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

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

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/discusswinners

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

sherman jenkins: on 5/18/20 at 0:48am UTC, wrote Boris: I agree with your basic approach.  The Universe is composed of...

John Crowell: on 5/17/20 at 20:26pm UTC, wrote Hello Boris. I appreciated your essay and it’s generalization of physics...

Lachlan Cresswell: on 5/17/20 at 7:14am UTC, wrote Dear Boris Semyonovich, I wrote a long comment sometime ago which...

Pavel Poluian: on 5/16/20 at 10:17am UTC, wrote Dear Boris Semyonovich! We just read your text. We think your essay is...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 5/12/20 at 8:32am UTC, wrote Dear Boris, I read with great interest your essay with very important...

James Hoover: on 5/11/20 at 6:21am UTC, wrote Actually I rated it on the 17th of April. Sorry. Jim

James Hoover: on 5/11/20 at 6:19am UTC, wrote Dizhechko, I have commented on you essay but discovered I have not rated...

Branko Zivlak: on 5/6/20 at 16:20pm UTC, wrote Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyenovich Many people think that vortex is the...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "Hi Stefan, I hope that a good leader, and a good political party, is..." in The Present State of...

Lorraine Ford: "We live in an age of computing. But physics, mathematics and philosophy,..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "I've copied the comment to the thread where it belongs. This orphan can be..." in The Room in the Elephant:...

Georgina Woodward: "Invalid because what M.I sees first, as a novel being, does not qualify as..." in The Room in the Elephant:...

Georgina Woodward: "Perhaps the idea of consciousness causing collapse is being overthought? ..." in Consciousness and the...

Georgina Woodward: "Thank you John. What did you think about the questioning whether altitude..." in The Nature of Time

John Cox: "Sorry, Georgina, I have had a busy summer and am racing the change of..." in The Nature of Time

Jim Snowdon: "If the Earth did not have it`s rotational motion, the apparent time of day..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

Can Choices Curve Spacetime?
Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.


FQXi FORUM
September 27, 2021

CATEGORY: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020) [back]
TOPIC: The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics. by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Jan. 13, 2020 @ 16:42 GMT
Essay Abstract

The Neo-Cartesian generalization of modern physics on based the principle of the equivalence of space - matter of Descartes makes her the theory of everything. This reveals: 1) Heisenberg's inequality becomes an expression of the principle of certainty of points of space-matter, 2) The formula of equivalence of mass-energy arises as a result of the flow of forces from the Universe through the surface of the corpuscle, equal to the product of the Planck constant on the speed of light, 3) The existence of the connection of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of States of corpuscles, 4) Determination of the mass of the corpuscle through the flow of centrifugal acceleration of the rotating space, etc..

Author Bio

Dizhechko Boris Semyenovich – independent researcher, the author of the new Cartesian generalization of modern physics E-mail: fizika3000@yandex.ru Lenin prospect 85, Apartment 16, City of Sterlitamak, Bashkortostan, Russia The specialist on measuring devices.. The independent Investigator on fundamental questions of physics Education higher Employment history - 40 years Expert in instrumentation, he worked in the laboratory of plasma chemistry of NPO Technology, graduated from the Sterlitamak pedagogical University as a teacher of mathematics currently is a Russian pensioner, has published more than 25 articles in well-known open access journals, in which he outlined the basic principle of the New Cartesian Physics.

Download Essay PDF File
Note: This Essay PDF was replaced on 2020-03-25 15:21:54 UTC.

Bookmark and Share


Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Jan. 17, 2020 @ 08:04 GMT
The new Cartesian generalization of modern physics proceeds from the principle of the identity of space and matter of Descartes, according to which space moving, as it is matter. According to Descartes, in the world there is nothing but vortices, and these swirls of space create our world, thanks to which we exist. The rectilinear motion of space, in the form of the so-called inertial systems,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share

Manfred U.E. Pohl replied on Jan. 26, 2020 @ 15:59 GMT
Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyenovich,

as promised i reply here to comment on your essay. Basicly i argee to the last conclusion "space is the body of God we live in" to be something very general description, but in my essay i describe time to be the origin for space to evolve from. So it seems we are "opponents" with our claims.

