Valeriy V.

Pimenov
Are we living in the lattice-vacuum?
Table of Contents
Preface
From vacuum of Dirac to lattice-gauge-field of Yang-Mills ........ p. 2
Chapter One
Which kind of a space are we living in?
Paul Dirac and his not empty vacuum with negative-energy electrons .. p. 4
Max Plank and his discrete-energy constant (h) ................. p. 5
Attempts to evaluate top-limit size of plankeon ................ p. 6
Lattice-gauge field as a crystal grid in The Theory of Solids ......... p.9
Pict.1. Deformation field of plankeons with the defect in center ..... p.10
Pict.2. Gravitational interactions of two defects ................. p.13
Explanation of equality between heavy mass and inert mass ....... p.13
Uniform motion has becoming a uniform quantum jumps of defects ....p.13
Chapter Two
Transient-dynamic processes in the lattice-grid ................. p.15
Local gravitational wave................................ p.15
Pict.3. Reaction of plankeon-field to the jump of defect............. p.16
Pict.4. Electron jumping through the two-slit chamber............. p.18
Photon as turned-out part of electron-proton tornado of magnetic fluid.. p.19
Chapter Three
Electro-magnetic effects in the lattice-vacuum
Kirchhoffs equivalency of displacement current to a magnetic fluid .... p.20
Attempt to reverse Maxwells physical model .................. p.21
Pict.5. Electron and proton vacancies with magnetic media between ... p.22
Coulomb forces between two vacancies ...................... p.23
First Maxwell equation in a "magnetic media" and defects ........... p.24
Interpretation of other Maxwell equations..................... p.25
Chapter Four
What sir Newton had in mind under his infinitesimals? ............ p.28
The nature of inertia in any "material point"
What mathematicians should do when reaching structural boundaries?
The physical meaning of rotors in third Maxwell equation ..........p.34
Physical reality under the E and B components of magnetic media..... p.35
Chapter Five
Time as a measure of changes............................ p.36
Hamiltons principle of least action and other properties of any system.. p.40
Chapter Six
Hierarchy of philosophical definitions (in context of time problem)..... p.42
Chapter Seven
Using local measure of changes instead good old time............ p.47
--- <> ---
Preface
In this book author is trying to preview the consequences of
accepting the hypothesis of lattice-space (discrete grid of
vacuum). The idea of not empty vacuum was first mentioned by
Paul Dirac (around 1930). Next the term itself (lattice-space) was
proposed by C. Yang and R.Mills (in 1954) when trying to explain
the strong interactions. Later a lot of various types of such kind of
calibrating (gauge) fields were proposed - most of them based on
idea of massless fields in which particles do acquiring mass through
symmetry-breaking of those massless discrete gauge-fields.
But all those theories have tried to look at the particles and
lattice-space as to separate entities. In this book author presents
results of some computer simulations in which the nodes of such
lattice-fields are the particles itself. Meaning that lattice-nodes
becomes nuclear particles in some conditions. And free
movements of nuclear particles is nothing more than jumping of
those special conditions of node - onto the nearest node.
Details see in the book.
One of the main requirements of Yang-Mills theory was gauge
invariance of nuclear particles description while they are moving
through lattice field - which was possible only when nodes of grid is
massless. At those times (1954) it had looked hardly possible for
massless particles (nodes of grid) to be both massless and
unmoving.
In our times such exotic do not scare any physicist, I hope (:0).
The consequences of such approach could be:
-convincing explanation of gravitation effects, including inert-to-
gravity mass-equality;
-correct physical interpretation (extrapolation) of Riemannian
geometry by discrete field with additional dimension(s) because
of revealed additional physical parameters of this discrete filed.
Simply speaking, the four-dimensional curvature of Riemann-
space - physically could consist of deformation tensor of our
lattice-grid.
One chapter of this book is dedicated to attempts of correct
physical interpretation of Newtonian idea of infinitesimal particles.
Should we think of them as literally dimensionless quantity? Or
according to Max Planck should we stop downsizing any field-
elements at some discrete limit?
In more wide (philosophical) sense - Newtonian equations are
correct only until we reach the qualitative boundaries of the
system under consideration. And thus all those continuous
equations and continuous metrics (like Minkowskis) - could NOT
be correct ground for convincing physical models.
But mathematicians invented one brilliant trick - in all cases
where they need to apply to the explored system one or more
additional degree of freedom - they apply imaginary numbers.
Author has tried to understand - do those imaginary numbers
could have any physical interpretation? And found that those
additional degree of freedom (which imaginary numbers always
added to continuous fields of dimensionless points) - in all cases
will give much more correct physical results of equations.
Yes, imaginary numbers are trick - but author right now could
not propose physically correct alternative. except possibly
computer-simulation in cellular automaton logic.
Last chapter is dedicated to attempts of correct physical
interpretation of the essence of time. Author had found long-ago-
forgotten idea of Titus Lucretius Carus (55 year b.c., ancient Rome)
- that there does not exist any time by itself. Time is only the
measure of local changes.
It looks like this idea does not contain any contradictions with
Minkowski-Einsteinian time. but. ok - read the book (:0).
About the style (and thus audience) of this book.
Author have tried do not overload this text with mathematical
analysis. I do not think that strict discussion of Yang-Mills
equations could be interesting to such a wide range of people (:0).
So, I invite to discussion in this book anyone who feels that he
has something to say about it (:0).
Feel free to contact me by e-mails:
vvpimenov@inbox.ru
vvpimenov@yandex.ru
Or at sites:
http://www.lattice-space.net
http://communities-server.net
Pictures in text are the snap-shots from the simulations made
by author - in the logic of cellular automaton. But this was done by
my own simulation program - not by Wolfram applications (:0).
CHAPTER ONE
"Which kin of a !pace are we living in?"
A lot of famous scientists had stumbled on idea that our space
could be a kind of grid.
In this book we will "OT discuss the ideas of ether - the ga!-
like media. At the start of the 20-th century it was convincingly
proved that such an idea is completely wrong. To me the most
convincing was the fact that in gas-like field we could not establish
any long-range non-dissipative static interactions. Even if we
propose the exchange-like type of gravitation - it will not work in
the gas-like medium because of dissipation - especially on such
ranges as light-years.
So, it should be the vacuum - the media which does NOT resist
to propagation (uniform motion) of any particles.
