TFNR - A lot of work to do
This is only the beginning - there is a lot of work to do.
Claims that physics and cosmology are substantially complete - and that there is nothing left to explain in Nature - sometimes made by incautious researchers, make me smile. The Universe is so vast and complex that I don't believe humanity will ever face the risk of having nothing more to investigate, to discover, or to understand.
More in depth
Many ideas, concepts, hypotheses have only been hinted at. In-depth studies and verifications are necessary both from a theoretical and an observational / experimental point of view.
Even though my intent has always been to provide a unified and coherent vision, some parts appear fragmented and unrelated. This is partly because they were developed at different and successive moments throughout this long research process.
The development of this System of Knowledge is still in its infancy. It is necessary to deepen all the fundamental themes, such as the Dynamics of the Elementary Action - so complex, so "alien" to the physics we are accustomed to, and so challenging to support with direct observation and experimentation. Likewise, many secondary aspects, though seemingly less central, are certainly important for understanding Physical Reality and the Universe.
Unfortunately, Nature is far more complex than we might expect or desire. Even the objects we consider elementary are far from simple. Surely they are not easy to describe. Complexity is everywhere. This is further compounded by the omnipresence of turbulence and chaos, which incessantly undermines order in a continuous search for balance - an optimization of the organization of Reality in all its facets.
Even a particle considered absolutely elementary, like the electron, is an extraordinarily complex and challenging object to visualize and describe. Its dynamics are intricate, particularly when it interacts with other electrons or nucleons to form an atom. Its very nature is complex, as are the interactions it establishes with other particles or with waves - including photons and electromagnetic waves - in various phenomena like emission and absorption. It is difficult to transcend the mathematical and abstract descriptions to reach a more concrete, realistic, geometric vision and visualization. Despite the astonishing achievements of modern physics, it remains challenging to move beyond the rudimentary depictions derived from Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory.
Why is it so difficult? How we would like the electron to be an elementary, simple, easily describable, and representable object. Unfortunately, Nature surprises us here too.
What we would hope for is a simple, indivisible, punctiform particle - characterizable with just a few fundamental parameters. If we could observe it with an extraordinary microscope capable of resolving details down to the Planck scale (an instrument that, unfortunately, does not exist), we would not see an object in the sense we commonly attribute to the word. Instead, we would witness a sort of "movie" - something that happens, not something that exists, in the conventional meaning we attach to "exist" and "existence."
We would see a "swarm" of Events, of fluctuations: micro-variations of Space-time dimensions - a vast multitude of Events, of fluctuations. In a volume of Space that we might consider comparable to the spatial extension of an electron substantially at rest (moving at a speed much lower than the speed of light in a vacuum, and not subject to acceleration), roughly 10^-44 cubic meters, we would encounter about 10^-61 Elementary Events. These would be incessant fluctuations, resonating around the Planck scale, of what is considered the fabric of Space-time (or, more precisely, the substrate of Space-time: the Elementary Field).
And if we had the right eyes - or, more accurately, the right glasses - we would perceive the patterns of organization of these innumerable Elementary Events: the correlations in their distributions and the Relations among the Events, which incessantly form the Processes that construct Reality, from the Planck scale to the infinite immensity of the Universe. The organizational patterns we would see (marked, unfortunately, by a turbulent dynamic) are what determine the physical quantities we attempt to measure: position, speed, acceleration, Mass and its density, electric Charge, and magnetic Spin.
And if the electron were not free but instead bound within an atom, then beyond those physical quantities, we would also observe quantum properties intrinsic to the electron's dynamics as it participates in the atom’s dynamics: the quantum numbers, to be precise.
An aspect of Reality - an object - that we regard as very elementary conceals an explosion of complexity: an immense number of Events and Relations, of fluctuations and correlations of their distributions - a Process that spans approximately 20 orders of magnitude in Space and delves into an even vaster temporal abyss.
What can we say? Perhaps we are underestimating Nature. In our quest to understand, describe, model, and predict, we oversimplify. We mistake happenings (Processes: Events organized by Relations) for objects, interpret complex levels as elementary ones, and confuse predictive methods (models and mathematical rules) with descriptions of Reality.
It is right that we try. But if Nature resists, we must accept that Nature - if it ever had a conscience - does not care whether we struggle to comprehend it. Chaos, turbulence, and indeterminacy are fundamental ontological aspects, essential characteristics, and intrinsic properties of Reality. We have no hope of uncovering an underlying order that satisfies our insatiable (albeit legitimate) craving for simplicity, elegance, and order within Nature.
