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

Vladimir Tamari: on 4/9/17 at 2:29am UTC, wrote ERRATA in my comment above I goofed CASE 3 which should be rephrased as...

Vladimir Tamari: on 4/8/17 at 23:32pm UTC, wrote Dear Tom I posted this on your page - thanks again. (sorry I kept...

Vladimir Tamari: on 4/8/17 at 1:56am UTC, wrote Thank you Gary I have looked at your essay, but as I have expressed...

Vladimir Tamari: on 4/8/17 at 1:46am UTC, wrote Thank you James I have responded and rated to your interesting essay...

Vladimir Tamari: on 4/8/17 at 1:45am UTC, wrote Dear Jonathan "Zeilinger raised one of your points at a conference and...

James Putnam: on 4/7/17 at 20:28pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir F. Tamari, As promised, I will be rating your good essay...

Jonathan Dickau: on 4/7/17 at 5:29am UTC, wrote I've much to say, but.. I want to be brief because of having more essays...

Gary Simpson: on 4/7/17 at 4:21am UTC, wrote Vladimir, This is an interesting essay ... the artwork is colorful and...


Stefan Weckbach: "Dear Lorraine, thanks again for your reply. Your point of view is a..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Lorraine Ford: "Above post was from me" in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Quantum Antigravity: "EXPERIMENTAL quantum Anti-gravity —..." in The Myth of Gravity

Pentcho Valev: "Money for teleology and silly songs only? The teleology contest is a..." in Towards a Goal — Two...

Nina Marrian: "New binary options trading technology named Lazy Trader App is a dangerous..." in Are We Merging With Our...

Jonathan Dickau: "He has been somewhat insular.. Steven is reluctant to re-engage, mostly..." in A Self-Gravitational...

Jonathan Dickau: "I went and read your essay. And I commented there. Regards, JJD" in Alternative Models of...

Thomas Ray: "Jonathan, Did you hear from Steven?" in A Self-Gravitational...

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 23, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 16:35 GMT
Essay Abstract

A Universe without aim or intent, and without the brilliant but problematic theories of Einstein is proposed.

Author Bio

Vladimir F. tamari is a Palestinian artist, inventor, type designer and physicist living in Japan since 1970. He studied at the American University of Beirut where he met and was inspired by Buckminster Fuller (around 1960). He invented and built 3D drawing instruments. In the 1980’s he joined the Optical Society of America to keep up with the field and holds U.S. patents for inventions based on his Streamline Diffraction Theory to cancel diffraction in imaging instruments. His theory “Beautiful Universe: Towards Reconstructing Physics From New First Principles (2005)” is found on

Download Essay PDF File

sherman loran jenkins wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 20:32 GMT
I agree about 98% with your position. Although, some will suggest that you may have felt it necessary, as many others have, to slip into saddles and ignore the request: "While this topic is broad, successful essays will not use this breadth as an excuse to shoehorn in the author's pet topic, but will rather keep as their central focus the theme of the contest." It is necessary to speak truth from a position of common understanding.

report post as inappropriate

sherman loran jenkins replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 20:39 GMT
That should be sandals.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 22:01 GMT
Thank you sherman for reading and agreeing with what I wrote. I feel a little abashed at having to answer the essay question so briefly (but honestly) and then go on shoehorning my notions of physics after fqxi specifically said not to. But at my age (74) and state of health and meandering towards the sure goal of all mortals, I took the liberty! Ah Einstein's wearing no socks with sandals makes sense thanks for the correction. I will now read your essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 22:24 GMT
Dear Vladimir F. Tamari ,

Every year I look forward to your art and essay. Growing up on the Mississippi River, and growing up with Einstein's ideas, I appreciate your title. I too believe it is the River of Now that we are rolling on.

