Prolegomena to any search principles for a Theory of

Everything (TOE)
Dan Serbanescu
Division of Logic and Models – CRIFST Romanian Academy
Full Paper Preprint

DOI:10.14640/RG.2.6.44659

Contents
1. Background .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Main features of a possible approach for the search of TOE ............................................................................................... 3
2.1 TOE as per present............................................................................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Application of main principles .......................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Specifics of the proposed approach to search for TOE................................................................................................... 4
2.2.2 Some governing features of the proposed approach to search for TOE ......................................................................... 4
3 Preliminary results and conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 6
APPENDIX 1 Application process of main principles P1-P3 ..................................................................................................... 7
1. General hypothesis for the application of main principles P1-P3 ........................................................................................ 7
2. Illustration of implementation of proposed process........................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Summary of background (details in Annexes 1-3) .......................................................................................................... 10
2.2 Process for TOE search- search for Integrated description of Knowledge and Existence............................................... 15
2.3Integrated approach for description of Knowledge and Existence ................................................................................... 16
APPENDIX 2 – TOE search for P1-P3 applied to CATS ......................................................................................................... 25
1. CATS & Example of TOE search.................................................................................................................................. 25
2. MODEL ......................................................................................................................................................................... 36
2.1 CATS react to challenges and change their states: .......................................................................................................... 36
2.2 The following Modeling Conjuctures .............................................................................................................................. 36
2.3 Process of CATS changes ................................................................................................................................................ 36
3. FINAL REMARKS ....................................................................................................................................................... 41
References.............................................................................................................................................................................. 45
ANNEXES 1 - 5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 47
 1. Background
Physics is in a high conceptual turmoil, with many questions and conflictual experimental results, with diverse
approaches in a real model cavalcade, difficult to integrate one in another.
One fundamental question of this situation, which is of interest for this introspection is:

„How a Theory of Everything (TOE) would look like, if it exists at all, or at least which would be
the guiding principles of searching for it?”
In author‟s view the approaches adopted so far have one of the following tendencies:

 They either look for a theory, able to be at least non contradictory to other theories, so that to present
solutions for existing paradoxes and contradictions
 Or, more ambitious, to generate a real innovative theory able to be a general envelope of existing
theories, which would become particular cases of it.

A few common features of both approaches diminish the confidence in finding a solution for this search, if the
process does not change.

The most important of those features / themes biasing systematically the TOE search, would be in our view the
following:

T1 The searches for TOE are organized and managed in a predominant unidisciplinary manner, so that they
are of some of the following types (to mention the most representative)

 Specific to physics phenomenological methods and approaches, some of which have already got a
dogma character unfortunately.
 Specific to mathematics tools and models
 Use of artistic, intuitive tools, even including aestetics
 Return (as it happened many times so far in Physics his (TOE) to phylosophical approaches
 Not mentioning of course the large amount of mythological models (in large sense, including cultural
heritage), usually avoided to be considered and/or not mentioned in scientific approaches, even if may
be many of the theories are connected to them.

T2 Independent on how the approaches of T1 type are taking place, in academic or non academic
environments, in art / cultural productions, in public debates in mass media they have an aggresive tent,
excluding usually any debate and/or other conflicting opinions, being defended by:

 Scientific institutions and the media governed by them, adopting a ultraconservatative attitude to novel
approaches and in many cases having the features of real scientific inquisitions
 Opinions expressed by individual scientists, experts formulating in a sacadate manner theories for
which no debate and /or challenge is expected to take place, many times in a lack of scientific approach
attitude and, unfortunatelly many times even in a lack of minimal civilized dialog
 Persons with large audience to the public using intransigent and aggressive approach in support of one
approach or another, invading mass media with those opinions and making the search superflu.

T3 Society in general, physicists in particular and all the other scientists from connected to the topic domains,
which would be able to contribute to a convergent search for an answer are actually in the dilema of being
affected by the following extreme (to a theory) dangers
  Ignore really innovative ideas, as being too out of the mainstream search
 Promote totally fantasmagoric, by any criteria, theories/approaches

History of science and technology, including their applied branches has many examples of embraced approaches
by many people and for long time, which proved to be wrong and misleading.

In this context some basic generic guiding principles for TOE search are proposed, formulated in the manner to
cope with the themes T1-T3, creating challenges, as follows:

P1 The solution for a convergent search of TOE is to be based on

multidisciplinarity, in a process that can be refined for instance by similitude
with existing particular cases identified before by the author.
P2 The decision on scientific validity of the solution is to be based on a
multifacet approach on knowledge and it is possible in an adapted
environment of the society, including scientific institutions, for the search of
this nature and this may lead to significant changes by comparison to the actual
situation
P3 It is neccessary to redefine the object and methods of such search , which
requires a new view on Physics and other sciences, as well as other knowledge
sources, so that the principles 1 and 2 above are considered

2. Main features of a possible approach for the search of TOE

2.1 TOE as per present

In Annexes 1 -3 the present understanding and details on the status of TOE searches are presented.
There are two important aspects for the purpose of this paper to be considered:
 The TOE is considered for Physics, in its “classic” understanding, i.e.

i. Physics is a natural science that studies

 Matter and its
 fundamental constituents,
 motion and
 behavior through space and time
AND

 Related (to Matter) entities of energy and force.

ii. Physics is based on any of

 A theory or on an empirical approach
 On experiments /using tools to prove theories
 Study interactions between matter.

iii. Physics looks at the organizational structure of the universe itself.

 TOE is considered to be :Theory of everything (TOE) ≝ final theory ≝ ultimate theory≝ unified field
theory ≝ master theory

o TOE framework is
 hypothetical,
 singular,
 all-encompassing,
 coherent theoretical framework

o TOE is searched for Physics that

 fully explains and
 links together all physical aspects of the universe.

2.2 Application of main principles

2.2.1 Specifics of the proposed approach to search for TOE

We will consider the following specifics on the topic of the search for TOE.

 In accordance with the principle P3, aiming at the redefinition of the object and
methods of such search, Physics is understood as a hierarchical set of realms of system
of complex systems of a special type (Complex Apoietic Topological Systems (CATS)),
which include the observers and their knowledge realm. The detailed presentation and
description of CATS is in Annexes 4 and 5. Some concepts of category (in mathematical
meaning and syzygy) are used to define the features of the CATS. The application of P3
is focused mainly on solving the challenges of T2 type, as presented before.

 Principle P2 on multifacet approach on knowledge is reflected in a triadic approach

adopted in the description of CATS, as demonstration of how a TOE complying with
principle P3 might look This principle is also reflecting the need for multidisciplinarity
in order to develop a TOE. The multifacet principle guides the search so that the theme T3
is not challenging the search.

 Principle P1 multidisciplinarity is illustrated in the examples in Appendices 1 and 2

and considers that the knowledge on a TOE issue is fundamentally multidisciplinary
(see Appendices 1 and 2 coping therefore, with the challenges from theme T1.

2.2.2 Some governing features of the proposed approach to search for TOE

The process of evaluating CATS is described in Annexes 4 and 5 and illustrated for the
case study in Appendices 1 and 2. There are three important aspects of this process
 The process is iterative, multidisciplinary and is using diverse tools for CATS defined by
their definitory features
o Syzygies and the use of categories and the hierarchical,
o Layer by layer type generating a topological space of possible states of the system
and
 o the enanthiotropy governed hypercybernetic mechanism
 The transition is defined by a process (illustrated in principle in Figures 1 and 2, but
detailed in Annex 3 and Appendices 1 and 2).

Figure 1 Matrix of transitions – Emergence Matrix of states for CATS

Figure 2 Generation of the topological space of states for CATS

 Figure 3 Higher level of realms for the CATS states, leading asymptotically to the hypersphere of Poincare

3 Preliminary results and conclusions

The paper presents a suggested approach for the search of TOE, starting from the existing status on the topic and
some preliminary results of the author. The goal is to illustrate the manner the considered topics/themes for TOE
search, which create challenges to such an endeavour could be managed by using a set of principles and detailed
implementation approaches. In Appendices 1 and 2 some case studies are presented to illustrate the proposed
approach.

In summary the unidisciplinarity and specifics of scientific recognition generate the main problems in the search
for TOE. In addition the focus on TOE for Physics, as recognized by the community (as detailed in Annexes 1-3).

 It is shown with some possible implementation approaches, how the principles

of redefining the subject of review (Physics versus complex systems) by using
multidisciplinarity and multifacet could lead to an answer.
 The answer might be summarized like that
A multidisciplinary multifacet approach on the TOE for Physics and its
knowledge environment, including observers, understood as complex systems
might lead to potential asymptotic description of a TOE. The process might be
known and studied; however, the final state may not be reached and / or
known in detail.
 APPENDIX 1 Application process of main principles P1-P3

1. General hypothesis for the application of main principles P1-P3

H1 Complex Topological Apoietic Systems (CATS) are defined as the Energy systems composed of
energy sources, including all the elements of the energy loop (generation- use) / cycle and the interaction with
other cooperating systems in their cycle (Șerbănescu, 2008).
H2 CATS definefractal type systems, having various forms, from subquantic, quantic, molecular, or
some biosystems to big complex forms (as for instance planetary, galactic, cosmic, universal) alive or not,
with or without conscience (Șerbănescu, 2015)
H3 CATS form the Planetary, (PL), Galactic (GC) and Cosmic Universal (CoU) realms of one or more
universes (Șerbănescu, 2017).
H4 CATS states have some specific features, as for instance:

H4.1 CATS states are fully described by a set of minimal multidimensional

characteristics (sysygies), with more than 4 dimensions. CATS are described by real and imaginary
mathematical spaces, being integral part of an integrating description of a given universe (Șerbănescu, 2017).
H4.2 CATS sysygy are defined as categories (in the mathematical sense) and they
are described by the physical characteristics of mass, energy and information, as defined for
multidimentional spaces. Trnasformations from one state to another are described by Matrices of
Generalized Entropy Variation (MGEV) – Enantiotropy (Șerbănescu, 2020).
H4.3 Multidimentional transitions are supposed to take place for assumed to have
linear CATS structure behaviour., as the process is step by step from one
neighbourhood to another, if the enanthitropy does not have a shapt grandient change
H4.3.1 Transitions take place from:
A. One state to another of the same system
B. One CATS to another in a given realm, with specific features given the type of
system (from/to)
 Not alive - alive
 Not alive and/or with conscience – with conscience
 One type of dimention to another number of dimentions (lower or higher)
C. CATS from different realms
H4.3.2 Transitions from groups A,B,C have the following specific features:
 A and C are governed by MGEV
 B might be described by emergence bio modelling as per (Sorin Baiculescu, 2020)
 For all the transition types the systems configuration is subject to feedback abd feedbefore
processes as described in the essay Hypercibernetic (Șserbănescu,2020)

H5 CATS is defined as a fractal type topological algebric structure and may be represented in a
polyhedral geometric form, which facets describe possible states, vertices the place of equal
enanthiotropy – making possible that a CATS could exist in more than one stateand the possible direction
of its state. The number of facets and the volume of the polyhedral form indicate the complexity degree of it
(Șerbănescu, 2015).

H6 The singularities, that appear during the transition process of one CATS into another of lower
dimensions being also CATS with conscience, are part of the Space of Experience (SE) (Băiculescu, 2015).
SE may be Metric Space (MS), Quantic – Hilbert Complex Space (QS), Symbolic Spece (SS) or Conscience
 Space (CoS). These reflections are themselves topological spaces and are part of the CATS.

H7 Transitions of CATS non alive and/or conscience to others being alive and/or with conscience lead
to special singularities (emergence) (Băiculescu,2015).

Details on the adoted Hypotheses

HA1 &
HA2 CATS include both the energy sources themselves and the elements of the energy cycle in the system
generating complex simbiotic type of apoietic complex systems, which might be called ecosystems. These
ecosystems have the following characteristics of:
 General type for large complex systems – for details see (Șerbănescu 2006)
 Apoietic systems, as defined by (Maturana, 1980), and adapted for energy systems in (Șerbănescu,
2008)
 Topologic systems in the sense described in detail in (Șerbănescu, 2017).
This propaedeutics is to confirm that the Hypercybernetics essay is considering one representative
type of CATS for each energy level, for the sake of illustration of the conclusions. This assumption is not
disTOEting the results.

HA3 &
HA4 Due to the fact, that the CATS sysygies, i.e. the minimal characteristics of the dominant source of
CATS – the mass, energy and information, are multidimentional (Șerbănescu, 2016), CATS themselves
have some specific features, as follows:

 They are part of any realm, in single or multiverses cases

 MGEV describes the systems dynamics, considered to have a liniar structure, with stap by step changes
and from one neighboring point / state to another
 The type B transitions to/from non-alive- alive and/or without/with conscience lead to singularities of
CATS as high dimentions topological systems, which migh be explained by some tranzițtions as
singularities of special type (Sorin Băiculescu, 2020);
 The hypercybernetic type of control and regulation of CATS transitions takes place at various energy
levels, with various control parameters, as for instance states induced by enanthitropy variation
generated by changes in sysygies (mass, energy, information of each state). The variations for the
multidimentional sysygies are reflected in the real, simple complex and hypercomplex parts of the
characteristics.
(Șerbănescu,2018).
HA5-
HA7 The singularities, that appear during some CATS transitions into others, more preciselly to CATS with a
different number of dimentions and with conscience, are reflected in SE. (Băiculescu, 2015) and therefore, their
description has very specific aspects.

Example of complex system application - Biocomplex systems and their challenges- Covid case study

i. CATS are energy systems, with all the non-energy sources components part of their lifecycle make
exchange of information and transformations of mass and energy itself and are a special type of systems,
self controlling , selfgenerating themselves, step by step, from one state t a neighbouring one, which are
 built in a fractal mode so that any part reproduces te whole. They also are transforming themselves from one
state to another and from one CATS to another based on govering rules as defined by their syzygies- the
minimal characteristics describing their states (mass, energy and information). The direction of change is
indicated by the states entropy, enanthiotropy. This process if valis at any realm (Planetary, Galactic or
Universal) for any type of systems, including the systems with life and conscience.

ii. The CATS are subject to chellenges commensurable with their level on state (governed by mass, energy level
and information). The higher the energy level of the energy sources in a CATS and/or the level of complexity
as defined by their syzygy, the higher are the challenges to them.

iii. The transfers from one system to another and/or state changes of a given CATS take place so, that to follow
the enanthiottopy variation for its states. Enanthiotropy is defined for the fundamental minimal
characteristics (syzygy) of the CATS systems, i.e. mass, energy and information.

iv. The CATS control and optimization are performed through cybernetic mechanisms, defined as part of a
hypercybernetic approach, on three hierarchical levels: real, simple complex and hypercomplex, as defined
by a multidimentional in a multicomplex (11) space approach for their syzygy

v. CATS defined by the human life on Earth are subject to external challenges. These challenges come from
other systems trying to get integrated in Human Earth CATS; the magnitude of the challenges is
proportional with the magnitude of the harnessed energies and complexity in the Earth like CATS. Covid is
one of them and, as significant magnitude is only one of the first in a along series to come, for which Human
Earth CATS need to be prepared.

vi. Currently the Human Earth like CATS (HECATS) is defined as including, in a fractalic mode, not only the
energy sources used by mankind, but also the non energy related elements of the planetary habitat, the societal
related ones and non-human biological components, at individual and collective levels. HECATS is an
apoietic system with fractalic architecture defined by topologies specific to the bio-complex alive with
conscience elements of it; it is a topology, which represented as a geometrical topological form (polyhedral
type) and currently it has a dodecahedron form.

vii. Covid -19 is non alive system, which can be described as one of the challenges to HECATS and it is of
icosahedron type. This icosahedron type system is capable to have fundamental impact of the human like
dodecahedron like structures currently present on the planet. The impact takes place by information transfer
and not by the dominant, at this energy level so far for planetary CATS, energy transfer mechanisms. The non
alive challenge Covid is at the boundary between non alive-alive (abiotic-biotic).

viii. Covid – 19 has a unique genetic structure, in the form of an RNA (Ribonucleic acid). The known so far
mechanisms of genetic information transfer in CATS was from DNA (Dezoxyribonucleic Acid) to RNA and
therefore this is a very important moment in biology. Covid, as a virus penetrates the eukaryote cell. It could
be of relevance the fact, that 2.5 bln years ago, there was a major change in the abiotic-biotic chains by the
appearance of the eukaryotes. This is even more strange as this took place in a period of increased
radioactivity, hydrogen formation and operation of natural fission reacTOEs (of Oklo type). It was a threshold
for the life on Earth as only after this period the eukaryotes, of which we are also part, started to emerge,
defeating the virus supremacy oin the planet. The Planetary CATS systems had a sharp change 2.5 bln years
ago (from abiotic to biotic type). Living CATS and now Conscious CATS (HECATS) emerged since that
moment.

ix. The Oklo anomalies could be considered singularities, in the light of the CATS approach at Planetary,
Galactic and Cosmic Universal for this universe or other universes, generated as hypercybernetics
mechanism (in the attached essay) represents the process.
x. Therefore, the Oklo anomalies and the moments of challenges alive – non alive (of which Covid is also an
episode), emergence of biotic forms, challenges to them and emergence of new biotic and / or alive forms
are singularities of the CATS processes at all levels and realms. The moments for new singularities
encounters depends on the CATS structure – its gradient of change for the syzygy (mass, energy,
information), as defined by its enanthiotropy. The anomalies/singularities (by the way recently discovered
on neighbouring plantes like Mars, too) leading to emergence of CATS with a more complex structure like
the present HECATS, are illustration of the hypercybernetic mechanisms at the level of all realms
(Planetary, Galactic, Cosmic) from a multidimentional space.

xi. In the Covid 19 challenge context, the interpretation of previously formulated specific features of CATS is
that HECATS, as an apoietic system, is expected to modify itself in order to survive and adapt to this
challenge.The adaptation is expected for the whole fractalic structure (cells, human body, humen society,
planet as a whole).The dodecahedron structures will be subject to significant changes to get closer to the
icosahedron ones. This may take place by MGEV and/or hypercybernetics of all realms in a single or
multiverse.

2. Illustration of implementation of proposed process

2.1 Summary of background (details in Annexes 1-3)

There is a long series of attempts in knowledge deriving from science, art, or general cultural - mythological frameworks to
arrive to a „Theory of Everything” (TOE), able to explain and manage Knowledge, or Existence, or both of them. However the
perspective adopted in this paper is that one based on the type of Knowledge acquired in one particular case, of one natural science and
on the type of Existence that constitute the object of study of Physics. There are some important reasons of the increased interest in
developing integrated perspectives on Knowledge and Existence from Physics‟ perspectives by using topological approaches:
 Modern Physics is more and more preocupied to evaluate those material structures, objects of study in Physics, which are
already described better as being topological spaces. By toppology we will consider in this paper the set of approaches and
developments from mathematics, which consider that:
o the objects that are studied are in proximity of each other, part of a continuum, for which some properties are not subject to
changes due to transformations in shape and size;
o the short distance interaction between these elements defining a certain topological space, knowledge is acquired in steps, as
approximations to the best possible description at that step.
 Recent Nobel Prizes on Physics confirm the fact that the tendency in Physics mentioned above has more and more examples. In
2016 the Nobel Prizes were awarded to three members of Physics‟ community (David J. Thouless, F. Duncan, M. Haldane and J.
Michael Kosterlitz) for theoretical discoveries on phase topological transitions of matter.
 There is a series of preoccupation for the use of topological approaches in understanding the mathematical equations of Physics[1].
 There is also a preocupation of describing information systems by using topological tools, even if the manner of building the
approach is so far only mentioning the idea of topological tools, without actually presenting the manner to use them [ 2].
 There are natural systems, similar to which a whole industry of artifical cases were built by the mankind. These systems bring a lot
of new insights for our integration search. The nuclear reactors in Oklo (Gabon) is an illustration of the need to rewritte the equations
of nuclear reactor Physics not as per the present „classical” manuals, but also considering this device like a complex selfbuilding and
selfregulating machine/creation,. Such a device was „designed” and was operating by using both non-alive and living components
(non human) and it was a dynamic part of the environment for that period of time in the Earth history (2.5 billion years ago). The
best description to be used for such a creation is more complex then actual physics equations for a nuclear reacTOE and it is related

1
Sneed J., The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics, Synthese Library - D Reidel, 1971
2
Crumpei, G., Gavriluţ, A., Crumpei Tanasă, I., Agop, M., New Paradigms on Information, Mind and Reality from a Transdisciplinary Perspective,
Junimea Publishing House, Iaşi, 2016
 to its description as a topological space. The models for the „reacTOE physics” and the reacTOE itself are in our view topological
spaces[3] and its proper description[4] requires the use of special logical tools, for instance the topological logic [5].
The trend of an increased interest in the use of topological specific tools from mathematics either to describe physical systems, or
knowledge systems on a certain set of physical systems is therefore getting stronger.
Therefore the attempt presented in the paper to integrate topological models and topological real objects (i.e. to integrate in a
systematic manner Knowledge and Existence as seen from Physics’s perspective, by using mathematical topological approaches
and developments) is considered as being natural and possible.
Such an attempt may be considered of interest also because it may provide alternative, or, possibly, complementary solutions to
the similar debates from Philosophy and other then Physics natural sciences, in the search for the answer on how a TOE may look like (if
it exists at all).
In Physics we may consider as a starting point for the scientific method of acquiring knowledge the cartezian approach from [6] ,
being focused on how to look for the answer („Discours de la méthode”). The search for „scientific truth” as formulated by Descartes
may be presented, without altering it, under a format as shown in a previous paper[7], as being structured in a series of step by step actions
grouped in three categories and a validation of results (that includes the feedback for the next itteration) model, as described in Figure 1.
The approach proposed by „Discours de la méthode‖ was in our view, by that time and ever since after that moment, for a period
of almost four centuries, a very successful attempt to break with the scholastic tradition, that was considered too "speculative" by
Descartes. The search for knowledge in science was therefore setting a new foundation:
• As being more solid, traceable, retrievable and able to be repeated if correctly applied by anybody using it
• As being in favor of the progress of techniques for building methods for systematic knowledge of the cosmos.

Figure 1 Rene Descartes, Discours de la methode, 1637

However, the “Discours de la méthode” period considered that the scientist, the subject trying to acquire knowledge, “the observer”,
was independent from what he was observing; and this is something that Quantum Physics shattered seriously hundred years ago
and now became the dominant aspect of defining the knowledge in the “knowledge era of Quantum Physics”. From the perspective of
modern Physics the “independence” of observer in studying topological like objects becomes a central point of solving the problem how
to search for new explanations and TOE like solutions, by considering also this principle.

3
Serbanescu, D., On some natural energy systesm and lessons learnt from their analysis, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4264.4962 · International Year of
Light, Oct 2015, Bucharest, Romania

4
Serbanescu D., Some considerations on the lessons learnt from the cavalcade of changes in physics' models, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4734.6968,
International Conference on Interdisciplinary Studies, ICIS 2016, June 2016, Constanta, Romania

5
Baez, John C, Stay, M., Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone, http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/rosetta.pdf

6
Descartes, Rene, 1960, Discourse on Method and Meditations. Laurence J. Lafleur (trans). New York: The Liberal Arts Press. ISBN 0-
672-60278-4
7
Serbanescu D., Considerations on some lessons learnt from the physics models - O privire asupra unor lectii de cunoastere date de cavalcada
modelelor in fízica, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1249.8409, International year of Light 2015, Oct 2015, Bucharest, Romania
New views
The topic of possible high role of topological approach in the search for “universal “explanations / solutions of everything (a
perpetual search of the mankind, since the times it became self-conscious) is underlined not only by Physics, but also by the results from
Mathematics.
However, the attempts made so far to find such unifying approaches were rarely focused on the fact that it might be a case that both
knowledge and existence are actually similar, homogenous and therefore possible to be described as topological spaces in an integrated
manner.
There are presently various examples of the reasons for search of the topological models for objects defined by Physics and in
modelling existence in general using topological tools, as for instance:

i. The issue of multiverses,

ii. The illustration of the Poincare conjecture and the Hilbert challenge formulated as the 24-th principle [8], as illustration of
models resulting in mathematical topological form of description. There are various lists of unsolved issues in mathematics, for
instance the list from Annex 1.
iii. Similarities in nature and science on some topological spaces and
iv. Some comparisons with “old” and “new” theories in Physics that were convergent in using topological like description, as
illustrated by the present agenda of unsolved issues in Physics (Annex2).

The multiverses

Multiverses have many possible representations (one example is in Figure 2) and they are one of the topics suggesting the need to use
topological approach for a better description, as solutions to the Mathematical equations of Physics. Currently there are various opinions
on the issue, the most recognized is that there are four (in some approaches five) types of multiverses [9]:
Type 1 - Bubble Universes – Other Big Bang events were possible, which happened so far away from us that we cannot conceive
of the distances involved yet. In accordance with this theory if we consider our universe to consist of the galaxies
created by a Big Bang, that is expanding outward, then we may expect either that eventually our universe might
encounter another universe, which was created in a similar way, or that due to the fact that the distances involved are so
vast, multiverses would never interact.
Type 2 – Multiverse from Repeating Universes – It consideres that because the universe is infinite, then eventually the
arrangement of particles will repeat themselves. The implication of this theory is that if travelling far enough, one may
find another Earth and another identical person.
Type 3 - Braneworlds - Parallel Universes – For this type of multiverse the universe where we are includes also additional
dimensions beyond the three spatial dimensions we perceive, plus time. It is therefore possible that other three-
dimensional "branes" may co-exist in higher-dimension space, acting as parallel universes.
Type 4 - Daughter Universes – It is based on the Quantum Mechanics theories describing the universe in terms of probabilities.
In accordance with those theories all possible outcomes of a choice or situation not only can occur, but do occur and at
every branch point, a new universe is created.
Type 5 - Mathematical Universes – In this theory it is assumed that Mathematics is a tool used to describe the parameters of the
universe. This theory states that it is possible that there could be a different Mathematical Structure and if this is true,
then such a structure could dscribe a completely different sort of universe.
There are common features of all the theories on multiverses, which imply the the need for the use of topological approach to
describe them, as indicated by many of their assumptions, as for instance it is indicated by the presence of fractal type
constructions in all of them.

8
Rüdiger Thiele, Hilbert’s twenty-fourth problem,American Mathematical Monthly, January 2003
9
*** https://www.thoughtco.com/multiverse-definition-and-theory-2699273, Edited by Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.
New views
The topic of possible high role of topological approach in the search for “universal “explanations / solutions of everything (a
perpetual search of the mankind, since the times it became self-conscious) is underlined not only by Physics, but also by the results from
Mathematics.
However, the attempts made so far to find such unifying approaches were rarely focused on the fact that it might be a case that both
knowledge and existence are actually similar, homogenous and therefore possible to be described as topological spaces in an integrated
manner.
There are presently various examples of the reasons for search of the topological models for objects defined by Physics and in
modelling existence in general using topological tools, as for instance:

i. The issue of multiverses,

ii. The illustration of the Poincare conjecture and the Hilbert challenge formulated as the 24-th principle [8], as illustration of
models resulting in mathematical topological form of description. There are various lists of unsolved issues in mathematics, for
instance the list from Annex 1.
iii. Similarities in nature and science on some topological spaces and
iv. Some comparisons with “old” and “new” theories in Physics that were convergent in using topological like description, as
illustrated by the present agenda of unsolved issues in Physics (Annex2).

The multiverses

Multiverses have many possible representations (one example is in Figure 2) and they are one of the topics suggesting the need to use
topological approach for a better description, as solutions to the Mathematical equations of Physics. Currently there are various opinions
on the issue, the most recognized is that there are four (in some approaches five) types of multiverses [9]:
Type 1 - Bubble Universes – Other Big Bang events were possible, which happened so far away from us that we cannot conceive
of the distances involved yet. In accordance with this theory if we consider our universe to consist of the galaxies
created by a Big Bang, that is expanding outward, then we may expect either that eventually our universe might
encounter another universe, which was created in a similar way, or that due to the fact that the distances involved are so
vast, multiverses would never interact.
Type 2 – Multiverse from Repeating Universes – It consideres that because the universe is infinite, then eventually the
arrangement of particles will repeat themselves. The implication of this theory is that if travelling far enough, one may
find another Earth and another identical person.
Type 3 - Braneworlds - Parallel Universes – For this type of multiverse the universe where we are includes also additional
dimensions beyond the three spatial dimensions we perceive, plus time. It is therefore possible that other three-
dimensional "branes" may co-exist in higher-dimension space, acting as parallel universes.
Type 4 - Daughter Universes – It is based on the Quantum Mechanics theories describing the universe in terms of probabilities.
In accordance with those theories all possible outcomes of a choice or situation not only can occur, but do occur and at
every branch point, a new universe is created.
Type 5 - Mathematical Universes – In this theory it is assumed that Mathematics is a tool used to describe the parameters of the
universe. This theory states that it is possible that there could be a different Mathematical Structure and if this is true,
then such a structure could dscribe a completely different sort of universe.
There are common features of all the theories on multiverses, which imply the the need for the use of topological approach to
describe them, as indicated by many of their assumptions, as for instance it is indicated by the presence of fractal type
constructions in all of them.

8
Rüdiger Thiele, Hilbert’s twenty-fourth problem,American Mathematical Monthly, January 2003
9
*** https://www.thoughtco.com/multiverse-definition-and-theory-2699273, Edited by Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.
 Figure 2 Type 1 multiverse - Bubble universes [ 10]

Poincare conjecture and the unsolved similar mathematical issues

The Poincare conjecture is about the 3-sphere (see Figure 3) – the hypersphere that bounds the unit ball in four-dimensional pace.
The conjecture states that every simply connected, closed 3-manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere. For the purpose of the
searches of topological descriptions, this could be considered as a potential manner for reducing and connecting any topological space to
a hypersphere, i.e. a TOE formulated in mathematical terms. In the stereographic projection of the hypersphere illustrated in Figure 4, the
parallels are in red, meridians in blue and hyper meridians in green. The properties are:

o The curves intersect each other orthogonally, as shown by yellow points.

o All the curves are circles and the curves that intersect in the location(0,0,0,1) have infinite radius and are represented by the
straight line

Figură 3 Poincare hypersphere[11]

Some possible answers to this problem, developed in the spirit of searches for TOE problems, that may include topological
approaches, are presented in the next paragraph.