Or some kind of strongly connected lattice, which does not
resist to uniform motion. Supposed that this is possible.
To the idea that vacuum should not be the nothingness - in
20-th century possibly first come Paul Dirac. His quantum field
described in 1927 already does not contains particles by itself -
but particles was explained as special (excited) states of quantum
field.
Dirac`s well-known equation of electron motion in quantum field
(1928) permits the solutions where electron has negative energy.
First such solutions were simply ignored as solutions without
physical meaning. But later Dirac has proposed that somewhere
such mirrored particles should really exist. and positrons was
discovered at 1932. It only was necessary to explain where it
comes from?
Ok, so the particles are just states of. what? A vacuum?
One of the possibilities of Dirac equation was possibility to the
electron to emit photon and go to state with negative energy. To
exclude this possibility Dirac have to propose that vacuum consist
of slots filled with negative electrons. Thus usually an electron
with positive energy does not have possibility to go to the state with
negative energy. And some slots sometimes could be empty - was
next logical proposition (of Dirac).
Later the proposition that vacuum could be filled by default but
sometimes have empty slots - was forgotten, because it
contradicted with some latest ideas. And someone also proved that
Dirac had considered only electric properties of electron and not
included some others. But never mind - we are interested now not
in the details of Dirac equation - but in the idea about not empty
vacuum and the idea about possible empty slots.
Lets propose that our space (vacuum) had consists of
discrete field. And lets call these nodes (slots of vacuum) - the
plankeon!. Of course plankeons is NOT still more of plenty
nuclear-physics particles. It is something more fundamental.
Max Planck (in 1900) had proved that all processes which
conform to the rules of thermodynamics should NOT be described by
the continuous equations. He had proposed semi-empiric
formula for the energetic-spectra of the black body and this
formula was based on his energy quantum - the minimal portion
of energy which should be emitted at ones or none:
h = 6,626 * 10
-34
[J*sec]
The dimension of Plancks constant is not exactly the energy but
energy multiplied on time - thus it is work - the work of emitting
this quantum from. what?
Could we directly apply Planck results of black-body emitting
formula to the vacuum grid (field of Dirac)? And thus trying to
define the size of one node? I suspect that this will depend of
which picture of the black-body emitting we will propose.
The simplest way is - to propose that this emitting is going with
the speed of light c = 299 792 458 [m/sec] = 3*10
8
[m/sec].
And in this case (if the speed of emitting process is equal to c) -
we just have to decide how many nodes is taking part in this
process?
From the other Plancks formula:
E = h*o = (h*c) / A
(where # is a wave length of emitted energy)
- we could not derive definite solution yet, because this formula
did not have upper limit by energy of one energy quanta.
The shortest $-rays, until now detected, have wave length
around 0,01 [nm] = 0,1 []- and it is still the dimensions of the
electron-orbit.
The energy of such gamma-rays is around 124000 [eV] = 0,1
[MeV] - this we will need to compare it with energy in nuclear-
emissions.
The low-energy nuclear reactions are going with energy around
10 [MeV] - which will give as wave-length around 0,1[]/100 =
10
-3
[].
The high-energy nuclear reactions are going with energy
around 1000[MeV] = 1 [GeV], which give as around 10
-5
[].
Latest researches on Tevatron and LHC gives energy around 100
[GeV] - and because it still gives as some new reactions - naturally
to propose that there are NOT reached the vacuum nodes
dimensions yet.
Thus, it gives as 10
-%
[] - as an upper-limit of vacuum-nodes
wave-length.
Lets check it some other way:
1 [eV]=1,6*10
-19
[J]
1 [MeV] = 1,6*10
-13
[J]
1 [GeV] = 1,6*10
-10
[J]
100 [GeV] = 1,6*10
-8
[J]

A = (h*c)/E = (6,6*10
-34
* 3*10
8
)/ 1,6*10
-8
[J] =
= 10
-17
[m] = 10
-%
[]
If you think that we have reached the end of our descending by
the sizes of matter - you are wrong (:0).
Because between wave-length and the !i&e of the !ource of
this wave - is a big difference. While we decided that processes in
nodes should be spreading with the speed of c - so we should divide
our upper-limit-evaluation of wave-lengths (10
-7
[]) by. by what?
Ok, at this point I do not know the exact answer.
Ratio of the source-size to wave-length generated - could be
enormous. Especially with such propagation speed (of light).
But we should NOT just divide our wave-length (A) on speed of
light - to find out the size of source.
This is usually done before (and by me too) (:0) - but this is
wrong pure mathematical operation which does NOT have any
physical meaning.
We will better take analogy with usual acoustic, where
progressing waves does not formed until the size of the source will
not become greater than the length of mean free path.
But even with such analogy (as mean free path) - the size of
source will be at least by 10
5
times smaller than the length of waves
generated by it.
By some attempts of defining lowest orbit of electron in
hydrogen atom, scientists defined the size of proton as 10
-15
[m] =
10
-5
[]
I suspect that it was not the size of proton, but wave-length of
the electron on lowest orbit of hydrogen atom. But this means that
processes with energy above 1 [GeV] (=10
-5
[] wave-length) - is
already going under the proton sizes and thus should be based on
something smaller than proton.
Modern theories based on quarks evaluated the sizes of quarks
as smaller than 10
-19
[m] = '(
-)
[].
I think that, at last, we have reached something looks like good
upper evaluation for the sizes of our node of vacuum. But this
does not mean that it could be a couple of hundreds times
smaller.
Possibly later we could invent something to evaluate it more
correctly.
--- <> ---
I think it will be interesting to retrace how some of the modern
physicists passed over the idea of not blank vacuum.
Lets take Loop Quantum Gravitation (LQG) of Carlo Rovelli.
He states that space-time is generated by quantizing
procedures of Quantum Field Theory (QFT), and that QFT made
mistake developing its processes against a background of space-
time, while the particles of QFT defines a structures (quantum-
field distributions) of Quantum Field. Rovelli name this a bad
dualism of QFT, which is leading to contradictions between QFT and
General Relativity (GR). Rovelli propose to look at space-time
components of QFT as to results of quantum operations over the
QFT particles. He hopes that this will unify both theories (QFT and
GR).
