify the remaining parts and allow a complete workable theory to be developed. The real question is how long will man hold back this development for what amounts to petty reasons?

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 16:55 GMT

Dear Paul,

Thanks for your comments. There is a lot in what you have said, and I can't fully respond to all of it, so I'll just make a few comments.

On the idea of potentially "compartmentalising" the theory into sections that deal with particular phenomena at different scales, in order to simplify its practical implementation. This is complicated, firstly, if we have a unified...

view entire post

Dear Paul,

Thanks for your comments. There is a lot in what you have said, and I can't fully respond to all of it, so I'll just make a few comments.

On the idea of potentially "compartmentalising" the theory into sections that deal with particular phenomena at different scales, in order to simplify its practical implementation. This is complicated, firstly, if we have a unified theory, where all interactions are described in the same way at the fundamental level. Secondly, even in non-unified theories, effective field theory has revealed that identifying the interactions in the fundamental theory that are going to make a difference at lower energy scales is often a non-trivial task, without using techniques like the renormalisation group flow. Additionally, symmetry breaking, for instance, can also profoundly alter the less-fundamental description of a system, compared to the fundamental one, in a way that may not obvious from looking only at the fundamental theory.

On the idea of a fundamental theory needing to explain how all the less-fundamental entities arise, or how to "construct the structures present at all other levels". This is a deep question that is of great interest to me, and I regret that I was not able to properly address the issues of emergence and reduction in my essay. I hope you will continue to research it, because it is certainly an area worthy of further study.

I am a bit confused, however, by your claims here,

This is very odd, since there is now (and has been for some time) adequate information in both observational information and also within the mathematical constructions of current theories to allow these things to be extrapolated and understood. It appears that this area has been purposely avoided.

Maybe you would like to elaborate more, especially about these "petty reasons" you cite, please? But, from my understanding, yes, of course much is known about GR and our QFTs, but there is also much that is not known, and still areas of active research. In some areas we are still trying to develop the right techniques, and in others, we may not have adequate computing power. Take, for instance, the low-energy limit of QCD, which is extremely difficult to solve.

Best,

Karen

view post as summary

Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 21:16 GMT

Dear Karen,

In order to give you an idea of what can be extrapolated from current observational data and theories, I guess it would be best to start at the lowest most fundamental level of physical substance structuring and build up from there. If you look at E=MC^2 where E=energy, M=mass, and C=the speed of light, most who have much familiarity with it would understand that matter...

view entire post

Dear Karen,

In order to give you an idea of what can be extrapolated from current observational data and theories, I guess it would be best to start at the lowest most fundamental level of physical substance structuring and build up from there. If you look at E=MC^2 where E=energy, M=mass, and C=the speed of light, most who have much familiarity with it would understand that matter particles can be changed into energy photons and vice versa and, of course, it goes much deeper. Energy is not only expressed in the form of energy photons, but is expressed in the form of simple kinetic angular and linear motions, etc. Observational data shows that all of these forms of energy can be converted into each other. If each of them can be converted into any of the others, then each one must contain within it all of the basic substance that is contained within all of the others. This would indicate that one of them would likely be the most basic or fundamental form of this substance.

It is obvious that the simplest of these structures is the simple linear motion. It only possesses three internal information structures, which are its current position in space, its current direction of travel in space, and the amount of motion that it contains, which I call its motion amplitude. As an example, if two motions leave points on a line simultaneously and travel straight at ninety degrees to that line to another line that is parallel to the first line and one of them possesses twice the amount of motion amplitude that is contained in the other one, it will reach the other line when the other motion reaches the halfway point. You can, of course, choose a specific motion amplitude as a standard motion as man has done by breaking down the cyclical motion of the earth’s rotation on its axis, etc. to make it easier to compare different motions with each other, but I start this way to make it clear that motion amplitude is the property possessed by a motion without getting into the concept of time which is really just a relationship between motions as they travel through distances. I could cover more on that later.

If a basic linear motion is the most fundamental substance from which all other entities are composed, all other entities should be able to be constructed using just linear motions. Fields generally operate in a linear manner without expressing angular motions at angles from their direction of travel. They can, therefore, be constructed of individual simple linear motion particles.

