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

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.

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