Respected Prof Rob Phillips

Wonderful words ... "This explanatory reach can be thought of as an intellectual superpower because possessing it allows us by pure thought alone not only to explain things that are already known, but to predict things that are not yet known. Unfortunately, fundamentals have a darker side as well. The addition of the three simple letters ``-ism'' takes the notion...

view entire post

Respected Prof Rob Phillips

Wonderful words ... "This explanatory reach can be thought of as an intellectual superpower because possessing it allows us by pure thought alone not only to explain things that are already known, but to predict things that are not yet known. Unfortunately, fundamentals have a darker side as well. The addition of the three simple letters ``-ism'' takes the notion of fundamental and turns it into one of the worst of human traits, namely, the insistence that there is only one divinely-inspired truth. As an antidote to such fundamentalism, I close by reflecting on one of the most fundamental lessons of science: the requirement for the kind of simultaneous openness and skepticism that makes science work......"

Openness is very much required sir,....

By the way…Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed...……..….. yours is very nice essay best wishes …. I highly appreciate hope your essay ….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

I don't agree with Feynman on that the atomic hypothesis that "all things are made of atoms" would be the better sentence to resume all of scientific knowledge. One can explain a lot of stuff without even mentioning the term atom.

However I would differentiate between conciseness and fundamental. Non-atomic theory can explain a lot of stuff, but it will be build over several parameters and...

view entire post

I don't agree with Feynman on that the atomic hypothesis that "all things are made of atoms" would be the better sentence to resume all of scientific knowledge. One can explain a lot of stuff without even mentioning the term atom.

However I would differentiate between conciseness and fundamental. Non-atomic theory can explain a lot of stuff, but it will be build over several parameters and coefficients whose value only can be obtained from experiment. Once we introduce the atomic hypothesis we can start to compute those coeficients, and we can start to explain why they take certain values in some materials and not in others.

It is very interesting that you mention the conservation of mass, momentum, and energy and their "enormous explanatory reach". I agree fully; precisely my own system of the World, my theory of 'everything' is based in several postulates, one of which is the conservation of energy.

"In his classic piece "More is Different" (what discussion of fundamentals in science could neglect to mention it!)" I couldn't agree more; in fact I have mentioned his masterwork in several comments that I have made on several essays submitted to this contest. Unfortunately some people still believes in classic reductionism and that everything is reduced to elementary physics.

"One way of thinking about mechanical equilibrium is in the language of forces, but an equally potent approach is the idea that equilibrium reflects the minimum of some potential energy." I wouldn't say both are equivalent. The characterization of the equilibrium as vanishing of F applies both to unstable and stable equilibrium, whereas the characterization as a minimum of U applies only to the latter; However the energetic characterization not only describes (stable) equilibrium but also its stability, whereas the force characterization requires extra expressions to describe stability.

"In each of these cases, the underlying microscopic degrees of freedom that are presumed to be the real basis of the observed phenomena are superseded by more macroscopic degrees of freedom, though the dynamics at smaller scales informs the phenomenological higher-level description through

effective parameters such as the elastic moduli C_ijkl introduced above". I don't think that supersede is the correct term to use here. We can demonstrate that for certain dynamical regimes and scales of time, some collections of microscopic degrees of freedom work cooperatively and produce a mesoscopic or macroscopic degree of freedom whereas other collections interfere and cancell overall. So those macroscopic degrees are a direct consequence of those 'surviving' microscopic degrees. They are so real as the microscopic degrees, just as the Earth is so real as each one of the atoms making it.

Noether's theorem only applies to systems can be described by Lagrangian/Action. The theorem is also characterized by confounding conservation of a property with variation of some property. Conservation of energy in the theorem is defined as dE/dt=0, when in reality the statement of conservation of energy is defined as diE/dt=0 (i.e. zero production of energy).

"The rise of the Gaussian distribution (i.e. the bell curve) is perhaps the most celebrated probabilistic example of a kind of fundamental inevitability. Specifically, if we pick a bunch of random numbers and take their average, we get a new random number. If we now

repeat this lots of times, the collection of random averages we generate will have a Gaussian distribution". This is only true if the process generating those random numbers is Gaussian. There is not any "fundamental inevitability" behind Gaussian statistics and there are examples of physical processes whose statistics is not of Gaussian kind. Assuming gaussian statistics has a similar role to assuming spherical shape for planets or assuming harmonic oscillator for a pendulum; it simplifies computations, but there is not anything fundamental, merely the result of making approximations.

view post as summary

Dear Rob

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 Rob

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