Main purpose of his new theory (LQG) he declared as QFT
without static background of space-time. And only quantum
processes will arouse quantum field with its loop gauges (loop
states of quantum fields around quantum processes).
Of cause he was not a pioneer with this idea, because some 50
years earlier Yang and Mills had proposed nearly the same, but in
theirs theory loop gauges has finite norms (not smashed all over
the universe). And some finite number of loop states of spin
network creates orto-normal basis in Hilberts space of states.
Simply speaking, allowed states of particles has defined by finite
number of spinor fields surrounding particle. But this spinor fields
are NOT independent, - in its turn spinor fields are the result of
gauge procedure (measuring procedure) of interaction between
particle and field generated by it (and possibly by other particles).
Mills and Rovelli are pure mathematicians, so they do not try to
propose any physical model under theirs constructions. So, lets
try to do it for them. Lets suppose that theirs fields are some
states of physical vacuum. Bingo - all comes to proper places.
Particle and physical vacuum nearest to it becomes UNITY.
Particle in its quantum processes generates in vacuum (spinor
field, lattice space) damped loop-wave. Reversely, next state of
particle will be depended of previously generated loop-wave.
Small difference between Dirac and Mills ideas - Dirac talked
about electromagnetic properties of vacuum - and Mills about
gravitational. No wander that unification theory is still somewhere
over the horizon (:0).

--- <> ---
And now it is time to go to much more interesting speculations
(:0).
Our Russian scientists ([3]), who dedicated theirs life to the
Theory of Solids, come to the idea that between The Theory of
Solids and the Theory of Vacuum Nodes could be a lot of
similarities.
The *acuum Fiel as a whole - could be imagined as a kind of
cr+!tal-like structure.
And different kinds of efect! of this crystal - could
represent different kind of a nuclear particle! in common sense.
For the first glance this idea looks too daring. but as we will
see, it does not contradict to the Yang-Mills ideas of lattice-gauge
field and even solve some of it problems.
Take a closer look at your TFT monitors. Did you see some
lattice-structure there? Try to push slightly on it - did you see
some waves around the point of your pressure? I congratulate you
- you have discovered the simplest model of gravitational field (:o).
Now imagine that the Vacuum Field has some constant internal
pressure between nodes.
We will skip discussions about the nature of this constant
pressure - you could invent some cosmogonical process if you
wish.
Recently I have read some astronomy-news about a points of
collisions between our universe and some other universes. If we
could take it as serious - why we could not imagine that our
universe was somehow compressed while it was created? (:O).
So, all of our nodes are squeezed (let it be the rule) (:0).
Second proposition. Our lattice-space is NOT conform. Not in
mathematical sense, but in pure physical. By analogy with the
Theory of Solids it could mean that we have defects in our
crystal.
Simplest kind of defect - is just a hole in the grid.
Nodes nearest to the hole will change their tension-state
(deformation-tensor) - so that in a static limit there will be a
deformation picture with reverse-square dependence of
deformation-tensor from the distance.
Take a glance at the picture (from computer-simulation):
Pict.1. Deformation field of plankeons with the defect in center.
To the right is the diagram of deformation-scalar through central axis.
Is it not reminds you something? Ugums. this is gravitation.
But of course this is too simplified representation of Shipit!in-
,ivoeroff ([3]) ideas. To be exact, they had proposed that
defects is not merely holes - defects also has some internal
structure.
They proposed that under the first layer of the gauge particles
field there could be at least one additional layer (sub-structure).
Comparing it with the current main-stream ideas about
-uark! an gluon!, their proposition (from my point of view)
looks like they had rever!e positions of quarks and gluons.
Gluons (gauge-field of Yang-Mills) now will be on top - and quarks
will be below (as its sub-structure).
Theirs speculations about the structure of quarks level was
mostly classical - to the moment I have read it, they stopped on
three-component theory of sub-structure. This had allowed them
more or less to repeat Quantum Chromodynamics results.
With some weak points, of course, but it was much simpler
achieved as in Chromodynamics itself.
But right now we will forget for a while that defects also had
some sub-structure and discuss what exactly will give as such
simplified model. In spite of simplicity of this model - it is
allowing us to explain how the gravitation works.
For those who wants simple example I could offer to look at
this as to analog of gas-bubbles in the water. Single bubble in water
will come out to direction where pressure-gradient is smaller (up to
surface).
And now I remind you that defect in vacuum are also create
pressure-gradient. Any other defects found in the gradient-field of
first defect - will feel attraction to it.
The picture of gravitational interaction could be the next (see
simulation at Pict.2):
Pict.2. Gravitational interactions of two defects.
Second result of such simplified model - is explanation of
equality between heavy mass and inert mass. Yang-Mills
interactions of particles with the gauge field also give the same
result. Because mass was the result of symmetry-breaking of
mass-less discrete gauge-fields - it has no difference by what
reason (external or internal) this symmetry was broken.
The heav+ ma!! is an asymmetry which applied to the defect-
deformation-tensor by external gravitational field - to pull it to
the source (Earth) with acceleration defined only by asymmetry
(Earth field) and independent of defects-own field, which has NO
asymmetry by itself.
The inert ma!! is the same a!+mmetr+ which should be
somehow (by electromagnetic forces by example) applied to the
same defect-field to reach the same acceleration.
As you see in the Pict.2 - the deformation-fields of two particles
(primarily symmetrical) were integrated and at the center of
diagram we see the common asymmetry which explains the
nature of gravitational force.
--- <> ---
It looks like starting from this point our story will become not so
smooth (:0).
Main difference of our (Russian) (:0) theory from Yang-Mills - is
in a position of gauge-field relatively to particles. Yang-Mills
particles was something different from field and was allowed to
simply move while it had no any acceleration.
Our crazy Russians had proposed that there does NOT exist
such thing as uniform motion. If Plank had quantized the energy -
why we could not be allowed to quantizing the motion?
And thus the particles, being just a defects of a gauge-filed
(lattice-vacuum), could at some sense imitate a uniform motion
when looking at it from photon wave-length and higher.
Of course internal mechanisms of those uniform jumps are still
far from clear understanding. Our specialists in Theory of Solids
prefer to explain it by analogy with diffusion of defects in crystal-
like media.
Possibly it will become much clearer when the structure of
quarks level will get some physical sense (model).