Energy photons contain a linear motion that travels at the speed of light, but they also contain an angular motion that travels at ninety degrees to its direction of travel in a cyclical back and forth pattern. One way this can be constructed using only linear motion is to consider that the speed of light is a threshold level, such that if you try to add motion to a field particle to get it to travel faster than the speed of light, the excess motion over the speed of light is instead transferred into a small fourth dimension. This dimension connects to the other lower three dimensions at ninety degrees in the same way that they connect to each other with each position in the fourth dimension connected to all points of the other dimensions. The fourth dimension is very small and contains only three positions within it. The center position is connected to our dimensional structure and the two end positions are located outside of our dimensional structure. When a motion enters this dimension it travels back and forth between the ends of the dimension. It bounces off of the ends and, thus travels in a cyclical back and forth pattern. The greater the amount of motion that it contains, the faster it can travel one complete back and forth cycle, which increases its frequency. Since it is still travelling at the speed of light in its linear direction of travel, it will not travel as far in that direction during the faster fourth dimensional motion cycle, which will decrease its wavelength. The greater amount of motion that is contained in its cyclical back and forth motion will allow it to transfer more motion during an interaction with another entity, which gives it a greater dynamic mass effect. If that motion is at an end of the fourth dimension when an interaction occurs, it cannot transfer any of its motion to the interaction because it is located outside of our dimensional system. As it travels from an end, it begins to enter our dimensional system and the farther it is into our system when an interaction happens; the greater is the amount of its motion that can be transferred during that interaction. Its greatest dynamic mass effect occurs when it is completely within our system. As it continues to travel past that point, it begins to move out of our system again on the other side, so its mass effect decreases to zero again at the opposite side of the fourth dimension at which point it bounces off of the end and begins to travel back the other way. The same thing happens again during this half of its cyclical motion flow except interaction effects are in the opposite direction. This is a model of an energy photon composed of only two linear motions.

A matter particle can exist in a stationary form relative to other matter particles. When it is stationary or not moving in relation to other matter particles, it still possesses a mass effect called its static or rest mass. It can also move up to close to the speed of light. In an interaction, its motion increases its mass effect. During an interaction, it can demonstrate an angular motion effect with several different interaction outcomes each of which occurs at its own specific probability of occurrence. This is a dead giveaway that it contains an internal motion structure. In order to contain internal motions, it cannot be a point particle, since there is nowhere within a point particle for a motion to move. The idea that matter particles can be point objects and can spin is nonsense. A point object contains a point about which a spin could occur, but has no extension to spin about that point. In any real world spinning object, such as the earth, the greatest motion amplitude occurs at the point that is farthest from the central axis, such as the equator on the earth. As you move toward one of the axis poles, your motion amplitude (speed) decreases and it reaches zero at the center of the axis of rotation. This idea of point particle spin is one of the greatest errors in man’s current theory. Once you realize that matter particles are extended objects that contain internal motions, the next step is to try to understand how they can be constructed using only simple linear motions.

First, consider that there is a fifth dimension and a threshold fourth dimensional motion level that must be reached to allow motion to travel from the fourth dimension into the fifth dimension, such that an energy photon must contain a great enough fourth dimensional motion to at least make the lowest mass matter particle to allow a motion transfer to the fifth dimension. Once this condition is met, the energy photon must also come into contact with an angular motion, such as when it travels through the field of an atom near its nucleus. Some of its fourth dimensional motion is then transferred from the fourth dimension into the fifth dimension. The fifth dimension is structured, such that the motion that it contains is then transferred into the lower three dimensions in a cyclical way, such that it begins to transfer motion into dimension one increasing linearly from the zero level to a maximum level and then back to a zero level in a linear pattern. As the motion level reaches the maximum level in dimension one, it begins to enter into dimension two in the same way. The motion level in dimension one reaches the zero level at the same time that the motion level in dimension two reaches the maximum level. At this point motion begins to enter dimension three in the same way. As the motion level in dimension two reaches the zero level, the motion level in dimension three reaches the maximum level. At this point motion starts to enter into dimension one again. This is only an example and does not represent the complete motion flow cycle because it is for man to figure that out in detail. When the motion enters into the lower three dimensions from the fifth dimension, it would cause the energy photon to travel faster than the speed of light, but the excess motion over the level of the speed of light is transferred into the fourth dimension. Only the angular component of the motion remains in the lower three dimensions, which causes the photon to travel in a curved path that encloses back upon itself to create a three dimensional cyclical enclosed path structure in which it continues to travel. If the photon’s wavelength fits properly into the enclosed path, the angular motion component is present to allow the motion to travel from the fourth dimension back into the fifth dimension and the inter-dimensional motion flow cycle is complete and the matter particle is stable. If it doesn’t fit properly, the matter particle is not stable and the motion cannot travel back into the fifth dimension. The motion drains out of the fifth dimension and the curvature that it generated disappears causing the matter particle to become a photon again. The great angular motion in the matter particle generates its static or rest mass effect. You can see that when two matter particles interact, various outcome results can occur depending on the positioning and direction of travel, etc. of the photons within the matter particles at the point of interaction.