Topological spaces in cosmos and human artefacts

There are other examples of topics leading to the need for Integrated Models of the Universe, from the point of view of searching
solutions to mathematical equations of Physics and related to them unsolved problems in Mathematics. As illustrated in Figure 4 there are
strange, if not explained in a unitary approach, similarities between very diverse types of complex systems (some “old”, some ”new”
hisTOEically):
 Universe map
 Human fingerprint
 Lie algebras and Platon poliedra

10
Julian Baum, Multiverse Definition and Theory, Getty Images -by Andrew Zimmerman Jones https://www.thoughtco.com/multiverse-definition-and-
theory-2699273

11
*** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-sphere
 2.2 Process for TOE search- search for Integrated description of Knowledge and
Existence
Investigating the range of possible approaches

The paper refers to an example that can be a way to look for solutions in the search of a TOE type of answers from the perspective
of natural sciences. The “toolbox” to solve the problem may be considered as consisting of a set of possible approaches, of which there
are two “extreme” possible. The two type of approaches presented in the paper are given by David Hilbert in his notes on the challenge
called the 24th (but never published by him) and Emil du Bois – Reymond.
In short, the two approaches can be defined by the statements made by their authors:

Ignoramus et Ignorabimus ―We do not know and will not know― Limits of scientific knowledge, as stated by Emil du Bois-
Reymond in his Über die Grenzen des Naturerkennens ("On the limits of our understanding of nature") in 1872 [13]
 Wir müssen wissen — wir werden wissen." "Our motive must be to learn. We shall this way greatly achieve.― said David
Hilbert in his notes on the challenge 24[14 ]
Some more details on the two approaches are presented below:
i. Bois-Reymond formulated a list of "riddles" in his speach in 1880 at the Academy of Sciences Berlin. He declared, neither
science nor philosophy could ever explain all those riddles:
1. the ultimate nature of matter and force,
2. the origin of motion,
3. the origin of life,
4. the "apparently teleological arrangements of nature," not an "absolutely transcendent riddle“
5. the origin of simple sensations, "a quite transcendent" question
6. the origin of intelligent thought and language, which might be known if the origin of sensations could be known
7. the question of freewill.
Concerning the “riddles” 1, 2 and 5 Bois - Reymond proclaimed "ignoramus et ignorabimus" "we do not know and will not know. “ [
15]

ii. David Hilbert and his 24th challenge, formulated in draft notes by him. It was never presented in his speech on the challenges
faced ibn mathematics at the International Congress of Mathematicians in Paris on 8 August 1900. The issue from this
challenge is related to criteria of simplicity, or proof of the greatest simplicity of certain proofs. Hilbert indicated in this
unpublished notes some features of a successful route to make a proof and suggested some approaches to reach this goal, as follows:
• Under a given set of conditions there can be but one simplest proof.
• In general, if there are two proofs for a theorem, one must use both of them, until one can be derived from another or
until it becomes evident, what conditions and aids have been used in the two proofs.
• Consequently, it seems that Hilbert noted that if there are two routes for a proof then it is not right to take either of these
two or to look for a third, but it is necessary to investigate the area lying between the two routes.
• He also proposed to reach the simplicity of a proof by using syzygies (for which he gave a different interpretation then the one
now used in mathematics and presented in the next paragraphs). He considered that the use or the knowledge of a syzygy
simplifies in an essential way a proof that a certain identity is true, due the fact that:
o any process of addition an application of the commutative law of addition,
o the use of syzygies always corresponds to geometric theorems or logical conclusions.
The last reason mentioned by Hilbert for using syzygies is, on our view, one early indication of the suggested use of
topological approaches in demonstration of various theorems, and hence a topological support for mathematical background of various
Physics equations. Hilbert underlined the idea of the usefulness to use syzygies by connecting his challenge (the so called ―24th
challenge‖) with the manner in which in certain theorems of elementary geometry (the Pythagoras theorem for instance) it can be
easily established which of the proofs is the simplest [16].

13
William E. Leverette Jr., E. L. Youmans' Crusade for Scientific Autonomy and Respectability, American Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 1. (Spring, 1965), pg.
21
14
Rüdiger Thiele, Hilbert’s twenty-fourth problem,American Mathematical Monthly, January 2003

15
Finkelstein, Gabriel Ward (2013). Emil du Bois-Reymond: Neuroscience, Self, and Society in Nineteenth-Century Germany. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The MIT Press. p. 272. ISBN 9780262019507
16
David Hilbert, "Mathematical Problems". , Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 8, no. 10 (1902), pp. 437–479. Earlier publications (in
the original German) appeared in Göttinger Nachrichten, 1900, pp. 253-297, and Archiv der Mathematik und Physik, 3dser., vol. 1 (1901), pp. 44-63,
213-237.
 As shown in the next paragraphs the paper presents a David Hilbert type of approach and elaborates on the syzygy type of
solutions, as drafted by him. Previous results of the proposed approach [17] are reiterated and extended.

Investigating some approaches available in Physics

Before proceeding to the presentation of the topological approaches, it is also important to mention that this approach is also in line
from many perspectives with a “traditional” method available in Physics: dimension analysis. This alternative, that is considered by some
Physicists a possible solution apparently theory independent (in the sense that they do not involve recognition or rejection of any of the
present theories in present Physics) to the search for unified approaches on the elements of Existence studied in Physics. The approach is
based on the dimension analysis for the equations and the dimension issue for the constants (as partially illustrated in Figure 7). The
evaluation of how the constants appear (if they are real at all) and how they are related to each other is a central point of this approach.
The answer to such questions is actually connected to the possibility to derive a minimal basic set of constants to describe all the
phenomena and reality in Physics‟, as well as to describe the manner they are connected between them is a central challenge in modern
day for this science. It might be considered therefore that these are equivalent formulations with the search for syzygies in any theoretical
system in Physics. A more detailed presentation on the use of syzygies in the Knowledge Process is included in previous papers [18]. The
KP using syzygies has inputs from dimensional analysis in Physics with the concept of syzygies in algebra and the concept of category
(in mathematical understanding).
However, the examples developed so far and presented by the author previously [19] were related only to Knowledge and did
not consider an integrated approach for Knowledge and Existence, as it will be presented in the next paragraph of the paper.
For a given equation of the type F = const * X * Y, the dimensions of each side have to be identical and able to derivate the
dimension of the constants, if any (Figure 7).

2.3Integrated approach for description of Knowledge and Existence

Knowledge Topology (K T) and Knowledge Process (KP)

The use of topological approaches to describe the KP was presented before [20] including an example of its application. The approach
assumed that Knowledge topological space (K T) is built considering the following assumptions:
 KP is developed as a triadic process, having facets for: science, art and cultural-mythological-social.

17
Serbanescu D., Considerations on some lessons learnt from the physics models - O privire asupra unor lectii de cunoastere date de cavalcada
modelelor in fízica, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1249.8409, International year of Light 2015, Oct 2015, Bucharest, Romania

18
Serbanescu, D., O perspectivă din interiorul fizicii și energeticii nucleare asupra istoriei acestora, dar mai ales asupra dilemelor lor actuale -Cu
accent asupra specificului din Romania , DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15099.52005, Symposium: Romanian Academy - 150 years, CRIFST-DLMFS,
Bucharest, Romania, Sept 2016

19
Serbanescu, D., Selected topics in Risk Analyses for some Energy Systems, LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, May 2015, https://www.lap-
publishing.com/catalog/details//store/gb/book/978-3-659-71468-9/selected-topics-in-risk-analyses-for-some-energy-systems, ISBN-13: 978-3-659-
71468-9, ISBN-10: 3659714682, EAN: 9783659714689

20
Serbanescu D., Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25114.44483, CRIFST-DLMFS Simposium Modele fundamentale ale
materiei şi Universului, Bucharest, Romania, Feb 2017
 Figure 7 Dimension analyses and constants in Physics approach[21 ]

 The resultant knowledge is based on the level of degree of reaching adequate levels based on various criteria, as for instance the level
of truth, level of conformity and integration in the cultural environment and the value for society. The degree may be graded and
therefore the areas where the possible type of (K T) are situated may be divided (as represented in Figure 8) in undesired zones by all
criteria, uncertain zones by most of criteria and ideal zones.
 The KP is iterative and the transformation is taking place step by step, in the spirit of a common sense non-mathematical
understanding of topology, as represented in Figure 9.
 In a previous paper [22] the author was concluded that the triadic approach in studying the KP and its results has an implication that
the type of acquired knowledge may be characteristic for the type of society (from the knowledge acquisition point of view) where it
was developed.
 In Figure 10 there is a representation of the three types of civilization classified by the manner the KP is developed:
o KP_Type I when a dominant facet of the above mentioned triad is dominant (art, science of mythology-cultural)
o KP_Type II when two of the facets are dominant and governing the KP
o KP_Type III when the interdisciplinarity is the dominant approach of acquiring knowledge and managing the KP.

Figure 8 Triad of Knowledge criteria

21
*** http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Tables/funcon.html
22
Serbanescu D., On Some Knowledge Issues in Sciences and Society, ECKM13,
Kaunas, 2013
 2.2 Process for TOE search- search for Integrated description of Knowledge and
Existence
Investigating the range of possible approaches

The paper refers to an example that can be a way to look for solutions in the search of a TOE type of answers from the perspective
of natural sciences. The “toolbox” to solve the problem may be considered as consisting of a set of possible approaches, of which there
are two “extreme” possible. The two type of approaches presented in the paper are given by David Hilbert in his notes on the challenge
called the 24th (but never published by him) and Emil du Bois – Reymond.
In short, the two approaches can be defined by the statements made by their authors:

Ignoramus et Ignorabimus ―We do not know and will not know― Limits of scientific knowledge, as stated by Emil du Bois-
Reymond in his Über die Grenzen des Naturerkennens ("On the limits of our understanding of nature") in 1872 [13]
 Wir müssen wissen — wir werden wissen." "Our motive must be to learn. We shall this way greatly achieve.― said David
Hilbert in his notes on the challenge 24[14 ]
Some more details on the two approaches are presented below:
i. Bois-Reymond formulated a list of "riddles" in his speach in 1880 at the Academy of Sciences Berlin. He declared, neither
science nor philosophy could ever explain all those riddles:
1. the ultimate nature of matter and force,
2. the origin of motion,
3. the origin of life,
4. the "apparently teleological arrangements of nature," not an "absolutely transcendent riddle“
5. the origin of simple sensations, "a quite transcendent" question
6. the origin of intelligent thought and language, which might be known if the origin of sensations could be known
7. the question of freewill.
Concerning the “riddles” 1, 2 and 5 Bois - Reymond proclaimed "ignoramus et ignorabimus" "we do not know and will not know. “ [
15]

ii. David Hilbert and his 24th challenge, formulated in draft notes by him. It was never presented in his speech on the challenges
faced ibn mathematics at the International Congress of Mathematicians in Paris on 8 August 1900. The issue from this
challenge is related to criteria of simplicity, or proof of the greatest simplicity of certain proofs. Hilbert indicated in this
unpublished notes some features of a successful route to make a proof and suggested some approaches to reach this goal, as follows:
• Under a given set of conditions there can be but one simplest proof.
• In general, if there are two proofs for a theorem, one must use both of them, until one can be derived from another or
until it becomes evident, what conditions and aids have been used in the two proofs.
• Consequently, it seems that Hilbert noted that if there are two routes for a proof then it is not right to take either of these
two or to look for a third, but it is necessary to investigate the area lying between the two routes.
• He also proposed to reach the simplicity of a proof by using syzygies (for which he gave a different interpretation then the one
now used in mathematics and presented in the next paragraphs). He considered that the use or the knowledge of a syzygy
simplifies in an essential way a proof that a certain identity is true, due the fact that:
o any process of addition an application of the commutative law of addition,
o the use of syzygies always corresponds to geometric theorems or logical conclusions.
The last reason mentioned by Hilbert for using syzygies is, on our view, one early indication of the suggested use of
topological approaches in demonstration of various theorems, and hence a topological support for mathematical background of various
Physics equations. Hilbert underlined the idea of the usefulness to use syzygies by connecting his challenge (the so called ―24th
challenge‖) with the manner in which in certain theorems of elementary geometry (the Pythagoras theorem for instance) it can be
easily established which of the proofs is the simplest [16].

13
William E. Leverette Jr., E. L. Youmans' Crusade for Scientific Autonomy and Respectability, American Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 1. (Spring, 1965), pg.
21
14
Rüdiger Thiele, Hilbert’s twenty-fourth problem,American Mathematical Monthly, January 2003

15
Finkelstein, Gabriel Ward (2013). Emil du Bois-Reymond: Neuroscience, Self, and Society in Nineteenth-Century Germany. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The MIT Press. p. 272. ISBN 9780262019507
16
David Hilbert, "Mathematical Problems". , Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 8, no. 10 (1902), pp. 437–479. Earlier publications (in
the original German) appeared in Göttinger Nachrichten, 1900, pp. 253-297, and Archiv der Mathematik und Physik, 3dser., vol. 1 (1901), pp. 44-63,
213-237.
 Figure 7 Dimension analyses and constants in Physics approach[21 ]

 The resultant knowledge is based on the level of degree of reaching adequate levels based on various criteria, as for instance the level
of truth, level of conformity and integration in the cultural environment and the value for society. The degree may be graded and
therefore the areas where the possible type of (K T) are situated may be divided (as represented in Figure 8) in undesired zones by all
criteria, uncertain zones by most of criteria and ideal zones.
 The KP is iterative and the transformation is taking place step by step, in the spirit of a common sense non-mathematical
understanding of topology, as represented in Figure 9.
 In a previous paper [22] the author was concluded that the triadic approach in studying the KP and its results has an implication that
the type of acquired knowledge may be characteristic for the type of society (from the knowledge acquisition point of view) where it
was developed.
 In Figure 10 there is a representation of the three types of civilization classified by the manner the KP is developed:
o KP_Type I when a dominant facet of the above mentioned triad is dominant (art, science of mythology-cultural)
o KP_Type II when two of the facets are dominant and governing the KP
o KP_Type III when the interdisciplinarity is the dominant approach of acquiring knowledge and managing the KP.

Figure 8 Triad of Knowledge criteria

21
*** http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Tables/funcon.html
22
Serbanescu D., On Some Knowledge Issues in Sciences and Society, ECKM13,
Kaunas, 2013
First Principle of I_TAKE – The topological structure ITR (i) is described by the notion of cathegory. The notion of cathegory is
considered to reflect a hierarchical structure of ―matrioshka‖ type (various levels noted as ―l‖. This structure may be described as a
more generalized type of cybernetic system, in which its elements are “black boxes” for every level of emergence and described by a
more general notion of “cathegory” from mathematics. The following are specific features of the approach using the notion of cathegory:
 For a given layer ―l‖ the elements of ITR (i) are the objects R(k)(i). Those elements (k) of reality of type (i) are each of them
defined as a triad, which is composed of:
o The element of study by Physics methods (for instance ―mass‖ and ―energy‖) Obj(1) (i) , Obj(2) (i)……
o A connecTOE between the elements are defined by rules of any type called funcTOEs, which are morphisms at the
element definition level f(j1),f(j2)…and f(j1) * f(fj2)….. called funcTOE.The funcTOEs are morphisms / maps.
o A given paradigm based on which the funcTOEs are defined (for instance “mass and energy may be transformed into
each other”). This paradigm is assumed to be defined by a set of minimal descripTOEs, called syzygy of level (i)
For example the syzygy for the layer ―Galilean Mechanics‖ (GAM) can be described as in (1):

Syzygy G = [FG1, FG2,FG3 ] (1)

Where
Syzygy G = Syzygy for Galilean approach in mechanics (GAM)
FG1 = Syzygy component of GAM defined as “mass” (inertial)
FG2 = Syzygy component of GAM defined as “acceleration”
FG3= Syzygy component of GAM defined as a principle of a
mechanical movement

 R(k) (i) define a certain layer „l” of the matrioshka type of description of topological structure. The emergence from one layer to
another is performed by emergence funcTOEs, which are syzygies of level (l+1), which are composed of paradigms of the
syzygy of the lower layers.
For instance one example of possible syzygies used for transfer / emergence from layer ―Aristotelian Mechanics‖ (AM) to
layer ―Galilean Mechanics‖ (GAM) can be described as in (2)

Syzygy A-G E=[ F A-G1 E , F A-G2 E ] (2)

Where
Syzygy A-G E = Syzygy defining the emergence from AM to GAM
F A-G1 E = syzuygy component of emergence from AM to GAM
“force independent of speed”,
F A-G2 E =syzygy component of emergence from AM to GAM
“fall independent of mass”
Second Principle of I_TAKE – The Reality building process takes place, i.e.the I_TAKE, takes place, in iterations made for the
categories, defined in accordance with the first principle. The following aspects of this process described previously in [28 ] are considered
important:
 An iteration process at a certain level, which is governed by a syzygy, takes place as described by the first principle. However, the
iteration has limitations and is governed by the need to solve created paradoxes at each phase of the process
 Specific paradigms are characteristics of each phase and their change leads to the elimination of the paradox at that phase and
possibility for emergence to a new phase
 Emergence from one set of Reality Structures (ITR(i)) to another is governed by a specific set of rules described in Figure 12.

In Figure 12 there are three groups of states described for a given ITR(i) :

Group I – Definition of the states and their principles of emergence

1. Define the object as a unitary unique entity. However this limits its better understanding and creates a driving force of transition
to another state, in order to refine the description. This trend leads to the need to consider duality as possible refinment approach.
2. Clarrify differences between options / emergence directions of a given state, apparently being driven by the fact that its
contradicTOEy duality leads to the need for change of the state

Bucharest, Romania

28
Serbanescu D., Despre o perspectivă integrată a cunoașterii și existenței-On an integrated perspective on knowledge and existence, Simpozionul
aniversar-In honorem Mircea Malița – 90: Provocările științei și civilizația actuală, Bucharest, Romania, Feb 2017
 3. Generate mechanisms to find and / or reach options able to assure emergence to other states, governed by the search for the third
way and/or a way between the two existing ones, as a solution for emergence from a state described as a fundamantal duality
LEVEL DESSCRIPTION LIMITS / INTERNAL DRIVING FORCE OF STATE
GRAPH DESCRIPTION STATE DESCRIPTION
CODE LEVEL TRANSITION TO ANOTHER STATE CODE

DEFINE THE STATE AND THE NEED TO

A UNIQUE SOURCE FOR A GIVEN STATE 1
GENERATE IT

CLARRIFY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

DEFINE STATES OPTIONS / EMERGENCE DIRECTIONS OF
AND DUALITY AS A BASIS FOR A GIVEN STATE 2
I A GIVEN STATE - APPARENTLY BEING
PRINCIPLES OF CONTRADICTORY
EMERGENCE
GENERATE MECHANISMS TO FIND AND / THE THIRD WAY AS A SOLUTION FOR
OR REACH OPTIONS ABLE TO ASSURE EMERGENCE FROM A STATE DESCRIBED 3
EMERGENCE TO OTHER STATES AS A FUNDAMANTAL DUALITY

STABILITY OF A STATE AS A DIRECT

ASSURE STATE STABILITY CONSEQUENCE OF THE PARADOX 4
RESISTANCE CAPABILITY OF THE STATE
EVERY STATE IS DEFINED AND
DEVELOP COAGULATION OF BELIEFS/PRINCIPLES MAINTAINED STABLE AS LONG AS SOME
RULES OF IMPEADING THE EMERGENCE FROM BELIEFS / PRINCIPLES DEFINING THE 5
II
EMERGENCE ONE STATE TO ANOTHER STATE ARE DOMINANT/GOVERNING ANY
FOR A STATE CHANGE

A GIVEN STATE TENDS TO OPTIMIZE

ATETS GET OPTIMAL AND WORK TO
ITSELF AS A STRUCTURE WORKING TO 6
REACH A PREDEFINED GOAL
REACH A CERTAIN DEFINED GOAL

COMBINATION OF STATES IS GOVERNED

BY THEIR INTRINSIC TREND TO
THERE IS A TREND OF THE STATES TO OPTIMIZE THE RATIO BETWEEN THE
COMBINE BETWEEN THEM IN ORDER USEFULNESS OF THE COMBINATIONS 7
TO REACH THEIR PREDEFINED GOALS AND OF THE INDIVIUAL STATES, I.E.
ASSURE TELEOLOGIC SYNERGY OF THE
STATES.
CONSOLIDATE
III THE DEFINED STATES NEED TO BE (SELF)MANAGED /
STATE SELFREGULATED SO THAT TO BE ABLE STATE OPTIMIZATION BY THEIR
8
TO REAACH THEIR GOAL IN AN HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMIC ORGANZATION
OPTIMAL MANNER

EXPLORATION OF THE STATES

STATES TEND TO EXPLORE FULFILLING
STRUCTURE AND OPERATION LEADS TO
ALSO OTHER GOALS THAN THE ONES 9
THE NEED FOR A TOTAL (SELF)CHANGE /
PREDEFINED FOR THEM
(SELF)RESTART.

THERE IS A GOVERNING STATE FEEDBACK REACTION AS INFORMATION 10 -0 -

IV FEEDBACK DEFINING THE NEED FOR RESTART THE ENTROPY INJECTION IN THE LEVEL
EMERGENCE PROCESS EMERGENCE PROCESS OF STATES I

Figure 12 ITR(i) states description and their change / emergence driving mechanism

Group II – Development of the detailed rules of emergence for a state

4. Assure state stability, driven by the fact that stability of a state is a direct consequence of the paradox resistance capability of the
state
5. Coagulation of beliefs/principles impeading the emergence from one state to another, governed by the fact that every state is
defined and maintained stable as long as some beliefs / principles defining the state are dominant/governing any change
6. A given state tends to optimize itself as a structure working to reach a certain defined goal, which is governed by the fact that
states get optimal and work to reach a predefined goal

Group III – Consolidation of the defined state

7. There is a trend of the states to combine between them in order to reach their predefined goals, which is driven by the fact that
combination of states is governed by their intrinsic trend to optimize the ratio between the usefulness of the combinations and of
the indiviual states, i.e. assure teleologic synergy of the states.
8. States need to be (self)managed / (self)regulated so that to be able to reach their goal in an optimal manner. This is governed by
the fact that the state optimization is assured by their hierarchical systemic organization
9. States tend to explore fulfilling also other goals than the ones predefined for them. This is governed by the fact that exploration
of the states structure and operation leads to the need for a total (self)change / (self)restart.
Figure 12 illustrates also a fourth group related to the feedback process, coded as „10-0-level 1‖. This is a generic governing
mechanism to define the need for restart the Emergence Process. Feedback reaction is understood in this process as an information
entropy injection in the emergence process of states.
An I_TAKE process defined for a structure ITR (i) will follow the Emergence Rules described by the Transition Matrix in
Figure 13. The results of various emergence processes will be a structure represented as in the lower part of Figure 13 and described by
an algebraic structure called octonions.
In this paper, it is considered (in the context of I_TAKE) that the notions of “progress” or “evolution” are actually not easy to
define and proving their existence is not so obvious at all. Therefore, the timeline for I_TAKE may consider only a process of
emergence leading to changes in the states of the Topological Structure that defines the Reality, which might be a “progress” or not.
The Application of the previous mentioned rules describing the first and second principles of the I_TAKE, leads to topological
structures, which are dependent on some important facTOEs, as mentioned in the previous paragraphs:

 the type of civilization KP,

  the specifics of the ITR structure (as for instance what type of triadic object-reality element is considered, the type of paradigms
governing each phase and the solutions to change the syzygies based on „import” from other complementary triadic sources of
reality, except science: art and cultural-mythological areas.

Figure 13 Transition Matrix (TM) for the state change process and the resultant algebric structure of many iterations for ITR

An example of the resultant ITR i with its representative TM is illustrated in Figure 14. Figure 14 illustrates an ITR structure for a
type II KP (from Figure 10), i.e. the case of Emergence from AM to GAM (described in formula (2), too).
Summarizing on the ITAKE process from the perspective of its first two stated principles, we can conclude that this is an
iterative dynamic process performed in a multitude of times. The process involves individual researchers and whole communities, is
being performed in a given period of our civilization and in a step-by-step manner and it is considering that there is a “continuum space”
created by resultant realities. This continuum is a homorphism of the studied objects, as defined for Physics approaches.

Figure 14 Representation of a TM for an ITR in a type I culture (the example of emergence from AM to GAM described in formula
(2))

A syzygy set is continuously optimized from diverse approaches – Mathematics, Physics, Philosophy.
Based on those optimized sets it is possible to reach (as per theorem of Hilbert for syzygies in Mathematics - a final
minimal set of syzygies for a given model.
However, reaching this state does not prevent the existence of even more paradoxes requiring new sets of syzygies, from
another perspective (art of cultural-mythologoical if the Physics oness are not able any more to solve paradoxes).
 Then the process is repeated with the new syzygies in the new paradigms and so on (as illustrated in Figire 15).

Figure 15 Solving paradoxes in resultant ITR structures by using diverse sets of syzygies

Further short comments are presented on other results from an example of a I_TAKE process applied to obtain a reality ITR
structure developed in[29]. The example is related to a structure that includes the elements of a Chain of Cosmic Energy levels /
components, i.e.:

 Subquantic SQ
 Quantic Q
 Electromagnetic EM
 Molecular MO
 Molecular and life MOL
 Conscious planetary life CPL
 Stellar and universe not alive SUNA
 Stellar and universe life SUA
 Conscious stellar and universe CSU
For each of those elements an ITR structure is built. In this example, the emergence process is by higher degree indicating from the
very beginning from the existing results in Quantum Mechanics, Cosmology and Biology that there is a high need and usefiulness in
using topological approaches.
As illustrated in Figure 16, the considered elements for each energy level the reality structure has the following features:

 It is described in a given syzygy, i.e. in our example

o Standard model Quantum Mechanics (SM)
o Aristotelian (A)
o Galilean Newtonian (GN)
o Electroweak (E)

 Each element of the structure considered during the emergence process includes a triadic combination of the following:
o Object-“material” element of existence studied by Physics (I)
o Physics‟ model of the “material” object (II)
o Reality produced in the triad Object-Model-Interaction to study Object (III)
 The syzygies of the ITR structure are describe by a generaTOE (GEN), for which specific optimization actions are performed,
so that to reach the optimum for the syzygies. As per Hilbert theorem on syzygies, such optimum exists. An example of
GeneraTOE for the case of Cosmic Energy Chain (CEC) is illustrated in (3) and (4):

GEN [ITR ] = [ENTH, EnI, Sy, Em, NlnCx, Fr] (3)

29
Serbanescu D., Omenirea la răscruce privindu-se în oglinda (re)(ne)cunoasterii de sine Oare va evolua sau se va autodistruge ? O perspectiva a aplicațiilor
energetice ale fizicii moderne, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22311.75681 Sesiune anuala a CRIFST - 13 octombrie 2016
Syzygy [ITR(i)] = funcTOE (GEN[ITR]) (4)

Where
 The funcTOE is calculated as a TM in accordance with the process represented in Figure 13
 Syzygies are:

Exergy (Ex) for a CEC (defined as the maximum work possible for a process that brings the system to equilibrium with a heat
reservoir) as a measure of the process of energy conversion. This generaTOE has the following characteristics:
o It conserves only when all the processes of the system/environment are reversible
o It is destroyed when the process is irreversible.
Entropy (Thermodynamic) (EnTh) as a measure of disorder.
Information Entropy (EnI) as a measure of the limits of knowledge itself
Synergy (Sy) as a measure of a set of CEC that appear from the existence and interaction all its systems and components,
leading to a new set of more characteristics for CEC as a whole than for CEC components altogether.
Emergence (Em) from one level to another (ex from SQ to CSU) as a process in which the entities, patterns and
regularities/irregularities are generated by interactions between smaller (or from lower level) entities, which do not have
themselves those properties.
Nonlinearity (even for simple systems) and/or complexity (NlnCx) for a CEC as a source of chaotic behavior of structures of
complex systems.
The features of a SAC considering fractals (Fr) are defined starting from the characteristics of such systems. In the CEC
example and its KP structures of ITR type, as topological structures of the knowledge gained for a given system at a given
level the fractal behaviors is characteristic for describing all levels and each component in a given level.

The I_TAKE process will follow the same steps as illustrated for the example defined by formulas (1) and (2) and by the
framework of first two principles presented before. Therefore there will be the same situation that passing from Physics, to mathematics
and then to Philosophy. It might be noticed that the TOE attempts that took place so far passed apparently through the syzygy phases for
Physics and Mathematics, now being quite focused on solutions from Philosophy approach. This interesting situation leads us to the
situation of defining Physics as a science in antiquity and the Aristotelian schools.
However, in order to make some final at this stage of research evaluations we will consider the third principle of I_TAKE

Figure 16 Syzygies for a cosmic energy chain (details and results in [ 30] )

Third Principle of I_TAKE – This principle states that the I_TAKE process leads to final state that exists and it is
asymptotically stable and complete. However, the final structure that results for the given object cannot be known in its
phenomenological detailed characteristics or predicted.

30
Serbanescu D., Omenirea la răscruce privindu-se în oglinda (re)(ne)cunoasterii de sine Oare va evolua sau se va autodistruge ? O perspectiva a
aplicațiilor energetice ale fizicii moderne DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22311.75681 · Academia Romana, sesiunea anuala CRIFST, Oct 2016
 APPENDIX 2 – TOE search for P1-P3 applied to CATS

1. CATS & Example of TOE search

The example of TOE search considers that the process is performed for complex systems, considered as Complex
Apoietic Topological Systems (CATS). The systems and their models reaction to both the challenges to them and
their changes and their models evolve are presented.
The assumptions presented in 2.1 are complemented by:

GCO1: Energy is defined for all the levels from subquantic to cosmic (Table 1) and it defines
interconnected system in system set (“matrioshka type”), as in Figure 1.

Table 1. Complex Apoietic Topological Systems

 Figure 1. CATS from Table 1 representation in a “matrioshka” style

GCO2: CATS are Complex Apoietic Systems. An Apoietic System is a complex system (more details in Annex 1
and previous works referenced by it) having the features of Autopoiesis. Autopoiesis means "self-production" (self-
creation or production) and expresses a fundamental complementarity between structure and function.
An autopoietic machine is a machine organized (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of
production (transformation and destruction) of components which:

 through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realize the
network of processes (relations) that produced them; and
 constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by
specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network.

Important properties of the space defined by an autopoietic system:

 it is self-contained and cannot be described by using dimensions that define another space.
 when we refer to our interactions with a concrete autopoietic system, however, we project this
system on the space of our manipulations and make a description of this projection.

One can recognize in this problem similarity with the definitions and methods in
integrated risk models and their connection to the Goedell’s theorem and hence
with the issue of control from inside (by a given component of the system) of that
system.

Some important features of CATS are:

1. The system is characterized by the fact that the interrelations between its elements/components create a
synergetic effect, which actually makes the system unique. The interactions are of short distance between
elements or of long distance (in space and time).
2. The existing relationships in a CATS are defined by the existence of feedback loops, which results in a
dynamic system structure, with constant nonlinear interfaces.
3. CATS are interacting with the environment, being open to the exchange of energy and information.
 4. No part of CATS can contain the whole and therefore no part can assure the control of the whole CATS.
This could lead to specific tools for controlling it, like for instance distributed control, hierarchical
control and/or external to the CATS unitary control.
5. CATS elements are CATS themselves and are highly adaptive, which introduces another difficulty in
the choice of the modeling tools.
6. CATS have a hisTOEical hysteresis characteristic, in the sense that they have a hisTOEy and that leads to
an effect known as “the butterfly effect”, i.e. a small change in time and space will impact on the future
hisTOEy of the whole CATS or to a completely different component that the one that had the initial change.
This creates the conditions for the generation of high level challenges, called Cliff Edge Effects (CEE).
However, even if the interrelations of the components are nonlinear, it is considered that they comply with
the cause and effects law in this specific manner. The concept of linearity and nonlinearity apply to the
models defined for CATS and it is one of the important modeling issues.
7. CATS has boundaries difficult to define, which have a high impact on the content of their models and
their own changing dynamics and flexibility.Complex Autopoietic Systems (CAS) were introduced by
(Maturana et al., 1974) and have the specific features additionally to the generic CES ones, sometimes
refining the generic CES features. CAS are systems, for which an autopoietic mechanism can be defined,
leading to the system possibility not only to self-regulate, but also to recreate itself, as follows:

1. The system boundaries have to be clearly defined at any moment in time

2. The system has to have components, being themselves CS
3. The cause – effect law interactions have to be operable.
4. The system boundaries have to be self-produced by the system, as well as the system components
5. The rest of the components should be also be able for most of them to be self-produced by the
system

GCO3: For the CATS systems in table 1 and Figure 1 the category concepts are introduced in order to model
the components of each systems (energy sources of SYS x type) and the connections between them (the laws
of transformation and conservation of energy) including the applicable laws related to the entropy at each
level.
The features described before for CATS and their elements are applicable to the adopted
categories to describe them.
The following definitions are introduced (in accordance with the theory of categories in
mathematics) (Figure 2):

 Objects Obj1, Obj2, Obj3

 Morphisms f1, f2, f1* f2, si
 Three identity morphisms (not illustrated in the figure) 1X, 1Y, and 1Z

where:
 Obj I – energy sources of a certain level (SYS x)
 FuncTOE1- energy conservation law;
 FuncTOE 2 -energy transformation laws
 FuncTOE 1 combined with funcTOE 2 consider also the entropy aspects
 APPENDIX 2 – TOE search for P1-P3 applied to CATS

1. CATS & Example of TOE search

The example of TOE search considers that the process is performed for complex systems, considered as Complex
Apoietic Topological Systems (CATS). The systems and their models reaction to both the challenges to them and
their changes and their models evolve are presented.
The assumptions presented in 2.1 are complemented by:

GCO1: Energy is defined for all the levels from subquantic to cosmic (Table 1) and it defines
interconnected system in system set (“matrioshka type”), as in Figure 1.