Are we seeking Realism? Let us observe Reality! What is the point of defining and pursuing a Realism that does not reflect what we see?
The real problem is that we are not even sure of what we see (the results of measurements), nor are we certain of what "seeing" and "measuring" represent. This is where our efforts must focus: on building more advanced conceptual models rooted in a broader and deeper vision of Reality. It takes courage...
Formalization
We need to develop an innovative and solid reference framework for mathematical / quantitative formalization, capable of representing the dynamics of the most elementary levels of Reality while simultaneously accepting, integrating, and enhancing the formalisms of Special and General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, and the Standard Model of Particles.
In the effort towards integration it will be necessary to give up something.
The relativistic vision will need to abandon its rigid and restrictive concepts of Reality, its peculiar "Realism", as well as the irreducible pursuit of determinism - an approach that cannot find evidence in the fundamentally uncertain nature of Physical Reality. Relativity, as a theory of gravity, describes mass and space-time (seen as distinct entities and phenomena). It is a non-quantized field theory, exceptionally powerful in describing the interactions of massive objects, curved space-times, velocities, and accelerations. However, it struggles to describe complex and strange objects such as waves and particles (the constituents of that same Matter with its Mass, and the produced curvature), as well as their kinetic, electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions and phenomena.
The quantum vision will need to relinquish its infinite - and often imaginative, if not outright absurd - interpretations. Most significantly, it must abandon a concept regarded as central, yet so unnatural it seems almost supernatural: the violation of the principle of locality. While it may be more convenient and less demanding to accept that quantum information propagates at instantaneous speeds without violating the essence of causality, physics must strive harder to understand the fundamental nature of phenomena like quantum entanglement, the two - slit experiment, and other occurrences that define the "weirdness" of the quantum world.
Both GR and QM/QFT need to be reformulated in terms of curved time, flat space, and a variable speed of propagation of Causality / Action / Information (commonly referred to as the speed of light in a vacuum). At present, GR is formulated in terms of curved time, curved space, and a constant speed of propagation of causality, while QM/QFT essentially disregards time (neither curved nor flat), relying instead on a sort of temporal symmetry.
More broadly, the extreme effort to unify what are considered the four fundamental forces of nature, while valuable for understanding their characteristics and associated phenomena, seems to fall short of what should be the primary objective of Science: not merely predicting the outcomes of observations and experiments, but fundamentally helping us understand, explain, and describe Reality in its non-manifest unity and the multiplicity of its infinite forms.
Abandoning - or at least deprioritizing - this relentless pursuit of unifying such diverse and heterogeneous forces, with their differing causal origins, phenomenological forms, spheres of expression, effects, and ranges of action, would help shift focus away from the obsessive search for new particles. It would also move beyond an overly atomistic vision dominated by the interaction of countless particles and quantum fields, away from the unproductive tension between the relativistic and quantum perspectives of Reality, and away from the excessive emphasis on symmetry / symmetries and aesthetic "beauty" in physical research.
Such a shift would allow us to reverse the direction of research and aspiration to knowledge. It would enable the integration of the ordinary bottom-up approach with a top-down approach - a bold attempt to conceptualize a creative and evolutionary, causal and variational Process of Formation. This would explore how infinite complexity in Nature arises from nothing, where the most significant physical entities and quantities (Space, Time, Mass, Motion, Charge, Spin) are explained as manifestations of the dynamics of the Elementary Action - direct expression of a Primary Source far beyond the Waves and Particles we observe. These Waves and Particles represent only a small part of what seems to exist and provides structure and form to the Universe.
This quest is both a search for knowledge and a search for meaning. It combines ontological, phenomenological, and dynamical knowledge to understand the Fundamental Nature of Reality and its workings, while also seeking a deeper sense of Existence, Essence, and the Form of the Reality of which we are a part.
This dual search for knowledge and meaning must reflect in the development of an adequate formal framework, where math must adapt to the multilevel structure of Reality, employing the right and best mathematical tools for each level. It must renounce the utopian aspiration for a single equation that represents everything - everything that happens or could happen, everything that exists or could exist, and the infinite forms of the evolving Universe.
