Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American


How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

lami leese: on 4/10/17 at 8:59am UTC, wrote Thank you for your post, There are good post! Developed the Common Rail ...

Vladimir Rodin: on 4/8/17 at 11:43am UTC, wrote Lorraine, my Paradigm just offers the answers to three fundamental...

Lorraine Ford: on 4/7/17 at 22:43pm UTC, wrote Vladimir, thinking about it some more, I realise that we share an interest...

Vladimir Rodin: on 4/7/17 at 20:58pm UTC, wrote You know Lorraine, the first reason is simple up to banality. I participate...

Lorraine Ford: on 4/7/17 at 12:59pm UTC, wrote Above post was from me.

Anonymous: on 4/7/17 at 12:57pm UTC, wrote Vladimir, I was disappointed that there was nothing in your essay about...

Alexey/Lev Burov: on 4/5/17 at 18:50pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, I have to admit that mostly I am puzzled by your...

Vladimir Tamari: on 4/1/17 at 1:18am UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir I enjoyed reading your essay and tried to understand your...


Rajiv Singh: "Hi Lorraine, This time, before submitting, I noted that the web page did..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Anonymous: "Dear Lorraine, Thank you, not only for your responses, but also for a..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

sussan betcher: "Such ventures helping to raise public awareness and interest in theoretical..." in Multiversal Journeys —...

sabir rao: "We are looking for the ways how to hack instagram password online and..." in Purifying Physics: The...

sabir rao: "If you don't know a little bit about the free psn plus codes then here is..." in Towards a Goal — Two...

Anonymous: "From the perspective of field theory, the only difference that arises..." in Rescuing Reality

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Community, I could probably have done something better but it gets the..." in Alternative Models of...

appzoro Technologies : "Informative post and all threads. I am new here and wants to share me..." in New Podcast: A MICROSCOPE...

click titles to read articles

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

Riding the Rogue Quantum Waves
Could giant sea swells help explain how the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum microworld? (Image credit: MIT News)

April 29, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: New paradigm of motion by Vladimir Rodin [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Vladimir Rodin wrote on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 15:19 GMT
Essay Abstract

Since the publication of the first essays, the author has tried to pay attention of both serious physicists and simply educated public once again to the new concept of the Universe, which changes the paradigm of interactions in the physical world cardinally, allowing closely to come nearer to the Unified field theory. At the heart of a new paradigm lies the law defining the reason of interactions in micro and macro systems of the material world. The work is intended for readers and scientists interested in physical and philosophical problems of the Universe.

Author Bio

Born in 1953 in the USSR. In 1980 graduated from the Leningrad Institute of Water Transport (now Admiral Makarov State University of Maritime and Inland Shipping).PhD in Engineering (1992). Author of scientific articles and books (scientific essays) in the field of theoretical (fundamental) physics. My works are based on the new paradigm of motion. Independent researcher.

Download Essay PDF File

Branko L Zivlak wrote on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 22:19 GMT
Dear Mr. Rodin

Your essay is 95 percent promising. The reason that you do not have a prediction in your research is in those 5 percent. You must get rid of the prevailing stereotypes including, I quote:

„The universe attraction appeared at the beginning of our Universe evolution, when formerly solid hydrogen became gas due to a decrease in the atomic protium density caused by corpuscular disturbance spherical wave front expansion [2].“

Universe is spatially finite, but eternal in time (in past and future). So there is no beginning of our Universe evolution.

Really, your 2/3 also appear in my previous essays FQXi in another context.

For me, the interesting part:

"But this is only possible if the mass of such a particle would be expressed using a complex value". I have no any prediction in this part, but it is good idea.

Of course, you deserve high rate.



report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rodin replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 08:05 GMT
Dear Mr. Zivlak,

Thanks for an appreciation of my modest work. With your remark: «Universe is spatially finite, but eternal in time (in past and future). So there is no beginning of our Universe evolution» I completely agree and I don’t confirm in my works of other. I mean the beginning of a certain new phase of our Universe by «the Great beginning» in an infinite train of such phases.

Best Regards,


Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 18:54 GMT
Hi To both of you,

It seems really odd to say that there is not a beginning for our physicality.Let's imagine an infinite eternal entropy with dimensions before this hypothetical BB.Why a physicality has been created ? Why codes and informations have been created in a system of evolution by polarisation of matter energy implying an increasing mass and complexification of this mass ?