Table 1. Complex Apoietic Topological Systems

 Figure 1. CATS from Table 1 representation in a “matrioshka” style

GCO2: CATS are Complex Apoietic Systems. An Apoietic System is a complex system (more details in Annex 1
and previous works referenced by it) having the features of Autopoiesis. Autopoiesis means "self-production" (self-
creation or production) and expresses a fundamental complementarity between structure and function.
An autopoietic machine is a machine organized (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of
production (transformation and destruction) of components which:

 through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realize the
network of processes (relations) that produced them; and
 constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by
specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network.

Important properties of the space defined by an autopoietic system:

 it is self-contained and cannot be described by using dimensions that define another space.
 when we refer to our interactions with a concrete autopoietic system, however, we project this
system on the space of our manipulations and make a description of this projection.

One can recognize in this problem similarity with the definitions and methods in
integrated risk models and their connection to the Goedell’s theorem and hence
with the issue of control from inside (by a given component of the system) of that
system.

Some important features of CATS are:

1. The system is characterized by the fact that the interrelations between its elements/components create a
synergetic effect, which actually makes the system unique. The interactions are of short distance between
elements or of long distance (in space and time).
2. The existing relationships in a CATS are defined by the existence of feedback loops, which results in a
dynamic system structure, with constant nonlinear interfaces.
3. CATS are interacting with the environment, being open to the exchange of energy and information.
 Figure 5. Transition matrix iand geometrical polyhedral representation os the transition phases process

GCO6: Various states of the SYSx space state are reached during this process; a stable situation of the
transformation is defined by a parameter, called Enantiotropy.

o Enantiotropy is the entropy of the states reached in a SYSx. The Enantiotropy of the optimal
situation in a SYSx is that, where the system might move to any of several surrounding cases.
( )
o The Enantiotropy ( ) is given by (1). This formula is applied for the Enantiotropy evaluated for a
given system (k) without considering the interface from other systems (“up and down” x),. Ie a so called
―Lateral Enantiotropy‖.

( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ∑ ( ) ( ) (1)

( )
where ( ) is the probability of the state xl in a system (k)

In case of the using the category approach we introduce a special type of entriopy, describing the
degree of order in a system having various possible states, called Enantiotropy (ETS), defined as
follows:

( )
( )≝ (2)
Enantiotropy describes the syzygy Energy of SYSx and is defined in the context of the category
theory as
 Figure 3 SYSx space states representation in geometric polyhedral form

The transitions between phases for CATS are described as in [12]. This process is represented in the Figures 4 and
5.The transition matrix represented in 3D format illustrates the three levels of transition dependent on the
degree of variation of the Enantiotropy.

Figure 4 Transition matrix between states as a 3D Hierarchical Phase

 Figure 7. Transition matrix and geometrical polyhedral representation of the transition phases process

Figure 8. Transition matrix and geometrical polyhedral representation of the transition phases process

As shown in Figure 8, the resultant structures have some important features, as follows:
 Number of facets NF and vertexes,
 Volume (V),
 Surface(S),
 Enantiotropy (ETS), defined as per formulas (1) to (7).

(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
These features from the formulas (8) to (11) and Figure 8 define the states of the system structures and have a
physical meaning:
  Number of faces illustrate the number of states of a system during its changes, in its topological space
states.
 The volume shows the fact that the states are reached after a lot of transits and changes as defined in the
GCO5
 The surfaces are in correspondence with the number of facets and indicate on the combinations and
changes taking place in the SYSx during its transformations
 The enantiotropy indicates the probability of reaching optimal points (represented by vertexes) during the
transformations of SYSx

GCO7: In SYSx defined as topological structures the changes and challenges at the same level are defined
by transfer matrices (Annex 2 and 3), which are applied to their syzygies (of Energy type in the acceptance of
this approach).
The changes involving movement to other types of systems ((k+/-m) are governed by the
Enantiotropy of the system, as defined above.
The system SYSx in topological representation and with the CATS features mentioned before
behaves as a classical cybernetic system (Figure 9).

Figure 9 SYS x in a cybernetic description

The principles of cybernetics were defined in classic works. SYSx are in light of cybernetics “black
boxes” for every change at the same level – changes and for the evaluation of the up/down systems impact on
them. In Figure 6 there are the following notations, reflecting the application of cybernetic approach to a
SYSx:
 Function of structure of SYS as defined by Syzygy Energy (as per (12) and (13))

( ) ( ) ( ) (12)

( ) ( ) ( ) (13)

Where s is defined as
(14)
 Feedback as per (6)

( ) ( ) ( ( )) (15)

 For the INPUT -Function of SYZYGY for SYS “x” and OUTPUT - Function of SYZYGY for SYS “x”
and f1 impact the Transfer Function of SYSx is:
 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ( )) (16)

More detailed presentations on cybernetic features for a system are in Table 2 ( [12])
Further researches on cybernetics introduced notions of second and third order of cybernetics,
considering the observer itself for the second order for example, were developed. SYSx is a
cybernetic machine, as described in formulas (12)-(16) and represented in Figure 10.
Table 2 Main principles of cybernetics [12]

Degree of acceptance/use in
a topologic approach on
Features included in the

Features included in the

ITAKE approach

hypercybernetics
CAS approach
No Principle s Short pre s e ntation of principle

One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities
P1 Occam's Razor
required to explain anything
The Identity of the Two entities that do not have any properties allowing to distinguish them should
P2
Indistinguishables be seen as a single entity
The Principle of
P3 Equal causes have equal effects
Causality
All processes at the lower level of a hierarchy are restrained by and act in
P4 Downward Causation
conformity to the laws of the higher level
Blind Variation and "Blind Variation and Selective Retention" (BVSR) -Donald T. Campbell, as a
P5
Selective Retention way of describing the most fundamental principle underlying Darwinian evolution.

The Principle of Stable configurations that facilitate the appearance of configurations similar to
P6
Autocatalytic Growth themselves will become more numerous
The Principle of The larger the variety of configurations a system undergoes, the larger the
P7
Selective Variety probability that at least one of these configurations will be selectively retained
The Principle of
BVSR processes recursively construct stable systems by the recombination of
P8 Recursive Systems
stable building blocks
Construction
The Law of Requisite The larger the variety of actions available to a control system, the larger the
P9
Variety variety of perturbations it is able to compensate.

In order to be a proper coordination of actions to perception, the system must be

able to select the correct choice. The ability of the system to avoid incorrect or
Law of Requisite unviable choices is a constraint on the behavior of the control system. If no such
P10
Constraint - constraint existed, the system would have to try out actions blindly, and the larger
the variety of perturbations, the smaller the probability that those actions would
turn out to be adequate.

The Law of Requisite In order to adequately compensate perturbations, a control system must "know"
P11
Knowledge which action to select from the variety of available actions
The weaker the average regulatory ability and the larger the average uncertainty
Law of Requisite
P12 of available regulators, the more requisite hierarchy is needed in the organization
Hierarchy
of regulation and control for the same result of regulation
The Principle of
P13 The model embodied in a control system is necessarily incomplete
Incomplete Knowledge

Cybernetics and Systems Science have produced important principles of

information and uncertainty. These principles were developed in the context of
Principles of Reasoning specific theories which represent information and uncertainty using a particular
P14
with Uncertainty mathematical formalism of variety, usually probability and thereby stochastic
information theory.The principles are: •Principle of Uncertainty Maximization
•Principle of Uncertainty Minimization

The Red Queen For an evolutionary system, continuing development is needed just In order to
P15
Principle maintain its fitness relative to the systems it is co-evolving

The generalized "Peter

P16 In evolution systems tend to develop up to the limit of their adaptive competence
Principle"

Figure 10 Interface and challenges for a system SYSx

GCO8:SYS x in s coordinates consider a representation that assumes the existence of a real and one
imaginary term to describe the coordinates of the SYSx states. However there are results on the hyper
complex numbers, assuming the existence of a multi complex axes In this case s can be represented as in
formula (17)
01 (17)
( ) ( ) ( )
(𝑘) (𝑘) ∑
(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘)
𝑠 𝑠 𝑖 𝑠 𝑖
(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘)
𝑠 𝑖 𝑠 𝑖 ) (𝑠 𝑖 𝑠 𝑖 𝑠 𝑖 𝑠 𝑖 𝑠 𝑖

2–3 48

For a special case of SYS in table 1 and Figure 1 also formula (18) is possible
( ) ( ) ( )
∑ ∑ (18)
In this case the syzygy and its components for (k) system will have the form (19) to (22)
( ) ( ) ( )
∑ (19)
( ) ( ) ( )
∑ (20)
( ) ( ) ( )
∑ (21)
( ) ( ) (( ) ) ( )
( ) ∑ (( ( ) ) ) (22)
where
mass
C speed light
ψ2 entropy
is expressed in general as information entropy, but being actually a matrix of elements describing
the entropies at various levels and for various types of energy systems
If the formula (19) is represented in (23) form, then some groups for the types of components
of the syzygy Energy for SYSx are identified.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

01 2-3 4-8
Real energy Complex energy hyper complex energy (23)
The syzygy components for a given system (SYSx) are composed of three categories:

 Real type of energy, which is related for each SYSx (from Table 1 and Figure 1) to the obervable
energy changing in the same system (“x”) , by changing from one state to another
 Simple Complex Energy, which is related for each SYS x to that type identifying itself by the results of
their intaraction with the Real Energy.
Both Real energy and Simple Comples are specific to a given SYSx and do not interact with othe
levels /energy systems and they describe a type of interactions called in this approach Lateral Control
in a given energy system

 Hypercomplex Energy, which is related to interactions from other systems than “x” (―up or
down‖) and they describe the Hyper Control in a given energy system.

Therefore, the cybernetics as defined by founding works and its second and third level introduced later on become
particular cases of the Hyper-cybernetics, considering all the given energy system states and the interaction with
higher or lower order of energy systems, for a given set of CATS energy systems in a defined universe. The
interfaces of hyper complex type include also those from other universes, as feedback and feed before functions.
  Number of faces illustrate the number of states of a system during its changes, in its topological space
states.
 The volume shows the fact that the states are reached after a lot of transits and changes as defined in the
GCO5
 The surfaces are in correspondence with the number of facets and indicate on the combinations and
changes taking place in the SYSx during its transformations
 The enantiotropy indicates the probability of reaching optimal points (represented by vertexes) during the
transformations of SYSx

GCO7: In SYSx defined as topological structures the changes and challenges at the same level are defined
by transfer matrices (Annex 2 and 3), which are applied to their syzygies (of Energy type in the acceptance of
this approach).
The changes involving movement to other types of systems ((k+/-m) are governed by the
Enantiotropy of the system, as defined above.
The system SYSx in topological representation and with the CATS features mentioned before
behaves as a classical cybernetic system (Figure 9).

Figure 9 SYS x in a cybernetic description

The principles of cybernetics were defined in classic works. SYSx are in light of cybernetics “black
boxes” for every change at the same level – changes and for the evaluation of the up/down systems impact on
them. In Figure 6 there are the following notations, reflecting the application of cybernetic approach to a
SYSx:
 Function of structure of SYS as defined by Syzygy Energy (as per (12) and (13))

( ) ( ) ( ) (12)

( ) ( ) ( ) (13)

Where s is defined as
(14)
 Feedback as per (6)

( ) ( ) ( ( )) (15)

 For the INPUT -Function of SYZYGY for SYS “x” and OUTPUT - Function of SYZYGY for SYS “x”
and f1 impact the Transfer Function of SYSx is:
 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ∑ (( ) ) ( ( )) ( ( ( )) ( ( )) ) (25)

( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( (26) ( )) ( ( ))
For the formulation in matrix format the formulas above for the SYSx description and the Challenge description
(formulas (27) and (28)):

For a given (k):

[ ( ]) [ ] (27)

[ ( )] [ ] (28)

The resultant reaction of SYS x defined as in formulas (27), (28) is reflected in (29). The geometrical form of this
result is represented in Figure 11.

[ ( )] [ ( )] [ ( )] [ ] (29)

Figure 11 Interface and challenges for a system SYSx

The structures resulting after an energy system SYS x was challenged are considered in the light of GCo6 and
show that, in the particular case from Figure 11 the characteristics of the striuctures are in the relationships (3)-
(32) between them.
(30)
(31)
(32)
The interpretation of those relationships illustrates the following:
 A challenge with the geometrical representation as a stellate icosahedron on a dodecahedron (a system SYS x )
may lead to a new type of space state structure close to an icosahedron.
 The resultant state of a SYSx after being challenged by a structure with better “performances” (which passed
through more states changes and ended in a form with preffered optimal point of choice indicated by lower
Enantiotropy) is a form adapted to the Challenger.
  The conclusions above are valid for the case that the feedback and feed before actions in SYS x coming from
up and down systems in the “matrioshka” arrangements. The later evaluation of the impact of the feedback
reaction illustrate that the structure will tend to keep its pace to the SYS 10 status.

Step II – Changes of space states of a SYSx

SYSx as a cybernetic machine is impacted by from systems at levels (x+/-m) (as represented in Table 1 and Figure
1). The form of the space state defined for SYSx is as in formulas (33) –(35).
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ∑ (( ( ) ) ) ( ( ) ( )) (33)
( )( ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
) ( ) ( ) ∑ ∑ (34)
( ) ( ) ( )( ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ) ∑ (( ) ) ( ( ) ( ))

(35)
The SYSx cybernetic machine is represented in Figure 12. SYS x has two types of control reaction:
o At the same level, within ―x‖ type of energy system, which is called ―Lateral Control‖. This reaction is
assuring space state changes within SYSx based on the mechanism presented in the introduction
o From levels ―up and down‖ (x+/-m). This reaction is assuring reaction to impact functions from other
levels on level “x” and is called ―Up/Down Control‖

Figure12 Hyper cybernetics of SYS 0 to 10

The syzygy, the parameter that defines the SYSx reaction as a cybernetic machine, has some specific
features, by comparison with the traditional cybernetic reaction:
 The SYS x (cybernetic complex apoietic topological machine) reaction depends on the energy system
specific parameters (mass and speed of ligh) and of its Enantriotropy of states variation (formulas
(36),(37)). Enantiotropy considers the Up/Down Control impact from other energy systems to system
―x‖
( ) ( ) ( )( ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ) ∑ ( ) (36)

 The SYSx reaction depends on characteristics determined by its transfer function and the feedback
and feed before impact due to

o “Real Energy”,
o “Simple complex Energy” and
o “Hypercomplex Energy”, as defined in formula (23)

(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘)

𝐸𝑓𝑖𝑛 (𝑠) ∑ (𝐸𝑙 (𝑠) 𝑖𝑙 ) ∑((𝑚𝑙 (𝑠) 𝑐 ) 𝑖𝑙 ) 𝐸𝑇𝑆𝑙 (𝑠)
𝑙 𝑙

(𝑘) (𝑘)
∑((𝑚𝑙 (𝑠) 𝑐 ) 𝑖𝑙 ) ( 𝒇𝒍 𝒅𝒐𝒘𝒏 𝑬𝑻𝑺(𝒌 𝒎) (𝒀(𝒔))
𝒇𝒍 𝒖𝒑 𝑬𝑻𝑺(𝒌 𝒎) (𝒀(𝒔))
)
𝑙
f impact =𝜓 = Impact from levels down and up for a given level of the whole CAS (37)

 The real and the simple compex components are specific for the ―Lateral Control‖, i.e. control of
SYSx at its level, while the hyper complex components are defined by the Up/Down Control from
other energy systems. The resultant cybernetic SYSx and CATS as a whole cybernetic machine is a
Hypercomplex Cybernetic Machine (HCM).

 The move from one level to another is represented in its geometric polyhedral form in Figures 13 and
14.
 Figure 13 Icosahedron of systems SYS 7 to 9 (Table 1 and Figure 1)

Figure 14 Icosahedron of systems SYS 7 to 9 & 1to 3 & 0 (Table 1 and Figure 1)
Step III – Assimptotic changes of CATS
The CATS systems reaction to changes (formulas (38) and (39) lead to topological structures represented also as
geometrical polyhedral forms (defined by hyper complex forms).
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
[ ( )] [ ( )] [ ( )] [∑ ] [ ( )] [ ( )]

[ ]

(38)
 ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )(
[ ( )] [ ( )] [ )] [ ] [ ] [ ]
( ) ( )

(39)

The CATS changes described tend asymptotically to SYS10 energy system, which is a set of minimal
Enantiotropy variation of the space state and maximum stability. This system (SYS10) is represented by the
Poincare hype sphere (Figure 11).

Figure 15 Poincare hyper sphere (SYS10) as a result of icosahedrons changes- SYS 0 to 9 (Table 1 and Figure 1)

3. FINAL REMARKS

 Energy systems (SYSx) are complex apoietic topological cybernetic systems, which interact with the
challenges to them and pass through changes between them. The challenges and changes are those of
cybernetic systems.

 Energy systems are cybernetic machines change to various possible states generated by their
hypercomplex imaginary part and therefore:
o They are subject to hypercomplex cybernetics rules for the behaviour and their models.
o The ―real type components‖ described so far in present cybernetic approaches, including second
and third order of cybernetics, do not consider the multilevel interactions generated by the
imaginary components of those cybernetic machines.

 The implications of energy systems as hypercybernetic machines are as followss:

1. Energy systems as hypercomplex cybernetic machines are generaTOEs of a reality defined as

their syzygy as in (40)

01 (40)

(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘)

𝑅 (𝑘) 𝑅 𝑖 𝑅 𝑖
(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘)
  The conclusions above are valid for the case that the feedback and feed before actions in SYS x coming from
up and down systems in the “matrioshka” arrangements. The later evaluation of the impact of the feedback
reaction illustrate that the structure will tend to keep its pace to the SYS 10 status.

Step II – Changes of space states of a SYSx

SYSx as a cybernetic machine is impacted by from systems at levels (x+/-m) (as represented in Table 1 and Figure
1). The form of the space state defined for SYSx is as in formulas (33) –(35).
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ∑ (( ( ) ) ) ( ( ) ( )) (33)
( )( ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
) ( ) ( ) ∑ ∑ (34)
( ) ( ) ( )( ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ) ∑ (( ) ) ( ( ) ( ))

(35)
The SYSx cybernetic machine is represented in Figure 12. SYS x has two types of control reaction:
o At the same level, within ―x‖ type of energy system, which is called ―Lateral Control‖. This reaction is
assuring space state changes within SYSx based on the mechanism presented in the introduction
o From levels ―up and down‖ (x+/-m). This reaction is assuring reaction to impact functions from other
levels on level “x” and is called ―Up/Down Control‖

Figure12 Hyper cybernetics of SYS 0 to 10

The syzygy, the parameter that defines the SYSx reaction as a cybernetic machine, has some specific
features, by comparison with the traditional cybernetic reaction:
 The SYS x (cybernetic complex apoietic topological machine) reaction depends on the energy system
specific parameters (mass and speed of ligh) and of its Enantriotropy of states variation (formulas
(36),(37)). Enantiotropy considers the Up/Down Control impact from other energy systems to system
―x‖
( ) ( ) ( )( ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ) ∑ ( ) (36)

 The SYSx reaction depends on characteristics determined by its transfer function and the feedback
and feed before impact due to

o “Real Energy”,
o “Simple complex Energy” and
o “Hypercomplex Energy”, as defined in formula (23)

(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘)

𝐸𝑓𝑖𝑛 (𝑠) ∑ (𝐸𝑙 (𝑠) 𝑖𝑙 ) ∑((𝑚𝑙 (𝑠) 𝑐 ) 𝑖𝑙 ) 𝐸𝑇𝑆𝑙 (𝑠)
𝑙 𝑙

(𝑘) (𝑘)
∑((𝑚𝑙 (𝑠) 𝑐 ) 𝑖𝑙 ) ( 𝒇𝒍 𝒅𝒐𝒘𝒏 𝑬𝑻𝑺(𝒌 𝒎) (𝒀(𝒔))
𝒇𝒍 𝒖𝒑 𝑬𝑻𝑺(𝒌 𝒎) (𝒀(𝒔))
)
𝑙
f impact =𝜓 = Impact from levels down and up for a given level of the whole CAS (37)

 The real and the simple compex components are specific for the ―Lateral Control‖, i.e. control of
SYSx at its level, while the hyper complex components are defined by the Up/Down Control from
other energy systems. The resultant cybernetic SYSx and CATS as a whole cybernetic machine is a
Hypercomplex Cybernetic Machine (HCM).

 The move from one level to another is represented in its geometric polyhedral form in Figures 13 and
14.
 Figure 18 Hyper cybernetics interactions for other universes

Energy sources generating new energy states as for instance quasiparticles, black holes, dark
energyetc are examples of such interactions
In any situation, for single or multiple universes, the changes in energy systems generate
realities in three realms (Figure 19):
 Earth
 Galactic
 Cosmic

Figure 19 Realms of reality

Each
The reality created by energy systems 0 to 10 (Table 1 and Figure 1) has three components, i.e. reality
related to:

 Real component (01) creating realities of type I (Figures )

 Simple complex (23), creating realities of type II (Figures )
 Hypercomplex (48), creating realities of type III (Figures )

The same conclusions were also derived for the knowledge process on the energy systems resuls (as in [ ] applying ITAKE)

Figure 16 Reality types (1)

 Figure 17 Reality types (2)

2. The hypercybernetic energy systems change their states for a single universe or a multiple
universe, as the feedback and feedbefore impacts my come for the hypercomplex components from
them, too (Figure 18):
 Figure 18 Hyper cybernetics interactions for other universes

Energy sources generating new energy states as for instance quasiparticles, black holes, dark
energyetc are examples of such interactions
In any situation, for single or multiple universes, the changes in energy systems generate
realities in three realms (Figure 19):
 Earth
 Galactic
 Cosmic

Figure 19 Realms of reality

Each
 ANNEXES
to the
Prolegomena to any search principles for a Theory of
Everything (TOE) Dan Serbanescu, Division of Logic and
Models – CRIFST Romanian Academy –
Full Paper Preprint DOI:10.14640/RG.2.6.44659

Contents
ANNEX 1- Physics and definitions adopted in the paper ................................................................................................................ 3
A. CLASSIC BASIC FEATURES OF PHYSICS .................................................................................................................... 3
B. Understanding of “Physics” in this paper ............................................................................................................................. 3
ANNEX 2 -Definitions / Search for TOE ....................................................................................................................................... 4
A. EXISTING THEORIES / APPROACHES .......................................................................................................................... 4
A1.APPROACH ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4
A2. THEORIES ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4
A2.1. Main theories-general aspects......................................................................................................................................... 4
A2.2 Conventional sequence of theories .................................................................................................................................. 5
A2.3 String theory and M-theory ............................................................................................................................................. 6
A2.4 Loop quantum gravity ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
A2.5 Other attempts.................................................................................................................................................................. 7
A2.3 SOME HISTORY OF THEORIES ..................................................................................................................................... 8
A2.3.1 Antiquity to 19th century .................................................................................................................................................. 8
A2.3.2 Early 20th century ............................................................................................................................................................ 9
A2.3.3 Late 20th century and the nuclear interactions ............................................................................................................... 10
A2.4 CHALLENGES TO EXISTING THEORIES ................................................................................................................... 10
A2.4.1 Gödel's incompleteness theorem .................................................................................................................................... 10
A2.4.2 Other views ..................................................................................................................................................................... 11
A2.4.3 Fundamental limits in accuracy ...................................................................................................................................... 11
A2.4.4 Lack of fundamental laws............................................................................................................................................... 12
A2.4.5 Impossibility of being "of everything" ........................................................................................................................... 12
 A2.4.6 Infinite number of onion layers ...................................................................................................................................... 13
A2.4.7 Impossibility of calculation ............................................................................................................................................ 13
Annex 3 -Dan Serbanescu, ELEMENTE DE ISTORIC AL TEORIILOR DESPRE UNIVERS – PRIVITE MAI ALES PRIN
PRISMA TEORIILOR FIZICII DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31825.33128, Simpozion CRIFST - (DLMFS – GCI - Simpozionul
“Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”, , preprint presentation februarie 2017,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313549951 ................................................................................................................... 14

ANNEX 4 –Dan Serbanescu, Propaedeutics of the essay on Energy Systems and Challenges to them - Covid - a case study,
DOI: 10.13240/RG.2.3.79959

ANNEX 5 - Dan Serbanescu, Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții, Divizia de Logică, Metodologie
şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) Sesiunea anuala CRIFST-DLMFS DOI 10.13240/RG.2.2.29979.70405, 7 noiembrie 2019
ANNEX 1- Physics and definitions adopted in the paper

A. CLASSIC BASIC FEATURES OF PHYSICS

I. Physics is a natural science that studies

 Matter and its
o fundamental constituents,
o motion and
o behavior through space and time
AND

 Related (to Matter) entities of energy and force.

II. Physics is based on any of

 A theory or on an empirical approach
 On experiments /using tools to prove theories
 Study interactions between matter.

III. Physics looks at the organizational structure of the universe itself.

B. Understanding of “Physics” in this paper

 We will consider the REALMS of SYSTEM OF ENERGY SYSTEMS AND THEIR KNOWLEDGE
REALM.
 The systems of systems are as described in Annex 4 - Complex Apoietic Topological Systems
(CATS).
 The description of it is based on using Physics, Mathematics, of Science triad, as well as the other two
pillars – the Arts and the Mythology.
ANNEX 2 -Definitions / Search for TOE

A. EXISTING THEORIES / APPROACHES

A1.APPROACH

A fundamental approach of Yes or No is adopted for the search of TOE as part of Physics in definition (Annex 1 A)

A2. THEORIES

A2.1. Main theories-general aspects

Theory of everything (TOE) ≝ final theory ≝ ultimate theory≝ unified field theory ≝ master theory

FRAMEWORK

 hypothetical,
 singular,
 all-encompassing,
 coherent theoretical framework

Physics that

 fully explains and

links together all physical aspects of the universe.

Two theoretical frameworks have been developed so far that together could resemble as a TOE

 general relativity and

 quantum mechanics.

General relativity - theoretical framework that only focuses on gravity for understanding the
universe in regions of both large scale and high mass: planets, stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies etc.

Quantum mechanics -theoretical framework that

 focuses on the three non-gravitational forces for understanding the universe in regions of both
very small scale and low mass: subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, etc.
 successfully implemented the Standard Model that describes the three non-gravitational forces:
 strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic force – as well as all observed elementary
particles

Present status However, at present, there is no candidate TEO that

 includes the standard model of particle physics and general relativity and that, at the same time,
 is able to calculate the fine-structure constant or the mass of the electron

A2.2 Conventional sequence of theories

The goal of a TOE currently is to (Fig) unify all the fundamental interactions of nature:
 gravitation,
 the strong interaction,
 the weak interaction; as weak interaction transforms elementary particles from one kind into another, TEO
has to predict different types of articles
 electromagnetism.

 The electroweak unification is at about 100 GeV and

[25] Serbanescu D., Sticlaru G., Spiridon L.V., O privire asupra cavalcadei modelelor in fizică: evoluții previzibile,
ritmicitate sau haos?, Academia Română, Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS), Comitetul Român
de IsTOEia si Filozofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) , Sesiunea de primăvară, 23 aprilie, 2015
[26] Serbanescu D., Spiridon L., On information issues in nature and society.Despre informatie in Natura si Societate,,
Academia Romana Sesiunea de primavara 2014 a Diviziei de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei, CRIFST Tema -
Cursa dintre teorie şi experienţă Bucuresti, 24 aprilie 2014, Bucharest, Romania
[27] Serbanescu D., Despre o perspectivă integrată a cunoașterii și existenței-On an integrated perspective on knowledge
and existence, Simpozionul aniversar-In honorem Mircea Malița – 90: Provocările științei și civilizația actuală, Bucharest,
Romania, Feb 2017
[28] Serbanescu D., Omenirea la răscruce privindu-se în oglinda (re)(ne)cunoasterii de sine Oare va evolua sau se va
autodistruge ? O perspectiva a aplicațiilor energetice ale fizicii moderne, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22311.75681 Sesiune
anuala a CRIFST - 13 octombrie 2016
[29] *** https://compmath.wordpress.com/about/10-the-big-picture-darpas-23-challenge-questions
[30] *** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
[31] Serbanescu D., Omenirea la răscruce privindu-se în oglinda (re)(ne)cunoasterii de sine Oare va evolua sau se va
autodistruge ? O perspectiva a aplicațiilor energetice ale fizicii moderne DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22311.75681 · Academia
Romana, sesiunea anuala CRIFST, Oct 2016
[32] *** https://compmath.wordpress.com/about/10-the-big-picture-darpas -23-challenge-questions
[33] *** *** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
ANNEXES 1 - 5
Theory Causal Sets. – its goal is to achieve a working theory of quantum gravity, which might eventually include
the standard model and become a candidate for a theory of everything. –
 Its founding principle is that spacetime is fundamentally discrete and that the spacetime events are related
by a partial order.
 This partial order has the physical meaning of the causality relations between relative past and future
distinguishing spacetime events.
Causal dynamical triangulation does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), it tries to
show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

Theory related to ER=EPR - a conjecture in physics stating that entangled particles are connected by a wormhole
(or Einstein–Rosen bridge)

A2.3 SOME HISTORY OF THEORIES

See also Annex 3 for theories on cosmos

A2.3.1 Antiquity to 19th century

 Many ancient cultures such as Babylonian astronomers, Indian astronomy studied the
pattern of the Seven Sacred Luminaires/Classical Planets against the background of stars, with their
interest being to relate celestial movement to human events (astrology), and the goal being to predict
events by recording events against a time measure and then look for recurrent patterns.
 The debate between the universe having either a beginning or eternal cycles can be traced back to ancient
Babylonia. Hindu cosmology posits that time is infinite with a cyclic universe, where the current universe
was preceded and will be followed by an infinite number of universes.
 Time scales mentioned in Hindu cosmology correspond to those of modern scientific cosmology. Its
cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma, 8.64 billion years long.

 The natural philosophy of atomism appeared in several ancient traditions. In ancient Greek philosophy, the
pre-Socratic philosophers speculated that the apparent diversity of observed phenomena was due to a single
type of interaction, namely the motions and collisions of atoms.

 The concept of 'atom' proposed by Democritus was an early philosophical attempt to unify phenomena
observed in nature. The concept of 'atom' also appeared in the Nyaya-Vaisheshika school of ancient
Indian philosophy.

 Archimedes was possibly the first philosopher to have described nature with axioms (or principles)
and then deduce new results from them. Any "theory of everything" is similarly expected to be
based on axioms and to deduce all observable phenomena from them.

