Thank you Ray for your response and wishes. If Brouwer's theorem (also called the hairy-ball theorem because you cannot comb a hairy ball without leaving a vortex) causes a weak joint to exit in polihedra, this may well be the cause of decay in subatomic particles.

I will have to re-read your essay and your answers soon. I think we both have the right faith that polyhedral arrangements are the key to the construction of matter. Just to clear one point- in my essays I show a figure of a tetrahedron with what appears like rotation vectors. Such a tetrahedron would be made up of two dipoles on opposite sides their vertices making up the shape. The rotation arrows are to show how such a configuration resulted from a homogeneous field of parallel dipoles involving slight twisting of all lattice points all over the universe (weak linkage but all lattice nodes are involved).

Indeed nested polyhedra are what would make up particles, whether they are C60 or others. This was the conviction of Buckminster Fuller and of Kenneth Snelson. I think these models should work in and of themselves, not grafted onto existing theories such as the Standard Model, GR , SR and QM (as Lisis's E8 does). I tried to show in a rudimentary and mostly qualitative fashion that such a reconstruction of physics is possible. I am having fun indeed!

Vladimir

6 days later

  • [deleted]

  • Post #22

Ray, you are going to laugh,It's the Toe fashion ahahahah no but frankly all people has a toe in fact,you are ok with me I am persuaded it's comic in fact.but it's well it's cool to see all that, a toe hihih the war of toes but of course only one is correct ...extradimensions hihih a toe , and the toe of the day is the the theory of polyhedrisation , tomorrow it will be the theory of really everything, and after the next day, the theory of truly everything. hihihi My spherization is 3D is so far but so far ....me and my rationalities ,I am so far.

Best Regards thinkers

Steve

  • [deleted]

  • Post #23

Hi all,

But it's cool to see all these similarities, I am happy that people makes similarities of my spheres and spherization in 3D ...I repeat in 3D...Sill one in 3D....in fact many of these extrapolations are falses, but it's cool.

Regards

Steve

Vladimir,

I enjoyed reading your essay. You raise many fascinating points about the fundamental nature of reality. Your node idea is very interesting. I like how you draw connections with cellular automata and qubits.

Best wishes,

Paul

    Thank you Paul. The idea that my spherically-symmetric node could be a qubit was not too clear to me in my in my earlier 2005 Beautiful Universe (BU) paper on which my present fqxi paper is based. With new understanding I superposed a Bloch Sphere onto a node in the figure in my present fqxi paper and somehow it all seems to clicks together- if so then in theory all of physics must somehow be reduced to the interactions between a local field of nodes. The (BU) theory needs a lot of work of course - I wish it can be simulated. I can imagine the interactions as linkage made up of 'slippery'spherical gears. Slippery because if they are directly linked like mechanical gears a small local motion must instantly activate all nodes in the universe. OK Steve you have your spheres physics in that form :)

    Best wishes

    Vladimir

    • [deleted]

    • Post #26

    Vladimir,

    Very nice! Our research shares a common approach. In relation to your eight distinct states of spin rotation, I think you might be interested in my result contained in this preprint, sidebar 1, figure S1.1 in which the closed, congruent (mod 12) Sophie Germain prime sequence shows correspondence between the least separated primes (11, 23) and (1559, 1583); (479, 491) and (7103, 7151). Reversing the polarities of these four points gives eight states.

    Good luck in the essay contest. I hope you find time to read my entry.

    Best,

    Tom

      Dear Tom

      After looking at your fqxi paper and the preprint I must admit to feeling really unqualified to comment on your work, but will read your paper again - your expertise in number theory and sundry other topic is beyond the range of what I have studied. Over the years I would concentrate on learning whatever happens to be the next item necessary for my research and have obviously lots of gaps in my self-education.

      While sincerely admiring the range of your work, I have to disagree that we have a common approach insofar as the physics itself is concerned. I have not claimed to have eight states of spin rotation - the nodes are spherically symmetrical and can rotate at any solid angle, hence the Bloch sphere representation. An eight-fold symmetry can be obtained however if one considers just the 3D geometry of the node location in the universal lattice.

      Good luck to you too and thanks.

      Vladimir

      Vladimir

      An excellent and interesting paper, which I thought I'd commented on earlier but seemingly not, and have just re-read. It confirmed the reasons why I 'bookmarked' it, as I very much agreed with most of your background sections, and there are some close parallels, but then also the odd major divergence, in your beautiful model. Well done and thanks for the interesting view. I'll try to catch up with your papers.

      I hope you'll read mine if you haven't or perhaps we've already communicated there? I believe I may show you a few options to the directions you've gone which you may appreciate considering (if you haven't) as they seem to open the way to falsifiable solutions. You may also enjoy a short 'logical conclusions' paper with photographic evidence!

