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.

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

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

**Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest**

*December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020*

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss • winners

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Ilgaitis Prusis**: *on* 5/17/20 at 15:00pm UTC, wrote Dear Wanpeng, Thank you for your interesting essay. You describe well the...

**Pavel Poluian**: *on* 5/15/20 at 14:51pm UTC, wrote Dear professor Tan! Your work is grand in design. We are in awe! Your...

**Michael muteru**: *on* 5/13/20 at 19:02pm UTC, wrote Dear professor wanpeng Tan.your essay is very well done.it provided a...

**Irek Defee**: *on* 4/25/20 at 8:36am UTC, wrote Dear Prof Wanpeng Tan, I recently submitted my entry and when browsing...

**Satyavarapu Gupta**: *on* 4/22/20 at 9:48am UTC, wrote Dear Prof Wanpeng Tan, Well argued essay saying no Unified theory can...

**Boris Egorov**: *on* 4/18/20 at 10:23am UTC, wrote Dear Wanpeng, I find your essay very interesting. You propose an original...

**Gene Barbee**: *on* 3/26/20 at 16:22pm UTC, wrote Wanpeng, Way smart. In my humble opinion I don’t think nature follows...

**Wanpeng Tan**: *on* 3/24/20 at 14:37pm UTC, wrote Somehow my reply did not get posted. I am trying again. Thank you, LC for...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Steve Dufourny**: "Dr Rinkus, like I am very curious lol I d like to know your general..."
*in* A Physical Theory based...

**Steve Dufourny**: "Maths is a tool but the physics seem the chief orchestra. Of course the..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**John Cox**: "Tom, good to hear. I haven't been productive mathematically, I'm still..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Gerard Rinkus**: "Tom, Ok, good to clarify our defs of superposition. And thanks for..."
*in* A Physical Theory based...

**Steve Dufourny**: "I know that I am not known and a celebrity and so I cannot utilise the..."
*in* Global Collaboration

**Sociallyview**: "very nice"
*in* The Quantum Clock-Maker...

**Lorraine Ford**: "I might add that: Clearly, most people are not aware that the symbolic..."
*in* Interview: Information...

**Lorraine Ford**: "2. More generally, NO system can exist without the system being able to..."
*in* Interview: Information...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI**

Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

**Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel**

'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

**Can Choices Curve Spacetime?**

Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

**The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools **

Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

**The Quantum Refrigerator**

A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

FQXi FORUM

July 24, 2021

CATEGORY:
Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020)
[back]

TOPIC: No single unification theory of everything by Wanpeng Tan [refresh]

TOPIC: No single unification theory of everything by Wanpeng Tan [refresh]

In light of Gödel’s undecidability results (incomplete theorems) for math, quantum indeterminism indicates that physics and the Universe may be indeterministic, incomplete, and open in nature, and therefore demand no single unification theory of everything. The Universe is dynamic and so are the underlying physical models and spacetime. As the 4-d spacetime evolves dimension by dimension in the early universe, consistent yet different models emerge one by one with different sets of particles and interactions. A new set of first principles are proposed for building such models with new understanding of supersymmetry, mirror symmetry, and the dynamic phase transition mechanism – spontaneous symmetry breaking. Under this framework, we demonstrate that different models with no theory of everything operate in a hierarchical yet consistent way at different phases or scenarios of the Universe. In particular, the arrow of time is naturally explained and the Standard Model of physics is elegantly extended to time zero of the Universe.

Wanpeng Tan is Research Associate Professor in Department of Physics at University of Notre Dame, USA. B.A. from Beijing University and Ph.D. from Michigan State University. Publications: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5930-1823 Web: https://physics.nd.edu/people/faculty/wanpeng-tan/ Blog: http://sites.nd.edu/wtan/

This looks very interesting Dr. Tan...

I note several points of agreement with what you say in the abstract. I have long felt that nature is grander than any one all-encompassing theory can describe. I will definitely have to read this essay for detail and comment. You have made me think already.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I note several points of agreement with what you say in the abstract. I have long felt that nature is grander than any one all-encompassing theory can describe. I will definitely have to read this essay for detail and comment. You have made me think already.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your kind comments, Johanthan.