There are some differences in our views:

in contrast to your (and most any work) my work arise from a definition of time accepting Einstein A. 1905 work on simultaneity in all its "radical" aspects to advance to a "geometric" concept of time that in effect then unveils a wrong "dimension" we use today for the planck's constant. Whilte today Plancks constant is treated as Joule*second (which is meter^6/second^4 in my set of dimension) my finding suggest it must be kilogramm^-1 * second (which is second^4/meter^4 in my set of dimension).

Following from this i can agree to the concept F = ch/ (4 pi r^2) if i use the Plancks constant in the "todays" dimension.

The final reasoning you do on how to describe mass leads to an identical treatment of the gravitational constant as i use in my work. So it seems logical to me.

But the different dimension of Plancks constant in our models i guess lead to the fundamental difference between our models (Descartes vs. Newton)

- you argue space to be the first matter in Universe (i think (space) = action, i am (time) = reaction)

- i argue time to be the first matter in Universe (Time = action, space = reaction)

Descartes vs Newton may be some kind of never-ending Bohr vs. Einstein...

Best regards, Manfred

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Domenico Oricchio wrote on Jan. 19, 2020 @ 17:59 GMT
Thank you, Dzhechko for the interest in my essay.

I ask you some questions:

You try to unify special relativity and quantum mechanics, so what is the difference with the Dirac equation, or Klein-Gordon equation?

What is the answer you give to undecidability, uncomputability, and unpredictability?

I've been busy, so I haven't read my emails for some days.

In general I take a few days when all the essays have been published to read them all calmly, and in depth; so as not to dissipate my time.

Domenico

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Boris Dzhechkj replied on Jan. 24, 2020 @ 19:10 GMT
Dear Dominico Oricchio, a hairdresser, is it not enough for you that a neocartesian generalization of modern physics has revealed a connection between the Lorentz factor and the probability density of atomic states, and also explained the formula of masses - energy of equivalence by the existence of pressure of the Universe on a corpuscle? Already these two facts are the greatest achievements of neocartesian physics, based on the identity of space and matter of Descartes. In order to continue to talk with you, you must show that you have acquired this identity and realized that space is matter, and it moves, since it is matter. And then we’ll talk about the Dirac and Klein – Gordon equations. I think that this will not be soon. All the best to you!

Boris Dizhechko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alireza Jamali wrote on Jan. 22, 2020 @ 22:20 GMT
Dear Dizhechko,

Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.

Although I find your essay interesting and creative, I have fundamental problems with it. In general -as you understand from my essay- I prefer not to base my theory on quantum mechanics, especially something as vague as Heisenberg Uncertainty.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Jan. 29, 2020 @ 02:23 GMT
Dear Alireza Jamali, a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics excludes from it a probabilistic description of physical processes. As a result of applying the identity of Descartes' space and matter, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle takes on the opposite meaning, i.e. becomes the principle of definiteness of points of physical space, which is matter.

               Boris Dzhechko

Bookmark and Share


Antoine E Pinnock wrote on Jan. 23, 2020 @ 14:59 GMT
In defining mass, matter and energy the concept or movement and constant relocation us definitely important.

Here is will use some quick concept to illustrate this point. I was trying to write this all quickly but as connected as possible.

Throughout human history, mankind has always gazed up at the night sky, in amazement, mesmerized by the elegance of the moon and an endless ocean...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Jan. 29, 2020 @ 15:29 GMT
Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyenovich,

Despite I disagree with various claims of your Essay, in particular with the issue that the Neo-Cartesian generalization of modern physics is the theory of everything, I find your Essay interesting and pleasant. Therefore, I am going to give you an high score. Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Mar. 23, 2020 @ 19:40 GMT
Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyenovich,

FQXi.org has allowed me to upload an updated version of my essay Why Can’t Y’all See The ONE Thing I See? because of the change in the competition submission date. I would appreciate it if you could find the time to read my updated version and perhaps leave a comment about it.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 25, 2020 @ 15:21 GMT
Dizhechko Semyonovich re-uploaded the file Semyonovich_The_transformat.pdf for the essay entitled "The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics." on 2020-03-25 15:21:54 UTC.