 Following earlier atomistic thought, the mechanical philosophy of the 17TH century posited that all
forces could be ultimately reduced to contact forces between the atoms, then imagined as tiny solid
particles
  In the late 17TH century, Isaac Newton's description of the long-distance force of gravity implied that not all
forces in nature result from things coming into contact. Newton's work in his M athematical Principles of
Natural Philosophy dealt with this in a further example of unification, in this case unifying Galileo's work
on terrestrial gravity, Kepler's laws of planetary motion and the phenomenon of tides by explaining these
apparent actions at a distance under one single law: the law of universal gravitation.
 In 1814, building on these results, Laplace famously suggested that a sufficiently powerful intellect
could, if it knew the position and velocity of every particle at a given time, along with the laws of nature,
calculate the position of any particle at any other time: An intellect which at a certain moment would know
all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect
were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements
of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be
uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.(Essai philosophique sur les probabilités,
Introduction. 1814) Laplace thus envisaged a combination of gravitation and mechanics as a theory of
everything. Modern quantum mechanics implies that uncertainty is inescapable, and thus that Laplace's
vision has to be amended: a theory of everything must include gravitation and quantum mechanics. Even
ignoring quantum mechanics, chaos theory is sufficient to guarantee that the future of any sufficiently
complex mechanical or astronomical system is unpredictable.
 In 1820, Hans Christian Ørsted discovered a connection between electricity and magnetism, triggering
decades of work that culminated in 1865, in James Clerk Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. During the
19TH and early 20TH centuries, it gradually became apparent that many common examples of forces –
contact forces, elasticity, viscosity, friction, and pressure – result from electrical interactions between the
smallest particles of matter. In his experiments of 1849–50, Michael Faraday was the first to search for a
unification of gravity with electricity and magnetism.

In 1900, David Hilbert published a famous list of mathematical problems. In Hilbert's sixth
problem, he challenged researchers to find an axiomatic basis to all of physics. In this problem he
thus asked for what today would be called a TEO.

A2.3.2 Early 20th century

 In the late 1920S, the new quantum mechanics showed that the chemical bonds between atoms were
examples of (quantum) electrical forces, justifying Dirac's boast that "the underlying physical laws
necessary for the mathematical theory of a large part of physics and the whole of chemistry are thus
completely known"

 After 1915, when Albert Einstein published the theory of gravity (general relativity), the search for a
unified field theory combining gravity with electromagnetism began with a renewed interest. In
Einstein's day, the strong and the weak forces had not yet been discovered, yet he found the
potential existence of two other distinct forces, gravity and electromagnetism, far more alluring. This
launched his 40-year voyage in search of the so-called "unified field theory" that he hoped would show
that these two forces are really manifestations of one grand, underlying principle. During the last few
decades of his life, this ambition alienated Einstein from the rest of mainstream of physics, as the
mainstream was instead far more excited about the emerging framework of quantum mechanics.
 Prominent contributors Gunnar Nordström, Hermann Weyl, Arthur Eddington, David Hilbert,[22]
Theodor Kaluza, Oskar Klein (see Kaluza–Klein theory), and most notably, Albert Einstein and his
collaborators. Einstein searched in earnest for, but ultimately failed to find, a unifying theory (see
Einstein–Maxwell–Dirac equations).

A2.3.3 Late 20th century and the nuclear interactions

 In the 20TH century, the search for a unifying theory was interrupted by the discovery of the strong and weak
nuclear forces, which differ both from gravity and from electromagnetism. A further hurdle was the
acceptance that in a theory of everything, quantum mechanics had to be incorporated from the outset, rather
than emerging as a consequence of a deterministic unified theory, as Einstein had hoped.

 Gravity and electromagnetism are able to coexist as entries in a list of classical forces, but for many years
it seemed that gravity could not be incorporated into the quantum framework, let alone unified with
the other fundamental forces. For this reason, work on unification, for much of the 20TH century,
focused on understanding the three forces described by quantum mechanics: electromagnetism
and the weak and strong forces. The first two were combined in 1967–68 by Sheldon Glashow, Steven
Weinberg, and Abdus Salam into the electroweak force.[24] Electroweak unification is a broken symmetry:
the electromagnetic and weak forces appear distinct at low energies because the particles carrying the
weak force, the W and Z bosons, have non-zero masses (80.4 GeV/c2 and GeV/c2, respectively), whereas
the photon, which carries the electromagnetic force, is massless. At higher energies W bosons and Z bosons
can be created easily and the unified nature of the force becomes apparent.

While the strong and electroweak forces coexist under the Standard Model of particle physics, they remain
distinct. Thus, the pursuit of a theory of everything remained unsuccessful: neither a unification of the strong
and electroweak forces – which Laplace would have called 'contact forces' – nor a unification of these forces
with gravitation had been achieved.

A2.4 CHALLENGES TO EXISTING THEORIES

In parallel to the intense search for a theory of everything, various scholars have seriously debated the possibility of
its discovery.

A2.4.1 Gödel's incompleteness theorem

Gödel's incompleteness theorem - any attempt to construct a theory of everything cannot be successful.

 Stanley Jaki ( The Relevance of Physics, 1966) – agrees with Godel

because any "TOE" will

 be a consistent non-trivial mathematical theory, therefore incomplete.
 No future for any deterministic TOE

 Freeman Dyson
  Gödel's theorem implies that pure mathematics is inexhaustible and therefore physics is also
inexhaustible because
 the laws of physics are a finite set of rules, and include the rules for doing mathematics

 Stephen Hawking
o originally a believer in TOE
o after considering Gödel's Theorem, agrees no TOE is possible

A2.4.2 Other views

 Jürgen Schmidhuber (1997) has argued against this view; he asserts that Gödel's theorems are irrelevant
for computable physics. In 2000, Schmidhuber explicitly constructed limit-computable, deterministic
universes whose pseudo-randomness based on undecidable, Gödel-like halting problems is extremely hard
to detect but does not at all prevent formal theories of everything describable by very few bits of
information.

 Related critique was offered by Solomon Feferman and others.

 Douglas S. Robertson offers Conway's game of life as an example: The underlying rules are simple and
complete, but there are formally undecidable questions about the game's behaviors. Analogously, it may (or
may not) be possible to completely state the underlying rules of physics with a finite number of well-
defined laws, but there is little doubt that there are questions about the behavior of physical systems which
are formally undecidable on the basis of those underlying laws.

 Since most physicists would consider the statement of the underlying rules to suffice as the definition of a
"theory of everything", most physicists argue that Gödel's Theorem does not mean that a theory of
everything cannot exist. On the other hand, the scholars invoking Gödel's Theorem appear, at least in
some cases, to be referring not to the underlying rules, but to the understandability of the behavior of all
physical systems, as when Hawking mentions arranging blocks into rectangles, turning the computation
of prime numbers into a physical question. This definitional discrepancy may explain some of the
disagreement among researchers.

A2.4.3 Fundamental limits in accuracy

 No physical theory to date is believed to be precisely accurate. Instead, physics has proceeded by a series
of "successive approximations" allowing more and more accurate predictions over a wider and wider
range of phenomena. Some physicists believe that it is therefore a mistake to confuse theoretical models
with the true nature of reality, and hold that the series of approximations will never terminate in the
"truth". Einstein himself expressed this view on occasions.
We may reasonably hope for a TEO which self-consistently incorporates all currently known
forces, but we should not expect it to be the final answer.

 On the other hand, it is often claimed that, despite the apparently ever-increasing complexity of the
 mathematics of each new theory, in a deep sense associated with their underlying gauge symmetry and the
number of dimensionless physical constants, the theories are becoming simpler. If this is the case, the
process of simplification cannot continue indefinitely.

A2.4.4 Lack of fundamental laws

 There is a philosophical debate within the physics community as to whether a TEO deserves to be called
the fundamental law of the universe.
o One view is the hard reductionist position that the TEO is the fundamental law and that all other
theories that apply within the universe are a consequence of the theory of everything.
o Another view is that emergent laws, which govern the behavior of complex systems, should be
seen as equally fundamental.
Examples of emergent laws are the second law of thermodynamics and the theory of natural selection.
The advocates of emergence argue that emergent laws, especially those describing complex or living
systems are independent of the low-level, microscopic laws. In this view, emergent laws are as
fundamental as a theory of everything.

 The debates do not make the point at issue clear. Possibly the only issue at stake is the right to apply the
high-status term "fundamental" to the respective subjects of research. A well-known debate over this took
place between Steven Weinberg and Philip Anderson.

A2.4.5 Impossibility of being "of everything"

 Although the name "TEO" suggests the determinism of Laplace's quotation, this gives a very misleading
impression.
Determinism is frustrated by the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical predictions, by the
extreme sensitivity to initial conditions that leads to mathematical chaos, by the limitations due to
event horizons, and by the extreme mathematical difficulty of applying the theory.
o Thus, although the current standard model of particle physics "in principle" predicts almost all
known non-gravitational phenomena, in practice only a few quantitative results have been derived
from the full theory (e.g., the masses of some of the simplest hadrons), and these results (especially
the particle masses which are most relevant for low-energy physics) are less accurate than existing
experimental measurements.
o Even in classical mechanics there are still unsolved problems, such as turbulence, although the
equations have been known for centuries. The theory of everything would almost certainly be even
harder to apply for the prediction of experimental results, and thus might be of limited use.

 A motive for seeking a TEO, apart from the pure intellectual satisfaction of completing a centuries-long
quest, is that prior
o examples of unification have predicted new phenomena, some of which (e.g., electrical
generators) have proved of great practical importance.
o And like in these prior examples of unification, the TEO would probably allow us to confidently
define the domain of validity and residual error of low-energy approximations to the full
 theory.

 The theories generally do not account for the phenomena of consciousness or free will, which are
instead often the subject of philosophy and religion.

A2.4.6 Infinite number of onion layers

 Frank Close regularly argues that the layers of nature may be like the layers of an onion, and that the
number of layers might be infinite. This would imply an infinite sequence of physical theories.

A2.4.7 Impossibility of calculation

 Weinberg points out that calculating the precise motion of an actual projectile in the Earth's atmosphere is
impossible. So how can we know we have an adequate theory for describing the motion of projectiles?
Weinberg suggests that we know principles (Newton's laws of motion and gravitation) that work "well
enough" for simple examples, like the motion of planets in empty space.
 These principles have worked so well on simple examples that we can be reasonably confident they will
work for more complex examples. For example, although general relativity includes equations that do not
have exact solutions, it is widely accepted as a valid theory because all of its equations with exact solutions
have been experimentally verified. Likewise, a theory of everything must work for a wide range of simple
examples in such a way that we can be reasonably confident it will work for every situation in physics.
Annex 3 -Dan Serbanescu, ELEMENTE DE ISTORIC AL TEORIILOR DESPRE UNIVERS – PRIVITE
MAI ALES PRIN PRISMA TEORIILOR FIZICII DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31825.33128, Simpozion CRIFST -
(DLMFS – GCI - Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”, , preprint presentation
februarie 2017, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313549951
 A2.4.6 Infinite number of onion layers ...................................................................................................................................... 13
A2.4.7 Impossibility of calculation ............................................................................................................................................ 13
Annex 3 -Dan Serbanescu, ELEMENTE DE ISTORIC AL TEORIILOR DESPRE UNIVERS – PRIVITE MAI ALES PRIN
PRISMA TEORIILOR FIZICII DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31825.33128, Simpozion CRIFST - (DLMFS – GCI - Simpozionul
“Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”, , preprint presentation februarie 2017,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313549951 ................................................................................................................... 14

ANNEX 4 –Dan Serbanescu, Propaedeutics of the essay on Energy Systems and Challenges to them - Covid - a case study,
DOI: 10.13240/RG.2.3.79959

ANNEX 5 - Dan Serbanescu, Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții, Divizia de Logică, Metodologie
şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) Sesiunea anuala CRIFST-DLMFS DOI 10.13240/RG.2.2.29979.70405, 7 noiembrie 2019
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313549951

ELEMENTE DE ISTORIC AL TEORIILOR DESPRE UNIVERS – PRIVITE

MAI ALES PRIN PRISMA TEORIILOR FIZICII

Presentation · February 2017

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31825.33128

CITATIONS READS

2 27

1 author:

Dan Serbanescu
Romanian Academy
140 PUBLICATIONS   293 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Modeling of human and organisational factors in complex industrial systems View project

Physics and reality View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dan Serbanescu on 10 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

ELEMENTE DE ISTORIC AL TEORIILOR DESPRE

UNIVERS – PRIVITE MAI ALES PRIN PRISMA
TEORIILOR FIZICII

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

TEORII COSMOLOGICE IN GENERAL

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

 Brahmanda (Cosmic Egg) Universe - The Hindu Rigveda, written in

India around the 15th - 12th Century B.C., - cyclical or oscillating
universe in which a “cosmic egg”, or Brahmanda, containing the
whole universe (including the Sun, Moon, planets and all of space)
expands out of a single concentrated point called a Bindu before
subsequently collapsing again. The universe cycles infinitely between
expansion and total collapse.
 Anaxagorian Universe - The 5th Century B.C. Greek philosopher
Anaxagoras - the original state of the cosmos was a primordial mixture
of all its ingredients which existed in infinitesimally small
fragments of themselves. This mixture was not entirely uniform, and
some ingredients were present in higher concentrations than others, as
well as varying from place to place. At some point in time, this mixture
was set in motion by the action of “nous” (mind), and the whirling motion
shifted and separated out the ingredients, ultimately producing the
cosmos of separate material objects, all with different properties, that we
see today.
Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017
 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

 Atomist Universe - The 5th Century B.C., the Greek philosophers

Leucippus and Democritus founded the school of Atomism, which
held that the universe was composed of very small, indivisible and
indestructible building blocks known as atoms (from the Greek
“atomos”, meaning “uncuttable”). All of reality and all the objects in
the universe are composed of different arrangements of these
eternal atoms and an infinite void, in which they form different
combinations and shapes.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

 Aristotelian Universe - the 4th Century B.C., established a geocentric

universe in which the fixed, spherical Earth is at the centre, surrounded
by concentric celestial spheres of planets and stars. Although he
believed the universe to be finite in size, he stressed that it exists unchanged
and static throughout eternity. Aristotle established the four classical
elements of fire, air, earth and water, which were acted on by two
forces, gravity (the tendency of earth and water to sink) and levity (the
tendency of air and fire to rise). He later added a fifth element, aether, to
describe the void that fills the universe above the terrestrial sphere.

 Stoic Universe - Stoic philosophers of ancient Greece (3rd Century B.C.

and after) believed in a kind of island universe in which a finite cosmos is
surrounded by an infinite void (not dissimilar in principle to a galaxy).
They held that the cosmos is in a constant state of flux, and pulsates in size
and periodically passes through upheavals and conflagrations. In the Stoic
view, the universe is like a giant living body, with its leading part being the
stars and the Sun, but in which all parts are interconnected, so that what
happens in one place affects what happens elsewhere. They also held a
cyclical view of history, in which the world was once pure fire and
would become fire again (an idea borrowed from Heraclitus).

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

 Heliocentric Universe - The 3rd Century B.C. Greek astronomer and mathematician
Aristarchus of Samos was the first to present an explicit argument for a
heliocentric model of the Solar System, placing the Sun, not the Earth, at the
center of the known universe. He described the Earth as rotating daily on its axis
and revolving annually about the Sun in a circular orbit, along with a sphere of fixed
stars. His ideas were generally rejected in favour of the geocentric theories of Aristotle
and Ptolemy until they were successfully revived nearly 1800 years later by
Copernicus. However, there were exceptions: Seleucus of Seleucia, who lived about a
century after Aristarchus, supported his theories and used the tides to explain
heliocentricity and the influence of the Moon; the Indian astonomer and mathematician
Aryabhata described elliptical orbits around the Sun at the end of of the 5th Century
A.D.; as did the Muslim astronomer Ja'far ibn Muhammad Abu Ma'shar al-Balkhi in the
9th Century.

 Ptolemaic Universe - The 2nd Century A.D. Roman-Egyptian mathematician and

astronomer Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemaeus) - geocentric model largely based on
Aristotelian ideas, in which the planets and the rest of the universe orbit about a
stationary Earth in circular epicycles. In terms of longevity, it was perhaps the most
successful cosmological model of all time. Modifications to the basic Ptolemaic system
were suggested by the Islamic Maragha School in the 13th, 14th and 15th
Centuries including the first accurate lunar model by Ibn al-Shatir, and the
rejection of a stationery Earth in favour of a rotating Earth by Ali Qushji.
Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017
 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

 Abrahamic Universe - Several medieval Christian, Muslim and Jewish scholars

put forward the idea of a universe which was finite in time. In the 6th Century
A.D., the Christian philospher John Philoponus of Alexandria argued against the
ancient Greek notion of an infinite past, and was perhaps the first commentator to
argue that the universe is finite in time and therefore had a beginning. Early Muslim
theologians such as Al-Kindi (9th Century) and Al-Ghazali (11th Century) offered
logical arguments supporting a finite universe, as did the 10th Century Jewish
philosopher Saadia Gaon.

 Partially Heliocentric Universe - In the 15th and early 16th Century, Somayaji
Nilakantha of the Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics in southern
India developed a computational system for a partially heliocentric planetary
model in which Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn orbited the Sun,
which in turn orbited the Earth. This was very similar to the Tychonic system
proposed by the Danish nobleman Tycho Brahe later in the 16th Century as a kind
of hybrid of the Ptolemaic and Copernican models.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

 Copernican Universe - In 1543, the Polish astronomer and polymath Nicolaus

Copernicus adapted the geocentric Maragha model of Ibn al-Shatir to meet the
requirements of the ancient heliocentric universe of Aristarchus. His publication of
a scientific theory of heliocentrism, demonstrating that the motions of celestial
objects can be explained without putting the Earth at rest in the centre of the
universe, stimulated further scientific investigations and became a landmark in the
history of modern science, sometimes known as the Copernican Revolution. His
Copernican Principle (that the Earth is not in a central, specially favoured position)
and its implication that celestial bodies obey physical laws identical to those on
Earth, first established cosmology as a science rather than a branch of
metaphysics. In 1576, the English astronomer Thomas Digges popularized
Copernicus’ ideas and also extended them by positing the existence of a multitude
of stars extending to infinity, rather than just Copernicus’ narrow band of fixed
stars. Giordano Bruno took the Copernican Principle a stage further in 1584 by
suggesting that even the Solar System is not the centre of the universe, but rather
a relatively insignificant star system among an infinite multitude of others. In 1605,
Johannes Kepler made further refinements by finally abandoning the classical
assumption of circular orbits in favour of elliptical orbits which could explain the
strange apparent movements of the planets. Galileo's controversial support of
Copernicus' heliocentric model in the early 17th Century was denounced by the
Inquisition but nevertheless helped to popularize the idea.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

 Cartesian Vortex Universe - In the mid-17th Century, the French

philosopher René Descartes outlined a model of the universe with
many of the characteristics of Newton’s later static, infinite
universe. But, according to Descartes, the vacuum of space was not
empty at all, but was filled with matter that swirled around in large
and small vortices. His model involved a system of huge swirling
whirlpools of ethereal or fine matter, producing what would later be
called gravitational effects.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

 Static (or Newtonian) Universe - In 1687, Sir Isaac Newton published his
“Principia”, which described, among other things, a static, steady state,
infinite universe which even Einstein, in the early 20th Century, took
as a given (at least until events proved otherwise). In Newton’s universe,
matter on the large scale is uniformly distributed, and the universe is
gravitationally balanced but essentially unstable.
 Hierarchical Universe and the Nebular Hypothesis - Although still
generally based on a Newtonian static universe, the matter in a
hierarchical universe is clustered on ever larger scales of hierarchy,
and is endlessly being recycled. It was first proposed in 1734 by the
Swedish scientist and philosopher Emanuel Swedenborg, and
developed further (independently) by Thomas Wright (1750), Immanuel
Kant (1755) and Johann Heinrich Lambert (1761), and a similar model was
proposed in 1796 by the Frenchman Pierre-Simon Laplace.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

 Einsteinian Universe - The model of the universe assumed by Albert

Einstein in his groundbreaking theory of gravity in the early 20th
Century was not dissimilar to Newton’s in that it was a static,
dynamically stable universe which was neither expanding or
contracting.
 However, he had to add in a “cosmological constant” to his general
relativity equations to counteract the dynamical effects of gravity
which would otherwise have caused the universe to collapse in on
itself (although he later abandoned that part of his theory when
Edwin Hubble definitively showed in 1929 that the universe was not
in fact static).

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

 Big Bang Model of the Universe - After Hubble’s demonstration of the

continuously expanding universe in 1929 (and especially after the
discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation by Arno Penzias
and Robert Wilson in 1965), some version of the Big Bang theory has
generally been the mainsteam scientific view. The theory describes the
universe as originating in an infinitely tiny, infinitely dense point (or
singularity) between 13 and 14 billion years ago, from where it has been
expanding ever since. The essential statement of the theory is usually
attributed to the Belgian Roman Catholic priest and physicist Georges
Lemaître in 1927 (even before Hubble’s corroborating evidence), although a
similar theory had been proposed, although not pursued, 1922 by the
Russian Alexander Friedmann in 1922. Friedmann actually developed two
models of an expanding universe based on Einstein’s general relativity
equations, one with positive curvature or spherical space, and one with
negative curvature or hyperbolic space.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

 Oscillating Universe - This was Einstein’s favoured model after he rejected

his own original model in the 1930s. The oscillating universe followed from
Alexander Friedmann’s model of an expanding universe based on the
general relativity equations for a universe with positive curvature (spherical
space), which results in the universe expanding for a time and then
contracting due to the pull of its gravity, in a perpetual cycle of Big Bang
followed by Big Crunch. Time is thus endless and beginningless, and the
beginning-of-time paradox is avoided.

 Steady State Universe - This non-standard cosmology (i.e. opposed to the

standard Big Bang model) has occurred in various versions since the Big
Bang theory was generally adopted by the scientific community. A popular
variant of the steady state universe was proposed in 1948 by the English
astronomer Fred Hoyle and the and Austrians Thomas Gold and Hermann
Bondi. It predicted a universe that expanded but did not change its density,
with matter being inserted into the universe as it expanded in order to
maintain a constant density. Despite its drawbacks, this was quite a popular
idea until the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965
which supported the Big Bang model.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

  grand unification is predicted to occur at 1016 GeV, and
 unification of the GUT force with gravity is expected at the Planck energy, roughly 1019 GeV.

GUT linked with supersymmetry is preffered now, as it this feature

 produces large quantities of dark matter, and
 the inflationary force may be related to grand unified theory physics

Because both the current standard model and all proposed GUTs are quantum field
theories requiring renormalization they are not valid for any energy spectrum and therefore, the
goal now is to try to unify quantum mechanics and theory of relativity. The TOE has also to
provide valid explanation to the forces in cosmology: the inflationary force and the dark energy.

A2.3 String theory and M-theory

TOE (since 1990S) physicists as Edward Witten believed to be the answer –

 A 11-DIMENSIONAL M- theory –
 7D hyperspace + common 4D - which is described in some limits by one of the five perturbative superstring
theories, and
 in another by the maximally-supersymmetric 11D supergravity

Features of string theory used in TOE

 An important property of string/M-theory is that extra dimensions are required for the theory's consistency.
 building on the insights of the Kaluza–Klein theory- in which applying general relativity to a 5- dimensional
universe (with one of them small and curled up) looks from the 4- dimensional perspective like the usual
general relativity together with Maxwell's electrodynamics.
 This lent credence to the idea of unifying gauge and gravity interactions,and to extra dimensions
 property of string theory is its supersymmetry, that together with extra dimensions are the two main
proposals for resolving the hierarchy problem of the standard model, which is (roughly) the question of why
gravity is so much weaker than any other force.
 The extra-dimensional solution involves allowing gravity to propagate into the other dimensions while
keeping other forces confined to a 4D spacetime, an idea that has been realized with explicit stringy
mechanisms.

Strong feataures

 On the experimental side- the particle content of the standard model supplemented with neutrino masses fits into a
spinor representation of SO(10), a subgroup of E8 that routinely emerges in string theory, such as in heterotic string
Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

ALTE TEORII….

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Platon

Current topological models

Kepler's Platonic solid model of

the Solar System from Mysterium
Cosmographicum (1596)
Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017
 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

SITUATIA ACTUALA A MODELELOR DIN FIZICA

CARE POT FI (SUNT) BAZA UNOR

TEORII COSMOLOGICE DESPRE

MATERIE SI UNIVERS

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

SITUATIA ACTUALA A MODELELOR DESPRE MATERIE SI UNIVERS (1)

MECANICA CUANTICA -MODELUL STANDARD(1)

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”
SITUATIA ACTUALA A MODELELOR DESPRE MATERIE SI UNIVERS (2)

MECANICA CUANTICA -MODELUL STANDARD(2)

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

SITUATIA ACTUALA A MODELELOR DESPRE MATERIE SI UNIVERS (3)

INTERACTIUNI FUNDAMENTALE

- FORTE FUNDAMENTALE IN FIZICA -

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

SITUATIA ACTUALA A MODELELOR DESPRE MATERIE SI UNIVERS (4)

Fundamental interactions - fundamental forces in Physics (1)

• Interactions that do not appear to be reducible to more basic interactions.

There are four conventionally accepted fundamental interactions—gravitational,
electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. Each one is described
mathematically as a field.

 The gravitational force is modelled as a continuous classical field.

 The other three, part of the Standard Model of particle physics, are
described as discrete quantum fields, and their interactions are
each carried by a quantum, an elementary particle.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

SITUATIA ACTUALA A MODELELOR DESPRE MATERIE SI UNIVERS (6)

Fundamental interactions - fundamental forces in Physics (3)

• The two nuclear interactions have short ranges, producing forces at

minuscule, subatomic distances.
• The strong nuclear interaction, which is carried by the gluon particle, is
responsible for the binding of quarks together to form hadrons, such as protons
and neutrons; as a residual effect, it binds the latter particles to form atomic
nuclei.
• The weak nuclear interaction, which is carried by the W and Z particles, also
acts on the nucleus, mediating radioactive decay.
• The other two, electromagnetism and gravity, produce significant forces at
macroscopic scales where the effects can be seen directly in everyday life.

– The electromagnetic force, carried by the photon, creates electric and

magnetic fields, which are responsible for chemical bonding and are
used in electrical technology. Electromagnetic forces tend to cancel each
other out when large collections of objects are considered, so over the
largest distances (on the scale of planets and galaxies), gravity tends to
be the dominant force.
Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017
 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”
SITUATIA ACTUALA A MODELELOR DESPRE MATERIE SI UNIVERS (7)

Fundamental interactions - fundamental forces in Physics (5)

Classical theory
• 1687 - Isaac Newton postulated space as an infinite and unalterable physical
structure existing before, within, and around all objects while their states and
relations unfold at a constant pace everywhere, thus absolute space and time.
– Inferring that all objects bearing mass approach at a constant rate, but collide by
impact proportional to their masses, Newton inferred that matter exhibits an
attractive force.
– His law of universal gravitation mathematically stated it to span the entire universe
instantly (despite absolute time), or, if not actually a force, to be instant interaction
among all objects (despite absolute space.)
– As conventionally interpreted, Newton's theory of motion modelled a central force
without a communicating medium.
– Thus Newton's theory violated the first principle of mechanical philosophy, as
stated by Descartes, No action at a distance.
• 1820 - explaining magnetism, Michael Faraday inferred a field filling space
and transmitting that force. Faraday conjectured that ultimately, all forces will
be unified into one.
• 1870 - James Clerk Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism as effects of an
electromagnetic field whose third consequence was light, travelling at
constant speed in a vacuum.
The electromagnetic field theory contradicted predictions of Newton's theory of motion,
unless physical states of the luminiferous aether—presumed to fill all space whether
within matter or in a vacuum and to manifest the electromagnetic field—aligned all
phenomena and thereby held valid the Newtonian principle relativity or invariance.
Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017
Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

SITUATIA ACTUALA A MODELELOR DESPRE MATERIE SI UNIVERS (8)

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Forte-interactiuni, materie, univers

Si
Conditiile existentei vietii

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”
SITUATIA ACTUALA A MODELELOR DESPRE MATERIE SI UNIVERS (2)
MECANICA CUANTICA -MODELUL
STANDARD, COSMOLOGIA SI CONDITIILE DE
EXISTENTA ALE VIETII
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2006/Jan/pie-chart.jpg

• Life must form out of baryons and electrons, but that’s only 4% of universe
• Gravity brings matter together, and baryons cool and condense into stars
• In cold, dense environments, many organic molecules have been detected
• But how do planets form with these materials?

