Hi Vladimir,

As promised, I am presently printing out your essay to read while I am at a conference next week. My apologies for not doing so earlier but I have been very busy.

Having just noticed that you live in Tokyo, I hope you are safe and well. It's quite a tragedy.

Regards,

Ian

    Hi Ian

    Thanks and good luck with your conference. The past week in Japan was a major tragedy. Thank God my wife and family here are fine, but we had quite a shake in Tokyo too, not to mention the radiation scare. But it is nothing compared to those who suffered so much up North.

    I was reading a bit about St. Anslem College it sounds a pleasant place to contemplate life and the universe!

    Best wishes from Vladimir

    • [deleted]

    You are welcome,

    All the best.

    Steve

    Dear Vladimir,

    I like the phrase you use "dipolar building blocks capable of accounting for both gravity and electrostatics" which is similar to my own visualisations, I think.

    Btw the animation was a link from Wikipedia, but it shows the effect very well. There's a lot of potential with this idea and I've just realised that the original quandry with the orbit of Mercury can be explained by the 'inclination hypothesis' i.e. that gravity is stronger on the plane of rotation of a celestial body. I'm looking into it in detail right now..

    Kind regards,

    Alan

    Dear Vladimir,

    I'm glad to hear your family is safe, and we are thinking of the people who have lost so much.

    Congratulations on placing well in the community ratings and best wishes for the final judging. I wanted to let you know I appreciated your comments on my essay and that you spotted a similarity in e/m induction forces driving atomic structure. In this essay contest there are many concepts of a smallest reality device, and I have enjoyed studying several of them. Yours gives a lot to think about. I wonder what would make up the spheres themselves and what produces them. Your suggestions for how they self-arrange is interesting. I can't help but expect the spheres themselves to move along with a particle but I can see how you describe the momentum transferring instead. It is an interesting concept for photons and their energy/momentum transfer characteristics. It seems like if we can truly characterize photons, then the explanation for other particles would fall out as well.

    Thanks again and best wishes,

    Russell

      Dear Russell

      thank you for your kind remarks. The Japan earthquake and the response to it from people all over is yet one more reminder that we live on one planet that is full of challenges and that our fate is linked because of our common humanity, including the rich cultures and sciences we have created and share. Please excuse these disjointed ideas - it has been a strange couple of weeks here in Tokyo!

      As some have noted the rating process can be rather arbitrary and I am lucky to have been considered in the final list. On the other hand there are so many essays that I am sure many gems have been overlooked because they have not been read, or perhaps as in your case, need a second reading to see its full merit.

      I really should devote more time now to developing, analyzing and simulating in greater detail aspects of the model I have presented. GR becomes simple - momentum and a pattern of twisting node axes as measured along geodesics through a density field - like light rays bending in a gradient-index optical medium. On the other hand simple motion of matter needs acrobatic convolutions of the pattern made up of the node's rotation rate and axes orientation as they transfer their energy to their neighbors in the lattice. To answer your question about what the nodes are made of: as I told Steve the nodes are not themselves spheres or made up of matter - their angular momentum merely has the possibility to orient itself in any spherical angle. I agree with you and the other papers that insist that photons (whatever they are) are " the explanation for the other particles", and I may add "all the rest of physics besides!"

      As I have pointed out in my essays, to make these notions work, physics has to be reverse-engineered and rebuilt on new first principles - call it an earthquake and reconstruction in physics :)

      Best wishes from Vladimir

      • [deleted]

      Dear Vladimir,

      You said "As some have noted the rating process can be rather arbitrary and I am lucky to have been considered in the final list." There is no need to be so humble - your paper is that good.

      I like your idea because it ties in with other interesting approaches. Originally, I thought of Gingras' magnetic spin ice, but upon further thought, I realized that the Black Hole end of a 4-qubit of strings (please see Philip Gibbs' and Lawrence Crowell's essays) should be a tetrahedron. This connection to both magnetic spin ice and strings (gravity) may produce an entropy-like gravity - perhaps something along the lines of Eric Verlinde's ideas. If this tetrahedron is spinning, then it may spin a twisted rope that may have both string and Archimedes' screw (Please see Alan Lowey's essay) properties.

      I think that the beauty of an idea is its universality, and I see more and more connections between your ideas and others'.

      Have Fun!

      Dr. Cosmic Ray

      • [deleted]

      Gentlemens

      I wonder why you did not notice or do not want to notice the radical view that an independent investigator.Remember this name: name,Friedwardt Winterberg

      http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm

      http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/clouds.htm

      Yuri Danoyan

        • [deleted]

        Dear Yuri,

        Thank you Sir for pointing out the very interesting work of Professor Winterberg of which I was not aware. Do you know him personally? He is one of many eminent and not so eminent physicists who were skeptical of Einstein's Relativity, not because Einstein was "wrong" but because there was an alternative and simpler formulation to describe the same effects: Implementing the Lorentz transformations in a universal ether is equivalent to Special Relativity. Assuming that space has a 'refractive' density potential - as Eddington suggested - see reference in fqxi my paper - is equivalent to General Relativity. I have incorporated these concepts in my 2005 Beautiful Universe theory on which my present fqxi paper is based.

