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.

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

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

    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

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

    Hi Vladimir,

    聽As an artist your mind is open and critical; it is natural for you to query and present alternate points of view. 聽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.

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

    Regards and good luck - Anton聽

      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

      9 days later

      • [deleted]

      • Post #108

      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 commented mostly about the superstructures, but written hardly anything about short comings of the primary building.

      Do you think if this primary building was constructed properly, with a resilient and a deep foundation, that the superstructures (the derivatives) would have taken to form that they are now? Is it not because the first building was inadequate and did not allow for a continuity of its structure, that other structures have been erected on it haphazardly? From the first derivatives (SRT and QM), second, third, fourth derivatives have come up, and these later order derivatives are trying to unify physics!!

      So where should we begin to Fix Physics? Should we not look at the Problems in Newtonian Foundation of Physics?

      I quote the list of problems from my essay :

      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

      "We may note that among the problematic foundational concepts created by Newton that have congenitally infected RT and QM are a) the primacy of the concepts of space and time, b) representation of bodies as mass-points without internal structure, c) consideration of centrifugal force as a pseudo-force, d) the closed system with the consequent inability to account for inflow and outflow of energy between the system and the field etc. e) Not recognizing that it is by the two quantities of energy (Mc2 and pc) fusing together to form a system that motion occurs. f) the omission of the fact that a fraction of the applied energy of motion pc gets usurped for the co-movement with the location. g) Not developing the theory with state changes of energy as the basis of its physical geometry. With these congenital foundational problems being inherent in these two progeny theories as well, it should be obvious that revamping of physics must begin from where the problems originated".

      I have not only listed out the problems, I have provided some solutions. (I have a lot more solutions to offer which I could not include within the 9 pages of the essay).

      I request you to read my paper and give your comments, if you can find the time for it.

      Best regards,

      Viraj

      • [deleted]

      • Post #109

      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

        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

        6 days later

        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

        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

        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

          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

            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

            • [deleted]

            • Post #118

            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 in Newtonian conceptual framework in the formative stage and how these have spread and morphed into further problems in SRT and QM. People now a days are mostly talking about the morphed derivatives, when the solution is to be found in tackling the Primordial Problems. Also, you will understand my discussion philosophically about Einstein's search for the 'Right Way' patterned on TD, (notwithstanding his own relativity theory).

            First I will brief you about my essay and then I will explain why I need your help.

            The gist of my essay: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

            1. It identifies the PRIMORDIAL Foundational Problems in Newtonian Mechanics (NM) that runs through ALL BRANCHES OF PHYSICS. (Please see the short attachment "Primordial Foundational Problems").

            2. It eliminates the problematic concept of POINT-MASS (common to NM, QM, SRT) to allow internal structure for a particle. This in turn enables to resolve the other interconnected problems.

            3. The result: By taking these two steps, ALL THE EQUATIONS OF SRT are DYNAMICALLY derived by identifying the trignometric relations within the energy-momentum equation, and by restoring Galileo's principle of relativity. (I beg you to have a glance at the attachment - "Geometrodynamics of Energy" to verify this claim). - See also comment by L.B Crowell below.

            4. This achievement will establish that I have not just treated these problems at the level a speculative discussion as in other essays, but that the problems discussed are real by virtue of their solution leading to the unification of NM and SRT (finding an equation which is equally valid for slow and very fast motions).

            Why I need your help:

            1. Although the Topic of the FQXi Essay Contest is about "Which Basic Assumptions are Wrong", you would find that even most of the top 35 essays do not cover these. They either cover one or none.

            2. My essay, http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549, "A Treatise of Foundational Problems of Physics", covers the whole group of PRIMORDIAL foundational errors in the Newtonian Mechanics, which have been inherited by QM and SRT.

            Yet my essay still stands at around the 135th position, (see the Comment attached by the fellow essayist Ben Dribus) with no chances of entering the final...... unless you give it the best rating it deserves.

            So please give some of your valuable time to read and rate my essay. Also, I would appreciate if you would pass this on to others.

            Best regards,

            Viraj Fernando

            ----------------------------------------

            Here is the impartial comment made by Ben Dribus (essayist in no 2 position): "One thing I will say is that it appears as if you made an honest effort to answer the question posed by the essay contest rather than just writing down your favorite ideas about physics. You will notice that I made a similar effort..... I am not sure why it was rated so low, but my impression is that many authors automatically rate other essays low to boost their own standing".

            Here's the comment made by LB Crowell (essayist at no. 20 position): "The calculations I just looked at and they seem alright. ...... Your procedure appears to be some euclideanization of relativity. At the end you arrive at equations which are the same as special relativity".Attachment #1: Primordial_Foundational_Problems.docAttachment #2: GEOMETRODYNAMICS_OF_ENERGY.doc

            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

            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

            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.

              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