Candidates for Life

• Dark energy?
– No: too smooth, meaning it can’t clump together
to form structure
• Dark matter?
– Probably not; although dark matter can
clump it can’t cool and form complex structure
• Baryons?
Well, sure! We’re made of them

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”
SITUATIA ACTUALA A MODELELOR DESPRE MATERIE SI UNIVERS (3)
MECANICA CUANTICA -MODELUL
STANDARD, COSMOLOGIA SI CONDITIILE DE
EXISTENTA ALE VIETII (2)

Matter Content of the Universe - David Spergel March 2006 Valencia, Spain
composition of the universe

4.5% Baryons
22.4% Dark Matter
73% Dark Energy
<0.1% Neutrinos, Radiation

• Deuterium abundance is sensitive to the ratio

• Baryon Abundance from Nucleosynthesis
• of baryons/photons Wbh2 = 0.022 \pm 0.02

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

EXEMPLE ISTORICE DE MODELE DESPRE

MATERIE SI UNIVERS

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

EXEMPLE ISTORICE DE MODELE DESPRE MATERIE SI UNIVERS (1)

Timeline of classical mechanics:

Early Mechanics (1)

4th century BC - Aristotle founds the system of Aristotelian physics

260 BC - Archimedes mathematically works out the principle of the lever and


discovers the principle of buoyancy

 60 AD - Hero of Alexandria writes Metrica, Mechanics, and Pneumatics
1021 - Al-Biruni realizes that acceleration is connected with non-uniform


motion
 1000-1030 - Alhazen and Avicenna develop the concepts of inertia and momentum
 1100-1138 - Avempace develops the concept of a reaction force
1100-1165 - Hibat Allah Abu'l-Barakat al-Baghdaadi discovers that force is


proportional to acceleration rather than speed, a fundamental law in classical

mechanics
Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017
 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

EXEMPLE ISTORICE DE MODELE DESPRE MATERIE SI UNIVERS (2)

Timeline of classical mechanics - Early Mechanics (2)

• 1121 - Al-Khazini publishes The Book of the Balance of Wisdom, in which he

develops the concepts of gravitational potential energy and gravity at-a-
distance
 1340-1358 - Jean Buridan develops the theory of impetus
 1490 - Leonardo da Vinci describes capillary action
 1500-1528 - Al-Birjandi develops the theory of "circular inertia" to explain
Earth's rotation
 1581 - Galileo Galilei notices the timekeeping property of the pendulum
 1589 - Galileo Galilei uses balls rolling on inclined planes to show that different
weights fall with the same acceleration
 1638 - Galileo Galilei publishes Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

EXEMPLE ISTORICE DE MODELE DESPRE MATERIE SI UNIVERS (3)

Timeline of classical mechanics - Early Mechanics (3)

 1658 - Christiaan Huygens experimentally discovers that balls placed

anywhere inside an inverted cycloid reach the lowest point of the cycloid in the
same time and thereby experimentally shows that the cycloid is the
tautochrone
 1668 - John Wallis suggests the law of conservation of momentum
 1676-1689 - Gottfried Leibniz develops the concept of vis viva, a limited
theory of conservation of energy

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

EXEMPLE ISTORICE DE MODELE DESPRE MATERIE SI UNIVERS (4)

Formation of Classical Mechanics (Newtonian mechanics) (1)
1687 - Isaac Newton publishes his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica,
in which he formulates Newton's laws of motion and Newton's law of universal
gravitation
1690 - James Bernoulli shows that the cycloid is the solution to the tautochrone


problem
1690 - James Bernoulli shows that the cycloid is the solution to the tautochrone


problem
1691 - Johann Bernoulli shows that a chain freely suspended from two points will form


a catenary
1691 - James Bernoulli shows that the catenary curve has the lowest center of gravity


of any chain hung from two fixed points

1696 - Johann Bernoulli shows that the cycloid is the solution to the brachistochrone


problem
1714 - Brook Taylor derives the fundamental frequency of a stretched vibrating string in
terms of its tension and mass per unit length by solving an ordinary differential equation

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

EXEMPLE ISTORICE DE MODELE DESPRE MATERIE SI UNIVERS (5)

Formation of Classical Mechanics (Newtonian mechanics) (2)

 1733 - Daniel Bernoulli derives the fundamental frequency and harmonics of a
hanging chain by solving an ordinary differential equation
 1734 - Daniel Bernoulli solves the ordinary differential equation for the
vibrations of an elastic bar clamped at one end
 1738 - Daniel Bernoulli examines fluid flow in Hydrodynamica
 1739 - Leonhard Euler solves the ordinary differential equation for a forced
harmonic oscillator and notices the resonance phenomenon
 1742 - Colin Maclaurin discovers his uniformly rotating self-gravitating
spheroids
 1743 - Jean le Rond d'Alembert publishes his "Traite de Dynamique", in
which he introduces the concept of generalized forces for accelerating
systems and systems with constraints

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

EXEMPLE ISTORICE DE MODELE DESPRE MATERIE SI UNIVERS (6)

Formation of Classical Mechanics (Newtonian mechanics) (3)

 1747 - Pierre Louis Maupertuis applies minimum principles to mechanics

 1759 - Leonhard Euler solves the partial differential equation for the vibration
of a rectangular drum
 1764 - Leonhard Euler examines the partial differential equation for the
vibration of a circular drum and finds one of the Bessel function solutions
 1776 - John Smeaton publishes a paper on experiments relating power,
work, momentum and kinetic energy, and supporting the conservation of
energy
 1788 - Joseph Louis Lagrange presents Lagrange's equations of motion
in Mécanique Analytique

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

EXEMPLE ISTORICE DE MODELE DESPRE MATERIE SI UNIVERS (7)

Formation of Classical Mechanics (Newtonian mechanics) (4)

 1789 - Antoine Lavoisier states the law of conservation of mass
 1813 - Peter Ewart supports the idea of the conservation of energy in his
paper On the measure of moving force
 1821 - William Hamilton begins his analysis of Hamilton's characteristic
function
 1834 - Carl Jacobi discovers his uniformly rotating self-gravitating
ellipsoids
 1834 - John Russell observes a nondecaying solitary water wave (soliton) in
the Union Canal near Edinburgh and uses a water tank to study the
dependence of solitary water wave velocities on wave amplitude and water
depth
 1835 - William Hamilton states Hamilton's canonical equations of motion

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

EXEMPLE ISTORICE DE MODELE DESPRE MATERIE SI UNIVERS (8)

Formation of Classical Mechanics (Newtonian mechanics) (5)

 1835 - Gaspard Coriolis examines theoretically the mechanical efficiency of
waterwheels, and deduces the Coriolis effect.
 1841 - Julius Robert von Mayer, an amateur scientist, writes a paper on the
conservation of energy but his lack of academic training leads to its rejection.
 1842 - Christian Doppler proposes the Doppler effect
 1847 - Hermann von Helmholtz formally states the law of conservation of
energy
 1851 - Léon Foucault shows the Earth's rotation with a huge pendulum
(Foucault pendulum)
 1902 - James Jeans finds the length scale required for gravitational
perturbations to grow in a static nearly homogeneous medium

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

PROGRAMELE CU ASPECTELE NELAMURITE IN

MODELAREA FIZICO MATEMATICA A MATERIEI
SI UNIVERSULUI

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

CHALLENGES IN PHYSICS (1)

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

CHALLENGES IN PHYSICS (2)

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

CHALLENGES IN PHYSICS (3)

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

CHALLENGES IN PHYSICS (4)

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

CHALLENGES IN PHYSICS (5)

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

CHALLENGES IN PHYSICS (6)

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

CHALLENGES IN PHYSICS (7)

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

CHALLENGES IN PHYSICS (8)

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

CHALLENGES IN PHYSICS (9)

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

CHALLENGES IN MATHEMATICS – HILBERT PROGRAM (1)

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

CHALLENGES IN MATHEMATICS – HILBERT PROGRAM (2)

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

CAUTAREA DE MODELE ALE MATERIEI SI UNIVERSULUI

I MODELE (STANDARD, CLASICE ETC)

SI/SAU “MISTERUL” CONSTANTELOR

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”
MODELE SI CONSTANTE (1)
O ABORDARE DE FIZICA ELEMENTARA……
F=X*Y [F] = [X] * [Y]
Fundamental Physical Constants

Name Symbol Value

Combination
Speed of light c

Planck constant h

Planck constant h
...
Planck hbar

Planck hbar
...
Gravitation constant G

Boltzmann constant k
Coulomb constant
Boltzmann constant k

Molar gas constant R

Bohr radius
Avogadro's number NA 6.0221 x 1023 mol -1

Charge of electron e

Permeability of vacuum
Fine structure constant
Permittivity of vacuum

Coulomb constant

Faraday constant F
Compton wavelength
Mass of electron
Mass of electron
Mass of proton
Mass of proton
Mass of neutron
Mass of neutron
Atomic mass unit
Atomic mass unit
u
u
Bohr magneton
Avogadro's number
Stefan-Boltzmann
constant
Rydberg constant
Bohr magneton
Bohr magneton
Flux quantum
Bohr radius Magnetic flux quantum
Standard atmosphere atm
Wien displacement
b
constant

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

TEORII COSMOLOGICE IN GENERAL

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

 Brahmanda (Cosmic Egg) Universe - The Hindu Rigveda, written in

India around the 15th - 12th Century B.C., - cyclical or oscillating
universe in which a “cosmic egg”, or Brahmanda, containing the
whole universe (including the Sun, Moon, planets and all of space)
expands out of a single concentrated point called a Bindu before
subsequently collapsing again. The universe cycles infinitely between
expansion and total collapse.
 Anaxagorian Universe - The 5th Century B.C. Greek philosopher
Anaxagoras - the original state of the cosmos was a primordial mixture
of all its ingredients which existed in infinitesimally small
fragments of themselves. This mixture was not entirely uniform, and
some ingredients were present in higher concentrations than others, as
well as varying from place to place. At some point in time, this mixture
was set in motion by the action of “nous” (mind), and the whirling motion
shifted and separated out the ingredients, ultimately producing the
cosmos of separate material objects, all with different properties, that we
see today.
Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017
 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

 Atomist Universe - The 5th Century B.C., the Greek philosophers

Leucippus and Democritus founded the school of Atomism, which
held that the universe was composed of very small, indivisible and
indestructible building blocks known as atoms (from the Greek
“atomos”, meaning “uncuttable”). All of reality and all the objects in
the universe are composed of different arrangements of these
eternal atoms and an infinite void, in which they form different
combinations and shapes.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

 Aristotelian Universe - the 4th Century B.C., established a geocentric

universe in which the fixed, spherical Earth is at the centre, surrounded
by concentric celestial spheres of planets and stars. Although he
believed the universe to be finite in size, he stressed that it exists unchanged
and static throughout eternity. Aristotle established the four classical
elements of fire, air, earth and water, which were acted on by two
forces, gravity (the tendency of earth and water to sink) and levity (the
tendency of air and fire to rise). He later added a fifth element, aether, to
describe the void that fills the universe above the terrestrial sphere.

 Stoic Universe - Stoic philosophers of ancient Greece (3rd Century B.C.

and after) believed in a kind of island universe in which a finite cosmos is
surrounded by an infinite void (not dissimilar in principle to a galaxy).
They held that the cosmos is in a constant state of flux, and pulsates in size
and periodically passes through upheavals and conflagrations. In the Stoic
view, the universe is like a giant living body, with its leading part being the
stars and the Sun, but in which all parts are interconnected, so that what
happens in one place affects what happens elsewhere. They also held a
cyclical view of history, in which the world was once pure fire and
would become fire again (an idea borrowed from Heraclitus).

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Fundamental interactions - fundamental forces in Physics (4)

• All four fundamental forces are believed to be related, and to unite

into a single force at high energies on a minuscule scale, the Planck
scale, but particle accelerators cannot produce the enormous
energies required to experimentally probe this.

• A goal of theoretical physicists working beyond the Standard Model

is to quantize the gravitational field, yielding a theory of quantum
gravity (QG) which would unite gravity in a common theoretical
framework with the other three forces. Other theorists seek to unite
the electroweak and strong fields within a Grand Unified Theory
(GUT).

• Some theories, notably string theory, seek both QG and GUT within
one framework, unifying all four fundamental interactions along with
mass generation within a theory of everything (ToE).

• A few researchers have interpreted various anomalous observations

in physics as evidence for a fifth force, but this is not widely
accepted.
Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017
 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Gravity (1)
Gravitation is by far the weakest of the four interactions. The weakness of gravity can easily
be demonstrated by suspending a pin using a simple magnet (such as a refrigerator
magnet). The magnet is able to hold the pin against the gravitational pull of the entire Earth.

Yet gravitation is very important for macroscopic objects and over macroscopic distances for
the following reasons. Gravitation:

 Is the only interaction that acts on all particles having mass, energy and/or momentum

 Has an infinite range, like electromagnetism but unlike strong and weak interaction

 Cannot be absorbed, transformed, or shielded against

 Always attracts and never repels

Even though electromagnetism is far stronger than gravitation, electrostatic attraction is not
relevant for large celestial bodies, such as planets, stars, and galaxies, simply because such
bodies contain equal numbers of protons and electrons and so have a net electric charge of
zero. Nothing "cancels" gravity, since it is only attractive, unlike electric forces which can be
attractive or repulsive. On the other hand, all objects having mass are subject to the
gravitational force, which only attracts. Therefore, only gravitation matters on the large-scale
structure of the universe.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Gravity (2)
• The long range of gravitation makes it responsible for such large-scale phenomena as the
structure of galaxies and black holes and it retards the expansion of the universe.

• Gravitation also explains astronomical phenomena on more modest scales, such as

planetary orbits, as well as everyday experience: objects fall; heavy objects act as if they
were glued to the ground, and animals can only jump so high.

• Gravitation was the first interaction to be described mathematically. In ancient times,

Aristotle hypothesized that objects of different masses fall at different rates.

• During the Scientific Revolution, Galileo Galilei experimentally determined that this was
not the case — neglecting the friction due to air resistance, and buoyancy forces if an
atmosphere is present (e.g. the case of a dropped air-filled balloon vs a water-filled
balloon) all objects accelerate toward the Earth at the same rate. Isaac Newton's law of
Universal

• Gravitation (1687) was a good approximation of the behaviour of gravitation. Our present-
day understanding of gravitation stems from Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity
of 1915, a more accurate (especially for cosmological masses and distances) description
of gravitation in terms of the geometry of spacetime.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Gravity (3)

• Merging general relativity and quantum mechanics (or quantum field theory) into a more
general theory of quantum gravity is an area of active research. It is hypothesized that
gravitation is mediated by a massless spin-2 particle called the graviton.

• Although general relativity has been experimentally confirmed (at least for weak fields) on
all but the smallest scales, there are rival theories of gravitation. Those taken seriously by
[citation needed] the physics community all reduce to general relativity in some limit, and
the focus of observational work is to establish limitations on what deviations from general
relativity are possible.

• Proposed extra dimensions could explain why the gravity force is so weak.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Electroweak interaction (1)

• Electromagnetism and weak interaction appear to be very different at
everyday low energies. They can be modeled using two different
theories. However, above unification energy, on the order of 100 GeV,
they would merge into a single electroweak force.
• Electroweak theory is very important for modern cosmology, particularly
on how the universe evolved. This is because shortly after the Big Bang,
the temperature was approximately above 1015 K. Electromagnetic
force and weak force were merged into a combined electroweak
force.
• For contributions to the unification of the weak and electromagnetic
interaction between elementary particles, Abdus Salam, Sheldon
Glashow and Steven Weinberg were awarded the Nobel Prize in
Physics in 1979.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

 Cartesian Vortex Universe - In the mid-17th Century, the French

philosopher René Descartes outlined a model of the universe with
many of the characteristics of Newton’s later static, infinite
universe. But, according to Descartes, the vacuum of space was not
empty at all, but was filled with matter that swirled around in large
and small vortices. His model involved a system of huge swirling
whirlpools of ethereal or fine matter, producing what would later be
called gravitational effects.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

 Einsteinian Universe - The model of the universe assumed by Albert

Einstein in his groundbreaking theory of gravity in the early 20th
Century was not dissimilar to Newton’s in that it was a static,
dynamically stable universe which was neither expanding or
contracting.
 However, he had to add in a “cosmological constant” to his general
relativity equations to counteract the dynamical effects of gravity
which would otherwise have caused the universe to collapse in on
itself (although he later abandoned that part of his theory when
Edwin Hubble definitively showed in 1929 that the universe was not
in fact static).

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

 Big Bang Model of the Universe - After Hubble’s demonstration of the

continuously expanding universe in 1929 (and especially after the
discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation by Arno Penzias
and Robert Wilson in 1965), some version of the Big Bang theory has
generally been the mainsteam scientific view. The theory describes the
universe as originating in an infinitely tiny, infinitely dense point (or
singularity) between 13 and 14 billion years ago, from where it has been
expanding ever since. The essential statement of the theory is usually
attributed to the Belgian Roman Catholic priest and physicist Georges
Lemaître in 1927 (even before Hubble’s corroborating evidence), although a
similar theory had been proposed, although not pursued, 1922 by the
Russian Alexander Friedmann in 1922. Friedmann actually developed two
models of an expanding universe based on Einstein’s general relativity
equations, one with positive curvature or spherical space, and one with
negative curvature or hyperbolic space.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Strong interaction (1)

• The strong interaction, or strong nuclear force, is the most complicated interaction, mainly
because of the way it varies with distance. At distances greater than 10 femtometers, the strong
force is practically unobservable. Moreover, it holds only inside the atomic nucleus.

• After the nucleus was discovered in 1908, it was clear that a new force, today known as the
nuclear force, was needed to overcome the electrostatic repulsion, a manifestation of
electromagnetism, of the positively charged protons. Otherwise, the nucleus could not exist.
Moreover, the force had to be strong enough to squeeze the protons into a volume that is about
10−15 m, much smaller than that of the entire atom. From the short range of this force, Hideki
Yukawa predicted that it was associated with a massive particle, whose mass is approximately
100 MeV.

• The 1947 discovery of the pion ushered in the modern era of particle physics. Hundreds of
hadrons were discovered from the 1940s to 1960s, and an extremely complicated theory of
hadrons as strongly interacting particles was developed. Most notably:

 The pions were understood to be oscillations of vacuum condensates;

 Jun John Sakurai proposed the rho and omega vector bosons to be force carrying particles
for approximate symmetries of isospin and hypercharge;

 Geoffrey Chew, Edward K. Burdett and Steven Frautschi grouped the heavier hadrons into
families that could be understood as vibrational and rotational excitations of strings.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Strong interaction (2)

• While each of these approaches offered deep insights, no approach led directly to a
fundamental theory.

• Murray Gell-Mann along with George Zweig first proposed fractionally charged quarks in 1961.
Throughout the 1960s, different authors considered theories similar to the modern fundamental
theory of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) as simple models for the interactions of quarks.
The first to hypothesize the gluons of QCD were Moo-Young Han and Yoichiro Nambu, who
introduced the quark color charge and hypothesized that it might be associated with a force-
carrying field.
– At that time, however, it was difficult to see how such a model could permanently confine quarks.

– Han and Nambu also assigned each quark color an integer electrical charge, so that the quarks were
fractionally charged only on average, and they did not expect the quarks in their model to be
permanently confined.

• In 1971, Murray Gell-Mann and Harald Fritzsch proposed that the Han/Nambu color gauge field
was the correct theory of the short-distance interactions of fractionally charged quarks. A little
later, David Gross, Frank Wilczek, and David Politzer discovered that this theory had the
property of asymptotic freedom, allowing them to make contact with experimental
evidence. They concluded that QCD was the complete theory of the strong interactions, correct
at all distance scales. The discovery of asymptotic freedom led most physicists to accept
QCD since it became clear that even the long-distance properties of the strong interactions could
be consistent with experiment if the quarks are permanently confined.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Strong interaction (3)

• Assuming that quarks are confined, Mikhail Shifman, Arkady Vainshtein and Valentine Zakharov
were able to compute the properties of many low-lying hadrons directly from QCD, with only
a few extra parameters to describe the vacuum.

• In 1980, Kenneth G. Wilson published computer calculations based on the first principles of
QCD, establishing, to a level of confidence tantamount to certainty, that QCD will confine quarks.
Since then, QCD has been the established theory of the strong interactions.

• QCD is a theory of fractionally charged quarks interacting by means of 8 bosonic particles

called gluons. The gluons interact with each other, not just with the quarks, and at long distances
the lines of force collimate into strings. In this way, the mathematical theory of QCD not only
explains how quarks interact over short distances but also the string-like behavior, discovered by
Chew and Frautschi, which they manifest over longer distances.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Physics beyond the Standard Model - Elementary particle § Beyond the Standard Model (1)

• Numerous theoretical efforts have been made to systematize the existing four
fundamental interactions on the model of electroweak unification.

• Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) are proposals to show that all of the fundamental
interactions, other than gravity, arise from a single interaction with symmetries
that break down at low energy levels.
– GUTs predict relationships among constants of nature that are unrelated in the SM.

– GUTs also predict gauge coupling unification for the relative strengths of the electromagnetic, weak, and
strong forces, a prediction verified at the Large Electron–Positron Collider in 1991 for supersymmetric
theories.

• Theories of everything, which integrate GUTs with a quantum gravity theory face
a greater barrier, because no quantum gravity theories, which include
– string theory,

– loop quantum gravity, and

– twistor theory, have secured wide acceptance.

• Some theories look for a graviton to complete the Standard Model list of force-
carrying particles, while others, like loop quantum gravity, emphasize the
possibility that time-space itself may have a quantum aspect to it.
Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017
 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”
Physics beyond the Standard Model - Elementary particle § Beyond the Standard Model (2)

• Some theories beyond the Standard Model include a hypothetical fifth force, and the
search for such a force is an ongoing line of experimental research in physics. In
supersymmetric theories, there are particles that acquire their masses only through
supersymmetry breaking effects and these particles, known as moduli can mediate new
forces.

• Another reason to look for new forces is the recent discovery that the expansion of
the universe is accelerating (also known as dark energy), giving rise to a need to explain
a nonzero cosmological constant, and possibly to other modifications of general relativity.

• Fifth forces have also been suggested to explain phenomena such as CP violations,
dark matter, and dark flow.

• In December 2015, two observations in the ATLAS and CMS detectors at the Large
Hadron Collider hinted at the existence of a new particle six times heavier than the Higgs
Boson. However, after obtaining more experimental data, the anomaly appeared not be
significant.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

ANEXA 2

Modelul fizicii pornind de la

analiza constantelor

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

ALTE TEORII….

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Platon

Current topological models

Kepler's Platonic solid model of

the Solar System from Mysterium
Cosmographicum (1596)
Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017
 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Dimensionless physical constant (3)

• The large number of fundamental constants required in the Standard Model

has been regarded as unsatisfactory since the theory's formulation in the
1970s. The desire for a theory that would allow the calculation of particle
masses is a core motivation for the search for "Physics beyond the
Standard Model".

• The mathematician Simon Plouffe has made an extensive search of

computer databases of mathematical formulae, seeking formulae for the
mass ratios of the fundamental particles.

• Arthur Eddington set out alleged mathematical reasons why the reciprocal
of the fine structure constant had to be exactly 136. When its value was
discovered to be closer to 137, he changed his argument to match that
value.

• Experiments have since shown that Eddington was wrong; to six significant
digits, the reciprocal of the fine-structure constant is 137.036.

• An empirical relation between the masses of the electron, muon and tau
has been discovered by physicist Yoshio Koide, but this formula remains
unexplained.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Dimensionless physical constant (4)

• α, the fine structure constant, the coupling constant for the electromagnetic
interaction (≈ 1⁄137).

• The square of the electron charge, expressed in Planck units, which defines
the scale of charge of elementary particles with charge.

• μ or β, the proton-to-electron mass ratio, the rest mass of the proton divided
by that of the electron (≈1836). More generally, the ratio of the rest masses
of any pair of elementary particles.

• αs, the coupling constant for the strong force (≈1)

• αG, the gravitational coupling constant (≈10−45) which is the square of the
electron mass, expressed in Planck units. This defines the scale of the
masses of elementary particles and has also been used to express the
relative strength of gravitation.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

SITUATIA ACTUALA A MODELELOR DIN FIZICA

CARE POT FI (SUNT) BAZA UNOR

TEORII COSMOLOGICE DESPRE

MATERIE SI UNIVERS

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

noi înșine.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

ANEXA 3

Exemplu de model al Materiei

si Universului
nebazat pe abordari din fizica

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

SITUATIA ACTUALA A MODELELOR DESPRE MATERIE SI UNIVERS (3)

INTERACTIUNI FUNDAMENTALE

- FORTE FUNDAMENTALE IN FIZICA -

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

SITUATIA ACTUALA A MODELELOR DESPRE MATERIE SI UNIVERS (6)

Fundamental interactions - fundamental forces in Physics (3)

• The two nuclear interactions have short ranges, producing forces at

minuscule, subatomic distances.
• The strong nuclear interaction, which is carried by the gluon particle, is
responsible for the binding of quarks together to form hadrons, such as protons
and neutrons; as a residual effect, it binds the latter particles to form atomic
nuclei.
• The weak nuclear interaction, which is carried by the W and Z particles, also
acts on the nucleus, mediating radioactive decay.
• The other two, electromagnetism and gravity, produce significant forces at
macroscopic scales where the effects can be seen directly in everyday life.

– The electromagnetic force, carried by the photon, creates electric and

magnetic fields, which are responsible for chemical bonding and are
used in electrical technology. Electromagnetic forces tend to cancel each
other out when large collections of objects are considered, so over the
largest distances (on the scale of planets and galaxies), gravity tends to
be the dominant force.
Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017
 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

https://books.google.ro/books?id=AnbRCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT475&lpg=PT475&dq=Matter+content+in+the+universe&source=bl&ots=oOElExBqcA&sig=zh9jMyRBCaIs0Dw4gW9cXjsP8aA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjY
ycTa8d_RAhXKDpoKHX3JDH44ChDoAQhXMAg#v=onepage&q=Matter%20content%20in%20the%20universe&f=false

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

https://books.google.ro/books?id=AnbRCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT475&lpg=PT475&dq=Matter+content+in+the+universe&source=bl&ots=oOElExBqcA&sig=zh9jMyRBCaIs0Dw4gW9cXjsP8aA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjY
ycTa8d_RAhXKDpoKHX3JDH44ChDoAQhXMAg#v=onepage&q=Matter%20content%20in%20the%20universe&f=false

View publication stats

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017
ANNEX 4 - Dan Serbanescu, Propaedeutics of the essay on Energy
Systems and Challenges to them - Covid - a case study, DOI:
10.13240/RG.2.3.79959
 Propaedeutics of the essay on Energy Systems
and Challenges to them
Covid - a case study
Dan Serbanescu
DOI: 10.13240/RG.2.3.79959

I. Status of the topic and the main novel ideas of the essay :

Present approaches on the topic do not consider energy related models of bio-complexity and/or
their survival, if major challenges to their structure take place.
The Hypercybernetics essay is using the Covid case study to illustrate a proposed new approach
for the evaluation of energy systems and major challenges to their structure.

II. The following Hypotheses are made in the essay:

H1 Complex Topological Apoietic Systems (CATS) are defined as the Energy systems
composed of energy sources, including all the elements of the energy loop (generation-
use) / cycle and the interaction with other cooperating systems in their cycle (Șerbănescu,
2008).
H2 CATS definefractal type systems, having various forms, from subquantic, quantic,
molecular, or some biosystems to big complex forms (as for instance planetary, galactic,
cosmic, universal) alive or not, with or without conscience (Șerbănescu, 2015)
H3 CATS form the Planetary, (PL), Galactic (GC) and Cosmic Universal (CoU) realms
of one or more universes (Șerbănescu, 2017).
H4 CATS states have some specific features, as for instance:

H4.1 CATS states are fully described by a set of minimal multidimensional

characteristics (sysygies), with more than 4 dimensions. CATS are described by
real and imaginary mathematical spaces, being integral part of an integrating
description of a given universe (Șerbănescu, 2017).
H4.2 CATS sysygy are defined as categories (in the mathematical sense) and they
are described by the physical characteristics of mass, energy and information, as
defined for multidimentional spaces. Trnasformations from one state to
another are described by Matrices of Generalized Entropy Variation (MGEV)
– Enantiotropy (Șerbănescu, 2020).
H4.3 Multidimentional transitions are supposed to take place for assumed to have
linear CATS structure behaviour., as the process is step by step from one
neighbourhood to another, if the enanthitropy does not have a shapt grandient
change
H4.3.1 Transitions take place from:
 A. One state to another of the same system
B. One CATS to another in a given realm, with specific features given
the type of system (from/to)
 Not alive - alive
 Not alive and/or with conscience – with conscience
 One type of dimention to another number of dimentions (lower
or higher)
C. CATS from different realms
H4.3.2 Transitions from groups A,B,C have the following specific features:
 A and C are governed by MGEV
 B might be described by emergence bio modelling as per (Sorin
Baiculescu, 2020)
 For all the transition types the systems configuration is subject to feedback
abd feedbefore processes as described in the essay Hypercibernetic
(Șserbănescu,2020)

H5 CATS is defined as a fractal type topological algebric structure and may be

represented in a polyhedral geometric form, which facets describe possible states,
vertices the place of equal enanthiotropy – making possible that a CATS could exist in
more than one stateand the possible direction of its state. The number of facets and the
volume of the polyhedral form indicate the complexity degree of it (Șerbănescu, 2015).

H6 The singularities, that appear during the transition process of one CATS into
another of lower dimensions being also CATS with conscience, are part of the Space
of Experience (SE) (Băiculescu, 2015). SE may be Metric Space (MS), Quantic –
Hilbert Complex Space (QS), Symbolic Spece (SS) or Conscience Space (CoS). These
reflections are themselves topological spaces and are part of the CATS.

H7 Transitions of CATS non alive and/or conscience to others being alive and/or with
conscience lead to special singularities (emergence) (Băiculescu,2015).

III. Details on the adoted Hypotheses

HA1 &
HA2 CATS include both the energy sources themselves and the elements of the energy cycle
in the system generating complex simbiotic type of apoietic complex systems, which
might be called ecosystems. These ecosystems have the following characteristics of:
 General type for large complex systems – for details see (Șerbănescu 2006)
 Apoietic systems, as defined by (Maturana, 1980), and adapted for energy systems in
(Șerbănescu, 2008)
 Topologic systems in the sense described in detail in (Șerbănescu, 2017).
This propaedeutics is to confirm that the Hypercybernetics essay is considering one
representative type of CATS for each energy level, for the sake of illustration of the
conclusions. This assumption is not distorting the results.
 HA3 &
HA4 Due to the fact, that the CATS sysygies, i.e. the minimal characteristics of the
dominant source of CATS – the mass, energy and information, are
multidimentional (Șerbănescu, 2016), CATS themselves have some specific features, as
follows:

 They are part of any realm, in single or multiverses cases

 MGEV describes the systems dynamics, considered to have a liniar structure, with
stap by step changes and from one neighboring point / state to another
 The type B transitions to/from non-alive- alive and/or without/with conscience lead to
singularities of CATS as high dimentions topological systems, which migh be
explained by some tranzițtions as singularities of special type (Sorin Băiculescu,
2020);
 The hypercybernetic type of control and regulation of CATS transitions takes place at
various energy levels, with various control parameters, as for instance states induced
by enanthitropy variation generated by changes in sysygies (mass, energy,
information of each state). The variations for the multidimentional sysygies are
reflected in the real, simple complex and hypercomplex parts of the characteristics.
(Șerbănescu,2018).
HA5-
HA7 The singularities, that appear during some CATS transitions into others, more preciselly
to CATS with a different number of dimentions and with conscience, are reflected in SE.
(Băiculescu, 2015) and therefore, their description has very specific aspects.

IV. Biocomplex systems and their challenges- Covid case study

The essay Hypercybernetics considers also that:

i. CATS are energy systems, with all the non-energy sources components part of their
lifecycle make exchange of information and transformations of mass and energy itself and
are a special type of systems, self controlling , selfgenerating themselves, step by step, from
one state t a neighbouring one, which are built in a fractal mode so that any part
reproduces te whole. They also are transforming themselves from one state to another and
from one CATS to another based on govering rules as defined by their syzygies- the minimal
characteristics describing their states (mass, energy and information). The direction of
change is indicated by the states entropy, enanthiotropy. This process if valis at any realm
(Planetary, Galactic or Universal) for any type of systems, including the systems with life
and conscience.

ii. The CATS are subject to chellenges commensurable with their level on state (governed by
mass, energy level and information). The higher the energy level of the energy sources in a
CATS and/or the level of complexity as defined by their syzygy, the higher are the
challenges to them.
Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

EXEMPLE ISTORICE DE MODELE DESPRE

MATERIE SI UNIVERS

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

EXEMPLE ISTORICE DE MODELE DESPRE MATERIE SI UNIVERS (1)

Timeline of classical mechanics:

Early Mechanics (1)

4th century BC - Aristotle founds the system of Aristotelian physics

260 BC - Archimedes mathematically works out the principle of the lever and


discovers the principle of buoyancy

 60 AD - Hero of Alexandria writes Metrica, Mechanics, and Pneumatics
1021 - Al-Biruni realizes that acceleration is connected with non-uniform


motion
 1000-1030 - Alhazen and Avicenna develop the concepts of inertia and momentum
 1100-1138 - Avempace develops the concept of a reaction force
1100-1165 - Hibat Allah Abu'l-Barakat al-Baghdaadi discovers that force is


proportional to acceleration rather than speed, a fundamental law in classical

mechanics
Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017
 Hypercybernetics
Dan Serbanescu

ABSTRACT
This essay presents an integrated view on the behavior itself and their models for the complex energy systems.
Complex Energy Systems (CES) are considered to be topological systems as well as the models describing them.
CES are from one side complex systems, called Complex Apoietic Topological Systems (CATS) complying with
the requirements defined in previous works for them and form the other side they are topological systems and so are
the models describing them.
An energy system exists in a space state, defined by a core of unchanged features (called syzygies) described in a
hyper complex apace. Energy systems interact at the same level (for a given type of energy – lateral interface)
between them and with other systems challenging them. They are also impacted from the other systems assumed in a
continuous tight interconnection (“up” and “down” interface) by the intermede of impoact functions, defined as
transfer functions in a hypercomplex space.
The interactions between the energy systems define a special type of cybernetic interaction in a hyper complex
space, called hyper cybernetics. The usual cybernetics and both its second and third level, defined so far, become
particular cases of a hybercybernetic behavior and their models of a special type of topological complex systems, the
energy systems of a given universe. Hyper cybernetics reflects the potential impact as a feedback and feed before of
other universes, too.

1. INTRODUCTION

The essay presents an integrated view on the behavior itself and their models for the CES,
considered as Complex Apoietic Topological Systems (CATS). The systems and their models
reaction to both the challenges to them and their changes and their models evolve are
presented.
The following assumptions are adopted in the form of Generic Conjectures (GCOi):

GCO1: Energy is defined for all the levels from subquantic to cosmic (Table 1) and it defines
interconnected system in system set (“matrioshka type”), as in Figure 1.

