Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman

I think our friendly exchanges go back to 2011 - I am grateful for your wise, level encouraging voice amidst all the cacophony of enthusiastically declared ideas, including my own! Thank you for your kind encouraging comments. Indeed mathematics is almost magical and many different formulations can be applied to the same physical situation, creating many explanation. And since Feynman taught a generation not to think of the fundamentals of QM, the muddled thinking about the basics continues.

Your 'radar' explanation of the shrinking of length with speed is exactly what I have attempted but not published for relativity in my Beautiful Universe model: mirrors are attached to the front and and back of the moving body all in a discrete ether with a maximum of c. Pure Doppler physics! I read an amazing paper about two university professors in the US (or Canada?) who recently repeated Fizeau's experiment (praised by Einstein) and found a Doppler explanation exactly matches the measured speeds of light in moving water, but not the Special Relativistic explanation does not match it! Alas I lost the reference.

My objection was not exactly to the Equivalence Principle itself, since one can extend the concept of acceleration to non-homogenious fields such as a vortex. Rather it was to the extra equations that had to be introduced because SR had to be included. I hope that is right thinking, as my technical knowledge of GR is meagre - just a strong intuition that an alternative is feasible. I wish I could follow your gravity paper on its own level. I shall read it again. Your agreeing with the the chart showing problems in physics allays my worries that my understanding is wrong.

Church of entanglement haha perfect!! Again strong intuition that Bell is saying nothing special, and that the whole effect can be explained classically, (once probability is not taken as given).

Yes we outliers as we have been called, are slowly gaining on the mainline since more and more people are realizing that the center of physics has been fundamentally bankrupt for some decades. Eric Reiter's work should be repeated and checked - he is a meticulous researcher and his findings are very important if confirmed and generally accepted. He has a FQXI essay in a previous contest, also a new website www.threshholdmodel.com

I look forward to reading your current essay.

Keep well dear friend and keep up the great work!

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

Very interesting essay in the spirit of radical Cartesian doubt and ideas to help find a way out of the modern crisis of understanding in fundamental science. Beautiful thoughts with the singing of Paul Robeson and the image of the River for "grasping" ( understand) the picture of the world:

«Robeson is most famous for his song "Ol' Man River" from the musical Show Boat. One can well imagine 4 Einstein watching the Universe as the protagonist of the song watched the Mississippi, flowing according to its own laws of hydrodynamics, oblivious of human existence: "I must keep livin' until I'm dyin,/ But Ol' Man River,/ He jes' keeps rollin' along!" - From the song "Ol' Man River" in Show Boat 1927.»

I believe that the picture of the world of physicists, mathematicians, poets and composers should be united and filled with the senses of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." ( Albert Einstein)

Undoubtedly, in order to overcome the crisis of understanding, the crisis of interpretation and representation, today we need the competitive work of several gnoseological paradigms, new conceptual ideas and eidoses. You give these competitive ideas and eidoses.

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

Thank you Vladimir for your encouraging words. I liked your philosophically-minded essay because of its all-encompassing holistic approach to life, poetry, philosophy and science, something my reductionist "building-block" physics theory lacks by definition!

Keep up the good work.

Vladimir

Vladimir,

Quite cogent and interesting discussion, even entertaining. One can well imagine Einstein overseeing the universe as the protagonist of the song, watching the Mississippi and with his thought images. Your colorful chart with Einstein impacts are in that spirit too.

I'm not familiar with your cellular automaton but I would imagine it is like a supercharged excel spreadsheet where you control the rules of each cell location and overall neighborhood cells and their inter-relationships, something you could use for all sciences, depending on the application. I imagine you also have dimensions and states, perhaps like element states in chemistry. Sounds like a very flexible modeling tool.

Is this your way of demonstrating aim or intent: the cellular automaton. You say "Hooft's work is still weighed down by the useless baggage of spacetime, and he does not yet discuss gravity." Does your model? If the model represents aim or intent, it is still your model with your aims or intent. How do you separate your own aims and lend it as nature?

Quite interesting. My essay has great difficulty in dealing with the inscrutable essay task. I would like to hear your ideas regarding my essay.