The fact to consider a main causality for these informations of evolution seem essential and foundamental.If there is nit a begining so why we have an evolution ?Now explain me also why we have coded singularities for all quantum serie in its uniqueness ?And if these quant singularities have been created and that these singularities evolve and encode, so there is a main cosmological cause implying these codes of evolution complexification.Imagine simply that this infinite eternal entropical consciousness that here on earth we name with reduction God,has wanted to share something with this physicality.Perhaps simply this eternity was alone and has wanted create a physicality.But of course we are in the philosophy,that said we see that it exists a thing above our simple human interpretation.Newton, Tesla,Einstein and so more general thinkers had understood that this entropy was a foundamental for the generalm équations abouty matter and energy.God after all does not play at dices.The eterrnity without dimensions and time is abnove this physicality, so we must be objective about this entropical irreverszible Arrow of time.We cannot in this physicality and its objectivity confound the things.A begining is necessary.But your approach is interesting in a subjective extrapolation of this time.We are indeed eternal and infinite and without dimensions, but we are in aphysicality where we have time, dimensions and evolution of mass.So we must make a difference with this subjectivity comparated with nthis objectivity,even if they converge with our mind.Best to both of you

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 15:13 GMT
Dear Dr. Rodin,,

Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay and I do hope that it fairs well in the competition.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about any imaginary “At the heart of a new paradigm lies the law defining the reason of interactions in micro and macro systems of the material world.”

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rodin replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 08:10 GMT
Dear Mr. Fisher,

Thanks for your unusual point of view on my reasonings, I try to respect and analyze any opinion.

You know, concerning simplicity I completely on your party. As an epigraph to one of my essays I have even written down: «The True is always simple, therefore it is obvious and graceful …». But simplicity of the True besides also is infinitely many-sided.

As to a reality I believe, the biggest realist is a great Lord, hence you are on the right track too.

I sincerely wish you creative successes.

Best Regards,

V. Rodin

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 21:33 GMT
Dear Vladimir A. Rodin,

You are forgetting one fundamental question which forms the basis of your essay. You are assuming in your essay that it is totally expanding Universe. That means you are considering only about 40 percent of total Galaxies in the Universe, the other Galaxies like Blue shifted Galaxies, Quasars and many other types you are not considering, which amounts to more than 60 percent…

Then probably you will have to modify your motion equations accordingly…

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rodin replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 08:13 GMT
Dear Mr. Gupta,

Thanks for your attention to my essay.

Certainly I appreciate and respect your remarks, but my paradigm of movement at all does not deny that you have kindly stated in your comment. Moreover the paradigm allows to explain these at first sight the mutually exclusive phenomena.

Further I hope to convince you of it.

Best Regards,

Vladimir A. Rodin

George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 11:10 GMT
Dear Vladimir

Your work has interested to me as I find there many things in the unison to my approach. The matter is concerned mainly to a concept of wave-field nature of the unique primordial substance. It is Einstein's idea, which was arisen after when he realized that his theories incomplete (as you mentioned). Here is impossible to listing the important results that derived on this basic concept (that you also have chosen.) The particles really can be represented as the different kinds of standing Compton’s waves – as 1) the single wavelength, 2) as multiple wavelengths and 3) the half (quarter, etc) wavelength circularly polarized standing waves. These itself in same time are the wave interference patterns. On this basic imagination, almost everything in the microcosm, become explainable …! Then I hope you can find many interesting things in my works, and we will get some more complete building. Please answer to me not so immediately, but after looking my works.

I am very welcome your essay!

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rodin wrote on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 13:46 GMT
Dear George!

I have read your magnificent essay which certainly deserves a high appreciation. It completely agree with your point of view and the approach. I will by all means find time for detailed acquaintance with your works. Your models of the electron and proton are interesting, but in my opinion are not indisputable.

I hope for creative and fruitful continuation of our acquaintance.



Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 12:42 GMT
Dear Vladimir, you are very absorbed in their thoughts, creating new definitions of proto-medium, peony, etc. , I agree with your fractal hierarchy, it is in good agreement with the densest hexagonal packing.

When I introduced something similar, but then agreed with Descartes, who argued that space equals matter. The concept of moving space-matter helped me:

To convert the uncertainty principle Heisenberg in the principle of definiteness of points of space-matter;

To reveal the law of the constancy of the flow of forces through a closed surface space-matter;

To formulate the law of gravitation Lorentz;

Give the formula of the pressure of the Universe;

To reveal the essence of gravitational mass as the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration across the surface of the corpuscles, etc.

From New Cartesian Physic great potential in understanding the world. To show this potential in his essay I gave materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural. Inmay, I made a mistake that has bound New Cartesian physiks with the paranormal and supernatural, because it does not attract the attention of others. Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic.

Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko.

Отправить перевод

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rodin replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 12:14 GMT
Dear Boris Semyonovich,

I thank you for attention to my work and ask to forgive me for a delay of the answer to your comment.

I certainly recognize the basic theses of Cartesian physics, which was based in many respects on ingenious guesses of ancient thinkers, such as Anaximander who offered (by the way) idea of the “proto-medium (Apeiron) uniting all the real”.

In the near future I will give the comment to your essay.

