FQXi Community

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 forums@fqxi.org 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

Guidelines

FAQ

Essays: read and discuss

Top essays & latest news

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discuss • winners

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
read/discuss • winners

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
read/discuss • winners

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

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
read/discuss • winners

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

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discuss • winners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Vladimir Tamari: on 9/21/13 at 2:06am UTC, wrote Thanks Eckard- like you and many others I am struggling to wade through the...

Eckard Blumschein: on 8/4/13 at 5:21am UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir Tamari, You wrote to Vladimir Rogozhin: "You might have...

Vladimir Tamari: on 11/11/12 at 14:38pm UTC, wrote Dear Jayakar Thank you for your note. I have looked at your essay and...

Jayakar Joseph: on 11/11/12 at 3:47am UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir Tamari, As the wave mechanics described in Coherently-cyclic...

Vladimir Tamari: on 11/7/12 at 8:26am UTC, wrote Hi Doug. Thanks for the explanation. It is not so much that I find your...

doug: on 11/7/12 at 2:46am UTC, wrote Hello Vladamir, Thanks for the comment, and I will try to persuade your...

Vladimir Tamari: on 11/6/12 at 1:24am UTC, wrote Hello Doug Thanks for your nice remark. "My Japanese" is to Japanese as...

doug: on 11/3/12 at 11:48am UTC, wrote Hello Vladamir, Very nice essay. How is your Japanese? Have you ever...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Vesuvius Now, Not an A theorist OR B theorist. I want both series under..." in The Nature of Time

Vesuvius Now: "Woodward, are you an A-theorist or a B-theorist? And a Presentist or an..." in The Nature of Time

Franco Nori: "Non-Hermitian Systems / Open Quantum Systems are not only of fundamental..." in A Summary of Some of our...

John Cox: "Georgi, I don't know." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi john, I've watched a video explaining that the 'pinball' idea of current..." in The Present State of...

Amrit Sorli: "We have only 2 times in the universe: - psychological time that has its..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Lorraine Ford: "The minimum requirement for any mathematical system. Remember? Remember all..." in Consciousness and the...

olivier denis: ""I d like to know more about your general philosophy of this universe, what..." in Alternative Models of...

RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Good Vibrations
Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

Reconstructing Physics
New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves
Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

read & discuss all articles

FQXi FORUM

December 7, 2021

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Fix Physics! – Reverse Engineer Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model, Get Rid of Outdated Assumptions, Consolidate, and Reconstruct on New First Principles by Vladimir F. Tamari [refresh]

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 11:43 GMT

Essay Abstract

A paradigm shift in physics is now overdue, Physics is founded on mismatched assumptions including three by Einstein such as the photon-as-particle, which has led to the assumption of the physical reality of quantum probability. Others such as a fixed speed of light and flexible spacetime need to be recast in a more physically realistic way. Physics is likened to a badly designed building that is hard to use, impossible to build on, and in danger of collapse in some sections. Seven foundational questions are discussed related to the 'stuff' making up the universe, the unreality of time, a variable speed of light in an ether, gravity warping spacetime, the photon as a particle, and the nature of a particle's wave field, the physical reality behind probability uncertainty and entanglement, and the Standard Model

Author Bio

Vladimir F. Tamari studied physics and art 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 telescopes. Beautiful Universe: Towards Reconstructing Physics From New First Principles (2005) is referred to here. He paints in watercolors and has designed Arabic fonts for Adobe. He has lived in Tokyo for the past 40 years.

Download Essay PDF File

Avtar Singh wrote on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 20:42 GMT

Dear Vladimir:

You have summarized a nice set of important questions for physics and cosmology. My posted paper - "From Absurd to Elegant Universe" addresses many of these questions with a new look into the basic phenomenon of spontaneous decay of particles. I would welcome your comments on the paper.

Thanks

Avtar Singh

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 02:21 GMT

Thank you Avtar for your encouraging comments. I have read your interesting essay and will comment on it there. I think our two approaches may be different but both do not hesitate to challenge a whole gamut of foundational issues. I wish I had your solid academic training to back up my intuitions as you have yours!

Best wishes

Vladimir

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 02:05 GMT

Dear Vladimir Tamari,

It is wonderful to find one with both scientific and artistic talent. Your last essay, "Beautiful Universe", was truly beautiful and I expected pretty much more of the same. What a pleasant surprise to find a whole new artistic style, and yet the style brings out rather than hides the physics points you make. Thank you for your effort. As for your analysis, I agree with almost every point you make, and where I disagree you have caused me to decide to rethink the issue. I hope that you will find time to read my essay, The Nature of the Wave Function, as I address the physical reality of the wave function in a way that you might like.

Your analysis is right on, and directly addresses FQXi goals for this contest. You might consider expanding your essay into a book (or eBook) as I believe a significant audience exists for such intelligent art. I wonder if the fact that you and Norman live in Japan is partly responsible for the clarity of your thinking and your style?

Congratulation, a joy to read and to see.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 02:39 GMT

Dear Edwin

Thank you so much for your warm and positive comments about the illustrations. Being an artist allows me to cover up mistakes in physics by saying :"but I'm only an artist!" - but your encouraging comments on the physics will make me postpone such an excuse. I remember you from the last essay contest but I may not have followed up properly on your comments - we had the distractions of the earthquake and so on. I have not yet met Norman Cook but many years ago we corresponded and he was the first to like my Beautiful Universe Theory. I encouraged him to write an essay for FQXI and he did. I was gratified to read that he knows your work and respects it.

Being in Japan for decades does something to one's point of view - I think it helped me a lot in approaching things from a new perspective. Isolation may be part of it, but also the Japanese have a way to approach a problem very loosely at first, and only gradually let fluid ideas coalesce into definite form.

Again thank you I look forward to reading your essay.

With best wishes

Vladimir

Paul Reed wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 05:50 GMT

Vladimir

Agreed, fundamentally, ie with the essential conclusion (as you would have seen had I watched the character count and not just page count, but my essay will surface soon).

One particular point I would raise is SR, though this does not impact on the real thrust of the argument. Einstein specified what it was when presenting GR. And it is not what was written in 1905. It is a ‘special’ theoretical case where there is no gravitation, so everything is, relatively, still. In 1905 light speed has a condition, ie in vacuo. Everything else does not, ie there is dimension contraction. In other words, they are all not co-existing. SR is the ‘resolution’ of an “apparently irreconcilable” (page 1 1905) problem. But light speed as a constant (ie as occurs when a condition applies which only does so theoretically) is used in 1905 to replace distance in the quantification of time (as in timing). And it stays there in the equations, even when in GR Einstein states that light, like matter (ie with dimension change) is affected by gravitational forces. So, in simple language, in the explanation (ie accounting for a variance somewhere) of all this (which is actually irrelevant to whether the original idea was correct or not), the variable becomes time, which does not exist.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 06:23 GMT

Thanks Alan I will look forward to your essay.

I should have mentioned that I think there is a maximum speed (c) in vacuum without gravity.

Yes Einstein modified some of his original 1905 statements but not the basic framework of SR. I could not quite get what you yourself think about time.

Best,

Vladimir

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 06:25 GMT

Oops sorry - its Paul, Paul!

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 06:24 GMT

Vladimir

Well my essay has now appeared on the list, rather more quickly than I exoected, but it was a resubmission having abided by the page limit but unlnowingly blown out the character count. Apart from the essay I have posted two shorter ones relating to these points about Einsrein which keep occurring.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Norman D. Cook wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 07:21 GMT

Wonderful essay, Vladimir... very much in the spirit of the FQXi contest. I admire your ability to span the entire realm from designing instruments and obtaining patents to rethinking fundamental issues in physical theory and illustrating your ideas in a comprehensible manner! Most of the rest of us tend to polish just one little gem, and have trouble relating it to the other parts of life.

Given your appreciation of and yet skepticism concerning so many of the underlying premises of current physical theory, where do you anticipate seeing the first cracks in the wall?

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 08:09 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

I did enjoy reading your essay, that is presented in a very accessible, clear and stylish way. There was lots in it that I could agree with and other parts that sounded very reasonable.Your building cartoon is amusing and well done. I think the FQXi guys could have had a demolition truck and hard hats rather than a protest sign. As I am optimistic that FQXi really can bring about big changes.I think your essay will do well as it fits the essay criteria, is enjoyable and will resonate with a lot of people who feel that the current scientific amalgamation of theories is unrealistic. Good luck in the contest.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 08:27 GMT

Many thanks Norman you are the master of your gem of a nucleodynamics theory here; but with all these trades I have dabbled in maybe I should change my name to 'Jack' ! I believe that you were the first to understand my Beautiful Universe (BU) theory on which I based my present essay. Perhaps I should have included a video as an appendix showing me wave my arms to support claims that seem to me warranted, but that still need to be worked out systematically and proven. Simulating the (BU) lattice and getting some good results equivalent to (SR) or Schrodinger's equation would really get things going! As to the crack in the Physics Building I have no idea, where - but I could tell you of the crack in my head for having attempted and carried through such a difficult task :)

Alan Lowey wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 11:46 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

You should have the prize for best title so far for sure! I loved your analogy with a modern building, too true! The doodles were very pleasing and reminded me of my own techniques when discussing on open forums. Fantastic work. Well done and a very worthy essay for the competition.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 12:22 GMT

Thanks Alan. At first I had the title start with "Occupy Physics!" but I am not really that sort of activist. The title is much too long though - the emails from fqxi announcing posts are double the length of the email page! Are you sending in an essay this time? I look forward to that. I just did a google of your doodles - very nice they are less self-conscious than the ones I made.

Alan Lowey replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 09:31 GMT

Lol. Yes, my essay is here if you'd care to take a look, Newton's Isotropy and Equivalence... I can't imagine what doodles you managed to google! What did you enter as the search words? I guess that they might have been my tongue-in-cheek ones about my other pet subject of mysteries, crpytozoology, the study of unknown animals to science.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 10:23 GMT

I will read your essay. The doodles were pencil sketches showing three quarks rotating about - reminded me of Maxwell's diagram of ether 'gears'. Hmm cryptozoology do you mean like the cat's smile in Alice In Wonderland?

show all replies (1 not shown)

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 12:07 GMT

Thanks Georgina for your kind words. Demolition trucks are a bit premature! Perhaps the best policy is to encourage building a separate model building nearby and if it works as advertised people will go there first to check it out. In time the Physics Building will be revamped or the model expanded! Or not..who knows?

Yes FQXI seems to be doing an excellent job and an important one at that.

Best of luck with your own remarkable essay - we have arrived at several similar conclusions.

James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 17:01 GMT

Vladimir,

Some interesting "out-of-the-box" ideas. I would be interested in knowing how your BU theory would deal with the concept of anti-gravity.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 02:47 GMT

Thanks James

Having read your paper it is you who excel at out-of-the box ideas!

I have answered your interesting question on your FQXI essay page.

Vladimir

John Merryman wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 21:48 GMT

Vladimir,

I very much like both your style and skepticism. I would point out that it you do away with spacetime as causation, then the whole foundation premise of a big bang universe is out the window, so there is no need to explain dark matter and energy as anything other than fudges to a flawed concept. Once you do away with photons as point particles, there are potential explanations for redshift as some form of lensing effect, rather tham just recession, so you are on your way to splvong that.

I also think gravity might be due to the creation of mass from energy, not just its existence. M=e/c2.

Trying to write this on a phone, so will continie later.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 02:57 GMT

Thanks John for your appreciation and encouragement. I have downloaded your essay and will read it anon and respond to it and to your observations here. These FQXI discussions do take up time don't they! I do not envy your reading pdfs on your phone, although I do a lot of my reading an artwork on an ipod touch myself!

Vladimir

John Merryman replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 04:02 GMT

Thanks Vladimir,

The point about time that I focus on in my entry originally grew out of questions about cosmology. Simply, if gravity and expansion are inversely proportional, as both theory and observation show them to be, ie, flat space, where is the additional expansion? In Relativity terms, space, or rather the measure of it, contracts in gravitational fields and expands between them. Since the only old light we can detect is that which necessarily traveled between the galaxies, it would be most affected by this "expansion." The more layers of assumption I peeled away, the more the whole "fabric of spacetime" seemed to be a modern epicycles. Correlations mistaken for causation.

As for where the crack in the physics building will first occur, it's currently my prediction that finding the Higgs will prove to be the apex of this current paradigm, for the very practical reason that it provided a focus that cannot be replicated for the foreseeable future and so the most likely path of exploration for young theorists will be examine the many issues that have been fudged over in the last century.

Unfortunately my current work is limiting my time to really read many of these papers.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 05:05 GMT

John I've read your interesting paper. You base your speculations on time as an 'active' factor in the universe, but to follow the ads I "think different". I believe time is just a way to keep track of 'now' states - it has no independent existence or effect on anything on the level of physics. In my theory action takes place locally and causally and the evolution of the now state into the 'next' now state is enacted. There is no tomorrow involved! Best,

Vladimir

John Merryman replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 10:31 GMT

Vladimir,

As I see it, time is a measure of change and change is an effect of action, just like temperature is a scalar measure of activity. It's not a fundamental dimension as relativity treats it, nor is there an external vector of time, as is used by QM.

If I was to differ with your position it would be to question the concepts of "now" and "states." The term "now" tends to have connotations of an instantaneous point between past and future states, while I see the reality is as what is physically extant activity in space. It is our efforts to capture and define the events arising from this activity which creates the notion of time and thus various configurations of "now." So the concept of "now" becomes a frame imposed onto action.

"State" has the same root connotations as "static," which is also a framing device used to define particular emergent configurations of this underlaying activity.

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (6 not shown)

Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 16:13 GMT

Vladimir

Most excellent essay, clear, to the point, relevant and right 'on the nail'. And thank you most kindly for the credit at the bottom.

Your building analogy is brilliant, and as an Architect I'm humbled. Bucky would have been proud of you. In fact it's equivalent to but better than my ugly 'painted scenery' screening us from the truth, which is removed piece by piece to reveal the beautiful simplicity of reality.

I've been working on a replacement ontological construction, or at least the structural framework. I know you have some brilliant insights so perhaps we could work together to replace that dilapidated mess with one that works on all levels. The most elegant structure I have so far is an em toroid extended by motion in time into a multiple helix, but tapered, so a causal multiple spiral. Can your atomic mechanism keep the grid in place?

I do hope you'll like mine. I've now identified a mechanism of my own to implement Minkowski's conception with more certainly as suggested by Heisenberg, as you point out, with diffraction. I think we should find they fit nicely.

Well done, and best of luck.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 22:37 GMT

Thank you most kindly Peter.

I am glad you have the background both in physics and architecture to appreciate my little bit of fun in that analogy. No doubt people will find it incomplete or wrong here and there but its purpose was to literally emphasize standing outside the box to be able to see another way of building is possible.