Jim Hoover

    Dear Vladimir,

    Very interesting essay, and nicely written. As you also mentioned many great physicists of 20th century amount them Einstein, Plank, Schrodinger, ... have changed the conception of the classical physics but later emerging theories like dark matter also challenged Newton and Einstein gravity which can't apply to very large / small scales.

    You also mentioned speed of light is constant but the whole space time can change form and surprisingly not speed of light, or if gravity equals acceleration then linear acceleration must also must change space time as much?.

    Or the fact that although stars are surrounded by plasma which at least in its non charged state can bend the light as our atmosphere but this fact was totally ignored till our days.

    Also particle entanglement has showed that it's speed is instant and many other facts...that make the new physics changing conception constantly as new theories are born. I feel at this stage we are both enlightened and at the same time more lost!

    Good luck with your essay

    Kind Regards

    Koorosg

      Vladimir,

      My rating of your essay brought your score up to a 6.0 and mine was the 7th rating. I tell you this because many of us have been so stricken and your essay is superior. I got a "1" w/o any comments.

      Luck in the future.

      Jim

      Hi Jim

      Thank you for your message. My essay was off-topic enough, so I did not include more than a brief reference to my Beautiful Universe Theory or rather model. It is a cellular automatum but unlike those of Wolfram the cells are not merely off and on according to some rule (is it possible to implement such rules in Excel ? - worth looming into) - rather the cells or nodes of the universal lattice are spherically rotatable dielectric dipoles. And yes I tackle gravity. It is all very rudimentary, and needs a lot of work to flesh out my outline. No intent or aims included, indeed the essay topic was ill-posed. In a way I answered it in my previous fqxi maths contest essay. Thank you for the rating boost, but it promptly went down. This rating game is one thing I dislike about the fqxi contests.

      I shall read your essay. Good luck

      Vladimir

      Vladimir,

      I've done my share of programming, simulations and such. Rudimentary is a good start, something to build on, given the right tool. I did my modelling in the defense industry for the B2.

      Jim

      Dear Vladimir,

      I have read your nice narrated (and also nice formatted!) essay and I have find too many things there close to my soul. This is not just a cheap compliment or kindly words. I see you're right approach to Einstein's heritage as well as the necessity of right evaluation of this. You have somewhat touched to mystery of quantum - classical duality, that also needed to be solved. All the mentioned problems are my themes also that you can see in my essay. I see that we are mainly like-minded and I consider it just my duty to support you. I hope to see your comments on my work in my page.

      So, successes to you!

        I did one successful simulation - just of the energy spread across the nodes but in a very primitive way. On the iPad using Basic! It took me years! Hope to use Python next.

        BU simulation 4 nodes

        Dear Koorosh

        Thank you for your comments and kind words. One advantage of using my geometrical mechanistic imagination as an inventor applied to questions in physics is that I can create my model from scratch and gradually adjust it to the conceptual and experimental results of 20th c. physics. In my case, using your words, I was lost then became enlightened. Of course I can be very wrong, but many people seem to realize something is terribly wrong with physics foundations today.

        Please read my Beautiful Universe Model

        Best wishes in your work

        Vladimir

        Dear George

        Inksh Peses (only Armenian greeting I know)

        I will read your essay and respond on your page. I am very glad your thinking is also along these lines. Thank you for your support I am trying my best but the new physics needs a lot of building from zero after we follow the clean-up campaign I outlined in my fqxi essay!

        Please read my Beautiful Universe Model

        Best wishes

        Vladimir

        Shokran, kollu zain, Dear Vladimir!

        Thank you very much for offering your "Beautiful Model". I have open it already and now I can say only that really it seems so beautiful. I have read now some sentences only and just surprised how you rightly (in my opinion) have approached to basic question - I mean about uniqueness of primordial substance. So, I will read it carefully in my good time, then we can exchange ours judgements. I cannot wait however, to not drive your attention on the unimaginable importance of comprehension the extraordinary role of fine structure constant (a=1/137) in the construction of our cosm in whole. I did not see it there .. but you do not worry, we will talk everything some later.

        My Best wishes!