I accidentally found this website a few days ago and decided to write this article based on my recent works. So I am brand new here and it may take a while for me to get used to it. But feel free to send me your comments and/or questions.

Thanks,

Wanpeng

I accidentally found this website a few days ago and decided to write this article based on my recent works. So I am brand new here and it may take a while for me to get used to it. But feel free to send me your comments and/or questions.

Thanks,

Wanpeng

Dear Professor Tan

I agree with you that the initiators of interpretations of events should be aware that their interpretation is just one of the many that are present and also must be aware that there are more to come because new interpretations of new events and information will arrive.

As you say we are moving from strictly determinism to more and indeterminism, what will be the...

view entire post

I agree with you that the initiators of interpretations of events should be aware that their interpretation is just one of the many that are present and also must be aware that there are more to come because new interpretations of new events and information will arrive.

As you say we are moving from strictly determinism to more and indeterminism, what will be the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Wanpeng,

I recently derived the cosmic matter density from the inherent curvature of a tessellated 3-sphere. Do you think I should write up an essay on the computability of this and the dark energy density, or is that not what this essay contest is about?

A short paper showing the derivation can be found at:

report post as inappropriate

I recently derived the cosmic matter density from the inherent curvature of a tessellated 3-sphere. Do you think I should write up an essay on the computability of this and the dark energy density, or is that not what this essay contest is about?

A short paper showing the derivation can be found at:

report post as inappropriate

Your paper was interesting. There are a few points I thought I would mention. Supersymmetry requires a zero energy vacuum. If the energy of the vacuum has positive expectation then SUSY is broken, The vacuum energy during inflation was enormous and so SUSY was likely highly broken.

That your group is U(6)×SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1) means this may connect to some aspects of string theory with E6 ⸧ SU(6) and then with exceptional group realizations. Your approach though appears to be to hide these into simpler groups. I have been considering something similar with the stretched horizon of black holes according to simple groups that under perturbations give complex groups.

Anyway if you get the time see if you can read my essay.

Thanks LC

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

That your group is U(6)×SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1) means this may connect to some aspects of string theory with E6 ⸧ SU(6) and then with exceptional group realizations. Your approach though appears to be to hide these into simpler groups. I have been considering something similar with the stretched horizon of black holes according to simple groups that under perturbations give complex groups.

Anyway if you get the time see if you can read my essay.

Thanks LC

report post as inappropriate

I am trying to post this reply for the third time...

Thank you, LC for your interest.

You are right about exact SUSY requiring zero vacuum energy. The two models of SMM2 and SMM4 for 2-d and 4-d spacetime, respectively, follow the exact N=1 gauge SUSY. On the other hand, during the phase transitions or spontaneous symmetry breaking processes, the corresponding SMM2b and SMM4b will break the exact SUSY and become pseudo-SUSY due to the emergence of new mass scales and vacuum energies. But the matching of degrees and freedom between bosons (gauge and pseudo-Goldstone) and fermions is still observed, and that is why it is called pseudo-SUSY.

Yes, there seems to be some connection with string theory (but not as a theory of everything). Please see my other preprint for more discussion on that (e.g., page 7 and the end of Ref. [7])

Best,

Wanpeng

Thank you, LC for your interest.

You are right about exact SUSY requiring zero vacuum energy. The two models of SMM2 and SMM4 for 2-d and 4-d spacetime, respectively, follow the exact N=1 gauge SUSY. On the other hand, during the phase transitions or spontaneous symmetry breaking processes, the corresponding SMM2b and SMM4b will break the exact SUSY and become pseudo-SUSY due to the emergence of new mass scales and vacuum energies. But the matching of degrees and freedom between bosons (gauge and pseudo-Goldstone) and fermions is still observed, and that is why it is called pseudo-SUSY.