I will now have a look at your essay and read about your tapered multiple helix and will comment on it there. In my essay I have posed my doubts as questions, but I could say here emphatically that I disagree with Minkowski's 4-D flexible spacetime and prefer an absolute universe with no time at all! Not to be confused with our FQXI friend Minkowski of last year's contest of course.

Again thank you for your encouragement and good luck to you too.

Vladimir

Gary Simpson wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 23:57 GMT

Dear Vladimir Tamari,

Thank you for a good read. I am glad to see so many people reconsidering the existence of an aether. I believe it is essential. Many of the essays either challenge time or the lack of an aether.

There is a website that might interest you. It concerns the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM). It is a theory offered by Milo Wolff. My essay in this contest is an extension of his work.

There are also two very good papers written by Don Hotson that concern the aether. They were published by Infinite Energy Magazine.

Good Luck in the contest and please continue to think and write.

Regards,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 01:38 GMT

Thanks Gary Simpson

Yes the Ether (or the classier spelling Aether) and Time are making a good and well deserved showing in these essays! I have had occasion to admire Milo Wolff's ideas, mainly as they were championed and expanded by my longtime email friend Gabriel LaFreniere's by correspondence or on his website www.glafreniere.com . The website is so full of amazing developmentsbut unfortunately I see that the website does not work. I just did some googling and was shocked to learn of Gabriel's death last April ...RIP ...he was a brilliant and indefatigable researcher expert at modelling standing wave simulations of many phenomena in Relativistic and atomic physics. Fortunately Gabriel La Frenier's must-read website is preserved in an internet archive . The physics community will do well to make sure this website is kept alive online.

I shall check your essay and will look at those of the ones you mentioned. Best wishes and good luck from Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 16:13 GMT

Dear Vladimir F. Tamari,

The abstract of your essay says it all. I agree to the same in totality. But where can we begin? When I started to think about these issues I was just about to be introduced to physics as a subject in high school (1965). I have an alternative approach which runs parallel to mainstream physics, and is not in conflict with experimental results or in fact mathematical formulations. The difference is only interpretation of mathematical equations. For example uncertainty principles are interpreted as binding of space by energy instead of probability or uncertainty in measurements without negating this interpretation under certain conditions. Similarly dealing with big bang, origin of universe, dark matter etc is seen as corollaries and extension of statement 'Space Contain Energy'.

This thought process takes mainstream formulations (laws and knowledge about universe) as facts to be linked into a uniform knowledge framework while minimising hypotheses and concepts. We have given a name Pico-Physics to the thought process that integrates physics known to us. The basic concepts are available at http://picophysics.org/ for review and comments.

I am participating with an essay '5-Dimensional Universe' . I invite you to have a look. I will consider it an honour to answer any comments you may leave for me. I will appreciate, if you can evaluate and rate my essay as well.

Thanks and best regards,

Vijay Gupta

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 00:36 GMT

Dear Vijay Gupta

Thank you for honoring me with your views. I have looked at your interesting blog, and see that you have been thinking hard about physics for so many years. Your intuitions are interesting and original. I like the name "Pico-physics" . Very small nodes of dielectric ether energy are the basic building block of my Beautiful Universe theory of physics. I will read your essay and comment there.

With best wishes

Vladimir

Vijay Mohan Gupta replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 16:29 GMT

Dear Vladimir F. Tamari,

First I would like to thank you for pointing out some 5 very good essays in this competition. All of them are great and represent a new thought process integrated into contemporary interpretation of nature. They all represent a much higher level of understanding of contemporary physics than that is available with me. My comments are therefore reflective of an...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

M. Asghar wrote on Jul. 15, 2012 @ 16:27 GMT

Vladimir Tamari

I went through your interesting text exorting the recasting of the existing overall structure of Theoretical Physics. However, to see how the things really are, one has to dig deeper beyond the enjoyable artistic caricaturing.

1. General points:

- Scientific process. In scientific work, the appropriate hypotheses, assumptions are necessary to set up the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 03:31 GMT

Dear Professor Asghar

Thank you for your reasoned and detailed response to my paper. Most professional physicists of your accomplishment and standing might have dismissed my sweeping calls for 'fixing physics' without my providing the necessary foolproof plan how to do so. Instead you kindly took it seriously and gave a much-appreciated detailed rebuttal. I will try to answer your...

view entire post

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 06:05 GMT

Professor Asghar

Re “nature of time”. The concept of time is false, because there is no corresponding physically existent phenomenon. In a sequence there can only be one at a time. Timing rates change, per se (ie irrespective of type). It compares numbers of changes in sequences and identifies difference. So this concept relates to difference between physically existent states, not of them. Physically, there is alteration. Humans have a measuring system (timing) to calibrate the rate at which alteration occurs.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 16:05 GMT

Paul

We are only after the "physically existent phenomenon". If the dimensions of a rod reflect the "sensation of space", then, should not the relativity-inflicted physical dilation on clocks/atomic clocks, reflect some "sensation of time"?

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 17:10 GMT

Anon

"We are only after the "physically existent phenomenon".

Absolutely, and that is the whole point. Having eradicated all metaphysical possibilities, we have two knowns: 1 Physical existence is independent of sensory detection. 2 Physical existence involves alteration. This means physical existence is a sequence, and that can only occur one at a time, because the successor...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

M. Asghar wrote on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 09:11 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

It is always a bit tearing apart to get away from oneself and its musings simply because:

In the scheme of things,

There is a tussle of forces

For dice balancing

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 09:32 GMT

Thank you Asghar for your nicely balanced 5-7-5 syllable haiku as per request!

It is indeed important to get away from oneself and its obsessive musings ... let me leave the monitor and enjoy tha magnificent pattern of clouds outside.

Vladimir

M. Asghar replied on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 10:26 GMT

Vladimir,

Welcome, this entaglement with the outside:

In the afternoon,

Patterns of high, musing clouds;

Circadian swallows

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 00:05 GMT

Thank you Asghar for another beautiful haiku.

Steve I am glad to say that this year you sound happy and optimistic and encourage you to create your own poetry and physics blog - helas! my French is very limited although I love the language of Fermat, Descarte Fresnel and Poincare. Good luck.

Vladimir

J. C. N. Smith wrote on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 12:50 GMT

Hi Vladimir,

I'm sorry to be late joining the crowd in adding my thanks to you for a job well done in presenting an interesting, well written, and nicely illustrated essay tackling some key topics which are badly in need of tackling.

I was particularly struck by the clear, concise presentation of your Q2: Does Time Really exist? This is a topic near and dear to my heart, as you will discover if you find time to read my essay here, Rethinking a Key Assumption About the Nature of Time.

I'll be going back and looking at your essay and your references in greater detail. For now, suffice it to say thanks again!

jcns

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 23:58 GMT

Thanks JCN SmithI

I have read your well-written and interesting essay on Time and commented there on it.

Vladimir

M. Asghar replied on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 10:33 GMT

Dr.Smith,

Some cosmologists have heve been considedring for a while the universe as a configuration space in a sort of Darwinian evolution with some quantitative predictions . This evolution reflects/represents time - the operational time, that is controled by the laws of physics such as its dilation in the SR and GR. Of course, here as you say, the present, the past and the future do have their individual significance.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 13:25 GMT

There is no time dilation in SR. Einstein defined SR as involving:

-no gravitational forces

-only motion that is uniform rectilinear and non-rotary (which is in effect, stillness)

-fixed shape bodies at rest (no dimension alteration)

-light which travels in straight lines at a constant speed (no curvature)

There are many quotes to substantiate this. In other words, SR is not 1905. It evolved as a resolution of the "apparently irreconcilable" (page 1 1905) issue between the two postulates (section 7 SR & GR). In simple terms, light is in vacuo, objects are not, in 1905. So they cannot co-exist. In SR everything is 'in vacuo'. In GR, nothing is.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (3 not shown)

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 01:09 GMT

Thanks Asghar and Paul for your discussion about time. Whatever SR says or was interopreted as later, it 'works' vide the extensive experimental evidence. In my view however it is not time itself that dilates (or not) but clocks move slower (or do not). In other words I like to interpret SR as affecting physical properties (length of a rod, rate of rotation of clock gears etc.), not the dynamics of space and time dimensions as Einstein and Minkowski proposed in "spacetime".

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 06:44 GMT

Vladimir

What works is not SR. I can only ask you again to please read my post 13/7 11.24 (and then 11/7 19.33) in my blog. After all, it was you who said a cold case review was an "excellent" idea.

Now, clocks are just objects. So if objects are subject to dimension alteration then so too are clocks. That does not mean that timing has altered, as you say. The issue is, was the Lorentz concept of dimension alteration correct, because that is what really underpins Relativity. The subsequent explanations of it (courtesy of Poincare & Minkowski) are incorrect, because they did not understand time. And then Einstein substituted light speed for distance in an incorrect way in an expression of time. Which is why, apart from the fact that the variance (ie in dimension), if indeed there is one anyway, is attributed to the wrong factor (ie time and observation), light speed keeps occurring in so many equations. Because another fundamentally obvious question is: what has light got to do with it? And the answer to that is invariably, nothing. It has no physical association whatsoever. But it does so happen to be the physical phenomena which enables sight. However, even that is a coincidence, the first mistake was not based on that. Though it has provided a 'get out clause' to the subsequent jumble, ie it's all to do with observation and timing.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 06:57 GMT

Paul we are having a heat wave here and with all these posts and fqxi articles (and my age) I really cannot contribute more meaningfully. I hope you found some of my responses encouraging and ask you to leave it at that for the time being. I will just respond in a general way to your last post: in my theory and some others light is 'all there is'. You obviously have different views but that is fine - I by no means am any sort of authority! Thanks for your understanding and good luck with your research and the contest.

Vladimir

hide replies

Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 16:56 GMT

Well, despite that I don't approve of Alexander's solution to the Gordian knot problem, and that there are technical errors in your version of relativity theory -- Vladimir, I have to give you kudos for an entertaining, readable and enjoyable essay! (As always, I love your art.)

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 01:41 GMT

Thanks Ray for reading my essay. The Alexandrian solution was a poetic take on my essay by a friend - it may be more accurate to say it is a virtual cut of the mental Gordian knot to clear a century of conceptual cobwebs before starting again from zero patiently tying a new and simpler knot! If you have time I would appreciate if you can briefly outline the technical problems with my relativity version. I still have to work out the details so it is by no means a complete theory just intuitive notions. I think it might work in the context of a dynamic universal lattice where energy is transmitted locally from node to node at a maximum of c but at slower speeds when the nodes have greater potential as in a gravitational field.

Cheers!

Vladimir

T H Ray replied on Jul. 26, 2012 @ 11:44 GMT

Hi Vladimir,

I had to think hard before replying, because I recognize your research as idiosyncratic, and I don't wish to tinker with subtleties that I don't understand. So I'm going to use a broad brush, and try to get across that while quantum mechanical theory indeed resembles a building in progress -- relativity theory is nothing like that. Relativity is a mansion designed and built...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 02:23 GMT

Dear Thomas

Thanks for your message, and for taking my paper seriously enough to the extent that you felt you had to answer it, respecting its idiosyncratic nature, despite hinting about your disagreement or puzzlement about its contents. I enjoyed reading your exchanges with Putnam, and observations about Relativity and QM. What incomplete ugly architectural plan were you referring to in that exchange?

In writing my fqxi essay I took to heart the caution not to 'shoehorn' my own pet theory into the discussion. But now that I think of it, for a person like you taking my fqxi essay at face value it might read like a manifesto by an unwashed anarchist advocating to demolish all that is best and truest in civilized physics and beyond for no good reason.

As I hinted in my essay my criticisms spring from a vision of what a simple harmonious unified physics might be freed from the assumptions I mentioned - i.e. my Beautiful Universe Theory . I know it is by no means a complete program, and to make its few physical assumptions work it has to be developed by experts in many fields. But implicitly criticizing a program that states at the outset that Relativity must be 'reverse engineered' by saying it is not like Relativity is an oxymoron!

Yes Relativity is complete - that is exactly its problem! It is so structured as to shut out possibly important aspects of reality, viz. the ether, a timeless universe, and worst of all, the possibility of an absolute physics not dominated everywhere by the observer's point of view. Einstein proposed *absolute observation* (c is constant) but this made the Universe relative. But why insert an observer in every point in the universe? What if one starts by saying the Universe is absolute (where c has a maximum but can slow down in gravity), and only in cases of measurements involving inertial frames, *observation is relative* subject to Lorentz transformations. No observer need be present in GR - who is going to measure the speed of a light ray, Ray, as it curves around the Sun? We can simply apply what we know of the dynamics of deceleration and curvature in classical physics.

I have a lot of respect for the brilliance and hard work of the people who have developed QM and like Ellis refined Relativity, but obviously some basic things are not working, else fqxi would not exist and the present Foundational Question would not have been posed. Being a speculative forum what is wrong with considering a new starting point and building on it from there one notion at a time? It requires an open mind, perhaps even an empty one such as the one I may be privileged to posses :)

Thanks and cheers.

Vladimir

show all replies (2 not shown)

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 13:29 GMT

Hi Vladimir,

You ask "What incomplete ugly architectural plan were you referring to in that exchange?"

The point is that in fact, there is no architectural plan in quantum theory, which isn't even a true theory by my strict standards of correspondence between theory and result, which can also be interpreted as correspondence of language and meaning, or of blueprint to structure. In...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Aug. 4, 2012 @ 06:01 GMT

Hi Tom

Thanks for your clarifications. I will have to re-read your post and think about these things some more. I may not have expressed myself very well, and the issues are complicated enough without the misunderstanding of what I or you mean by 'observer', measurement, and such terms. I simply meant there is no need to have GR account for light-cones at each point in the universe. A local light cone implies an accounting of what an observer at that point could or could not 'see'.

Yes, its great to have a "License to THIMK" (sic) to use the 1950's gag.

Vladimir

hide replies

Dirk Pons wrote on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 10:06 GMT

Vladimir

I enjoyed your essay, and have come back to it several times. The analogy about the 'badly designed building' was apt, and the seven questionable foundational premises were insightful. You are clearly very handy with the pen and brush, and the diagrams added interest.

So I thought that the paper was a good summary of the problems confronting physics, and the several areas where its premises may be wrong. I guess the next question would be, How does one go about fixing these problems?

Thank you

Dirk

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 13:42 GMT

Thanks Dirk,

I am glad you read the paper and enjoyed the illustrations ( Fig. 1 was made using Adobe Illustrator - I would never have gotten the lines so clean with pen or brush - the rest were pencil drawings). As I argued with Asghar in these discussion I believe geometry is paramount to imagine physics so the visual imagination helped the physics. In your essay too you made nice diagrams illustrating your concepts. I would go even further and say if one cannot picture it it is not a good foundation for a physics theory!

My recipe for reconstructing physics is in my Beautiful Universe Theory but it is just a an outline road map that needs a lot of development. One can check some of its claims in a preliminary way by computer simulation. Wish I had the skills.

Best wishes

Vladimir

Paul Reed wrote on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 13:06 GMT

Vladimir

In your last post on George’s blog, you draw our attention to your paper, a Beautiful Universe Theory.

