Thank you James for your kind words. I will proceed to read your paper!
Good luck in the contest and elsewhere.
Vladimir
The Micro Structure of the Universe Explains How it Works, How We Think, Our Physics, & the Tricky Effectiveness of Mathematics in That Physics. by Vladimir F. Tamari
9 days later
Vladimir,
A beautifully written, direct, important, on topic and compelling analysis of the role and limitations of mathematics. I also agree your content, including the extended reductionist approach. I'm now entirely convinced the Planck limit is only the limit in the EM domain, but that there are also recursive hyperfine states. I've found a tranche of solutions emerge. I hope you'll see my short video using real physical models
9 min VIDEO; Time Dependent Redshift (etc).
...as well as read my essay, which I'm sure you'll also like and agree with.
Unlike some it seems, it matters not that our present scores are close and yours from me will be appropriately high for scoring well against all criteria.
Best of luck in the contest
Peter
Dear Vladimir,
I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.
All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.
Joe Fisher
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you ever so much for your comment.
Reality is not in the least confusing. Do you have a real complete skin surface? Does the room you are presently in have a real complete floor, ceiling and walls surfaces? Does every object in the room have a real complete surface? Does everything you have ever seen have a real complete surface? Have you never noticed that no matter in which direction you look, you will only ever see a plethora of partial surfaces that meld seamlessly into one surface?
Obviously, you do not need to know anything about abstract mathematics and abstract physics in order to be able to see real surface. Do you have a real sub-surface that contains your brain and heart and skeleton? Does not every animal?
Joe Fisher
Thank you dear Peter for your kind remarks. As I commented on your page I find you have many interesting ideas. The video presented them rather too fast to be understood properly. But that is more than I have done for my own ideas - I have to make a video presentation of my own.
Dear Joe I rather like your concept of surfaces melding everywhere. That is a very visual and very observer-centered concept. Now I understand what you are saying better. Einstein in Special Relativity made everything observer-centered, and sacrificed the concept of a variable speed of light to justify that. I think that was a mistake. The mathematics of an absolute Universe with Lorentz transformations with a variable speed of light of maximum c is equivalent, but closer to reality.
Cheers
Vladimir
4 days later
Dear Vladimir,
Further to your comments on my page, I very much appreciate your work (and your initiatives) and happily provide the following feedback as requested. The starting point to notice is that my own work is focussed on making small gains in areas where my intuition bristles -- versus the extraordinary breadth of your work -- so I am not qualified to comment in detail.
In essence we have physicist/artist (the sky is the limit) meets engineer/mathematician (my planes must land safely). Broadly, however:
1. It is nicely clear to me that we are both committed local realists. I therefore welcome the full paragraph in your BU essay (p.27 in Ref #3 of the above essay) that begins: "In (BU) all of these suppositions reduce to this simple scenario: the two photons emitted by the same atom start out in opposite directions having identical polarization, which is retained intact when they arrive at the sensors at their respective distant locations. ... ."
However, as you'll see in my essay -- equations (27)-(28) -- polarised photons give (in theory and in practice) an expectation E(AB | C1) equal to one-half of that for E(AB | Q1). For this reason you need to distinguish the correlations that apply in "my classical experiments" versus the more highly correlated quantum experiments. See the sub-paragraph at the end of my para. #A4.5.
Thus, with the generalisation that I propose in one unified experiment (citing the correct form of correlation in each case), your local-realistic conclusion goes through. Further, the associated analysis employs little more the high-school maths and logic: so this section of your BU essay can be readily corrected and THEN your beautiful diagrams can be used to illustrate your case (in this instance) for local realism.
2. In the above way (it seems to me), you need to check that your other generalisations are correct and that you address any mainstream objections by relating your work to experiments, wherever possible. Otherwise small niggles like mine will distract the reader from the breadth of your proposal.
You might be better writing smaller (and beautifully illustrated) essays on specific topics: so that specialists are motivated to respond in detail to your focussed and detailed claims; you can then address them essay by essay.
