show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Sabine,

I am happy that you still decided to particpate.

Your approach of “weak emergent” and “strong emergent” is refreshing so is the “resolution” of experiments and theories and useful for my own thinking.

Reductionist elementary particles do NOT influence your behaviour is a perception that I can underwrite a good example to underwrite this perception is...

view entire post

Dear Sabine,

I am happy that you still decided to particpate.

Your approach of “weak emergent” and “strong emergent” is refreshing so is the “resolution” of experiments and theories and useful for my own thinking.

Reductionist elementary particles do NOT influence your behaviour is a perception that I can underwrite a good example to underwrite this perception is the essay from Erik P. Hoel from last year about “Causal Emergence” link.

You are right when you say that many physicists don’t accept strong emergence because it is incompatible with their ideas. I think mankind need an open mind and even has to accept to say “I don’t know” (if you can then you start thinking and searching...)

“Stuff is made of smaller stuff”. Indeed but it is possible to start at the bottom then we can conclude that this ultimate bottom is unknown, it is no longer “stuff”. so Unknown-Quarks-Atoms-Chemicals-Cells-Organs-Agents. At each step there is a larger choice of possibilities. Each step is a threshold where new entities are emerging.

A correct candidate for a fundamental theory might not reveal itself at “first sight”. That is the problem with science. It is like we thought for a long time that the sun turned around the earth, difficult mathematical structures were found to prove it because at first sight it “seemed” as if. Maybe the same for theoretical science in our era.....

Your example of the Chief of CERN is a nice one. My perception is that the agent (chief) is at a specific MOMENT in time where the whole block universe that he is part of (his emergent reality) takes his decision. At that very moment ALL emergent phenomena (including the bottom ones) are simultaneous “existing” and interacting.

(so all are shaking hands).

I am very happy with your conclusion Sabine, because it means that we can think FREE. I hope that you will find time to read and rate my essay where I am also trying to find a strong emergent model.

Best regards and good luck

Wilhelmus

view post as summary

show all replies (2 not shown)

hide replies

Hi Sabine I think you have written a strong, clearly written essay that is aligned with the programme of which the competition is a part. It's nice that, after further analysis of the problem, you end on an optimistic note rather than the opposite conclusion mid way.

There are a couple of places where I disagree with what is written.

1. "If a strongly emergent theory existed, it...

view entire post

Hi Sabine I think you have written a strong, clearly written essay that is aligned with the programme of which the competition is a part. It's nice that, after further analysis of the problem, you end on an optimistic note rather than the opposite conclusion mid way.

There are a couple of places where I disagree with what is written.

1. "If a strongly emergent theory existed, it would imply that “more is different” as Anderson put it [4]. Your behavior, then, would not just be a consequence of the motion of the elementary particles that you are made of. It would mean that believing in free will would be compatible with particle physics. It would mean that reductionism is wrong." The last sentence is not a logical consequence of the earlier statements. Reductionism is looking at what something is and from that how it functions. That is the limit of its inquiry. It does not provide information about how it came to be if that is not via self assembly. Disassembling a clock and working out the function of the mechanism is not a failure because it does not explain how the parts came to be manufactured and how they came to be assembled. We know for the latter occurrences machines or people are needed. Human behaviour is not solely a function of the individual but the environment, and others. External and larger than the executive functioning of the brain alone. Emergence is looking at the how does this come to be not the detail of what is it and how it functions. I like the example of a bird's egg shell. yes the porous structure of calcium carbonate explains what it is and how it can allow case exchange , while keeping contamination out. It does not explain how it comes to be which requires the functioning reproductive anatomy of a bird. Termite mounds and nests of the Edible-nest swiftlet are other good examples of mom self assembling structures. The existence and form of which can not be explained from their constituents alone.

Reductionism and emergence have different explanatory power related to different kinds of inquiry and can not be said to fail when they do not do the job of the other.

