Dear vladimir,

Have look at my blog for further details on my papers and books....

" http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/2018/ "

Best

=snp

Dear Jonathan

I thank you for your comments on my page.

You are right, I said everything in the presentation of my essay, the rest is just an application.

This kind of "information indigestion" will probably be useful and there will be something left in head of everyone's to think about.

I could arrange the same "information indigestion" with elementary particles, but I chose the solar system so that I could visualize what each spectral line of an atom is in reality, where their analogues exist, instead of abstractions of quantum mechanics. And then it will be clear that the whole Universe functions according to unified quantum laws.

Gerard't Hooft

is a man of genius person, so he himself admits that he does not understand what people tell him about their theories and why they say it.

But he has keywords that can change the whole of science, how Maxwell changed science by creating his own equations, presenting his rotors in the form of simple cogwheel models.

Gerard't Hooft says:

"We conclude that the most general model will be described as a set of simple periodic cogwheel models with varying periodicities."

We need to ask him a question about the number of teeth in his gears. It is possible that he himself will think of the fact that there should be 137 pieces.

This will be a "shot from a cannon to top of a mountain to turn the potential energy of snow into an avalanche."

All the Best,

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir!

Just read your essay. We value your work to the maximum, we liked everything!

We wish you success!

Truly yours,

Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

Siberian Federal University.

Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for commenting on my essay, as a matter of of fact I was reading your essay just minutes before you commented.

I agree with your general comment that many of the essays don't really try to show any fundamental connection with the current physics, many are mere philosophical musing, some with"equations" but with a taste of numerology.

As to your idea I can see some thinking but I have not read it thoroughly since you have a lot equations. However, there is a similarity to my idea in the sense that mine automatically emphasizing wave length( which yours does the same), particularly, it shows that a wave of the size of classical electron radius carries energy of mc^2, when interaction is very weak. I will have more questions about your idea later. Thanks

Dear Vladimir

The second time I read your essay. It is not easy to understand.

Are neutrinos solitons?

What is the analogy of a hydrogen atom in another solar system that, for example, has only one planet. Exelent essay.

Regards,

Branko

Dear Branko,

Solitons are all elements of all levels of matter. All of them form gravispheres, which are potential wells. Neutrinos are usually called elements of the orbital electrons of the quark level of matter, which are, for example, elements of molecular bonds and which form orbital potential wells.

The function of the planets is to concentrate the energy of the environment of the physical vacuum in the star to minimize the energy of its interaction with high-speed flows of the environment. This function is similar to the function of electrons in an atom, to protect the nucleus from possible external disturbances.

The other solar system is different, for example, in the same way that the planetary system of Saturn is different from the planetary systems of Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune Mars, Venus and the Earth. Earth has one large satellite, unlike other planets. Universal quantum laws form many variants of gravispheres (potential wells), as well as many complex atoms.

Warm Regards,

Vladimir

Hello Validimir. Thanks for commenting on my essay. Your essay and your reply generated ideas on my part and I hope this reply will generate some new ideas for you. The first paragraph of your essay is true. The "... insufficiently substantiated axiomatic in physics" is the problem. In my essay I addressed that problem from a different point of view. My expertise is in creativity with a background in the physical sciences and mathematics. Creating new processes and chemicals based on natural processes/results was my field. So your equations, language and definitions are - to some degree- "foreign" to me. However, it seems to me that your "... single essence- a toroidal gravitational pilot wave is the same as the initiating vortex that became the Planck actions that became the space, time, mass, speed, direction variables/relationships that became the forms and functions of the original SSCU - described in the appendix of my essay. This original SSCU scaled up to become the physical universe and its contents. Your "... chaos is an order that we do not know about" is the precursor that becomes the vortex in the SSCU (your gravitational pilot wave). Also , in my theory, "all observed phenomena are explained by a single entity- the C*s to SSCU transformation- which creates and adheres to the universal quantum laws. I believe that, if you can "translate the essence of my theory into yours, you will see they are very similar in regards to the creation and functioning of the universe. I hope this will germinate some additional thoughts that are useful. Thanks again John

Dear Vladimir,

You wrote an interesting and provocative Essay deserving a high score. Restoring de Broglie's abstract probability waves, by giving them a real, physical meaning, could really be the root to realize a deterministic quantum mechanics, in the sense of your nice statement that ""chaos" is an order that we do not know about." Good luck in the Contest!

Cheers, Ch.

Dear Vladimir,

You achieve a strong method for fixing physics. There are many parts that are richly quotable. I decided to point attention to this pronouncement of yours:

"Fundamental πα-resonance (together with α-resonance) determines the parameters of limit elements for all levels of fractal matter and determines [t]he single synchronous grid of resonant frequencies [1, 2, 4, 5]. Resonant frequencies synchronize all processes and ensure the uniformity of the flow of time in the Universe."

I wish you success,

James A Putnam

May it amuse you Vladimir...

