Dear George Kirakosyan,

Thanks for your enjoyable essay. Except for one or two major points of difference, I agree with every word you say. Much of it is regularly discussed here, such as 'math as human creation' versus 'math as God'. And the current popular questioning of causality.

I like that you highlighted the fact that

"Such eminent physicists as Planck, Schrödinger, Einstein, deBroglie, Heisenberg, Dirac as well as other luminaries have warned that physics transforms into a kind of doctrine that becomes beyond objective criticism by definition. It was quite obvious to them that the above innovation was nothing more than a political decision."

It is generally true that "all of the old knights of honest science died of grief and the pragmatic scientific bookkeeping began to blossom uncontrollably."

You further note "another section where physicists also have left aside the causal-logical discussion of phenomena is the so-called relativistic physics that is closely related to the problem of light velocity, with unexplainable properties of so-called 'space-time'..."

I like your suggestion of how to use superstrings. I think that it would be an excellent approach if all physics journals declared a year or two in which, aside from new experimental results, all theoretical papers must offer new theories, in detail. I believe that the result would be, as you say, "you would probably not be looking for [the superstring-wrapped] trash in the future."

But tribal politics, individual investments, and other psycho-social aspects of reality will not allow such a moratorium to occur, so you're effectively just howling in the dark. I probably am also, but I nevertheless invite you to read my review of special relativity and look forward to your comments.

My very best regards, [I will score your paper later]

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Dr. Kirakosyan,

I agree with you that there is something rotten in the state of quantum mechanics. You say that classical electromagnetic fields may provide a guide to fundamental physics, and I agree with that as well.

You might be interested in reading my essay, "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics", in which I argue that both GR and QM have been fundamentally misunderstood, and that something close to classical physics should be restored. QM should not be a general theory of nature, but rather a mechanism for creating discrete soliton-like wavepackets from otherwise classical continuous fields. These same quantum wavepackets have a characteristic frequency and wavelength that define local time and space, enabling GR without invoking an abstract curved spacetime.

This neoclassical picture has no quantum entanglement, which has important technological implications. In the past few years, quantum computing has become a fashionable field for R&D by governments and corporations. But the predicted power of quantum computing comes directly from entanglement. I predict that the entire quantum computing enterprise will fail within about 5 years. Only then will the mainstream start to question the foundations of quantum mechanics.

Alan Kadin

George,

I agree with lost causality. I would add they also lost substance. My essay is tackling the problem from the old angle of "substance" and "Cause" under the rule of non-contradiction...

Best of luck,

Marcel,

Dears Eugene, Alan & Marcel

Thank you for attention!

I will answer you after small time in your pages!

Dear George Kirakosyan,

FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

I agree with your conclusion about seeking a causal principle. I would also say the idea the electromagnetic field has some fundamental aspect is also right. This is because as an abelian field theory it is at the center of what every larger gauge theoretic group one works with. I thought I would boost your vote grade here so maybe a few can read this as well.

Cheers LC

5 days later

Dear Dr George Kirakosyan,

You are trying to go from classical electromagnetic fields to lost causality... is that so....? Dont take my words seriously please... By the way...

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope your essay and hope for reciprocity ....You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

    Hi dear Gupta

    Thank you for your attention to my work.

    Your viewpoints are interesting for me, many of them I can welcome only, there is something also that we need to discussing. I will read your essay and I will answer in your page. Be sour my dear!

    Regards,

    George

    Thank you for the mail Prof George

    I am giving maximum appreciation you for your essay 10... Best wishes for the essay...

    =snp

    Dear George, The title of your essay is the same as the name of the beginning of my asse: "Fundamental without foundation." Your essay is written so convincingly that I would take it as the first chapter for New Cartesian physics.Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. Evaluate and leave your comment there. I highly value your essay; however, I'll give you a rating after viewing my essay Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which wants to be the theory of everything OO.

    Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

      Thank you dear Boris for your interesting post.

      I will read your work of course and I will comment it in your page.

      Regards,

      George

      4 days later

      George,

      That was fantastic and uplifting. I think and hope you'll be even more uplifted on reading mine!

      Great lines;

      "physics transforms into a kind of doctrine that becomes beyond objective criticism by definition." and;

      ""new physics" has lost its main analytical tool that was our ability of logical thinking."

      Maybe not for much longer! See also Declan Traill's short essay with code and plot., But more help is needed...

      I hope we can chat on my string. Top marks I think!

      Peter

        George,

        Indeed the Electromagnetic field is everything!