Matter particles also generate their own field structures. The motion flow of the photon in the matter particle around its enclosed three dimensional path entrains field particles (I call them sub-energy particles because they hold the position in the hierarchical structure of the universe that is just below that of the energy photon.) to travel through the matter particle in a dense packed stream. This creates an input and output for the sub-energy flow on opposite sides of the enclosed path. These travel around on the surface of the particle’s path along with the motion of the photon as it travels along that path. This is the internal field structure of the matter particle and it keeps the internal photon motions from interacting between the matter particles within an atomic nucleus. The internal and, therefore, also the external flow of this field is modulated by the frequency/wavelength fourth dimensional motion of the photon within the matter particle to vary the flow from a zero level linearly to a maximum flow rate and then back down to the zero level in a cyclical pattern that produces a series of concentric sub-energy field spheres around the matter particle that vary from a flow rate (particle density) of zero to a maximum flow rate and then back down to the zero rate in a linear manner. The sub-energy flow within each sphere is in all directions around the sphere from the particle’s sub-energy internal field output to its input creating a flow that operates at ninety degrees to the direction towards the particle in any direction. The inner most high density sphere contains the matter particles of an atom within it. The outer spheres bind the electrons to the atom. As an electron approaches an atom, it is attracted to its external sub-energy field. As it travels through the sub-energy spheres, it is also attracted in the opposite direction to the spheres that it has already traveled through. When it reaches a point that the attraction of the spheres is equal in both directions for its mass, etc., it will come to rest in the low density area between two high density field spheres. Its motion around the nucleus will be controlled by the motion of the adjacent high density sub-energy spheres in a three dimensional motion pattern. This gives a basic conceptual model view of how matter particles are structured out of basic linear motions and how they function, etc. This completes the description of the lowest hierarchical levels of existent entity construction of the universe starting with its most fundamental basic material substance, which is motion and progressing through to the level of atoms. I hope this gives you adequate information to get a good basic conceptual understanding of how it all works. I have, of course, left out many details and this comment has still grown large as the range of man’s comments generally goes, so I will end this comment and leave the other issues for a possible later comment.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Awaiting response of Author, Jaren to xomments of mine and Paul !

report post as inappropriate

Dear Karen,

Good to see that your Aussie connections have done no harm: for your excellent essay hits the spot as I work on "wholistic mechanics" (WM), a classical/deterministic reformulation of physics in spacetime. WM = {CM, SR, QM, GR, QFT, QG, EFT, ...|TLR}, my essay being an introduction.

Identifying your nine conditions as KC-1 to KC-9, it was the last -- no weirdness -- that got me started; ie, I studied EPRB, the experiment analysed in famous Bell (1964), not accepting that the assumptions behind Bell's theorem (BT) were valid in that setting, and rejecting nonlocality.

My starting premiss (my classical boundary condition) is true local realism (TLR): the union of true locality (no influence propagates superluminally, after Einstein) and true realism (some existents may change interactively, after Bohr).

Revising EPR's naive definition of "elements of physical reality", I find determinism in play, refute Bell's theorem, and (from first principles, in spacetime) find the Laws of Malus, Bayes and Born validated. Born's law (an effective field theory, in my terms; in the space of probability amplitudes) can then be tested by confirming the correct result for the EPRB expectation; then the correct DSE results; then onward to the stars.

