Elementary Time Cycles by Donatello Dolce

Frank Wilczek is one of the brightest minds of our time. His ideology very close to me.

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Alden-Repsonse323.pdf

Question of Fundamental Constants

http://ctp.lns.mit.edu/Wilczek_Nature/MassByNum456.pdf

Mass by numbers

Frank Wilczek http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1503#post_66513

On the World numerical recipe

Donatello,

Your internal motion was termed "Zitterbewegung" many years ago, and, many years ago it was speculated that this internal resonance and harmonics theorof were responsible for everything particles do. While this idea is intreguing, I do not recall any advancements that forstered greater predictability then for that of standard quantum mechanics. What are your predicted measures that would superceed quantum measures?

Best Regards,

Tony DiCarlo

Donatello,

Better if you send this letter to Brendan Foster.

Dear Donatello Dolce,

I agree with your essay and look forward to reading your references [1-3,9]. Your model appears to be isomorphic with my model and I am sure that you have developed aspects of it that I will find very relevant. I particularly look forward to your development of the "long chain of exact formal correspondences with ordinary QFT". Also to your treatment of Bell's theorem. As I understand your essay, time is the relevant "non-local" element.

My current essay, The Nature of the Wave Function, does not describe the genesis of particles in my model but assumes the particles already exist and develops the de Broglie wave due to local motion in a gravitational field. If one considers the intrinsic periodicity to be associated with the particle itself (its mass) and considers this to be a fixed quantity (~mc^2), ie, 'rest mass', then there is an *additional* local periodicity associated with kinetic energy. This is the focus of my essay. It relates to the Bohr-Sommerfeld periodicity rather than the Zitterbewegung. [My model supports particle creation and results in the Zitterbewegung, but this is not touched on in my current essay.]

I invite you to read my essay and comment. I may have some questions after I read your arXiv papers.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Jim,

gravity is about clocks. Qunatum Mechanics (de Broglie) says that every particle has a Intrinsic recurrence in time (and space) so that every particle can be regarded as a clock (see Einstein's definition of relativistic clock). Interactions, including gauge interactions, are relativistic modulations of periodicity that can be encoded in local deformations of the metric, just as in general relativity, see arxiv:1110.0315.

Regards,

Donatello

Donatello,

There is a wrong statement in your essay:

"At the beginning of the 19th century experiments suggested that the speed of light was constant. Einstein raised this experimental evidence to a fundamental principle of physics and he derived relativity theory."

No experiments suggested that the speed of light was constant. In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source:

John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev

Dear Yuri,

I have communicated my feedback to Foster. FQXi is one of the few hopes for independent researchers and it is doing a great job. The rigorous application of the scientific criteria is not easy, it requires efforts and time. So far the best solution seems to be the peer-review, though its defects. Must be said that the moderation system (arXiv) or discussion in blogs and forum, at this stage, do not guarantee a sufficient objectivity. But the vote of selected FQXi community members is a nice solution, that for instance could be improved 聽with a blind exchange of scientific arguments with the authors.聽

Best regards,

Donatello

Dear Rony DiCarlo,

the Zitterbewegung was originally introduced by Schrodinger, but symilar ideas were also suggested by de Broglie, Sommerfeld, Dirac, Fermi, etc. It is known that Zitterbewegung provides a semi-classical description of the spin and magnetic momentum of the electron but for instance the harmonic expansion of the trembling motion has never been considered in Zitterbewegung models. If you consider this harminic expansion you can forecast great predictability of quantum behavior, from both a mathematical and conceptual point of view. This is the results of my researches. Another achievement of my theory is a relativistic covariant description of the "Zitterbewegung" in terms of space-time periodicity. My model must not be confused with the zitterbewegung tough fundamental idea is similar.

Best regards,

Donatello

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

just in time I gave you the rate you deserve for your excellent essay.

Best wishes, Ioannis

Thank you Ioannis, your support will help me to carry on my challenging researches.

Regards,

Donatello

You were right. I like it. Periodicity is key. It is interesting to me that Euler's Equation is a solution to so many differential equations and that it can be interpreted as a quaternion ... so by multiplying an arbitrary function by Euler's Equation, you can make that arbitrary equation rotate periodically about the unit vector in Euler .... That is quite a musical instrument in the hands of a skillful musician.

regards,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

Dear Donatello,

I like this article. Using boundary conditions and periodicity leads to great insights. In a talk I will give in two weeks "Global and local aspects of causality" I apply the idea that global effects (in particular boundary effects) may give the appearance of non-local effects in quantum mechanics. In the essay for the present FQXi contest I was interested in something apparently unrelated, singularities in general relativity.

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica

Dear all,

today I passed from the 8th position, then to the 35th, then 13th and now I am at about the 50th position. Whether I will be among the finalist or not seems to be quite random. Again I must point out that the essays should be evaluated by considering the scientific validity of the results rather than the popularity of conjectures.

Best regards,

Donatello

Dear all,

I frankly thynk that the 70th place for my essay is inappropriate. Please vote my essay (though the FQXi server does not respond )because busy)

in a few hours my doughter will born and I am trying to submit posts in this contests...physics is an hard job!

regards,

Donatello

06/10/2012, 11:54 AM: Welcome Lucrezia into this crazy world.