Your underlying principle is: “understanding nature at its own level is a necessary step to pave the way for further theoretical, experimental and technological discoveries”. Absolutely.

Your start point is: “It is hypothesized that the entire universe is made up of an ordered lattice of identical spherically-symmetric charged nodes that are smaller than the smallest known nuclear particle, but are on a similar scale to it”. OK.

But, the real question is how does physical existence occur in this circumstance? Spin, even if it involves just orientation on a spatial point, rather than alteration of spatial position, involves change. A change of what, to what? So, what constitutes any given physically existent state? When, and in what state, can any given node be said to have physically existed? Is it on completion of one spin, half a spin, what? Because the problem is that, by definition, any given node cannot physically exist in more than one physical state at a time. It cannot be half way through a spin and at the same time have completed one, or whatever.

This might sound dreadfully philosophical, and indeed annoying, but actually it points to the most fundamental physical point of all. We can never know, neither is science concerned with, what might be ‘really’ happening. We are part of the reality we are trying to establish knowledge of, and we cannot transcend our own physical existence, other than by invoking beliefs. So, we know there is something existing ‘out there’ (‘out’ being external/independent to our sensory detection systems, ie sight, hearing, etc). To be ‘out there’, it is physically existing, and it cannot do this in different physical states at the same time. In other words, there must ultimately be discreteness. Continuousness in physical reality means that one, and one only, physically existent state occurs, and it never ever changes.

Now, there is then an argument about ‘cause’. Because the question arises as to why this node is spinning, how does it get charged, etc. But, cause must have correspondence with some physically existent phenomenon. It is not some ‘mysterious’ process that has no physical basis. Which then brings one back to the same logical point, ie how does ‘cause’ exist? Personally I would suggest that the physically existent state of any given ‘cause’ delineates what constitutes physical existence as at any point in time. In other words, there is a tendency to think of thing (and even the smallest thereof, like your nodes) being the equivalent of physical existence. And then something else causes alteration, but the physicality of this can somehow be ignored in terms of defining what was in existence as at any given point in time.

In sum then, reality is an unbelievably fast movie. But there are ultimately ‘frames’, because you do not get a movie without them, and we have one. We certainly do not have a still photo.

Paul

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 16:50 GMT

Paul

Thank you for your message . I know you are concerned with what physical reality is and whether we understand it or not. This philosophical question (and you cannot deny it is one) somehow exercises you unduly. In my case I have bypassed the whole issue of what 'actually' goes on in Nature. I have presented a model and my attitude is - if it functions in a way that is close to how Nature does so (in other words predicting the results of experiments etc.) that will be wonderful - if not then that's it the model does not work.

There you see why speculating on sematic issues of reality is absolutely of no interest to me and does get rather annoying when repeated so and at such length. I do not belittle the importance of your approach and I know there are whole university departments devoted to these questions, but I think it is wasted on us 'nuts and bolts' physics people here who just want to get the scenario right. Please try to understand.

And yes yes the movie frame idea is a good way to describe events but only if each frame encompasses the entire Universe.

Best wishes

Vladimir

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 17:15 GMT

Vladimir

It was not a philosophical question, it was a physical one. I too "have bypassed the whole issue of what 'actually' goes on in Nature" (well actually, eradicated). I said so, ie " We can never know, neither is science concerned with, what might be ‘really’ happening. We are part of the reality we are trying to establish knowledge of, and we cannot transcend our own physical existence, other than by invoking beliefs. So, we know there is something existing ‘out there’..". That is why it was a physical point.

I also have to stress that my comments were not about the content of the model, as such. I just used it to comment how physical reality occurs and the notion of sequence/discreteness.

"And yes yes the movie frame idea is a good way to describe events but only if each frame encompasses the entire Universe"

And why doesn't it? What in practical, not metaphysical, terms is an issue to actually directly experience can be resolved (or at least attempted to be) with hypothecation. There is nothing else left then.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 23:55 GMT

Paul

I learned a new word from you, hypothecate, thanks.

If the movie frame encompasses the universe, a concept I like and inherent in my theory, the universe is then absolute. This goes against the idea of inertial frames that Einstein propo-- hypothecated.

Vladimir

Anonymous replied on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 02:38 GMT

From Miriam-Webster

Definition of HYPOTHECATE

transitive verb

: to pledge as security without delivery of title or possession

— hy·poth·e·ca·tion noun

— hy·poth·e·ca·tor noun

Also see Hypothecation

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (2 not shown)

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 10:30 GMT

Vladimir

Tee hee, bring in the debt collector!

"If the movie frame encompasses the universe, a concept I like and inherent in my theory, the universe is then absolute"

Yes, but remember Vladimir that you are not establishing the 'universe', you are establishing KNOWLEDGE of the universe. And that is "absolute", though a better phrase is a closed system. That system being a function of sensory detection. All sentient organisms RECEIVE physically existent phenomena, that is the basis upon which we know, the subsequent processin of this physical input is irrelevant to the physics of reality. And no organism, including us, can physically transcend its own existence. We leave that to belief systems.

"This goes against the idea of inertial frames that Einstein"

Not so. Because the whole point is tha they are 'inertial', ie it is the point at which no change in any given reality occurs.

But another answer concerns this worry that everybody has with inertial frames, which stems from a misconception of what Einstein/Lorentz were originally saying, which then was incorrectly explained with Poincare's simultaneity and Minkowski's spacetime. So to some extent you cannot blame them. The original hypothesis was that matter was subject to dimension alteration (which was later admitted to occur also in light). The cause of which (a differential in gravitational force encountered) ALSO caused momentum change. So, if momentum was changing that indicated that dimension was too. So, in making any calculations, one needed to account for this. Movement is not the issue, it is an indicator that dimension change is occurring, so watch out, otherwise you'll get your sums wrong when comparing one thing with another (relativity). Now, whether this actually does occur and at the rate Lorentz propsed is a separate issue. That is why SR is all fixed shape bodies, straight rays of light, and effectively no movement in the normal sense of the word. Whilst in the real world, GR, it's 'all over the place' (technical explanation!).

By the way, this exchange prompted me to write a piece this morning, It's on my blog (06.42). You are assure, as per all my posts, that contrary to appearences it is a philosophy free zone (neither is there any hypothecation)

Paul

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 07:49 GMT

Vladimir

I am on holiday as of tomorrow morning. As such I undertook an interesting exercise (see my blog my post 27/7 07.40).

Remember, the 'movie' ultimately comprises stills. And there must always be physicality. That is, there cannot be a circumstance where the cause of a physical effect is not, of itself, physical.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 22:10 GMT

Paul

I have responded earlier to the ideas you have put forward. As I told you I am really not interested. I find your repeated postings about the same thing distracting to me and those who wish to discuss my essay. I wish you will cease and desist.

I sincerely respect you and your zeal to research various ideas in physics, but this is not a blog but a forum, and this page is certainly not your blog page!

Vladimir

Daryl Janzen wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 08:04 GMT

Dear Vladimir:

"The history of physics shows, 'physically realistic' theories open up new possibilities. Describing planetary motion using Kepler's ellipses rather than Ptolemy's epicycles led directly to Newton's gravity and beyond."

Well put! The essay was entirely enjoyable, and I'm interested to get to your Beautiful Universe theory in due course.

Best wishes!

Daryl

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 13:06 GMT

Dear Daryl,

Thanks for your cheering words. Both my experience as an inventor and artist gave me an intuition into both the nuts and bolts of devices and systems, and in the creative process that interacts with these things- and I am always amazed how many different intellectual and/or physical approaches can be made to design the same mechanism or theory. We have become too clever and it is this 'too cleverness' that is distracting us from finding the much sought-after unified physics close to the workings of nature.

I dare not utter the letters SR lest I invite another torrent of the sort of distracting posts I have been complaining about, but I feel that Einstein was 'too clever' and that in an absolute timeless ether-based universe relativity could have been (and hopefully will be) presented differently with light slowing down as it decelerates and curves in gravitational fields, for example.

I really should develop the math of relativity in the sort of model I proposed in Beautiful Universe but I know my limitations - I think geometrically not algebraically. Simulating (BU) would be great and I have a strong feeling the results of SR can all be reproduced from its basic node-to-node interactions at a maximum rate of (c).

Hope this makes some sense!

Vladimir

Daryl Janzen replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 04:34 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

This does make some sense, although I've only been able to look briefly at your BU theory. I, too, primarily think geometrically, and I think you and I agree fairly well when it comes to relativity. Actually, in case you hadn't noticed, I wanted to point your attention to a response that I wrote to you on July 24 @ 6:47 GMT.

Daryl

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 05:24 GMT

Thanks Daryl you are very kind to take the time to detail your views. I have read your posts addressed to me on your page and also the one to Jim. Please make allowance for my somewhat limited technical ability to navigate the myriad details of SR and GR. Factor in the stamina of the grandpa set and that makes my reviewing and responding to all your points - as they well deserve - a question of time. Another problem for me is the interuptions of vapid or of off-subject posts that seem to pop out frequently from a certain source and do take out the pleasure of back-and-forth discourse.

Let us keep in touch I value your ideas.

Vladimir

Ronald L Bennett wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 08:04 GMT

Dear Tamari

I found your essay interesting and I do see where we share some of the same thoughts, that's why I like it. I will critique it one item at a time because I tend to talk a lot when I get going.

"As will be discussed below, some may actually be wrong (that the photon is a point particle, rather than a spreading quantum of energy."

This is how I see it, if it looks and acts like a wave then it is a wave, now if it looks and acts like a particle then it is a particle. Where we went wrong in the past since we forsaken the aether for special relativity is that we thought the photons were both a wave and a particle, as Einstein alluded to, but it is not.

In our surroundings if a particle is moving through something fluid-like, air or a liquid, it gives off a signature wave that tells us that it was there. A photon, a gauge boson, moving through a bosonic condensate would do the same, give off a wave signature in the condensate that tells us something passed by. Now how I see it is the Photons are acually gluons with a build up of charge, e-plus e-minus charge pairs, that add up to 0.

The BEC-like particles in the medium that the photons passes through are diamagnetic to other bosons unless they are occupying the same state but they are paramagnetic to all other matter unless they are close to absolute zero. As a result the aether, (bosonic condensate), was affected by that passing particle similar to what a particle would behave like in a fluid-like medium as mentioned above. Remember in a BEC Helium II phase change below 2.17 degrees Kelvin helium acts like a boson and is superfluidity, diamagnetic, superconductor that obeys the Bose statistic. Now Fermions, Fermionic condensates - quarks, leptons, act similar to BEC at even lower temperature.

Since the Higgs boson was almost confirmed as existing within 5 sigma of accuracy then we are about to rename the aether as the Higgs field. Imagine Aristotle's look when he finds out that he isn't finally getting the Nobel prize for Physics for his aether theory after 2,400 years, some other guy named Peter Higgs is getting it.

report post as inappropriate

Ronald L Bennett replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 08:19 GMT

Dear Tamari should be Dear Vladimir, sorry for the typo.

Ron

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 00:17 GMT

Dear Ron

Thanks for your message. Do we both agree then that the photon is a a wave of particles? Gluons? That would certainly fit in with my lattice nodes having dielectric magnetic properties e-plus and e-minus as you say. Sounds a bit like Dirac's sea of electrons. You lost me in the discussion of BEC I will really have to study all that - as I mentioned in my note on your page particle physics is something I really need to study but have not done so in any serious way.

From what you say about particle-wave properties of photons do you imagine it like the Cerenkov radiation? My idea is somewhat different - that nothing actually moves in space just energy patterns exhibited by stationary nodes.

Aristotle getting the Nobel? Hmm perhaps for some of his ideas, but imagine the embarrassment when all his other discounted ideas (rate of fall depending on weight of object, sight is caused by ocular rays emitted by the eyes, the four elements, etc etc) come to light!

Cheers

Vladimir

Ronald L Bennett wrote on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 01:50 GMT

Vladimir

"Do we both agree then that the photon is a a wave of particles? Gluons?"

Yes, how I view it is that it is the wave propagated from the photon particle passing bosonic particles, (higgs boson, w boson, z bosons, gluons bosons and maybe the axions bosons) in the higgs field that I have been referring to as the aether.

"Aristotle getting the Nobel? Hmm perhaps for some of his ideas, but imagine the embarrassment when all his other discounted ideas (rate of fall depending on weight of object, sight is caused by ocular rays emitted by the eyes, the four elements, etc etc) come to light!"

I was just attempting a little humor, however everybody who got the Nobel prize at one time in their history will be found to be fallible, imagine what people are going to say about the standard model, relativity, and what we wrote here 2,400 years from now.

Ron

report post as inappropriate

Ronald L Bennett replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 02:20 GMT

Vladimir

Oh by the way your particle illustration on your essay is similar to what I was talking about.

Thanks

Ron

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 07:51 GMT

Ron

Your photon picture is a bit different than mine, but maybe because we do not completely understand each other's ideas.

About Aristotle's Nobel there is nothing wrong with a bit of humor and while you are at it give one to Al-Hasan Ibn Al-Haytham (Hazen) the poor fellow is mostly ignored when the discovery of the scientific method is discussed, even though his work in optics had all of its hallmarks.

And yes physics will be unrecognizable perhaps in a few decades from now! Here is a predicted consequence if the particle picture in my essay and theory is right (a wave field surrounding locked elements with rotational energy: In a double slit experiment a particle larger than either of the two slits will push its own field through the slits and they interfere even though the particle itself cannot pass through. See attached graphic for a description of the proposed experiment.

Vladimir

attachments: 1_Particledoubleslit_.jpeg

Ronald L Bennett replied on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 08:02 GMT

Hi Vladimir

In response to our different pictures of how light travels through an aether, higgs field. I use a field of particles made of bosons, of which the higgs particle is also made of to demonstrate my aether. In other words in my belief the higgs field should also explain the duality of light. But where I deviate from the current understanding of the Higgs field is that like heavier gas particles in our atmosphere, the higgs bosons are the closest to matter where the farther away from matter you get the lighter the bosonic field that is generated. In other words that is why we can see throughout the universe because most of the bosonic field in interstellar and intergalactic space is made of mass-less gluons.

Oh by the way that is an interesting way to explain the double slit experiment. I have a different view of how that would work in my view it all depends on a bosonic condensate. That's why if you try to observe it the effect goes away like it would in a BEC, by observing it we are disrupting it informational lines of communications.

Sorry for the late response I was out of town for a while, good luck on your essay

Ron

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 03:02 GMT

Hi Ron

Thanks for your explanation about the your bosonic field. No need too apologize for the late response - in fact I saw your response only yesterday.

If I follow your explanation this thinning out away from matter is like the gravitational field - or is perhaps the gravitational field itself? What happens when matter moves in such a field- it sounds like aether-dragging. You may be right but I always hope that Nature works more simply!