In thus eliminating "wavefunction collapse" and nonlocality from QM, it follows that such weirdness need no longer trouble the foundations of QFT; etc. And since my calculations are conducted in spacetime (not Hilbert space), I'm thinking QG is covered automatically.

Enough: such is my long way of saying that I will welcome your comments at any time.

With thanks for your stimulating essay, and with best regards from down-under,

Gordon Watson (determined and free-willed)

report post as inappropriate

Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 04:46 GMT

Apologies: it appears reCAPTCHA logged me out when it malfunctioned! GW

report post as inappropriate

Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 00:54 GMT

Karen, if/when you reply to my post, please copy it to my essay-thread so that I'm alerted to it. I'm having trouble keeping abreast of many good discussions this year.

Many thanks; Gordon More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Karen,

Your eloquently written essay provides one of the most thorough and thoughtful responses to the contest question of any of the entries, and the list of 9 criteria is a useful way to structure any approach to thinking about fundamentality in physics.

A few comments:

1. I wholeheartedly agree with the "more general principle" that a fundamental theory not leave...

view entire post

Dear Karen,

Your eloquently written essay provides one of the most thorough and thoughtful responses to the contest question of any of the entries, and the list of 9 criteria is a useful way to structure any approach to thinking about fundamentality in physics.

A few comments:

1. I wholeheartedly agree with the "more general principle" that a fundamental theory not leave anything apparently in need of explanation, but I would supplement it with the caveat that "questions which are apparently in need of explanation" is a strongly paradigm-dependent notion. As you surely know, to Aristotle, our description of the world would leave a whole lot of questions (particularly in regard to teleology) open. Even to some 19th century physicists, some of our current concerns might seem to miss the point. Of course, I understood that you provided an answer from a physics perspective with the implicit assumption that it is physics within the contemporary paradigm. It is fun to imagine what kind of physics questions our descendants might ask which they feel are in need of an explanation and how these differ from the questions we consider today likewise.

2. I liked your arms-length discussion of unification as an answer to what is fundamental. Often unification is presented in a quasi-dogmatic way as the future of fundamental physics, but I tend to agree that nature is not "boshaft" (malicious) in the sense that if unification were really the answer, then nature would have given us more robust hints than we have now. In the end, what seems like the most plausible approach to understanding such deeply philosophical questions strongly depend on one's worldview.

3. The maneuver at the end, that the 9 criteria are inextricably tied to the nature of physics itself (as understood within the contemporary paradigm) is a subject well worth exploring further. I understand that this is not possible under the constraints of this contest, but understanding this deeply may well shed a brighter light on the justification for each of the criteria you named.

4. My emphasis on the importance of recognizing that we operate within a a particular paradigm springs from my belief that we have already all the elements in place that are needed to transition to the next one, and that the only reason we have not done so far is that the different pieces of the puzzle which already exist have not yet been assembled into a coherent and comprehensive picture. My entry, the first of a 2-part series, is an effort to do such an assemblage for a small number of these pieces, with the second part (regrettably still unfinished) putting a much larger set of them together.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Mar. 16, 2018 @ 22:16 GMT

Dear Armin,

Thanks very much! (And sorry for the delayed response).

You raise some very good points here, and offer a new perspective for viewing my essay. Yes, as you appreciate, I was taking the particular perspective of current mainstream high-energy physics, and trying to discover and articulate the conditions it apparently puts on a fundamental theory (while leaving open the possibility that these conditions change in the future). But, as you note, these conditions are revealing of the nature of the discipline itself at this point in time, beyond its conception of fundamentality. So, yes, I would certainly like to take up this idea in future work, and to better understand what it is about these conditions that makes them key to current physics -- and what may be modified in future physics.

Your project sounds like it could be a very difficult one! I'm curious what you mean, so I'll come have a look...

Best,

Karen

Hi Karen...