      There are a number of consistent essays looking very strong and 'real', currently led by Edwin, which you seem to also be very close to (Ragaza, Parry, Spoljaric, Castel, Wittelman etc etc -see strings).

      Best wishes

      Peter

      PS. loved the drawings too.

        Ooops, that was 'Mittleman!', plus Dan Bendict. I'd expect you may like them all. Do give me feedback on mine (if you haven't!) Too many essays and ageing brain cells!

        Peter

        • [deleted]

        • Post #30

        :) it's interesting all that.they turn thus they are .....proportional furthermore with the volumes and their rotations....interesting these similarities , interesting.

        Steve

        Dear Peter,

        Thank you for your encouraging comments. As you will see I have now enjoyed re-reading your paper and and commented on it. In the days ahead I will study the papers you recommended. I find that the fqxi forums are not easy to navigate. Other online forums I am a member of have a 'Tracking' link to see all the forums any individual member has participated in listed by date, and with new contributions duly marked as such.

        With best wishes, Vladimir

        Dear Vladimir,

        Thank you for reading my essay. I have just done the same to yours. Your figures and your ideas are beautiful. We agree on some points, such as local realism, and I think we view particles in much the same manner. We also take seriously "Roger Penrose' call to 'start all over'." And we agree, I think, on the need for an 'ether' equivalent. And I think we also agree on Bell's Theorem: I too reject "probability as a real property of particles".

        We are somewhat complementary in our approaches. If I interpret you correctly, you begin with electro-magnetics and 'derive' gravity therefrom. I begin with only a gravitational field and 'condense' locally real particles, including charged particles, which leads to electro-magnetics. Also, although our particles seem related, you place them on a lattice, whereas mine are embedded in a field. Thus there is overlap between our theories, but also points of divergence.

        Peter remarked on 'aging brain cells', so I will remark on your association with Buckminster Fuller. As a teenager growing up in a backwater, all of the 'old people' I knew were 'simple' in that they never said anything that I had not either heard before or thought of before. So I concluded that your mind, like your muscles, degrades with age. But one day I saw Buckminster Fuller (age 76) on TV who said a number of things that I had never thought of! I then realized that one does not have to become simple and predictable with age.

        Keep thinking new thoughts, in honor of Bucky.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear Edwin

          Thanks for your kind words about my essay. I could only provide sample concepts of my Beautiful Universe (BU) theory in the fqxi essay, but yes gravity emerges as the twisting of the axes of the nodes as they rotate and influence adjoining node rotation rate and orientation. You probably understood my ideas better than I understood yours because I expressed them by word and figure while you mostly relied more on mathematical physics, not my forte.

          As an inventor (as was Bucky of course) I tried to build in my mind a universal linkage that would function in such a way as to exhibit the experimental results we know from modern physics. Since I am happily outside academia and not accountable to professors, funding restrictions or other guides to keep my imagination in check, I could tweak and crank this system of universal gear-like nodes (maybe I should use another word than 'crank) simplifying it as much as possible, until, to the limits of my understanding, it seems to work. You seems to have done something similar, but using continuous functions instead of 'things', and of course as you say we may well be complementary in our approaches. I need to study your ideas more carefully, also those of others that Peter Jackson has recommended as being 'real'.

          I wonder if it is possible to pool our ideas in some way - I was thinking that fqxi can host a dedicated online wiki-type collaboration whereby invited or otherwise selected like-minded people can hammer out the details of a theory - a participant skilled at computer simulation but who does not know much physics can give a valuable contribution. Others who know a lot of particle physics can suggest configurations of the model. You get the picture.

          I enjoyed your comments ending with "I then realized that one does not have to become simple and predictable with age Keep thinking new thoughts, in honor of Bucky.". True, and will do , sir!

          Best wishes from Vladimir

          • [deleted]

          • Post #34

          EUREKA FROM BELGIUM HAHAHAH SPHERES AND THE SPHERE DEAR ALL IT IS THE REALITY.

          Dear Tamari insert the volumes, they are proportionals as the velocities of rot. with mass ....now you must consider that an ultim entanglement possesses a specific finite serie of entangled spheres, where thje center is the biggest spherical volume(as our center of our universal sphere), now you must consider a precise number. In a BEC probably the space, the light, the mass are the same , thus it's these rotations which imply the rule.If now you insert two main senses of rotation , you shall difefrenciate the mass and the light easily.Considering the evolution, you can thus insert the fusion by volumes and the synchro and sortings also, thus the quantum number rests finite for this two stabilities, linear and gravitational.The space doesn't turn logically and the lattices evolve .....thus of course the volumes of the entangled spheers are essential. Let's take thus the mass ,the volume , the vel.of rot.spin. and finally the velocity of rotation orbital.we can take a generality for the equation, constant=mvV ...mv1v2V..for all physical spheres generalized by a sphere of whole.now you can correlate with the thermodynamic and the quantum number and the decrease of volumes, a little as our cosmological spheres, indeed a star is bigger than a planet....the logic is universal.The velocities of rotations are proportionals with mass if and only if dear tamari the volumes,spherical are considered with the biggest rationality, deterministic.The road towards our walls is logic with reals as numbers.