Right now I could only offer a kind of simplified explanation of
such diffusion of defects (meaning propagation of nuclear particles
through the lattice-nodes). You could look at it as to recombination
of defect and nearest plankeon. Elements of lattice evidently not
remain inactive - rather it always vibrating (possibly it gets the
name of relict radiation) (:0). Recombination of defect and
plankeon (or rather jump of defect-state to the nearest plankeon)
is in some sense a stochastic process and possibly it will be more
descriptive to define such parameter as mobility of gluon-defect -
as it was done to the electron in dense media.
In the case with the electron mobility in a dense media - electron
will not have any constant velocity vector until some external
electric field will not be applied to the whole media.
But the mobility will define the speed of the drift when external
field (asymmetry) will be applied. Different mobility gives different
speed of drift even with the same asymmetry-potential.
So, we just have to define the parameters which defines this
analogy of mobility for the lattice defects - and we will have
more or less complete picture of our universe. joke of course.
And one other joke - how do you like to think about yourself as
of group of defects, compactly moving in the lattice-grid?
Or possibly it is not a joke.
--- <> ---
CHAPTER TWO
Tran!ient-+namic proce!!e! in the lattice-gri
It was mentioned above, that instead of uniform (free) motion
our nuclear particles is now allowed to uniform jumps only.
One of the possible mechanisms of such jumps is a
recombination of defect with normal plankeon (gauge-node in a
sense of Yang-Mills).
I have tried to simulate such jumps (in the logic of cells-
automata).
One of the problems was to somehow define how the system
(gauge field) should react to the single jump (recombination).
When recombination simulated as instantaneous - system will
get too strong impulse - so, as I suspect, in reality this
recombination should have some time-length - and thus the system
will get much smaller transient impulse.
Also was discussed the proposition that such kind of processes on
the vacuum-grid should have been energy-balanced.
Unfortunately right now we could not get answer to this
question.
If you think that disbalance of energy in such jump is a main
argument against such models - then I could argue that additional
energy at the beginning of recombination is taken from pre-
compressed plankeons-field.
Meaning that primordial vacuum contains a LOT of energy
received while it was squeezed in some cosmogonical processes.
Of course it is pure speculation too (:0).
Squeezed or not - in both cases such jumps will evoke transient
processes in nearest plankeons. As in ALL kinds of distributed
media such transient processed will evoke some kind of transient
waves.
You could look at this transient deformation wave in plankeons as
to the local gravitational wave.
I hope that snap-shot from my simulation will explain you some
details. See Pict.3:
Pict.3. Reaction of plankeon-field to the defect-jump.
Defect-jump was in a center of picture, top to below direction.
In blue - forward-spreading part of wave,
In red - backward part of dipole-wave.
At the bottom is other defect and wave i! !lowe-own there
(but it is NOT a border-effect - the simulation field is much wider)
Right after the jump - kind of transient gravitational dipole was
formed. In the direction of jump will be spreading the wave of
slackening of plankeons deformation-tensor. Backward will be
spreading the wave of squeezing-back (from the slacked state to the
normally-squeezed).
Thus this wave in some sense is anisotropic.
Mathematically this anisotropic wave is described quite differently
than usual spherically symmetric wave.
As I already said it is a wave equation of the transient ipole
as a source.
In mathematical sense such waves should have some !pin
(preferred axis), because on the perpendicular (to the gradient-
vector) crossed through the source-point - there are reverse-points
of all gradient-vectors of that system. Spherically-symmetric waves
do not have such special axis. Of course it is not yet spin in a
sense of quantum mechanics - it is just one of the possible physical
interpretations of it.
To the usual particles (electrons etc.) this spin traditionally could
be defined as =1/2, because it is describing a kind of fractal-
dimensional spinning for each part of dipole.

--- <> ---
Speaking about energy balance, part of released energy will be
returned back to the plankeon which on pre-jump state was vacancy
(and which now is a positive part of dipole).
Possibly it is a correct place to recall about Heaviside equations
(1893). Being by form a kind of Maxwell-equations, it was not about
E (electro) and B (magnetic) waves, but about gravitational
waves. Electrical charge there is substituted by mass, magnetic
field by gyrotation, and the respective constants as well were
substituted. Heaviside also supposed that the source of his
gravitational wave should be some kind of dipole.
Of course simulation picture (above) is not complete because it
skipped the magnetic media transients after jump. But magnetic-
media transients will have some consequences when our particle is
not single but connected to other charged particle. And of course
the jump is not evoking local electric dipole because the second
part of this electric dipole is at the other charged particle (not near).
Discussion of magnetic-media dynamics I have moved to the
chapter three, so here we will talk only about gravitational
transients. Supposing that in a case of single jump magnetic-
media transients does not have a lot of consequences. I hope (:0).
--- <> ---
Now lets go to the two-slit experiment - when electron moving
through two slits simultaneously and thus giving the interference
picture.
In our interpretation it is looking like this.
Electron as defect of lattice-grid (gauge-field of Yang-Mills) is
jumping to the slits. In this movement it carry with itself the
transients of own gravitational field (local changes of deformation-
tensor of lattice-gauge). Entering the internal volume of the
experimental chamber this transients will form interference
picture. In any closed volume (or just on several borders) this
interference picture could become static resonance picture - and
thus will not depend of how many electrons will go throw the slits
simultaneously.
One last detail. Of course detectors takes not waves but defects
itself, so we have to explain how the particle itself (defect of
lattice) is deflected in resonance-deformed field of plankeons?
For this we should recall that this deformed field is local-
gravitational (!) field. Thus the particle simply should have to move
by gradients of this filed.
I am not sure should I show you the picture from my simulation
of this experiment - it comes out not so descriptive because of
wrongly selected scale of the resonance chamber.
But, nevertheless, see the Pict.4.
Pict.4. Electron jumping through the two-slit chamber.
While moving - resonance picture remained more or less the same.
We had some problems trying to understand why the resonance
picture (in real experiment) was blurred by the flow of photons
(light) switched on after the slots.
To understand it within the bounds of our propositions (about
the transient field being the local gravitational transients) - we
should have to propose that inside of photons exists some kind of
locally closed gravitational disturbance.