You mentioned the world turned upside down with special relativity and velocity-dependent attributes. In my mind this is another case of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 08:35 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman

I think our friendly exchanges go back to 2011 - I am grateful for your wise, level encouraging voice amidst all the cacophony of enthusiastically declared ideas, including my own! Thank you for your kind encouraging comments. Indeed mathematics is almost magical and many different formulations can be applied to the same physical situation, creating many...

view entire post

Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 11:38 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Very interesting essay in the spirit of radical Cartesian doubt and ideas to help find a way out of the modern crisis of understanding in fundamental science. Beautiful thoughts with the singing of Paul Robeson and the image of the River for "grasping" ( understand) the picture of the world:

«Robeson is most famous for his song "Ol' Man River" from the musical Show Boat. One can well imagine 4 Einstein watching the Universe as the protagonist of the song watched the Mississippi, flowing according to its own laws of hydrodynamics, oblivious of human existence: "I must keep livin' until I'm dyin,/ But Ol' Man River,/ He jes' keeps rollin' along!” - From the song "Ol’ Man River" in Show Boat 1927.»

I believe that the picture of the world of physicists, mathematicians, poets and composers should be united and filled with the senses of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." ( Albert Einstein)

Undoubtedly, in order to overcome the crisis of understanding, the crisis of interpretation and representation, today we need the competitive work of several gnoseological paradigms, new conceptual ideas and eidoses. You give these competitive ideas and eidoses.

Yours faithfully,


report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 00:24 GMT
Thank you Vladimir for your encouraging words. I liked your philosophically-minded essay because of its all-encompassing holistic approach to life, poetry, philosophy and science, something my reductionist "building-block" physics theory lacks by definition!

Keep up the good work.


James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 23:10 GMT

Quite cogent and interesting discussion, even entertaining. One can well imagine Einstein overseeing the universe as the protagonist of the song, watching the Mississippi and with his thought images. Your colorful chart with Einstein impacts are in that spirit too.

I'm not familiar with your cellular automaton but I would imagine it is like a supercharged excel spreadsheet where you control the rules of each cell location and overall neighborhood cells and their inter-relationships, something you could use for all sciences, depending on the application. I imagine you also have dimensions and states, perhaps like element states in chemistry. Sounds like a very flexible modeling tool.

Is this your way of demonstrating aim or intent: the cellular automaton. You say "Hooft’s work is still weighed down by the useless baggage of spacetime, and he does not yet discuss gravity." Does your model? If the model represents aim or intent, it is still your model with your aims or intent. How do you separate your own aims and lend it as nature?

Quite interesting. My essay has great difficulty in dealing with the inscrutable essay task. I would like to hear your ideas regarding my essay.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 04:26 GMT

My rating of your essay brought your score up to a 6.0 and mine was the 7th rating. I tell you this because many of us have been so stricken and your essay is superior. I got a "1" w/o any comments.

Luck in the future.


report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 14:20 GMT
Hi Jim

Thank you for your message. My essay was off-topic enough, so I did not include more than a brief reference to my Beautiful Universe Theory or rather model. It is a cellular automatum but unlike those of Wolfram the cells are not merely off and on according to some rule (is it possible to implement such rules in Excel ? - worth looming into) - rather the cells or nodes of the universal lattice are spherically rotatable dielectric dipoles. And yes I tackle gravity. It is all very rudimentary, and needs a lot of work to flesh out my outline. No intent or aims included, indeed the essay topic was ill-posed. In a way I answered it in my previous fqxi maths contest essay. Thank you for the rating boost, but it promptly went down. This rating game is one thing I dislike about the fqxi contests.

I shall read your essay. Good luck


James Lee Hoover replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 17:08 GMT

I've done my share of programming, simulations and such. Rudimentary is a good start, something to build on, given the right tool. I did my modelling in the defense industry for the B2.


report post as inappropriate

Koorosh Shahdaei wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 01:53 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Very interesting essay, and nicely written. As you also mentioned many great physicists of 20th century amount them Einstein, Plank, Schrodinger, ... have changed the conception of the classical physics but later emerging theories like dark matter also challenged Newton and Einstein gravity which can't apply to very large / small scales.

You also mentioned speed of light is constant but the whole space time can change form and surprisingly not speed of light, or if gravity equals acceleration then linear acceleration must also must change space time as much?.

Or the fact that although stars are surrounded by plasma which at least in its non charged state can bend the light as our atmosphere but this fact was totally ignored till our days.

Also particle entanglement has showed that it's speed is instant and many other facts...that make the new physics changing conception constantly as new theories are born. I feel at this stage we are both enlightened and at the same time more lost!