2. "The argument – which I have made myself many times – goes like this. We know stuff is made of smaller stuff. We know this simply because it describes what we see. It’s extremely well-established empirical knowledge and rather idiotic to deny. No one has managed to cut open a frog and not find atoms" S.H. No one has ever cut open a frog and found atoms unless this is a new meaning of found , where someone can be completely unaware of something and be said to have found it.The inside of the frog that is found is the same scale of resolution as the external surface of the frog that was seen. That the material aspect of the universe is packed inside itself not just at a singular scale or small range of resolution ( as our unaided eyes provide) is an important difference between products of signal processing and independently existing material things.

Kind regards Georgina

view post as summary

It is strange for a paper to claim free will can or does exist without defining exactly what free will is. If free will does not need a formal definition because it is self-evident, then its existence must also be self-evident. But I propose that free will is best defined in the context of psychology and neurology rather than physics and mathematics. I will give a practical example to show what...

view entire post

It is strange for a paper to claim free will can or does exist without defining exactly what free will is. If free will does not need a formal definition because it is self-evident, then its existence must also be self-evident. But I propose that free will is best defined in the context of psychology and neurology rather than physics and mathematics. I will give a practical example to show what free will is as commonly understood by the general population.

A person killed a victim. Is it murder or homicide? Since the latter carries a less severe punishment, the defense lawyer will try to prove it is homicide. One way is to prove that the person is insane. This will require many psychiatric tests and records of past tests that show the same result. What do these tests mean? The person cannot exercise free will because of mental disability.

From this example I give an operational definition of free will - human actions borne out of conscious and rational mental processes. Physicists immediately see a problem here. Molecules in the human brain cannot distinguish between conscious vs. subconscious, rational vs. irrational mental processes. (What color is bitter? It’s a wrong question.) This is the futility of trying to explain free will in terms of elementary particles, reductionism and determinism. Despite this glaring contradiction, physicists nonetheless talk about free will without regard of how psychologists define it. It only proves that when physicists say free will, they must mean something else.

Physicists cannot explain how rational thoughts and consciousness can arise. This does not nullify the observations of rational thinking and consciousness by psychologists and neurologists. A chimp looking at the moon is perpetually puzzled what it is and how it came to be. Not knowing the answer to these deep questions, the chimp concluded the moon does not exist. How free will can arise in the human brain is a deep question. A not so deep question is why some physicists insist free will does not exist. My answer to the first is unknown. My answer to the second is chimp brain.

view post as summary

Dear Sabine,

a very interesting essay. The connections between theories reminded me of Sebastian de Haro's contribution to this contest---I think his framework could have a valuable application to your argument.

But I do have a couple of questions, if I may. First, can we not simply 'add' theories? Think of classical Newtonian gravity, and electromagnetism. Both have the same domain...

view entire post

Dear Sabine,

a very interesting essay. The connections between theories reminded me of Sebastian de Haro's contribution to this contest---I think his framework could have a valuable application to your argument.

But I do have a couple of questions, if I may. First, can we not simply 'add' theories? Think of classical Newtonian gravity, and electromagnetism. Both have the same domain of applicability, but either could exist without the other, and they're not equivalent. So you could have a mass moving in a gravitational field, a charge moving in an electromagnetic field, and a massive charge moving in a combination of both fields. In the latter case, the predictions made using Newtonian gravitation would not suffice to calculate the object's motion, and similar with electromagnetism.

So it seems to me that to get an instance of 'strong' emergence, one would simply have to add a theory that postulates a 'charge' (in the general sense) which is linked to resolution, or size, or something like that; so the theory claimed fundamental no longer suffices to describe objects at a certain level, but no logical contradictions obtain---the fundamental theory simply isn't the complete description, just as Newtonian gravity isn't the complete description of the previous case.

An argument often made against such a case of strong emergence is related to Leibniz' 'principle of sufficient reason': there's no reason for additional charges such as the one I describe to suddenly emerge. But there's actually no difference to reductionism here: the fundamental facts that fix everything in a reductionist universe similarly lack further justification.

