Dear Vladimir Nicolaevich,

Thank you for your nice words and appreciation of my submission.

I also have read and appreciated highly your essay.

You are listening well to the "music" of our universe.

I am a proponent of bot LQG and the emerging gravity as treated by Verlinden.

Especially the first is an explanation that can give my own Reality Loops model mathematical background.

The foundational laws of our reality are for now and in the future not attainable I think, but in this contest, you can see that there may be 7 billion approaches.

best regards and good luck to you.

(and thank you)

Wilhelmus

    Hello Vladimir,

    I like your essay (and thanks for looking at mine). I find that the map is not the territory (Korzybski) and the concepts of physics are not the territory of physics. However, the concepts should not be written off...we need them and they keep on changing ...its the way we move from truth to truth. And as you point out the territory is what we are after.

    I am going to write a longer response, in a day, but right now I know this is an excellent essay and will vote so.

    Thanks,

    Don Limuti

      Vlad,

      I'm not sure what to comment regarding your essay. You present many interesting ideas with supporting calculations, but it is hard for me to see the big picture that you are trying to create. I think this is partly the result of your essay attempting to cover too much material. For example, between eq 12 and eq 13, you present the fine structure constant as being the ratio between two successive values in a series. This alone would have been sufficient for the entire essay. The fine structure constant is one of the biggest puzzles in Physics.

      In any event, you have given me much to think about.

      Best Regards and Good Luck,

      Gary Simpson

        Thank you for your comments on my essay. I have now re-read your paper.

        First, your work on toroidal gravitation is too advanced and unfamiliar for me to follow without spending a lot ot time, though I do like your use of fractal structures. I have picked out a few ideas in your work which stuck a chord with me and which may or may not be useful or relevant.

        You mention 'levels' of matter of which the electron matter is one available now. In my (lego-like) preon model the electron is at the lowest level being made from the smallest number of preons. My graviton (only in model#7) is at a higher level of complexity having more preons in it than the electron, so a pair of gravitons could become (as you have it) two pairs of photons in my model#7.

        Entanglement, for me, needs to be mundane and not mystical. With a preon model I can make a graviton (almost but not quite exactly) out of two photons. And one could say that the two photons are entangled within the graviton. But it has to be a mundane and deterministic phenomenon for me. In some ways I see entanglement, and its mystical associations, as a Standard Model mechanism for coping with effects of preon structures without admitting the existence of preons. Similarly, all the various colour/anticolor entangled properties of gluons can be constructed mundanely using preons. In my model, gluons have more preons than the electron which allows the reaggregation of preon groups into a variety of colour/anticolour groups.

        I have tried to model the Standard Model particles, using preons with SM eigenvalues and did not go beyond the SM's three generations. I see no need to limit the number of generations to three but I have no target data to try to build such particles. Many of the very high generations could by now have decayed into lower generations. This generates more space in the universe because of the exclusion principle and the very large number of lower generation particles that one can make from one higher generation particle.

        A second point is your mention of obtaining work from vacuum energy. I have not thought about this much before now but it is indirectly in my model. In my model the accelerated electron does not simply radiate a photon. The electron interacts with a higgs field or a higgs particle (an additional higgs with low mass) and changes the spin and weak isospin [and chiral handedness] of the electron. Likewise a higgs particle or field is emitted when a photon is absorbed by an electron. So, in my model, even the simplest interaction depends on the use of vacuum energy. Sometimes giving and sometimes receiving.

        In some sense the cold end of the universe represents a final phase when all the available vacuum energy has been used up. Creating an industrial scale extraction from the vacuum would speed up the end of the universe, so by Sod's Law it may be correct!

        Best wishes

        Austin Fearnley

          Dear Vladimir,

          Thank you for your interest in my essay.

          Regarding the view in your essay."The gravitational constant reflects Kepler's third law in the solar system and is not fundamental constant for other planetary systems.

          In my essay, the opposite view is obtained by my calculations.

          „Each planet and star have its final lifetime, but Kepler's laws describing relations between them are eternal. The same applies to Newton's, Maxwell's and Planck's laws ... and the phenomena to which they relate." Still, I appreciate your efforts and the opposite views with a good score.

          Regards,

          Branko

            Dear Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov,

            I enjoyed very much your fascinating essay. This year, as last year, we are in agreement about the fundamental nature of gravito-magnetism. You state that:

            "The nature of the fundamental elements in the universe can be in two basic phase states: in the form of toroidal gravitational waves and in the form of photons."

            It's not clear to me that our understanding of toroidal gravity is the same. In 'The Nature of Quantum Gravity', I see induced gravito-magnetic circulation as the deBroglie wave induced by the electron's momentum density. Association of photons and neutrinos is not compatible with my understanding. I believe the gravito-electro-dynamics represented by eqns(1) in my essay iteratively yield appropriate solutions. One must go from the vortex to the torus, dynamically, to accomplish what we both wish to do.

            You seem to say that the speed of gravitational interaction is 770 times greater than photon propagation; this would conflict with recent data from colliding neutron stars, which indicate gravity and light propagate at the same speed. We do agree that "distortion of space-time is more of an abstract concepts and physical process." And, as last year, when you say "there are no fundamental particles ... with a greater mass than the electron", I believe this should be "greater mass density".

            So we agree on the fundamental importance of gravito-magnetism however the details must, in my opinion, be worked out from the dynamic equations. The non-linearity of gravity makes this quite a difficult task, probably accounting for the general lack of solutions in this area. It seems your calculations are heavily based on harmonics, and it is not clear to me that that is sufficient. I encourage you to continue developing your model.

            My best wishes for continued development of your very interesting theory. I shall continue developing mine, and perhaps we will converge to a best theory.