Yes, there seems to be some connection with string theory (but not as a theory of everything). Please see my other preprint for more discussion on that (e.g., page 7 and the end of Ref. [7])

Best,

Wanpeng

The lower dimensional spacetime is something that happens with holography. The stretched horizon of a black hole has two spatial dimensions. Since this occurs on a surface a Planck unit above the pure horizon. Consider a probe under an enormous acceleration at this stretched horizon. This acceleration is the Planck acceleration g = 10^{52}m/s^2. The time dilation for an accelerated frame is T =...

view entire post

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear LC, Thanks for your interest.

You are right about exact SUSY requiring zero vacuum energy. As such, two of my models SMM2 and SMM4 for 2-d and 4-d spacetime, respectively, follow the exact N=1 gauge SUSY. On the other hand, during the phase transitions or spontaneous symmetry breaking processes, the corresponding SMM2b and SMM4b models will break the exact SUSY due to the emerging mass scales and vacuum energies. Therefore, these models are called pseudo-SUSY as non-zero mass terms leading to new energy scales but the matching of degrees of freedom between bosons (gauge and pseudo-Goldstone) and fermions is still observed.

Indeed, there is some connection with string theory (not as a theory of everything). You might find some related discussion in my preprint: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/8qawc

Best,

Wanpeng

post approved

You are right about exact SUSY requiring zero vacuum energy. As such, two of my models SMM2 and SMM4 for 2-d and 4-d spacetime, respectively, follow the exact N=1 gauge SUSY. On the other hand, during the phase transitions or spontaneous symmetry breaking processes, the corresponding SMM2b and SMM4b models will break the exact SUSY due to the emerging mass scales and vacuum energies. Therefore, these models are called pseudo-SUSY as non-zero mass terms leading to new energy scales but the matching of degrees of freedom between bosons (gauge and pseudo-Goldstone) and fermions is still observed.

Indeed, there is some connection with string theory (not as a theory of everything). You might find some related discussion in my preprint: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/8qawc

Best,

Wanpeng

post approved

Dear Dr. Tan,

Most of your paper is way over my head, so I am not in a position to appreciate it properly, though I agree with its spirit. One thing in particular you said resonates with me: “An immediate implication of quantum indeterminism is that our world has to be dynamic with phase transitions. It is hard to imagine that a static universe is not deterministic unless one assumes different laws at different locations, which, however, defeats the static assumption for spacetime.” What is interesting is that this statement is a purely logical deduction. That is, the universe MUST be dynamic if it is indeterministic (or, conversely, only a static universe could be deterministic). To me, this sheds light on the meaning of determinism, which I hold to be no more than a property of mathematics (determinism = logical implication), rather than a possible inherent property of matter. Nevertheless, the APPEARANCE of determinism could emerge (as in GR) to the extent matter conforms on the large scale to that mathematical description.

All best wishes,

Dan Bruiger

report post as inappropriate

Most of your paper is way over my head, so I am not in a position to appreciate it properly, though I agree with its spirit. One thing in particular you said resonates with me: “An immediate implication of quantum indeterminism is that our world has to be dynamic with phase transitions. It is hard to imagine that a static universe is not deterministic unless one assumes different laws at different locations, which, however, defeats the static assumption for spacetime.” What is interesting is that this statement is a purely logical deduction. That is, the universe MUST be dynamic if it is indeterministic (or, conversely, only a static universe could be deterministic). To me, this sheds light on the meaning of determinism, which I hold to be no more than a property of mathematics (determinism = logical implication), rather than a possible inherent property of matter. Nevertheless, the APPEARANCE of determinism could emerge (as in GR) to the extent matter conforms on the large scale to that mathematical description.

All best wishes,

Dan Bruiger

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your interest, Dan.

The past efforts on theory of everything seemed to focus too much on a static picture of attempting unifying all forces and particles. While the realistic world and the Universe keeps telling us it is dynamic.

What I did not talk about in the essay is the degree of indeterminism. My gut feeling is that it is right on the boundary between indeterminism and determinism. As such, determinism can emerge naturally in some aspects of our world. See http://sites.nd.edu/wtan/2020/03/07/from-quantum-indetermini

sm-to-open-science-open-society-and-open-world/ for further discussion.