Of course, one could then turn the question around and ask what 'strong' emergence actually adds. And here, I'm afraid, there is no progress on the question of free will: whether my actions are determined by microscopic facts, or whether some macroscopic facts play into them, as well, doesn't change the deterministic nature of my actions. I would not be any more free if my behavior is determined by a law that cannot be smoothly extrapolated from a microscopic law---the question simply doesn't have any relevance to my freedom.

Indeed, the whole idea that it's physics that poses the greatest threat to free will is, in my opinion, already misguided. The problem is with the concept itself. As Schopenhauer has pointed out, "man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills". What he alludes to here is that there'd be an infinite regress in arguing that the will could, in some way, be self-determined: in order to be free in my action, the cause of my action---my will, my desire to act---must be free; if not, if I am forced to desire something, and hence, act accordingly, then my action obviously wasn't free. But then, likewise, the cause of my will must be free---or else, see above. So the problem with the idea of free will really is that all my behaviors are governed by my desires; but I can't freely choose my desires (without collapsing into infinite regress).

That said, I do think there is a sensible notion of free will that can be salvaged; but that would take us entirely too far afield.

view post as summary

Hello Sabine,

Thanks for the opportunity to read your mind.

Let us start with a few words about what we don’t know.

Insofar as ‘free will’ is simply the ability to make decisions in the context of multiple choices, we have to admit that free will exists, but it comes at the high price of uncertainty.

Concerning ‘strict laws’ we are moving towards a collective...

view entire post

Hello Sabine,

Thanks for the opportunity to read your mind.

Let us start with a few words about what we don’t know.

Insofar as ‘free will’ is simply the ability to make decisions in the context of multiple choices, we have to admit that free will exists, but it comes at the high price of uncertainty.

Concerning ‘strict laws’ we are moving towards a collective understanding that what we have called strict laws in science in the past are better represented as ‘principles’. Strict laws demand compliance whereas principles are more liberal in the sense that they accommodate deviations within limits. Nature accommodates deviations either side of its statistical norms which deviations conjure up extraordinary variety, which variety enables a few of many variables to persist in an environment undergoing constant change.

Your claim that ‘Large things are made of smaller things, and if you know what the small things do, you can tell what the large things do’ – requires re-thinking. There is an adage that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If you put the parts of an aircraft together in their intended relations, you still have no idea what an aircraft can do! Reductionism only works well when it works well – i.e. to one’s advantage.

Picking up on your statement that ‘no one understands how gravity works’ rings a bell.

In 1916 Einstein declared gravity a misconception, an effect rather than a cause. While he elaborated to state that the cause was brought about by the uneven distribution of mass in the universe, his ‘cause’ is open to question as to whether the dominant constituent of the cosmos, vacuum, is the direct cause of what we call ‘gravity’.

In matter we find an exhibition of defiance against vacuum, the exception that proves the rule. What is the rule? The rule is that vacuum (unfilled void or space) abhors nature, and flows to fill its absence.

Regarding the question of ‘curved space’, if space is unlimited in its extent, how can it be ‘curved’? Where space describes a discrete volume, then yes, the space within a banana skin is curved.

On to your subject of the moment: ‘Emergence’. I hope that I am alone in your readership in saying that I don’t understand your concept of emergence. Perhaps my limited skills in mathematics accounts for my difficulties, but if this is so, reliance upon mathematical linguistics may be stretching the evaluation criterion stipulating that essays should be ‘non-specialist’. Suffice to say, I don’t know what I don’t know! 

I think that we all, upon occasion, make mistaken assumptions that each question only has a single correct answer. This error often arises due to the temptation to reduce all issues to mathematics for resolution.

Circumstances are constantly changing, which changes enable other acceptable answers to surface. Truth is thus revealed as being conditional rather than absolute.

It is important for all specialists to communicate with the public in non-specialist languages because we need the support of the public to further advance each specialty.

Thanks again Sabine for the present of your presence of mind.

