Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at 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


Previous Contests

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

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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

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/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

John-Erik Persson: on 3/13/18 at 18:17pm UTC, wrote Vladimir Federov Thanks for interesting discussions. If you nread this you...

Vladimir Fedorov: on 3/1/18 at 7:34am UTC, wrote Dear Bayarsaikhan, Many thanks for the kind words, interest shown in my...

John-Erik Persson: on 2/28/18 at 14:18pm UTC, wrote Vladimir Fedorov I have read your article. I found it very interesting and...

Steve Agnew: on 2/28/18 at 5:04am UTC, wrote You are from Krasnoyarsk, which I have visited as part of a visit of K-26...

Jonathan Dickau: on 2/26/18 at 22:48pm UTC, wrote This essay is a marvel of wonders Vladimir... There is a lot to like and...

Maxim Khlopov: on 2/26/18 at 10:04am UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, Thank you for interesting ideas of your essay. They are...

Vladimir Fedorov: on 2/26/18 at 8:36am UTC, wrote Dear Jouko, (copy to yours and mine) Many thanks for the kind words...

Vladimir Fedorov: on 2/26/18 at 8:20am UTC, wrote Dear Jouko, (copy to yours and mine) Many thanks for the kind words...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Steve Agnew: "Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 20, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: "Fundamental" means the underlying principles, laws, essence, structure, constants and properties of matter by Vladimir N. Fedorov [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 16:21 GMT
Essay Abstract

The conception «fundamental» means basic. Proceeding from this basis, the properties of the investigated object, the laws of its existence, the structure and interaction with other objects are determined. Fundamental science should be based on the fundamental principles of research, without the use of abstract and ideal concepts. The proposed essay uses the single entity - toroidal gravitational waves (real and observable objects, rather than hypothetical strings), on the basis of which all objects are built. The formation of de Broglie waves and fundamental quantum mechanics is based not on probabilistic, but topological principles and laws of quantum parametric resonance in a nonideal medium of a physical vacuum, from micro to macro scales. All matter in the universe is fractal. In the process of existence of matter, there are continuous quantum parametric processes of its transformation. The fundamental laws of formation of the fractal structure of matter determine the strict topology and hierarchy of the elements of a lot, of neutrino for each other, levels of matter. The essay describes the laws of existence of the fractal structure of matter, which are confirmed by a large number of calculations and observations. The property of formation of gravitational potential well of stability of orbital bodies is connected with the law of inertia and is a fundamental property of all interactions. Orbital bodies are in potential pits of stability of toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie. Therefore, the law of motion of bodies by inertia is also valid for the curvilinear motion of orbital bodies. Therefore, the Newton's law of gravitation cannot be used not only for stars in galaxies, but also for all orbital bodies. The gravitational constant reflects Kepler's third law in the solar system and is not fundamental constant for other planetary systems.

Author Bio

Vladimir Fedorov graduated from the Krasnoyarsk Polytechnic Institute in Russia, the mechanical engineer, the radio engineer, Graduate School Research Institute of Intrascopy in Moscow, devices of non-destructive testing and structural analysis. Vladimir worked in the Siberian Federal University. He has developed the simple and effective device for the detection of gravitational waves and got very interesting results. His current research interests include the foundations of physics, cosmology and the theory of everything. Vladimir lives in Bulgaria and glad to meet with like-minded people for applications.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 09:53 GMT
Hello Vladimir! I will allow myself to speak out about your essay. It is a fairly complete, rich with ideas and computations, a work that deserves high praise. He lacks the principle of the identity of space and matter of Descartes. When Copernicus began to assert that the Earth revolves around the Sun, he had, according to Descartes, to add that along with the Earth around the Sun, the entire circumsolar space rotates. Space is matter, and matter is space. The physical vacuum, which you speak of as a fundamental one, is recognized in new Cartesian physics as a state of physical space in which there are no corpuscles. It recognizes corpuscles itself as stable rotations (vortices) of space. In many respects our thoughts coincide, I will develop them further under the brand of new Cartesian physics. Leave a comment about this on my page.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 11:21 GMT
Hi Boris Semyonovich

Thank you for the good evaluation of my work, in which in your opinion «He lacks the principle of the identity of space and matter of Descartes».