Good luck with your essay

Kind Regards


report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 23:59 GMT
Dear Koorosh

Thank you for your comments and kind words. One advantage of using my geometrical mechanistic imagination as an inventor applied to questions in physics is that I can create my model from scratch and gradually adjust it to the conceptual and experimental results of 20th c. physics. In my case, using your words, I was lost then became enlightened. Of course I can be very wrong, but many people seem to realize something is terribly wrong with physics foundations today.

Please read my Beautiful Universe Model

Best wishes in your work


Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 08:56 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

What I meant by enlightened was actually we learned new things but at the same time we become more confused and then new inconsistent theories emerged for fixing the old inconsistencies, which made the new physics which in my view is conceptually wrong, please refer to this article you can of course see my new essay about speed of light here.

Warm regards


report post as inappropriate

George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 17:59 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

I have read your nice narrated (and also nice formatted!) essay and I have find too many things there close to my soul. This is not just a cheap compliment or kindly words. I see you're right approach to Einstein's heritage as well as the necessity of right evaluation of this. You have somewhat touched to mystery of quantum - classical duality, that also needed to be solved. All the mentioned problems are my themes also that you can see in my essay. I see that we are mainly like-minded and I consider it just my duty to support you. I hope to see your comments on my work in my page.

So, successes to you!

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 00:05 GMT
Dear George

Inksh Peses (only Armenian greeting I know)

I will read your essay and respond on your page. I am very glad your thinking is also along these lines. Thank you for your support I am trying my best but the new physics needs a lot of building from zero after we follow the clean-up campaign I outlined in my fqxi essay!

Please read my Beautiful Universe Model

Best wishes


George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 07:49 GMT
Shokran, kollu zain, Dear Vladimir!

Thank you very much for offering your "Beautiful Model". I have open it already and now I can say only that really it seems so beautiful. I have read now some sentences only and just surprised how you rightly (in my opinion) have approached to basic question - I mean about uniqueness of primordial substance. So, I will read it carefully in my good time, then we can exchange ours judgements. I cannot wait however, to not drive your attention on the unimaginable importance of comprehension the extraordinary role of fine structure constant (a=1/137) in the construction of our cosm in whole. I did not see it there .. but you do not worry, we will talk everything some later.

My Best wishes!

(P.S. I have here many Palestinian friends here - I am in Dubai)

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 09:10 GMT

Thank you so much it is encouraging to know my work gained your interest. Have you published your ideas on these topics? Yes I know the importance of alpha constant but in my theory I have not yet decided the structure of the electron let alone its charge and mass! I have an idea (tetrahedral arrangement of dipoles) but have not seriously tried to analyse it yet. Maybe you can derive them from the lattice?

All the best


George Kirakosyan replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 08:39 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for kindly words.

Let me just say that alpha is not only important but it can be the key (given by God!) that may open the microcosm in whole!

The electron's model (with all known its parameters) are represented there (see Refs. in my essay)

Be well, in the science as well in your art!

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 16:26 GMT

Lovely essay, as usual, very readable, straight to the point and beautifully illustrated. Also we agree on all fundamentals and most other things as usual, except a couple of minor matters this year I'll raise below. In particular I like your important point that AE was; "..ready until the end of his life to question his own ideas and to abandon them if new and contradictory...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 22:47 GMT
Hi Peter nice to encounter you again this year!

Thank you for your lavish praise of some aspects of my essay - I do get away with my distracting illustrations! But seriously you are right to question some of the headline statements and implications especially in Fig. 2 QM has so many aspects that saying it always contradicts SR is not true, for example in the case of the Dirac Equation. But yes flexible time and space have no place, say in the Schrödinger Eq.

I could not understand what you wrote about the ether- in my Beautiful Universe model the ether is discrete and local speed is only a maximum c in pure vacuume, but is slower in energized or gravitational zones.

Oh and of course one can say there is duality when a wave is absorbed and emitted as a point which then spreads again as a wave. I was referring to the Duality with a capital D that got in people's minds leading to Probability as if it were a fact of Nature not merely a mathematical convenience.

The vimeo link does not work. fqxi adds html//: to any address regardless, but even when I deleted that, vimeo did not have 195020202

Again thank you and best of luck. I will read your essay of course.


Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 17:04 GMT

Yes the ether as discrete zones with local inertial states would work fine, as we've discussed before, and the 'waves must be fluctuations of 'something' even if not matter. Perhaps I rushed reading your description this year. What I suggest is that it's also the case that as the condensed matter (fermion pairs) always evident couples with light to modulate it to local c, then ether doesn't need to also do that job.

Sorry about the link. Sometimes the odd space kills them! I'll give you all 3;

Vimeo; Full.

Vimeo 100 sec glimpse

you tube 100 sec

All seem to be alive, at least for now! Do comment or question. The good news is I notice I hadn't applied your (top!) score so a hike is coming.

It's a beautiful universe! Very best.


report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 08:21 GMT

Sorry, working video links are here, without the http://.

Classic QM Full Video.

100second 'glimpse' on Vimeo

or 100sec. version on Youtube

tested and they all seem to work!



report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 11:17 GMT
Dear Vladimir F. Tamari,

I estimate your essay very highly.

Perhaps my essay will complement your understanding of the causality of quantum processes. Your essay allowed to consider us like-minded.

Kind regards,

Vladimir Fedorov

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 16:34 GMT
Dear Vladimir F. Tamari,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

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

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 perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 05:38 GMT
Shokran Vladimir,

Now I understand that you really has an artist's soul.

I also understand that for you it is more important human attitude than other things! So, we can talk long and to say many nice things each to other, but let me just stop on two your remarks. 1. On scientists - protestants. Yes, there are unbelievable number of oppositions in present physics, who are under global pressing of "official science." And no need go so far to find them, my friend - we can find someone right here! I mean Eugeny Klingman, for example, who goes now on the top. God help to him (but I have doubt!) we will see! You can find many of them, using google even.

2. About role of Einstein: There are 3 Einstein for me; early, medium and last. First one is what you say. The second one was who already get huge success (by some specific way for known to you kind of people.) But for us it must be more important a third Einstein, when he have understand that he has done many wrong things then he tried to catch shaitan and put again in the bottle ... but it was already out of his power! THEY had say him - thank you "habibi" what you have done, but now you must go away ... and he become one very tragic person, to end of his life!

Be well, my friend.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 07:46 GMT
Thank you George we are on the same side, and you are absolutely right Eugene Klingman is one of the formost of the independent physicists. Of course I have long realized there are so many brilliant researchers opposing the mainstream physics. One of them is the late Gabriel La Frenier

Matter is Made of Waves

Best of luck!


George Kirakosyan replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 06:19 GMT
Vladimir, I says the same! (Matter is Made of Waves)

But we need to add here - these (waves) are circularly polarised - ie wave-vortex.

Best of luck!

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 22:34 GMT
Thank you Jo

I have a feeling you did not read my essay, but I have enjoyed yours and responded on your page.

Best wishes


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 06:55 GMT
Nice essay Vladimir Tamari,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent

1. A much simpler theory of gravity is possible: in a gravitational field the local energy density of the ether acts like an optical field of variable index of refraction, bending light as it does in a desert mirage, where heat creates layers of air with decreasing density, refracting light and make it curve.


view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 16:52 GMT
Dear Vladimir Tamari,

I am sure having uttered so many uncommon views that I cannot expect any support or at least serious criticism except from those like you.

On p. 7 of my essay I defined the constant speed c of light in vacuum as follows:

"c equals to the distance between positions of arrival at the moment of arrival and of the emitter at the moment of emission divided by the time of flight".

I am trying to benefit from the trifle that a distance doesn't need coordinates.



report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti wrote on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 06:00 GMT
Hi Tamari,

You have created another beautiful world with this essay. Thank you so much.

One of your points caught me by surprise!

"A much simpler theory of gravity is possible: in a gravitational field the local energy density of the ether acts like an optical field of variable index of refraction, bending light as it does in a desert mirage, where heat creates layers of air with decreasing density, refracting light and make it curve. This idea was first presented by Arthur Eddington , the man whose eclipse observations proved that a star’s gravity curves light, just as GR predicted, thereby catapulting Einstein into world fame."

I thought I invented this a few months back!..... You go on to say: "In my own theory of gravity this density isdue to the spin of qubit-like dielectric nodes making up the ether lattice, the proposed building blocks of the Universe."