Gary.

view post as summary

Dear Sabine,

Because you are by far my favorite author on the curious state of current physics, and because I would love to have your comments on my essay, I’m a little at a loss how to respond to this beautifully-written piece. Though I don’t disagree with you at any point, what was in my mind throughout was your blog-post from a couple years ago on “The Unbearable Lightness of...

view entire post

Dear Sabine,

Because you are by far my favorite author on the curious state of current physics, and because I would love to have your comments on my essay, I’m a little at a loss how to respond to this beautifully-written piece. Though I don’t disagree with you at any point, what was in my mind throughout was your blog-post from a couple years ago on “The Unbearable Lightness of Philosophy.” Actually (as a philosopher) I’m very pleased that you take philosophical arguments seriously. But really – free will?

Surely the conscious decisions we make are the result of neurons firing in our brains, or more generally, the result of things going on beneath the level of our self-awareness. That seems like a very good thing to know about ourselves, if it makes us a little more humble. And if there were any meaningful issue about our choices being “free” – which I doubt – you’d think this is where it would arise.

But I can’t see why it makes any difference to anything whether the behavior of neurons is predictable from physical principles. It’s hard to see how it could be, if it’s not even possible to predict when an atom will emit a photon. But what does it matter whether or not what happens in my brain is computable?

I have no problem with reductionism – except for the “ism” part. That seems to imply that this is the only kind explanation science needs, which is obviously wrong. Take biology, for example. I see no reason to doubt that everything that happens in a living cell is done by the laws of physics. On the other hand, none of these very complex molecules and patterns of interaction would exist if it weren’t for the ability of cells to replicate themselves and so evolve. Nothing like this happens in physics or chemistry, so it’s clearly “emergent.” But that’s not because it’s independent of the laws of atomic physics. On the contrary, if those laws weren’t so precisely uniform and reliable, self-replication would be inconceivable.

So my question is, how does distinguishing between “weak” and “strong” emergence contribute to our understanding of situations like this? I wouldn’t call self-replication a “truly new fundamental law,” but it is a truly fundamental functionality, on which a whole new world of possibilities is founded. It’s completely new, and also completely dependent on lower-level functions.

In my current essay I try to imagine the foundations of physics in a similar light, asking about the functionality of a universe that’s able to define, measure and communicate all its own information. It would mean a lot to me to know if the argument of my first three pages makes sense to you.

Conrad

view post as summary

Dear Sabine,

I looked for your paper because I read and enjoy your backreaction blog, so I felt your astute science writing would be insightful.

Although you acknowledge that modern theoretical physics "is almost certainly incomplete" you avoid venturing into "what" it is that is more fundamental than the well-known 25 fundamental SM particles.

The discussion of how...

view entire post

Dear Sabine,

I looked for your paper because I read and enjoy your backreaction blog, so I felt your astute science writing would be insightful.

Although you acknowledge that modern theoretical physics "is almost certainly incomplete" you avoid venturing into "what" it is that is more fundamental than the well-known 25 fundamental SM particles.

The discussion of how "emergence" is defined in this context was enlightening, and the examples in condensed matter 'verrry interesting (but not fundamental)'.

Here I think that the examples of strong emergence should consider cosmology, i.e. General Relativity. This is a relevant issue for insight into the research topic. I am certain that causality is a fundamental property of particles, as Seiberg has found. So I began my essay by considering the well-founded causal formulation of particles as given by the No-Boundary Wave Function.

I also discussed the fundamental requirements to establish consistency between GR and (causal) particle theory. But in your essay you suggest (without evidence) that non-renormalizable theories are "sick". But the only reason that renormalization is used is that L'Hopital's Rule doesn't work- the mathematical singularity assumed forces an infinity/infinity situation. Of course, the singularity also compels one to arbitrarily assign quanta and scalar metrics (mass and energy).

In short, the current theory violates mathematical 'laws' which there is thus strong motivation to correct... a very good starting 'point' is to not assume a particles representation geometry is a point.

It turns out that all of these criteria can be met at once, but yes, you have to let go of renormalization. The traditional approaches that keep it and seek unification via new particles just don't work out.

That said I invite you to read and comment on my essay: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3092 and hope that its insights spark an interest.