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Vladimir,

            Thanks for the positive comment on my essay. I have just read your paper, although admit I skipped over much of the detail, but got the general thesis. It is a very interesting paper, and I agree that matter is comprised of vortices held together (in part) by gravity. I think you would be interested in my paper where I model electrons and positrons as 3D Electromagnetic standing waves: http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0054v6.pdf

            My wave function solutions could work for any mass plugged in - leading to infinite possible particles, except that my suspicion is that only certain masses lead to just the right amount of wave curvature (due to gravitational bending) to allow stable particles to form. Thus only certain particles can exist. So this bending effect of gravity causes certain energy densities to be able to form stable wave function structures. Also I have long suspected that the Universe may have a fractal nature - the repeated application of simple laws building up bigger and bigger structures, but with a similar appearance at different size scales.

            Best Regards,

            Declan Traill

              dear Vladimir Nikolaevich

              I have finalized study your article, it is really contains many nice points that is close to me, "but here is not the right place and right time for detailed examination of everything" - ценю юмор!

              And we are people who strive always doing his duty.

              Be well my dear and I wish you succeeded in the contest!

              Best regards

              Dear Vladimir

              If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don't rate them at all. Infact I haven't issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

              Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?

              My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn't then gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

              Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

              For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

              My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.

              By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

              To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

              Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

              Kind regards

              Steven Andresen

              Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

                Dear Vladimir,

                Thanks for visiting my FQXi Essay page.

                You wrote an interesting Essay, despite it is not conventional. Here are some comments and/or questions:

                You wrote that the abstract distortion of space-time is equivalent to a non-ideal medium of the physical vacuum-the variable velocity of propagation of the gravitational fundamental interaction. But, if it is equivalent, how can be also an incorrect use of ideals properties? Equivalent means that we have two ways to interpret a phenomenon and that both of them are correct.

                How can you conciliate the gravitational potential due to toroidal gravitational waves which Einstein's Equivalence Principle, which has today a strong empiric evidence and the consequence that gravitational energy cannot be localized?

                I appreciate your removing probabilistic behavior of physics with deterministic one.

                Beyond your Essay, I am interested on your device for the detection of gravitational waves. Can you give me some detail?

                In any case, you wrote a nice and entertaining Essay, deserving an high score.

                Good luck in the Contest.

                Cheers, Ch.

                  The problem with theories that are based on geometric founding structures that are not point-like, is that a mechanism must provide these geometric structures. Point-like objects can be generated by stochastic processes, such as a combination of a Poisson process and a binomial process. The binomial process can be implemented by a spatial point spread function. This mechanism comes already close to the mechanism that produces the wavefunction of objects. The stochastic processes can cooperate to generate more complicated geometric structures.

                  See: "Stochastic control of the Universe"; http://vixra.org/abs/1712.0243

                    Hi Vladimir,

                    I am glad your response to mine directed me to your essay. We agree on many details about the universe, such as the flaw in Newton's laws as applied to orbiting. Your well written and technical essay is well beyond my education level. It does serve as a challenge for me to at least update my terminology limitations.

                    Thank you for the very nice comment about my essay. I am learning from yours. If you want to learn more of mine, I have included the principal ideas of the Universe is Otherwise system on the two pages that follow the essay at FQXi. Also My 3 paper summary of 'The Universe is Otherwise' is easy reading. It goes well beyond issues addressed here. I can send it to you.

                    While meeting with you, as proposed is unlikely, I would agree with carrying on communication of our common like-minded thoughts.

                    Paul Schroeder

                    Pshrodr8@aol.com

                    Hello again Vladimir,

                    Your conclusion: Thus, "fundamental" implies the absence in nature of ideal properties of matter and abstract concepts, and also requires a rethinking of the physical essence of phenomenological constants.

                    I humorously believe that certain things should not be discussed in polite company i.e. politics, religion, sex, and high philosophy.

                    Phenomenology goes after "the thing in itself". The thing that is beyond attributes. I congratulate your bravery in going after this territory beyond the concepts.

                    Best of luck in the contest,

                    Don Limuti

                    Dear Paul, ...(copied to your and mine)

                    Thanks for visiting my FQXi Essay page.

                    I'm glad that you liked my thoughts. Send your works as you like, you can send it by e-mail fedorovvlad53@gmail.com.

                    Vladimir Fedorov

                    https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

                    Dear Declan, ...(copied to your and mine)

                    Thanks for the positive comment on my essay.

                    I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

                    Vladimir Fedorov

                    https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

                    Dear Hans, ...(copied to your and mine)

                    Thank you very much for your attention and explanations.

                    I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

                    Vladimir Fedorov

                    https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

                    Dear Wilhelmus, ...(copied to your and mine)

                    Many thanks warm words about my work and for mutual understanding.

                    I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

                    Vladimir Fedorov

                    https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

                    Dear Vladimir

                    (copy to yours and mine)

                    The understanding and appreciation are highly valued.

                    If you are aware of more valuable essays don't hesitate to inform me.

                    best regards

                    Wilhelmus

                    Dear Vladimir,

                    Thanks a lot for reading and giving encouraging remarks my submission The Mysterious "Fundamental" (https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2998).

                    I have tried to understand the new ideas propounded in your essay. Prima acie, they appear out-of-box and impressive. However, to gain a wider audience, I would suggest you to subsequently develop your ideas for people who are from non-science background. I salute the challenge you have taken to swim against the tide.

                      Mr. Fedorov

                      I fully enjoyed the way you put things together it and I think further words are useless.

                      Rate it accordingly.

                      If you would have the pleasure for a short axiomatic approach of the subject, I will appreciate your opinion.

                      Silviu