I call your qubit-like dielectric nodes ...gravitons. Check out Prespacetime Journal paper:

Prespacetime Journal | December 2016 | Volume 7 | Issue 16 | pp. 102-114

Limuti, D., A Quantum Mechanical View of the Precession of Mercury’s Orbit

Or just email me at and I will send it. It is really simple...really.

Such a pleasure to be in another contest with you,

Don Limuti

Here is a Bucky quote to keep us sane: "To ask a politician to lead us is to ask the tail of a dog to lead the dog."

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 01:08 GMT
Hi Satyavarapu - thank you kindly please excuse the delay I will read your interesting ideas and respond soon.

Hi Eckard - ditto! When you say "people like you" you mean ... ?? haha don't worry I think I understand.

Hi Don,glad you liked the paper. Way to go about gravity being a density of.. something! In my United Dipole Field of 1993 I showed how the electric field of a dipole behaves like a gradient-index gravity field. In Beautiful Universe Model I generalized the concept to the Universe as a whole and added the concept of twisting spin fields to create gravitational attraction. I see from your website that you have attacked the gravity concept more analytically, but isn't using the term graviton confusing because you see it differently than the Standard Model particle. I look foreward to reading your paper requested from Research-Gate.

Best wishes, and good luck to us all.


report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 01:11 GMT
Sorry Satyavarapu, Eckard, and Don the post above was from me before logging in so it appeared as Anonymous


Don Limuti replied on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 18:32 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

I downloaded your papers. The United Dipole 1093 looks very interesting to me at a scan. I will read in detail in a bit. We have similar concepts cloaked in different words. I too believe the space between stars looks a dielectric material (I would call it a prism with a gradient index of refraction). And my hijacked graviton looks very much like a dipole antenna!

Yes, I hijacked the graviton from the standard model and gave it some new clothes..... The standard model was not putting it good use anyway :)

I consider a single graviton to be a photon with a single hop (wavelength) that hops back and forth between chunks of mass (Planck masses). I call it a photon because it obeys the Planck Einstein equation, but it is not really a photon because of its spin (it hops back and forth). The big deal is that this action gives it a mass (like photons trapped between mirrors).

I considered all this playing around kinda nuts, but I gave my new "hijacked" graviton a run at calculating the precession of worked! How can I say...the planet Vulcan lives!

I believe this may be a small "crack in the cosmic egg" that can lead to useful science and technology. I also believe that this result is not a contradiction GR, but I cannot prove this. So, I am calling on cosmologists, to take a look at this and see if gravity can be made understandable.

And your work Vladimir, was pioneering in this area.


Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 00:37 GMT
Thank you Don

Your graviton has a life of its own if it can calculate the precession of Mercury- bravo!

There is a lot of overlap in ideas of researchers at any given time. When I was writing my Beautiful Universe model I chanced on a web page full of equations of a universe made of dipoles - I did not understand the math and lost the url. Likewise an ether made up of dielectric units was speculated on by Maxwell, then by Hertz before he died, and alas When Einstein 'abolished' the ether speculation along those lines died out until our generation revived the concept.

More power to you.


Christian Corda wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 10:10 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

You realized my worst scientific nightmare! I DO NOT WANT TO LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE EINSTEIN'S THEORIES DO NOT WORK!!!!!!!

In any case, your Essay is pleasant and provocative and gave me fun. Thus, I decided to give you the highest score. Good luck in the Contest, I hope that you will have a chance to read our Essay, where Einstein's Universe works in a good way!

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 00:47 GMT
Dear Christian

Sorrrrreeeeeeeee! I know that Einstein brilliantly wrapped up many concepts in his theories, and they are beautiful in terms of predictive power, in the esoteric world of 'spacetime' in GR's magic but forbidding difficulty of application, and was initially puzzled by duality. I never learned to use his results in in detail but understood how they were built from basic premises. By all means keep Einstein but thank you for allowing speculation on a simpler more unified and streamlined physics inspired by his results but not using his methods.

More power to you. I shall read your paper.


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 08:54 GMT
Dear Vladimir F. Tamari,

Thank you for the post on my essay...

Thank you for your blessings given to this essay so kindly. You are definitely qualified sir for the judgement.Thank you once again for your such nice complements.