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 5, 2020 @ 18:12 GMT
Dizhechko,

Thanks for your comment and appreciation of my essay. I'd dowmloaded yours already as I recalled we've had good agreement in the past. I've now read it, and still love your approach. We agree from the most fundamental level of condensed matter as vortices, which I agree opens up a world of better understanding.

Much of your model is more difficult to understand, so I appreciate why you included the formulations. You're right that many won't like that, and also your mention of a TOE without additional support, and even the mention of 'god' seems to put many off! The repeated paragraph also ma not help, but it's an important one! Your present low score reflect those, but rest assured I have no such prejudices so my score will help get it up where it belongs.

I note we also both found our dynamics on non-linearity. I assume by the way you agree our 'new foundations' are compatible, which I find encouraging for us both.

Very well done.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Robert Wilson wrote on Apr. 6, 2020 @ 07:31 GMT
Dear Boris,

I read your essay with great interest. The idea that space *is* matter is one that I have been playing with for some time, although my mathematical approach is somewhat different from yours. I find that in order to describe matter fully, I need both 4-dimensional spacetime and 4-dimensional momentum-energy, to make an 8-dimensional `reality'. Then in order to describe measurements, interactions and so on, I need two copies of 8-dimensional reality, multiplied together to give 64 dimensions which contain all the possible measurements and interactions. Translating the Dirac equation into this language enables me to show that mass *is* space in a precise mathematical sense, which then relates closely to the general relativistic conception of mass as curvature of spacetime. Most of this is not in my essay, as it is not really relevant to the topic of this year's competition, but you can find some of my conclusions there, along with a more philosophical and less mathematical supporting argument.

Robert Wilson.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Robert Wilson replied on Apr. 9, 2020 @ 06:57 GMT
Dear Boris,

Thank you for your comments on my essay. My reply is as follows:

"I did not intend to imply that "spacetime" is separate from "matter". The two are simply different aspects of the same thing. But I do need spacetime and not just space, because the mathematics that I use does not permit the separation of time from space in general. This separation only arises when we take the point of view of a particular observer, at which point we have a fixed definition of time, and therefore a fixed definition of mass. All the forces that deal with fixed mass (electromagnetism and gravity, and maybe also the strong force, depending on your interpretation) then crystallise out. But the weak force is different, because it does not preserve mass, and therefore does not preserve time. That is the real reason why I need spacetime and not just space - without a unified spacetime, I cannot explain the weak force."

More fundamentally, I believe the central issue is to explain spin 1/2 particles from a Cartesian point of view. The standard approach to quantum mechanics creates an abstract "spinor" from 2 complex numbers, which unfortunately has no Cartesian reality. This spinor arises from the double cover of the rotation group of space, and therefore does not mention time. I believe this is wrong, and that spin cannot be explained without invoking time. Now in 4-dimensional real spacetime there is room to put a 2-dimensional complex spinor, and therefore give a physical reality to an abstract spinor. At this point we have a "realist" model of quantum mechanics, rather than the standard "magical" model. A fundamental particle of matter is then the same thing as a fundamental piece of spacetime. But I do need spacetime, not just space, in order to do this.

Robert.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Apr. 6, 2020 @ 08:57 GMT
Respected Professor Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich,

Thank you for presenting a wonderful essay here!

You did not explain the various abbreviations used in your equations. Any way I could get the concept, no problem. Lorentz transformation does not lead your theory into Blackhole singularity i suppose.

your words....... According to Descartes, in the world there is nothing but vortices, and these swirls of space create our world, thanks to which we exist..... are well written!!