I am a bit wary about interpreting quantum effects as information - something physical is going on in those nether-scale worlds and may need a physical explanation...

Best wishes

Vladimir

Michael James Goodband wrote on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 11:51 GMT

Hi Vladimir,

Thank you for your kind comments on my essay. I liked your essay and think that your building analogy very nicely captures an uncomfortable truth.

In response to your comments on my essay and your BU theory, you are indeed correct that the compactified dimensions of Kaluza-Klein style theories (KKT) give a basis for cellular automata models (CA) such as your BU theory. To account for all the particles and particle forces the minimum number of such extra dimensions is 7 - this is a general conclusion in physics and not specific to my work - but the simple case of 1 extra dimension gives the picture in 1 spatial dimension of a tube like a hosepipe. The character of KKT is such that physical measurement of the length of the tube - the spatial dimension - is effectively in terms of the cross-section, which has the effect of dividing the length into discrete units that can be modelled in terms of the cells of a CA model. In terms of a previous essay question: is reality analogue or digital? the answer in KKT seems to be both as the analogue spatial dimension is measured in discrete units. However, the intrinsic error of measurement using a fixed measuring stick is ½ the length of the stick - I show that this effect alone can give the Heisenberg uncertainty relation. In terms of cells in a CA, imagine two touching cells and then place a third cell on top them centred on the point at which they touch; this is effectively two neighbouring cells overlapping each other by half. This would model the measurement error limit to the digitising of space to a CA model. Of course in a CA model with non-overlapping cells such as yours this should be modellable by a suitable choice of update rules between the cells.

In my Kaluza-Klein theory - S10 unified field theory (STUFT) - the particles arise as topological defects, which in a digitised CA model would appear in a form similar to the multi-cell model of a particle you depict in Fig 16 of your paper. The issues for a CA model like yours are finding the right geometry for the cells in combination with the possible states of the cells, and then finding the correct update rules to model the physics. For the above reasons, I would expect such a CA model for a KKT like mine to exist in some form. I would then expect my proof that Gödel's incompleteness is the underlying reason for Quantum Theory to apply to such a CA model: I predict that the CA model would support universal computation and display computational irreducibility (the form Gödel's incompleteness takes in CA models).

Best wishes

Michael

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 01:57 GMT

Hi Michael

Thanks for your kind comments about the fqxi essay. You correctly evaluate my BU model as a species of cellular automata (CA). I sometimes think of it as a sort of self-operating 3D abacus inasmuch as self-assembly creates a lattice structure. In the original CA the only 'action' involved is a two-state on-off for each cell. You mentioned that 7 dimensions are required by physics - I would be grateful for an online reference about this to study.

In my Beautiful Universe (BU) nodes there are the following degrees of freedom: 1-rate of rotation or spin of a node in units of (h). 2- two degrees of freedom in the orientation of a cell in spherical coordinates. I wonder how these would count in terms of 'dimensions'. I also feel that the usual 3 spatial and one time dimension are emergent from the node interactions themselves. You have diagnosed exactly what is needed in my theory: As to geometry I think a face-centered-cubic (FCC) lattice is a reasonable starting point ( adopted over the other Kepler packing, following N. Cook, see below). The update rules still need to be to be quantified. Although it is not exactly a BU 'particle' treating three nodes as bar magnets interacting classically lead to a model one aspect of the Strong Force so the rule required may be similar in BU.

Yes The Uncertainty relations in CA emerge exactly are as you stated them. In the case of the two overlapping cells you describe it will be just like the Airy diffraction limit! I strongly feel that orderly diffraction (ie diffusion) in a lattice is the cause of both uncertainty and probability in QM. In Fig. 29 of (BU) you can see how this is illustrated in 2D (the case you describe) and also in a 3D lattice. The trouble of considering KK in BU is that it is a sort of an add-on to Special Relativity's 4-D spacetime. In BU I totally ignore SR as a starting point and think that discrete Lorentz transformations in an absolute universe are enough to describe relativity in the lattice.

By the way Fig. 16 of BU which you referred to is from my friend Norman Cook's work. I told him about the fqxi contest and he has contributed a very thorough explanation of his FCC-based nuclear structure theory. More support for our sort of approach to physics, so please encourage his work.

I will have to re-read your essay and think about the interesting points you raised including your fascinating conclusion that Gödel's theorem has applications in basic physics!

With best wishes,

Vladimir

Michael James Goodband replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 10:17 GMT

Hi Vladimir

The condition on a minimum of 7 extra dimensions can be thought of as coming from the relationship between continuous symmetries and conserved charges. The symmetry of the 3 spatial dimensions and time is associated with conservation of 3 momentums and energy. In representations of special relativity the associated conserved 'charges' are spins. For particles, there are 3 conserved colour charges (red, green, blue), 3 conserved isospin charges (associated with the W+,W- and Z bosons) and 1 conserved electric charge, and so the minimum number of extra dimensions is 7. This condition arises for realistic Kaluza-Klein theories and also underlies the condition of 11 dimensions for fermionic string theories. Although in principle there could be more, it seems that special mathematical conditions come into play for 7 closed dimensions because of the special status of the sphere S7 being the closed space of the octonions.

I would view the CA lattice as being discretised cells of the 'fabric of space' in General Relativity where the compactified dimensions of a KK theory are the underlying physical reason for the cells. From this perspective the add-on character of the extra dimensions is an essential feature and not a trouble at all. Of course, discrete Lorentz transformations would then need to be derived for the lattice structure. It seems to me that this fits your intention of BU, where the discretised lattice is a form of background space for physics, although I would be wary of using a phrase like 'absolute universe' without caveats.

Best wishes

Michael

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 02:52 GMT

Dear Michael,

Thank you for answering my question regarding the 7 dimensions. I know that the Standard Model fits the experimental facts very nicely, but I need to study more to see how it 'works'. My understanding is that it is a de-facto set of rules and there is no simple geometrical structure that produces all these relationships between masses, charges and forces. My intuition and hope (!) is that an alternative to SM can emerge from simple building block CA KK type configurations to build such a structure.

Yes it is as you describe it- in BU the fabric of space is made of discretized cells that self-assemble in different configurations. I thought about it a lot and discretized Lorentz transformations should work there. For example if the maximum velocity cell-to cell is (c), matter configurations in the lattice can only travel at that speed. And if an atom emits light while traveling at (c) the light will only travel at (c). Doppler effects account for LT as lesser speeds. Force as forward momentum added to a body will 'compress it' even before it starts moving, as per SR length contraction (see Fig. 26 of Beautiful Universe - also attached here). You are right 'absolute' is too encompassing a word and it will have to be explained carefully.

Best Wishes

Vladimir

attachments: BUFIG26.jpg

Michael James Goodband replied on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 12:12 GMT

Vladimir

On the issue of relationships between coupling constants and masses, because my Kaluza-Klein theory (STUFT) unifies physics in a pure geometric theory it leads to closed geometric formula for the Weinberg angle (eqn 4), the Higgs field coupling (eqn 27), Planck's constant (eqn 31), and the charges (eqns34-36). But I have no corresponding formula for the fermion masses, and in my theory they are not actually calculable.

It occurred to me that the particle configuration you are looking for in a CA model need not be a static configuration, but a self-consistent dynamic state that cycles between a number of configurations. For a discrete version of the sort of KKT I have considered I would suggest that the particle configuration should be cyclical, such that its motion could have an associated wave-like property. Finding such a CA version of particle and wave would be an interesting result.

Michael

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 14:00 GMT

Thank you Michael

Particle physics is the one undeveloped aspect of my BU model, and I will have to do a lot of catching up! You and others like Norman Cook (see his fqxi paper please - both our models 'exist' in a face-centered-cubic lattice) have gone far to explain things geometrically, and I am sure one day the remaining questions will be resolved in 'our' way.

I agree completely with what you said "the particle configuration should be cyclical, such that its motion could have an associated wave-like property. Finding such a CA version of particle and wave would be an interesting result.":

In my BU model the particle nodes rotate in unison, creating a rotating vortex field that is replicated in the surrounding nodes as its gravitational field-cum-quantum wave-field with its de-Broglie wavelength...standing gravitational waves no less. Please see Fig. 11 of my Beautiful Universe theory, also attached. In fact this can be extended in a sort of 3D Gauss's Theorem of a lattice: the spin on any closed surface equals the resultant spin enclosed by the totality of lattice nodes within the enclosed volume. Hope I got my maths right! This concept is interesting because it shows the *reason* for the Holographic Principle: the internal spin of nodes making up particles in a black hole end up activating a resultant of spin at the surface.

Vladimir

attachments: BUFIG11.jpg

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 20:38 GMT

Hello Vladimir,

I thank you for your comments on my essay forum page, and I am following up by attaching a photo of Anton Zeilinger in front of a book page talking about Einstein's letter expressing doubt the corpuscular theory of light. I also include a draft of a brief paper about a conceptual model of decoherence, because this material came up over there.

I want to affirm or agree with several of Michael Goodband's comments above. I began looking into CA models incorporating some of Michael's insights after a conversation with Gerard 't Hooft on the difficulties with achieving Lorentz invariance with CA based Quantum gravity theories, and the idea that the octonions (or octonionic space) might provide the degrees of freedom to account for observed symmetries.

I'll continue in another comment below, in a bit.

Regards,

Jonathan

attachments: 3_DecoherenceReviewDraft.pdf, 2_AntonQuote.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 03:49 GMT

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for your message and interesting attachments. Do you have a reference for Einstein's letter expressing doubts about corpuscles?

I have read your attached pdf on decoherence. Also your reported comment by Gerard 't Hooft on quantum gravity in CA. If you will be kind enough to forgive my simplistic assumptions and ideas about these concepts, there is one point that may have been largely overlooked since it was raised some 200 years ago (actually 2500 years, since Democratis's time).

Could it be that at the smallest level there is absolutely no distinction between waves, solid matter, radiation or dark energy etc? I believe that this artificial dichotomy based on everyday perceptions, between particles and waves, is at the heart of a great deal of the foundational problems facing a theory of everything. For example you speak of an ocean vs. a boat, of a person perceiving the ocean differently from land or sea etc. In a CA lattice, particularly in my Beautiful Universe Theory (BU) model, it is all made of the same stuff! Fresnel early on had the right idea of "matter permeable to ether"- and vice verse I might add! - and I think Hertz and others were seeking out a wholly electric ether where Lorentz transformations would account for relativity. Enter Einstein and his photon and constant (c) which inserted a spanner firmly in the these promising works, forcing physics to proceed on his own new tack. And now it is not working!!

With regard to Michael Goodband's comments, and octonions, again please forgive my going into matters I know little of, but is it not possible that 1) The math is asked to cover a physical situation that is far more complicated than it is in Nature? 2) That the math reflects the degrees of freedom in the node of a certain type of CA - I am thinking of my (BU) where each and every node can rotate in any spherical angle, rotate around its own axis, and has polarity, i.e. much as the Bloch sphere of QM - as per attached figure (from my last year Digital or Analog fqxi essay)?

Again thank you for your learned response.

Vladimir

attachments: FIG5.jpg

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 15:02 GMT

Thanks Vladimir,

Regarding Einstein's doubts, aside from the page visible in the slide behind Zeilinger, I have no clue as to the origin of the reference. I can write Anton, and see if I get a reply.

As to decoherence, I agree that waves and particles are a somewhat artificial distinction, and my conceptual model attempts to show that. If we believe Zeh, there are no particles and only the wave-like aspect is real. Geometrically speaking; Grassmann's prescription involves putting points, lines, and planes, on an equal footing - rather than trying to derive extended forms from simpler bases.

Regarding CA based theories of Physics; I asked 't Hooft at FFP10 how his CA based QG theory fares in light of the Planck satellite results showing high and low energy gamma ray photons from a distant supernova arriving almost simultaneously - demonstrating Lorentz invariance. Our discussion became the topic of 4 or 5 slides in his FFP11 talk in Paris, where he explained why it is a rather difficult matter to make a CA based theory Lorentz invariant.

More in the next entry.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 15:31 GMT

Hello again,

In regards to CAs based on your figure depicting polarized spheres, I think the proper analogy is to quaternions and the 3-sphere - because that correctly encodes the order of operations dependent nature of QM.

I like your BU idea, and I think it has potential to inform us about reality. It would be nice if it was that simple. But I agree with Michael Goodband's statements above, that you need to have at least 7 extra dimensions in a KK formulation to obtain or explain all the observed symmetries.

So perhaps what would allow that to be represented would be more like a cluster of seven interlocking spheres. The description of half-overlapping figures in Michael's comment above comes to mind, as a base configuration for one node. Einstein was noted to say that we should keep things simple, but not try to make things more simple than they really are.

My working assumption after talking with 't Hooft, and then discussing possibilities with a number of colleagues, is that the Octonions may be the minimal starting place. That is; we can craft an emergent description of Physics, as you do with your Beautiful Universe theory, but to see all of the observed forms and symmetries come out - you need enough degrees of freedom to start with.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 18:09 GMT

Yes Steve,

You do irritate sometimes, especially when you challenge my comments on other people's pages. But I just found a gem in a paper by Aubert Daigneault, where he cites Mark Peterson's comments about Dante's version of the theory of spheres.

"Astonishingly, Riemann’s nineteenth century description of the universe as a three dimensional sphere appears to have been anticipated much earlier by the Italian poet Dante for whom the universe encompasses the material world as well as Paradise, Inferno and Purgatorio. In his celebrated work ‘The Divine Comedy’ (Canto 28, lines 1-129) the thirteenth-century Florentine writer views the Universe from a point in the Primum Mobile [the equatorial 2-sphere] where he stands with his beloved Beatrice who shows him, on the one hand, Paradise which he calls the Empyrean, [an hemi-hypersphere, indeed a three-ball] consisting of a sequence of two-spheres of decreasing radii, lodging angels of all orders, all the way to God [standing at a pole of the 3-sphere] and, on the other hand, the material world [the other hemi-hypersphere; indeed the other three-ball] made of another sequence of two-spheres also of decreasing radii, dwellings of the stars, the planets and the earth with Satan at its centre [the antipodal point of the first pole on the three-sphere]."

So apparently; even Dante's version requires higher-dimensional Math.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 14:28 GMT

Let me laugh Jonathan and friends, you are ironical. My Theory of Spherization is not to sell ok dude.Your strategy shows us your limited mind.You are simply a frustrated full of hate.The jealousy probably or your taste for monney. Your vabity eats you in fact. You confound the marketing with the sciences in fact.Even the competition you do not understand it.Your tools are bad simply.You are ready for all with your stupidities.You are simply a band of ironical thinkers. Let me laugh. Your faith even does not exist.I have pity for you Vallet.And you delete poor thinker in function of your strategy. You have not the competences to understand my works.You are simply a kind of pseudo illuminated thinking that you are right. The infinite light is more than your stupid extrapolations poor thinker. And you speak about who? Dante now and the extradimensions , doors ? frankly return at school and learn from my theory of spherization. Higher dimensional math?.Well I am dreaming in live there, if you you undertand the maths, me I am the future president of China. You want my books of maths or what? bronstein and semendiaev, or you want a course about the study of functions. I know my maths ok dude, your maths are not deterministic maths but just pseudo parrallelizations. The maths are tools and like all tool, it must be well utilized.with universality, determinism and rationality about our pure universal axiomatization. You confound a lot of things about our universal sphere.

