Dear Mr. Tamari,

first of all I'd like to express my admiration of your magnificent work, and also to confirm my full consent with the basic thoughts stated in it. I'm so sorry I've noted too late your essay. Of course it deserves the highest score.

I wish you all the best and good luck in the contest,

Vladimir A. Rodin

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2752

Dear Mr. Rodin

Thank you so much for your enthusiastic reading of my essay. I have enjoyed reading and highly regarded your essay.

We have several points in common in our various conclusions, but our models differ in some significant details as well.

I wish you all the best

Vladimir

Dear Tamari

I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to write it. If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better. There is not movable a geometric space, and is movable physical space. These are different concepts.

I inform all the participants that use the online translator, therefore, my essay is written badly. I participate in the contest to familiarize English-speaking scientists with New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the principle of identity of space and matter. Combining space and matter into a single essence, the New Cartesian Physic is able to integrate modern physics into a single theory. Let FQXi will be the starting point of this Association.

Don't let the New Cartesian Physic disappear! Do not ask for himself, but for Descartes.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show potential in this essay I risked give "The way of the materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural" - Is the name of my essay.

Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. After you give a post in my topic, I shall do the same in your theme

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

    I like your pictures...and Einstein and Robeson and old man river. These are very good metaphors, but filling space with aether is really not the way out of the GR conundrum.

    Although my aethertime theory also supposes a fundamental aether particle, it is necessary to set aside the notions of space and time as absolute. Instead, space and time simply emerge from the action of aether and so both matter and action have a phase as well as amplitude.

    In a sense, cellular automata is the same as aether just as you argue. However, it is necessary for the CA to have phase as well as amplitude and so as long as you use qubits and not just bits, quantum CA will represent reality. Of course, a quantum CA will allow superposition and entanglement and so that approach will not be determinate.

    Most CA models introduce noise as the chaos of large numbers of classical particles and actions. This chaos works well for gravity since gravity is biphotonic and therefore does not show superposition or interference under normal conditions. However, CA chaos does not represent quantum superposition or entanglement and CA needs qubits to show how matter bonds to other matter with phase coherence.

    Instead of showing how a CA array transmits angular momentum, start with action as an axiom and from the action of a finite CA set, space and time emerge. In essence, is is from action that the order of space and time emerge and space and time do not exist as a place for action to occur.

    Gravity bonds do not show phase coherence but charge bonds do. The CA with qubits is then just a different version of our quantum reality. As soon as the model fills space and time with qubits, the model inherits the same pathologies as the current spacetime paradigm.

    If you model allows space and time to emerge from qubit action, it should end up the same as aethertime.

      Hi Vladimir,

      I disagree with almost everything you say, but I give you a high score for believing it.

      After all, one can always be wrong.

      Thanks for commenting in my forum. Expect a reply there.

      All best,

      Tom

        Dear Tamari, I'm not a preacher, but I will say that the physical space is the body of God and He our eyes looking at Himself. I believe that this is the best formula of faith in God for scientists who do not accept some speculative assertions of the Bible. With this formula we can easily live out their lives, contemplating all around as God.

        I avoid talking about Einstein, but you will put the highest rating, as you well took New Cartesian Physic.

        All the best!

        Dizhechko Boris

        Dear Ray

        As I went into hi gear writing this essay fearlessly demolishing most of 20th. c, physics with a few paragraphs I knew this ought to get a reaction from those who adhere to mainstream physicists but so far only you and Steve Agnew have done so! Proposing a simpler possible yet unrealized alternative does not mean negating the utility of what has already been painstakingly built and tested by generations. But it does propose a road-map for future work.

        All the best,

        Vladimir

        Dear Dizhecheko

        Thank you for your response to my remarks on your page. There I commented on the necessity to separate one's faith from one's scientific views, which may contradict each other.

        Also I agreed with your re-examination of Descarte's views about space and matter (and light) being essentially the same thing, a view I have adopted since 2005 in my Beautiful Universe Model . The attached figure 22 from that paper is how Descartes conceived space vortices.

        All the best wishes

        VladimirAttachment #1: 1_BU-FIG-22.jpg

        Dear Steve -

        Thank you for your comments. Your remarks about CA not having phase information only apply to Ising-type theories (simple CAs) - the on-off sort which of course have no phase. If you read my Beautiful Universe essay you will see that the CA nodes are actual qubits with Quantum phase built in - every point in my model aether possess quantum phase as well as amplitude , and that is how energy gets transferred, matter 'locked' into place (when adjacent - poles adhere) and not least when the nodes of a gravitational field twist to spread the phase effects evenly and conserve energy in the field.

        Our models aim to describe the workings of the same Nature, and could both be right in their own ways. I am trying simulate various scenarios of my model and until I find serious contradictions will stick to the simple premises I have suggested.

        Good luck with your work and with the contest

        Vladimir

        ...well then, if your CA includes quantum phase, it is not deterministic and is then just another way to predict the quantum future of a source.

        Steve,

        In your earlier post you state that superposition and entanglement prevent determinism. I suppose so if one sticks to the outworn notions of probability leading up to quantum indeterminacy particulary the way entanglement is now explained. However in my CA superposition of contiguous local nodes is linear and causal- as near as you can get to a gear system!

        Vladimir:

        I suspect that few if any among us have examined our biases and hidden assumptions as thoroughly as we can, or ought to.

        Fear, or conviction, stops us at some point, and we rest our arguments. That's the limit of anyone's competence.

        As you suggest, relativity has physical, testable consequences. One realizes, as an observer, that what one observes is necessarily distant from its source, or else "The physical world is 'cock-a-doodle-do'" as Einstein put it. We assume that the distance has a limit, a point at which the world becomes objective, because we say that's what "objective" means.

        Maybe, however, the world is too close to be objective.

        Be well,

        Tom

        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