René Descartes found that he himself must be real (exist), because he felt that he was thinking; and if he was thinking, then he must be real. This is because if he were not real, then how would he have this feeling that he was thinking. He shortened this view, saying in Latin, "Cogito ergo sum," meaning "I think, therefore I am."

Please read my essay and give your comments also. I hope we will go into collaboration in near future... By the way I rated your essay the best...

Best reagrds

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Apr. 7, 2020 @ 01:53 GMT
Dear Prof Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich,

Thank you for your nice response .

I did not understand why you want so many trillions of infinities (BHs)in every centers of rotations..... I want to know your points of view

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Apr. 8, 2020 @ 16:49 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta, I don’t have “many trillions of infinities (BHs) in every rotation center ....”. At the center of rotation, speed reaches the speed of light, and that’s all I could say. I praised your model of a dynamic universe.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Apr. 9, 2020 @ 08:12 GMT
Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyenovich,

I appreciate your aspirations to the fundamentals of building fundamental theories:

“According to Descartes, in the world there is nothing but vortices, and these swirls of space create our world, thanks to which we exist”.

“New Cartesian physics provides the Foundation for building fundamental theories. This Foundation is built on the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes”.

Despite the use of different terminology, we are talking about the same thing in the dispute of Descartes vs Newton.

Best regards,

Vladimir N. Fedorov

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 15, 2020 @ 18:03 GMT
Dizhechko,

Does this 2006 neuroscience study predate & influence your ideas?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01678
76006002108. How about the quantum brain? Does this fit into your ideas?

Considering that orthodox quantum mechanics seems to make a lot of assumptions, I can't fault your Neo-Cartesian ideas. I can't pretend to understand the repercussions of treating physical space as matter and vortices created by the formation of mass in space. It is an interesting concept.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover replied on Apr. 17, 2020 @ 21:07 GMT
Dizhechko,

In relooking at my Carlo Rovelli Reality is not what it seems book, you don't specify loop quantum gravity, but I am wondering if you are advocating that concept?

I am adding your 11th rating, specifying it due to someone who rates a 1 for many of us.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michael muteru wrote on Apr. 28, 2020 @ 20:04 GMT
nice foundational mathematics you have my vote especially on Cartesian physics well done. how about questioning the role and significance of us humans to a science that defined Nature-physics ?read/rate/discuss the role of anthropic bias in science here https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.will gladly appreciate any input.thanks

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Schroeder wrote on May. 5, 2020 @ 15:30 GMT
Boris S. Dzhechko

I like your paper, being attracted by your intense focus on Descartes and whirlpool swirls. We both see space as introduced by Descartes.

Science took a step backward when his swirl of space theory was overcome by Newton’s gravity model. Newton needed an emptiness of space to avoid friction. I further develop that perspective to explain local spatial events. Your paper follows this swirl both for the whole universe and for a point. The radius of curvature is the de Broglie wavelength, which becomes infinitely large when the speed decreases to zero and infinitely small but not equal to zero, when the speed of light is reached. Beyond that you include Heisenberg and Lorentz.

Your paper connects to mine under Einstein’s mass energy equivalence as you follow it with the pressure of space is the cause of all movements occurring in the real world. I connect with gravity that pushes and its source is EM radiation everywhere. In that way space is matter.

We agree in a more detailed view that ‘in the world there is nothing but vortices, and these swirls of space create our world, thanks to which we exist’. We can follow each other’s papers in GSJ and/or hopefully help each other here.

Paul Schroeder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Branko L Zivlak wrote on May. 6, 2020 @ 16:20 GMT
Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyenovich

Many people think that vortex is the cause of mass:

"in new Cartesian physics a corpuscle is a stationary vortex, ..."

I also agree, but where is the prediction.

For example, your last mass formula. How can you use it to calculate the mass of a proton or neutron if you know the masses and radii of the components (up and down quark)?