Of course it looks strange for the massless particle - but we are
talking now not about constant mass of photon (:0). We just
trying to propose that inside photon exist some closed onto itself
local-gravitation disturbance, which possibly explains how the
photons could have impulse:
P = E/c = h / A = mc
Or
mc
2
= (h*c)/A
m = h/(c*A) = 6,6*10
-34
/ (3*10
8
* 10
-10
[m])
Which gives us around = 2*10
-29
[gm]
You will be surprised, but electron is just 200 times heavier (!).
It is possibly because I have taken the impulse of gamma-quant
(gamma-photon) which has several hundred times greater impulse
than average photon.
So it is easy to explain now why the local-gravity resonance
picture (in the two-slit chamber) is blurred by the flow of photons.
It is interesting - do someone tried to use coherent (laser) flow
of photons in such experiments?
--- <> ---
Of course photon is a circulation of magnetic-media, which was
turned out from electron-proton tornado (in atom) when electron
changed orbit.
But it looks like in a moment of turn out from atom photon
takes with itself some closed-inside local-gravitational
disturbance. Possibly, by analogy with Theory of Solids (for
crystals), in the center of proton is some circular shift of lattice-
defects (special type of defects - circular shift).
Yes, speculations again (:0), but possibly it has some grounds.
It is necessary to explain, that this theory of electron-proton
tornado of magnetic media does NOT have anything in common
with Atchucovsky-Verins vortex theory of particles. In
contradiction with those theories we do NOT state that particles
itself are the kinds of magnetic vortexes (:0).
Our tornado of magnetic media is a disturbed state of additional
media between particles (between defects of lattice-gauge field).
And it is only possible when both particles are associated in atom
(with discrete orbits of electron).
Thus it becomes more clear why photons are classified as
particles with whole spin (=1) directed by the axis of movement.
"Usual spin (=1/2) of single-defected particles (vector-axis of
gravitational dipole) is oriented perpendicularly to the speed vector.
I am talking not about magnetic spin now.
Ok, lets try to sort-out spins somewhere below, because right
now it is not so important what is exactly spinning and where.
Especially when one of it is real rotation and the other(s) are
possibly is just dipole axis described as spin in mathematics of
fractal-space.
Lets discuss some other aspects of photon propagation -
possibly we will stumble on something else interesting.
Khm-m-m, yes, for example - collapse of wave-front function
(:0). Now you possibly understood why such a big wave should
stumble and stop on such a small obstacles like single particle
(defect) which is hundred times smaller than wave length?
Because at the bottom of any such quantum waves always is
some kind of defects. And when this defect stops (for electron) or
disappears (for photon) - the wave will lose its impulse-source of
energy. Ok, you have your right to not believe me (:0).

I think that you would not believe that either, but the Hall
effect (red-shift of photons coming from the distant galactic) - it is
possibly something about dissipation - for your choice - in local-
gravitation field (hardly) or in magnetic media field (more possible).
If you think that it is speculation too - than next paragraph you
should not read at all (:0).
How do you think, could we forget about defect jumps in such
processes as radio-wave generation? As you have seen above, free
electrons (not included in orbital atom-movement) could generate
local gravitational wave during its free movement. So, when a
lot of them will move synchronously (in antenna attached to
generator) could theirs local gravitational waves be integrated and
thus flattened? What if from antenna is spreading not only
electromagnetic (Maxwells) waves, but also some kind of
gravitational waves? It only remains to invent some method to
detect it. I suspect that this detector should be screened from
electromagnetic forces. but this is hardly possible.
There is some additional question which I even fear to arouse.
Does such object as Earth (planet) arouses some integral wave of
defects jumps while moving around Sun? It is understood that
really radiating are only borders (surface), because local
gravitational waves from internal points will be co-dumped
(possibly).
Could such waves influence on something? Or simply be
detected? Is not it possible that in Sagnac (1913) experiment was
detected something like this influence, explained as asymmetric
ether displacement?
Ok, enough of speculations about gravitation - lets take a look
on electromagnetic
--- <> ---
CHAPTER THREE
.lectro-magnetic effect! in the lattice-vacuum
Our model of lattice-vacuum is not complete yet.
We do not explain yet - what is the nature of electro-magnetic
effects there? Of course I am talking about visual (physical)
explanation of electro-magnetic effects - not about mathematical
representation of these effects.
Mathematically all electro-magnetic effects correctly described by
Maxwell equations (1864). Nearly the same time Maxwell presented
his model about how it works. The big problem and confusion
(to me) of Maxwell equations and model - to distinct where it
describe the electron-level of processes - and where it goes to the
sub-electron level (gauge-field by our modern terms).
Because Maxwell equations were supposed to correctly work at
/oth levels - it sometimes caused a mess.
We should keep in mind two different cases - when Maxwell talks
about the current of electrons (usual electric current) - and when he
talks about the displacement current, which certainly is going at
much lower levels.
There is one curious fact - in 1857, several years before Maxwell
equations was presented, Kirchhoff had presented his telegraph
equations where he derived electro-dynamic waves without using
displacement current, but using Poisson's equation (for liquids)
and the equation of continuity. Simply speaking, the same result
(electro-magnetic waves) could be achieved in some real
continual media.You will be surprised, but both approaches at
current moment are counted as mathematically equivalent (:0).
Ok, if they are allowed to do such tricks - why we could not
afford to himself a bit of imagination? (:0).
Lets imagine, that /etween the gauge field nodes exists
something else. m-m-m. lets name it magnetic flux or
magnetic meia.
If you think that we are invented it right now - you are wrong -
Maxwell in his physical model (which he used when he derived his
equations) had already used something like magnetic flux - as a
small rotors in split-borders of big-rotors. Later he preferred (was
convinced) to forget about his physical model - and dropped
further attempts to visualize his equations.
Maxwell has defined in his physical model that big rotors
should have Comptons dimensions - which is around 10
-13
[sm] or
10
-4
[]. If this is correct, then he had talked about electron-orbit
in atom effects.
As usual, we will try to reverse Maxwells physical model and
propose that his big rotors are not about electric field, but about
magnetic field (!). And thus his small rotors should represent
static part of equations.
Lets try to visualize it more strictly (and possibly more wrong)
(:0).
Our crazy Russians (Shipitsin-Jivoderoff ([3]) appeared not
crazier than Maxwell in his physical model. They do NOT include in
their model any of the pseudo-continuous media between gauge-
field nodes. nor between theirs quarks at sub-level.
