RANDOM DYNAMICS
RANDOM DYNAMICS TABLE OF CONTENTS SEQUENCE OF DERIVATIONS


PHILOSOPHICAL INTRODUCTION

In the search for the most fundamental theory of physics one usually looks for a simplest possible model, and at present the most popular candidate on the market is superstrings theory (is superstring theory that simple?...).
But could it not be that the fundamental "World Machinery" (or theory) could be extremely complicated? We see that we have some very beautiful and simple laws of Nature such as Newton's laws, Hooke's law, The Standard Model and so on - how could such transparency and simplicity arise from a very complex fundamental "World Machinery"?
It is not totally unlikely that complicated models could lead to a very simple law. This is illustrated by imagining a rather complicated solid state theory (such as the theory of atoms with quantum mechanics or for that matter Rudger Boskovic's classical theory of atomic forces) leading to Hooke's law:

$l(F) = l_0+F l_0'+...$
where $l=l(F)$ is the length of a pulled stick, $F$ the force pulling it, and $l_0'$ is the derivative.

Our Hooke's law derivation is only supposed to work in the limit where the force that pulls the solid object or stick is very small.
The Random Dynamics project is based on the idea that all known laws of Nature can, in a similar way as Hooke's law, be derived in some limit(s), practically independent of the underlying theory of the World Machinery.
The limit which could suggestively be the relevant limit for most laws, would be that the fundamental energy scale is very big compared to the energies of the elementary particles even in very high energy experiments. A likely fundamental energy scale would be the Planck energy, 1.2 $10^{19}$ Gev.

To get an idea of why this Random Dynamics project, if successful, should be superior to every other scheme, such as string theories or alike, you can read about the motivation, and to get an idea of how a sub-project of Random Dynamics looks at its best, we advice you to look for the derivation of Lorentz invariance and why we have 4+1 dimensions.
To derive this, some physical laws (such as an abstract form of Quantum Mechanics and a very general version of Quantum Field Theory) - but of course not Lorentz invariance - have to be assumed. Really we assume that at the end of the Random Dynamics, we shall have a long series of derivations starting from almost nothing (we often refer to this "almost nothing" as the complicated mathematical structure ${\cal{M}}$). The development of all the steps in this chain of derivation, hopefully ending in the Standard Model (including all the laws from different branches of physics), is not completed. A listing of the chain as we imagine it at present, is however found here. One may still be worried if the project is at all possible without somehow sneaking in information on the way. We of course hope to avoid putting in extra information, there is however one kind of information that we are allowed to sneak in - because we have to do so. That is the information concerning how we interpret different elements in the random model with the various physical concepts. Also in e.g. the Standard Model, you need this interpretation scheme, because you have to put in the assumption as to which of the phenomenologically found interactions are to be identified with gauge group in the group U(1) x SU(2) x SU(3).