Best,

Wayne Lundberg

p.s. as a footnote, I am sure that a person's perception of free will is best discussed in the context of particle theory by considering the scale of space-time averaging. Clearly weak-scale particle theory has little bearing since the quantum algebraic states average out at micro-condensed matter scales, long before a human scale. Consider again, if you will, to be fair, just how much free will really means when you use a space-time average of say, 2 Earth orbital diameters and 10000 years. That yields a rather different result, no?

The analogy to particle theory works pretty well when you compare a human's decision tree at, say, an intersection. Compare that to a particle interaction's "channels".

view post as summary

Hi Sabine,

Nice essay! I'm a bit skeptical that anything we tend to call "free will" has anything to do with any of this, but you still make many interesting points about strong emergence and reductionism. (For a nice modern take on Free Will, I highly recommend Jenann Ismael's new book, "How Physics Makes us Free". )

Two questions for you:

1) The only vague overlap between...

view entire post

Hi Sabine,

Nice essay! I'm a bit skeptical that anything we tend to call "free will" has anything to do with any of this, but you still make many interesting points about strong emergence and reductionism. (For a nice modern take on Free Will, I highly recommend Jenann Ismael's new book, "How Physics Makes us Free". )

Two questions for you:

1) The only vague overlap between our essays is the paragraph where you argue that boundary constraints aren't a counter-example, because in the case of a conducting plate you can replace the boundary constraint with the microscopic details of the plate. But you seemed to imply that the same argument would go through for *cosmological* boundaries. To me, this seems like a very different issue. It's not at all clear that one could talk about the microscopic details of the cosmological boundary in the same way. What would you say to a claim that the cosmological boundary is both fundamental and an example of top-down causation?

2) You finesse the question about the "size" of a quantum system by talking about center of mass energies, which I suppose is fine from an operational perspective. But near the end, when you try to dispute that entanglement is an example of top-down causation, you imply that there is such a thing as the "microscopic constituents" of two entangled particles. What do you have in mind here? We've recently had a conversation about this, and how there's often no way to come up with a spacetime representation of the pieces of an entangled state, so there's really no way to assess whether it's "microscopic" or not, living in a higher dimensional configuration space as it does. For example, for a two-qubit state, there are additional parameters (such as the "concurrence", a measure of entanglement) that don't seem to live anywhere at all, or have any size associated with them. So you might need to sharpen up this argument, using your operational language from before, if you don't want to have to defend and define the two "microscopic constituents" of an entangled state. (Or else help me figure out what those constituents might actually be! :-)

Cheers! -Ken

view post as summary

Dear Sabine

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...

view entire post

Dear Sabine

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

Beyond my essay’s introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity’s effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?

My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a “narrow range of sensitivity” that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn’t then gas accumulation wouldn’t be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn’t we consider this possibility?

For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we “life” are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.

By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

To steal a phrase from my essay “A world product of evolved optimization”.

Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

view post as summary

Hi Sabine,

Many thanks for the time and thought you put into your blog. More than a few jewels have come to light in my eyes from there.

Like that you number your essay. This is something several of the imo 'better' authors are doing in this forum, very helpful in the discussion threads.

1. Reductionism Works - really? how does emergence fit into reductionism?

2. What...

view entire post

Hi Sabine,

Many thanks for the time and thought you put into your blog. More than a few jewels have come to light in my eyes from there.

Like that you number your essay. This is something several of the imo 'better' authors are doing in this forum, very helpful in the discussion threads.

1. Reductionism Works - really? how does emergence fit into reductionism?

2. What is Fundamental? - happy to see we (Michaele and I) define fundamental in what appears to be the same way as you, as that which cannot be taken to be emergent. As far as i know we and you are the only authors to do so. Do you know of any others? You elaborate on this with four points and some discussion, all pretty much well taken. No point to "...quibble about the use of words" here.

3. Weak vs Strong Emergence - The geometric wavefunction interaction (GWI) model we are working with appears to be fundamental without qualifier. It takes the enigmatic unobservable wavefunction and wavefunction interactions to be fundamental, and the lump-of-energy that emerges from wavefunction collapse, the amplitude, to be ummm... emergent.

