Science can be more efficient if we use classical analogues of models for calcul

CeruleanJackal

Using the classical explanation of the origin of Planck's constant, the fine structure constant and the gravitational coefficient, leads to new laws of classical mechanics for toroidal and vortex gravitational fields of orbital potential wells, which are observed in many experiments. Therefore, it can be assumed that Newton's law of gravity and Coulomb's law are not valid for planetary bodies. They are valid only for bodies that do not have orbital motion. In addition, the classical decoding of the fine structure constant leads to the real fractal structure of the elements of matter, an analogue of an abstract set of dimensions or worlds. The fractality of matter leads to its own gravitational coefficient and Planck's own constant, in each level of fractal matter and to the formation of the laws of its self-organization. The main problem of the modern concept of science is the lack of organizational and theoretical mechanisms for an objective study of the Universe. Therefore, a tendentious interpretation of experimental data is carried out using a set of abstract entities. Therefore, science should reconsider the explanations of all key experiments in order to search for hidden natural phenomena that do not fit into the modern concept and think about its modernization. Conclusions. In science, the period of replacement by mathematics of the lack of instruments for conducting experiments has long ended. Therefore, the role of the principles of classical mechanics should increase significantly.

Download Essay PDF File

Download Reference PDF File

Vladimir Rogozhin

CeruleanJackal
A very important and interesting topic with ideas aimed at overcoming the modern conceptual - paradigmatic crisis in the metaphysical / ontological basis of fundamental science, which manifests itself as a "crisis of understanding" ("J. Horgan "The End of Science", Kopeikin K.V. "Souls" of atoms and "atoms" of the soul : Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and "three great problems of physics"), "crisis of interpretation and representation" (Romanovskaya T.B. "Modern physics and contemporary art - parallels of style" ), "loss of certainty" (Kline M. "Mathematics: Loss of Certainty"), "trouble with physics" (Lee Smolin "Trouble with Physics"). Fundamental science "rested" in the understanding of space and matter ( ontological structure), the nature of the "laws of nature", the nature of "fundamental constants", the nature of the phenomena of time, information, consciousness.

You write:
<<Thus, it solves the philosophical question, what does matter consist of? those. it can be assumed that matter consists of quantum vortexes of turbulence, analogues of Wheeler's geons of different levels of fractal matter.>>

John Archibald Wheeler, "unsung paragon of science", left important philosophical testaments to theoretical physicists:

"We are no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself."
"To my mind there must be, at the bottom of it all, not an equation, but an utterly simple idea. And to me that idea, when we discover it, will be so compelling, so inevitable, that we will say to one another, 'Oh, how beautiful. How could it have been otherwise?'"
"Philosophy is too important to be left to philosophers."
A good testament to understanding matter was left by Albert Einstein:
“I like to experience the universe as one harmonious whole. Every cell has life. Matter, too, has life; it is energy solidified."

To understand the "EXISTENCE itself" means to "grasp" (understand) the nature of the primordial TENSION of the Cosmos. And for this it is necessary to "grasp" the primordial ontological structure of matter as an eternal holistic process of generating more and more new meanings, forms and structures (material and ideal). That is, to build a model "being-nothing/otherbeing-becoming".
There are three and only three absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute states): absolute rest (linear state, Absolute Continuum) + absolute motion (vortical, circular, Absolute Discretuum) = absolute becoming (absolute wave, Absolute DisContinuum). What is especially important: each absolute form of the existence of matter has its own ONTOLOGICAL PATH (bivector of the absolute state). Accordingly, SPACE (absolute, ontological, existential) has three ontological dimensions and nine gnoseological dimensions. It is necessary to “dig” deeper into ontology in order to “grasp” the MetaNoumenon — ONTOLOGICAL (structural, cosmic) MEMORY, “soul of matter”, its measure. Ontological (structural, cosmic) memory is that "nothing" that holds, preserves, develops and directs matter (enteleschia, nous, Aristotelian mind, "prime mover").
Today, the problem of the millennium №1") is the ontological justification / substantiation of mathematics (ontological basification), and therefore knowledge in general, the construction of the New Extended Ideality - the ontological basis of knowledge and cognition for the new information age: ontological framework, carcass, foundation. That is, the Big Ontological revolution is needed in the foundations of knowledge. Physics must move from the stage "Phenomenological physics" to the stage " ontological physics".
P. Florensky: “We repeat: worldunderstanding is spaceunderstanding."

