Adele, you imagined yourself above Descartes. He said: "Give me the matter, and I will build the whole world." You say: "Give numbers and for their relations see the world" Do you see the difference? According to Descartes, space is matter that can be in a state of physical vacuum that we do not see or in a state of tangible corpuscles. A field is a physical space, each point of which has its potential, defined by a mathematical formula. So, that physical space is the foundation on which fundamental theories are built. The world is the invention of God, and mathematics is the invention of man.

I have not put myself above anybody. I just did good science by analyzing what was written by others plus all the observations and came up with a POSSIBLE solution to the problem that is the subject of this contest with more than hundred people, all with different view.

Descartes is a great philosopher, physicist and mathematician, whose ideas are in demand so far. I want to show that Newton was wrong when he said that he sees further him, as he stands on his shoulders. In fact, he saw only near. Cartesian principle of the identity of space and matter is fundamental, capable of generalizing modern physics into the theory of everything.

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 ¶1.4 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