Rethinking the Formal Methodology (I): Wave-Vortex Essence of the Substance by George Kirakosyan

George

Indeed so. The basic logic is very easy to discern (especially if one does not have all the 'baggage'). But then it gets more difficult(!), ie just what can constitute a pysically existent state, which is my phrase to denote that which exists as at any given point in time. We know it is a sequence, because 'it' exists and there is alteration, but what constitutes the 'it'. While that can be generically established (probably with more knowledge), I doubt if we would ever be able to detect it in any given circumstance, because of the speed at which alteration occurs, and the complexity involved in any given circumstance. That is, it is probably impossible to differentiate physical reality to the point where we could defined what occurred as at a point in time, ie the point where there no form of alteration occurred. But that inability should not result in the ditching/overriding of the principles which define how physical reality occurs.

Paul

Your judgment is nice! I would like only remembering you about ,,hiding parameters,, (Einstein, Rosen etc.) We must care that there are natural limits for ours measuring/controlling capability (due to any measuring process assumes transformation some of minimal quantity of energy restricted by nature. The same for sizes) Thus, the ,,material point,, and ,,exactly location,, become here the idealized categories. We just must be ready that in the ,,border,, we will lose any possibility to make real experiments. What we can do then? I suggest building the mental descriptions, by using imaginary objects/actions and causal=logical universal laws (on example of process absorption/radiation of photons in mine work). We will believe that ours models are right (somewhat) if ours conclusions will corresponding with reality (for example, I get the right energy values and closely action times). Moreover, if this system becomes universal and it works in other cases as well (on elementary particles description etc), then we can say that we have understood what is going on actually.

Dear George,

Thanks for your essay, I agree fully with the part 1. Here is a reference about spin of electron in the book The physical theories and infinite nesting of matter. Perm, 2009-2012, 858 p. ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0. I red your article in vixra.org and agree that < interpretation clarifies the physical meaning of de Broglies wave as Doppler Effect arising from movement of Comptons standing wave (elementary particle).> The same is in my book Fizika i filosofiia podobiia ot preonov do metagalaktik. Perm, 1999, 544 pages. ISBN 5-8131-0012-1. You can see also my description of photon model in Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. Galilean Electrodynamics, Spring 2012, Vol. 23, Special Issues No. 1, P. 3 - 13.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Sergey!

Thank you for Responce.

I have open yours articles in VIXRA and I find these intrseting for me.

I fill that we are on the same way. (There are some peuple thinking on the same direction). I will read your works slowly as per find time.

Ya oceniwayu vash trud. Unfortunatelly we are in minority. I hope we will continue talks after.

Best whishes

Hi George,

I found interesting your Essay. I am going to give you an high score.

Cheers,

Ch.

Hi Dr. Corda. Fundamental inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing fundamentally demonstrates F=ma as well. What are your thoughts on this please?My essay (in this contest) proves this.

Thank you very much dear Christian,

Your essay (and many of articles as well as) are impressing by professional level. I have appraised yours work as high with clean hearts.

Best wishes,

George

http://www.polit.ru/news/2012/10/01/fundamentalphysicsprize/

Dear Gevork

Ya postavil tebe 10 ballov

Hi George,

Just read and enjoyed your essay. Modelling the properties of fundamental particles leads to much better understanding and insights into how they work. Thank you for your ref, "Modeling the Electron as a Stable Quantum Wave-Vortex", I also enjoyed that.

Regards and I hope you get a chance to look at my animated models at essay #1306, and I would appreciate any comments.

Ed

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

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

Spasibo!

Jelayu udachi!

George

Thanks for your comment. At the risk of appearing pedantic, and as I tried to convey to Sergey recently, the point is not so much "experiment, logic and quantitative analyze", as such, as this is obvious. It is about what that can be, given our existential circumstance. Reality is manifest, so we are trapped in a loop. But it is manifest independently of the mechanism whereby we know of it, so we can attain objectivity within that loop. And can know of nothing outwith that loop.

The questions then become, given that confine, a) how can reality occur (what must be its essential properties), b) what is the process of detection. Answers, at the generic level, reveal the 'rules of the game'. Reality exists, it has definite form, it is not an abstract concept, and conceptualisations of it need to correspond with it, as manifest, not on the basis of assertion/ belief.

Paul

Yes, dear Paul.

We have defining our = rules of game= i.e. we have building same system of study, and attempting to include into it the known facts/events. The appeasement of our system we defining by its workability, i.e. how many facts and results may be explained in frame of our system (because there is no other criterion of significance). The whole series of results and new opportunities are presented in mine work. Did you read it to end (44 pages)?

Or, did you find any of concretely results (as deduced foundational numbers) in any of work? If yes, kindly let me known.

Regards

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear George,

Nice essay! I agree that there is nothing to be lost (for the science community as a whole) by returning to first principles. There may be something to be lost by the brave researcher who takes this path, but that's a risk that must be taken! I also like your "causal" approach. A few other remarks:

1. You have a good discussion of problems with point particles on pages 4-5.

2. Regarding the "deep confusion of modern physics," I think that a major reason for this is beginning with convenient mathematical models with no obvious relation to physical reality instead of beginning with simple, well-motivated physical principles. I don't mind difficult math; I'm a mathematician myself. But the cart should not come before the horse. The physical principles should come first, and then the math should be whatever is required to do the job!

3. I think your QEF approach is interesting, though it's entirely different from my own attempts... I prefer not to assume a manifold spacetime structure (I see this as a mathematically convenient but physically doubtful assumption). But that's a long story...

I enjoyed reading your paper! Take care,

Ben Dribus

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1589#post_73113