Ok, want you to support Maxwell (and Kirchhoff) and propose
that some pseudo-continuous magnetic media do exist between
lattice-gauge? I do.
Lets propose that between plankeons (and possibly inside it)
exist some pseudo-continuous media which we shortly will name
magnetic meia.
When vacancy is appearing (somehow) in lattice-grid - in
magnetic media is also created some gradient of electro-magnetic
density.
Possibly next snap-shot from my simulation model will explain
you something (see Pict.5):
Pict.5. Electron and proton vacancies with magnetic media between nodes.
Top vacancy is proton, below - electron.
Red lines - vectors of magnetic fluids between nodes.
Electron presented as source of fluid.
Proton is a kind of drain.
And now imagine that electron begins to rotate around proton.
Electro-magnetic media between them will form something like
tornao of magnetic meia. Only tornados with definite
quantum numbers will give stable states of this motion.
And excessive parts of this rotating magnetic media will turn-out
of this tornado to be radiated as. photons.
Do not think that photon takes with itself one and the same
elements of magnetic media. As for all other waves in dense media
- running-out only parameters of the wave, but particles of media
are remained nearly at the same places.
Biggest miracle of electro-static (Coulom/) forces - to
understand why it is 10
31
times greater than gravitational attraction
between the same two particles.
As one of the possible explanations of this fact, I could offer
proposition that distortion of electro-magnetic media by electron
and proton had some integral influence on the mobility of
vacancies. meaning that magnetic fluid density tensor could
change stochastic of defect drift to such an extend (10
31
).
Other possible explanation could be next. Gradients of both
distorted fluid fields could interact as integral by volume, while
gravitational asymmetry (force) is defined by weakened influence
of only ONE (gravitational) defect.
Both versions do not give as any real model of such difference.
Except possibly, second version gives as some hints about
possible density of magnetic media.
But right now we do not have proposition - did this magnetic
media exists only /etween plankeons - or it could be in!ie
plankeons al!o?
In last case magnetic media could have practically any internal
pressure in stable state.
But there is one very serious limit to such a big difference in
density between plankeons and magnetic media. If both
gravitational and electromagnetic processes propagates with the
same speed of light (?) then we should have equal densities for both
- or should decide in which of the entities those processes are really
propagates?
Or we should propose that both gravitational and electromagnetic
distortions could propagate only as common (united) process (?).
Below in this book we will try to find arguments pro and contra
such a very strange proposition.
For example, how could photon does have some impulse if it
does not drag with itself some king of (soliton-like) gauge-field
distortion?
And vice-versa, did all of the heavy particles should have
charge? For the first glance we have a lot of charge-less mass-
particles. but why it always splits to two charged shortly? (:0).
--- <> ---
I think that someone still do not believe that our model (gauge-
nodes with defects and magnetic media) is really the same as
Maxwell equations? Ok, lets try to show how most of the equations
could be explained in our model.
First, Maxwell equation of static charge:
Div 0 1 2

In every point of electric field divergence (scalar of gradient) of
electric field of displacement is proportional to specific density of
electric charge.
When Maxwell talks about charge - he means not the source of
charge but the entire charge field. So, under the specific density of
electric charge in every point he means exactly the same as we in
our model mean under the density of magnetic media in every
point.
As to the left part of the equation - it is simply the electrostatic
force which test charge will be influenced in the field of our charge.
More than that - Maxwell equation as usual is continuous and
(like all equations in continuous logic) has not really knows what
to do in the source of charge - because it is a good tradition of
such equations that all the sources are size-less there.
Mathematically speaking, there is a derivative discontinuity.
As you understand, our model does not have that problem.
In our interpretation electrostatic could be described like that:
Defect of lattice-gauge caused the change of surrounding
magnetic media density;
Other defect placed in the field of first defect will feel influence of
(static) gradient-changes of magnetic media from the other;
As a result - in a source of test-vacancy there will be coulomb
(static) force of repulsion (if it was vacancies of equal types).
Why this (coulomb) force is 10
31
times greater than gravitational
- we have tried to discuss above - but not yet come to the definite
solution (:0).
--- <> ---
And now lets try to discuss mathematical and physical
explanations of magnetism (3-vector-field).
Having in mind my remarks about what is physics and what
mathematics is - lets try to look at third Maxwells equation.
rotor . 1 - 34t
This equation is just other form of Faradays Induction Law,
which states that magnetic flux changing in time creates a
proportional electromotive force.
Faradays experimental facts were related to the next picture of
experiment:
Solenoids (!) of some or other types were used to generate
changes of magnetic field inside the coils. Most evident results was
attained when inside the solenoid was iron hoop. In this case
Faraday even registered electric current inside OTHER solenoid on
the same hoop, when the current was switched-on (or off) at the
first solenoid.
Now you possibly understood what the mathematical kind of
proposition made Maxwell? Aha - he has proposed that the physical
solenoid could be reduced to dimensionless point (?!) which,
nevertheless, should be remained the solenoid with the Faradays
properties of solenoids. And, bingo, he gets his propagated E-B
waves (:0). Of course I am simplifying the case, but.
What I am trying to ask now - is it physically correct to do such
mathematical tricks to the essentially structured system?
Ok, lets try to do it correctly. Lets propose that on the
structural level of electron-proton interactions exists some kind of
solenoids with electric current inside.
One of the natural solenoids on such levels is electron itself on
the orbit around proton. Atom of hydrogen for example.
Which of the parameters of magnetic media (see description in
above chapters) will be suited for us as a kind of 3-fiel in a
sense of Maxwell? I think we will not invent any kind of rotational
component of this media. We will try to use tangential
tran!ient! of magnetic meia on this role.
It is evident (:0) that electron (meaning the defect-source of
charge) spinning (literally) around proton in atom - will arouse a
kind of turbulent movement of magnetic media around.
The electro-static (electron-proton) dipole-field never is
completely closed, so this turbulence will spread and sum up with
turbulences around (from other atoms). This is how long-range
constant magnetic fields are formed.
Here will be added discussions of the other Maxwell equations.
Second version of my book in Russian is not finished yet, so the
discussions of other Maxwell equations will be added here a bit
later.
--- <> ---
CHAPTER FOUR
What !ir "ewton ha in min uner hi! 5infinite!imal!6?
From the school years we have used to think that all that was
done by Newton - is ideal.
