Hi Ray

I acknowledge my limitations even incompetence in many areas of physics, particullarly the algebraic side of their mathematical descriptions. Yet the fundamentals are accesible by using geometrical mechanistic thinking even common sense. That is my claim - I intuitively see the possibility of interactions being reduced to simple local linear exchanges in a cellular automata. We can regard such a world as a model, something outside ourselves and outside observers. Relativity, for example Lorentz length contraction (not space contraction as in SR) exists in such a model not because of moving frames with constant c, but because signals undergo doppler delays as they travel back and forth in the lattice.

Lots of work to be done there to prove my points but I have a hunch - and a hope - it works out.

Best wishes, Vladimir

    Hi Vladimir,

    Great essay. Big cellular automata fan, but are you familiar with Wolfram's "causal networks"? They sort of do away with the notion of a background space and maybe show how a 3-D universe could be emergent. Why not do away with the rigid grid system of CA and make an even simpler model?

    Jon

    p.s. I did not know that Einstein did not wear socks... For some reason, I like him even more now.

    p.p.s. please check out "Digital Physics" on iTunes, Amazon Prime, or Vimeo :) Gracias.

    Dear Jonathan

    Thanks for your bright message. I still have to see the full movie Digital Networks but am a fan of the preview!

    I am also a fan of Wolfram he is one of my heros. His causal network has no background, but neither has my 2005 CA Beautiful Universe Model . In his network the cells change state in a binary manner on-off while in BU the nodes are dielectrict qubits with a rich possibility of interaction: attraction, repulsion and spin. Perhaps I gave the wrong impression by using words like network or lattice. The BU nodes self-assemble and are free to interact and have no background (except when I simplify in a simulation!) and in fact I associate cosmic expansion to neighboring nodes repulsion.

    I was corrected by saying Einstein wore no socks with his sandals, not his shoes. Yes an adorable and great man despite my objections to his physics.

    Good luck!

    Vladimir

    Vladimir,

    This is an interesting essay ... the artwork is colorful and purposeful. It adds to the understanding of the many conflicts present today.

    It is very informative that even Dr. t'Hooft is frustrated occasionally. It says a great deal when experts think all is well yet have differing views of the meaning of things.

    All in all, this was an enjoyable read. Thank you!

    Best Regards and Good Luck,

    Gary Simpson

      I've much to say, but..

      I want to be brief because of having more essays to read. I like what you wrote, but don't totally agree. Zeilinger raised one of your points at a conference and cited Albert's own comment in the page leaf to a colleague about doubts... I got to hear many comments about Paul Robeson from David Bernz during recording sessions, over the years. I seem to recall historical artifacts being preserved, tapes of Harold Lowenstein and/or something like that. But nice to hear back on my page that you appreciate some of the music that came out of those sessions.

      I would bring Eric Reiter in to present his work, if I headed an Institute. But that does not mean I think his excellent experiments disprove the work of everybody else. In the first essay I wrote; I talked about how there are more pieces to unification that fit in place. There is matter-energy unification in QM and space-time unification in SR, but that is not the full spectrum of possible linkages. Steve Agnew is going all out with matter-time unification, because it is often overlooked and there is a lot to discover. But you address that we are OK to examine that space has energy again - since the Einstein-Infeld theory was abandoned.

      Better to keep our minds open as the river flows on.

      More later,

      Jonathan

        Dear Vladimir F. Tamari,

        As promised, I will be rating your good essay during the last few minutes of the contest. Good luck to you.

        James Putnam

          Dear Jonathan

          "Zeilinger raised one of your points at a conference and cited Albert's own comment in the page leaf to a colleague about doubts"

          Can you recall which doubts specifically and whether Zeillinger felt they were answered?

          Here is a more detailed explanation of why I think Bell's Theorem is built on false assumptions: Take two entangled particles or photons A and B, sensed by two far-flung sensors S1 and S2 respectively.

          CASE 1: In an ideal and totally deterministic world the correlation between readings S1A and S1B will be 1

          CASE 2: In a world where A and B are never random from start to finish, but wherre the state of the sensors is random, S1A and S2B will correlate to 1/2 (I think!?)

          CASE 3: In Bell's Theoretical world, both A and B as well as S1 and S2 are random.

          I feel the error is in assuming it is case 3 applies while using the experimetal results of CASE 2. Does this make any sense? No dice?

          Of course an open mind is necessary, but in my situation I need to gather all my scattered energies to finish the task I set myself to complete and simulate the model I have started, Beautiful Universe. In that model there is no time dimension (so much for spacetime as well as Steve'smatter-time unification) - my fqxi essay this year represents burning my bridges to concentrate on the task ahead! Eric Reiter's experiments fit in perfectly with my model, hence my approbation. Of course I may be totally deluded, but let me have my fun! And time to hear some Robeson! Its a privilage to know someone who has been in the same recording studio!

          Be well, dear friend,

          Vladimir

          Thank you James

          I have responded and rated to your interesting essay earlier.

          Best wishes

          Vladimir

          Thank you Gary

          I have looked at your essay, but as I have expressed elsewhere my brain seems to function visually and geometrically and after everything is understood that way do I resort - under protest - to algebraic formulation!

          Having said that your five-dimensional world based on quatrenons seems to confirm the Kaluza-Klein approach. I like that because it presents the possibility of having the nodes of my cellular automata approach as that fifth dimension.

          Best wishes,

          Vladimir

          Dear Tom I posted this on your page - thanks again.

          (sorry I kept addressing you as Ray!)

          Thank you for your commisseration- so far so good!

          I have read your defence of Einstein and fear it is lost on me I have capacity only for understanding one world-system at a time!

          The distinction you make between a distant information source and local experience, each emitted or absorbed at different rates is too foreign to my mindset and the model I have adopted. In that model everything is connected through the 'clockwork' of the lattice. Motion at A is transmitted node to node to B, whether B is sentient, living, or neither. Another way of thinking of it is to expand the reference frame to include all of the Universe and within that frame everything is absolute and classical. It is only when an observer is introduced, by no means necessary for example when two black hokes interact that relativistic effects kick in ... for that observer only!

          Do not mind me - best wishes in your work. Be well.

          Vkadimir

          ERRATA in my comment above

          I goofed CASE 3 which should be rephrased as follows:

          Does Bell assumes A and B are random but that S1A and S2B are classical?. The correlation will be identical to CASE 2 ie 1/2 (or whatever it is). There is no way to tell if QM is at work or just normal classical correlations!

          2 months later

          There is a rather ridiculous claim in my paper that "Einstein's greatest contribution to physics was the idea that gravity is equivalent to gravitation." This mistake and a few other typos were corrected in an updated edition of the paper posted on viXra, ResearchGate and Academia. It should of course have read "the idea that gravity is equivalent to acceleration". Here is the revised version .

          Write a Reply...