Table 1. Complex Apoietic Topological Systems

Figure 1. CATS from Table 1 representation in a “matrioshka” style
GCO2: CATS are Complex Apoietic Systems. An Apoietic System is a complex system (more
details in Annex 1 and previous works referenced by it ) having the features of Autopoiesis.
Autopoiesis means "self-production" (self-creation or production) and expresses a
fundamental complementarity between structure and function. An autopoietic
machine is a machine organized (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of
production (transformation and destruction) of components which:

 through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and

realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them; and
 constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the
components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as
such a network.

Important properties of the space defined by an autopoietic system:

 it is self-contained and cannot be described by using dimensions that define
another space.
 when we refer to our interactions with a concrete autopoietic system, however, we
project this system on the space of our manipulations and make a description of
this projection.

One can recognize in this problem similarity with the definitions and methods in
integrated risk models and their connection to the Goedell’s theorem and hence
with the issue of control from inside (by a given component of the system) of that
system.

Some important features of CATS are:

1. The system is characterized by the fact that the interrelations between its
elements/components create a synergetic effect, which actually makes the system unique.
The interactions are of short distance between elements or of long distance (in space
and time).
2. The existing relationships in a CATS are defined by the existence of feedback loops,
which results in a dynamic system structure, with constant nonlinear interfaces.
3. CATS are interacting with the environment, being open to the exchange of energy and
information.
4. No part of CATS can contain the whole and therefore no part can assure the control of
the whole CATS. This could lead to specific tools for controlling it, like for instance
distributed control, hierarchical control and/or external to the CATS unitary
control.
5. CATS elements are CATS themselves and are highly adaptive, which introduces
another difficulty in the choice of the modeling tools.
6. CATS have a historical hysteresis characteristic, in the sense that they have a history
and that leads to an effect known as “the butterfly effect”, i.e. a small change in time and
space will impact on the future history of the whole CATS or to a completely different
component that the one that had the initial change.
This creates the conditions for the generation of high level challenges, called Cliff
Edge Effects (CEE). However, even if the interrelations of the components are nonlinear,
it is considered that they comply with the cause and effects law in this specific manner.
 The concept of linearity and nonlinearity apply to the models defined for CATS and it is
one of the important modeling issues.
7. CATS has boundaries difficult to define, which have a high impact on the content of
their models and their own changing dynamics and flexibility.Complex Autopoietic
Systems (CAS) were introduced by (Maturana et al., 1974) and have the specific features
additionally to the generic CES ones, sometimes refining the generic CES features. CAS
are systems, for which an autopoietic mechanism can be defined, leading to the
system possibility not only to self-regulate, but also to recreate itself, as follows:

1. The system boundaries have to be clearly defined at any moment in time

2. The system has to have components, being themselves CS
3. The cause – effect law interactions have to be operable.
4. The system boundaries have to be self-produced by the system, as well as the
system components
5. The rest of the components should be also be able for most of them to be self-
produced by the system

GCO3: For the CATS systems in table 1 and Figure 1 the category concepts are introduced in
order to model the components of each systems (energy sources of SYS x type) and
the connections between them (the laws of transformation and conservation of energy)
including the applicable laws related to the entropy at each level.
The features described before for CATS and their elements are applicable to the
adopted categories to describe them.
The following definitions are introduced (in accordance with the theory of categories in
mathematics) (Figure 2):

 Objects Obj1, Obj2, Obj3

 Morphisms f1, f2, f1* f2, si
 Three identity morphisms (not illustrated in the figure) 1X, 1Y, and 1Z

where:
 Obj I – energy sources of a certain level (SYS x)
 Functor1- energy conservation law;
 Functor 2 -energy transformation laws
 Functor 1 combined with functor 2 consider also the entropy aspects
 Figure 2. F Description of the category concept

The impact of using the category approach is that the resultant states of applying functors
to objects, by applying energy applicable laws at a certain level for the constituent energy
sources of that type, lead to a set of states – space states of the categories defined for
SYS x. The characterization of the states is given by the minimal features of the
energy type.

GCO4: CATS energy system SYSx (Table 1 and Figure 1) transformations are defined as
mentioned above as space states. Characterization of the SYS x states is given by a
set of minimal features, which are called sysygies (for details and example see Annexes 2
and 3). Description of the space states of the CATS is performed using specific
minimal features called sysygies, which in their case are related to Energy,
defined for this purpose as a in the category understanding of the SYSx as a function
of mass, speed of light and entropy.

GCO5: CATS systems described for their space states by the syzygy “Energy” are also
topological structures.In this approach topology can be connected to issues like:

 The continuity of transformations and their perceived models, i.e. knowledge

(models) and existence (real behavior) of CATS
 The transformations/changes of CATS and the models describing them take place
step by step, until a stable state is reached.
 During and after the changes and challenges a “core features” of SYSx as defined
by their syzygies (“Energy”) transform them from one structure to another,
going through various states. The results are topological structures, described by
 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

PROGRAMELE CU ASPECTELE NELAMURITE IN

MODELAREA FIZICO MATEMATICA A MATERIEI
SI UNIVERSULUI

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Figure 5. Transition matrix iand geometrical polyhedral representation os the transition phases process

GCO6: Various states of the SYSx space state are reached during this process; a stable
situation of the transformation is defined by a parameter, called Enantiotropy.

o Enantiotropy is the entropy of the states reached in a SYSx. The Enantiotropy

of the optimal situation in a SYSx is that, where the system might move to any of
several surrounding cases.
( )
o The Enantiotropy ( ) is given by (1). This formula is applied for the
Enantiotropy evaluated for a given system (k) without considering the interface from
other systems (“up and down” x),. Ie a so called “Lateral Enantiotropy”.

( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ∑ ( ) ( ) (1)

( )
where ( ) is the probability of the state xl in a system (k)
Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

CHALLENGES IN PHYSICS (3)

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Figure 6. Transition matrix and geometrical polyhedral representation of the transition phases process

Figure 7. Transition matrix and geometrical polyhedral representation of the transition phases process
 Figure 8. Transition matrix and geometrical polyhedral representation of the transition phases process

As shown in Figure 8, the resultant structures have some important features, as follows:

 Number of facets NF and vertexes,

 Volume (V),
 Surface(S),
 Enantiotropy (ETS), defined as per formulas (1) to (7).

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

These features from the formulas (8) to (11) and Figure 8 define the states of the system
structures and have a physical meaning:

 Number of faces illustrate the number of states of a system during its changes, in its
topological space states.
 The volume shows the fact that the states are reached after a lot of transits and changes as
defined in the GCO5
  The surfaces are in correspondence with the number of facets and indicate on the
combinations and changes taking place in the SYSx during its transformations
 The enantiotropy indicates the probability of reaching optimal points (represented by
vertexes) during the transformations of SYSx

GCO7: In SYSx defined as topological structures the changes and challenges at the same
level are defined by transfer matrices (Annex 2 and 3), which are applied to their
syzygies (of Energy type in the acceptance of this approach).
The changes involving movement to other types of systems ((k+/-m) are governed by
the Enantiotropy of the system, as defined above.
The system SYSx in topological representation and with the CATS features mentioned
before behaves as a classical cybernetic system (Figure 9).

Figure 9 SYS x in a cybernetic description

The principles of cybernetics were defined in classic works. SYSx are in light of
cybernetics “black boxes” for every change at the same level – changes and for the
evaluation of the up/down systems impact on them. In Figure 6 there are the following
notations, reflecting the application of cybernetic approach to a SYSx:

 Function of structure of SYS as defined by Syzygy Energy (as per (12) and (13))

( ) ( ) ( ) (12)

( ) ( ) ( ) (13)

Where s is defined as

(14)

 Feedback as per (6)

 ( ) ( ) ( ( )) (15)

 For the INPUT -Function of SYZYGY for SYS “x” and OUTPUT - Function of
SYZYGY for SYS “x” and f1 impact the Transfer Function of SYSx is:

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ( )) (16)

More detailed presentations on cybernetic features for a system are in Table 2 ( [12])
Further researches on cybernetics introduced notions of second and third order of
cybernetics, considering the observer itself for the second order for example, were
developed. SYSx is a cybernetic machine, as described in formulas (12)-(16) and
represented in Figure 10.
Table 2 Main principles of cybernetics [12]

Degree of acceptance/use in
a topologic approach on
Features included in the

Features included in the

ITAKE approach

hypercybernetics
CAS approach
No Principle s Short pre s e ntation of principle

One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities
P1 Occam's Razor
required to explain anything
The Identity of the Two entities that do not have any properties allowing to distinguish them should
P2
Indistinguishables be seen as a single entity
The Principle of
P3 Equal causes have equal effects
Causality
All processes at the lower level of a hierarchy are restrained by and act in
P4 Downward Causation
conformity to the laws of the higher level
Blind Variation and "Blind Variation and Selective Retention" (BVSR) -Donald T. Campbell, as a
P5
Selective Retention way of describing the most fundamental principle underlying Darwinian evolution.

The Principle of Stable configurations that facilitate the appearance of configurations similar to
P6
Autocatalytic Growth themselves will become more numerous
The Principle of The larger the variety of configurations a system undergoes, the larger the
P7
Selective Variety probability that at least one of these configurations will be selectively retained
The Principle of
BVSR processes recursively construct stable systems by the recombination of
P8 Recursive Systems
stable building blocks
Construction
The Law of Requisite The larger the variety of actions available to a control system, the larger the
P9
Variety variety of perturbations it is able to compensate.

In order to be a proper coordination of actions to perception, the system must be

able to select the correct choice. The ability of the system to avoid incorrect or
Law of Requisite unviable choices is a constraint on the behavior of the control system. If no such
P10
Constraint - constraint existed, the system would have to try out actions blindly, and the larger
the variety of perturbations, the smaller the probability that those actions would
turn out to be adequate.

The Law of Requisite In order to adequately compensate perturbations, a control system must "know"
P11
Knowledge which action to select from the variety of available actions
The weaker the average regulatory ability and the larger the average uncertainty
Law of Requisite
P12 of available regulators, the more requisite hierarchy is needed in the organization
Hierarchy
of regulation and control for the same result of regulation
The Principle of
P13 The model embodied in a control system is necessarily incomplete
Incomplete Knowledge

Cybernetics and Systems Science have produced important principles of

information and uncertainty. These principles were developed in the context of
Principles of Reasoning specific theories which represent information and uncertainty using a particular
P14
with Uncertainty mathematical formalism of variety, usually probability and thereby stochastic
information theory.The principles are: •Principle of Uncertainty Maximization
•Principle of Uncertainty Minimization

The Red Queen For an evolutionary system, continuing development is needed just In order to
P15
Principle maintain its fitness relative to the systems it is co-evolving

The generalized "Peter

P16 In evolution systems tend to develop up to the limit of their adaptive competence
Principle"
 Figure 10 Interface and challenges for a system SYSx

GCO8:SYS x in s coordinates consider a representation that assumes the existence of a real

and one imaginary term to describe the coordinates of the SYSx states. However
there are results on the hyper complex numbers, assuming the existence of a multi
complex axes In this case s can be represented as in formula (17)

( ) (01
) ( ) (17)
∑

(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘)

𝑠 (𝑘) 𝑠 𝑖 𝑠 𝑖
(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘)
𝑠 𝑖 𝑠 𝑖 ) (𝑠 𝑖 𝑠 𝑖 𝑠 𝑖 𝑠 𝑖 𝑠 𝑖

2–3 48

For a special case of SYS in table 1 and Figure 1 also formula (18) is possible

( ) ( ) ( )
∑ ∑ (18)

In this case the syzygy and its components for (k) system will have the form (19) to (22)
( ) ( ) ( )
∑ (19)

( ) ( ) ( )
∑ (20)

( ) ( ) ( )
∑ (21)
 ( ) ( ) (( ) ) ( )
( ) ∑ (( ( ) ) ) (22)

where
mass
C speed light
ψ2 entropy
is expressed in general as information entropy, but being actually a matrix of
elements describing the entropies at various levels and for various types of energy
systems
If the formula (19) is represented in (23) form, then some groups for the types of
components of the syzygy Energy for SYSx are identified.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

01 2-3 4-8

Real energy Complex energy hyper complex energy (23)

The syzygy components for a given system (SYSx) are composed of three categories:

 Real type of energy, which is related for each SYSx (from Table 1 and Figure 1) to
the obervable energy changing in the same system (“x”) , by changing from one state
to another
 Simple Complex Energy, which is related for each SYS x to that type identifying
itself by the results of their intaraction with the Real Energy.
Both Real energy and Simple Comples are specific to a given SYSx and do not
interact with othe levels /energy systems and they describe a type of interactions
called in this approach Lateral Control in a given energy system

 Hypercomplex Energy, which is related to interactions from other systems than

“x” (“up or down”) and they describe the Hyper Control in a given energy system.

Therefore, the cybernetics as defined by founding works and its second and third level
introduced later on become particular cases of the Hyper-cybernetics, considering all the given
energy system states and the interaction with higher or lower order of energy systems, for a
given set of CATS energy systems in a defined universe. The interfaces of hyper complex type
include also those from other universes, as feedback and feed before functions.
2. MODEL

2.1 CATS react to challenges and change their states:

 Within a given energy level/system (SYSx)

 Between energy systems for one level to another

2.2 The following Modeling Conjuctures are defined:

MCO1: Challanges and changes to CATS and their models express the interactions to
the energy systems of systems as cybernetic interconnected machines of special
type, i.e. as complex systems of systems with topological structures and
behaviour.

MCO2: There are three guiding principles of the CATS reactions to challenges and
changes:

P1: The space states of the SYS x systems, which are acting as a cybernetic
machine, and their models are topological structures having also a
geometrical correspondent as polihedral form.The structures reflect include
imaginary elements of the cybernetic machine as reflected by hypercomplex
spaces.

P2: Topological structures of the SYSx spacee states are described by their
syzygies, which are changing from one state to another, being governed by a
transition matrix.

P3: Challenges from outside an energy system (from “up or down” energy
systems) lead to new space states in a transition considering the feedback and
feedbefore action governed by a transition syzygy.

MCO3: The CATS cybernetic machines react to challenges and changes by

considering impacts of real and multi - imaginary components defined in real and
hypercomplex spaces. The CATS cybernetic machines tend, tend assimptotically to
SYS 10

2.3 Process of CATS changes

For a given SYSx the space states changes are reflected in the syzygies (24):

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ∑ ( ) ∑ (( ) ) ∑ (( ) ) ( ( )) (24)
Where the notations are from the formulas (18) to (22).

The process of CATS response to the challenges and the changes taking place in a given
SYSx takes place gradually from one space state to another in three groups of steps:

Step 1 - Response to the challenge for a SYSx

If a CATS system (SYSx) is challenged, it reacts as a cybernetic machine. The

cybernetic representation is as in Figure 6 and formulas (25)-(26)

( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
∑ (( ) ) ( ( )) ( ( ( )) ( ( )) ) (25)

( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ( )) ( ( )) (26)

For the formulation in matrix format the formulas above for the SYSx description and the
Challenge description (formulas (27) and (28)):

For a given (k):

[ ( ]) [ ] (27)

[ ( )] [ ] (28)

The resultant reaction of SYS x defined as in formulas (27), (28) is reflected in (29). The
geometrical form of this result is represented in Figure 11.

[ ( )] [ ( )] [ ( )] [ ] (29)
 Figure 11 Interface and challenges for a system SYSx

The structures resulting after an energy system SYS x was challenged are considered in the light
of GCo6 and show that, in the particular case from Figure 11 the characteristics of the striuctures
are in the relationships (3)-(32) between them.

(30)

(31)

(32)

The interpretation of those relationships illustrates the following:

 A challenge with the geometrical representation as a stellate icosahedron on a dodecahedron

(a system SYS x ) may lead to a new type of space state structure close to an icosahedron.
 The resultant state of a SYSx after being challenged by a structure with better
“performances” (which passed through more states changes and ended in a form with
preffered optimal point of choice indicated by lower Enantiotropy) is a form adapted to the
Challenger.
 The conclusions above are valid for the case that the feedback and feed before actions in SYS
x coming from up and down systems in the “matrioshka” arrangements. The later evaluation
of the impact of the feedback reaction illustrate that the structure will tend to keep its pace to
the SYS 10 status.
Step II – Changes of space states of a SYSx
SYSx as a cybernetic machine is impacted by from systems at levels (x+/-m) (as represented in
Table 1 and Figure 1). The form of the space state defined for SYSx is as in formulas (33) –(35).

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ∑ (( ( ) ) ) ( ( ) ( )) (33)

( )( ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
) ( ) ( ) ∑ ∑ (34)

( ) ( ) ( )( ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ) ∑ (( ) ) ( ( ) ( ))

(35)

The SYSx cybernetic machine is represented in Figure 12. SYS x has two types of control
reaction:

o At the same level, within “x” type of energy system, which is called “Lateral
Control”. This reaction is assuring space state changes within SYSx based on the
mechanism presented in the introduction
o From levels “up and down” (x+/-m). This reaction is assuring reaction to impact
functions from other levels on level “x” and is called “Up/Down Control”

Figure12 Hyper cybernetics of SYS 0 to 10

 The syzygy, the parameter that defines the SYSx reaction as a cybernetic machine, has
some specific features, by comparison with the traditional cybernetic reaction:

 The SYS x (cybernetic complex apoietic topological machine) reaction depends on

the energy system specific parameters (mass and speed of ligh) and of its
Enantriotropy of states variation (formulas (36),(37)). Enantiotropy considers the
Up/Down Control impact from other energy systems to system “x”

( ) ( ) ( )( ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ) ∑ ( ) (36)

(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘)

𝐸𝑓𝑖𝑛 (𝑠) ∑ (𝐸𝑙 (𝑠) 𝑖𝑙 ) ∑((𝑚𝑙 (𝑠) 𝑐 ) 𝑖𝑙 ) 𝐸𝑇𝑆𝑙 (𝑠)
𝑙 𝑙

(𝑘) (𝑘)
∑((𝑚𝑙 (𝑠) 𝑐 ) 𝑖𝑙 ) ( 𝒇𝒍 𝒅𝒐𝒘𝒏 𝑬𝑻𝑺(𝒌 𝒎) (𝒀(𝒔))
𝒇𝒍 𝒖𝒑 𝑬𝑻𝑺(𝒌 𝒎) (𝒀(𝒔))
)
𝑙

f impact =𝜓 = Impact from levels down and up for a given level of the whole CAS (37)

 The SYSx reaction depends on characteristics determined by its transfer function

and the feedback and feed before impact due to

o “Real Energy”,
o “Simple complex Energy” and
o “Hypercomplex Energy”, as defined in formula (23)

 The real and the simple compex components are specific for the “Lateral Control”,
i.e. control of SYSx at its level, while the hyper complex components are defined by
the Up/Down Control from other energy systems. The resultant cybernetic SYSx and
CATS as a whole cybernetic machine is a Hypercomplex Cybernetic Machine (HCM).

 The move from one level to another is represented in its geometric polyhedral form
in Figures 13 and 14.
 Figure 13 Icosahedron of systems SYS 7 to 9 (Table 1 and Figure 1)

Figure 14 Icosahedron of systems SYS 7 to 9 & 1to 3 & 0 (Table 1 and Figure 1)
 Step III – Assimptotic changes of CATS
The CATS systems reaction to changes (formulas (38) and (39) lead to topological structures
represented also as geometrical polyhedral forms (defined by hyper complex forms).

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
[ ( )] [ ( )] [ ( )] [∑ ] [ ( )] [ ( )]

[ ]

(38)

( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )(
[ ( )] [ ( )] [ )] [ ] [ ]
( ) ( )

[ ]

(39)

The CATS changes described tend asymptotically to SYS10 energy system, which is a set of
minimal Enantiotropy variation of the space state and maximum stability. This system
(SYS10) is represented by the Poincare hype sphere (Figure 11).

Figure 15 Poincare hyper sphere (SYS10) as a result of icosahedrons changes- SYS 0 to 9 (Table 1 and Figure 1)
3. FINAL REMARKS

 Energy systems (SYSx) are complex apoietic topological cybernetic systems, which
interact with the challenges to them and pass through changes between them. The challenges
and changes are those of cybernetic systems.

 Energy systems are cybernetic machines change to various possible states generated by
their hypercomplex imaginary part and therefore:
o They are subject to hypercomplex cybernetics rules for the behaviour and their
models.
o The “real type components” described so far in present cybernetic approaches,
including second and third order of cybernetics, do not consider the multilevel
interactions generated by the imaginary components of those cybernetic
machines.

 The implications of energy systems as hypercybernetic machines are as followss:

1. Energy systems as hypercomplex cybernetic machines are generators of a reality

defined as their syzygy as in (40)

01 (40)

(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘)

𝑅 (𝑘) 𝑅 𝑖 𝑅 𝑖
(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘)
𝑅 𝑖 𝑅 𝑖 ) (𝑅 𝑖 𝑅 𝑖 𝑅 𝑖 𝑅 𝑖 𝑅 𝑖

2–3 48

The reality created by energy systems 0 to 10 (Table 1 and Figure 1) has three
components, i.e. reality related to:

 Real component (01) creating realities of type I (Figures )

 Simple complex (23), creating realities of type II (Figures )
 Hypercomplex (48), creating realities of type III (Figures )

The same conclusions were also derived for the knowledge process on the
energy systems resuls (as in [ ] applying ITAKE)
Figure 16 Reality types (1)

Figure 17 Reality types (2)

2. The hypercybernetic energy systems change their states for a single universe or a
multiple universe, as the feedback and feedbefore impacts my come for the
hypercomplex components from them, too (Figure 18):

Figure 18 Hyper cybernetics interactions for other universes

Energy sources generating new energy states as for instance quasiparticles, black holes,
dark energyetc are examples of such interactions
In any situation, for single or multiple universes, the changes in energy systems generate
realities in three realms (Figure 19):
 Earth
 Galactic
 Cosmic
Each

Figure 19 Realms of reality

REFERENCES

[1] Sneed J., The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics, Synthese Library - D Reidel, 1971
[2] Baez, John C, Stay, M., Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone,
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/rosetta.pdf
[3] Crumpei, G., Gavriluţ, A., Crumpei Tanasă, I., Agop, M., New Paradigms on Information, Mind
and Reality from a Transdisciplinary Perspective, Junimea Publishing House, Iaşi, 2016
[4] Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics, Second Edition: or the Control and Communication in the Animal
and the Machine second edition, MIT, 1965, ISBN-13: 978-0262730099
[5] Claude E Shannon , Warren Weaver,The Mathematical Theory of Communication Kindle
Edition,
[6] Psihologia consonantista-Stefan Odobleja 1982, Editura Stiintifica si Enciclopedica
[7] Dan ŞERBĂNESCU, Unele Aspecte ale Modelării în Fizică - Some Aspects of Modeling in
Physics
htps://www.researchgate.net/publication/324675197,https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32
1482420_Unele_aspecte_ale_modelarii_in_fizica_-_Some_aspects_of_modeling_in_physics
[8] Șerbănescu, D., Scientific Knowledge and Mythology, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2447.7201 · SRA
conference Boston, USA, Dec 2008
[9] Șerbănescu, D., "An integrated perspective on knowledge and existence", Noema XVI, iulie
2017, pp 185-216
[10] Șerbănescu, D., Spiridon, L.V., Some Considerations on the Lessons Learnt from the Cavalcade
of Changes in Physics’ Models, DOI: 10.5772/65414, in “Proceedings of the International
Conference on Interdisciplinary Studies (ICIS 2016) - Interdisciplinarity and Creativity in the
Knowledge Society", book edited by Valentina Mihaela Pomazan, ISBN 978-953-51-2768-0,
Published: November 3, 2016
[11] Șerbănescu, D., Selected topics in Risk Analyses for some Energy Systems, LAP Lambert
Academic Publishing, May 2015, https://www.lap-
publishing.com/catalog/details//store/gb/book/978-3-659-71468-9/selected-topics-in-risk-
analyses-for-some-energy-systems, ISBN-13: 978-3-659-71468-9, ISBN-10: 3659714682, EAN:
9783659714689
[12] F.Heylighen, C. Joslyn, Principles of Systems and Cybernetics, 1994,
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/CYBSPRIN.html

[13] Dan Serbanescu and Lucian Victor Spiridon, Some Considerations on the Lessons Learnt
from the Cavalcade of Changes in Physics’ Models, Proceedings of the International
Conference on Interdisciplinary Studies (ICIS 2016) - Interdisciplinarity and Creativity in
the Knowledge Society, http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/65414
[14] Șerbănescu, D., An integrated perspective on knowledge and existence, Noema XVI, iulie
2017, pp 185-216
[15] Dan Serbanescu, On challenges and changes for complex energy systems, DOI:
10.13240/RG.2.2.22359,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341412136_On_challenges_and_changes_for_comp
lex_energy_systems
ANNEX 5 - Dan Serbanescu, Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și
științelor minții, Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala CRIFST-DLMFS DOI 10.13240/RG.2.2.29979.70405, 7
noiembrie 2019
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337022450

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi

Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei
(DLMFS) Sesiunea anuala CRIFST-DLMFS Despr...

Presentation · November 2019

DOI: 10.13240/RG.2.2.29979.70405

CITATIONS READS

0 46

1 author:

Dan Serbanescu
Romanian Academy
140 PUBLICATIONS   293 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Special topics on risk View project

Modeling of human and organisational factors in complex industrial systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dan Serbanescu on 05 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Academia Romana
Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)
Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala CRIFST-DLMFS

Despre unele abordări integratoare

ale fizicii și științelor minții

Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu

DOI 10.13240/RG.2.2.29979.70405

7 noiembrie 2019
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

O perspectivă nouă asupra posibilelor similitudini, dacă nu chiar mai mult, între:

•comportamentul de tip topologic, dovedit din ce în ce mai multe cazuri, ca fiind

răspândit în lumea fizicii și a modelelor înseși ale acesteia și
•rezultate de ultimă oră (dar și mai vechi) din domeniile ce studiază mintea omenescă

Sunt prezentate astfel de aspecte pentru:

•Relația posibilă dintre comportamentul fizic al unor substanțe, ființe vii și aspectele
ce descriu componentele creierului care asigură o serie de funcții și conexiuni, multe
dovedite deja în literatură ca având un comportament ce poate fi descris cu același
abordări topologice.
•Printre modelele fizice lipsite sau nu de viață ce fac obiectul studiului fizicii, se
prezintă și aspecte legate de similitudinile modelării sistemelor energetice (vii sau
nevii), artificiale sau naturale și/sau combinate vii-nevii privite prin prisma
rezultatelor unor evaluări de risc efectuate anterior.

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

Dintre rezultatele mai recente din lumea științelor minții, considerate ca având
relevanță pentru această abordare se pot considera exemple cum ar fi:
• În condițiile în care încă nu sunt înțelese complet conexiunile hardware
interne ale creierului, crește numărul abordărilor care utilizează
instrumentele de topologie algebrică pentru a le descifra
• Rezultate experimentale din lumea vie aduc noutăți surprinzătoare, care susțin
faptul ca o abordare topologica poate sa le explice existența și
comportamentul, cum ar fi :
 Descrierea ciano-bacteriilor și comportamentul lor topologic
 Unele exemple de studii despre creier si minte cu tangențe si /sau abordări
directe legate de topologie, ca de exemplu :
 Urmărirea tiparelor de clicuri printr-o filtrare a rețelei dezvăluie cavități
topologice cheie din rețeaua structurală a creierului, domeniu în care avem
precursori ai acestor idei și în țară(dr. Dan Psatta), dar și
 Multiple rezultate actuale in cercetări internaționale (de exemplu la -
Institute for Strategic Research Consciousness research and Theoretical
Physics group The Quantum Brain and the Topological Consciousness

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

• Se propune utilizarea unei abordări în descrierea unor sisteme care sunt și se

pot modela ca sisteme topologice (abordare propusă anterior de către autor –
metoda ITAKE - Integrated Topological Approach on knowledge and Existence -
pentru sisteme și modele topologice)
http://noema.crifst.ro/ARHIVA/2017_03_03.pdf
• Această abordare pleacă de la o dezvoltările topologice ale lui David Hilbert,
care vorbea despre căutarea și găsirea de soluții de tip syzygy. Pentru această
abordare s-au definit, sub forma unor conjecturi, următoarele trei principii:
1. Structura topologică a obiectului fizic și/sau a modelului său si partea sa
componentă pentru modelul de cunoaștere dat de fizică este descrisă de
noțiunea de categorie.
2. Procesul de construire a acestei structuri are loc în iterații applicate
categoriilor menționate anterior, definite de un set de syzygy
3. Procesul duce asimptotic către o stare finală stabilă, a cărei structură însă
nu poate fi cunoscută dinainte

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

Partea I

EXEMPLE
de
SPATII TOPOLOGICE

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

OCP–FRP protein complex topologies suggest a

mechanism for controlling high light tolerance in
Details on the characteristics of an icosahedron
cyanobacteria
Nikolai N. Sluchanko, 1,2 Yury B. Slonimskiy,1,3 Evgeny A. Shirshin,4
Marcus Moldenhauer,5 Thomas Friedrich,5 and Eugene G. Maksimov2

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

ARTA
Vitruvius - Marcus Vitruvius Pollio (80/70 BC. - 15 / 23 AD)[
Leonardo da Vinci - Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci (AD 15 aprilie 1452 - 2 mai 1519)

•Looked for the ratios of man & of all

creation.
•1492 - Leonardo notebook
Man is a microcosm of the universe

•"By the ancients man has been called the

world in miniature;

•and certainly this name is well bestowed,

because,

• inasmuch as man is composed of

earth, water, air and fire,
• his body resembles that of the
earth."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitruvian_Man
Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

CREIER

http://media.photobucket.com/image/neural%20network/dk49/neural-
network.jpg#!oZZ13QQcurrentZZhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.photobucket.com%2Fimage%2Fneural http://www.scifi-
%20network%2FninjaRakun%2Fnn-architecture.png%3Fo%3D13 meshes.com:80/gallery/showfull.php?photo=2866

www.reikiwithjudy.com/EEG%20Brain%20Waves.htm http://www.faasse.com/Podcast/72C75493-3B18-4223-B212-DD748897C7F7_files/Theta20Space.jpg

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

COSMOS

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.dreamsville.net/wp-
content/uploads/2007/06/galaxy.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dreamsville.net/%3Fp%3D106&usg=__O9WGyOF1cdhoakosnaQp9OTQpgc=&h=800&w=800&sz=65&hl=en&start=30&zoom=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=31xDj3adapKB3M:&tbnh=143&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dimage%2Bbrain%2Bwaves%26start%3D2
0%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26ndsp%3D20%26tbs%3Disch:1

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

INTERNET

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

Unii evolutionisti au asa un raspuns…Chiar asa va fi oare?

BIOLOGIE
Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

Altii sunt mai ponderati…Pare mai plauzibil, dar problemele de decizie

sociala, morala nu sunt insa diferite sau mai mici

BIOLOGIE
Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

How the Mathematics of Algebraic Topology Is Revolutionizing Brain Science - MIT

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602234/how-the-mathematics-of-algebraic-topology

Nobody
understands
the brain’s
wiring
diagram, but
the tools of
algebraic
topology are
beginning to
tease it apart.