Your essay definitively reflects the position taken by the majority of the essay entries... i.e. “For the time being, we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics, which can be regarded as its logical foundation.” ~ Albert Einstein 1940 ('Science')

REF: Peter Jackson Ridiculous Simplicity "Essay Abstract...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Karen,

I enjoyed reading your essay. You beautifully discuss the various components of fundamentalness. To add to your arguments and the proposed checklist of fundamentalness, I will add that the complete comprehension of fundamentalness will entail a deeper journey into the worlds of biological and physical evolutions. I believe they intricately co-exist, co-evolve and are co-dependent.

Best regards,

Anil

report post as inappropriate

Dear Karen, here's some background to the theory that I mention above; Gordon.

Background to Wholistic Mechanics (WM)

Whereas QM emerged from the UV-catastrophe ca1905, WM emerges from the locality-catastrophe typified by John Bell's dilemma ca1965: ie, seriously ambivalent about AAD, Bell adamantly rejected locality. He later surmised that maybe he and his followers were...

view entire post

Dear Karen, here's some background to the theory that I mention above; Gordon.

Background to Wholistic Mechanics (WM)

Whereas QM emerged from the UV-catastrophe ca1905, WM emerges from the locality-catastrophe typified by John Bell's dilemma ca1965: ie, seriously ambivalent about AAD, Bell adamantly rejected locality. He later surmised that maybe he and his followers were being rather silly -- correctly; as we show -- for WM is the local theory that resolves Bell's dilemma [there is no AAD] and proves the Bellian silliness.

So WM begins by bringing just one change to modern physics: rejecting naive-realism, true realism insists that some beables change interactively, after Bohr's disturbance-dictum. Thus recognising the minimum-action associated with Planck's constant, WM then recognises the maximum speed associated with light: for true locality insists that no influence propagates superluminally, after Einstein.

The union of these two classical principles -- the foundation of WM -- is true local realism (TLR). Under TLR, EPR's naive criterion for "an element of physical reality" is corrected, then the Laws of Malus and Bayes are validated in the quantum world. Then, via the R-F theorem ca1915, Born's Law is seen to derive from elementary Fourier theory. This in turn allows us to understand the physical significance of Dirac's notation; etc. Thus, beginning with these elementary natural principles, WM's universe-of-discourse focuses on beables in spacetime: with mathematics taken to be our best logic.

NB: Formulated in 1989 in response to a challenging article by David Mermin (1988), many leading Bellian physicists and philosophers have committed to review the foundations of WM and its early results. Since no such review has ever been delivered, I am not yet aware of any defect in the theory. Further, WM provides many ways to refute Bell's theorem (BT): one such is provided on p.8 of my essay.

PS: To those who dismiss my essay due to an alleged typo in the heading, I follow C. S. Peirce (absent his severity): "It is entirely contrary to good English usage to spell premiss, 'premise,' and this spelling ... simply betrays ignorance of the history of logic.”

Assuring you that critical comments are most welcome,

Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Dear Karen

You picked a good theme for this years essay, and you are accomplished in that you did the subject good justice. Congratulations of a great essay and a great score. I hit you with a 10 but it wasn’t sufficient to move you up to 7.7. But it will have pushed it closer to that tipping point

I just want to give you a quick run down, why you might read my essay with a view...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 03:17 GMT

Karen

Here is a fuller detail regarding QM and GR being centered on study of a singular device, clocks. Just in case it interests you

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, two fundamental theories of one world. However QM and GR have clocks in common, in terms of clocks being a study in QM (made of QM), and GR being a study of clocks (time dilation). Two fundamental theories,...

view entire post

Karen

Here is a fuller detail regarding QM and GR being centered on study of a singular device, clocks. Just in case it interests you

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, two fundamental theories of one world. However QM and GR have clocks in common, in terms of clocks being a study in QM (made of QM), and GR being a study of clocks (time dilation). Two fundamental theories, servicing one world and now one device? QM might be surmised, a study of forces. GR might be surmised, a study of time.

Clocks can be thought of as possessing a split personality. They possess a back end mechanical spring, the study of which might be termed QM force. They possess front end hands considered a measure of GR effects time dilation. These split personalities however are connected via a shaft, which makes their respective studies of force and time an equivalent. Which makes perfect sense in terms of the spring drives the clocks function. My earlier message coined the term “force dilation” which represents this property of the spring, which stands equivalent to the term “time dilation”.