3. In relation to your 2015 FQXi-essay, there is again much that we agree about. It certainly serves as a beautiful introduction to your work. Thus, supporting your positive views, the focus of my 2015 FQXi-essay was to let Nature do the talking; to thereby eliminate the "hodgepodge" of explanations and tricks that abound in the Bellian literature; especially any to do with nonlocality!
In the same way you have additional segments where Nature does the talking; segments that I suggest be expanded into single essays on viXra.org; etc.
4. In short: I am delighted to be acquainted with your work (see email).
With best regards; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.
Dear Vladimir,
Thanks for your highly illustrative essay.Your advertent resort to the "Beautiful Universe Theory" as a means of approximating the nexus between mathematics and physics reminisces a high sense of empiricism. More so; as you did not allow the bankrupcy of "unified theories of the two subjects to becloud your analysis.
Keep on flourishing.
Lloyd Tamarapreye Okoko.
5 days later
Vladimir,
I owe you an apology -- I made a lengthy reply on my own forum some time ago in response to your post, and didn't refer back to your essay.
Please allow me to correct that, and cast my high vote for your effort, before the contest closes.
Thanks, and best wishes,
Tom
Dear Lloyd, Thomas and Gordon
Thank you so much for your kind and interesting remarks and essays. I have been recently distracted by other matters and will re-read your comments and essays and respond accordingly.
Kind regards and best wishes,
Vladimir
Thank you Tom for your kind words on your page about my work and graphics. Here is what I responded:
I do understand and respect how science works and am puzzled why you think I do not ! You quote from my Beautiful Universe theory which, as I stated at the outset, is an incomplete and speculative model of how the universe might work. I know I have not treated my ideas mathematically but I have certainly thought out their physical implications. For example in an absolute discrete universe in which signals travel at a maximum of c but at slower rates in regions of higher potential, moving meter sticks get shorter and moving clocks tick at a slower rate, not space and time as dimensions distort. Hence a physics bypassing SR and GR is possible. I did not yet prove it mathematically, but it certainly played out from physical arguments I expressed in words and figures.
The math can be added later but the physical ideas have to come first. That is how Einstein worked - he thought of the weightlessness of a falling man, and it took him (and Grossman) 10 years to clothe the idea mathematically into his General Relativity theory of gravity. I do not see what the problem is with my how I do physics - ideas first and the math to be detailed later.
In no way do I downplay the importance of mathematics in describing physical ideas. In my fqxi essay I try to show why it can describe physics at its own level so well. What I do object to (the tricky part) is that mathematics is so prodigious it can also describe scenarios that have no parallel in Nature. Kepler's ellipses yes, Ptolemy's epicycles no. Both described the same phenomena - is it wrong for me to say we must choose the scenario that is closer to how nature actually works?
And even if I take your advice and work only with mathematics I would say I work with geometrical ideas - a friend swears only algebra can describe Nature. It is all fun, and in the end what advances physics will remain.
With appreciation and all best wishes,
Vladimir.
4 months later
Thank you Gordon
Your careful approach to test everything and "land safely" is certainly necessary and is complementary to my rather sweeping scenarios that may read like unsubstantiated flights of fancy. Actually a lot of thought went into them from earlier researches and experiments in optical diffraction, which provided the main inspiration for my theory. But yes they do need fleshing out and to be expressed mathematically and/or proven in experiments. Your suggestion to write smaller one- subject essays is excellent and suits my on-again off-again efforts in physics! To my mind as I have expressed in the present essay, the physics (node lattice model) is so minimal it virtually becomes a branch of network theory in one of its aspects. Simulation may well be the best way to express and prove my BU theory. I tried to do that with my BASIC skills but that was inconclusive and will go at it again ideally with an experienced programmer.
While I think the pair of photons or electrons in Bell's experiment retain their mutual phase relations from the start, when they interact with the random states of the two sensor's atoms they produce different readings accordingly. This is the cause of the non-classical behavior in these experiments, not the infamous spooky action at a distance!
There is more to respond to but for now my sincere thanks and I will keep in touch. Best wishes,
Vladimir