I like your work, which «This essay is devoted to the fundamental problem that modern physics is not solved completely», and which, in fact, is fulfilled within the framework of the metaphysics of Descartes. ...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 20:20 GMT
Djrasthi Prof Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov

Wonderful words.... "Proceeding from this basis, the properties of the investigated object, the laws of its existence, the structure and interaction with other objects are determined. ...... The proposed essay uses the single entity - toroidal gravitational waves (real and observable objects, rather than hypothetical strings), on the basis of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 06:44 GMT
Hi S N P Gupta

Excellent essay about the dynamic universe, it is so close to me.

I completely agree with you, although we use different terms und

I congratulate you on what you have accomplished so far.

Kind regards,

Vladimir Fedorov

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 17:39 GMT
Vladimir,

Nice essay again, very well written for a second (or third?) language. We've agreed on much in the past and I do so again. Not with every detail, but then agreement is not a scoring criteria and all hypotheses should be proffered.

I think and hope you'll like min again, completing a long haul to remove the weirdness from QM, though of course doctrinal physics may take forever to update!

Very well done.

Best of luck in the contest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 06:27 GMT
Dear Peter,

Here we are again all together.

Thank you for the good evaluation of my work.

I like your description to. I enjoyed reading your contribution.

Аgree with Declan Andrew Traill «often correct explanations in Physics turn out to be ridiculously simple».

Vladimir Fedorov

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 09:18 GMT
Vladimir

Thank you. I hope we can work together to advance understanding. It's a massive task. See my posts on Chandra Roychouri's essay. We need more coffins, quickly.

I have a question on gravitational waves for you.

Apart from obvious angular considerations; What is the difference between the variations in G potential from the moon at any one position on Earth?

And are not our seas excellent meters of such G fluctuations? (The tidal flows around the UK are largely moon dependent).

Thanks

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 13:36 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you for the interesting question for all.

«Apart from obvious angular considerations; What is the difference between the variations in G potential from the moon at any one position on Earth?

And are not our seas excellent meters of such G fluctuations? (The tidal flows around the UK are largely moon dependent)».

If we consider the influence of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 19:26 GMT
Vladimir, ...(copied to mine)

Thanks. Interesting. But as a level 1 racing yachtsman I have a logic and direct correspondence between ~13hr tidal periods, spring & neap tides, & sun and moon and can even predict adjustments for wind. I understand your description, which doesn't seem to conflict, i.e. more net gravity with no bodies overhead so less UP vector leaving more DOWN, giving a 180 degree major axis ellipse, but I'd like to understand why you find 'vector summing' doesn't work the same way after allowing for lag, flow momentum and angular influences, which can be major factors. However that wasn't what my question was about.

I'm interested in why & how the motions of larger bodies further away are assumed to be a different case to smaller closer bodies. In my own field a body of mass is a body of mass. All should have the same influence on the magnetosphere, however it's 'described'. Surely there aren't two different 'types' of gravity?

Sure it may be 'detectable' but I suspect they just haven't thought far enough out of the boxes and away from theory so have confirmation bias. i.e. there's no explicit proof of the 'curved space-time' hypothesis in the LIGO finding. Is that fair?

Very best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 14:17 GMT
Peter, ...(copied to you)

You asked:

«I'm interested in why & how the motions of larger bodies further away are assumed to be a different case to smaller closer bodies».

«Surely there aren't two different 'types' of gravity?».

Answer: «there are no two types of gravity».

There is the only remote mechanism in the Universe for forming the force of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 19:10 GMT
Vladimir,

Thanks. I think there'll also be a lot of nonsense about gravity for some time yet. Spending millions on machines to do what we can do simply with closer bodies is perverse, as is 'interpreting' it according to beliefs.

Just to advise I'm now applying scores and yours was was one at the top.

Best of luck

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 17:13 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Very deep critical analysis and deep ideas aimed at overcoming the crisis of understanding in fundamental science. Today, the broadest competition of ideas is needed, especially in cosmology . I would just add an ontological justification (basification) for your conception. In physics, it is necessary to introduce the Ontological standard of substantiation of fundamental theories. Physicists and poets should have a single picture of the Universum as an holistic generating process, filled with the meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E. Husserl).

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir Rogozhin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 12:28 GMT
Dear Vladimir, ...(copied to your)

I completely agree with you.

«In physics, it is necessary to introduce the Ontological standard of substantiation of fundamental theories».

Ontology studies the fundamental principles of the device of being.