My theory of spherization is not a play ok. The theory of this or that are not my probelm. My theory unifies a lot of things with or without the approvements of pseudos ! I have pity , really. Your strategy of discriminations shows us your limited mind in fact.How can you understand so my theory of spherization in 3D. quantum 3D spheres serie of uniqueness.....cosmological 3D spheres....Universal 3D sphere .....eureka in 3 dimensions of course.

Sphericaly yours .

Steve

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Colin Walker wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 01:44 GMT

Hi Vladimir

I like your Beautiful Universe. It is like a Bohr model of space. I think you might be interested in quaternions, which are mathematical extensions of complex numbers. They are associated with spin in quantum mechanics.

A quaternion can be thought of as four numbers, any one of which may be taken as a reference for the other three. This conceptual link between the numbers...

view entire post

attachments: quaternion3D.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 15:50 GMT

Cool Beans,

I like your comments, Colin. It seems that with Michael, you, and I all making comments relating to quaternions and octonions, Vladimir will certainly get some useful insights about them to aid his research.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 03:33 GMT

Dear Colin

Thank you for your kind and timely explanation of Octonions. In Jonathan Dickau's post of Aug. 21 just before yours he refered to octonions and in the last paragraph of my answer I asked a couple of questions about that.

Thank you for John Baez' paper on octonions, and your explanation of the figures on page 7. I could not help observing that with the great respect I have for Baez's accomplishments us non-academic physicists were a bit scared of being branded by him as cranks when he was on a campaign to expunge our work from the world :) Luckily he did not even notice my papers!

In his paper Baez refers to Wigner's 1930's interest in octonions. Coincidentally my friend Norman D. Cook reworked an idea of Wigner to build a nuclear structure model based on a Face Centered Cubic FCC . In fact I adopted the FCC in my Beautiful Universe model (over the triangular Kepler packing) thanks to Cook's example. I encouraged Cook to present his work in this fqxi contest. Please have a look at it and his book and simulation software on the same subject published by Springer.

Its a small world, and with all these efforts I hope something good will jell in the world of fundamental physics.

With thanks and best wishes,

Vladimir

Colin Walker replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 22:28 GMT

Dear Vladimir

Your remark about John Baez and cranks hit home. I had a dispute with John Baez over rejecting my first posting to sci.physics.research inquiring about supernova redshift data and got labeled as a crank in the process. He is the inventor of The Crackpot Index. From Wikipedia: "The method, proposed semi-seriously by mathematical physicist John Baez in 1992, computes an index by responses to a list of 36 questions..."

Petty humiliation can be quite effective. It would be a decade before I posted again. Baez's behaviour was likely symptomatic of a more widespread phenomenon. It seems to me that the situation has gotten worse to the extent that it has become institutionalized, countered for example by VIXRA (thanks to Philip Gibbs) as a reaction.

Here is a little story coincidentally about John Baez's doctoral supervisor. The late Irving Segal (1918-1998) developed a theory he called chronometric cosmology which called for redshift to vary with the square of the distance to account for curvature, instead of linearly as in Hubble's law. He noted that the data collected to support Hubble's law comprised a small part of the data available. Suspecting selection bias, he embarked on a program to analyze as much data as possible. What he found was that the larger data set clearly supported his model, not Hubble's law. This was found over a wide range of wavelengths and with the collaboration of various researchers in a series of papers. In spite of the data supporting his theory, physicists will tell you that supernova data imply accelerating expansion without even considering Segal. I am not optimistic about the future of physics when the critical work of an established and respected physicist is discounted.

Colin

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 06:12 GMT

Thanks Colin,

Yes that's the one - the Crackpot Index! Its funny and makes sense because there *are* some strange ideas out there and I can imagine John was pestered by having to evaluate them.! But I could well imagine how discouraging it can be when successful mainstream physicists put down an idea and its author for no good reason. I had arXiv reject my Beautiful Universe theory paper probably because I have no university affiliation, but I am used to being out there on a limb with my ideas so I took it in stride. And thanks to Philip Gibbs and viXra my papers are online there now. And Philip 'answered' John Baez' Index by his marvelous blog column Crackpots Who Were Right . BTW Philip has participated in this year's fqxi contest and was recently quoted in the news for his knowledgeable comments about Higgs developments.

All this pales next to some experiences with Physics Forums where rejections of new ideas can range from dismissive to hostile. One researcher told me he was so vehemently attacked by moderators on PF even now many years later he hesitated to promote his ideas even on fqxi, but I think I talked him out of it and he is now writing up a paper for the contest.

Interesting and typical story about Irving Segal's redshift theory...

Vladimir

Colin Walker replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 10:28 GMT

Hi Vladimir,

On looking into the Segal story further, it appears there might have been sufficient reason to be suspicious of his rather complicated analysis of the data. Ned Wright's criticism points out some problems.

Here is a link to Crackpots who were right which was broken. Nicely inspirational.

Colin

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 00:54 GMT

Hi Colin

Thanks for the corrected link to Philip's blog. Segal may have been wrong, but that is all part of the advance of science. The case of Einstein's photon being a point particle on the other hand may yet be classified under Great Scientists Who Were Wrong.

Read Eric Reiter's current fqxi essay for the details (also one of the foundational questions in my fqxi essay). It seems Planck opposed the point photon early on giving an alternate loading theory, then Compton himself offered an alternate wave explanation for his scattering experiments...all neglected by physicists for a century. I had an inkling that the light quantum in space was just a wave, based on my streamline diffraction researches. Eric has independently and more importantly experimentally proven it...after he struggled alone for years neglected by the physics community.

Vladimir

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 15:07 GMT

Hi Vladimir,

Sorry it took me a while to process your response to my remarks. I have made some comments above, in reply to your questions. I shall make some comments in feedback to your contest essay some time soon.

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 02:03 GMT

Thank you Jonathan. I read your comments above about quatrenons and, as with Colin, the necessity of having 7 dimensions and 't Hooft's comments about CA. As you have probably figured by now I am still a learner! At 70 I am not as mentally agile as I was when I first started my physics self-study, but with so many wonderful contacts on the Internet, and through discourse with first-class thinkers here and elsewhere I could see where and how my model agrees or does not with other established theories and ideas, and will be mulling all these things and adjusting my model accordingly.

Quatrenons or octonons might be the answer but I know my own mind - I simply do not think algebraically, and would rather use the energy required to learn them to work things out geometrically and leave it to you whizzes (Colin included) to establish the math for such ideas.

I wonder if the 7 symmetries required are all 'basic'. In my Beautiful Universe theory I have seen how leaving special relativity (i.e. c constant and the use of 'spacetime' as a starting premise) out of GR can lead to an utterly simply scenario of space with a density matrix refracting e/m energy. If that is indeed so, I sincerely hope that some such simplifications in assumptions (as per my fqxi essay 'Fix Physics!' could one day show that the required symmetries are emergent from the simple symmetries of a model like BU.

I looked up Lorentz Invariance..more things to study. I do not know which CA 't Hooft had in mind, but surely there are many different models that use discrete self-assembled nodes? If he thinks of CA as simple 'on' off' nodes then yes I agree, but in my BU the nodes have these degrees of freedom: A scalar internal rotation ie density a 2- dimensional spherical orientation that should include (+ -) spin orientation, apart from the 3 dimensions of their location in the grid . That is six, will that work? OK nice try perhaps but I am thinking a lot about other possibilities. I am now considering the concept of spherical surfaces in the lattice where the nodes are aligned 180 degrees twisted in relation to and caused by the original 'locked' matter nodes. Atoms as black holes...a google shows the atom as a black hole is by no means a new idea!

By the way I think the Einstein quote in your slide may have been the old chestnut (I paraphrase from memory ) about any fool thinking he knows what a photon is, but it is still a mystery.

Yes Ste*ve is irritating - his rambling off-subject comment was inappropriate, but you were more tolerant and generous by offering your Dante quote.

Best wishes and appreciation, Vladimir.

view post as summary

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 18:27 GMT

Hello Vladimir,

Gerard 't Hooft's CA-based theory is described in some detail in the following paper. Entangled quantum states in a local deterministic theory Of course; the model has likely been evolved somewhat, since that writing, by Gerard himself. But that paper provides a suitable snapshot of his recent work in that direction. It also gives some insight into what works and what doesn't

There is an article somewhere on the FQXi site that refers to this work, but I don't have the link right now. I'm sure that Googling the good professor's name, along with the words Cellular Automaton would produce some interesting results, as when 't Hooft announces significant new work, people like to comment. It is notable that his famous paper on Dimensional Reduction in QG also utilized a CA.

A notable feature is that including Gravity is what makes it work.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 01:14 GMT

Thank you Jonathan,

I tried to understand the best I can 't Hooft's paper you kindly provided the link to. I have no doubt it is as he tells it *within the scheme of the Standard Model, SR and other aspects of physics as we know it*. But try to convince dreamers like me with half-cooked ideas that starting from completely different first principles, the picture could be very different and many points made in the paper may simply not be relevant!

He uses the concept of gravitons, a concept that does not exist in a model like BU where gravity is the result of systematic topological twists in the lattice node field betsween particles. He discusses Bell's Theorem, a whole world built on the supposition of say, photons being point particles with quantum probabilities. Read Eric Reiter's fqxi essay to see a very different view of such particles and sensing scenarios, and my papers about why I think quantum probability is an emergent description of an ordered micro structure.

Hope this makes some sort of sense? Meanwhile I will keep trying, but not too hard, to understand aspects of the prevailing paradigm. I feel it is more important for me to keep building my model to the point it may be properly simulated and tested. It may sound like building perpetual motion machines but its fun, and as such dreamers always hope , "it just might work"!

Vladimir

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 03:04 GMT

Of course,

The paper from 't Hooft has value for you now mainly as a reference point. It is better that you try something new, rather than try to emulate what he did. The relevance of the discussion about Bell's theorem in that paper is mainly to show the context of the term 'locally realistic theory' so you know his understanding of that concept. The the thing is; adding gravity to the mix in the CA formulas is what makes the model locally realistic.

Gravity resulting from topological twists is arguably very different from using gravitons, so that would send your simulations off in a different direction. Always something to learn!

all the best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 06:02 GMT

Thanks Jonathan for your understanding, encouragement, and pointing out relevant information. Vladimir

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 22:31 GMT

Hi Vladimir,

As an artist your mind is open and critical; it is natural for you to query and present alternate points of view. Furthermore, you have studied physics at university, combining the acquired knowledge with your natural talent to be at your best; you composed an excellent essay asking the right questions and presenting points of view that many can agree with.

I really enjoyed your rendition, the written as well as the drawn - they say a picture tells a thousand words so we are thankful that these artistic words were never counted.

Regards and good luck - Anton

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 03:00 GMT

Dear Anton,

Thank you very much for sharing your enjoyment of my essay. The advantage of an artistic mindset in science is that it encourages the use of imagination, and also a respect for the characteristic of beauty, which Dirac emphasized was a quality physical theories must posses to be right.

My university studies in physics in the late 50's gave me a foundation in method and basic maths, but by the 1980's when I started self-study in optics, most of what I had learned had been superseded by new theories and developments.

I enjoyed reading your paper immensely. The first thing that struck me about it was the superb typography and attention to details such as fonts and layout. The pdf says you used the font Palladio, designed by the Einstein of typography Herman Zapf. Excellent choice.

The second thing I enjoyed was your reference to Poincaré's ideas. I found new respect for him after reading how Poincaré's book influenced both Einstein and Picosso's thinking . Try to read Miller's book it is fascinating.

I will comment on your paper on your page. With warm regards and best wishes,

Vladimir

Viraj Fernando replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 02:19 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

I wish I could write elegantly like you, full of substance mingled with the touch of humour. It is enjoyable and gives the critique of the post 19th century theories succinctly within the limited space of the essay.

You have come out with the metaphor of the buildings which have been built one on top of the other but with little or relation to one another. You have...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Viraj Fernando wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 02:51 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

This is further to my post just now. I had not paid full attention to the whole heading of your essay. What initially registered in my mind was only “Fix Physics”.

In regard to the other part: – “REVERSE ENGINEER RELATIVITY, Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model, Get Rid of Outdated Assumptions, Consolidate, and Reconstruct on New First Principles”, I urge you to read my essay, and you will find that I have already started to Reverse Engineer Relativity on the basis of first principles. I have stated there that the completion of this task will have to be a collective effort, and I genuinely mean it. It can’t be otherwise.

Although it is not shown in the essay, I have done a lot of work on the photon as a quantum of energy which is in a different mode of energy to a matter particle. On this basis I have demonstrated the Compton effect too.

I would like to be in contact with you. My email address is on the essay. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

Best regards,

Viraj

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 03:10 GMT

Dear Viraj

Thank you very much for your kind words about my fqxi essay. I tried to stick to the essay subject and question the foundations, and refrain from putting my own ideas (as the fqxi administrators put it in the contest Rules "shoehorning" our pet theories!).

My building analogy is for illustrative purposes only, and to analyze more effectively the faulty foundations of theories on top of others will take much historical analysis and scholarly research.

My solution to the problems of physics can be read between the lines of the questions I asked. But more specifically these questions are answered in my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory . It is a little too long and needs revising and a lot more detailed development, but that is what I think physics should look like.

I have read your interesting essay and commented about it on your page.

I wish I had more expertise (or energy, at my age) to participate more fully in public and private discussions in physics. I really wish you the best of luck in this contest and afterwards.

In physics friendship,

Vladimir

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 02:57 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

I wanted to respond to a comment you made about the sum-over-histories method to me and Brian Swingle on Brian's thread... I came over here because I didn't want to change the subject too much on his thread. While I was here, I read your essay, which I very much enjoyed. Let me itemize a couple of remarks.

1. Regarding the sum-over-histories method, I think that the "crazy paths" do generally get "damped out" in a sense, somewhat as you suggested. Of course, the exact mechanism depends on the details of the model.

2. In your intro, you mention the need for simple physical models, and in your Q7 you mention how conceptually cluttered and physically confused the Standard Model is. I agree wholeheartedly. After trying for years to develop a clear conceptual view of the Standard Model, I eventually came to the conclusion that there is no clear conceptual view. There has got to be a better way of understanding nature than this, even if the model works.

3. Regarding your Q1 and Q2: my own attempts at understanding fundamental physics are based on a "single building block," namely, causality. If you would be so kind, you might look at my essay here On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics and give me your opinion. It turns out that basing the theory on simple physical principles does create some mathematical difficulties, but my view is that the physics should be simple and clear, and the mathematics should be whatever it has to be to get the job done.