        (P.S. I have here many Palestinian friends here - I am in Dubai)

        Dear Vladimir,

        What I meant by enlightened was actually we learned new things but at the same time we become more confused and then new inconsistent theories emerged for fixing the old inconsistencies, which made the new physics which in my view is conceptually wrong, please refer to this article http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2313 you can of course see my new essay about speed of light here.

        Warm regards

        Koorosh

        Marhaba

        Thank you so much it is encouraging to know my work gained your interest. Have you published your ideas on these topics? Yes I know the importance of alpha constant but in my theory I have not yet decided the structure of the electron let alone its charge and mass! I have an idea (tetrahedral arrangement of dipoles) but have not seriously tried to analyse it yet. Maybe you can derive them from the lattice?

        All the best

        Vladimir

          Vladimir,

          Lovely essay, as usual, very readable, straight to the point and beautifully illustrated. Also we agree on all fundamentals and most other things as usual, except a couple of minor matters this year I'll raise below. In particular I like your important point that AE was; "..ready until the end of his life to question his own ideas and to abandon them if new and contradictory evidence emerged. It is high time we physicists do the same." Never a truer or more important word written!

          Your 2nd Fig. shows SR linked direct to QM. Of course the current formulations are inconsistent (Penrose agrees)as QM uses 'absolute' time. I've identified in this and previous essays that SR does of course work with absolute time as long as local speed modulation to c is by local interactions. I see you agree that in a blog comment above, but might your lovely fig. not be mistaken as suggesting otherwise?

          Similarly the ether as a 'carrying' medium. Reverting from condensed particle interactions (re-emission at each particles local c whatever speed it's doing wrt anything else) ) to the condensate itself even with it's density variations would only takes us back to the great 100yr old problem that SR a was designed to solve. Did you really mean that? (if so how is it solved?) or is your blog comment above the better description (your previously position).

          I was also a little concerned about your seeming to dismiss ANY 'duality', when clearly the re-emissions from interactions with fermions locally 're-quantize' the wave energy, which then spreads again ('as the Schrodinger sphere'). Reading again more carefully you don't dismiss that, so as always; 'banner headlines' can be misunderstood. Is my analysis correct? (really just 'nit-picking' semantics!) Overall I agree four square again, and enjoyed the read. It really is a beautiful universe!

          I do think and hope you'll also like mine this year, which I think you'll see reveals an important hidden truth about so called 'probability'. Of course cognitive dissonance will still render it invisible to most! I hope you'll also watch the video which is far better at showing the dynamics.

          https://vimeo.com/195020202

          Very best

          Peter

          Hi Peter nice to encounter you again this year!

          Thank you for your lavish praise of some aspects of my essay - I do get away with my distracting illustrations! But seriously you are right to question some of the headline statements and implications especially in Fig. 2 QM has so many aspects that saying it always contradicts SR is not true, for example in the case of the Dirac Equation. But yes flexible time and space have no place, say in the Schrödinger Eq.

          I could not understand what you wrote about the ether- in my Beautiful Universe model the ether is discrete and local speed is only a maximum c in pure vacuume, but is slower in energized or gravitational zones.

          Oh and of course one can say there is duality when a wave is absorbed and emitted as a point which then spreads again as a wave. I was referring to the Duality with a capital D that got in people's minds leading to Probability as if it were a fact of Nature not merely a mathematical convenience.

          The vimeo link does not work. fqxi adds html//: to any address regardless, but even when I deleted that, vimeo did not have 195020202

          Again thank you and best of luck. I will read your essay of course.

          Vladimir

            Dear Vladimir,

            Thank you for kindly words.

            Let me just say that alpha is not only important but it can be the key (given by God!) that may open the microcosm in whole!

            The electron's model (with all known its parameters) are represented there (see Refs. in my essay)

            Be well, in the science as well in your art!

            Dear Vladimir F. Tamari,

            I estimate your essay very highly.

            Perhaps my essay will complement your understanding of the causality of quantum processes. Your essay allowed to consider us like-minded.

            Kind regards,

            Vladimir Fedorov

            Dear Vladimir F. Tamari,

            Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

            I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

            Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

            The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

            A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

            Joe Fisher, Realist