        Particles of matter are 3D Electromagnetic standing waves as I have modeled here:

        http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0054v6.pdf

        And can explain the effects of Relativity, such as mass increase - shown here:

        http://www.gpcpublishing.org/index.php/gjp/article/view/409.

        Thanks for your kind comment & vote on my essay. I have reciprocated in kind...

        Regards,

        Declan Traill

          Dear Andrew,

          I am just shocked with this:

          //The wave functions presented here describe particles with all the correct properties for an Electron and a Positron and satisfy the requirements of both the Classical and Quantum Mechanical interpretations.// And with the "The rotating vectors" - that is the one effective greatest method! (Most of theorists never using this, but electrical engineers well know it!)

          My dear I am just saying the same that you says! What ever you have don that is very right! I no need even to check up all your formulas to say this because your formulas derive from ideas that are out of doubt for me.

          Just let me say you some important thing - You have still used the "elementary charge" and with this the electrical and magnetic constants. We must be free of them to be explain everything by el.mag field only. It is possible do by understanding the essence and hugest cognitive significance of alpha (1/137). Then everything will become for you clean as spring water! Please look my works (from reference in the end) there you can find what is alpha, then I believe you can finalized your works and bring it to the very comprehensive level to everybody. Why you - because I am not so well with math, also with English, and also I am not so young!

          Best wishes!

          George

          Yes, I note you had posted and thanks for your support. I'd forgot I took yours with others away with me to read on a trip and left them & notes there. I hope to get them back soon.

          Very best

          Peter

          Hi George,

          Good to be in another essay with you. I believe this is your best essay so far. I rate it highly because it brings out how an elite has kidnapped physics.

          A recent example: A noted scientist Leo has criticized Roger another noted scientist. The criticism went like: -Roger you are correct, but ultimately misguided-. In my opinion Leo represents the physics mafia giving its warning: "Our principles are highest; honor, solidarity and vengeance".

          I also get cynical about what I consider the strange physics abandonment of cause and effect. I try to appreciate it as story telling and/or poetry.

          Thanks for your essay,

          Don Limuti

            Hi Don

            I am really happy to meet you here again and I am so thankful for your high opinion to my work. But I was thinking till now that you are only a witty critics of our unhappy science that deviated from right way. Excuse me, because I see now you have suggested your own serious approach to greatest mystery of gravity. This very intrigued to me, moreover I am also felt myself as a good friend of not ordinary Dr Roger Penrose!

            So, you can be sure - I will carefully read and properly rate your nice work after small time! Best wishes my dear!

            Dear Don,

            I have completed study your work and I have made my duty as I promised (but it is not very important in my view, as they do not preparing prizes for us!)

            I can say you many nice words on your work, but both we are critics and we well realize that honest criticism are much more preferable than many empty favorable words.

            Your approach can be interesting for specialists, of course, as an alternative way to construct gravity theory. But, if this can have some value for you, my opinion is that we need try to understand in first the essence (or, the physical nature) of gravity phenomenon. I mean - how to connect (to derive) the gravity parameters from known to us forms of materia?

            In other words it means - how to get the value of Cavendish constant (gamma = 6.72 x 10^-11) from basic natural constants (c, h, pi, a=1/137).

            The matter is there existing already huge quantity of different interpretations, connected with the field, with the ether, with the distorted space-time, with Mach principle, with hypothetical gravitons, or without that, etc. What is interesting here - in all of different kinds of interpretations have used this experimentally opened constant - without asking from where it comes and why it is this much and not other? (and here is the whole mystery of gravity!) And all of this theories has brought to almost the same quantitatively results! But, as a logical people, we can just conclude from aforesaid that actually we have deal with the different names of a same thing, which we can't yet understand how need to name correctly!

            What can I say you better than only that I already saying in my works! Just try to look those (from at last reference) in any best for you time.

            Best wishes,

            George

            Hello George,

            I agree with your description of the critical problems of modern fundamental science originating in its loss of causality replaced by contradictory and broken abstract models, which provide only partial agreement with observations densely mixed with unsolvable "mysteries" and "paradoxes" (now growing in number). As you may have noted through my essay here, I am trying to propose a more coherent, problem-solving picture of reality with dynamically emerging entities and laws, and I believe that it is only such kind of causally complete description (including your own efforts) that can and will lead to the new kind of truly consistent fundamental knowledge.

            Dear George,

            Here we are again all together.

            I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.

            «physics, based on the unshakable fundamental causality principle». Great!

            I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

            Vladimir Fedorov

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