4. You only briefly mention your own model in your essay. Do you have this written down in more detail somewhere?

Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 12:17 GMT

Dear Ben

Thank you very much for reading my essay and writing your encouraging comments here. I find fqxi needs to add a feature to its website to make it easier to track one's comments on different pages, so thanks for reminding me of your interesting discussion with Brian.

My notions in some areas of physics are sometimes (but not always) based on 'easy' texts or even just on popular science articles and books. I know it is unfair to criticize the Standard Model only based on what its practitioners themselves have said in casual discussions, but I also base my intuitions on my Beautiful Universe Theory on which I based the fqxi essay. That theory is by no means complete and has little to say about the SM. But since the lattice is a face-centered cubic, and since Norman Cook's model of the nucleus is also based on the fcc (read his fqxi paper) , I feel encouraged that particles can one day be described based on such a configuration.

Yes indeed mathematics takes second place to a true physical understanding of what is going on.

It is a bit late in Tokyo but I will read your essay tomorrow and comment on it on your page.

Best wishes

Vladimir

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:18 GMT

Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regard !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 01:50 GMT

Dear Hoang Cao Hai

Thank you for your message. It would be wonderful for all of us to agree on how to really understand mass at the most basic level. Unfortunately it is not so easy. The Standard Model explains particle masss and now the Higgs mechanism and particle have been discovered... but what actually are they? And what is the relation of those with gravity? Different models have different interpretations. My interpretation of matter (and gravity) is in my Beautiful Universe Theory . But it is an incomplete and unproven idea!

Enjoy research!

Vladimir

Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 16:40 GMT

Really admire plan of Uncle!

With a huge number of problems that you want to adjust.

The my theory is very simple,but can not protest.

The standard model has a lot of loopholes, the most basic is the determination of nuts:

Although atoms was established as the "smallest and can not be divided" from long time ago, but when we try to measure to determine for it,then has created the opportunity for "subatomic" was born thanks the development of technology.

That is, when more technology grows, we will find many kinds of particles smaller than "sub-atomic", but it certainly is not smaller particles "smallest and can not be divided" - (news from CERN: "identified seeds is like Higg boson, but lighter?") - if speed collisions to the "c squared" do not know "protrude" how many kinds of particles? seed would be "ultra low Higg" and will arise ....

Also, in my absolute theory is no boundary between religion and science.

Hopefully there will soon be publicized conditions to consult of Uncle.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 01:18 GMT

Dear Hoang Cao Hai

Thank you for your message. You said:

"The standard model has a lot of loopholes, the most basic is the determination of nuts"

Do you mean determination of mass? Particles? I am not an expert in particle physics, but feel a different basis for the Standard Model should be sought.

Good luck with your absolute theory encompassing religion and science. Did you read the famous and excellent book about physics and Eastern religions? It is The Tao of Physics . It may be difficult to find in Hanoi, but search for it as a pdf online. The Templeton Foundation is concerned with religion and science.

Many wise people find links such links between religion and science. Ideally all knowledge and faith should be one, but in actual practice I feel it is better to keep them apart.

Vladimir

Richard William Kingsley-Nixey wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 12:21 GMT

Vladimir

I agree with your essay and enjoyed your characterisation and style. I was pleased to have read yours before completing mine and, as I recall, make mention of yours among other impressive entries, particularly Peter Jackson's. I hope you'll read, score and give your views on mine too.

Best of luck.

Rich

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 14:38 GMT

Dear Rich, thank you for reading my essay, your kind comments here, and for referring to some of my points in your essay. I have read your essay and enjoyed it (and scored it) on your page. Peter's Jackson's essay and enthusiasm for the success of this contest in promoting good new ideas is to be commended.

With best wishes,

Vladimir

Viraj Fernando wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 03:07 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

This is a request for you to rate my essay in the FQXi contest. (I discussed your essay earlier with you).

I am writing this to you because you, as a Philosopher/ Physicist, are better able to understand about the Foundational Problems of Physics than Theoretical Physicists.

As a philosopher you are better equipped to understand, how the problems have originated...

view entire post

attachments: Primordial_Foundational_Problems.doc, GEOMETRODYNAMICS_OF_ENERGY.doc

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 10:47 GMT

Dear Viraj

I am certainly not a philosopher but I thank you if you meant it as a sign that you respect my opinions! I already enjoyed reading your essay and commented about it and rated it on your page. I wish you all the best in the essay contest, but more important are the connections with like-minded people we are able to make on these pages.

Vladimir

Member Hector Zenil wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 04:51 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

How refreshing well illustrated essay. Even if I may not fully agree in every aspect of your questions or proposed approaches I think you touch many of the main questions that puzzle or should puzzle physics as a whole field, specially now that we seem to have reached some kind of closed road to continue making progress at least at the same exciting pace as it was just a few decades ago. Perhaps it is that we are exhausting our theories of physics (hence starting to come up with clouds of strings disconnected from your main building of physics) and it is time to focus effort in areas that look much more promising, like genetics, new materials and many others. Congratulations for your artistic talent, if you'd make it a business and you could illustrate my own papers I would be more than interested.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 07:41 GMT

Dear Hector

Thank you for reading my essay. I am honored by your positive remarks about some of the physics questions therin - and especially glad you liked the illustrations. After all I am an artist and have tried hard to make the figures explain the physics.

It is a bit drastic for you to despair of progress in physics and therefore concentrate on applications - but I can imagine it is the result of the seeming aridity of much of the current research. But isn't that what fqxi is trying to tackle by encouraging discussion of new solutions?

Yes there is so much exciting stuff going on in genetics and materials (such as metamaterials and graphene). I have seen your homepage and am impressed by your work. I would be happy to discuss illustrating your papers. Please write to me what you have in mind to vladimirtamari(at)hotmail.com

Looking forward to a fruitful cooporation

Vladimir

Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 11:27 GMT

Vladimir,

Your analysis of the constancy/inconstancy of the speed of light is insufficient. You wrote:

"Unfortunately by proposing that the speed of light (c) is constant, Einstein imposed a strange requirement on Nature: Space itself expands and contracts, and time dilates, as measured from a moving inertial frame. He made measurement absolute, i.e. (c) is constant (light being the 'tool' that measures distance and time), but the universe itself became relative - there is no absolute ether in which events occur. This is the exact opposite of what happens in the Lorentz transformations that inspired (SR), whereby the universe is absolute (a universal medium or ether exists) but it is measurement that is relative (clocks slow down as they move, not time itself, and measuring rods physically contract, not space itself, and (c) need not be fixed. In any case both in (SR) and in Lorentz' theory, the measured speed of light ends up being the same."

If, according to the ether theory that you defend, the speed of light "need not be fixed", just give an example showing how the speed of light varies.

Are time dilation and length contraction RECIPROCAL according to the ether theory that you defend? That is, does any observer see any other observer's clock running slow?

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 12:02 GMT

Dear Pentcho Valev

Thank you for your critical response. You are quite right - my analysis is insufficient. Three factors contribute to that: 1- the format of the fqxi contest wanted us to ask foundational questions, and specifically discouraged 'shoehorning' our own 'pet theories' in the discussion; in other words not to give the answers! 2- the word-count limit did not allow a lengthy discussion. Most importantly 3- my conclusions are based on my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory which is admittedly qualitative and needs mathematical development in many areas. Having said that I feel confident from thought experiments imagining how energy hops across the ether nodes, and how force on a body 'compresses' its length before it starts moving (see attached figure from the BU paper), that the equivalent of SR can be developed including reciprocal *measured* clock-time retardation, and *measured* length contraction. This becomes obvious if you think of time measured by a clock made up of a bouncing ray of light in a box whose length contracts along the way it travels.

The payoff for this way of thinking is in the great simplification of gravity, because it is not spacetime that warps so unrealistically, merely the ether medium has a density gradient, which slows down (c) as described in Q.4. As I mentioned Einstein himself later admitted that (c) has to slow down when curving in a gravity field. SR plays no role in such a situation because both the light and the star are in the same inertial frame. The required formulation of all this in (BU) should be based on discrete 'steps' between nodes, at a *maximum* speed of (c) in a vacuum free from masses and fields.

Any help translating these intuitions into more rigorous mathematical form would be welcome!

Vladimir

attachments: 1_BUFIG26.jpg

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 15:01 GMT

In Lorentz ether theory time dilation and length contraction are not reciprocal, Vladimir. This fact is usually ignored but still some authors do mention it:

W.L. Craig, The Tenseless Theory of Time, p. 26: "Kroes, however, disputes Dieks' s claim in this regard. He charges that Dieks has overlooked the fact that in Einstein's theory these relativistic effects are RECIPROCAL. Lorentz's dynamical interpretations of the shortening of rods and of time dilation only make sense because they are not reciprocal."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 09:57 GMT

Vladimir,

Although your analysis of the constancy/inconstancy of the speed of light is insufficient, you have gone far enough towards the truth so you get maximum rating from me.

Note that my essay is no longer in the contest so there is no bargaining in my message.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 01:16 GMT

Thanks Pentcho you have gone into this matter more than I have and I need to study more, starting with reading your essay! Since in (BU) theory we are considering a new physical situation with new possibilities, perhaps a new understanding may evolve, rather than stick to what Einstein or Lorentz have presented in terms of the physical understanding of Nature of their era. They both differentiated between matter and the vacuum, while in BU matter is made of the same stuff as the ether.

In BU theory there is no time dimension, so the concept of speed of light itself becomes academic. This may seem less drastic than it seems: In a timeless universe absolute simultaneity is automatically established everywhere, but relativistic effects will be measured locally from inertial frames. BTW what does the experimental evidence have to say about whether time dilation and length contraction are reciprocal or not?

Vladimir

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 08:48 GMT

The problem with the speed of light is existential, not just scientific, Vladimir. If the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source, that is, if Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false, an unavoidable conclusion is that not only Einstein's relativity but modern physics as a whole has been long dead. Einstein hinted at this in 1954 but hid the real problem behind a euphemism:

Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

Joao Magueijo is more explicit:

Joao Magueijo: "In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Kenneth Snelson wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 02:43 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

What a great essay! When I read the sentence "Clever mathematics allows defining the same phenomena in different ways: in geometry a circle is realistically defined by its center and radius, but a relatively complicated algebraic definition is also possible - the latter however gives no idea of its shape." I said, there's a man after my own heart, an art-science creator unbound by a single category. It's hard not to think of the successful math that proved for eighteen-hundred years the Sun circled the Earth.

An artist friend, Harry Holtzman, long gone, used to say that, "Hardening of the categories leads to art disease." Isn't something like this true also of science? I remember a Robert Oppenheimer interview in which he emphasized the need to create or maintain bridges between disciplines, the most likely fertile ground for making new discoveries.

My argument is against the bullying long ago by the Copenhagen powers that excluded forever students with strong visual sensibilities and talent from participating in the world of quantum physics. Since 1930 people have been scared to death even to hint that the atom might possibly be a real and logical device. Sorry, Vladimir, but I've set off my personal tick, that hidden spring that gets me started the moment I think atom.

I admire greatly your image of science as a dwelling with many separate rooms disconnected from one another. Looking at your brilliant illustrations it occurred to me that one day when you've mulled over the architectural possibilities you might find yourself sketching an improved architecture, a co-op to house the different disciplines but with connecting rooms.

With great admiration and best wishes,

Ken Snelson

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 10:50 GMT

Ken

I treasure the kudos from you, the inventor of tensegrity and the creator of the stunning world-famous sculptures gracing so many museums and plazas from Baltimore to Tokyo. In physics I was thrilled to discover your rotating circular magnets that move in sync - a beautiful illustration of how I think nodes making up matter move in my Beautiful Universe theory, as I credited you in my 2005 paper. I still need to study in depth your models of de Broglie atomic waves. But as Paul Dirac felt concerning theories in physics - on account of its beauty alone it must be true!

Unlike you I have gone into so many directions at once and many of my ideas or project are left unfinished. Not out of laziness or lack of opportunity, but because in the same way you describe the entrenched positions of the Copenhagen people, most fields are dominated by successful 'experts' who do not like upstarts daring to present new ideas that challenge old ones. So the project is left dangling! Slowly however things are changing.

You mentioned Dr. Oppenheimer - he pioneered the Exploratorium science museum in California. Another fqxi essayist Eric Reiter knows -(he exhibited his Sun Harp there) - Eric is himself a brave pioneer against entrenched ideas and experimentally disproved the point photon idea.

Viva American inventiveness, and creativity everywhere, with free minds coupled with hard work and faith in one's own ideas, taking them where they might!

Thank you again for your visit and generous encouragement.

Vladimir

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 17:15 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

In the framework of the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter (my essay) I answer your question in such way: 1). The world consist of numerous objects (particles, stars, galaxies and so on). The matter of every objects consist of particles of low levels of matter. The physical state of matter of different objects is different. But it is possible to find coefficients of similarity between similar objects at different levels of matter and with them predict properties of objects. The wave quanta may be represented as changes of density of fluxes of gravitons which consist of neutrino, photons and charged particles similar to cosmic rays (all of it was born at low levels of matter by particles much more less then nucleons). Space is mathematical construction and realized only throw real particle and material reference frame. Flexibility of space is the same as flexibility of all reference frames - it is no more then mathematical trick. 3). How we can understand that speed of light c is constant in all inertial systems? This question is well seen in Extended special theory of relativity . It is shown that constancy of speed of light in all inertial systems may be a consequence of constancy of speed of light in isotropic reference frame where the speed is the same in all direction and may be connected with isotropy of fluxes of gravitons. Another reason is procedure of space-time measurement in special relativity which uses two-way propagation of waves. With such procedure averaging of speed of light take place giving the value of c. But real speed in a direction may be not c. See Metric theory of relativity. Ether consist of fluxes of gravitons. 4). Gravitation change only paths of photons and their energy, not the spacetime itself. Since space-time measurements use electromagnetic waves then the metric of space-time is changed in the field of gravity in relation to the Minkowski metric. So some one thinks that spacetime is warped. 5). The model of photons is in paper Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles.. The photons consist of numerous charged tiny particles, rotating around axis of motion. The model of electron is in the book: The physical theories and infinite nesting of matter.. 7). There is the model of quarks and in the model quarks are quasiparticles not real particles.

Sergey Fedosin

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 03:04 GMT

Dear Sergey

Thank you so much for your detailed explanation.I have so much to learn, and am learning everyday from interesting thinkers like you - I read about 80 fqxi essays. The papers you mentioned cover subjects of great importance, but in order to comment on them I have to read them - and I hope to do so in the near future as time (and energy - I am 70 years old!) permits.

In general I do not subscribe to the concept of photon particles, nor to gravitons. In my Beautiful Universe theory I see gravity as the effect of twisting of ether dipole nodes ...almost a topological rather than a particle explanation. I see you have read Eric Reiter's essay - where he experimentally proved that the photon is not a particle. This is an important development that will necessiate the revision of a lot of conceptual ideas.