The attached image shows the Mandelbrot Butterfly turned inside out, unrolled about (-1,0i). This image clearly shows DeBroglie-Bohm atoms guided by pilot waves. The span from decoupling to the cold dark end of the cosmos runs from the top left edge to the center. Accordingly; you can see the action of gravity and also the different types of black holes embedded in a fractal spacetime background.

So some of what you have derived independently merely recapitulates what has been written in the outline of Mandelbrot Set since before the beginning of time. I learned how to create such images myself ~ 33 years ago. As it turns out; I also walked past the lab of Couder and Fort when attending FFP11, and I wondered at the hype and the low-tech gear. Little did I know. I only learned later what they were up to.

John Bush told me he could not see the resemblance, when I sent him the same image, but to me it is obvious. This image could be an illustration for some of what you write about.

Regards,

Jonathan

    Dear Vladimir,

    Your analysis of the quantum states of the solar system brought to mind the Titius-Bode Rule for planetary distances, which also seems to work in a modified form for exo-planets. "Dubrulle and Graner showed that power-law distance rules can be a consequence of collapsing-cloud models of planetary systems possessing two symmetries: rotational invariance (the cloud and its contents are axially symmetric) and scale invariance (the cloud and its contents look the same on all scales), the latter is a feature of many phenomena considered to play a role in planetary formation, such as turbulence."- Wiki

    I'll need to ponder it some more, as yours is a competing theory to mine.

    Best wishes

    Lockie Cresswell

    Dear Vladimir:

    Good thoughts in your article!

    Thanks for your positive comments on my essay.

    I do see that there are some convergence in our thinking, albeit coming from very different angles. this is "healthy". Commonality arising out diveregent thinking usually guides our thinking towrads a better ontological "picture" of nature.

    Chandra.

    Contact me, if you feel like:

    Chandra.Roychoudhuri@uconn.edu

    Glad you can appreciate it...

    Hi-res version your way before long.

    Jonathan

    Since there is substantial overlap in our research...

    I would very much like to hear your more detailed analysis of MY work and the relative compatibilities or incompatibilities Vladimir. You related a brief quote then left a generic message (that I've seen several times now) so I don't know if you even took the time to look at my paper. And yet; you are asking for my comments on yours to reflect an appreciation for the significant work you have done.

    My learning arc has been very different from yours. I made a discovery in pure Maths, almost by accident. Then as with Haldane; I grappled for years with its significance, and how that insight might be applied, before I gained the appreciation and confidence to show it to others. At this point; I feel like Darwin after accumulating an enormous amount of evidence for his theory of evolution.

    What are your thoughts?

    Jonathan

      Sorry if my questions are an annoyance Vladimir...

      For the record; I think perhaps DeBroglie had ideas more in line with reality than Bohm, but that both brought to the table ideas with merit. Some feel that the recent failures of quantum analog experiments to reproduce double-slit interference reliably signals a death knell for DeBroglie-Bohm in general, but I think it has more to do with the viscous medium or physical properties of the diffusers they used (edge effects perhaps). I have no doubt, in any case, that DB-B offers insight conventional QM cannot, because it speaks to the phenomenology and not just the results.

      Thoughts on this?

      Jonathan

      • [deleted]

      • Post #36

      Dear Vladimir

      Thanks you spent some time to read my essay and the nice comments you wrote about it.

      Your essay is very interesting, but I had to spend a lot of time to understanding. It is a difficult essay because the subject of it,The Universal Quantum laws of the Universe is very difficult in the first place but you treat it in a scientific matter very well.

      I wish you good luck in this contest

      Best regards

      Vassilis

      Dear Dr. Fedorov,

      Fascinating, rather comprehensive (at the level we can achieve here) and creative. I wonder if your attempt to connect dBB mechanics with gravity has some interrelation with Penrose's ideas. "Toroidal" - interestingly, the issue of quantum spin has been a problem with the Bohmian pilot-wave theory, just at first hunch (having only read your abstract) I wonder if that might allow for fuller treatment of spin. I note that various thinkers have counter-intuitively connected gravity to other processes and perspectives, such as thermodynamics.

      To be frank: I don't see that the basic "Bode" structure of planetary orbits would be very analogous to Bohr orbits, but your try is valiant. There could be some unusual connection that is less direct, as sometimes happens (for example how laws of optics "conspire" with statistical thermodynamics to prevent the former from violating the Second Law through such as focusing light to greater surface brightness than the source. Yet I wonder if just maybe a meta-material could accomplish such a feat?)

      Finally: if any readers might take at look at my own piece, addressing the issue of the strong correlations of entanglement and how neo-mechanistic models of quantum physics aren't enough. It is very relevant to the Fedorov essay, because of direct examination of what kinds of information (or not) pilot-wave style interactions could carry between particles and measurements. Thank you.

      Dear Vladimir,

      I like your work, it will take me some time to fully digest your essay but I gave you a ten for your effort.

      Good luck

      Barry