Wanpeng

The past efforts on theory of everything seemed to focus too much on a static picture of attempting unifying all forces and particles. While the realistic world and the Universe keeps telling us it is dynamic.

What I did not talk about in the essay is the degree of indeterminism. My gut feeling is that it is right on the boundary between indeterminism and determinism. As such, determinism can emerge naturally in some aspects of our world. See http://sites.nd.edu/wtan/2020/03/07/from-quantum-indetermini

sm-to-open-science-open-society-and-open-world/ for further discussion.

Wanpeng

Why FQXi blocking my replies to Lawrence B. Crowell? It occurred twice. Can somebody help me?

Wanpeng

Wanpeng

Dr. Tan:

I agree that "...no single unification theory for describing all energy scales at the same time." can be built from the current General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM) models. I also agree with the proposal that similar conclusions from the "phase transition" barriers could be extended to life and society.

But here we part. I propose that a simpler model of one Theory of Everything could be formed by treating both GR and QM as applications which also must explain all the observations that the 2 don't explain. The STOE has had predictions confirmed, also. The STOE proposes determinism for big and small. The STOE proposes one equation for all the universe.

I note your theory is basically proposing increased complexity rather than greater simplicity for the observed universe. This is a typical response for the accepted technicians. Mine is a radical, not accepted model. I think your model is just adding more parameters to the math rather than simplifying the principles. But take heart. Your thinking is probably going to rate very high in this contest so far. Indeed, I think your essay is the best in line with FQXi thinking and past rewards.

However, I would be interested in your approach to the experiments that reject wave models of light interference. (photon models of interference not the wave-particle type). I have noted your other contributions (1-7 in your references).

Hodge

report post as inappropriate

I agree that "...no single unification theory for describing all energy scales at the same time." can be built from the current General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM) models. I also agree with the proposal that similar conclusions from the "phase transition" barriers could be extended to life and society.

But here we part. I propose that a simpler model of one Theory of Everything could be formed by treating both GR and QM as applications which also must explain all the observations that the 2 don't explain. The STOE has had predictions confirmed, also. The STOE proposes determinism for big and small. The STOE proposes one equation for all the universe.

I note your theory is basically proposing increased complexity rather than greater simplicity for the observed universe. This is a typical response for the accepted technicians. Mine is a radical, not accepted model. I think your model is just adding more parameters to the math rather than simplifying the principles. But take heart. Your thinking is probably going to rate very high in this contest so far. Indeed, I think your essay is the best in line with FQXi thinking and past rewards.

However, I would be interested in your approach to the experiments that reject wave models of light interference. (photon models of interference not the wave-particle type). I have noted your other contributions (1-7 in your references).

Hodge

report post as inappropriate

Dear Hodge, Thanks for your interest.

If you take a closer look, you'll find that my models don't really increase the complexity although it appears so. Instead, it uses some simple principles and provide more pleasing explanations for the complexity of physics, in particular, the Standard Model.

Most importantly, various predictions are ready to be tested in laboratory experiments. These experimental tests will ultimately tell if my ideas hold water or not.

Wanpeng

If you take a closer look, you'll find that my models don't really increase the complexity although it appears so. Instead, it uses some simple principles and provide more pleasing explanations for the complexity of physics, in particular, the Standard Model.

Most importantly, various predictions are ready to be tested in laboratory experiments. These experimental tests will ultimately tell if my ideas hold water or not.