I wish you the best

Vladimir

James Lee Hoover wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 22:49 GMT

Vladimir,

Great discussion. I for one think that the vacuum of space can change or be changed to break the constancy of light speed.

For this contest, I decided to go through and comment on essays of interest and see what responses I got to my own essay. There are over 250 entries, so I narrowed down my evaluations. For only those who responded, I decided to reread and provide my evaluations before time expired, not making it a popularity contest but keeping in mind that I entered for an exchange of interesting ideas, whether I agree or not. Some concepts are superior and more persuasively supported.

I think yours comes under that guideline.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 02:54 GMT

Hi Jim

Thanks for your message - the constancy of the speed of light is applicable only in cases where *measurements* are involved from one inertial frame to another. But because Einstein enshrined it into an absolute postulate in SR the concept played havoc when applied without any necessity to do so to describe gravity . SR need not apply in cases 'out there' with no observer involved, for example in the bending of light in a gravitational field.

Thanks for your kind words about my essay. In general I do not think the peer-evaluation of the contest system is fair or a good way to select the best ones. For example Eric Reiter's fqxi essay is the only one with experimental groundbreaking evidence that can really make a difference. But he chose to write it too technically and it seems to be languishing in the ratings. Please check it out and rate it. I have read and rated som 80 essays (I cannot believe I did that!) including yours. Good luck.

Vladimir

Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 11:53 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

I've read your very interesting paper and taken a peek at your website. I have a great appreciation of the artistic way you have expressed yourself, both verbally and pictorially. Your diagrams really are beautiful. I very much agree that the spirit of investigation and specifics you define in the title of your essay is just what is needed for the advancement of Physics today. I haven't had prior communications with members of FQXi so perhaps I'm a little behind the ball in knowing what each essay stands for besides what is actually presented within it.

I'd like to ask if you find in the contents of this essay a very real and very rigorous realization of the command "Reverse Engineer Relativity"? The mathematics may be a bit heavy in places so I wouldn't expect many to be able to follow every item, except for plasma physicists who routinely deal with the constitutive relations. But there is possibly enough verbal description to understand what is taking place there.

With best wishes,

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 02:42 GMT

Dear Stephen

Thank you very much for your generous comments - it is a pleasure to find that what amounts to my daydreaming and doodling over the years has found confirmation in many quarters.

I enjoyed perusing your essay and got enough out of a first reading to understand and approve of what you have done. Correct me if I am wrong, but you have started out with the Maxwell equations and by proposing a velocity=energy equivalence you have derived or explained the lambda factor of Special Relativity. Bravo! This is exactly in line with the starting assumptions of energy transport in my Beautiful Universe Theory upon which I have based my essay. As momentum is transmitted from the node stepping stones of the universal ether in this theory, it does so at a maximum velocity of (c) but when the nodes themselves rotate at higher energy the velocity is less.

The payoff in this approach is when the description of GR is reduced to a density field with variable index of optical refraction. BTW can slowing down of c in a gravitational field be expressed by a change of the ratio of the permittivity and permeability in Maxwell's equations?? Further clarification of my other ideas is in my response to the discussion below with Juan and Pentcho.

fqxi is mostly a WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) world - there is some private communication as people get to know each other year after year - this is my second contest I entered. On the site itself there are no hidden variables, except the kindness and hard work of the administrators like Brendan Foster, but I think the rating system is not working to lead to the best essays.

I wish you success

Vladimir

Stephen M Sycamore replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 19:37 GMT

Hi Vladimir,

Thanks for your further explanation. It's good to know that our perspectives are aligned and I'll read more from your website to get a better understanding. Your question is important but I'm afraid it's not so simple to give an answer right away. I'm not aware of any literature treating the issue outside of the GR paradigm. I just checked Penfield and Haus "Electrodynamics of Moving Media" and though there is a very brief discussion of gravity I see no analysis of how electrodynamics is affected.

Permittivity and permeability for a medium are derived from the dispersion relations. i.e., the equations for determining them would be derived in a similar manner as the Lorentz-Lorenz formula. To do that, I'd use a similar procedure to what is shown in my essay for the interaction of an electron with incident fields, but would add to the Lorentz force law a force equation for the difference of gravitational force on 2 sides of the electron.

Without doing the work, I think you would find that yes, there would be a change in the effective permittivity and permeability values in the vicinity of an object of strong gravitational fields. But that is a very preliminary assessment.

Cheers,

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 11:37 GMT

Thanks Stephen

Change of velocity is defined locally as a change of the index of refraction n= c/v where v is the local speed of light. These ideas were explored briefly by Thomas Young and later Eddington, and are a basic concept in my Beautiful Universe Theory . Speed of light in Maxwell's equations is related to the ratio of the permittivity and permeability. You say the formulation is more complex than that in the presence of gravitation...but what if (n) is linearly related to the local dielectric density of the rotating dipole- nodes, in units of (h)? Wouldn't that then relate angular momentum in (h) to permittivity to permeability to (V) ? You have a more systematic mathematical mind and training it will be nice if the relations are linear as I anticipate they are. Anyway this is a rather unfocused off the cuff reply, and it obviously needs more analysis. In my studies of streamline diffraction in the 1980's I speculate that the bending of the diffracted streamlines around the obstacle are exactly akin to the bending of light in (GR)= ie the speed slows down with curvature and deceleration.

I strongly feel that this needs to to come out of whatever simple final theory of gravity proves correct both in the very near atomic and far fields.

By the way read Juan Miguel Marín's essay here - he relates density to Riemann geometry.

Best wishes,

Vladimir

show all replies (2 not shown)

Stephen M Sycamore replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 12:56 GMT

Yes, just as you say. I'm been focusing on developing the mathematics at the fundamental level, i.e., the microscopic level of elementary particles. But as you step up a level or two to the macroscopic realm you may determine the permittivity and permeability on the basis of the volume density of each particle species (just as you say). From there you can fairly easily determine the effective propagation speed of EM waves.

I'll look at Juan Miguel Marín's essay. It sounds logical that density relates to Riemann geometry, just as the dielectric tensors used to determine values in the constitutive relations are microscopic homomorphisms of the tensors used in Minkowski's electrodynamics for macroscopic calculations. Obviously getting things right in the microscopic domain has large advantages to only getting something that sort of works in the macroscopic domain.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 10:08 GMT

Stephen

I look forward to the mathematics you are developing for the microscopic level. However it is not mainly the density of particles that I am interested in but rather a way to formulate the very basic interactions in the lattice of my Beautiful Universe theory. Since the vacuum nodes are the same as those that make up radiation and matter only one sort of basic interaction is needed - summated of course in the case of complex particles.

The basic idea is that each node has spin in units of (h) and that this momentum is transmitted to the next node at a velocity proportional to the recepient node rotation (also in units of h). Since a node is also assumed to be a dielectric and its rotation creates magnetic moment and an electric field, this would be the basis for computing the permittivity and permeability. I guess I am repeating myself - but that is what needs to be done and I need to think it out some more. Thanks for any input along these lines.

Best wishes, Vladimir

hide replies

Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 18:40 GMT

Dear Tamari,

Thank you for an interesting essay. You are one of the few in this contest who has discussed a number of different assumptions and this reflect your broad worldwide vision of physics.

We agree in many more forms that I can write here. For instance, you quote Einstein saying that the speed of light has to “vary with position” when light curves in a gravitational field. We obtain the same conclusion from the field theoretic approach to gravity presented in my Essay. The velocity that we obtain (in the weak field limit) is

$v = c - \frac{2GM}{cr}$

where M is the mass of the star (e.g. Sun) and r the distance. The above expression gives the observed light bending due to the gravitational field. In my essay and in the cited references I also show how the geometric interpretation of gravity is only valid as approximation, in agreement with comments you made in your Q4.

We also agree on the artificial character of the particle-wave duality. I have presented in my FQXi forum (1356) a new formulation/interpretation of QM that avoids the usual paradoxes and puzzles and demonstrates that Einstein was right in his ensemble interpretation of QM, whereas Bohr was not in their individual/Copenhagen interpretation. I loved your intelligent use of the term "zombie cats" for referring to the Schrödinger cat paradox. In future, I will use your term "zombie cats" when discussing about this paradox.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 18:58 GMT

So the speed of light decreases as the light leaves the gravitational field of the star. If this light then comes here on earth, is its speed still decreased? Is the gravitational redshift we measure evidence for this decreased speed?

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 23:03 GMT

If the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, as Vladimir and Juan claim, does it vary with the speed of the observer in gravitation-free space? The answer is "yes":

"Doppler Shift. As long as the velocity of the observer, v, is much smaller than the speed of light, c, (for the case of sound waves much smaller than the speed of sound) then the expression that we derived is a very good approximation. Taking into account v may be in the opposite direction: f'=f(1±v/c). At this point you might ask why the shift in direction from the discussion of the equivalence principle. Soon, as we shall see, we can put this together with the equivalence principle to derive the gravitational redshift of light! In 1960 Pound and Rebka and later, 1965, with an improved version Pound and Snider measured the gravitational redshift of light using the Harvard tower, h=22.6m. From the equivalence principle, at the instant the light is emitted from the transmitter, only a freely falling observer will measure the same value of f that was emitted by the transmitter. But the stationary receiver is not free falling. During the time it takes light to travel to the top of the tower, t=h/c, the receiver is traveling at a velocity, v=gt, away from a free falling receiver. Hence the measured frequency is: f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2)."

The stationary observer measures the speed of light to be c'=c(1-gh/c^2)=c-v. The equivalence principle converts the stationary observer into an observer "traveling at a velocity, v=gt, away from a free falling receiver". This observer also measures the speed of light to be c'=c-v.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 14:05 GMT

Yes, when light comes here on earth its speed is still decreasing per above expression.

No, the gravitational redshift is not given by the decreased speed. Note that during its travel from the source to the detector, the photon's kinetic energy varies so as to ensure conservation of energy. When the photon gets absorbed by the detector it disappears completely, so its total energy gets transferred to the detector rather than the kinetic energy alone. The photon's total energy (and its frequency) remains constant during its travel, so the attraction of photons to massive bodies does not play any role in the gravitational red shift. The true origin of the red shift is the variation of energy levels in the source and/or in the detector if they are placed in the gravitational field.

Moreover, the above result is obtained from the Hamiltonian for a photon in a gravitational field. For a massive body (e.g. atom) in a gravitational field the Hamiltonian is, in a first approximation,

$H = H_0 \left( 1 - \frac{GM}{rc^2}\right)$

Which gives the well-tested red-shift formula

$\frac{\Delta E}{\Delta E_0 } = 1 - \frac{GM}{rc^2}$

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 02:05 GMT

Dear Juan Ramón and Pentcho

Thank you for your stimulating messages. I am glad that Juan , with his sophisticated mathematical background, seems to have found many agreements with my statements, even though they are based on the mostly qualitative Beautiful Universe Theory model and earlier studies refred to therein. I have read Juan's "General relativity as geometrical approximation to a field theory of gravity"(viXra:1203.0042) and see that like a skilled matador he has tackled the General Relativity bull with skill and panache. I wish I understood the mathematical details, but from my own analysis, GR became vastly complicated because it was formulated using the language of Special Relativity SR. The simple and elegant equivalence principle (gravity = acceleration) had to carry the excessive baggage of SR with its unphysical and unrealistic postulate that c is constant. That twisted the whole universe into a complicated and unphysical geometrical pattern. In my theory gravitational potential is due to local energy gradient in the nodes making up the universal medium (the quantized ether).

To answer Pentcho's concerns, I must explain the difference between the presuppositions and hence mathematical language of SR and GR on the one hand, and my BU on the other. In SR and GR time, velocity, distance are all continuous functions, but they obey a strange and abstract rule: c is constant. These starting points lead to the Lorentz transformations and the sort of calculations Pentcho derived above.

In BU the starting points are that there is a discrete absolute background space, like points on the corners of a fixed graph. Absolute also refers to time - there is complete simultanity in this world. The maximum speed momentum can travel between nodes is c, but when the nodes are denser, they momentum travels at a slower rate. From the above starting points I have concluded through much thought-experimentation that all the experimental results of SR (clocks slowing down as length contracts, and GR ( clocks slowing down and light bending near massive objects etc.) can be derived from this BU model.

I know that such a verbal and arguments (plus visual illustrations) is not enough. When I finalized the BU model in 2005 I was hoping, and am still hoping, that some more skilful mathematician will describe this world in a rigorous mathematical description.

Take the matter of velocity addition. In a continuous medium 4+5 =9. But imagine a world where the maximum allowed number is 9 where 7+5= 9 ! What kind of math do I need for this? Perhaps an easier way to understand this 'maximum velocity' rule is to imagine a long line of soccer fans making a 'cheering' wave one person lifts his or her hands when the one before does so. Imagine the healthiest people can transmit the wave at c, but some older, less healthy people take time to transmit the wave at less than c...

And thanks Juan - no more zombie cats (and no more point photons please - read Eric Reiter's essay!) in the brave new world of physics!

Vladimir

view post as summary

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 05:30 GMT

"The simple and elegant equivalence principle (gravity = acceleration) had to carry the excessive baggage of SR with its unphysical and unrealistic postulate that c is constant. That twisted the whole universe into a complicated and unphysical geometrical pattern."

Correct but this implies that physics has been long dead, Vladimir:

Joao Magueijo: "In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories."

Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 10:35 GMT

Dear Pentcho

Thank you for quoting me, Maguijo (which I will read) and Einstein - but I am not sure what you yourself believe on this matter when you say

"Correct but this implies that physics has been long dead, Vladimir".

I would not say dead, because even with its latter-day 'epicycles', it works. But because our minds are locked with 'constant c' and other unphysical suppositions, physics remains deadlocked.

I know that in 1916 Einstein said that the speed of light in a gravitational field had to vary - it seems that he derived that idea already in 1911...we live and learn!

See Variable Speed of Light in General Relativity

But do not worry, in the area of physics that you seem most concerned with, even in my theory in the absence of gravity or other fields measured lengths contracts and clock time dilates, so in effect c remains constant.

Vladimir

Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 13:38 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for comparing me with a "skilled matador" although I must introduce the next disclaimer: "No theories or cats were harmed in my essay" :-)

GR is based in a geometrisation principle, which states that gravitation can be completely understood in geometrical terms. This is the source of the well-known problems of GR, including the impossibility to quantize it.

The field theory of gravity (FTG) abandons this geometrisation principle and embraces an unification principle where gravity is described as a force (although the gravitational force is more complex than the electromagnetic force of course). Geometrical gravity (GR) is an approximation to physical gravity (FTG), somehow as geometrical optics is an approximation to physical optics. Below I attach images of light bending as spacetime curvature (GR) vs light bending as gravitational force (FTG). Feel free to reuse them in your future works if you like them.