The basis of the universe is the physical vacuum. Conceptual physicists believe that space is empty and has ideal properties...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 01:41 GMT
Vladimir,

The fundamental in the universe are elements in two basic phase states: toroidal gravitational waves and photons? True, Any object with mass that accelerates - including spinning and orbiting objects produces gravitational waves. They are small except for neutron stars and black holes that LIGO detects. "All processes in the universe are based on energy circulation." I can understand that toroidal motion produces fusion. All our ideas contribute to one another as do yours. I also agree that "Fundamental science should be based on the fundamental principles of research, without the use of abstract and ideal concepts, and we can't disagree about the power of toroidal gravitational waves. I speak of this as well in my essay. Hope you get a chance to look at mine and compare.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 05:52 GMT
Dear James,

Here we are again all together.

With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of the highest praise.

I am glad for our mutual understanding «most likely will continue to redefine the meaning of fundamental, knowing that scientific knowledge and what we deem the fundamental evolve, requiring constant editing, revision and refinement».

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Bookmark and Share


James Lee Hoover replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 06:30 GMT
Vladimir,

Thank you for taking the time to read my essay.

Bet of luck in the contest.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 11:28 GMT
Dear Vladimir Nikolaevich!

Your approach to necessity of revision of basic concepts and methodology used in modern physics, indeed are remarkable. I can say that I am fully share that "Fundamental science should be based on the fundamental principles of research, without use of abstract and ideal concepts". This is just great!

This demand oblige us to use in our constructions what we really have under our hands, without referring to this or that hypothetical or abstractly-arbitrary essences. Great Newton says "Hypotheses non fingo (Latin:"I contrive no hypotheses.")

But majority of advanced scientists can not do without different kinds of hypnotic things for now, which comes not from experiments or reality, but these coming from their brains and freely working fantasy!

Almost the same demand tried to putting Einstein, however it was defined by the corresponding negative stamp of the "operationalism"!

And the disappointed maestro claimed them the "people with amputated brains!" I am saying this history to show you how is difficult to bring people on the right way, especially when they do not wish listening on this.

You idea of loop gravity (the idea of thoroidal fields) seems to me workable that can brought to concrete results by simplest ways. If you allow me I will say this idea must be generalized applied to the concept of field in whole. I can talk on this matter so long but here is not the right place and right time for detailed examination of everything. Thus, I will only say that your criticism is very right and your efforts to solve fundamental problems also directed on the right way. So, I can wish you only a success!

Best Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 11:54 GMT
Dear George,

Thanks for the kind words.

I also can talk on this matter so long but here is not the right place and right time for detailed examination of everything.

Bookmark and Share



Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 14:23 GMT
Dear Vladimir Nicolaevich,

Thank you for your nice words and appreciation of my submission.

I also have read and appreciated highly your essay.

You are listening well to the "music" of our universe.

I am a proponent of bot LQG and the emerging gravity as treated by Verlinden.

Especially the first is an explanation that can give my own Reality Loops model mathematical background.

The foundational laws of our reality are for now and in the future not attainable I think, but in this contest, you can see that there may be 7 billion approaches.

best regards and good luck to you.

(and thank you)

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 14:19 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus, …(copied to your and mine)

Many thanks warm words about my work and for mutual understanding.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Bookmark and Share



Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 15:55 GMT
Hello Vladimir,

I like your essay (and thanks for looking at mine). I find that the map is not the territory (Korzybski) and the concepts of physics are not the territory of physics. However, the concepts should not be written off...we need them and they keep on changing ...its the way we move from truth to truth. And as you point out the territory is what we are after.

I am going to write a longer response, in a day, but right now I know this is an excellent essay and will vote so.

Thanks,

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 01:04 GMT
Hello again Vladimir,

Your conclusion: Thus, "fundamental" implies the absence in nature of ideal properties of matter and abstract concepts, and also requires a rethinking of the physical essence of phenomenological constants.

I humorously believe that certain things should not be discussed in polite company i.e. politics, religion, sex, and high philosophy.

Phenomenology goes after "the thing in itself". The thing that is beyond attributes. I congratulate your bravery in going after this territory beyond the concepts.

Best of luck in the contest,

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 07:00 GMT
Dear Don,

(copy to yours and mine)

Many thanks for the kind words about my work and for mutual understanding.