Force dilation a quantity which is entirely equivalent to effect of time dilation? Which term is more fundamental, or carries more useful meanings? Force dilation is a property of the spring which drives the clock, so that places it at the heart by virtue of being attached to cause. It causes the clocks function, the clock hands but follow. The front end of the clock is superfluous in terms of cause, like a puppet dictated to by a puppeteer. Time, a puppeteers puppet? Not flattering I know, but it makes my intended meanings clear.

Substitute the term of time dilation for the equivalent term of force dilation, then General Relativities effect is translatable as Quantum Mechanical effect. Theory can then be summarized in terms of, Clocks are QM devices (made of QM) which measure variable QM behaviour (force dilation) in relative motions and relative gravitational environments. One fundamental theory of the world, one fundamental theory that describes all behaviours exhibited by clocks.

QM is a study of forces, and relativity is redressed as a QM study of forces of bodies in relative motions and relative gravitational environments.

Relativity boils down to being merely the study of the modulation of QM forces.

Steve

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Here is a link to a top-level, easily accessible copy of:

The Crowther Criteria for Fundamental Theories of Physics

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3099#post_1455
51

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Crowther,

I really enjoyed your essay. I found it to be a very insightful examination of current physical theory and the aspects that make them fundamental or not.

I wonder about some of the requirements, such as being non-perturbative, since some things simply cannot be computed mathematically in a direct fashion. Could such requirements imply that there might never be a fundamental theory?

My group has been working on an attempt at a foundational theory called Influence Theory,

Knuth, K.H., *Bahreyni, N. 2014. A potential foundation for emergent space-time, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 55, 112501. doi:10.1063/1.4899081, arXiv:1209.0881 [math-ph]

Knuth, K.H. 2014. Information-based physics: an observer-centric foundation. Contemporary Physics, 55(1), 12-32. doi:10.1080/00107514.2013.853426. arXiv:1310.1667 [quant-ph]

and you now have me thinking about to what degree what we have achieved so far is fundamental.

Thank you for your excellent essay!

Kevin Knuth

report post as inappropriate

Dear Karen,

Thank you for writing this paper which while it aims at assembling the criteria that are used by working physicists in their construction of fundamental theories is at the same time provocative and gives one a lot to think about.

I am not convinced that this list is best presented as a set of criteria on what high energy physicists look for in a fundamental theory as opposed to a final theory. You are clear at several points in the paper that you think we should not make a distinction between 'fundamental' and 'final'. But I would disagree. It is clear we are far away from a final theory and yet there is an importance to recognizing at least part of current physics as fundamental. Our best physical theories have a special explanatory status not shared by other attempts at characterizing the world that underwrites their status as fundamental. I try to articulate the importance of such characterization in my own essay submission.

I also wanted to ask about "weirdness". Many would argue that any realist interpretation of quantum theories is going to commit us to some weirdness, in forcing us to move beyond assumptions that were previously thought of as obvious. Shouldn't some weirdness be allowed even in a final theory of physics?

Best,

Alyssa

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Mar. 14, 2018 @ 16:00 GMT

Dear Alyssa,

Thank you for your comments. Sorry for my delayed response.

My idea in this essay was to provide the apparently necessary conditions on a fundamental theory of physics – not just a ‘currently fundamental’ physical theory. GR and QFT (or, really, some particular QFTs, like QCD) are both currently fundamental, and yet physicists are still searching for a deeper theory, for reasons that I present in the essay. And this is what led to me eventually realising that the distinction between fundamental and final needed to be dropped, due to the arguments regarding unification and uniqueness.

Regarding weirdness: the idea was motivated by the fact that so many physicists remain unconvinced that the framework can be complete, or correct, due to the measurement problem. Many people (physicists and philosophers alike) believe that a more fundamental theory (perhaps QG) must provide a solution to the measurement problem, and thus absolve this ‘weirdness’. So, the lesson I took is that some degree of weirdness may be acceptable, but there may be a point where the theory is weird enough that it won’t be accepted by mainstream physics as a fundamental theory, and people will seek to go deeper. (That said, I am not fully convinced by this condition, because the measurement problem could plausibly be “external” to theory… So I will think about this more).

