Dear Professor Ney,

Thank you for your beautiful essay, which I very much enjoyed reading!

I wanted to add a couple of remarks relating to how governments view funding for fundamental physics research, especially in the Indian context. I think physicists will agree that the turn-around time from a great physics discovery to its possible applications (if any) to technology is quite...

view entire post

Dear Professor Ney,

Thank you for your beautiful essay, which I very much enjoyed reading!

I wanted to add a couple of remarks relating to how governments view funding for fundamental physics research, especially in the Indian context. I think physicists will agree that the turn-around time from a great physics discovery to its possible applications (if any) to technology is quite long. On the scale of many decades, if not a century or two. This is true for Newton's mechanics, as well as Maxwell's electrodynamics, and even for quantum theory. Since governments want immediate feedback/benefit, say on the scale of five to ten years, we physicists have a hard time convincing them of the relevance of fundamental research. This is particularly true for a developing country like India, where the government desires its fundamental researchers to do that research which contributes to nation-building.

Also, and this is hard to grapple with, when dealing with governments, fundamental research is driven by curiosity, and its long-term impact benefits all of mankind, not one particular nation state. The concept of nation states runs contrary to basic research, with the former being self-limiting, and the latter global. Governments might be all too ready to borrow technology from other nations, and let the bright people of those countries do basic research, and ask its own smart folks to focus on immediate benefits for one's own country men and women. If every government took that attitude, no fundamental research would get done. Some governments might treat curiosity driven research as a luxurious past-time! An ideal world for research would be a one-world government, a utopia!

I had a couple of minor quibbles :-) While dark matter particles have not been found, nor are there any theoretical candidates, I would not use this as an example to say that hence physics cannot explain everything :-) As we know, the observations show non-Keplerian / flat galaxy rotation curves: these could be explained by postulating dark matter, or by modifying Newton's law of gravitation, as for instance in MOND. I would say the problem is very much open, and is a fascinating one for current research, but I am certain one day physics will have an explanation for it.

On a futuristic note, I am not sure if causality will survive in a quantum theory of gravity. Time, as we know it in present day quantum mechanics, is a problematic concept. It is classical, and as such classical entities should not have any place in a satisfactory formulation of quantum theory. Various arguments suggest that trying to put together quantum and gravity takes away the causal nature of events.

Thanks once again, for a brilliant thought-provoking essay.

Tejinder

view post as summary

Prof Alyssa Ney

Wonderful words sir,.......I argue that properly construed, the claim that physics, or some part of physics, occupies a fundamental status is both theoretically reasonable and ethically defensible. However, a plausible understanding of the fundamentality of physics must move beyond interpretations of fundamentality as a kind of explanatory completeness. No present physical...

view entire post

Prof Alyssa Ney

Wonderful words sir,.......I argue that properly construed, the claim that physics, or some part of physics, occupies a fundamental status is both theoretically reasonable and ethically defensible. However, a plausible understanding of the fundamentality of physics must move beyond interpretations of fundamentality as a kind of explanatory completeness. No present physical theory explains everything, nor is there a good argument to support the claim that any future physical theory will......... Hope you will have a look at this essay also

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed...……..….. yours is very nice essay best wishes …. I highly appreciate hope your essay and hope for reciprocity ….You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton’s Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true….Have a look at

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

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information……..

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from “http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ ”

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

view post as summary

Dear Alyssa

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 Alyssa

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

There is no problem with supporting research in fundamental physics. The problem is on funding that pseudoreligion that has taken over fundamental physics in last years, mostly driven by string theory and related nonsense. So she is rigth on that we would spend resources on people finding cures for diseases rather than wasting resources on supporting this pseudoreligion camouflaged as...

view entire post

There is no problem with supporting research in fundamental physics. The problem is on funding that pseudoreligion that has taken over fundamental physics in last years, mostly driven by string theory and related nonsense. So she is rigth on that we would spend resources on people finding cures for diseases rather than wasting resources on supporting this pseudoreligion camouflaged as physics.

Fundamental physics, real physics, has helped other disciplines as chemistry, biology, or medicine. Many tools developed for particle physics have no applications on medical diagnose of diseases.

"Physics thus enjoys a form of constitutive explanatory completeness: all entities are either physical or have a complete constitutive explanation in terms of the entities of physics". No. This is confounding the substrate with the discipline. All matter is made of elementary particles but this doesn't imply all is reduced to physics. Physicists as Weinberg studying elementary particles in an accelerator are making approximations don't apply to particles inside a living cell. As a consequence properties of a cell aren't described by the formalisms developed by physicists as Weinberg. It is also worth to mention emergent properties. A given collection of particles forming a macromolecule, a living organisms, or a social group have a set of properties that don't exist on the inferior levels. So an physicist can be studying particles during centuries without discovering those emergent properties that only exist on the more complex levels.

"Fires, heart attacks, and mass rallies all require the influx of oxygen". Sure, but the failire here is on believing that "oxygen" means the same in all instances when it doesn't. In atomic physics oxygen can be represented as a sphere, because an isolated atom is spherical. Oxygen in the watter molecule is radically different. Attached is a 3D draw of an oxygen atom in a H20. The atom boundary has been obtained by QTAIM computations. So one can study atomic oxygen and know nothing about the properties of oxygen in a molecule of water.

"And all effects, when the demand for explanation is traced out far enough into the past, find nothing other than explanation in terms of early physical features of the universe". But this is assuming a deterministic conception of Universe.

"The Einstein field equations hold for classical, i.e. nonquantum systems, the Klein-Gordon equation for free, i.e. non-interacting quantum fields, and t here is neither a general equation holding for all relativistic quantum systems nor for all types of free particles, let alone particles that interact; nor is there a patchwork of principles we might stitch together to cover all regimes." This is an excellent summary of current mainstream physics.

"A natural response to these points about the current explanatory incompleteness of physics is that when it is claimed that physics is complete, it is not being claimed that any current physical theory is able to explain everything, but rather only that some future physical theory we can expect to reach on e day will have the resources to provide a complete class of both causal and constitutive explanations". And stuff such as emergent properties will guarantee that any theory developed by physicists cannot describe the properties of chemical, biological or any other kind of high-level structured matter.

view post as summary