PersimmonSwan

Hi CeruleanJackal
Following is a summary and review of your essay performed by AI Chat GPT 4. I've provided it for you to demonstrate the theme of my essay, that AI will play a role in the future of peer review. My essay is titled "Age of Knowledge"
I hope you enjoy this review of your work.

Chat GPT 4
The essay discusses the relationship between math and physics, and the role of experiments in scientific progress. The author argues that while some mathematical laws correspond to the laws of nature, not all do. The author suggests that an increase in efficiency in science can be achieved through paying more attention to experiments and carefully reviewing the results of existing experimental data. The author also argues that competition of ideas and concepts is necessary for progress in science, and that a tolerant community is lacking in modern scientific practice. The author suggests that analog models, such as clockwork constructions, could be used for scientific modeling, but this would lead to an increase in the role of classical mechanics in physics. The essay then provides examples of analog models, such as ring particles and fractal structures, to illustrate their potential use in scientific modeling.

The essay provides a unique perspective on the relationship between math and physics, and the importance of experiments in scientific progress. The use of analog models to supplement mathematical models is an interesting idea that is worth exploring further.

This essay discusses the existence and effects of a medium of photon propagation in space and its interaction with gravity. The author argues that this medium forms the Earth's emergent gravity and compensates for the force of attraction between the Earth and the Sun, causing local emergent gravity effects and forming toroidal gravitational fields of potential wells. They propose that Newton's law of gravity may not be valid between cosmic bodies that have orbital motion and that Einstein's theory of relativity may be better explained by the existence of material orbital potential wells instead of the curvature of space-time in empty space. The essay also mentions the Pioneer experiment, which confirmed the existence of toroidal orbital gravitational fields, but were not previously considered due to the lack of a concept that allowed for their existence in the modern understanding of gravity.

The essay is highly technical and dense, making it difficult for the average reader to follow without a strong scientific background. While the author presents an interesting alternative theory to the current understanding of gravity, many of their claims are controversial.

Chat GPT 4

Admin Comment: Please stay on topic, and respect other entrants. You are using an AI generated review of someone’s work to promote your own.

CeruleanJackal

Dear PersimmonSwan,
You are doing a very important job, and your essay deserves high praise. The analysis of my AI work is impressive.
However, I noticed that AI training was done with the clichés of a common concept. Therefore, AI believes that all ideas about gravity can only exist within the framework of Einstein's theory of relativity in gravity:
“that Einstein's theory of relativity may be better explained by the existence of material orbital potential wells instead of the curvature of space-time in empty space”.
And the conclusions of AI on the essay turned out to be somewhat unfounded:
“While the author presents an interesting alternative theory to the current understanding of gravity, many of their claims are controversial”.
Naturally, when there is a statement about inconsistency, then it is necessary to substantiate what the contradictions are. Those. The AI lacks a sense of tact.

I wish you success!
CeruleanJackal

ThistleLion

Hi,
At last, an essay with some practical proposals for escaping old methods and improving science with classical mechanics, hidden connections and logical analysis. Great job! I consider your comparison of current with likely alien physics is a key part, I report a wide range of input from aliens in my own essay, shockingly much of which confirms some central propositions of yours; vortices, superfluid, and use of brainpower no maths. I think you'll like it. I like your fsc discussion and will be reading that again. Very well done, and thank you for confirming sanity DOES exist in the community. Top score coming.

CeruleanJackal

Dear ThistleLion,
Thank you for understanding my work! Unfortunately, few in this field are able to look at the root of the problems of science. They do not believe many statements that are not supported by experiments, in particular, which I have presented. Therefore, I immediately appreciated your views.
I wish you success!