Best,

Karen

There is both physical evolution as also the biological evolution. Both have followed the logic built in to the Nature! Your essay has touched on both these aspects but have refrained from discussing these two aspects seperately and in conjunction. Evolution is basically a natural event and can not be understood through scientific knowledge which itself is in the process of evolution. Philosophy reflects human thinking but it has also developed a kind of methodology! These are our constraints in ' free will ' understanding! Thus, the questions remain open and 'freedom' of thought and action remains open, without restriction due to history of science that we may have happened to evolve thus far.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Karen,

You are the victim of a targeted attack of massive downvoting. Me too. Also I noticed Andrew Beckwith was attacked too, maybe others, but so far I only noticed you two. This may be the result of a desperate last minute attempt to climb the ladder, but it is dishonest and a violation of the rules of the contest, in which case we are advised to write to the organizers. Which I did, and Andrew did it too. I would encourage anyone who noticed such phenomena to report them.

Good luck!

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 16:50 GMT

Dear Christi,

Thanks for this. Yes, I was very surprised to notice such a drop today without any accompanying comments! So I will write to the organisers, as you suggest.

Good luck for you, too!

Karen

Karen, Christi,

I can ask even if it's awkward for either of you: Does this downvoting appear to be gender related? You both have very good essays, so it's strange to see both of you hit by this.

My observation to any FQXi admins reading this: Please at least consider whether there has been some bias here. All I can say is that the high quality of these two essays has not changed, so a sudden downswing in the last couple of days to me just seems wrong.

Sincerely,

Terry Bollinger (63 year old male codger, since my first name is ambiguous... :)

report post as inappropriate

Dear Karen,

I found your essay very clear! Unlike some others, it came exactly as announced in the abstract. :) I think your text is very accessible and relevant for, e.g., Master students of physics. (I would definitely have enjoyed reading such a survey at that point, to add some global perspective to more detailed courses of QFT, etc.)

Three more detailed comments on section 4:

- On p. 6 it appears that you assume the "problem of missing physics" (as Wilson calls it; i.e., the existence of gaps between theories) is only temporary. (In my own essay I have embraced the patchwork view of physics, as I think it is here to stay.) I am not sure whether rejecting patchwork is necessary for embracing the goal of physics (which you discuss at the bottom of p. 7): searching for a unique, unified, ... theory may well be the goal of physics, but I don't think it is inconsistent to admit at the same time that it is an unattainable one.

- "No weirdness" is a tricky requirement - as you may well be aware of -, since what we find weird or not strongly depends on our training and background knowledge.

- I particularly appreciate how you managed to escape Kantian worries by keeping us focused about what physics is (and isn't) about. So, I fully agree with your comment at the bottom of p. 7: indeed, physics isn't in the business of finding out what are things-in-themselves.

Best wishes,

Sylvia - Seek Fundamentality, and Distrust It.

report post as inappropriate

Author Karen Crowther replied on Mar. 16, 2018 @ 23:23 GMT

Dear Sylvia,

Thanks very much!

Yes, you raise some good points here, and I agree. Regarding the "patchwork": it may well be that we continue to work in this way, building up a patchwork, ultimately aiming at a unified, unique theory, but also recognising that in the end we may have a set of theories. Actually, this is similar to comments in the paper on UV completion (with Niels Linnemann) -- that a UV complete theory may be an ultimate goal, and heuristically useful, but we can still use UV incomplete theories, and at the end of the day, that may be all we have (though of course currently in QG, the non-renormalisable theory we have is unsatisfactory since it breaks down at the Planck scale, which is what we want to describe). Really, I think this whole list represents an unattainable goal that nevertheless drives us!

Regarding "no weirdness" -- yes, it's a tricky one. I certainly wouldn't want to reduce it to what particular individuals, or particular research programs find weird, but some rough sort of disciplinary consensus. When a theory is unsettling enough that many researchers forge ahead for something deeper, and this research is recognised as legitimate by mainstream physics (or, at least, not entirely misguided)... that's the gauge of "weirdness" I mean. But I need to think about this more... Please let me know if you have any more thoughts on it!

Best,

Karen