Understanding, respect and your advices are highly valued.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Bookmark and Share



Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 16:41 GMT
Vlad,

I'm not sure what to comment regarding your essay. You present many interesting ideas with supporting calculations, but it is hard for me to see the big picture that you are trying to create. I think this is partly the result of your essay attempting to cover too much material. For example, between eq 12 and eq 13, you present the fine structure constant as being the ratio between two successive values in a series. This alone would have been sufficient for the entire essay. The fine structure constant is one of the biggest puzzles in Physics.

In any event, you have given me much to think about.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 07:11 GMT
Dear Gary,

(copy to yours and mine)

Many thanks for the kind words about my work and for mutual understanding.

The understanding and appreciation are highly valued.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Bookmark and Share



austin fearnley wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 18:25 GMT
Thank you for your comments on my essay. I have now re-read your paper.

First, your work on toroidal gravitation is too advanced and unfamiliar for me to follow without spending a lot ot time, though I do like your use of fractal structures. I have picked out a few ideas in your work which stuck a chord with me and which may or may not be useful or relevant.

You mention 'levels'...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 12:20 GMT
Dear Austin,

(copy to yours and mine)

Many thanks for the kind words and interest shown in my work.

I also have read and appreciated highly your essay.

You are listening well to the "music" of our universe.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Bookmark and Share



Branko L Zivlak wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 21:56 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for your interest in my essay.

Regarding the view in your essay.“The gravitational constant reflects Kepler's third law in the solar system and is not fundamental constant for other planetary systems.

In my essay, the opposite view is obtained by my calculations.

„Each planet and star have its final lifetime, but Kepler's laws describing relations between them are eternal. The same applies to Newton's, Maxwell's and Planck's laws ... and the phenomena to which they relate.“ Still, I appreciate your efforts and the opposite views with a good score.

Regards,

Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 13:16 GMT
Dear Branko,

(copy to yours and mine)

Thanks for visiting my FQXi Essay page.

Each of our work is valuable in that it is information for thought.

I do not exclude the fact that the gravitational constant is valid for many stars, for example, for all yellow dwarfs. But I have doubts about other classes of stars, because they are in other quantum states and can reflect other levels of matter with a different gravitational coefficient.

I'm against using the gravitational coefficient everywhere. I proposed a formula for calculating it, to check whether can be used it to the system in question or not.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 03:12 GMT
Dear Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov,

I enjoyed very much your fascinating essay. This year, as last year, we are in agreement about the fundamental nature of gravito-magnetism. You state that:

"The nature of the fundamental elements in the universe can be in two basic phase states: in the form of toroidal gravitational waves and in the form of photons."

It's not clear...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Declan Andrew Traill wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 03:46 GMT
Vladimir,

Thanks for the positive comment on my essay. I have just read your paper, although admit I skipped over much of the detail, but got the general thesis. It is a very interesting paper, and I agree that matter is comprised of vortices held together (in part) by gravity. I think you would be interested in my paper where I model electrons and positrons as 3D Electromagnetic standing waves: http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0054v6.pdf

My wave function solutions could work for any mass plugged in - leading to infinite possible particles, except that my suspicion is that only certain masses lead to just the right amount of wave curvature (due to gravitational bending) to allow stable particles to form. Thus only certain particles can exist. So this bending effect of gravity causes certain energy densities to be able to form stable wave function structures. Also I have long suspected that the Universe may have a fractal nature - the repeated application of simple laws building up bigger and bigger structures, but with a similar appearance at different size scales.

Best Regards,

Declan Traill

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 13:41 GMT
Dear Declan, …(copied to your and mine)

Thanks for the positive comment on my essay.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Bookmark and Share



George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 03:53 GMT
dear Vladimir Nikolaevich

I have finalized study your article, it is really contains many nice points that is close to me, "but here is not the right place and right time for detailed examination of everything" - ценю юмор!

And we are people who strive always doing his duty.

Be well my dear and I wish you succeeded in the contest!

Best regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 07:44 GMT
Dear Vladimir

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 08:28 GMT
Dear Steven,

Thank you very much for writing me a message.

Excuse me for being short-sighted, I refrained from communicating with you after your categorical statement in 2017.

«These topics being prominent in the minds of people, evidences the complexity and fine tuning problem is a most pressing issue confronting our universal awareness. No matter we try, it will not find...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 10:26 GMT
Dear Vladimir

I am traveling tonight and only have my phone with me to write, but I will read and rate your essay when I have the chance. I'll talk to you again then.

