Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyenovich,

as promised i reply here to comment on your essay. Basicly i argee to the last conclusion "space is the body of God we live in" to be something very general description, but in my essay i describe time to be the origin for space to evolve from. So it seems we are "opponents" with our claims.

There are some differences in our views:

in contrast to your (and most any work) my work arise from a definition of time accepting Einstein A. 1905 work on simultaneity in all its "radical" aspects to advance to a "geometric" concept of time that in effect then unveils a wrong "dimension" we use today for the planck's constant. Whilte today Plancks constant is treated as Joule*second (which is meter^6/second^4 in my set of dimension) my finding suggest it must be kilogramm^-1 * second (which is second^4/meter^4 in my set of dimension).

Following from this i can agree to the concept F = ch/ (4 pi r^2) if i use the Plancks constant in the "todays" dimension.

The final reasoning you do on how to describe mass leads to an identical treatment of the gravitational constant as i use in my work. So it seems logical to me.

But the different dimension of Plancks constant in our models i guess lead to the fundamental difference between our models (Descartes vs. Newton)

- you argue space to be the first matter in Universe (i think (space) = action, i am (time) = reaction)

- i argue time to be the first matter in Universe (Time = action, space = reaction)

Descartes vs Newton may be some kind of never-ending Bohr vs. Einstein...

Best regards, Manfred

Dear Alireza Jamali, a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics excludes from it a probabilistic description of physical processes. As a result of applying the identity of Descartes' space and matter, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle takes on the opposite meaning, i.e. becomes the principle of definiteness of points of physical space, which is matter.

聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 Boris Dzhechko

Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyenovich,

Despite I disagree with various claims of your Essay, in particular with the issue that the Neo-Cartesian generalization of modern physics is the theory of everything, I find your Essay interesting and pleasant. Therefore, I am going to give you an high score. Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

2 months later

Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyenovich,

FQXi.org has allowed me to upload an updated version of my essay Why Can't Y'all See The ONE Thing I See? because of the change in the competition submission date. I would appreciate it if you could find the time to read my updated version and perhaps leave a comment about it.

Joe Fisher

Dizhechko Semyonovich re-uploaded the file Semyonovich_The_transformat.pdf for the essay entitled "The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics." on 2020-03-25 15:21:54 UTC.

11 days later

Dizhechko,

Thanks for your comment and appreciation of my essay. I'd dowmloaded yours already as I recalled we've had good agreement in the past. I've now read it, and still love your approach. We agree from the most fundamental level of condensed matter as vortices, which I agree opens up a world of better understanding.

Much of your model is more difficult to understand, so I appreciate why you included the formulations. You're right that many won't like that, and also your mention of a TOE without additional support, and even the mention of 'god' seems to put many off! The repeated paragraph also ma not help, but it's an important one! Your present low score reflect those, but rest assured I have no such prejudices so my score will help get it up where it belongs.

I note we also both found our dynamics on non-linearity. I assume by the way you agree our 'new foundations' are compatible, which I find encouraging for us both.

Very well done.

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Boris,

I read your essay with great interest. The idea that space *is* matter is one that I have been playing with for some time, although my mathematical approach is somewhat different from yours. I find that in order to describe matter fully, I need both 4-dimensional spacetime and 4-dimensional momentum-energy, to make an 8-dimensional `reality'. Then in order to describe measurements, interactions and so on, I need two copies of 8-dimensional reality, multiplied together to give 64 dimensions which contain all the possible measurements and interactions. Translating the Dirac equation into this language enables me to show that mass *is* space in a precise mathematical sense, which then relates closely to the general relativistic conception of mass as curvature of spacetime. Most of this is not in my essay, as it is not really relevant to the topic of this year's competition, but you can find some of my conclusions there, along with a more philosophical and less mathematical supporting argument.

Robert Wilson.

    Respected Professor Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich,

    Thank you for presenting a wonderful essay here!

    You did not explain the various abbreviations used in your equations. Any way I could get the concept, no problem. Lorentz transformation does not lead your theory into Blackhole singularity i suppose.

    your words....... According to Descartes, in the world there is nothing but vortices, and these swirls of space create our world, thanks to which we exist..... are well written!!

    René Descartes found that he himself must be real (exist), because he felt that he was thinking; and if he was thinking, then he must be real. This is because if he were not real, then how would he have this feeling that he was thinking. He shortened this view, saying in Latin, "Cogito ergo sum," meaning "I think, therefore I am."

    Please read my essay and give your comments also. I hope we will go into collaboration in near future... By the way I rated your essay the best...