          Ps I am persuaded that this number is the same than our cosmological real number of spheres! and the serie is relativistically speaking the same.The number is important even for the light and its encoding by informations of rotations and frequences.That implies that the number during the fusion mass light of evolution doesn't change, ...tus the increases of mass is relevant with the volumes and the density.A little as our cosmolgical spheres, the number is finite and they evolve by increase of mass due to this fusion of light.If we consider the lattices as our cosmological spheres, you shall see the no mass of the space due to the not rotation, and the no mass of light due to an other main sense than the gravitational stability, these the linearity is relevant differenciating the sense.If you insert in the equation of Einstein E=mc² the speed of rot. spinal and the speed of rot.orbital of the whole of the spherical ultim entanglement you shall have E=(c²o²s²)m....that give logically with a time operator correlated with rotating spheres the maximum energy in all things at all scales......in a pure 3D.

          Regards

          Steve

          Tom

          Imagine that two of your nodes are fixed about a pure discrete empty space particle. The nodes are of the Planck length size containing mass/energy and spin in place. The spin also drags and spins the empty space between the nodes. When an empty space spins about a point in its 3-space center, it can do so and maintain its continuity with the rest of space. While doing so, it can transmit its anguler/spin momentum to the adjacent pure discrete empty node space particles without the nodes being displaced. Would this provide an emperical explanation for your transmission lattice mechanism? You would have continuity and discreteness existing simultaneously. If you imagine that the Planck length space is another curled up dimension, then your lattice struct-ture would be pure 3-space that appears to transmit light momentum across empty space.

          Guilford Robinson

            Vladimir

            I'm sorry, I put Tom's name instead of youts, I was thinking of your article and didn't realize that I had written the wrong name until after I sent it.

            Guilford Robinson

            Dear Steve,

            Thank you for your Eurika explanation. I do not understand everything you describe for example what do you mean by "the fusion of light"? Another problem is that your English and spelling is often unclear for example "If we consider the lattices as our cosmological spheres, you shall see the no mass of the space due to the not rotation, and the no mass of light due to an other main sense than the gravitational stability, these the linearity is relevant differenciating the sense." May I suggest you write your interesting sphere ideas in an article with illustrations and publish it somewhere as a reference? Good luck to you Steve. By the way my name Tamari is similar to the Japanese word for "temari" a beautiful craft tradition making balls of strings defining spherical geometry.

            Best wishes from Vladimir

            Dear Guilford

            I read your interesting essay in which you also posit a universal particle. Thanks for your comment- you make a heuristically helpful suggestion that node spin drags the space around it thus affecting the state of neighboring nodes. But then one has to think of a sub-ether between the nodes that are themselves supposed to define the ether. It is mind-boggling however we think of it! As I wrote in section 1.3 of my in my earlier 2005 Beautiful Universe paper on which my present fqxi paper is based, "This network of nodes creates space itself, so it is meaningless to speak of the shape of an individual node, neither of the material it is made of, or its behavior nor of any space between nodes." Be that as it may, the nodes may actually exist in a hidden universal set of 3 space dimensions. One can go on to speculate further...but to apply Popeye's expression to reductionism: "enufk is enufk!"

            With best wishes from Vladimir

            Vladimir,

            Well argued, Vladimir.

            "There are many versions of reality, depending on the person, animal or robot who experiences it."

            My argument is the opposite of the above. I believe it is analogue and exists independent of beings who observe it. My details to support it are meager compared to yours.

            Regards,

            Jim Hoover

              • [deleted]

              • Post #40

              Hi Vladimir,

              Thanks it's nice.In fact I said that the lattices between spheres are probably universally linked with the evolution, thus of course the space without rot.between cosmological spheres change and evolve on the arrow of time and its entropy.

              For my publications, probably this year, at this momment I have some contacts in Belgium for the creation of the International Humanistic Sciences Center, I will create jobs thus of course I will be more professional.And of course I will publish many many pappers about my theory of Spherization a GUT TOE of Roating spinning spheres..........QUANTUM SPHERES.....COSMOLOGICAL SPHERES...UNIVERSAL SPHERE(unique of course this universe)the rotations and quantum number and their volumes with the finite number and it's ok.

              For the fusion m/hv it's simple the mass polarises the light simply ...synchro sorting.........mass, volumes, vel.of rot.......thus you shall understan,d why the number must rest finite for a concrete increase of mass due to this evolution, coded intrinsically in the gravitational stability.The density and mass changes thus also their rotations and the volumes probably, the number doesn't change .....hope I am clearer.

              Good luck also dear Vladimir, beautiful country the Japan, so creative this country and so skilling.

              Steve