Boris, hoping this helps when I comment on your essay, this is an edited carry-over from my answer to you at More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

......................

Dear Boris, I'm replying here [@ my essay-thread] because your comment is currently missing.

NB: if you saw me in the penthouse of Towerblock-101, that's because I am the Chief Maintenance Mechanic there, 24/7. The basement, where the foundations are exposed, is where "I live, move and have my being" *** -- even sleeping there beneath my desk.

Thus, relatedly, my essay begins with two axioms and a consequent premiss: true local realism. I then study EPRB, identifying beables and interactions in a related notation.

There follows --- from first principles, in my "neo-classical" terms and concretely --- the Laws of Malus, Bayes, and Born (the last thanks to Fourier and the R-F theorem).

Though not shown (for space reasons, and from any good textbook), the consequent confirmatory QM-style application of Born's Law (now concretely established, as above; and without mystery) to EPRB and DSE (+++) is immediate.

Reproducing the correct results -- without mystery -- you can thus see that we are well on our way to reformulating QM ++ from elementary fundaments, absent mystery.

With thanks for your [now missing] comment [@ my essay-thread], more may follow on its return; I write here from recall.

Gordon

..........................................

PS: *** in-part prompted by the last line of your essay: to which I'll return in my next comment.

Gordon Watson

@ More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

Dear Boris, captured by your opening paragraph and your Cartesian emphasis (and being, as you know, a Maintenance-Mechanic specialising in FOUNDATIONS) -- [oops, caps = Freudian slip] -- I was delighted to see you using [see my essay] Born's Law on your p.6. And more intrigued when I saw your closing line: "Physical space is the body of God in which we exist and in which wander on the way to it."

For this line triggered a corrective recollection from my years of teenage rationalism (as yet undiminished)! Though, at that time, I was not aware of (and therefore was independently following, in my terms) Descartes' Dictum (DD):

"Never accept anything for true which you do not clearly know to be such; that is to say, carefully avoid precipitancy and prejudice, and bring nothing more to your judgment than what is presented to your mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all ground of doubt."

For I immediately recalled, from the KJV English Bible --- Acts 17:28 --- For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

My own translation, from the Greek [so keen was I to understand such things] was: "In God we live, emote, and develop [our will and intellect]."

And when I looked for those poets, I found a related verse from an invocation to Zeus! As google now tells me: Zeus, in ancient Greek religion, chief deity of the pantheon, a sky and weather god who was identical with the Roman god Jupiter. His name clearly comes from that of the sky god Dyaus of the ancient Hindu Rigveda. Zeus was regarded as the sender of thunder and lightning, rain, and winds, and his traditional weapon was [electromagnetic] the thunderbolt. He was called the father (i.e., the ruler and protector) of both gods and men.

Thus, in this way, we arrive at a true fundament; in my view suited to the rationalist and the religious alike. It goes something like this: "God: in whom we live, emote, and develop our will and intellect; and, as a certain poet has said, From whom we are all related."

I look forward to your comments on this joint enterprise.

As for your ideas re Descartes ideas, I must (at the moment, subordinating space and mass to God) invoke DD.

With my thanks and best regards,

Gordon Watson

@ More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

    Greetings Mr. Semyonovich

    I appreciate your effort to read the essay, but i don't believe that i fully understand your question "Your essay is the first among those who are looking for what is fundamental?" what do you mean by that? because what i wrote here is quite simple and therefor it cannot have the attribute of "the first...", but i suppose that you didn't want to say that, that's why i say that i do not fully understand what you wanna ask.

    Otherwise i am quite new in this field of scientists and i try to learn the convention between them, with the intention to become one, if it suits me. with that said the next misunderstanding will be on "rating an essay". you said "I highly value your essay, however, I'll give you a rating as the bearer of Descartes' idea" and i am truly honored by your words but have you rate it already? or should i be the first(among us) who rates and after that i will get rated as well?

    As you can see, i am a little confused so please don't take my words as malicious or hostile but as an effort to get out of this confusion. In each case i will read and rate your piece of work. Silviu

      Dear Boris!

      I am really very enjoyed to read your work, where I has find the same things that I am thinking. This is not only kindly words but I am a little bit shocked how two people can seen the same problem. It make me hopeful that others also can be able to see und to understund about on what we are crying here! But, I think this will hapen not so fast, my Dear!

      Your suggested way to solution is some different than my, but here also I seen many common points (as the principle of conservation of the angular momentum, or the incrase of speed to - c with decrasing radius of circulation. These things finds place within my approach too .... but it will long matter to talk about all of this.

      So, I can only very welcome your essay and wish you success in the contest!