Wanpeng

Dear Dr Wang,

You write in your essay: "An immediate implication of quantum indeterminism is that our world has to be dynamic with phase transitions." I don't see why this has to be the case. I can perfectly well conceive of a world that contains a single hydrogen atom which just sits there and that's that. No dynamics, no phase transition, no nothing. Maybe you could clarify for me what you mean by that? With best regards,

Sabine

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

You write in your essay: "An immediate implication of quantum indeterminism is that our world has to be dynamic with phase transitions." I don't see why this has to be the case. I can perfectly well conceive of a world that contains a single hydrogen atom which just sits there and that's that. No dynamics, no phase transition, no nothing. Maybe you could clarify for me what you mean by that? With best regards,

Sabine

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sabine,

I see your point about the jump I made in that statement which you seem to disagree. But I assume that we have a diversified yet consistent world. Determinism of a classic theory tends to give a "complete" picture and is hard to implement phase transitions to account for the complexity of our world. As a matter of fact, a lot of known phase transitions are deeply rooted in quantum theory. In this sense, I argue that quantum indeterminism may indeed be the reason behind our complex world via dynamic processes of phase transitions.

On the other hand, if one imagines a simple or trivial world like a single hydrogen atom, I agree, the argument will not hold.

Thanks,

Wanpeng

I see your point about the jump I made in that statement which you seem to disagree. But I assume that we have a diversified yet consistent world. Determinism of a classic theory tends to give a "complete" picture and is hard to implement phase transitions to account for the complexity of our world. As a matter of fact, a lot of known phase transitions are deeply rooted in quantum theory. In this sense, I argue that quantum indeterminism may indeed be the reason behind our complex world via dynamic processes of phase transitions.

On the other hand, if one imagines a simple or trivial world like a single hydrogen atom, I agree, the argument will not hold.

Thanks,

Wanpeng

Hi , still a discussion about the inderterminisn of our generality, of course we cannot predict and compute all, it is evident, it is just because we know still so few about how acts this universe, we have many unknowns to discore, we are simply limited. We utilise mathematical Tools and symmetries and others to complete this puzzle, our quantum mechanics and the QFT. The problem is that we don t...

view entire post

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your thorough and clear written essay. One of the best I have read so far. I fully agree with your ideas on indeterminism and the foolish search for a final unified theory.This clearly stems from a (quite arrogant) reductionistic approach typical of physicists. I have challenged this myself in the past, and I find very important your final remarks: “ New phenomena and new laws can emerge under phase transitions like superconductivity and other cases. The very nature of quantum indeterminism makes it necessary for pursuing studies of all sub-fields of physics. It may be also why we have so diversified scientific fields ranging from physics, chemistry, biology, to human brains”

I am not an expert in standard model and high energy physics (my work is on quantum foundations and quantum info), but it seems your arguments are sound. I have myself developed arguments for indeterminism (you might want to have a look at my essay and leave a feedback if you like). I wish you to get high in the rating (full score from me).

Flavio

report post as inappropriate

I am not an expert in standard model and high energy physics (my work is on quantum foundations and quantum info), but it seems your arguments are sound. I have myself developed arguments for indeterminism (you might want to have a look at my essay and leave a feedback if you like). I wish you to get high in the rating (full score from me).

Flavio

report post as inappropriate

Hello Dr. Tan,

I enjoyed your essay. I have a number of inquiries-

i) Is the universe, non-locally, (cosmologically) intrinsically deterministic? (“…Concisely, determinism of general relativity is emergent from the underlying indeterministic quantum theory… (p.3)).

ii) “…It is hard to imagine that a static universe is not deterministic unless one assumes different laws at different locations…” (p.3). “…In other words, physics becomes completely different under different spacetime configurations…” I don’t contest this. However, I am unsure that the physical laws would necessarily vary (e.g. Even if the universe was deterministic in some areas and indeterministic what would this say about the topology of the universe?) Do you posit that, over time- the nonlocal geometric topology of the universe has changed from eon to eon?

iii) Can you please explain the relation of Gödel’s other work (on his solution to Einstein’s field equations which involve closed time-like curves) to your work?

iv) Can you please expand on “…In the end, our free will might be tied to indeterminism of quantum particles as indicated in the so-called free will theorem of Conway and Kochen [20]…”?