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

Ciano-bacteria and topology

Validation of the proposed topology of the OCP–FRP complexes.

a The SAXS-derived structural model of the 1:2 ∆NTE –FRP O

complex with FRP residues colored by a gradient from conserved

(purple) to variable (cyan) using Consurf. OCP is shown in light-
violet with the carotenoid in orange. Note high conservation on the
concave side of the FRP dimer and that (i) binding of the first head
domain of FRP occurs on the OCP–CTD in place of the NTE
(shown in yellow), (ii) presumable contact area includes F299 of
OCP and K102 and F76 of FRP, whereas (iii) the second head
domain of FRP is open for the interaction with
another OCP molecule and (iv) the dimer interface of FRP is not
directly involved in OCP binding.
b Distribution of the regions with positive (+3 k T e −1;blue) and
negative (−3 k T e−1;red) electrostatic potentials on surface of FRP
and OCP suggesting extended multisite binding, in agreement with
the scaffolding role of FRP.
c Functional interaction of Cys mutants of OCP and FRP assessed
by the ability of FRP variants to accelerate the R–O conversion of
the photoactivated OCP–F299C at 25 °C. Insert shows the color of
the OCP–F299C sample in the dark and under actinic light.
d Schematic picture of the 1:2 complex with the positions chosen
for Cys mutagenesis and disulfide trapping. The dashed circle
indicates the tentative OCP–FRP interface.
e The ability of Cys mutants to form disulfide crosslinked
heterocomplexes upon mild oxidation by GSH/GSSG of the OCP–
F299C mixtures with either FRP–K102C or FRP–F76C mutants. Mw
markers (M) are indicated in kDa. Ox and Red designate the absence
or presence of βME in the sample buffer.Arrowhead marks the
46 kDa band corresponding to the OCP–FRP complex fixed by
disulfide bond and disappearing upon reduction

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

OCP-FRP protein complex topologies suggest a mechanism for controlling high light tolerance
in cyanobacteria

• In cyanobacteria, high light photoactivates the orange carotenoid protein (OCP) that binds to
antennae complexes, dissipating energy and preventing the destruction of the photosynthetic
apparatus.
• At low light, OCP is efficiently deactivated by a poorly understood action of the dimeric
fluorescence recovery protein (FRP). FRP variants are engineered with defined oligomeric
states and scrutinize their functional interaction with OCP.
• Complemented by disulfide trapping and chemical crosslinking, structural analysis in
solution reveals the topology of metastable complexes of OCP and the FRP scaffold with
different stoichiometries.
• Unable to tightly bind monomeric FRP, photoactivated OCP recruits dimeric FRP, which
subsequently monomerizes giving 1:1 complexes.
• This could be facilitated by a transient OCP-2FRP-OCP complex formed via the two FRP
head domains, significantly improving FRP efficiency at elevated OCP levels.
• By identifying key molecular interfaces, the indings may inspire the design of optically
triggered systems transducing light signals into protein-protein interactions

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

RELIGIE

• The Hindu religion is the only one of

the world's great faiths dedicated to
the idea that the Cosmos itself
undergoes an immense, indeed an
infinite, number of deaths and
rebirths.
• It is the only religion in which time
scales correspond to those of modern
scientific cosmology.
• Its cycles run from our ordinary day
and night to a day and night of
Brahma, 8.64 billion years long,
longer than the age of the Earth or
the Sun and about half the time since
the Big Bang."
CARL SAGAN

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

RELIGIE

Sciece Equivalence – reseting theories to“zero”

O man, take care!
What does the deep midnight declare?

MYTH 1 Zarathustra
"I was asleep—
From a deep dream I woke and swear:—
The world is deep,
Deeper than day had been aware.
Deep is its woe—
Joy—deeper yet than agony:
Woe implores: Go!
But all joy wants eternity—
Sample

Wants deep, wants deep eternity."

Thus Spoke Zarathustra

MUSIC ALSO SPRACH ZARATHUSTRA - Richard Strauss

PAINTING Leonardo da Vinci

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

Partea II
Unele exemple
de
studii despre creier si
minte
cu tangente si /sau
abordari directe legate
de topologie

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

Dan PSATTA (1)

Adevărul în perspectiva Neurofilozofiei. NOEMA 2018, vol XVII Dan M Psatta - Institutul de Neurologie al Academiei
Dan Psatta: Cugetări despre om. „Un certain regard”: Neurofilozofia. Editura Anamarol, 2012, 281 pagini. (http:/immediasresebooks.eu
– Secţiunea Filozofie).

• A pus în evidenţă arii corticale distincte destinate judecării ideilor elaborate de

intelect.
• Există aşadar o luptă permanentă în Conştiinţă între judecata emoţională şi cea
raţională pentru stabilirea Adevă-rului. Ea poate fi demonstrată electrofiziologic. La
unii oameni poate prevala judecata de tip emoţional.
• Privită din acest dublu unghi, biologic şi logic, ideea de Adevăr capătă o mai mare
anvergură. Metoda neurofilozofică pe care o descriem se poate acomoda la
abordarea tuturor temelor majore ale filozofiei.

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

Dan PSATTA (2)

• Există o luptă permanentă în Conştiinţă între judecata emoţională şi cea raţională
pentru stabilirea Adevărului.

• Ea poate fi demonstrată electrofiziologic.

• La unii oameni poate prevala judecata de tip emoţional.

• Privită din acest dublu unghi, biologic şi logic, ideea de Adevăr capătă o mai mare
anvergură.

• Metoda neurofilozofică pe care o descriem se poate acomoda la abordarea tuturor

temelor majore ale filozofiei.

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

Dan PSATTA (3)

În cursul testării judecăţii de tip raţional activarea a interesat aria dorsală a lobului
prefrontal stâng; în cursul testării judecăţii emoţionale s-au activat ariile bazale
(orbitale) ale lobilor Frontali. Din punct de vedere cito-arhitectonic, aceste arii diferă
foarte mult.

•Aria frontală dorsală, interesată în procesul raţional, este cea mai nouă achiziţie a lobilor frontali: se
desvoltă ultima în filogeneză, şi este ultima care se maturizează (abia pe la 21 de ani sau niciodată);
este aşa numitul cortex granular asociativ, constituit numai din neuroni de tip granular (un cortex
obişnuit are 6 straturi).

•Cortexul frontal orbital în schimb este un cortex vechi (în mare parte paleocortex) constituit din 3
straturi. Hărţile EEG demonstrează legătura directă a cortexului dorsal prefrontal cu centrii asociativi
parietali (descrişi anterior); cortexul bazal al lobilor frontali are legături directe cu amigdala şi
hipotalamusul (primind informaţii vegetative despre starea internă de bine (sau de rău) a
organismului, laolaltă cu excitaţiile provenite din viaţa de relaţie. Autorul considera că el este cu
adevărat sediul Eului (aşa zisului „Ego” al lui Freud); Damasio considera că întreg hemisferul stâng
reprezintă „Eul”.

•Această arie conţine neuroni piramidali (motori), şi este legată direct de aria motorie suplimentară de
pe faţa internă a hemisferelor (capabilă să direcţioneze integrat comportamentul). În plus această arie
este printre puţinele care conţin în număr semni-ficativ celulele mari de tipul Von Economo, ce pot fi
considerate a fi locul de o posibilă acumulare /stocare de informaţie.

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

Dan PSATTA (4)

• Configuraţia citoarhitectonică a celor două arii ar putea explica modul lor deosebit
de funcţionare. Cortexul granular, dispus în straturi succesive de neuroni funcţionând
binar, ar putea mijloci selectarea de tip euristic a adevărului unei informaţii; această
selectare este laborioasă, necesită timp, şi implică dubiul (“dubito, ergo cogito”,
spunea Descartes).
• Ea poate realiza însă în cele din urmă selecţia cea mai fidelă a adevărului (sau
frumosului, sau binelui).
• Aria ventrală este supusă subiectivităţii excesive; motivată de impulsuri iraţionale, ea
nu prea ţine seama de adevăr; poate induce un comportament dominat de emoţii,
dorinţe, afecte.
• Prin capacitatea ei de stocare (aria stochează îndeosebi idei, şi nu cunoştinţe
particulare) ea se poate constitui în depozitarul unui sistem de idei (uneori
aberante), deosebit de rigide.
• Aici se grefează algoritmic (stochastic) toate crezurile, convingerile, credinţele,
ideologiile oamenilor. Trecută prin acest filtru, dezvoltat în cursul existenţei, orice
informaţie poate duce la luarea unor decizii de acţiune aberante, fatale, dăunătoare,
bruşte, aşa cum am descris în prima parte a cugetărilor privind comportamentul.
• Cu toate că, acţionând prin deciziile luate de aceste arii, oamenii se pot simţi „liberi”
(apare sentimentul de „free will”) .

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

Cercetari care pot sustine o abordare topologica a functionarii creierului

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

Tracking clique patterns through a network filtration reveals key

topological cavities in the structural brain network
a)Example lteration of a network on 15 nodes shown in the brain across edge density (). Blue line on
the axis indicates the density of birth (birth) of the 2D cavity surrounded by the green minimal cycle. As
edges are added, 3-cliques (cyan) form and shrink the cavity and consequentially the minimal green
cycle is now four nodes in size. Finally, the orange line marks the time of death (death) when the cavity
is now lled by 3-cliques.

b)Persistence diagram for the cavity surrounded by the green cycle from panel (a).

c)Persistence diagrams for the group-averaged DSI (teal) and minimally wired null (gray) networks in
dimensions one (left) and two (right). Cavities in the group-averaged DSI network with long lifetime or
high death-to-birth ratio are shown in unique colors and will be studied in more detail.

d)Box plots of the death-to-birth ratio for cavities of two and three dimensions in the group-averagd
DSI and minimally wired null networks. Colored dots correspond to those highlighted in panel (c). The
diference between values for 3D topological cavities in the average DSI data versus the minimally
wired null model was not found to be signicant.

e)Minimal cycles representing each persistent cavity at birth noted in panels (c), (d) shown in the brain
(top) and as a schematic (bottom).

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

New journal of Physics 2016 http://iopscience.iop.org/journal/1367-2630

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

István Dienes Institute for Strategic Research Consciousness research and Theoretical
Physics group The Quantum Brain and the Topological Consciousness

With the matrix logical analysis of the laws of the conscious

mind Stern arrived at a hypothesis that the cognitive degrees
of freedom are actually the degrees of freedom of vacuum

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

Partea III

Specificul abordarii tip ITAKE

pentru cazul

Mintii si modelelor create de aceasta”

Spatiile topologice si creierul cu modelele produse de el

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

Chain of Cosmic Energy levels / components

Zzzzzzzzzzz • Subquantic SQ
zzzzzzzzzzz
• Quantic Q
zzzzzzzzzzz
• Electromagnetic EM
zzzzzzzzzzz
• Molecular MO
zzzzzzzzzzz
• Molecular and life MOL
zzz
• Conscious planetary life CPL
• Stellar and universe not alive
SUNA
• Stellar and universe life SUA
• Conscious stellar and universe
CSU

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

Each realm has

three levels

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

Each realm has

three levels

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

Rezumând descrierea de mai sus a categoriilor de Energie, care

se modelează în acest studiu de caz, rezultă că acestea sunt:

• Energia de tip real, pe care o vom denumi Energie Reală, care, pentru
toate sursele SSEN/NES, se referă la acea energie care este observabilă
și se înscrie în tipurile de energii transformabile unele în altele într-
un spațiu-timp acceptat la acel moment de modele.
• Exemple pot constitui formele de energie cuantică, nucleară,
electromagnetică etc. în înțelesul acestei lucrări. Comportamentul
cuantic (inclusiv aspectele de modelare a rolului timpului ca una
dintre fazele imaginare, cu interacțiune observabilă în modelarea
acestor sisteme în continuumul spațiu-timp, atât în accepțiune
“classică” , cât și “cunatică”, se consideră a fi de asemenea din
această categorie.

• Energia de tip imaginar, pe care o vom denumi Energie Simplu

Complexă, care, pentru toate sursele SSEN/NES, se referă la acea
Energie, care, deși nu este observabilă, devine astfel prin interacțiuni
între ele.
• Exemple posibile, a caror studiere ar putea urma această linie de
gândire si dezvoltare de modele, ar fi bioenergia, energiile joase
de diverse tipuri-inclusiv cele biologice si neurologice etc.

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Lambda-CDM model (3)

•The model includes an expansion of metric space that is well documented both as the
red shift of prominent spectral absorption or emission lines in the light from distant galaxies
and as the time dilation in the light decay of supernova luminosity curves.
• Both effects are attributed to a Doppler shift in electromagnetic radiation as it
travels across expanding space.
• Although this expansion increases the distance between objects that are not
under shared gravitational influence, it does not increase the size of the objects
(e.g. galaxies) in space.
• It also allows for distant galaxies to recede from each other at speeds greater
than the speed of light; local expansion is less than the speed of light, but
expansion summed across great distances can collectively exceed the speed of
light.
•Λ represents the cosmological constant, which is currently associated with a
vacuum energy or dark energy in empty space that is used to explain the contemporary
accelerating expansion of space against the attractive effects of gravity.
•A cosmological constant has negative pressure, which contributes to the stress-
energy tensor that, according to the general theory of relativity, causes accelerating
expansion. The fraction of the total energy density of our (flat or almost flat) universe that is
dark energy, , is currently [2015] estimated to be 69.2 ± 1.2% based on Planck satellite
data.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Lambda-CDM model (4)

•Cold dark matter is a form of matter introduced in order to account for gravitational effects
observed in very large-scale structures (the "flat" rotation curves of galaxies; the gravitational
lensing of light by galaxy clusters; and enhanced clustering of galaxies) that cannot be
accounted for by the quantity of observed matter.

•Dark matter is described as being cold (i.e. its velocity is far less than the speed of light at the
epoch of radiation-matter equality); non-baryonic (i.e. consisting of matter other than protons
and neutrons); dissipationless (i.e. cannot cool by radiating photons); and collisionless (i.e. the
dark matter particles interact with each other and other particles only through gravity and
possibly the weak force).

 The dark matter component is estimated to constitute about 26.8% of the mass-energy
density of the universe.
 The remaining 4.9% comprises all ordinary matter observed as atoms, chemical
elements, gas and plasma, the stuff of which visible planets, stars and galaxies are
made. As a matter of fact, the great majority of ordinary matter in the universe is
unseen, since visible stars and gas inside galaxies and clusters account for less than 10
per cent of the ordinary matter contribution to the mass-energy density of the universe.
 The energy density includes a very small fraction (~ 0.01%) in cosmic microwave
background radiation, and not more than 0.5% in relic neutrinos. Although very small
today, these were much more important in the distant past, dominating the matter at
redshift > 3200.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Fundamental interactions - fundamental forces in Physics (4)

• All four fundamental forces are believed to be related, and to unite

into a single force at high energies on a minuscule scale, the Planck
scale, but particle accelerators cannot produce the enormous
energies required to experimentally probe this.

• A goal of theoretical physicists working beyond the Standard Model

is to quantize the gravitational field, yielding a theory of quantum
gravity (QG) which would unite gravity in a common theoretical
framework with the other three forces. Other theorists seek to unite
the electroweak and strong fields within a Grand Unified Theory
(GUT).

• Some theories, notably string theory, seek both QG and GUT within
one framework, unifying all four fundamental interactions along with
mass generation within a theory of everything (ToE).

• A few researchers have interpreted various anomalous observations

in physics as evidence for a fifth force, but this is not widely
accepted.
Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017
 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Gravity (1)
Gravitation is by far the weakest of the four interactions. The weakness of gravity can easily
be demonstrated by suspending a pin using a simple magnet (such as a refrigerator
magnet). The magnet is able to hold the pin against the gravitational pull of the entire Earth.

Yet gravitation is very important for macroscopic objects and over macroscopic distances for
the following reasons. Gravitation:

 Is the only interaction that acts on all particles having mass, energy and/or momentum

 Has an infinite range, like electromagnetism but unlike strong and weak interaction

 Cannot be absorbed, transformed, or shielded against

 Always attracts and never repels

Even though electromagnetism is far stronger than gravitation, electrostatic attraction is not
relevant for large celestial bodies, such as planets, stars, and galaxies, simply because such
bodies contain equal numbers of protons and electrons and so have a net electric charge of
zero. Nothing "cancels" gravity, since it is only attractive, unlike electric forces which can be
attractive or repulsive. On the other hand, all objects having mass are subject to the
gravitational force, which only attracts. Therefore, only gravitation matters on the large-scale
structure of the universe.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Gravity (2)
• The long range of gravitation makes it responsible for such large-scale phenomena as the
structure of galaxies and black holes and it retards the expansion of the universe.

• Gravitation also explains astronomical phenomena on more modest scales, such as

planetary orbits, as well as everyday experience: objects fall; heavy objects act as if they
were glued to the ground, and animals can only jump so high.

• Gravitation was the first interaction to be described mathematically. In ancient times,

Aristotle hypothesized that objects of different masses fall at different rates.

• During the Scientific Revolution, Galileo Galilei experimentally determined that this was
not the case — neglecting the friction due to air resistance, and buoyancy forces if an
atmosphere is present (e.g. the case of a dropped air-filled balloon vs a water-filled
balloon) all objects accelerate toward the Earth at the same rate. Isaac Newton's law of
Universal

• Gravitation (1687) was a good approximation of the behaviour of gravitation. Our present-
day understanding of gravitation stems from Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity
of 1915, a more accurate (especially for cosmological masses and distances) description
of gravitation in terms of the geometry of spacetime.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Gravity (3)

• Merging general relativity and quantum mechanics (or quantum field theory) into a more
general theory of quantum gravity is an area of active research. It is hypothesized that
gravitation is mediated by a massless spin-2 particle called the graviton.

• Although general relativity has been experimentally confirmed (at least for weak fields) on
all but the smallest scales, there are rival theories of gravitation. Those taken seriously by
[citation needed] the physics community all reduce to general relativity in some limit, and
the focus of observational work is to establish limitations on what deviations from general
relativity are possible.

• Proposed extra dimensions could explain why the gravity force is so weak.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Electroweak interaction (1)

• Electromagnetism and weak interaction appear to be very different at
everyday low energies. They can be modeled using two different
theories. However, above unification energy, on the order of 100 GeV,
they would merge into a single electroweak force.
• Electroweak theory is very important for modern cosmology, particularly
on how the universe evolved. This is because shortly after the Big Bang,
the temperature was approximately above 1015 K. Electromagnetic
force and weak force were merged into a combined electroweak
force.
• For contributions to the unification of the weak and electromagnetic
interaction between elementary particles, Abdus Salam, Sheldon
Glashow and Steven Weinberg were awarded the Nobel Prize in
Physics in 1979.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”
Electromagnetism (2)
•Electromagnetism is the force that acts between
electrically charged particles. This phenomenon
includes the electrostatic force acting between
charged particles at rest, and the combined
effect of electric and magnetic forces acting
between charged particles moving relative to
each other.
•Electromagnetism is infinite-ranged like gravity,
but vastly stronger, and therefore describes a
number of macroscopic phenomena of everyday
experience such as friction, rainbows, lightning,
and all human-made devices using electric
current, such as television, lasers, and
computers. Electromagnetism fundamentally
determines all macroscopic, and many atomic
levels, properties of the chemical elements,
including all chemical bonding.
•In a four kilogram (~1 gallon) jug of water there
are
of total electron charge. Thus, if we place two
such jugs a meter apart, the electrons in one of
the jugs repel those in the other jug with a
force of
Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică
This is larger than the planet Earth would weigh if weighed on another
Earth. The atomic nuclei in one jug also repel those in the other with the
same force. However, these repulsive forces are canceled by the attraction
of the electrons in jug A with the nuclei in jug B and the attraction of the
nuclei in jug A with the electrons in jug B, resulting in no net force.
Electromagnetic forces are tremendously stronger than gravity but cancel
out so that for large bodies gravity dominates.
Electrical and magnetic phenomena have been observed since ancient
times, but it was only in the 19th century that it was discovered that
electricity and magnetism are two aspects of the same fundamental
interaction. By 1864, Maxwell's equations had rigorously quantified this
unified interaction. Maxwell's theory, restated using vector calculus, is the
classical theory of electromagnetism, suitable for most technological
purposes.
The constant speed of light in a vacuum (customarily described with the
letter "c") can be derived from Maxwell's equations, which are consistent
with the theory of special relativity. Einstein's 1905 theory of special
relativity, however, which flows from the observation that the speed of light
is constant no matter how fast the observer is moving, showed that the
theoretical result implied by Maxwell's equations has profound implications
far beyond electromagnetism on the very nature of time and space.
In another work that departed from classical electro-magnetism, Einstein
also explained the photoelectric effect by hypothesizing that light was
transmitted in quanta, which we now call photons. Starting around 1927,
Paul Dirac combined quantum mechanics with the relativistic theory of
electromagnetism. Further work in the 1940s, by Richard Feynman,
Freeman Dyson, Julian Schwinger, and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, completed
this theory, which is now called quantum electrodynamics, the revised
theory of electromagnetism. Quantum electrodynamics and quantum
mechanics provide a theoretical basis for electromagnetic behavior such
as quantum tunneling, in which a certain percentage of electrically charged
particles move in ways that would be impossible under the classical
electromagnetic theory, that is necessary for everyday electronic devices
such as transistors to function.
Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

Pentru procesul de descriere a modelelor de emergență a

surselor se subliniază următoarele aspecte:
•Atât procesul de trecere de la o fază la alta în desceirea
emergenței unei surse către altă sursă de energie, cât și rezultatele
acestor treceri (sub forma de poliedre) sunt similare situației
descrise anterior pentru o sursă dată.
•Utilizarea teoriei categoriilor permite tratarea unitară a unor
modele pentru surse de energie de mare diversitate.
•Categoriile se definesc pentru
• setul de Syzygy specifice Fizicii, care este utilizat în
descrierea acestor faze și treceri.
• Seturile de syzygy dezvoltate de Matematică, sau de
Filozofie intr-un proces iterativ, care poate conduce către
o descriere sub forma de poliedere
Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”
Electromagnetism (3)

•The constant speed of light in a vacuum (customarily described with the letter "c") can
be derived from Maxwell's equations, which are consistent with the theory of special
relativity.

•Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity, however, which flows from the observation
that the speed of light is constant no matter how fast the observer is moving, showed
that the theoretical result implied by Maxwell's equations has profound implications far
beyond electromagnetism on the very nature of time and space.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Electromagnetism (4)

•Einstein explained the photoelectric effect by hypothesizing that light was

transmitted in quanta, which we now call photons.

 Starting around 1927, Paul Dirac combined quantum mechanics with the relativistic
theory of electromagnetism.

 Further work in the 1940s, by Richard Feynman, Freeman Dyson, Julian Schwinger,
and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, completed this theory, which is now called quantum
electrodynamics, the revised theory of electromagnetism.

•Quantum electrodynamics and quantum mechanics provide a theoretical basis

for electromagnetic behavior such as quantum tunneling, in which a certain
percentage of electrically charged particles move in ways that would be impossible
under the classical electromagnetic theory, that is necessary for everyday electronic
devices such as transistors to function.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Weak interaction

The weak interaction or weak nuclear force is responsible for some

nuclear phenomena such as beta decay.
Electromagnetism and the weak force are now understood to be two
aspects of a unified electroweak interaction — this discovery was the
first step toward the unified theory known as the Standard Model.
In the theory of the electroweak interaction, the carriers of the weak
force are the massive gauge bosons called the W and Z bosons.
The weak interaction is the only known interaction which does not
conserve parity; it is left-right asymmetric.
The weak interaction even violates CP symmetry but does conserve
CPT.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Strong interaction (1)

• The strong interaction, or strong nuclear force, is the most complicated interaction, mainly
because of the way it varies with distance. At distances greater than 10 femtometers, the strong
force is practically unobservable. Moreover, it holds only inside the atomic nucleus.

• After the nucleus was discovered in 1908, it was clear that a new force, today known as the
nuclear force, was needed to overcome the electrostatic repulsion, a manifestation of
electromagnetism, of the positively charged protons. Otherwise, the nucleus could not exist.
Moreover, the force had to be strong enough to squeeze the protons into a volume that is about
10−15 m, much smaller than that of the entire atom. From the short range of this force, Hideki
Yukawa predicted that it was associated with a massive particle, whose mass is approximately
100 MeV.

• The 1947 discovery of the pion ushered in the modern era of particle physics. Hundreds of
hadrons were discovered from the 1940s to 1960s, and an extremely complicated theory of
hadrons as strongly interacting particles was developed. Most notably:

 The pions were understood to be oscillations of vacuum condensates;

 Jun John Sakurai proposed the rho and omega vector bosons to be force carrying particles
for approximate symmetries of isospin and hypercharge;

 Geoffrey Chew, Edward K. Burdett and Steven Frautschi grouped the heavier hadrons into
families that could be understood as vibrational and rotational excitations of strings.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Strong interaction (2)

• While each of these approaches offered deep insights, no approach led directly to a
fundamental theory.

• Murray Gell-Mann along with George Zweig first proposed fractionally charged quarks in 1961.
Throughout the 1960s, different authors considered theories similar to the modern fundamental
theory of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) as simple models for the interactions of quarks.
The first to hypothesize the gluons of QCD were Moo-Young Han and Yoichiro Nambu, who
introduced the quark color charge and hypothesized that it might be associated with a force-
carrying field.
– At that time, however, it was difficult to see how such a model could permanently confine quarks.

– Han and Nambu also assigned each quark color an integer electrical charge, so that the quarks were
fractionally charged only on average, and they did not expect the quarks in their model to be
permanently confined.

• In 1971, Murray Gell-Mann and Harald Fritzsch proposed that the Han/Nambu color gauge field
was the correct theory of the short-distance interactions of fractionally charged quarks. A little
later, David Gross, Frank Wilczek, and David Politzer discovered that this theory had the
property of asymptotic freedom, allowing them to make contact with experimental
evidence. They concluded that QCD was the complete theory of the strong interactions, correct
at all distance scales. The discovery of asymptotic freedom led most physicists to accept
QCD since it became clear that even the long-distance properties of the strong interactions could
be consistent with experiment if the quarks are permanently confined.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Strong interaction (3)

• Assuming that quarks are confined, Mikhail Shifman, Arkady Vainshtein and Valentine Zakharov
were able to compute the properties of many low-lying hadrons directly from QCD, with only
a few extra parameters to describe the vacuum.

• In 1980, Kenneth G. Wilson published computer calculations based on the first principles of
QCD, establishing, to a level of confidence tantamount to certainty, that QCD will confine quarks.
Since then, QCD has been the established theory of the strong interactions.

• QCD is a theory of fractionally charged quarks interacting by means of 8 bosonic particles

called gluons. The gluons interact with each other, not just with the quarks, and at long distances
the lines of force collimate into strings. In this way, the mathematical theory of QCD not only
explains how quarks interact over short distances but also the string-like behavior, discovered by
Chew and Frautschi, which they manifest over longer distances.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Physics beyond the Standard Model - Elementary particle § Beyond the Standard Model (1)

• Numerous theoretical efforts have been made to systematize the existing four
fundamental interactions on the model of electroweak unification.

• Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) are proposals to show that all of the fundamental
interactions, other than gravity, arise from a single interaction with symmetries
that break down at low energy levels.
– GUTs predict relationships among constants of nature that are unrelated in the SM.

– GUTs also predict gauge coupling unification for the relative strengths of the electromagnetic, weak, and
strong forces, a prediction verified at the Large Electron–Positron Collider in 1991 for supersymmetric
theories.

• Theories of everything, which integrate GUTs with a quantum gravity theory face
a greater barrier, because no quantum gravity theories, which include
– string theory,

– loop quantum gravity, and

– twistor theory, have secured wide acceptance.

• Some theories look for a graviton to complete the Standard Model list of force-
carrying particles, while others, like loop quantum gravity, emphasize the
possibility that time-space itself may have a quantum aspect to it.
Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017
 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”
Physics beyond the Standard Model - Elementary particle § Beyond the Standard Model (2)

• Some theories beyond the Standard Model include a hypothetical fifth force, and the
search for such a force is an ongoing line of experimental research in physics. In
supersymmetric theories, there are particles that acquire their masses only through
supersymmetry breaking effects and these particles, known as moduli can mediate new
forces.

• Another reason to look for new forces is the recent discovery that the expansion of
the universe is accelerating (also known as dark energy), giving rise to a need to explain
a nonzero cosmological constant, and possibly to other modifications of general relativity.

• Fifth forces have also been suggested to explain phenomena such as CP violations,
dark matter, and dark flow.

• In December 2015, two observations in the ATLAS and CMS detectors at the Large
Hadron Collider hinted at the existence of a new particle six times heavier than the Higgs
Boson. However, after obtaining more experimental data, the anomaly appeared not be
significant.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

ANEXA 2

Modelul fizicii pornind de la

analiza constantelor

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Dimensionless physical constant (2)

•
• There is no exhaustive list of such constants. But it is meaningful to ask about
the minimal number of fundamental constants necessary to determine a given
physical theory.

• The Standard Model requires 25 physical constants, about half of them the
masses of fundamental particles (which become "dimensionless" when
expressed relative to the Planck mass or, alternatively, relative to the electron
mass along with the gravitational coupling constant).

• Fundamental physical constants cannot be derived but have to be measured.

• Development in physics may lead to either a reduction or an extension of their

number: discovery of new particles, or new relationships between physical
phenomena, would introduce new constants, while on the other hand, the
development of a more fundamental theory might allow the derivation of
several constants from a more fundamental constant.

• A long-sought goal of theoretical physics is to find first principles ("Theory of

Everything") from which all of the fundamental dimensionless constants can be
calculated and compared to the measured values.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Dimensionless physical constant (3)

• The large number of fundamental constants required in the Standard Model

has been regarded as unsatisfactory since the theory's formulation in the
1970s. The desire for a theory that would allow the calculation of particle
masses is a core motivation for the search for "Physics beyond the
Standard Model".

• The mathematician Simon Plouffe has made an extensive search of

computer databases of mathematical formulae, seeking formulae for the
mass ratios of the fundamental particles.

• Arthur Eddington set out alleged mathematical reasons why the reciprocal
of the fine structure constant had to be exactly 136. When its value was
discovered to be closer to 137, he changed his argument to match that
value.

• Experiments have since shown that Eddington was wrong; to six significant
digits, the reciprocal of the fine-structure constant is 137.036.

• An empirical relation between the masses of the electron, muon and tau
has been discovered by physicist Yoshio Koide, but this formula remains
unexplained.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Dimensionless physical constant (4)

• α, the fine structure constant, the coupling constant for the electromagnetic
interaction (≈ 1⁄137).

• The square of the electron charge, expressed in Planck units, which defines
the scale of charge of elementary particles with charge.

• μ or β, the proton-to-electron mass ratio, the rest mass of the proton divided
by that of the electron (≈1836). More generally, the ratio of the rest masses
of any pair of elementary particles.

• αs, the coupling constant for the strong force (≈1)

• αG, the gravitational coupling constant (≈10−45) which is the square of the
electron mass, expressed in Planck units. This defines the scale of the
masses of elementary particles and has also been used to express the
relative strength of gravitation.

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

Martin Rees's Six Numbers - six dimensionless constants, whose values are fundamental to present-
day physical theory and the known structure of the universe

• N ≈ 1036 the ratio of the fine structure constant (the dimensionless coupling constant for
electromagnetism) to the gravitational coupling constant, the latter defined using two protons. In
Barrow and Tipler (1986) - this ratio is denoted α/αG. N governs the relative importance of gravity and
electrostatic attraction/repulsion in explaining the properties of baryonic matter

•ε ≈ 0.007 The fraction of the mass of four protons that is released as energy when fused into a helium
nucleus. ε governs the energy output of stars, and is determined by the coupling constant for the
strong force

•Ω ≈ 0.3 the ratio of the actual density of the universe to the critical (minimum) density required for the
universe to eventually collapse under its gravity. Ω determines the ultimate fate of the universe. If Ω ≥
1, the universe will experience a Big Crunch. If Ω < 1, the universe will expand forever

•λ ≈ 0.7 The ratio of the energy density of the universe, due to the cosmological constant, to the critical
density of the universe. Others denote this ratio b

•Q ≈ 10−5 The energy required to break up and disperse an instance of the largest known structures in
the universe, namely a galactic cluster or supercluster, expressed as a fraction of the energy
equivalent to the rest mass m of that structure, namely mc2

•D = 3 the number of macroscopic spatial dimensions

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

 The Knowledge Topology (K T) is therefore dependent on the type of civilization that

is crating it. Other approaches targetting mainly the material level reached by a
cerytain civilization, rather than the KP used for it, consideres type of civilizations
them based on the level of energy that can be harnessed by it [], i.e.

o KSH_Type I – for energy received from the sun of the civilization

o KSH_Type II – for energy at the level of sun system
o KSH_Type III – for energy at level of a galaxy

Kardashev, N., Cosmology and civilizations, Astrophysics and Space Science 252, 199, doi:10.1023/A:1000837427320

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

Three types of civilization

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

Type III of civilization from KP perspective, which is able to create a K T , may

lead to fast changes / improvements of a civilization from the approaches of KSH
types of classifications[] , thus changing the state of the Existence itself.