Best regards and good luck in the contest!

Vladimir A. Rodin

Bishal Banjara wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 17:35 GMT
dear Vladimir Rodin, I think your essay and my essay pisses a bit overlap in terms of motion but you are arguing about the causative facts to rely at its mechanistic foundation but I am trying to explain what you and I could see and observe the facts in terms of motion through the way of dealing force...a real force, much different in the pattern and formulation than that of Newtonian.... I am totally unclear about your eassay which is to philisopic but one thing I have distinguish is about the definate states of inertia for the material body (like the definite states of energy of electron in its orbit) ,........but if you look through my way there is no really the inertial effect that the moving bodies really posses....we are illusioned for more than 3 centuries about this kind of concept......further, you mention that we could get the unified theory from your interpretations..but I don't see real mathemathical frame in your essay to be know i could say in my essay that there is no dark matter as my equation would fit to the tally fisher result exactly...but I didn't.... why?...because I should first do all calculations...and if got fitted then only expose it, in my view to refound the real foundations of physics we rather need to think more critically in what we could see and observe...

best regards from Nepal

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rodin replied on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 19:58 GMT
Dear Mr. Banjara,

thanks for critical thoughts concerning my essay. It is pleasant that our understanding of motion though a little bit coincides. In a format of this essay I conceived to state the general principles of my concept of motion, without mathematical calculations. You can find mathematical frame in my published works, the same concerns of the notion of a dark matter.

As to Newton, I have own interpretation of its laws. I’m not inclined to belittle merits of the great thinkers and scientists who have brought in due time the huge contribution to development of a science. But process of knowledge of the physical world (true) is infinite and certainly demands new approaches at different stages of knowledge and development of laws of the nature.

Best regards and good luck in the contest!

Vladimir A. Rodin

Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 10:05 GMT
Dear Vladimir Rodin,

I am just reading your essay. It is probably so interesting for me. I have to studiously read and understand your essay. After reading your essay completely, I will post my comment on your essay.

Best Wishes,


report post as inappropriate

Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren wrote on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 07:02 GMT
Dear Vladimir Rodin,

I have read your essay which deserves a high appreciation. It agree with your point of view and the approach. I will by all means find time for detailed acquaintance with your works.

I think that there is a simple mechanical motion of fundamental reality behind the complicated reactions and phenomena.

I think that the aether came from ancient Creek was proposed by the greatest philosophers. We should remember they began now day's science. I cannot think that the greatest philosophers said completely wrong.

I think that at the foundation of the natural structure (Foundations of Hierarchy), there might not be any energy dissipation while being perfect.


report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rodin wrote on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 10:19 GMT
Dear Ch. Bayarsaikhan,

thank you very much for the analysis and appreciation to my essay. In the near future I will study and will give my comments on your work.

Best regards,

Vladimir A. Rodin

Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 11:11 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

I have read with great interest your deep analytical essay with ideas and conclusions, that will help us overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science through the creation of a new comprehensive picture of the world, uniform for physicists and lyrics filled with meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl). FQXI Contests are first of all new ideas. You give...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rodin replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 22:01 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

thank you very much for the substantial comment and appreciation of my work.

All of us know that the way to the true is infinite, but there are criteria on which it is possible to estimate correctness of scientific approaches. The first of such criteria is simplification of model of a material world, the second is experimental acknowledgement of the offered model. It would be desirable to believe that it will be possible to me both that and another.

Sincerely yours,


Christian Corda wrote on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 18:06 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

This is an interesting and provocative Essay. Although I do not agree with all your claims, I think that your ideas should deserve to be spread in the scientific community. Hence, I decided to give you the highest score.

Congratulations and good luck in the Contest.

I hope that you will have a chance to read our Essay.

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rodin replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 21:04 GMT
Dear Christian,

I am glad that my essay has caused in you interest. Thanks for the comment and an appreciation. Under Vladimir Rogozhina's recommendation I have already started reading yours (with co-authors) essay and in the near future I will write my response.

Best regards and good luck in the Contest.

Vladimir Rodin

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 11:49 GMT
Dear Vladimir Rodin,

Thank you for your kind words.

With great interest I read your essay.

Your essay allowed to consider us like-minded people.

I'm going to write a comment on your work in your forum thread.

I wish you success in the contest.

Kind regards,

Vladimir Fedorov

report post as inappropriate

Alexander M. Ilyanok wrote on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 15:07 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

With great interest I read your essay. I agree with you that the process of cognition is arranged in such a way that the matter in the long run is always for the small. Behind a tedious string of dry mathematical signs and formulas lies a modest and clear, sometimes deafening image of a new idea.

I have investigated some similar problems, for example, the unity between micro and macro”. Femtotechnologies Presentation .