Finally, I must say that I agree about abandoning the point photons. My point of view is similar to that by Feynman. As stated in my essay. I could not write about other topics because of the size-limit for this contest!

attachments: flatspacetime.gif, curvedspacetime.gif

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 03:02 GMT

Dear Vladimir

You make me realize I should have paid more attention to Young and Eddington. I do so elsewhere http://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/30/4/014 but not in relation to Riemann. Thanks for making me think more deeply about the issues.

Your essay was sometime out of league but always fascinating, original and creative. Hope more thinkers adopt your style. Beauty is not a scientific add-on but a necessary requirement.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 11:01 GMT

Dear Juan Miguel Marín

I see you have duplicated your reply to me on your fqxi page. I hope many people read your fascinating article for this contest. Thank you for confirming the importance of Young and Eddington's concepts of 'density' of space. I wish I could read your IOP article, but I have no means to do so from here.

Thank you for appreciating my style. And if you mean I am sometimes out of my league I must admit that of course it is true. When you fight windmills you realize your true size :)

Best wishes,

Vladimir

Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 15:30 GMT

Vladimir,

You contradict yourself:

You wrote: "The simple and elegant equivalence principle (gravity = acceleration) had to carry the excessive baggage of SR with its unphysical and unrealistic postulate that c is constant. That twisted the whole universe into a complicated and unphysical geometrical pattern."

But then you wrote: "But do not worry, in the area of physics that you seem most concerned with, even in my theory in the absence of gravity or other fields measured lengths contracts and clock time dilates, so in effect c remains constant."

Perhaps, if Einstein's speed-of-light postulate is "unphysical and unrealistic", then its consequences - length contraction and time dilation - are just theoretical artifacts that correspond to nothing in the real world?

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 01:38 GMT

Dear Pentcho

I find it strange that you did not respond to my comments about Einstein's statements concerning the speed of light (1911 etc.) but changed the topic to the 'contradictions' you have pointed out.

Actually there is no contradiction. In these fqxi essays and discussions there is no room for a full description of one's ideas. When objecting to the constancy of the speed of light I should always add that I believe there is a *maximum* speed of light c in a vacuum free of gravity and e/m fields, but that light slows down in denser media such as a gravitational field, air, water or glass etc.

"Perhaps, if Einstein's speed-of-light postulate is "unphysical and unrealistic", then its consequences - length contraction and time dilation - are just theoretical artifacts that correspond to nothing in the real world?"

Not at all: There is actual contraction of the measured length of the object *not of space itself*, and a slowing down of clock time *not a dilation of time itself* in different inertial frames.

Cheers

Vladimir

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 03:36 GMT

Pentcho Have you changed your earlier views on the speed of light?

in this comment of 2005

Vladimir

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 20:54 GMT

Vladimir,

You wrote: " When objecting to the constancy of the speed of light I should always add that I believe there is a *maximum* speed of light c in a vacuum free of gravity and e/m fields, but that light slows down in denser media such as a gravitational field, air, water or glass etc."

The problem is different. See this:

Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."

"In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point." That is, the speed of the waves relative to the fixed observer is c.

"A moving point adds another vt/(lambda)." That is, the speed of the waves relative to the moving observer becomes c'=c+v.

Is c'=c+v correct, Vladimir?

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 21:14 GMT

Dear Mr Vladimir,

I wholly subscribe to your views expressed in the essay ‘Fix Physics . . ‘. I agree that A paradigm shift in physics is now overdue and assumptions such as 'photon-as-particle' 'quantum probability' and 'flexible space-time' are required to be understood in a better context. I also agree with the statement 'present day physics appears grossly and unnecessarily...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 01:27 GMT

Dear PicoPhysicist Sri Vijay

I appreciate your having closely read my fqxi essay - you are the only one who has answered all nine questions posed therin! Please forgive this hasty reply, but for the moment I will list below just your statements that I unequivecally agree on:

Q3 ..."Presence of matter increases space density and apparent reduction in speed of light." Yes.

Q4 "For gravitation force to exist a space density gradient is a pre-requisite. Greater is the gradient; greater is deviation of light towards higher density (lower radius of curvature)." Yes.

Q5 "Yes, it creates a disturbance in space it traverses ... The disturbance propagates with the photon, and appears as a pulse." Yes (omitting for the moment reference to K energy which I do not yet understand.

Q.8 "Dielectric Ether?" Yes.

Respectfully

Vladimir

Vijay Mohan Gupta replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 12:19 GMT

Dear Vladmir,

I belive you will appreciate the answers to your questions are resulting from an integrated thought process based on Unary Law - Space Contains Knergy.

I read your paper, as it has much better readability. There are some others who are fit for publication in Physics Review and written for, by and readable to contemporary scientists.

I will appreciate if you can evaluate my comments on other papers pointed by you as significant contributions in the competition.

Thanks & Best Regards,

Vijay Gupta

Proponent - Unary Law 'Space Contain Knergy'.

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 16:59 GMT

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 08:52 GMT

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is

$R_1$

and

$N_1$

was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have

$S_1=R_1 N_1$

of points. After it anyone give you

$dS$

of points so you have

$S_2=S_1+ dS$

of points and

$N_2=N_1+1$

is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have

$S_2=R_2 N_2$

of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:

$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$

$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$

$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$

In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points

$dS$

then the participant`s rating

$R_1$

was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 10:47 GMT

Thank you Sergey, I read and rated your essy with a comment on your page. I agree with you, as many have noted, that the current rating system is badly flawed. I am sure the administrators realize it by now after all the complaints.

Best wishes,

Vladimir

Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 10:35 GMT

Thank you Vladimir,

I did mean that only people who still believes that GR is a kind of final theory will be troubled by the new research. However, the theory itself does not care!

I have downloaded the Beautiful Universe theory figure to my desktop.

Recall that the force is computed from a field potential. Therefore the density of energy varies locally (in the special case when this density is uniform, the force is zero).

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 10:53 GMT

Thanks Juan

The Beautiful Universe theory needs a lot of work, especially in converting the ideas to quantitative formulations. And there are a lot of particles to be assembled from the dipole nodes, like spherical lego sculptures.

Yes the gradient of the potential is what creates force - but in BU the local density is not simply a scalar, but it has vector properties. The angle between adjacent node's magnetic axes defines gravity. I really need to illustrate and analyze this in better ways.

Vladimir

Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 14:31 GMT

Vladimir,

The fact that the speed of light varies with phi, the gravitational potential, cannot be denied. In 1911 Einstein adopted the equation c'=c(1+phi/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light, then in the final version of general relativity the speed of light became even more variable: c'=c(1+2phi/c^2).

Yet Einsteinians never discuss this for a simple reason: if photons slow down as they leave the gravitational field of a star, then they come here on earth at a decreased speed c' lower than c. Einsteinians exercise themselves in crimestop in such cases:

George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 00:49 GMT

Pentacho

Thanks for the explanation - I have to study more how to formulate my views on these issues.

Vladimir

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 22:07 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

I have just put up a link to a web site giving further explanation of the RICP explanatory framework on my essay thread. I really appreciated your response to my essay and thought on the basis of that you might be interested. So here is a link to it for your convenience foundations of the new building 'prototype' you talked about?

I do need to add further links to that site, giving more information and relevant scientific papers and need to do something more with the recent discussions of truth.It is, I hope, still a useful introduction.

Kind regards Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 22:10 GMT

That was me -Georgina : )

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 01:02 GMT

Dear Georgina -

Thanks for sending me the link to your cool website. Not only the cool bluish background, but it is refreshingly simple and focused, and your great graphic has pride of place in it.

If you ever re-do the graphic perhaps the vertical texts can be made a bit more legible with more space between words, font size etc.

Please remind me of further developments in your interesting ideas. I like your term "unitemporal now" it describes well my own conception of an essentially timeless universe but where one can compare various states in the causal sequence as as episodes in 'time'.

Best wishes from Vladimir

Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 13:51 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

I find interesting your beautiful universe paper, as well as this essay, both original and well illustrated. I also appreciate that you used as inspiration some of Kenneth Snelson's ideas.

Good luck,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 04:16 GMT

Thank you Cristinel for reading my papers. As you see the ideas therin need a lot of development so I am glad a number of experts in various fields of physics have read them. Indeed I was very interested in Snelson's beautiful experiments with rotating circular magnets - it demonstrated how matter can retain its structure even while each element in it is rotating at a certain spin. I still have to study his electronic models which are beautifully conceived as well.

Vladimir

Matthew Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 19:24 GMT

Vladimir

Beautiful essay, and so many fixes. It IS broke and does need rebuilding, from the ground up.

Matt

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 04:17 GMT

Thank you Matt its been fun writing this essay. Good luck to you.

Vladimir

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 15:16 GMT

Your work is mentioned here

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1383#post_68802

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 01:53 GMT

On Lawrence B. Crowell's page, where the above link leads, I answered:

"Lawrence it give me no joy that the rating system is flawed and that serious competent work by you is rated less than the sort of papers, mine included, that you criticize.

Having said that, I agree with Edwin's responses about your attitude. In a remark above you say that "The solution might in part be under our noses.". But as long as mainstream physicists turn up their noses on anything new however simplistic or amateurishly presented, and stick to ossified concepts enshrined in century-old textbooks, quibbling only on details and footnotes, physics cannot possibly advance. There are many journals, conferences, textbooks and universities open to highly qualified physicists like Lawrence.

It will be nice if he leaves us this fqxi as a forum to express our hopes and dreams and half-cooked ideas for a more coherent less disjointed physics. Ideally the professionals might one day sniff out a good idea or two here that they can develop to their heart's content. Respectfully and with best wishes,

Vladimir"

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 00:34 GMT

Congratulations Vladimir,

I imagine the fact that your essay was fun to read had to be a factor in your becoming a finalist. I wish you luck in the final evaluations.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 03:29 GMT

Thanks Jonathan, yes the 'fun factor' must have played a part in the rating. I just hope I will not be considered merely a sort of jester in the court of physics because, as you know I have serious underlying ideas behind my paper!

On the other hand your remark reminds me once again that I have yet to write a short non-technical description of my Beautiful Universe Theory for the general reader. Good luck to you in the final judging with your excellent essay.

Vladimir

doug wrote on Nov. 3, 2012 @ 11:48 GMT

Hello Vladamir,

Very nice essay.

How is your Japanese?

Have you ever read and considered the implications of the paradigm shift that CIG Theory offers?

www.cigtheory.com

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Nov. 6, 2012 @ 01:24 GMT

Hello Doug

Thanks for your nice remark. "My Japanese" is to Japanese as "my physics" is to physics - problematical!

I looked at your website page which is visually very appealing, and skimmed through your Coney Island Green Theory - a great name by the way. While I can say I do not agree with some of your basic premises - that Space is a product of Matter and Time, for example, yet your approach is not very different from mine in the sense of challenging accepted norms. Your quest for an explanation of how Nature works points to a fundamental unification of the simplest kind - you talk of a single godparticle - perhaps there is one...in my Beautiful Universe Theory everything is made up of just one type of particle - I think that is how it works. The devil, as they say, is in the details.

I recognize the value of thinking and research for their own sakes - also good to distract when things like Sandy struck your Coney Island areas. Good luck.

Vladimir

doug replied on Nov. 7, 2012 @ 02:46 GMT

Hello Vladamir,

Thanks for the comment, and I will try to persuade your thinking here: RE: the basic premises - that Space is a product of Matter and Time, which you currently disagree with.

The equation MTS where M = matter, T = % "c" (and as a forward/reverse vector quantity), and S = Space offers that as matter approaches the speed of light it turns into a new spatial quantity. The "product MT" and as a mathematical equation only works if one uses the quantification (CUPI) offered in the theory.

In other words, the equation is conceptual until the units are defined : (i.e. CUPI, rate of travel, mass [then Spacial quantity may be obtained] or conversely, if decreasing rate of travel is known [reverse vector "T"], again using CUPI, and if a spatial volume is known, the mass may be calculated]). Think: Virtual particles appearing from the vaccuum.

This can be used to calculate red shift anomalies, predict Expanding Universe rates (using stellar masses), etc.

%"c" determines how "dark" matter is. Think crayons here!

I just can't apply the math and don't have time to access all the cosmological data.

Anyhow, maybe I didn't persuade you but it was worth a try.

Enjoy the day.

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Nov. 7, 2012 @ 08:26 GMT

Hi Doug.

Thanks for the explanation. It is not so much that I find your ideas 'wrong' as finding them so different from my own theory's that I am unable to shift gears and give them a proper evaluation. For example I have concluded that time is not a dimension at all in a Universe that exists in a single 'now' state if you like.

Math is not my forte either, but that is no reason why you should not develop and express your ideas in language, as you are doing. The danger here though is that your thoughts may be more precise than the language you use (or vice versa) so that clarity may suffer.

Anyway I wish you luck and have fun.

Vladimir

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Nov. 11, 2012 @ 03:47 GMT

Dear Vladimir Tamari,

As the wave mechanics described in Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe differs, the phenomena of diffraction and interference are also expressional differently.

In this paradigm, the ‘source’ is a group of string-segments in holarchy, with different eigen-rotational frequencies that contributes a wave spectrum observational by a tetrahedral-brane of eigen-rotational string. As time emerges with dimensionality, the state of ‘now’ is expressional with the eigen-rotations of string-segments and in this paradigm, the space-time is discrete rather than continuum, instead the matters are string continuum. Gravity emerges with space and time as a tensor on eigen-rotations of string-segments and not warps space and time.

Thus, fundamental matters are string like structures rather than point like particles and an eigen-rotational string-segment itself is expressional as a quantum of tetrahedral brane, as the quantization of point like photons is not dimensional with wave function collapse.

With best wishes

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Nov. 11, 2012 @ 14:38 GMT

Dear Jayakar

Thank you for your note. I have looked at your essay and website. Regretfully the subjects you deal with are very far from my expertise, understanding or interest (string theory, branes, eigen rotations) or with concepts that I feel are not fundamentally necessary in physics (wave function collapse). Having said that I must say that I understand the thrill of searching for alternative ideas, and sincerely wish you all the best in your research. Enjoy!

Vladimir

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 05:21 GMT

Dear Vladimir Tamari,

You wrote to Vladimir Rogozhin: "You might have faith in Einstein's ontological views - he wanted clarity and logic..but unfortunately he based his physics on imaginative assumptions that have lead to many dead-ends. For example his proposal for a point photon absorbed and emitted as a particle has lead to the concept of quantum probability a mathematical convenience with no physical meaning at all. His concept of a fixed speed of light (c) led to the strange unphysical ideas of flexible space and time and to the cancellation of the ether from nature, an unnecessary and costly detour."

If I recall correctly, you wrote somewhere that Einstein might have arrived at the correct result from wrong premises.

Did you find a flaw in my endnotes?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 21, 2013 @ 02:06 GMT

Thanks Eckard- like you and many others I am struggling to wade through the conceptual mess on which modern physics is based. The ideas you quoted above need to be fleshed out to lead to the same results SR GR and QM have arrived at through torturous routes.

I have responded to your interesting endnotes on your 2013 fqxi essay contest page. Good luck in your research.

Vladimir