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 09:12 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thanks for visiting my FQXi Essay page.

You wrote an interesting Essay, despite it is not conventional. Here are some comments and/or questions:

You wrote that the abstract distortion of space-time is equivalent to a non-ideal medium of the physical vacuum-the variable velocity of propagation of the gravitational fundamental interaction. But, if it is equivalent, how can be also an incorrect use of ideals properties? Equivalent means that we have two ways to interpret a phenomenon and that both of them are correct.

How can you conciliate the gravitational potential due to toroidal gravitational waves which Einstein's Equivalence Principle, which has today a strong empiric evidence and the consequence that gravitational energy cannot be localized?

I appreciate your removing probabilistic behavior of physics with deterministic one.

Beyond your Essay, I am interested on your device for the detection of gravitational waves. Can you give me some detail?

In any case, you wrote a nice and entertaining Essay, deserving an high score.

Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 10:18 GMT
Dear Christian,

(copy to yours and mine)

Many thanks for the kind words, interest shown in my work and for excellent questions.

You wrote: «Beyond your Essay, I am interested on your device for the detection of gravitational waves. Can you give me some detail?»

Brief description of the experiment can be read in my Research notebook «The deterministic gravitational...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Hans van Leunen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 09:27 GMT
The problem with theories that are based on geometric founding structures that are not point-like, is that a mechanism must provide these geometric structures. Point-like objects can be generated by stochastic processes, such as a combination of a Poisson process and a binomial process. The binomial process can be implemented by a spatial point spread function. This mechanism comes already close to the mechanism that produces the wavefunction of objects. The stochastic processes can cooperate to generate more complicated geometric structures.

See: "Stochastic control of the Universe"; http://vixra.org/abs/1712.0243

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 14:06 GMT
Dear Hans, …(copied to your and mine)

Thank you very much for your attention and explanations.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Bookmark and Share



Paul Schroeder wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 15:25 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

I am glad your response to mine directed me to your essay. We agree on many details about the universe, such as the flaw in Newton’s laws as applied to orbiting. Your well written and technical essay is well beyond my education level. It does serve as a challenge for me to at least update my terminology limitations.

Thank you for the very nice comment about my essay. I am learning from yours. If you want to learn more of mine, I have included the principal ideas of the Universe is Otherwise system on the two pages that follow the essay at FQXi. Also My 3 paper summary of ‘The Universe is Otherwise’ is easy reading. It goes well beyond issues addressed here. I can send it to you.

While meeting with you, as proposed is unlikely, I would agree with carrying on communication of our common like-minded thoughts.

Paul Schroeder

Pshrodr8@aol.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 04:53 GMT
Dear Paul, …(copied to your and mine)

Thanks for visiting my FQXi Essay page.

I'm glad that you liked my thoughts. Send your works as you like, you can send it by e-mail fedorovvlad53@gmail.com.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Bookmark and Share



Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 14:51 GMT
Dear Vladimir

(copy to yours and mine)

The understanding and appreciation are highly valued.

If you are aware of more valuable essays don't hesitate to inform me.

best regards

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Brajesh Mishra wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 16:20 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thanks a lot for reading and giving encouraging remarks my submission The Mysterious “Fundamental” (https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2998).

I have tried to understand the new ideas propounded in your essay. Prima acie, they appear out-of-box and impressive. However, to gain a wider audience, I would suggest you to subsequently develop your ideas for people who are from non-science background. I salute the challenge you have taken to swim against the tide.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 10:45 GMT
Dear Brajesh,

(copy to yours and mine)

Thanks for the kind words and advice. «I would suggest you to subsequently develop your ideas for people who are from non-science background».

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Bookmark and Share



corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 19:58 GMT
Mr. Fedorov

I fully enjoyed the way you put things together it and I think further words are useless.

Rate it accordingly.

If you would have the pleasure for a short axiomatic approach of the subject, I will appreciate your opinion.

Silviu

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 04:16 GMT
Dear Corciovei,

(copy to yours and mine)

Many thanks for the kind words about my work and for mutual understanding. The understanding and appreciation are highly valued.

I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Bookmark and Share



Jack Hamilton James wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 21:16 GMT
Thankyou Vladimir,

I appreciate your comments on my essay and I am glad we had a similar approach. I read your current essay and found your claims on Newton very interesting ( from what I could understand as my physics is not as strong as yours ) and will reflect on them further.