Regards,

Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on May. 11, 2020 @ 06:19 GMT
Dizhechko,

I have commented on you essay but discovered I have not rated it yet. Time grows short so I am now rating it, being your 14th rating. My reason for mentioning this is that many ratings are 1s or 2s w/o comments. I remember I enjoyed reading your essay a few weeks ago.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover replied on May. 11, 2020 @ 06:21 GMT
Actually I rated it on the 17th of April. Sorry.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on May. 12, 2020 @ 08:32 GMT
Dear Boris,

I read with great interest your essay with very important alternative ideas aimed at overcoming the “troubles with physics” caused by the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of fundamental science. But I cannot agree with some ontological ideas. My main conclusion from your essay: if the scientific programs of Descartes and Newton developed simultaneously in constant competition with the necessary financial and social-scientific support, then I believe that television would have appeared in the 19th century. I wish you continued success in your search for truth and a deeper insight into philosophical ontology in accordance with the philosophical-scientific program that Carlo Rovelli outlined in article Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics .

With kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pavel Vadimovich Poluian wrote on May. 16, 2020 @ 10:17 GMT
Dear Boris Semyonovich!

We just read your text. We think your essay is great!

All perfectly.

We wish you success!

Truly yours,

Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

Siberian Federal University.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lachlan Cresswell wrote on May. 17, 2020 @ 07:14 GMT
Dear Boris Semyonovich,

I wrote a long comment sometime ago which disappeared when I hit the submit button. I was tired and decided to make another comment later, but now I cannot remember what point I wanted to make, except that your home town Sterlitamak looks very nice from internet pictures!

I believe in a very simple ontology: two intimately connected types of particles, both with volume and simple force properties. One particle creates space (as in the aether) and the other particle is the building block for matter. Thus I use only 3D space, and whatever other dimensions one thinks is useful (such as relative time and absolute time, or maybe such as energy density). I have developed such a theory which can now provide a better model of particles than the Standard Model, using only 3 quantum numbers and a special use of Cartesian vortices!

However my essay is about the 3 un's as I experienced them throughout my physics journey over the last 20 years.

Good luck Boris!

Lockie Cresswell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John David Crowell wrote on May. 17, 2020 @ 20:26 GMT
Hello Boris. I appreciated your essay and it’s generalization of physics from the equivalence of space-matter. The question to me is: how does space become its equivalent of matter and how does matter become its equivalent of space? In my essay I have some ideas for you to consider. In the appendix I describe the conversion of chaos to matter -2.213568x10^31 C*s to 1SSCU-. In this conversion the C*s become a vortex that becomes Planck actions which become the space, time, mass, speed, direction variables/relationships that become the forms and functioning of the spherical SSCU. As shown in the body of the essay, the 5 variables/relationships scale-up to become the physical universe, its physical contents and their moving and changing, etc.. Einstein kept the speed of light constant in his work. You are keeping space-matter equivalent which means in my theory that the the speed, time, direction variables/relationships must change in accordance to keep the space/matter variables/relationships equivalent. My essay contains 5variables/relationships that produce a stable sphere that scales up to become the physical universe and its contents. You may find it interesting to try the C*s to SSCU transformation with its five variables in your work. Also you may want to review my posting on Vladimir Fedorov’s essay. I would appreciate your comments on these thoughts and my essay. John.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


sherman loran jenkins wrote on May. 18, 2020 @ 00:48 GMT
Boris:

I agree with your basic approach.  The Universe is composed of one fundamental substance-charge.  Higgs charge.  This charge fills the Universe and is under tremendous pressure.  In response to the pressure the charge assumes a pattern of motion in sync with all surrounding charge.  This pattern of motion you may call a vortex.  Synonymous with the Higgs field this charge in motion has mass.  Dark Matter,  Mass that we do not normally notice as there is equal amounts in all directions; but it does compress a bit in response to concentrated energy (seen as displaced bits of charge=normal mater.)    

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.