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

4 days later

Dear Boris Semyonovich,

I wrote a long comment sometime ago which disappeared when I hit the submit button. I was tired and decided to make another comment later, but now I cannot remember what point I wanted to make, except that your home town Sterlitamak looks very nice from internet pictures!

I believe in a very simple ontology: two intimately connected types of particles, both with volume and simple force properties. One particle creates space (as in the aether) and the other particle is the building block for matter. Thus I use only 3D space, and whatever other dimensions one thinks is useful (such as relative time and absolute time, or maybe such as energy density). I have developed such a theory which can now provide a better model of particles than the Standard Model, using only 3 quantum numbers and a special use of Cartesian vortices!

However my essay is about the 3 un's as I experienced them throughout my physics journey over the last 20 years.

Good luck Boris!

Lockie Cresswell

Hello Boris. I appreciated your essay and it's generalization of physics from the equivalence of space-matter. The question to me is: how does space become its equivalent of matter and how does matter become its equivalent of space? In my essay I have some ideas for you to consider. In the appendix I describe the conversion of chaos to matter -2.213568x10^31 C*s to 1SSCU-. In this conversion the C*s become a vortex that becomes Planck actions which become the space, time, mass, speed, direction variables/relationships that become the forms and functioning of the spherical SSCU. As shown in the body of the essay, the 5 variables/relationships scale-up to become the physical universe, its physical contents and their moving and changing, etc.. Einstein kept the speed of light constant in his work. You are keeping space-matter equivalent which means in my theory that the the speed, time, direction variables/relationships must change in accordance to keep the space/matter variables/relationships equivalent. My essay contains 5variables/relationships that produce a stable sphere that scales up to become the physical universe and its contents. You may find it interesting to try the C*s to SSCU transformation with its five variables in your work. Also you may want to review my posting on Vladimir Fedorov's essay. I would appreciate your comments on these thoughts and my essay. John.

Boris:

I agree with聽your basic approach.聽 The Universe is composed of one fundamental substance-charge.聽 Higgs charge.聽 This charge fills the Universe and is under tremendous pressure.聽 In聽response聽to the pressure the charge assumes a pattern of motion in sync with all surrounding charge.聽 This pattern of motion you may call a vortex.聽 Synonymous with the Higgs field this charge in motion has mass.聽 Dark Matter,聽 Mass that we do not normally notice as there is equal amounts in all directions; but it does compress a bit in response聽to concentrated energy (seen as displaced bits of charge=normal mater.)聽 聽聽