      Good Wishes,

      George Kirakosyan

      Hi Dizhechko Boris,

      I investigated Descartes' "The World". Your essay got it right, space and matter consist of mass and this is a Foundation for building further fundamental theories.

      As I said on my blog: I hope you noticed that in my essay I have developed a theory that has both matter and space as having mass. Descartes was very insightful! Also you should have also noticed that I have a diagram that shows the vortexes produced by gravity. Descartes on the ball again!

      Be sure to reference my essay in your New Cartesian physics :)

      I liked your essay (although it was not easy to read), but once again it got me closer to Descartes.

      Thanks,

      Don Limuti

      Dear Don Limuti, I sure to reference your essay in New Cartesian physics. To say that space and matter consist of mass is the same thing, that to say the space, which matter, moves, because according to the formula of mass-energy equivalence , mass is the energy of motion.

      Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

      One has to admire someone who takes the time to come up with a theory of everything that even includes God. This essay is better than most this reviewer has encountered. There is a historical background and the mathematics is mostly clear. There are large gaps in the derivation that equates important formulas and concepts in Physics in a manor that is unique, but with little justification.

      Above is my review, I felt that you did not prove your point, but your ratings are high, hope you win.

      Sincerely,

      Jeff Schmitz

      Thanks, Jeff Schmitz, for his criticism of my essay. I understand that it was written poorly. Its main aim is to attract researchers to continue the theory of everything of Descartes' taking into account modern achievements in physics. The principle of identity of physical space and matter allows us to extend physics to living matter. For this we need to pay attention to the fact that matter within the body is the same as outside it. Our brain creates an image of the outside world not within themselves and in the space around themselves. This image of the outside world has an active nature, as it controls the body.

      Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko .

      My essay is a call for researchers to remember the identity of space and matter of Descartes, and to continue his theory of everything in the light of modern achievements of physics.

      Dear Boris, hoping this helps to clarify my position in relation to your essay, this is carried-over from my answer to you at More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

      As I also indicated: Your essay is ahead of many of us in touching on that most elementary of fundaments: the space in which we live, move and have our being.

      .............

      Dear Boris,

      Please note the the fundamental originality in my theory is to replace "realism -- which, even in physics, is naive-realism -- by true realism: "true realism insists that some existents may change interactively."

      You then see that this elementary foundation (with true locality) already provides a classical basis for much of modern physics.

      Thus -- as I have just replied to you (above) -- when I "put my mind to the consideration of physical space" I arrive at this:

      As I understand Descartes' theory of matter: matter is defined by the amount of space that it occupies; so all space is matter; thus empty space does not exist; hence the space between planets is occupied by an invisible fluid (an ether) and vortices therein drive the planets around the Sun.

      To my modern mind (though it be no match for Descartes), I prefer to talk in terms of beables [existents, things which exist]. So I would talk of planets [as matter] and spacetime, with planetary motion driven by the latter AND matter (which, as against Descartes, is not far distant from him saying that the planets are driven by the matter of space).

      Thus, for me -- in giving beable-status to "space" and its consequents --- Descartes was ahead of his time: as we all waited for another genius, called Einstein.

      Question: Do you accept true locality and true realism; eg, see ΒΆ1.4 in my essay?

      Cheers; Gordon

      ...

      Gordon Watson

      More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

      Dizhechko,

      Thanks for checking out my essay. IN your essay, how does it regard the original Descartes comparison of the three laws of motion with other physics theories:

      1. Every body will remain at rest, or in a uniform state of motion unless pushed or pulled.

      2. When a body is pushed or pulled, it accelerates proportional to the force of the push or pull and inversely proportional to the mass of the body and in the direction pushed or pulled.

      3. Every push or pull has an equal and opposite reaction.

      I am trying to see how the New Cartesian physics is a generalization of the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics and other theories based on the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes.

      Regards,

      Jim Hoover

        Jim Hoover, many researchers use the concept of ether, which in fact is a physical space, but which according to Descartes is matter. I say these researchers - replace your mythological ether on the physical space, and would be fine. New Cartesian Physics consider these researchers as asset.

        For Descartes the physical space is a physical environment, the movement of which can only be a rotation. The transition of rotational movement from one orbit to another is possible when the pull or push. Like a rocket on the ground when she not pushed, she remains.

        Newton was not right when he said that he sees further Descartes so as standing on his shoulders. For him, space is an empty in which flying body possessing mass. Descartes physical space is a matter, in which there are no empty. But if they are formed, then closes instantly. Taking into account modern concepts, the speed of light is the limit for any real movements, in the New Cartesian Physics the empty in the space closes to the speed of light. For intelligent people from this moment begins the real physics.

        In my essay I showed the relationship between the probability of quantum States and the factor of Lorentz. I believe that this is the first step toward synthesis of quantum mechanics and relativity theory. More show I not could , as it requires a lot of effort which must be highly appreciated.

        Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

        Jim Hoover, direct line on which a body is moving uniformly accelerated if operates a force exists only in our imagination. In the real world, such a movement is observed only in a small area and as a component of the real movement. Thus, the Newton was considered a ideal movement in a small area, and Descartes considered real motion, where the uniform motion is in a circular orbit, where it is also necessary to pull the body to the center

        Dizhechko,

        "Many researchers use the concept of ether, which in fact is a physical space, but which according to Descartes is matter. I say these researchers - replace your mythological ether on the physical space, and would be fine. New Cartesian Physics consider these researchers as asset." This no one can disprove, let alone me, and is a contribution to all our ideas. Time grows short, and rating are sparse in this contest. I will rate yours at this time.

        Regards,

        Jim Hoover

        Dear Boris Dizhechko,

        On the key points, I fully agree with You. Indeed, space has a certain set of physical properties and therefore it is matter or substance. Of course, the properties of this substance are different from the properties, for example, of an electron. But the available properties are sufficient for the recognition of space as a substance. Gravity as a phenomenon in one way or another is related to the properties of space. Regarding energy. If any potential energy is a hidden form of kinetic energy, then any substance that has its own energy must consist of structures or elements that have zero rest mass and are moving at the speed of light. For example, an electron can be a ring-shaped closed string that has zero rest mass and rotating at the speed of light. Under these conditions, the zero mass of the string forms the usual non-zero mass of the electron. Other implementations are also possible, but some kind of movement or - in your terminology - vortices should be. I give You a high rating.

        Best wishes,

        Robert Sadykov

        Boris,

        This is a good essay and I sense some agreement with the overall direction. The problem with connecting to my own view is one of both perspective and interpretation. You are from more of a mechanical background, so having to fit pieces together, while I come from a more agricultural background, so the dynamic I see is thermodynamics, because I spend most of my time outside and to me understanding physics often just means not getting hurt, so I keep it simple, but effective.

        Consider in my essay, I pointed out that space is both infinite and absolute(perfect equilibrium, as in absolute zero). Now consider the two sides of the cosmic convection cycle, of radiation expanding to infinity, or as far as it can go, before fading to neutrality, as mass coalesces into black holes, pulling into stillness. Which are really the eye of the storm and as the energy radiates and jets back out.

        So what I try to say is that space is not "physical," in the sense of being defined and thus limited. As infinity and equilibrium are not physical properties. The Big Bang theory tries to argue that space is finite and flexible, but that is like saying zero is still something, because it is a number. No. Nothing is not something. To be physical means something has definition and motion. Like a temperature of absolute zero can only be inferred, not actually measured, because measurement requires a connection with a measuring device and thus some motion. Nothing has no physical properties, because it is not physical, but infinity and equilibrium are not physical, so they need no cause. Yet everything, including all the math and all the numbers, are between zero and infinity. Nothing and everything.

        So that I why I think we need to not try to make space physical.

        I can understand why people like to think of space as physical, because the very act of thinking is about boundaries and definitions, so it is like seeing beyond thought.

        Regards,

        John B Merryman

          The consciousness of the people resists the recognition of the identity of space and matter Descartes, because they used to think that I live in an empty space - it is convenient for them. While there was no reason to think otherwise. However, there will come a time when the level of education of the people will depend on their understanding of this identity. This requires the necessity to eliminate the difficulties in science. Fundamental should save our thinking, i.e. to be simple and straightforward. Physical space, which for Descartes is a matter that is the basis for fundamental theories in science.

          You might like to look at the sky and it seems to you empty infinite space in which it moves large and small body. However, this impression is deceptive. According to the principle of identity of space and matter Descartes, space is matter that moves. When Copernicus asserted that the Earth revolves around the Sun, it had, according to Descartes, to add that along with the Earth revolves around the Sun, all the solar space. Space is what built the world.

          If the believer to ask, where is God? He will answer - in the sky. When you look into infinite space and I think that is the body of God, that needs to be asked, and how it works? The answer is simple, all the changes around and our weight is the result of his actions. In space contains information about changing the world. Time is a synonym of total moving

          Boris,

          The problem with the monotheistic concept of God is it assumes a spiritual absolute would be an ideal from which we fell, when it would be an essence from which we rise.

          More the raw consciousness of the new born child, than the hard won wisdom of the old man. In physics terms, more the field, than the point particle. We think consciousness is an effect of thinking, but it is the other way around. Thinking is how we express consciousness. Consciousness is the medium, thought is the message.

          Consciousness is a process, not an entity. Thoughts are the entities produced by the process of consciousness. An essence bubbling up, rather than the top down forms it assumes.

          Regards,

          John