Best wiches

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 16:44 GMT

I found your ideas and conceptions very interesting and mostly well conceived. I also generally like and agree with your descriptions that

" wave disturbance of the proto-medium, leads to the formation of materialized (having mass) matter that also enjoys wave properties"

and certainly of; "infinite hierarchical nesting of material systems." which I've identified lead to important new understanding in past essays.

I too address that; "Elementary disturbances in a vacuum are transferred by means of spinor polarization, i.e. the transfer of angular momentum (qubit of data) via connected pixel pairs" and would be interested in your views on my own derivations.

Well done, and Best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rodin replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 22:50 GMT

thanks a lot for attention to my essay and also for some consent with not the most important thoughts of my work. It's certainly pleasant. It's less pleasant to observe how some trolls already in the fifth time lower my rating without comments. Well, as great Confucius told: «If to you someone spits in a back, it means that you ahead».

I already read your article and I'll comment on it in the near future in your thread. Should notice that you have not badly coped with your work too.

Best regards,


Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 19:07 GMT

Thanks for your kind comments on mine too. The trolls should have their 1's re-applied to their own or be disqualified, it would be simple to have a rule to stop it. Both I and Jonathen have proposed wordings on the essay admin blog. I've now had 11 1's applied in all!

In compensation for the hits on yours I'm scoring it highly now, well deserved anyway.

Best of luck.


report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 01:18 GMT
Dear Vladimir

I enjoyed reading your essay and tried to understand your proposed system. In another essay of yours Puzzles and Laws a figure shows space as made up of spherical pixels - this is very similar to my 2005 Beautiful Universe (BU) Model - but your approach is more analytical.

Question - Why nested universes? Isn’t one enough ? A figure would be helpful to explain your concept.

I do accept the concept of preons but could not understand the idea of preon effect of symmetry of Compton wavelength that you mention.

In my BU model time emerges from the analysis of stored ‘images’ of the various ‘now’ states of the Universe. Time has no absolute existence of its own. Without time the speed of light cannot be constant - that concept depends on variable time and space dimensions as defined by Einstein - a totally artificial idea.

You describe motion “ The motion of physical bodies in a vacuum is, actually, a sequential phase sublimation of fractally structured disturbances of the vacuum itself” - this is very similar to how I conceive it in BU - a pattern of energy moving in the nodes (preons) which themselves do not move. Your preons have energy, but in (BU) they have polarity - otherwise how can matter emerge out of space?

I wish you all the best in your work and in this contest!


report post as inappropriate

Alexey/Lev Burov wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 18:50 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

I have to admit that mostly I am puzzled by your composition, so that I do not even see how it does relate to the topic of this contest. One thing though attracted my attention in a special way:

"Eternity in our Universe is just a moment for the next level Universe, which our one is nested in, as a spatial pixel."

This image reminded me the butterfly parable of Chuang Chou (Zhuangzi), leading to his famous question, repeated much later by Descartes: what if all wanderings toward goals are totally misleading and futile, as dreams? Apparently, the Chinese sage left this problem unresolved, while the French father of science gave his circular solution. I guess this problem belongs to the core of the contest's topic.


Alexey Burov.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 12:57 GMT

I was disappointed that there was nothing in your essay about wandering or goals or aims, though I must admit the word “intention” was used!! Why didn’t you address the topic of the essay?

Best wishes,


report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 12:59 GMT
Above post was from me.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rodin replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 20:58 GMT
You know Lorraine, the first reason is simple up to banality. I participate the first time in FQXi contest; my friend has suggested me to take а part. I was very busy then have charged to my assistant to submit one of my fresh works.

Secondly I believe that in my work is clearly enough expressed both the goals and intentions, despite a lack of such words in the text. The New Paradigm of Motion offers the new approach in the description of the laws of dynamics on purpose to explain the reason of origin of all interactions.

In global sense, the goal of evolution of the Universe is reflected in the title of my theory; "Hierarchical Stabilization of Systems", in which basis the New Paradigm of Motion lies.

Best regards,


Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 22:43 GMT

thinking about it some more, I realise that we share an interest in "what is the Motion?", though I come to a different conclusion to you about it. So, I hope you keep up the good work on this important issue.



report post as inappropriate

lami leese wrote on Apr. 10, 2017 @ 08:59 GMT
Thank you for your post, There are good post! Developed the Common Rail fuel system for heavy duty vehicles and turned it into practical use on their ECD-U2 common-rail system.Modern common rail systems, whilst working on the same principle sensor are governed by an engine control unit (ECU). The design was acquired by the German Common Rail Shim & Gasket kit companyRobert Bosch GmbH for completion of development and refinement for mass-production Common Rail Nozzle . In hindsight,As the new technology proved to be highly profitable. The Common Rail Injector Valve had little choice but to sell, however,In 1997 they extended its use for passenger cars Common Rail Injector .The first passenger car that used the common rail system.

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.