Observations and experiments
I think that a decisive change is needed on these issues. As for the theoretical side, also for observations and experiments a decisive defocusing from the world of particles is needed, to make room and direct attention and resources towards other research areas: above all, investigations on the fundamental forces and fields that create the dynamics of the most elementary levels of Reality, and on the structure of the Universe and the cosmic dynamics.
Particles of ordinary matter are an important part of Physical Reality, for our very existence, representing almost all of the matter that makes up our bodies. But in the global energy balance of the Universe, if the most accredited calculations are correct, they globally represent about 5% of the total. What about the "other" 95%? To devote such a significant part of the economic resources, time and energy of many researchers to particle science does not seem the right thing to do. It is necessary to redirect resources towards other research areas, but above all encourage the academic scientific world to allow researchers to concentrate their efforts on frontier theoretical and observational/experimental themes, innovative directions, potentially able to trace new ways of understanding Physical Reality.
No dark matter particles found? Doesn't MOND seem able to explain everything that happens in the cosmos? Dark matter and MOND together, properly integrated / coordinated, seem to provide better explanations of what we see? We must direct the search towards "something" that can summarize the interesting aspects of the dark matter theory with some interesting MOND predictions. Non-particle dark matter? Is it necessary to investigate the foundations of Reality, beyond particles? Why not?
In this sense, the large institutions that finance the world of research could, should make an effort to plan, to direct research more towards strategic objectives, in search of a real understanding of the fundamental themes of physics and cosmology, and help the researchers to avoid persisting in more "comfortable" but unproductive directions, in favor of an academic career rather than the very meaning of research.
In short, something needs to be done. Banging forever against the glass like a fly, looking for another new particle that can explain all of reality, is not what we expects from science. Above all, don't use up much of your resources to do exactly that. A change of direction is needed.
A suggestion... an example for all... let's start again from diffraction, from the double-slit experiment. Let's propose it again with today's instruments and methodologies, trying to control all the fundamental and secondary parameters and variables, to really understand what happens, not only in the mathematical terms of quantum mechanics. We can use this crucial experiment to better understand what lies between particles, between their interactions, between the slits. To try to describe experiment and result in terms of forces and fields, action, information / energy, not only in terms of waves and particles, and various objects (emitter, slits, screen, etc.).
To understand what we see today, we need to think beyond, observe beyond, experiment beyond...
The cognitive domain of Nature
The physical and the cognitive are two aspects of a single unitary Reality, of the only existing Reality. They are a unit, even if for purposes of scientific investigation, and only for this reason, we speak of two different complementary domains.
How can we define the physical, the cognitive, and, again only for descriptive purposes, the boundaries and interactions between these two domains? Like so many other boundaries that we find between different spheres of our unitary Reality, these too appear undefined, with overlapping and blurred areas. The transition between the physical and the cognitive, or rather, the emergence of the cognitive from the physical is a matter of evolution, of complexity, and we know that evolution is not a linear, sequential, gradual process.
We can begin by saying that everything that is not physical is cognitive. Here we risk a circularity in the definition. But I would like to continue hypothesizing that the cognitive is the domain where physical laws, physical processes, are not (necessarily) respected. It is the world of representations of Reality (physical and cognitive itself): perceptions, sensations, emotions, thoughts, ideas, models, systems of knowledge, and many other things that we normally, and erroneously / superficially, think are "not real", like dreams, products of the imagination, etc.) in a crescendo of complexity driven by the evolution of the mind. From the expressions of the most elementary cognitive systems of the simplest living organisms to the complex mind of human beings, the most cognitively evolved organisms we know, up to the collective cognitive systems, which bring together multiple living beings in complex and articulated cognitive networks, and still to the synthetic systems / artificial (automata) whose complexity is rapidly growing thanks to the development of artificial intelligence.
Everything that has existed, exists, will exist, everything that can exist, everything that we can imagine, everything is real in a general sense. It is important to distinguish what is physically real from what is cognitively real, in order to correctly understand the properties and dynamics of both, but above all to correctly understand the unity of Reality in all its aspects and domains.
Cognitive Reality, in all its ontological, phenomenological and dynamical aspects, will be the subject of a forthcoming study and a dedicated paper. The same principles, the same conceptual tools used in this work will be extended from Reality as a whole, and in particular from Physical Reality, to the study of Cognitive Reality (the Metareality), to Metaphysics, and to the most evolved part of this, the Meta-metaphysics, the study of Meta-cognitive Reality, or, as it is commonly named, "cognitive science".
Links to the tables of contents of TFNR Paper