Good luck with your latest endeavours into nature and truth.

Best,

Jack

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 04:40 GMT
Dear Jack,

(copy to yours and mine)

Many thanks for the kind words about my work and for mutual understanding.

The understanding and appreciation are highly valued.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Bookmark and Share



Ulla Marianne Mattfolk wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 20:14 GMT
Hi,

I copy my answer on your comment on my essay page https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3093 also here.

Thanks.

Seemed my answer was 'eaten' by the net. I try again.

toroidal gravitational waves is an interesting note. "Orbital bodies are in potential pits of stability of toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie" - What is stability is a fundamental question too. Stability is only found within limits, and I would say it is symmetry protected states. Gravity as the weakest force is also the most longrange one, and in that way the most powerful. It is continous, but also chaotic, give rise to fractals, hence it has forms, often interpreted as Lie Groups etc.

Toroidal forces can also be other than gravitational. They Point to asymmetry, I Think.

The question of a varying G has some evidence. Also g varies on our Earth. The interesting question is what happens in the vacuum, or at its boundary, and what forms our space + time.

I have sometimes thought Newtonian gravity might be a quantum version :) Who knows?

Ulla Mattfolk.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 06:54 GMT
Dear Ulla,

(copy to yours and mine)

Your essay and comments allowed to consider us like-minded people.

Like me, you think about very interesting questions «The interesting question is what happens in the vacuum, or at its boundary, and what forms our space + time».

In my essay it is shown that all the force interactions of the elements of matter are carried out at resonance frequencies of toroidal gravitational waves. In the universe, there is a general grid of resonant frequencies of limiting elements (such as an electron), which synchronizes all quantum parametric processes), so time is a derivative of the period of synchronous resonance frequencies and cannot be distorted.

It is known that on the surface of the flat bodies there is Casimir effect, which, as I explain, is associated with the presence of turbulent gravitational shell and large gradient of the gravitational potential.

The bodies are attracted to each other on the Earth because there is a turbulent gravitational shell near the surface of the Earth.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Bookmark and Share



Anil Shanker wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 01:43 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for the work you have been doing on "Archeology (archectonics) of consciousness", which I consider very meaningful. People look upon metaphysics as a lowly science. But as you quote E. Schrodinger: Metaphysics is transformed in physics in the process of development. There is a long way for us to go to crystallize the fine workings of nature, which I believe is nothing but a combinatorial output of several domains of activity at the level of cognition, sublime consciousness, supramolecular biological and cosmic organization, and fundamental driving forces.

I hope to continue to work together on understanding these aspects in a holistic manner further. With the teamwork, I am sure one day we will grasp and unravel these layers for the benefit of humanity and supreme consciousness/absoluteness.

Best regards,

Anil

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jouko Harri Tiainen wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 15:07 GMT
Vladimir!

Well I have to say toroidal gravitational waves sounds like a super interesting idea -- after reading your paper I have to say it is smashing. So much information and detail (almost an overload of information and diagrams and graphs) about ideas and concepts that are very foreign to my way of thinking.

I have some "overarching" questions -- does your model indicate the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 08:20 GMT
Dear Jouko,

(copy to yours and mine)

Many thanks for the kind words about my work and for mutual understanding.

The understanding and appreciation are highly valued.

I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.

«I'm happy that maybe you are on the threshold of some new discovery.

So by reinterpreting the Born Rule, as probabilities |Ψ|2 or (Ψ*Ψ) then the wave-functions of the ket *i and bra i* states respectfully, give us enough mathematical elbow room to accommodate both Relativity and Quantum mechanics in one scheme».

«Current maths thinking only uses "one" encoding side -- the complex conjugate of the

Bookmark and Share


Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 08:36 GMT
Dear Jouko,

(copy to yours and mine)

Many thanks for the kind words about my work and for mutual understanding.

The understanding and appreciation are highly valued.

I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.

«I'm happy that maybe you are on the threshold of some new discovery.

So by reinterpreting the Born Rule, as probabilities |Ψ|2 or (Ψ*Ψ) then the wave-functions of the ket *i and bra i* states respectfully, give us enough mathematical elbow room to accommodate both Relativity and Quantum mechanics in one scheme».