However, as it was mentioned before, it might be considered, that a civilization,

modeled as a sinergy of technologies at a given moment in time, behaves during its
« lifecycle » as an „enveloping technology s-curve”. The curve describes the evolution of
the survival characteristics of a civilization, including challenges to it and it shows that
there are moments when the increase of complexity of the Society(as Physical Existence)
and its Knowledge may get to a point of chaotic evolution. Therefore a combined
preventive development of a civilization, that can be described as an integrated
Knowledge and Existence Topology ( K E T ) might be the survival solution

Serbanescu, D., Scientific Knowledge and Mythology, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2447.7201 · SRA conference Boston, USA, Dec 2008

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

• Summarizing an integrated topological approach is possible due to the following main

reasons:
• Both the elements defining in the paper Existence (objects of study for Physics) and
Knowledge (results on understanding and behavior prediction level of the Physics objects)
have features making them adequate to topological approach, i.e. continuity, iterative step
by step of emergence and/or knowledge on them and the best fitted topological logic as
tool for being studied.
• The topologies defined for Knowledge and Existence cannot be separated and have to be
considered in integrated approaches if the goal is to search for a TOE, including the
quantic level.

The Integrated Approach on Knowledge and Existence Topology (I_TAKE) as a process

defines a structure called Integrated Topological Reality (ITR (i)) at any iteration “i”. The
elements of ITR(i) define states that change / emerge to various levels based on very clear
rules. There are three basic principles for ITR (i) (as presented in detail in [ ]), presented as
conjectures proposed by the author:
Serbanescu D., Spiridon L., On information issues in nature and society.Despre informatie in Natura si Societate,, Academia Romana Sesiunea de
primavara 2014 a Diviziei de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei, CRIFST Tema - Cursa dintre teorie şi experienţă Bucuresti, 24 aprilie 2014,
Bucharest, Romania

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST) Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS) – Grupul de Cercetari Interdisciplinare (GCI)
Simpozionul “Modele fundamentale ale Materiei si Universului”

https://books.google.ro/books?id=AnbRCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT475&lpg=PT475&dq=Matter+content+in+the+universe&source=bl&ots=oOElExBqcA&sig=zh9jMyRBCaIs0Dw4gW9cXjsP8aA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjY
ycTa8d_RAhXKDpoKHX3JDH44ChDoAQhXMAg#v=onepage&q=Matter%20content%20in%20the%20universe&f=false

Unele aspecte ale modelării in fizică Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu februarie 2017

 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea anuala de comunicari CRIFST-DLMFS

Group I – Definition of the states and their principles of emergence

1.Define the object as a unitary unique entity. However this limits its better
understanding and creates a driving force of transition to another state, in order to refine
the description. This trend leads to the need to consider duality as possible refinment
approach.
2.Clarrify differences between options / emergence directions of a given state,
apparently being driven by the fact that its contradictory duality leads to the need for
change of the state
3.Generate mechanisms to find and / or reach options able to assure emergence to other
states, governed by the search for the third way and/or a way between the two existing
ones, as a solution for emergence from a state described as a fundamantal duality

Serbanescu D., Despre o perspectivă integrată a cunoașterii și existenței-On an integrated perspective on knowledge and existence,
Simpozionul aniversar-In honorem Mircea Malița – 90: Provocările științei și civilizația actuală, Bucharest, Romania, Feb 2017

Despre unele abordări integratoare ale fizicii și științelor minții Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

Group II – Development of the detailed rules of emergence for a state

1.Assure state stability, driven by the fact that stability of a state is a direct
consequence of the paradox resistance capability of the state

2.Coagulation of beliefs/principles impeading the emergence from one state to

another, governed by the fact that every state is defined and maintained stable as
long as some beliefs / principles defining the state are dominant/governing any
change

3.A given state tends to optimize itself as a structure working to reach a certain
defined goal, which is governed by the fact that states get optimal and work to
reach a predefined goal

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

Group III – Consolidation of the defined state

1.There is a trend of the states to combine between them in order to reach their
predefined goals, which is driven by the fact that combination of states is
governed by their intrinsic trend to optimize the ratio between the usefulness of
the combinations and of the indiviual states, i.e. assure teleologic synergy of the
states.
2.States need to be (self)managed / (self)regulated so that to be able to reach
their goal in an optimal manner. This is governed by the fact that the state
optimization is assured by their hierarchical systemic organization
3.States tend to explore fulfilling also other goals than the ones predefined for
them. This is governed by the fact that exploration of the states structure and
operation leads to the need for a total (self)change / (self)restart.

There is also a fourth group related to the feedback process, coded as „10-0-
level 1”. This is a generic governing mechanism to define the need for restart the
Emergence Process. Feedback reaction is understood in this process as an
information entropy injection in the emergence process of states.

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

• An I_TAKE process defined for a structure ITR (i) will follow the Emergence Rules
described by the Transition Matrix. The results of various emergence processes will
be a structure represented as in the lower part of Figure 13 and described by an
algebraic structure called octonions.

• It is considered (in the context of I_TAKE) that the notions of “progress” or

“evolution” are actually not easy to define and proving their existence is not so
obvious at all. Therefore, the timeline for I_TAKE may consider only a process of
emergence leading to changes in the states of the Topological Structure that defines
the Reality, which might be a “progress” or not.

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

The Application of the previous mentioned rules describing the first and second
principles of the I_TAKE, leads to topological structures, which are dependent on
some important factors, as mentioned in the previous paragraphs:

 the type of civilization KP,

 the specifics of the ITR structure (as for instance what type of triadic object-reality
element is considered, the type of paradigms governing each phase and the solutions
to change the syzygies based on „import” from other complementary triadic sources
of reality, except science: art and cultural-mythological areas.

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

• Transition Matrix (TM) for the state

change process and the resultant algebric
structure of many iterations for ITR

• An example of the resultant ITR i with its

representative TM A ITR structure for a
type II KP is illustrated, i.e. the case of
Emergence from AM to GAM

• Summarizing on the ITAKE process from the perspective of its first two stated
principles, we can conclude that this is an iterative dynamic process performed
in a multitude of times. The process involves individual researchers and whole
communities, is being performed in a given period of our civilization and in a
step-by-step manner and it is considering that there is a “continuum space”
created by resultant realities. This continuum is a homorphism of the studied
objects, as defined for Physics approaches.

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

Representation of a TM for an ITR in a type I culture (the • A syzygy set is continuously optimized
example of emergence from AM to GAM from diverse approaches – Mathematics,
Physics, Philosophy.

• Based on those optimized sets it is

possible to reach (as per theorem of
Hilbert for syzygies in Mathematics - a
final minimal set of syzygies for a
given model.

• However, reaching this state does not

prevent the existence of even more
paradoxes requiring new sets of
syzygies, from another perspective (art
of cultural-mythologoical if the Physics
oness are not able any more to solve
paradoxes).

• Then the process is repeated with the

new syzygies in the new paradigms and
so on

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

• Further short comments are presented on other results from an example of a I_TAKE
process applied to obtain a reality ITR structure developed in[]. The example is related
to a structure that includes the elements of a Chain of Cosmic Energy levels /
components, i.e.:
• Subquantic SQ

• Quantic Q
• Electromagnetic EM
• Molecular MO
• Molecular and life MOL
• Conscious planetary life CPL
• Stellar and universe not alive SUNA
• Stellar and universe life SUA
• Conscious stellar and universe CSU
• For each of those elements an ITR structure is built. In this example, the emergence
process is by higher degree indicating from the very beginning from the existing
results in Quantum Mechanics, Cosmology and Biology that there is a high need and
usefiulness in using topological approaches.
• The considered elements for each energy level the reality structure has the following
features:
Serbanescu D., Omenirea la răscruce privindu-se în oglinda (re)(ne)cunoasterii de sine Oare va evolua sau se va autodistruge ? O perspectiva a aplicațiilor
energetice ale fizicii moderne, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22311.75681 Sesiune anuala a CRIFST - 13 octombrie 2016

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

ANEXA 2
Chain of Cosmic Energy levels / components

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

Chain of Cosmic Energy levels / components

•Subquantic SQ
•Quantic Q
•Electromagnetic EM
•Molecular MO
•Molecular and life MOL
•Conscious planetary life CPL
•Stellar and universe not alive SUNA
•Stellar and universe life SUA
•Conscious stellar and universe CSU

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

 It is described in a given syzygy, i.e. in our example

o Standard model Quantum Mechanics (SM)
o Aristotelian (A)
o Galilean Newtonian (GN)
o Electroweak (E)

 Each element of the structure considered during the emergence process includes a triadic combination of the following:
o Object-“material” element of existence studied by Physics (I)
o Physics’ model of the “material” object (II)
o Reality produced in the triad Object-Model-Interaction to study Object (III)
 The syzygies of the ITR structure are describe by a generator (GEN), for which specific optimization actions are
performed, so that to reach the optimum for the syzygies. As per Hilbert theorem on syzygies, such optimum exists. An
example of Generator for the case of Cosmic Energy Chain (CEC) is illustrated in (3) and (4):

GEN [ITR ] = [ENTH, EnI, Sy, Em, NlnCx, Fr] (3)

Syzygy [ITR(i)] = functor (GEN[ITR]) (4)

Where

 The functor is calculated as a TM in accordance with the process represented in Figure 13

 Syzygies are:

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

Exergy (Ex) for a CEC (defined as the maximum work possible for a process that brings the system to equilibrium with a heat
reservoir) as a measure of the process of energy conversion. This generator has the following characteristics:

o It conserves only when all the processes of the system/environment are reversible
o It is destroyed when the process is irreversible.
Entropy (Thermodynamic) (EnTh) as a measure of disorder.

Information Entropy (EnI) as a measure of the limits of knowledge itself

Synergy (Sy) as a measure of a set of CEC that appear from the existence and interaction all its systems and components, leading to
a new set of more characteristics for CEC as a whole than for CEC components altogether.

Emergence (Em) from one level to another (ex from SQ to CSU) as a process in which the entities, patterns and
regularities/irregularities are generated by interactions between smaller (or from lower level) entities, which do not have themselves
those properties.

Nonlinearity (even for simple systems) and/or complexity (NlnCx) for a CEC as a source of chaotic behavior of structures of
complex systems.

The features of a SAC considering fractals (Fr) are defined starting from the characteristics of such systems. In the CEC example
and its KP structures of ITR type, as topological structures of the knowledge gained for a given system at a given level the fractal
behaviors is characteristic for describing all levels and each component in a given level.

The I_TAKE process will follow the same steps as illustrated for the example defined by formulas (1) and (2) and by the
framework of first two principles presented before. Therefore there will be the same situation that passing from Physics, to
mathematics and then to Philosophy. It might be noticed that the TOE attempts that took place so far passed apparently through the
syzygy phases for Physics and Mathematics, now being quite focused on solutions from Philosophy approach. This interesting
situation leads us to the situation of defining Physics as a science in antiquity and the Aristotelian schools.
Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

Studiul de caz va analiza acest sistem în următoarea

secvență:

•Pentru sistemul SSEN/NES se definesc componentele principale, care

caracterizează fiecare sursă în parte și sistemul în ansamblu, și se descriu

 fazele prin care modelele acestora trec pentru o paradigmă dată,

 modul în care se fac aceste treceri, precum și
 limitele modelelor rezultante, descrise de poliedrele rezultante ale acestor treceri.

•Se face prezentarea rezultatelor inițiale obținute sub formă de poliedre (în
acest caz icosahedron) și sub forma unor structuri algebrice, vizualizarea
rezultatelor ca spații topologice

•Se analizează rezultatele considerând aspecte specifice ale surselor de

energie din SSEN/NES.

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

• În Etapa urmatoare se se analizează rezultatele inițiale, obținute

sub formă de poliedre (în acest caz icosahedron), și sub forma
unor structuri algebrice.
• Există o corespondență cunoscută între icosahedron și
structurile topologice așa cum a fost arătat în diverse lucrări
pentru cazul general, de exemplu în , sau cum s-a exemplificat
ca utilizare în cazuri particulare.

• Baez, John c., From the Icosahedron to E8, Department of Mathematics University of California Riverside, California 92521, USA and Centre for
Quantum Technologies National University of Singapore, Singapore 117543 baez@math.ucr.edu, December 22, 2017, arXiv:1712.06436,
https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.06436
• Șerbănescu, D., Spiridon, L.V., Some Considerations on the Lessons Learnt from the Cavalcade of Changes in Physics’ Models, DOI: 10.5772/65414, in
“Proceedings of the International Conference on Interdisciplinary Studies (ICIS 2016) - Interdisciplinarity and Creativity in the Knowledge Society", book
edited by Valentina Mihaela Pomazan, ISBN 978-953-51-2768-0, Published: November 3, 2016 under CC BY 3.0 license

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 iii. The transfers from one system to another and/or state changes of a given CATS take place
so, that to follow the enanthiottopy variation for its states. Enanthiotropy is defined for the
fundamental minimal characteristics (syzygy) of the CATS systems, i.e. mass, energy and
information.

iv. The CATS control and optimization are performed through cybernetic mechanisms, defined
as part of a hypercybernetic approach, on three hierarchical levels: real, simple complex
and hypercomplex, as defined by a multidimentional in a multicomplex (11) space
approach for their syzygy

v. CATS defined by the human life on Earth are subject to external challenges. These
challenges come from other systems trying to get integrated in Human Earth CATS; the
magnitude of the challenges is proportional with the magnitude of the harnessed energies
and complexity in the Earth like CATS. Covid is one of them and, as significant magnitude
is only one of the first in a along series to come, for which Human Earth CATS need to be
prepared.

vi. Currently the Human Earth like CATS (HECATS) is defined as including, in a fractalic
mode, not only the energy sources used by mankind, but also the non energy related elements
of the planetary habitat, the societal related ones and non-human biological components, at
individual and collective levels. HECATS is an apoietic system with fractalic architecture
defined by topologies specific to the bio-complex alive with conscience elements of it; it is a
topology, which represented as a geometrical topological form (polyhedral type) and
currently it has a dodecahedron form.

vii. Covid -19 is non alive system, which can be described as one of the challenges to HECATS
and it is of icosahedron type. This icosahedron type system is capable to have fundamental
impact of the human like dodecahedron like structures currently present on the planet. The
impact takes place by information transfer and not by the dominant, at this energy level so far
for planetary CATS, energy transfer mechanisms. The non alive challenge Covid is at the
boundary between non alive-alive (abiotic-biotic).

viii. Covid – 19 has a unique genetic structure, in the form of an RNA (Ribonucleic acid). The
known so far mechanisms of genetic information transfer in CATS was from DNA
(Dezoxyribonucleic Acid) to RNA and therefore this is a very important moment in biology.
Covid, as a virus penetrates the eukaryote cell. It could be of relevance the fact, that 2.5 bln
years ago, there was a major change in the abiotic-biotic chains by the appearance of the
eukaryotes. This is even more strange as this took place in a period of increased
radioactivity, hydrogen formation and operation of natural fission reactors (of Oklo type). It
was a threshold for the life on Earth as only after this period the eukaryotes, of which we are
also part, started to emerge, defeating the virus supremacy oin the planet. The Planetary
CATS systems had a sharp change 2.5 bln years ago (from abiotic to biotic type). Living
CATS and now Conscious CATS (HECATS) emerged since that moment.
ix. The Oklo anomalies could be considered singularities, in the light of the CATS approach
at Planetary, Galactic and Cosmic Universal for this universe or other universes,
generated as hypercybernetics mechanism (in the attached essay) represents the process.

x. Therefore, the Oklo anomalies and the moments of challenges alive – non alive (of which
Covid is also an episode), emergence of biotic forms, challenges to them and emergence of
new biotic and / or alive forms are singularities of the CATS processes at all levels and
realms. The moments for new singularities encounters depends on the CATS structure –
its gradient of change for the syzygy (mass, energy, information), as defined by its
enanthiotropy. The anomalies/singularities (by the way recently discovered on
neighbouring plantes like Mars, too) leading to emergence of CATS with a more complex
structure like the present HECATS, are illustration of the hypercybernetic mechanisms at
the level of all realms (Planetary, Galactic, Cosmic) from a multidimentional space.

xi. In the Covid 19 challenge context, the interpretation of previously formulated specific
features of CATS is that HECATS, as an apoietic system, is expected to modify itself in
order to survive and adapt to this challenge.The adaptation is expected for the whole
fractalic structure (cells, human body, humen society, planet as a whole).The
dodecahedron structures will be subject to significant changes to get closer to the
icosahedron ones. This may take place by MGEV and/or hypercybernetics of all realms in
a single or multiverse.

V. Conclusions

From the perspective of the non alive to alive with conscience systems challenges, the CATS and
hypercybernetics give explanations and lessons for the expected future of HECATS. Covid 19 is
one example of many to come.

VI. Bibliografy;

 Maturana, Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living (1st edition 1973, 2nd
1980
 Dan Șerbănescu, An integrated perspective on knowledge and existence, Noema, 2017,
http://noema.crifst.ro/ARHIVA/2017_03_03.pdf
 Silviu Olaru, Complex numbers in n dimensions, North Holland Mathematical Studies (vol.
190)
 Dan Șerbănescu, Hypercybernetics, 2020
 Sorin Băiculescu, Emergența, Noema, nr. XIV, 2015
 Hypercybernetics
Dan Serbanescu

ABSTRACT
This essay presents an integrated view on the behavior itself and their models for the complex energy systems.
Complex Energy Systems (CES) are considered to be topological systems as well as the models describing them.
CES are from one side complex systems, called Complex Apoietic Topological Systems (CATS) complying with
the requirements defined in previous works for them and form the other side they are topological systems and so are
the models describing them.
An energy system exists in a space state, defined by a core of unchanged features (called syzygies) described in a
hyper complex apace. Energy systems interact at the same level (for a given type of energy – lateral interface)
between them and with other systems challenging them. They are also impacted from the other systems assumed in a
continuous tight interconnection (“up” and “down” interface) by the intermede of impoact functions, defined as
transfer functions in a hypercomplex space.
The interactions between the energy systems define a special type of cybernetic interaction in a hyper complex
space, called hyper cybernetics. The usual cybernetics and both its second and third level, defined so far, become
particular cases of a hybercybernetic behavior and their models of a special type of topological complex systems, the
energy systems of a given universe. Hyper cybernetics reflects the potential impact as a feedback and feed before of
other universes, too.

1. INTRODUCTION

The essay presents an integrated view on the behavior itself and their models for the CES,
considered as Complex Apoietic Topological Systems (CATS). The systems and their models
reaction to both the challenges to them and their changes and their models evolve are
presented.
The following assumptions are adopted in the form of Generic Conjectures (GCOi):

GCO1: Energy is defined for all the levels from subquantic to cosmic (Table 1) and it defines
interconnected system in system set (“matrioshka type”), as in Figure 1.

Table 1. Complex Apoietic Topological Systems

 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

Matricea tranzitiei si crearea spatiului topologic (2)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Transition Groups between various phases

GR1 GR2 GR3 GR4 GR5 GR6 GR7 GR8
GR 1 = e1i GR2=e2j GR3=e3k GR4=e4l GR5=e5m GR6=e6n GR7=e70 GR8=e8p

1 1-2 10-1
GR1 e11 e12 e13 e14 e15 e16 e17 e18
2 2-3 10-2
GR2 e21 e22 e23 e24 e25 e26 e27 e28

3 1-3 3-4
GR3 e31 e32 e33 e34 e35 e36 e37 e38

4 4-5 4-6 4-7

GR4 e41 e42 e43 e44 e45 e46 e47 e48

5 5-6 5-8
GR5 e51 e52 e53 e54 e55 e56 e57 e88

6 6-7 6-8 6-9

GR6 e61 e62 e63 e64 e65 e66 e67 e68

7 7-9 7-8
GR7 e71 e72 e73 e74 e75 e76 e77 e78
7-10
8 8-9 8-10
9-10
GR8 e81 e82 e83 e84 e85 e86 e87 e88

Transformation of the Transition matrix to Matrix of States Phases

In this example in the octonion format

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

Matricea tranzitiei si crearea spatiului topologic (3)

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

• Etapa ultima analizează rezultatele modelării considerând următoarele

aspecte suplimentare față de etapele anterioare:

 aspecte specifice ale surselor de energie din SSEN/NES,

 rezultate din literatură, care prezintă exemple de utilizare a
structurilor algebrice de tip octonioni în modelarea din fizica
cuantică sau din electrodinamică (în general, dar și în cea cuantică)

• Aspectele menționate mai sus duc la forme de prezentare și analiză a unor

rezultate de modelare a surselor de energie luând în considerație existența de
multidimensiuni exprimate prin formule în teoria numerelor
hypercomplexe. (split-octonioni).

• Dzhunushaliev, Vladimir, Nonassociativity, supersymmetry, and hidden variables, Dept. Phys. and Microel. Engineer., Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University, Bishkek, Kievskaya
Str. 44, 720021, Kyrgyz Republic, November 7, 2017)
• Gogberashvili, M.,Octonionic Electrodynamics, Andronikashvili Institute of Physics, 6 Tamarashvili St., Tbilisi 0177, Georgia, arXiv:hep-th/0512258,
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0512258

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

Conjecturi definind specificul modelării energiei in sisteme

SSEN/NES (1)

• Matricea de stare a fazelor și procesul care generează spațiile topologice ale SSEN/NES și ale
fiecărei surse de energie în parte (SQ, Q, MOL etc.) se aplica și pentru componentele lor.
• Prin aplicarea acestei abordări pantru mărimi specifice unui sistem Fizic, cum este Energia
.
• Energia în sistemele Fizice este înțeleasă în cuprinsul acestei lucrări ca o funcție de stare a unui
sistem Fizic, ce caracterizează capacitatea acestuia de a efectua un lucru mecanic și care, în
abordarea propusă de autor îndeplinește rolul de functor în înțelesul teoriei categoriilor.

• Următoarele conjecturi se consideră ca fiind o reflectare a specificului utilizării abordării

propuse în această lucrare pentru descrierea Energiei caracteristice unor sisteme precum cele
menționate anterior

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

Conjecturi definind specificul modelării energiei in sisteme SSEN/NES(2)

CJO1: Matricea de stare a Energiei unei componente date a SSEN/NES (SQ, Q, EM,
MOL etc.), ca și a SSEN/NES in ansamblul său, se modelează sub forma unei
Matrici de Stare a Fazelor.
Matricea se prezintă sub o formă specifică (octonion) care se poate reprezenta
geometric ca un icosahedron .

CJO2: Se va considera că următoarele sunt elementele definitorii ale Energiei, văzute

ca o Generatoare a unei surse date și/sau a intregului SSEN/NES, care se
denumesc Syzygy:

 masa sursei (m),

 viteza luminii (c) și
 energia informațională (ψ).
CJO3: Energia și masa se descriu prin modele care duc la obținerea unor Matrici de
Stare, ce pot fi reprezentate ca poliedre (în acest studiu de caz ca un
icosahedron). Aceasta înseamnă ca Energia și Masa se pot considera ca fiind
compuse din părți descrise de nouă stări (una în spațiul real – matematic, iar
celelalte opt în spațiul imaginar) și 11 dimensiuni (trei în spațiul real și opt în
spațiul imaginar).

Viteza luminii și energia informațională a unei surse date și /sau a SSEN-NES

în ansamblul său se consideră ca invariabile față de transformările matricii de
tranziție

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Figure 10 Interface and challenges for a system SYSx

GCO8:SYS x in s coordinates consider a representation that assumes the existence of a real

and one imaginary term to describe the coordinates of the SYSx states. However
there are results on the hyper complex numbers, assuming the existence of a multi
complex axes In this case s can be represented as in formula (17)

( ) (01
) ( ) (17)
∑

(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘)

𝑠 (𝑘) 𝑠 𝑖 𝑠 𝑖
(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘)
𝑠 𝑖 𝑠 𝑖 ) (𝑠 𝑖 𝑠 𝑖 𝑠 𝑖 𝑠 𝑖 𝑠 𝑖

2–3 48

For a special case of SYS in table 1 and Figure 1 also formula (18) is possible

( ) ( ) ( )
∑ ∑ (18)

In this case the syzygy and its components for (k) system will have the form (19) to (22)
( ) ( ) ( )
∑ (19)

( ) ( ) ( )
∑ (20)

( ) ( ) ( )
∑ (21)
Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

FIZICA SISTEMELOR SI TOPOLOGIA

in spatiu n-dimensional

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 ( ) ( ) (( ) ) ( )
( ) ∑ (( ( ) ) ) (22)

where
mass
C speed light
ψ2 entropy
is expressed in general as information entropy, but being actually a matrix of
elements describing the entropies at various levels and for various types of energy
systems
If the formula (19) is represented in (23) form, then some groups for the types of
components of the syzygy Energy for SYSx are identified.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

01 2-3 4-8

Real energy Complex energy hyper complex energy (23)

The syzygy components for a given system (SYSx) are composed of three categories:

 Real type of energy, which is related for each SYSx (from Table 1 and Figure 1) to
the obervable energy changing in the same system (“x”) , by changing from one state
to another
 Simple Complex Energy, which is related for each SYS x to that type identifying
itself by the results of their intaraction with the Real Energy.
Both Real energy and Simple Comples are specific to a given SYSx and do not
interact with othe levels /energy systems and they describe a type of interactions
called in this approach Lateral Control in a given energy system

 Hypercomplex Energy, which is related to interactions from other systems than

“x” (“up or down”) and they describe the Hyper Control in a given energy system.

Therefore, the cybernetics as defined by founding works and its second and third level
introduced later on become particular cases of the Hyper-cybernetics, considering all the given
energy system states and the interaction with higher or lower order of energy systems, for a
given set of CATS energy systems in a defined universe. The interfaces of hyper complex type
include also those from other universes, as feedback and feed before functions.
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

• Energia de tip imaginar (o vom denumi “Energie Simplu Complexă”) de două

variațiuni “2” și “3”, care se așteaptă să descrie alte două dimensiuni ale realității
fizice (în ințelesul acestei lucrări) și așa cum rezultă, ca o consecință din
adoptarea unui anumit model pentru o paradigmă “k” dată (cu un efort de
revizuire a modelelor și accedere la faze de consolidare ale acestora de tip 7-9

o Din punct de vedere al teoriilor matematice ale numerelor complexe și hipercomplexe

și asupra spațiilor topologice descrise de octonioni, partile 1-3 se definesc prin faptul ca
ele se pot compune între ele rezultând părti “Reale”, în sensul că “Se pot observa”

o Din punct de vedere al Fizicii (cu limitările de definiție a observației).Prin observație

se va înțelege în această lucrare o acțiune de identificare, măsurare efectuată cu
sprijinul percepțiilor senzoriale șsi/sau al unor instrumente verificate anterior
conform unor modele ale Fizicii care sunt considerate valide.

o Componentele imaginare ale variatiunilor 1-3 se compun rezultând forme ale

fazei zero, ceea ce arată potențialul acestor faze imaginare de a deveni observabile (în
sensul acestei lucrări). În limbaj simplificat o serie de dimensiuni imaginare (cele de
tip 1-3) se pot compune între ele și deveni observabile în modele umane, pentru o
paradigmă dată.

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

• Energie de tip hiperimaginar (o vom denumi “Energie Hipercomplexă”) de

cinci variațiuni “4-8”, care se așteaptă să descrie alte cinci dimensiuni pot
apărea prin mai multe mecanisme, necunoscute încă, dar dintre care două apar
ca dominante:
o Fazele4-8 trec din unele în altele și accidental in faze de tip 2-3 prin
mecanisme proprii acestor dimensiuni , într-o paradigmă dată
o Fazele 4-8 trec in formă 2-3 sau chiar zero prin interacții cu alte
paradigme, în ipoteza că se acceptă adevarul/ existența concomitentă
a ambelor paradigme (o ipoteză pe care o vom denumi a
paraconsistenței logice a existenței și cunoașterii)

• Mecanismele descrise mai sus pot să apară fie într-un model dat (ce creează o
anumită realitate), fie prin coliziunea mai multor realități.

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

Aceste reprezentări sunt doar un suport pentru a

o înțelege limitele modelelor unui anumit obiect de studiu, în acest caz al sistemelor
ede energie, care sunt în vigoare la un moment dat și pentru
o direcționa cercetările în domeniul respectiv prin orientarea căutării de modele ,
care să aiba numite trasături dominante (considerate a descrie mai bine obiectul
de studiu la acea fază).
În cazul obiectului de studiu SSEN/NES, câteva sunt observațiile care rezultă din
modelele de tipul poliedric, cum ar fi:
 Modelele de energie au mai mult succes în a explica
 contradicții existente în teoriile recunoscute elaborate în paradigmele acum
în vigoare în Fizica modernă, sau
 noi fenomene/surse de energie
dacă iau în considerație o ierarhizare a tipurilor de energii și a modelelor lor, pe
baza celor definite anterior
o “energie reală”,
o “energie simplu complexă” și
o “energie hipercomplexă”).
În acest fel se poate defini strategia de revizuire de modele și stabilire a “Credințelor”,
care împiedică aceste modele să explice (în condițiile problemelor din Fizică în acest
moment) noi fenomene în cadrul paradigmelor în vigoare, cum este cea a
“Observabilității”.

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018
 Academia Romana - Comitetul Român de Istoria si Filsofia Ştiinţei şi Tehnicii (CRIFST)- Divizia de Logică, Metodologie şi Filosofia Ştiinţei (DLMFS)
Sesiunea de toamna cu tema: In memoriam Mircea Malita

• O serie de fennomene pot fi astfel explicate, cum ar fi cele legate de energii

neconvenționale (paranormale) sau comportamente ciudate (pentru teoriile
existente) de dispariție de particule sau de creare/apariție de noi surse de energie,
sau unele uimitoare cum ar fi energia materiei negre de exemplu, se pot studia cu un
set de treguli de revizuire de “Program” / “Paradigmă”, care să evite utilizarea
acelor ”Credințe” care ne-ar putea împiedica să construim teorii viabile, oricîte
iterații ar fi făcute în cercetare. „Credința observabilității” prezentă în modelele
Fizicii, după ce, în perioada carteziană s-a dovedit de mare impact, în prezent
generează crize deosebite în incercările de unificare a teoriilor, de dezvoltare de
TOR. Mecanismul prin care se schimbă aceste “Credinte” a fost prezentat anterior
.
• Pe de altă parte, renunțarea la această “Credință“ aduce în discuție construirea
de “Realități”, ca proces ce se suprapune complet peste cel de constuire de
modele pentru sisteme de surse de energie.

 Paradigmele privind modelele surselor de energie au implicații și din perspectiva

discuției asupra dilemelor « Univers-Multivers » sau « Realitate / Realitate
virtuală – Realitate multiplă». noile paradigme, care la rândul lor creează noi
“Realități»

View publication stats

Despre modelele fizicii si ale minții Elemente pentru noi abordări integratoare Dr.ing.Dan Serbanescu 19 Octombrie 2018