And this was the sir Newton dream too. He wanted to find such
ideal knowledge which nobody will change ever.
Thats why he goes straight to the infinitesimal points.
Most famous Newtons Second Law was written for the
dimensionless material point, which nevertheless somehow had
mass.
I am not surprised that at Newton times the question about
qualitative limits of any physical operations on structured material
systems was not aroused.
But I am surprised that it was delayed until Planks constant
discovery. And I am not sure that even quantum mechanics fully
grasped the meaning of qualitative boundaries of systems (in
philosophic sense).
Practically none of the mathematical physicists wants to
remember that an+ material particle is a SYSTEM.
And as an+ system it inevitably should consists of some
element!.
Elements of any system always are in a state of some or other
relation! with the other elements of this system.
Information about change! in some part of elements in system
will reach other elements with inevitable delay.
So in an+ system (including Newtonian infinitesimal point)
reaction to external influence - is a proce!!.
In a starting phase of this process some of the elements are
already changed, but some others are still in previous state.
And thats how inertia reveals itself in any real system.
Now you understand why none of the inertia was reminded in
Newtons Second Law? (:0). Yes, because his material particle was
dimensionless.
Newton was also a father of differential calculus which is
unthinkable without his infinitesimal points.
And thus he was a father of mathematical physics, good
tradition of which has become to ignore such trifles as material
grounds of theirs abstractions.
To be exact, not all of the scientists of the Newtonian time had
shared his enthusiasm about the infinitesimals. Leibniz, for example,
has tried to use conception of the limit of convergence, but
without big success. In short, he wanted to explain, that it is not
necessary to use infinitesimals literally, especially in physics. He
said that it would be enough to have some finite practical limit - to
get very good practical result of differential equations.
Even if result of some differential equations gets correct values
for some classical mechanical systems - that does not means that it
will get physically correct results for ALL systems on all structural
levels and all scales. Especially true this to the attempts to apply the
paradigm of continual field of infinitesimal material points on ALL
(!) structural levels of matter.
Newton himself possibly feel that there is something wrong with
it - else why he need to formulate his Third Law, which is already
about the system of material points. Third Law is already
summarizing (by energy of all particles in system) and about
comparisons of system energy in two different moments. It states
that sum of impulses of all elements in system will remain the same
integrally if we will not add energy to system externally.
Of course Newton skipped the transient states of system and
talked about steady-states of system - thus he again missed the
possibility to grasp the physical nature of inertia (:0).
It is really strange to me, how the father of differential
equations, which is the enigma of close-range interactions
paradigm, could also was a father of Gravitation Law?
I mean that Newton does NOT applied in this case none of his
close-range differential equations, but instead proposed that
gravitation has long-range type of interactions (instantaneous).
Possibly this happened because he was not materialist (in
philosophical sense)? (:0).
I suspect that Newton had understand this inconsistency of the
Gravitation Law - and tried to apply there the short-range
equations. But for this he should have proposed existence of some
kind of gravitational media. H-m-m. But we did know someone
who had done this later without any real physical media (:0). And
which is most strange (to me) - that most of the physicists had
approved it (:0). If dimensionless material point does exist - why
it could not have curvature? (:0).
Ok, of course I do NOT want to say that Newtons Second Law is
wrong (:0). But I only want to remind that it should be applied to
the center of mass of those dimensionless (but nevertheless
material) point. And for the centers of mass all will be going in
accordance with Newton laws.
But we hardly should count this field of mass-centers to be
continual physically. Mathematically - as you wish.
But even mathematicians should not be completely free when
trying to go to the qualitative boundaries of the matter.
Good mathematician should have felt when he already is
under the material boundary of the currently explored SYSTEM -
and already trying to go to the SUB-structure.
I hint that this position (about any material points being
systems) had some strange aspect. Because any material objects
should have some sub-structure, than on the structural level of
object itself any interactions with other object of the same level -
should looks like local LONG-range interaction.
And if we want to solve this problem physically - we should
propose existence of some sub-structure (interaction media). and
so on.
I suspect that Newton also have tried to glance in that structural
well. And decided that he does not want to fall in that well
indefinitely (:0). Or he had such a good vision that he could
distinct his infinitesimals at the bottom (:O).
Nevertheless, we should have to admit that Newtons
infinitesimals is a mathematical abstract, using a local long-
range interaction paradigm to reach results.
All REAL physical systems had (at least) TWO structural levels
which is irredundant - and thus all real physical systems had (at
least) TWO components (like E and B in electro-magnetism).
Of course, if at some moment we are researching the Coulombs
law - we can temporarily forget about magnetic component of
matter. But this will be only partial description of reality.
I am really pity for those mathematical physicists who had to
describe something REAL (two-level-structural and qualitatively
discrete), using ONLY infinitesimals paradigm. Our Russian
scientist Panchenkov had published the book The Inertia, where
he is trying to explain the physical nature of inertia, using only the
classical continual paradigm. Of course in this paradigm inertia
simply have to be something external - some external inertial
fields applied to the infinitesimals.
But our brave mathematical physicists never quit - they had in
sleeves some secret weapon - imaginable numbers.
As I already explained (somewhere above) - this trick is
allowing them to give additional degree of freedom to the
infinitesimals systems, thus allowing them to get some
experimentally confirmed results. Of course they understood that
this imaginable space is not real (especially in theirs
paradigm), but the worse for the reality (:0).
Time to time Panchenkov sigh: o, this kind of imaginable-space
process could not be reflected in real space.
Of course to his UNSTRUCTURED reality basically STRUCTURED
process could NOT be reflected.
I am not sure is it correct place to remind some child example
which nevertheless show that not all of the systems comply with the
Newtons Second Low. Try to collide two plasticine balls. You will see
that both will be deformed and stayed at the collision-point -
breaking the Second Law.
Of course very simple and correct explanation is to send the
mechanical (collision) energy to the lower (molecular) level.
I hope now you understood what I am talking about? (:0).
Nearly the same problems with his equations had Maxwell, until
he invented -uaternion !pace!. Ok, it was invented by Hamilton
first (:0).
It is nearly the same trick with additional degree of freedom to
the system - but now added to all three dimensions.
Quaternions could be viewed as the outer tensor product of a
scalar and a 3-vector.
Because Maxwell described only electromagnetic part of physics -
scalar is applied to electrostatic and vector to electrodynamics
(mostly).