«Current maths thinking only uses "one" encoding side -- the complex conjugate of the a+ib| side -- to obtain areas. Basically in current maths thinking there is only z=a+ib, with zero=0+i0. We can devise a different set of complex numbers z=a-ib with zero=0-i0. And both can be related to the area of the imaginary unit, to obtain a new dual mathematics».

As a radio engineer and mechanic, I highly appreciate the idea of a new interpretation of complex numbers.

In a couple of days, I'll try to answer some of your questions.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Bookmark and Share



Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 22:42 GMT
Dear Vladimir Fedorov,

I totally agree with you as saying that "Fundamental" means the underlying principles, laws, essence, structure, constants and properties of matter.

I understood that your idea is based on nonideal medium of a physical vacuum.

Exactly the medium is the most fundamental for reality of the Nature.

My first question, would you describe it more clearly?

Is that similar at that https://www.intechopen.com/books/selected-topics-in-applicat
ions-of-quantum-mechanics/physical-vacuum-is-a-special-super
fluid-medium

In other words, the medium is an invisible perfect fluid similar the Aether, or not?

How do the fractal structure of matter physically come from the medium?

That is very interesting for me, “The matter of the fundamental elements in the universe can be in two basic phase states: in the form of toroidal gravitational waves and in the form of photons.”

For the one mentioned above by you, If one assumes the space as an invisible perfect fluid with critical speed of c (the light speed), a single photon may exist in form of a vortex ring of the invisible perfect fluid. More strictly speaking, a single photon may exist in form of Chaplykin Lamb dipole of the invisible perfect fluid whose only speed of free motion is to be c, there is no way to move at a speed more or less than the critical speed of c.

Regarding the annihilation of electron and positron, electron and its antiparticle, may exist in form of a bubble of the invisible perfect fluid.

Therefore, there must exist continuous deformation between the vortex ring (photon) and the bubble (electron or positron). Mathematically, there are two homeomorphic spaces share the same topological properties.

The Best Regards,

Ch.Bayarsaikhan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov replied on Mar. 1, 2018 @ 07:34 GMT
Dear Bayarsaikhan,

Many thanks for the kind words, interest shown in my work and for excellent questions.

The questions on the forum help to identify topics that I did not explain well enough in the essay.

You write: «I understood that your idea is based on nonideal medium of a physical vacuum».

Non ideality of the medium of the physical vacuum is a key concept....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Maxim Yurievich Khlopov wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 10:04 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for interesting ideas of your essay. They are very stimulating and deserve high estimation.

With the best regards

M.Yu.Khlopov

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 22:48 GMT
This essay is a marvel of wonders Vladimir...

There is a lot to like and approve of in this essay, and some of what you write is both inspired and inspiring, while I see a few other things as curious, suspicious, or just plain wrong. I think part of what is erroneous comes out of an attempt you make to force fit your work with pieces of the mainstream thought that are off target or incompatible with the way you have framed your ideas.

Matter and the universe as fractal? I have no problem with that; in fact I like it a lot. Toroidal gravity waves contributing to particle structure? After seeing Alexander Burinskii talk at FFP15; I know exactly how or why that might work. Even the pieces about an EM drive don't phase me. I've seen some proof of concept demonstrations, so I know it's not out of the realm of possibility.

But I feel as though you have fed me a salad of mixed greens rather than a meal. And you have given folks a mixture of profound truths with some falsehoods or obfuscation, in the style of Bob Frissell's book "Nothing in This Book Is True, But It’s Exactly How Things Are." I too have hung out with New Age folks, and I had to listen to quite a few mainstream Physics talks, before I learned how to present offbeat ideas to scientists.

I am still learning.

Warm Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Feb. 28, 2018 @ 05:04 GMT
You are from Krasnoyarsk, which I have visited as part of a visit of K-26 for an accident evaluation. But now you are in Bulgaria. Your essay is very good, but only algebraic and not calculus and a fundamental theory must deal with calculus and not just algebra.

There is a logic to what is called operator algebra and that is the essence of what is indeed fundamental, but you intuition is truly amazing. Do continue in your quest to understand what is fundamental...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 28, 2018 @ 14:18 GMT
Vladimir Fedorov

I have read your article. I found it very interesting and informative.

Best regards from ______________ John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John-Erik Persson wrote on Mar. 13, 2018 @ 18:17 GMT
Vladimir Federov

Thanks for interesting discussions. If you nread this you may be interested in my last blog at:

blog

Best regards from _________________ John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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