    Best reagrds

    =snp

    Dear Boris,

    Thank you for your comments on my essay. My reply is as follows:

    "I did not intend to imply that "spacetime" is separate from "matter". The two are simply different aspects of the same thing. But I do need spacetime and not just space, because the mathematics that I use does not permit the separation of time from space in general. This separation only arises when we take the point of view of a particular observer, at which point we have a fixed definition of time, and therefore a fixed definition of mass. All the forces that deal with fixed mass (electromagnetism and gravity, and maybe also the strong force, depending on your interpretation) then crystallise out. But the weak force is different, because it does not preserve mass, and therefore does not preserve time. That is the real reason why I need spacetime and not just space - without a unified spacetime, I cannot explain the weak force."

    More fundamentally, I believe the central issue is to explain spin 1/2 particles from a Cartesian point of view. The standard approach to quantum mechanics creates an abstract "spinor" from 2 complex numbers, which unfortunately has no Cartesian reality. This spinor arises from the double cover of the rotation group of space, and therefore does not mention time. I believe this is wrong, and that spin cannot be explained without invoking time. Now in 4-dimensional real spacetime there is room to put a 2-dimensional complex spinor, and therefore give a physical reality to an abstract spinor. At this point we have a "realist" model of quantum mechanics, rather than the standard "magical" model. A fundamental particle of matter is then the same thing as a fundamental piece of spacetime. But I do need spacetime, not just space, in order to do this.

    Robert.

    Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyenovich,

    I appreciate your aspirations to the fundamentals of building fundamental theories:

    "According to Descartes, in the world there is nothing but vortices, and these swirls of space create our world, thanks to which we exist".

    "New Cartesian physics provides the Foundation for building fundamental theories. This Foundation is built on the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes".

    Despite the use of different terminology, we are talking about the same thing in the dispute of Descartes vs Newton.

    Best regards,

    Vladimir N. Fedorov

    6 days later

    Dizhechko,

    Does this 2006 neuroscience study predate & influence your ideas?

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167876006002108. How about the quantum brain? Does this fit into your ideas?

    Considering that orthodox quantum mechanics seems to make a lot of assumptions, I can't fault your Neo-Cartesian ideas. I can't pretend to understand the repercussions of treating physical space as matter and vortices created by the formation of mass in space. It is an interesting concept.

    Jim Hoover

      Dizhechko,

      In relooking at my Carlo Rovelli Reality is not what it seems book, you don't specify loop quantum gravity, but I am wondering if you are advocating that concept?

      I am adding your 11th rating, specifying it due to someone who rates a 1 for many of us.

      Jim Hoover

      11 days later

      nice foundational mathematics you have my vote especially on Cartesian physics well done. how about questioning the role and significance of us humans to a science that defined Nature-physics ?read/rate/discuss the role of anthropic bias in science here https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.will gladly appreciate any input.thanks

      7 days later

      Boris S. Dzhechko

      I like your paper, being attracted by your intense focus on Descartes and whirlpool swirls. We both see space as introduced by Descartes.

      Science took a step backward when his swirl of space theory was overcome by Newton's gravity model. Newton needed an emptiness of space to avoid friction. I further develop that perspective to explain local spatial events. Your paper follows this swirl both for the whole universe and for a point. The radius of curvature is the de Broglie wavelength, which becomes infinitely large when the speed decreases to zero and infinitely small but not equal to zero, when the speed of light is reached. Beyond that you include Heisenberg and Lorentz.

      Your paper connects to mine under Einstein's mass energy equivalence as you follow it with the pressure of space is the cause of all movements occurring in the real world. I connect with gravity that pushes and its source is EM radiation everywhere. In that way space is matter.

      We agree in a more detailed view that 'in the world there is nothing but vortices, and these swirls of space create our world, thanks to which we exist'. We can follow each other's papers in GSJ and/or hopefully help each other here.

      Paul Schroeder

      Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyenovich

      Many people think that vortex is the cause of mass:

      "in new Cartesian physics a corpuscle is a stationary vortex, ..."

      I also agree, but where is the prediction.

      For example, your last mass formula. How can you use it to calculate the mass of a proton or neutron if you know the masses and radii of the components (up and down quark)?

      Regards,

      Branko

      5 days later

      Dear Boris,

      I read with great interest your essay with very important alternative ideas aimed at overcoming the "troubles with physics" caused by the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of fundamental science. But I cannot agree with some ontological ideas. My main conclusion from your essay: if the scientific programs of Descartes and Newton developed simultaneously in constant competition with the necessary financial and social-scientific support, then I believe that television would have appeared in the 19th century. I wish you continued success in your search for truth and a deeper insight into philosophical ontology in accordance with the philosophical-scientific program that Carlo Rovelli outlined in article Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics .

      With kind regards,

      Vladimir