Best Regards


report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rodin wrote on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 20:33 GMT
Dear Mr. Tamari,

first of all I'd like to express my admiration of your magnificent work, and also to confirm my full consent with the basic thoughts stated in it. I'm so sorry I've noted too late your essay. Of course it deserves the highest score.

I wish you all the best and good luck in the contest,

Vladimir A. Rodin

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 07:06 GMT
Dear Mr. Rodin

Thank you so much for your enthusiastic reading of my essay. I have enjoyed reading and highly regarded your essay.

We have several points in common in our various conclusions, but our models differ in some significant details as well.

I wish you all the best


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 03:41 GMT
Dear Tamari

I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to write it. If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better. There is not movable a geometric space, and is movable physical space. These are different concepts.

I inform all the participants that use the online translator, therefore, my essay is written badly. I participate in the contest to familiarize English-speaking scientists with New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the principle of identity of space and matter. Combining space and matter into a single essence, the New Cartesian Physic is able to integrate modern physics into a single theory. Let FQXi will be the starting point of this Association.

Don't let the New Cartesian Physic disappear! Do not ask for himself, but for Descartes.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show potential in this essay I risked give "The way of the materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural" - Is the name of my essay.

Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. After you give a post in my topic, I shall do the same in your theme


Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 18:08 GMT
Dear Tamari, I'm not a preacher, but I will say that the physical space is the body of God and He our eyes looking at Himself. I believe that this is the best formula of faith in God for scientists who do not accept some speculative assertions of the Bible. With this formula we can easily live out their lives, contemplating all around as God.

I avoid talking about Einstein, but you will put the highest rating, as you well took New Cartesian Physic.

All the best!

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 00:39 GMT
Dear Dizhecheko

Thank you for your response to my remarks on your page. There I commented on the necessity to separate one's faith from one's scientific views, which may contradict each other.

Also I agreed with your re-examination of Descarte's views about space and matter (and light) being essentially the same thing, a view I have adopted since 2005 in my Beautiful Universe Model . The attached figure 22 from that paper is how Descartes conceived space vortices.

All the best wishes


attachments: 1_BU-FIG-22.jpg

Steve Agnew wrote on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 17:12 GMT
I like your pictures...and Einstein and Robeson and old man river. These are very good metaphors, but filling space with aether is really not the way out of the GR conundrum.

Although my aethertime theory also supposes a fundamental aether particle, it is necessary to set aside the notions of space and time as absolute. Instead, space and time simply emerge from the action of aether and so both matter and action have a phase as well as amplitude.

In a sense, cellular automata is the same as aether just as you argue. However, it is necessary for the CA to have phase as well as amplitude and so as long as you use qubits and not just bits, quantum CA will represent reality. Of course, a quantum CA will allow superposition and entanglement and so that approach will not be determinate.

Most CA models introduce noise as the chaos of large numbers of classical particles and actions. This chaos works well for gravity since gravity is biphotonic and therefore does not show superposition or interference under normal conditions. However, CA chaos does not represent quantum superposition or entanglement and CA needs qubits to show how matter bonds to other matter with phase coherence.

Instead of showing how a CA array transmits angular momentum, start with action as an axiom and from the action of a finite CA set, space and time emerge. In essence, is is from action that the order of space and time emerge and space and time do not exist as a place for action to occur.

Gravity bonds do not show phase coherence but charge bonds do. The CA with qubits is then just a different version of our quantum reality. As soon as the model fills space and time with qubits, the model inherits the same pathologies as the current spacetime paradigm.

If you model allows space and time to emerge from qubit action, it should end up the same as aethertime.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 00:55 GMT
Dear Steve -

Thank you for your comments. Your remarks about CA not having phase information only apply to Ising-type theories (simple CAs) - the on-off sort which of course have no phase. If you read my Beautiful Universe essay you will see that the CA nodes are actual qubits with Quantum phase built in - every point in my model aether possess quantum phase as well as amplitude , and that is how energy gets transferred, matter 'locked' into place (when adjacent + - poles adhere) and not least when the nodes of a gravitational field twist to spread the phase effects evenly and conserve energy in the field.