        Historically these simpler and physically more realistic explanations of Relativity were swept away by Einstein's success. It is only recently, when it is becoming clear that something is very wrong with the foundational principles of modern physics, that we must reverse-engineer Relativity and other theories to more basic concepts. In my papers I have outlined how this may be done, but I lack the technical and mathematical ability to formulate, simulate and test my physical intuitions.

        With best wishes, Vladimir.

        Dear Dr. Cosmic Ray,

        Thanks for your comments. You are playing a wonderful role in this fqxi contest to read various papers, compare their ideas and introduce them to other authors and encouraging us in the process. One such idea is 'twisting' whether it is in a rope as you interestingly point out, or in my own theory, it may well hold a key ingredient to describe gravitational attraction. Alan's Archimedes' screw idea if I understand it correctly, applies to photons - a screw twists but how that is implemented in the general scheme of things has to be detailed. String theory is way beyond my understanding and interest. The tetrahedrons illustrated in my paper show the geometrical configuration of dipolar nodes in the lattice, but the tetrahedra do not spin as a unit. It is only the nodes of the surfaces of particles facing each other that spin in place, and in opposite directions This causes the systematic rope-like twisting of the nodes making up the intervening space. Obviously this idea needs to be examined more carefully and in detail.

        Indeed I am having fun and hope you are too! With best wishes from Vladimir

        6 days later
        • [deleted]

        Dear Vladimir

        There is additional information about Professor Winterberg

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedwardt_Winterberg

        http://www.physics.unr.edu/FacWinterberg.html#RI

        http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/publications.htm

        Yuri

        Kharasho, Yuri

        Thank you for the links to Professor Winterberg's website and writings. I have now read a number of his texts and find his outlook refreshing. His suggestions of a "Planck Ether" made up of vortices of positive and negative elements making up everything in the universe without the need for extra dimensions has some interesting similarities with my theory, but also significant differences. I would be honored if he can read and comment on my papers.

        One of the things I could not agree with is his interpretation of the results of Aspect's experiment (a variation of Bell's Theorem) as proving the existence of superluminal light velocities. He makes this claim because he considers the quantum wave as a real wave in the ether particles or nodes (as I do) and yet retains the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics (which I reject- the "probability" is just a natural outcome of the wave-form). This adds a layer of complication to his plan to revamp physics, even as he convincingly shows the necessity of reinterpreting General relativity in terms of his ether vortices.

        In any case it is refreshing to read his work since it shows yet again that aspects of Einstein's theories need to be seriously re-examined and reinterpreted for physics to be whole.

        From his brief words on the subject I could not understand Professor Winterberg's argument that Minkowski spacetime implies that everything is pre-determined - implying a theological conclusion about God and free will. One wants to read more on why he thinks so.

        With best wishes from Vladimir

        4 days later
        • [deleted]

        Dear Vladimir

        You wrote:

        "From his brief words on the subject I could not understand Professor Winterberg's argument that Minkowski spacetime implies that everything is pre-determined - implying a theological conclusion about God and free will. One wants to read more on why he thinks so."

        I would like reminding you quote from Winterberg article:

        "5. Einstein - Parmenides and the Ontological Proof for the Non-Existence of God

        The special theory of relativity understood by Einstein as a four-dimensional space-time continuum implies a kind of superdeterrninisrn with the future completely determined down to the smallest detail. This was the reason why Einstein believed time is an illusion and why Karl Popper told Einstein "You are Parmenides," the Greek philosopher (515-445) who believed that being is not becoming and time (becoming) an illusion. With everything exactly predetermined there can be no free will, not even a hypothetical God, and a God without free will is an ontological impossibility.

        One therefore can say: If Einstein is right, then there can be no God. The opposite though, is not true; true rather is if God exists then Einstein must be wrong."

        http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm

        Winterberg drew attention to paradoxical situation.

        God without free will....

        Yuri

        Yuri

        Dear Yuri- If I understand the Winterberg and Popper argument properly - Einstein's spacetime describe a deterministic causal universe (like a Laplacian clockwork) and therefore starting from a given situation the future is inevitable and predetermined? Yes that would imply God has no role there. But what about an intelligent being ..a mind ( yours, mine and the readers' for example) working from *within* this universe - surely this will introduce an element of freedom of choice at some level? In any case I think mixing up science and religion is not a good idea - a believer in God enters a world of faith beyond space and time.

        Best wishes from Vladimir

        • [deleted]

        Dear Vladimir

        Our free will an deterministic Universe not contradict each other.

        Heraclitus and Parmenides not contradict each other.

        "Contraria non contradictoria sed complementa sunt" (N.Bohr, 1961)

        Regards

        Yuri

        3 months later

        Here is a paper I just published simulating an effect similar to the Strong Force where a repulsive force turns attractive as the distance increases. It is in the same paradigm of my Beautiful Universe model of a universal lattice. "Three Magnetic Dipoles Provide a Physically Realistic Simulation of the Repulsive-Attractive Nature of the Strong Force and of the Cabibbo Angle" by Vladimir F. TamariAttachment #1: Strong_Force_3_Dipoles_and_Schematic.jpg

        Write a Reply...