If you'd like to email me a response- please feel free to: hilbertspaces@protonmail.com

Thank you,

Dale Gillman

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed your essay. I have a number of inquiries-

i) Is the universe, non-locally, (cosmologically) intrinsically deterministic? (“…Concisely, determinism of general relativity is emergent from the underlying indeterministic quantum theory… (p.3)).

ii) “…It is hard to imagine that a static universe is not deterministic unless one assumes different laws at different locations…” (p.3). “…In other words, physics becomes completely different under different spacetime configurations…” I don’t contest this. However, I am unsure that the physical laws would necessarily vary (e.g. Even if the universe was deterministic in some areas and indeterministic what would this say about the topology of the universe?) Do you posit that, over time- the nonlocal geometric topology of the universe has changed from eon to eon?

iii) Can you please explain the relation of Gödel’s other work (on his solution to Einstein’s field equations which involve closed time-like curves) to your work?

iv) Can you please expand on “…In the end, our free will might be tied to indeterminism of quantum particles as indicated in the so-called free will theorem of Conway and Kochen [20]…”?

If you'd like to email me a response- please feel free to: hilbertspaces@protonmail.com

Thank you,

Dale Gillman

report post as inappropriate

Hello , I liked the generality of your essay. The evolution is important also in my theory of spherisation, it is the real meaning of my works. I beleive strongly that a TOE cannot be reached and even in 100000 years if we are still there because we have many secrets to discover simply. Our knowledges are limited , of course we evolve and add discoveries, foundamental but we must recognise this fact, we are Youngs even at this universal scale considering this evolution still. All so in not predictable and computable. Thanks for your essay, regards

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Wanpeng I enjoyed your essay. However, I have a different perspective. I “put aside” the fundamental idea that that the laws and constants of physics are in effect everywhere, all of the time and never change and replaced it with a Self Creation process that produces and uses the laws and constants of physics when it needs them in its progression to create the physical world. In this scenario the laws and constants become parts of the Successful Self Creation process/results. They are not separate entities. It was successful. I was able to develop a complete mathematically consistent model.My essay “Clarification Of Physics—“ explains this process. I would appreciate your comments on my essay. Thanks John D Crowell

post approved

post approved

Wanpeng,

Way smart. In my humble opinion I don’t think nature follows all of the equations that supposedly represent it. I agree that the Standard Model is a patchwork. I read Dr. Wilczek’s book “A beautiful Question”. Well presented, but I was struck by his summary saying he didn’t know why the entities exist either. I wrote a paper called “How Nature Computes” based on the Standard Model but interpreted it as variations in my proton model.

I believe that nature consists of simple probabilities (but it is not dumb). The unitary solution to Schrodinger’s equation is Probability= exp(iEt/H)*exp(-iEt/H)=1. It is a simple circle that collapses at probability 1, the only interesting point. But I believe that probability 1 is perception, our peep hole into nature that proceeds us. We “login” by becoming aware. I read Andrew Knight’s essay (in this contest) saying events must occur in QM. The event to me is “we perceive protons and electrons in nature”. Probability 1 consists of Schrodinger based wave functions for the proton components. They represent probability 1=1*1*1*1. But each of the 1’s is a combination of probabilities that separate energy into two equal and opposite parts (mass plus kinetic energy minus field energy). Overall E-E=0, P=1 with subcomponent probability=e0/E.

I enjoyed your paper. Your supersymmetric mirror model shows evolution of space and time but I could follow it better if the energies were referenced to each proton. Isn’t nature just a duplication of many, many protons and their associated space? (Protons, electrons and anti-electron neutrinos that decay from original neutrons). Once you understand one proton you understand everything. (Long ago I correlated the baryons and mesons as mass and kinetic energy of proton quarks and the more energetic quarks).

Thanks, hope to hear back.

report post as inappropriate

Way smart. In my humble opinion I don’t think nature follows all of the equations that supposedly represent it. I agree that the Standard Model is a patchwork. I read Dr. Wilczek’s book “A beautiful Question”. Well presented, but I was struck by his summary saying he didn’t know why the entities exist either. I wrote a paper called “How Nature Computes” based on the Standard Model but interpreted it as variations in my proton model.