Our models aim to describe the workings of the same Nature, and could both be right in their own ways. I am trying simulate various scenarios of my model and until I find serious contradictions will stick to the simple premises I have suggested.

Good luck with your work and with the contest


Steve Agnew replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 03:41 GMT
...well then, if your CA includes quantum phase, it is not deterministic and is then just another way to predict the quantum future of a source.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 03:59 GMT

In your earlier post you state that superposition and entanglement prevent determinism. I suppose so if one sticks to the outworn notions of probability leading up to quantum indeterminacy particulary the way entanglement is now explained. However in my CA superposition of contiguous local nodes is linear and causal- as near as you can get to a gear system!

Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 15:48 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

I disagree with almost everything you say, but I give you a high score for believing it.

After all, one can always be wrong.

Thanks for commenting in my forum. Expect a reply there.

All best,


report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 00:32 GMT
Dear Ray

As I went into hi gear writing this essay fearlessly demolishing most of 20th. c, physics with a few paragraphs I knew this ought to get a reaction from those who adhere to mainstream physicists but so far only you and Steve Agnew have done so! Proposing a simpler possible yet unrealized alternative does not mean negating the utility of what has already been painstakingly built and tested by generations. But it does propose a road-map for future work.

All the best,


Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 12:24 GMT

I suspect that few if any among us have examined our biases and hidden assumptions as thoroughly as we can, or ought to.

Fear, or conviction, stops us at some point, and we rest our arguments. That's the limit of anyone's competence.

As you suggest, relativity has physical, testable consequences. One realizes, as an observer, that what one observes is necessarily distant from its source, or else “The physical world is ‘cock-a-doodle-do’” as Einstein put it. We assume that the distance has a limit, a point at which the world becomes objective, because we say that’s what “objective” means.

Maybe, however, the world is too close to be objective.

Be well,


report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 13:40 GMT
Hi Ray

I acknowledge my limitations even incompetence in many areas of physics, particullarly the algebraic side of their mathematical descriptions. Yet the fundamentals are accesible by using geometrical mechanistic thinking even common sense. That is my claim - I intuitively see the possibility of interactions being reduced to simple local linear exchanges in a cellular automata. We can regard such a world as a model, something outside ourselves and outside observers. Relativity, for example Lorentz length contraction (not space contraction as in SR) exists in such a model not because of moving frames with constant c, but because signals undergo doppler delays as they travel back and forth in the lattice.

Lots of work to be done there to prove my points but I have a hunch - and a hope - it works out.

Best wishes, Vladimir

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 18:42 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

I've posted a defense of my defense of Einstein at my forum, if you are interested.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 23:32 GMT
Dear Tom I posted this on your page - thanks again.

(sorry I kept addressing you as Ray!)

Thank you for your commisseration- so far so good!

I have read your defence of Einstein and fear it is lost on me I have capacity only for understanding one world-system at a time!

The distinction you make between a distant information source and local experience, each emitted or absorbed at different rates is too foreign to my mindset and the model I have adopted. In that model everything is connected through the 'clockwork' of the lattice. Motion at A is transmitted node to node to B, whether B is sentient, living, or neither. Another way of thinking of it is to expand the reference frame to include all of the Universe and within that frame everything is absolute and classical. It is only when an observer is introduced, by no means necessary for example when two black hokes interact that relativistic effects kick in ... for that observer only!

Do not mind me - best wishes in your work. Be well.


Jonathan Khanlian wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 22:47 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

Great essay. Big cellular automata fan, but are you familiar with Wolfram’s “causal networks”? They sort of do away with the notion of a background space and maybe show how a 3-D universe could be emergent. Why not do away with the rigid grid system of CA and make an even simpler model?


p.s. I did not know that Einstein did not wear socks… For some reason, I like him even more now.

p.p.s. please check out "Digital Physics" on iTunes, Amazon Prime, or Vimeo :) Gracias.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 23:15 GMT
Dear Jonathan

Thanks for your bright message. I still have to see the full movie Digital Networks but am a fan of the preview!