GWI model is very simple. The vacuum wavefunction is taken to be comprised of fundamental geometric objects of the orientable eight component Pauli algebra - one scalar, three vectors, three bivector pseudovectors, and one trivector pseudoscalar. Point, line, plane, and volume elements of 3D space.

Five fundamental constants - speed of light, permittivity of space, electric charge quantum, Planck's constant, and electron mass (to define scale of space at the Compton wavelength) - are input by hand, needed to assign topologically appropriate quantized electric and magnetic fields to the eight wavefunction elements. There are no adjustable parameters.

Interactions are modeled by grade/dimension-changing geometric products of Clifford algebra, generate a 4D Dirac algebra of flat Minkowski spacetime, the particle physicist's S-matrix. Time (relative phase) emerges from the interactions.

As far as we know, such a model is not emergent from any existing theory, as it requires synthesis of the geometric wavefunction model with quantized impedance networks. Not easy to find that in the literature (except in vixra, bless Phil Gibbs), in folk's blogs,... radically new ideas, the paradigm shifters, are heavily filtered. Orthodoxy is a very stable system.

4. Strong Emergence Doesn't Work - Here we arrive where the essay has been heading for a while, at effective field theories. All well and good. But also well and good to keep in mind that the GWI approach is naturally finite, confined, and gauge invariant. Applies from IR boundary to UV Planck length, and beyond to the singularity. With that gonna jump to

5. Top Down Causation Doesn't Help - Agreed, with the caveat that in GWI approach the problem needing help does not exist.

6. The Loophole - No loophole in an electromagnetic model that is naturally finite, confined, and gauge invariant, a model that is 'effective' at all length/energy scales. And only one coupling constant.

Agree that the ball is back in court of physicists.

Hope you take a look, get some sense of what we're doing. Several of our fellow contributors have picked up on it.

Best regards,

Pete

view post as summary

Hi Sabine,

Your essay shows that you know where the problems are, but just like in the Star Trek movies, you're like Khan trying to kill Kirk... You keep missing the mark.

You say that reductionism worked in the past (and it did) but it has not worked recently - that is absolutely correct but the question is WHY has reductionism come to a screeching halt in advancing physics? The...

view entire post

Hi Sabine,

Your essay shows that you know where the problems are, but just like in the Star Trek movies, you're like Khan trying to kill Kirk... You keep missing the mark.

You say that reductionism worked in the past (and it did) but it has not worked recently - that is absolutely correct but the question is WHY has reductionism come to a screeching halt in advancing physics? The reason is because the scientific method is no longer useful in finding anything more fundamental. It is not possible because to do so would break the laws of physics (specifically the law of conservation of energy) to find the primordial building block entity that created everything. So smashing particles will not be fruitful.

https://www.academia.edu/27987699/_Why_Cant_the_LHC_Find_New
_Math_

The other way the scientific method is used to advance theory is to derive a new theory from the already known base knowledge (advancing current math) and then prove it through experimentation. That cannot work to find "something" more fundamental because the moment you write a known mathematical equation, you are already passed the point of finding anything more fundamental in physics. Our math contains parameters such as distance, time dimensions, direction, charge...etc... These are all taken for granted - a fundamental theory must account for how each of these parameter came into existence.

In addition deriving "new math" from current math cannot work because all our current theories and math pertain to only 5% of the energy in the universe... While experiments suggest there is much more energy in our universe, there is NO mathematical representation of that energy nor can a mathematical representation of this energy be derived from our current math that does not include it.

Please consider reading my essay for this contest and these two papers also...

https://www.academia.edu/27987699/_Why_Cant_the_LHC_Find_New
_Math_

https://www.academia.edu/30755282/Hidden_Dimensions_..
._Not_So_Hidden_After_All

All the best to you as you seek knowledge and reality...

The secret lies with the hierarchy of energy... I'll be waiting for when it is finally realized.

view post as summary