I believe that nature consists of simple probabilities (but it is not dumb). The unitary solution to Schrodinger’s equation is Probability= exp(iEt/H)*exp(-iEt/H)=1. It is a simple circle that collapses at probability 1, the only interesting point. But I believe that probability 1 is perception, our peep hole into nature that proceeds us. We “login” by becoming aware. I read Andrew Knight’s essay (in this contest) saying events must occur in QM. The event to me is “we perceive protons and electrons in nature”. Probability 1 consists of Schrodinger based wave functions for the proton components. They represent probability 1=1*1*1*1. But each of the 1’s is a combination of probabilities that separate energy into two equal and opposite parts (mass plus kinetic energy minus field energy). Overall E-E=0, P=1 with subcomponent probability=e0/E.

I enjoyed your paper. Your supersymmetric mirror model shows evolution of space and time but I could follow it better if the energies were referenced to each proton. Isn’t nature just a duplication of many, many protons and their associated space? (Protons, electrons and anti-electron neutrinos that decay from original neutrons). Once you understand one proton you understand everything. (Long ago I correlated the baryons and mesons as mass and kinetic energy of proton quarks and the more energetic quarks).

Thanks, hope to hear back.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Wanpeng,

I find your essay very interesting. You propose an original idea instead of conventional unification paradigm. I completely agree that we need new ideas of unification or even instead of unification.

I wish you good luck

Boris

report post as inappropriate

I find your essay very interesting. You propose an original idea instead of conventional unification paradigm. I completely agree that we need new ideas of unification or even instead of unification.

I wish you good luck

Boris

report post as inappropriate

Dear Prof Wanpeng Tan,

Well argued essay saying no Unified theory can explain from quantum physics to Cosmology, well said!!!

I have few questions about Godel's law. This law is applicable to Quantum Mechanics, but will this law be applicable to COSMOLOGY.......?????.........

I never encountered any such a problem in Dynamic Universe Model in the Last 40 years, all the the other conditions mentioned in that statement are applicable ok

I hope you will have CRITICAL examination of my essay... "A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory’s Philosophy".....

Regarding proposition........

Why dont you make a new interpretation of quantum mechanics the 21st one, covering all aspects of it including intelligence, observations, experimental results, etc....I feel that with your knowledge you can definitely accomplish it

Best Wishes ....

=snp

report post as inappropriate

Well argued essay saying no Unified theory can explain from quantum physics to Cosmology, well said!!!

I have few questions about Godel's law. This law is applicable to Quantum Mechanics, but will this law be applicable to COSMOLOGY.......?????.........

I never encountered any such a problem in Dynamic Universe Model in the Last 40 years, all the the other conditions mentioned in that statement are applicable ok

I hope you will have CRITICAL examination of my essay... "A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory’s Philosophy".....

Regarding proposition........

Why dont you make a new interpretation of quantum mechanics the 21st one, covering all aspects of it including intelligence, observations, experimental results, etc....I feel that with your knowledge you can definitely accomplish it

Best Wishes ....

=snp

report post as inappropriate

Dear Prof Wanpeng Tan,

I recently submitted my entry and when browsing into other essays noticed that we are on the the opposite site of the fence:

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3508

In my essay there is claim and sketch of arguments that the TOE is possible but as it should be baggage-less it can not be algorithmic theory and thus it has to be rooted in uncomputability. Your essay is extremely well written and argumented but I see a problem from this point of view. You say the there can be no single TOE which is fine. Instead there is bunch of theories but all of them include substantial baggage. It starts with the assumption of the 'zero dimensional space, Planckian-size' which is immediately rising question what is its origin, especially that it is equipped with plenty of structure from the start, including the SMM supersymmetry which poses new questions why it has to be so. Of course when one accepts these assumptions everything afterwards is fine but in my view this is much too much baggage to think about the TOE as it has to be reaching to more fundamental levels, beyond the concepts of time, space, fields, particles, etc.