I am also a fan of Wolfram he is one of my heros. His causal network has no background, but neither has my 2005 CA Beautiful Universe Model . In his network the cells change state in a binary manner on-off while in BU the nodes are dielectrict qubits with a rich possibility of interaction: attraction, repulsion and spin. Perhaps I gave the wrong impression by using words like network or lattice. The BU nodes self-assemble and are free to interact and have no background (except when I simplify in a simulation!) and in fact I associate cosmic expansion to neighboring nodes repulsion.

I was corrected by saying Einstein wore no socks with his sandals, not his shoes. Yes an adorable and great man despite my objections to his physics.

Good luck!


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 04:21 GMT

This is an interesting essay ... the artwork is colorful and purposeful. It adds to the understanding of the many conflicts present today.

It is very informative that even Dr. t'Hooft is frustrated occasionally. It says a great deal when experts think all is well yet have differing views of the meaning of things.

All in all, this was an enjoyable read. Thank you!

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 01:56 GMT
Thank you Gary

I have looked at your essay, but as I have expressed elsewhere my brain seems to function visually and geometrically and after everything is understood that way do I resort - under protest - to algebraic formulation!

Having said that your five-dimensional world based on quatrenons seems to confirm the Kaluza-Klein approach. I like that because it presents the possibility of having the nodes of my cellular automata approach as that fifth dimension.

Best wishes,


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 05:29 GMT
I've much to say, but..

I want to be brief because of having more essays to read. I like what you wrote, but don't totally agree. Zeilinger raised one of your points at a conference and cited Albert's own comment in the page leaf to a colleague about doubts... I got to hear many comments about Paul Robeson from David Bernz during recording sessions, over the years. I seem to recall historical artifacts being preserved, tapes of Harold Lowenstein and/or something like that. But nice to hear back on my page that you appreciate some of the music that came out of those sessions.

I would bring Eric Reiter in to present his work, if I headed an Institute. But that does not mean I think his excellent experiments disprove the work of everybody else. In the first essay I wrote; I talked about how there are more pieces to unification that fit in place. There is matter-energy unification in QM and space-time unification in SR, but that is not the full spectrum of possible linkages. Steve Agnew is going all out with matter-time unification, because it is often overlooked and there is a lot to discover. But you address that we are OK to examine that space has energy again - since the Einstein-Infeld theory was abandoned.

Better to keep our minds open as the river flows on.

More later,


report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 01:45 GMT
Dear Jonathan

"Zeilinger raised one of your points at a conference and cited Albert's own comment in the page leaf to a colleague about doubts"

Can you recall which doubts specifically and whether Zeillinger felt they were answered?

Here is a more detailed explanation of why I think Bell's Theorem is built on false assumptions: Take two entangled particles or photons A and B, sensed by two far-flung sensors S1 and S2 respectively.

CASE 1: In an ideal and totally deterministic world the correlation between readings S1A and S1B will be 1

CASE 2: In a world where A and B are never random from start to finish, but wherre the state of the sensors is random, S1A and S2B will correlate to 1/2 (I think!?)

CASE 3: In Bell's Theoretical world, both A and B as well as S1 and S2 are random.

I feel the error is in assuming it is case 3 applies while using the experimetal results of CASE 2. Does this make any sense? No dice?

Of course an open mind is necessary, but in my situation I need to gather all my scattered energies to finish the task I set myself to complete and simulate the model I have started, Beautiful Universe. In that model there is no time dimension (so much for spacetime as well as Steve'smatter-time unification) - my fqxi essay this year represents burning my bridges to concentrate on the task ahead! Eric Reiter's experiments fit in perfectly with my model, hence my approbation. Of course I may be totally deluded, but let me have my fun! And time to hear some Robeson! Its a privilage to know someone who has been in the same recording studio!

Be well, dear friend,


Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Apr. 9, 2017 @ 02:29 GMT
ERRATA in my comment above

I goofed CASE 3 which should be rephrased as follows:

Does Bell assumes A and B are random but that S1A and S2B are classical?. The correlation will be identical to CASE 2 ie 1/2 (or whatever it is). There is no way to tell if QM is at work or just normal classical correlations!

James A Putnam wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 20:28 GMT
Dear Vladimir F. Tamari,

As promised, I will be rating your good essay during the last few minutes of the contest. Good luck to you.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 01:46 GMT
Thank you James

I have responded and rated to your interesting essay earlier.

Best wishes


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'W' and 'Y':

Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.