Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Steven Andresen: on 2/22/18 at 7:06am UTC, wrote Dear Ding If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the...

Gary Hansen: on 2/11/18 at 3:10am UTC, wrote Hello Ding Jia, The FQXi question What is “Fundamental” seeks a...

Wayne Lundberg: on 2/10/18 at 21:52pm UTC, wrote Ding Jia, I enjoyed your observant essay and suggestions of what criteria...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 2/10/18 at 2:23am UTC, wrote Hi Ding Jia Nice analysis about what is fundamental....? ....."The...

Lee Bloomquist: on 2/6/18 at 3:27am UTC, wrote Greetings Ding Jia, what if "it = (bit, it)" -- in the language of...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 2/2/18 at 1:57am UTC, wrote Dear Ding Jia, I appreciate your essay. You say that "Fundamental physics...

Joe Fisher: on 2/1/18 at 17:00pm UTC, wrote Dear Ding Jia, FQXi.org is clearly seeking to confirm whether Nature is...

Ding Jia: on 1/30/18 at 22:36pm UTC, wrote Essay Abstract We interpret ``fundamental'' to mean that something...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Steve Agnew: "Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 21, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: A Necessary and Sufficient Criterion for Fundamentality by Ding Jia [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Ding Jia wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 22:36 GMT
Essay Abstract

We interpret ``fundamental'' to mean that something is fundamental if and only if when it changes a lot of other things change. With this criterion and its variants as the working hypothesis we investigate the following questions: What distinguishes fundamental physics and ``less fundamental'' physics? Which theories of physics are more fundamental? What is the opposite of ``fundamental''? What is progress in fundamental physics? What questions are fundamental? What could be the next big progress in fundamental physics? Among the conclusions we draw are the following. The most fundamental thing in physics is that the universe exists (of course). The opposite of ``fundamental'' is ``irrelevant''. Within the field of fundamental physics there are in fact much research that runs a high chance of being irrelevant. A ``theory of everything'' is not necessarily the most fundamental theory. Knowledge about the some fundamental aspects of nature may be informed by less fundamental theories rather than more fundamental ones. The next big progress in fundamental physics could be the establishment of black hole thermodynamics invoking only quantum theory but not quantum field theory.

Author Bio

Ding Jia is a graduate student at the University of Waterloo and the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. His current focus of research is on indefinite causal structure in quantum gravity (https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=-dtm_74AAAAJ&hl=en
).

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Lee Bloomquist wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 03:27 GMT
Greetings Ding Jia,

what if "it = (bit, it)" -- in the language of non-wellFounded sets...and "now = (moment, now)" where "moment = (nonStandardPast, standardPresent, nonStandardFuture)" ... in the languages of non-wellFounded sets and nonStandardAnalysis?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 02:23 GMT
Hi Ding Jia

Nice analysis about what is fundamental....? ....."The opposite of ``fundamental'' is ``irrelevant''. Within the field of fundamental physics there are in fact much research that runs a high chance of being irrelevant. A ``theory of everything'' is not necessarily the most fundamental theory."....

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed...……..….....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wayne R Lundberg wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 21:52 GMT
Ding Jia,

I enjoyed your observant essay and suggestions of what criteria to apply to an _overall theory_. Sabine Hassenfelder wrote a very nice essay on a very similar line of reasoning. But the ontology of theories doesn't speak to me as a form of "necessary and sufficient conditions"...

I would be willing to assert that a (TOE, TAI, etc) theory must meet necessary and sufficient conditions, one of them being causality. Of course the theory must also have a (10-)dimensionalized representation geometry whose combinatorial algebra matches QC/ED. OK, easy. It must also have metrics identified with mass and energy. At some point, a theory which is one-to-one and onto with the standard model, and GR, emerges.

Just respect the causality criteria:

J.B. Hartle, S.W. Hawking and T. Hertog, “The Classical Universes of the No-Boundary Quantum State” hep-th/0803.1663v1 March 2008.

N. Seiberg, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, “Space/Time Non-Commutivity and Causality”, hep-th/0005015v3, May 2000.

Oh, yes the NBWF say that particle theory can be reformulated, Seiberg says it must and how/why. I re-introduce QC/ED through a well-founded representation geometry in my FQXi essay and earlier publications,

Wayne

p.s. I wonder whether you attended my talk at PI for 2016 Midwest Relativity Meeting?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gary Valentine Hansen wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 03:10 GMT
Hello Ding Jia,

The FQXi question What is “Fundamental” seeks a singular answer (otherwise the question would be framed What are Fundamental), your statement ‘The most fundamental thing in physics is that the universe exists’ is the best and briefest answer that I have read to date.

I understand that, in the absence of the universe, there would not be anything, or anyone to talk about anything.

It is only when we stretch the FQXi question to admit multiple fundamental definitions that we are free to follow the paths from causes through events to effects (that in turn become causes of future events). But this discussion runs beyond the literal interpretation of the FQXi question.

Thank you, and good luck,

Gary.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 07:06 GMT
Dear Ding

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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.