Best regards,

Irek

report post as inappropriate

I recently submitted my entry and when browsing into other essays noticed that we are on the the opposite site of the fence:

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3508

In my essay there is claim and sketch of arguments that the TOE is possible but as it should be baggage-less it can not be algorithmic theory and thus it has to be rooted in uncomputability. Your essay is extremely well written and argumented but I see a problem from this point of view. You say the there can be no single TOE which is fine. Instead there is bunch of theories but all of them include substantial baggage. It starts with the assumption of the 'zero dimensional space, Planckian-size' which is immediately rising question what is its origin, especially that it is equipped with plenty of structure from the start, including the SMM supersymmetry which poses new questions why it has to be so. Of course when one accepts these assumptions everything afterwards is fine but in my view this is much too much baggage to think about the TOE as it has to be reaching to more fundamental levels, beyond the concepts of time, space, fields, particles, etc.

Best regards,

Irek

report post as inappropriate

Dear professor wanpeng Tan.your essay is very well done.it provided a platform to which I try to question reality at quantum hierarchical levels The Planck length.could it be really be the ABSOLUTE point zero where physics begins ?I've rated you well.kindly take your time to view my opinion -https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.i also admire how you've discussed quantum indeterminism.Thanks and all the best to you in the essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear professor Tan!

Your work is grand in design. We are in awe! Your essay makes think. It has promising thoughts that we liked. Therefore, we decided to give your essay the highest grade. Our rating is 10 points! In our opinion, modern physics should move in this direction, trying to cover conceptually real information processes in the Universe.

Truly yours,

Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

Siberian Federal University.

report post as inappropriate

Your work is grand in design. We are in awe! Your essay makes think. It has promising thoughts that we liked. Therefore, we decided to give your essay the highest grade. Our rating is 10 points! In our opinion, modern physics should move in this direction, trying to cover conceptually real information processes in the Universe.

Truly yours,

Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

Siberian Federal University.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Wanpeng,

Thank you for your interesting essay. You describe well the conundrums of mainstream physics.

It is not possible to join all force fields on the basis of energy or force. It is possible on the basis of Space. Space is common for all. More in: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329453655_Space_Equ

ation-Basic_Equation_of_Unified_Field_Theory

The GRT is based on wrong presumption that gravity is not a force but the curvature of space. We all feel the force of gravity every day, but we do not feel any curvature of space. The puzzle can be solved by assuming that space is a gravity field. The Space itself does not exist. More in:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329453641_New_Co

ncept_of_Space

The space is curved like gravity field lines: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329842506_New_Conce

ption_of_Space_Curvature

The source of gravity is mass: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330142806_New_Conce

pt_of_Mass

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333146650

_New_Concept_of_Gravity

Most difficulties arise from the assumption of Standard Model that each new particle is a independent formation of reality. The SM does not take into account that all experiments take place in the Earth's gravitational field. The gravity field, like other potential fields, has allowed energy levels and large forbidden zones between them. The particles of Standard Model are only excited states of electrons, protons and photons. More in: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329453689_New_Conce

pt_of_Elementary_Particles_Classification

Best regards

Ilgaitis

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your interesting essay. You describe well the conundrums of mainstream physics.

It is not possible to join all force fields on the basis of energy or force. It is possible on the basis of Space. Space is common for all. More in: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329453655_Space_Equ

ation-Basic_Equation_of_Unified_Field_Theory

The GRT is based on wrong presumption that gravity is not a force but the curvature of space. We all feel the force of gravity every day, but we do not feel any curvature of space. The puzzle can be solved by assuming that space is a gravity field. The Space itself does not exist. More in:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329453641_New_Co

ncept_of_Space

The space is curved like gravity field lines: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329842506_New_Conce

ption_of_Space_Curvature

The source of gravity is mass: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330142806_New_Conce

pt_of_Mass

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333146650

_New_Concept_of_Gravity

Most difficulties arise from the assumption of Standard Model that each new particle is a independent formation of reality. The SM does not take into account that all experiments take place in the Earth's gravitational field. The gravity field, like other potential fields, has allowed energy levels and large forbidden zones between them. The particles of Standard Model are only excited states of electrons, protons and photons. More in: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329453689_New_Conce

pt_of_Elementary_Particles_Classification

Best regards

Ilgaitis

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.