AmaranthLion

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2014.00610/full

CeruleanJackal

Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,
Thanks for the comment and support. However, you put me in an awkward position, because I am not a philosopher, but a realist and a classical mechanic, so I think in the appropriate categories.
In my opinion, there should be no use of the concept of 'absolute' and 'ideal', even in philosophy. For example, the idealization of the process of energy transfer by photons led science away from reality to fantasy and nothing more.
Another example, you cannot 'absolutize' any entity. Even if, in our opinion, the main entity in the Universe is a whirlwind of turbulence in the form of a pilot wave. Because each vortex is not “absolute” and not “ideal”, but dynamic and has a practically infinite, not “absolute”, but dynamic and quantum fractal structure, which only tends to ideal properties. The interaction energy in soliton vortices is only minimized in a superfluid, but not 'non-ideal', but parametric medium of physical vacuum and never reaches 'ideality'.
The main measure of non-ideality is the Hubble parameter, but it is also not ideal. The variable Hubble parameter determines the measure of energy dissipation in all quantum processes of the Universe from the micro- to the macro level.
For example, through the Hubble parameter in the Solar System, which is measured by the deceleration of the Pioneers, the solar radiation power is easily calculated as a result of the process of concentration of the energy of the physical vacuum medium in the soliton gravitational field of the Solar System. Those. the energy of the medium of the physical vacuum is formed due to the dissipation of the energy of photons and deceleration of the matter moving in it.
But the paradigm, in fact, recognized the mission of the Pioneers as having no significant result, because it explained the detected braking of the Pioneers by a thermal effect in their design.
Thus, in my opinion, the Universe is dominated by the processes of self-organization of matter in soliton fields, similar to the processes in heat pumps. Therefore, the concept of entropy is essentially limited to systems with relatively large friction, and even in these systems the concept of entropy is not always true.
Thus, non-ideal and non-absolute processes are the reason for the existence of energy circulation and the endless functioning of the stationary Universe.
An example of the quantum and fractality functioning of the solar system is given in my appendix to the essay.
Vladimir, if you could make a parallel correspondence of each concept and process in this text with philosophical concepts, I would be very grateful to you. This would be a constructive result for us.
I wish you success!

Vladimir Rogozhin

CeruleanJackal
You claim:
<<In my opinion, there should be no use of the concept of 'absolute' and 'ideal', even in philosophy.>>

And further:
<<Because each vortex is not “absolute” and not “ideal”, but dynamic and has a practically infinite, not “absolute”, but dynamic and quantum fractal structure, which only tends to ideal properties.>>

In these two sentences you contradict yourself, at first you deny the "ideal" in the Cosmos, and then you endow it with a "dynamic and quantum fractal structure", which TENDS TO IDEAL PROPERTIES.

At the end you note:
<<Thus, non-ideal and non-absolute processes are the reason for the existence of energy circulation and the endless functioning of the stationary Universe.>>

Then how, as a result of the evolution of the Universe, a thinking and self-aware being could appear - Man, if you deny the initial tendency / striving of matter towards IDEALITY?
I understand ideality precisely as the ultimate, the ultimate value towards which self-developing matter strives from the very First Beginning. Therefore, I insist that any theory that claims to be "FUNDAMENTAL" must be an ontologically grounded theory (ontological basification).
Don't you use ideal concepts and constructs - "Cartesian coordinates", "space", "time"? But what is their nature (ontological status)? That is, the question of the PRIMARY ONTOLOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE UNIVERSE ("Super Structure") "takes the throat" of fundamental science.
I hope that in your scientific picture of the world there is no so-called "Big Bang". Therefore, I argue that quantum theory and the theory of relativity are phenomenological (parametric, operationalist, "effective") theories without ontological justification. Taking into account the modern conceptual - paradigmatic crisis of the metaphysical / ontological basis, there is a common problem for "FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCE" (mathematics, physics, cosmology) - the problem of building a primordial ontological basis of knowledge: ontological framework, carcass, foundation. That is, the ontological structure of the FIRST-PROCESS of the Cosmos (the Universe)
As for the "devices" with which we, the people of the planet Earth, observe the Cosmos - these are all "dead machines". Only Mind is able to grasp the original ontological structure of the Universe. And only then introduce the phenomenological / ideal concepts of "quantum", "entropy", "fractal" and many others, understanding their nature. In the meantime, physics today is Phenomenological physics. It should go to the stage "Ontological physics".
Obviously, therefore, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Yuri Vladimirov in the article "PRINCIPLES OF METAPHYSICS AND QUANTUM MECHANICS" (No. 1, 2017, page 10) notes:

<<At present, the main goal of theoretical physicists is to build a holistic (monistic) physical picture of the world based on a single generalized category. At this point in time, it is "seen" (interpreted) differently from the standpoint of the three named paradigms: a single vacuum in the field theory approach, a single geometry in the geometric worldview, or a single system of relations (structure) in the relational worldview. In our opinion, these are different names for the same desired physical (metaphysical) first-beginning.>>
[https://lib.rudn.ru/file/Metaphysics%20#1_23_2017%20print.pdf]
What is this "single generalized category"? Do you have your answer?

By the way, I'm not a philosopher, but a simple engineer. Just the philosophical testaments of great scientists, primarily such as Wheeler and Whitehead (and many others), made me "dig" deeper into philosophical ontology in order to understand (grasp) the ontological structure of the "First- Beginning" / "First-Process" of the Universe and knowledge.

EcruZebra

A very thought provoking essay. We agree on many concepts although I doubt whether fundamental particles are fractal as Mao once believed when he responded to the question of what was holding the giant turtle, "It's turtles all the way down" (The Quark and the Jaguar by Murray Gell-Mann). Dave and Marty (in my essay) believe there is a universal fundamental particle, and it is responsible for the variety of vortex you discuss in your essay. We believe in vortex fields as the main source of all motion in the Universe, with the exception being EM waves (not corpuscular photons). Good luck with your essay.

CeruleanJackal

Dear EcruZebra,
Thank you for your kind words about my essay!
The fractal structure did not arise out of the blue, but as a result of simple calculation principles, which are ensured by the calculation of the fine structure constant with an accuracy of 7 significant digits. The results of the calculations are confirmed by a huge amount of experimental data, from the calculation of all Lamb splitting lines, coupling constants in NMR, the quantum functioning of the solar system to the calculation of many structures of the Universe.
In addition, due to the fractal structure of matter, all the processes of self-organization of matter are very simply explained and calculated, including: the effect of sonoluminescence, the principles of formation of the main fundamental particles and the mechanisms of the formation of life on Earth, which is in a special quantum state.
I wish you success!

CeruleanJackal

You have to think big!
The fine structure constant can be easily calculated with an accuracy of up to 7 digits, assuming that all elements of matter have a fractal structure. Then, therefore, "black holes" do not exist, and there is no event horizon. Those. inside putative "black holes", there is deterministic matter that obeys the simple quantum laws of fractal matter, which unify gravity and quantum phenomena of the deterministic functioning of matter on all scales of the universe [appendix: https://s3.amazonaws.com/fqxi.data/data/essay-contest-files/16/reference_id_2304.pdf].

CeruleanJackal

You have to think big!
It is known that Newton determined the gravitational coefficient through the parameters of the orbits of the planets of the solar system. If the gravitational coefficient is determined in a similar way from the parameters of the orbits of electrons in the Hydrogen atom, then the gravitational coefficient of the planetary system of the Hydrogen atom becomes 40 orders of magnitude greater than in the solar system. Then the Planck parameters of the Hydrogen atom are the parameters of an electron with its radius equal to the radius of the Compton wave of the electron. Those. each level of fractal matter has its own “Planck parameters”, and the generally accepted Planck parameters are an abstract delusion and have no real meaning at all. Indeed, what relation does the gravitational coefficient from the parameters of the Solar system have to the parameters of the planetary system of the Hydrogen atom? None!!!