And sometimes there added condition that the electromagnetic
potential (tensor), which has a scalar field phi and a 3-vector
potential A - should form a field.
I could only guess what exactly they mean under field? Meaning
some kind of physical union? Simply speaking, E and B parts
should work together? (:0).
I suspect that under the carpet inside the scalar field phi they
already dragged in all the effects with masses too.
Strictly speaking quaternions is not simply coordinates but 4-
coordinates (events).
But that we discuss a bit later, when trying to understand what
the relativity is about.
And now I only want to remind you which trick exactly Maxwell
have to do with the Faradays Law of Induction, making Third
Maxwell equation from it (see the end of previous chapter).
He made infinitesimals from Faradays solenoids (!) and thus
solved the problem of E-B propagation in vacuum, because while it
is already in the same point - it does not need any media to
propagate already (:0).
By the way, Maxwells Third Equation:
rotor . 1 - 34t
Is nothing more than Newtonians momentum conservation -
by the form of presentation.
Newton, looking at the whirligig, imagined how it is becoming a
material point, do NOT loosing its spinning properties
nevertheless. Does it matter, that most essential property of
momentum is an arm? In ideal physics dimensionless point
could have not only a mass, but the arm also! (:0).
Of cause, when we applying Newtonians law of Momentum
Conservation to the center of mass of any real whirligig - all is
working wonderful, because real whirl has real arm and external
forces NEVER will be applied exactly to dimensionless arm.
And the trick consists in multiplying dimensionless vector of
rotation (in complex space) by some scalar value of momentum
arm. And all will be wonderful (:0). Why we need to research real
system and take in account some strange qualitative boundaries
of ANY systems? Phui on it - we have complex-space mathematic
instead - and we are invincible!
It is really funny. if it was not so sad.
Ok, lets try to find at least some physical grounds under the
Maxwells (and Newtons) equations. Suppose that we will find some
very-very small physical rotors - micro-solenoids - and thus all
of the conditions of Faradays experiment (two solenoids on iron
ring) will be repeated on the structural level of. atom?
Aha, micro-solenoids (electrons spinning around protons) we
have, so lets try to manage without the iron ring. (:0).
Good, third Maxwell law is working on the structural level of
atom. Possibly later we will find some kind of solenoids on the
structural level of single defect (particle), because it is common
knowledge that particles also could generate electromagnetic
waves (?). or not?
For example, when defects with attached charge-field jumps,
cloud of compressed magnetic media around it also gets some
impulses of transient changes. Mathematically it is a vector (of
electromagnetic changes) which in common case had two
components - radial and tangential. Radial components of
electromagnetic changes usually interpret as E-components of field.
Dynamic E-components should comply with first Maxwell law - so
we could call them dynamic E-divergence.
Tangential (relative to second charge of this magnetic dipole
(proton-to-electron, etc.)) components of magnetic media changes
(with defect jump) - traditionally interprets as transient B-field.
I am not completely separated (to myself) is there some
difference between B-static (? if any) and B-dynamic?
Could we think about magnetic-media tornado caused by
electron-proton interactions in atom - as about B-static?
If dB/dt = 0 (on stationary orbits) then B-static is simply a case
when rotor(E) = 0 (whatever this means (:0)).
And I guess, that it means no attempts to radiate wave.
Because some attempts to spin-up this whirl will produce a photon
radiation.
Of course you should crossbreed continuous (!) Maxwell equation
with excessively discrete Niels Bohr ideas - to get something looks
like explanation of photon-generation. But of course Bohr ideas
were far too discrete to give some picture of photon-generation
PROCESS.
I am not sure should we return to third Maxwell equation and
spend the rest of our lives trying to guess what exactly is the
rotor(E) in the case of photon-generation?
As I already explained somewhere above, radio E-B wave is
NOT a wave of photons (:0). And possibly vice-versa. Ok-ok,
some kind of closed E-B-wave photon (light) has too. But its
dynamic tornado (Archimedes screw of magnetic-media
transients) is NOT generated by rotor(E), especially
dimensionless. From the physics point of view, exactly in this
case dimensionless rotor of E-changes much better to interpret as
vector-gradient of E-changes (yes-yes, I know that it is
mathematically incorrect (:0)).
Vector of E-changes (dynamic changes in magnetic media
density) photon also has. You could look at photon as to the
dynamic mirror of hydrogen atom. Looking at photon by the axis
of its movement you will see nearly the same tornado of magnetic
media, but without defect in a place of electron (?). And the proton
mirror in the center of photon will be that dynamic E-changes.
But in projection to movement-vector it possibly will look as
constant.
As I already tried to discuss above, I do not know what is
keeping this dynamic tornado (photon) from dissipation?
It is much easier to propose that in the center of photons
dynamic tornado of magnetic media also exist some type of
dynamic defect - chained Archimedes (screw-like) dynamic-
defects jumps.
Of course it looks like I have made slant of facts in favour of the
author's theory, but. when you could invent better explanation to
ALL of photon properties - please let me know (:0).
Possibly this chapter is not good place to discuss
electromagnetism. I wanted to dedicate it to the critique of
infinitesimals and some other mathematical tricks. So, lets
continue in this direction - let photon fly for a while.
CHAPTER FIVE
Time a! a mea!ure of change!
Hope that you had wondered - what is a time as physical
entity?
I could offer to you un-substantive explanation of physical
essence of time.
Meaning that author impudently insisting that NONE of the time
as separate physical entity (not) exist.
And what the time is about then?
You will be surprised, but the answer is not new already.
Long ago Titus Lucretius Carus (55 year b.c., ancient Rome) in
his On the Nature of Things write:
And there is NO time by itself, but the obects
!ead as to feeling of ages that moving around.
"ut you#d admit that you could not a$are of the
%ime by itself, other than movements of matter&
The same idea grasped Avicenna (Ibn Sina) (990 - 1037):
'pace, time and motion ( are inseparable&
Nearly the same ideas shared the Laplace, Descartes and Mach.
Do not mess the last with Marx (:0) because the father of
socialism had shared the ideas of Friedrich Engels.
To me it is a big puzzle - how a father of materialism (Engels)
could blurt out that:
)atter e*ist in space and time..
Could you imagine materialist who state that there exits
something above matter? (:0).
I suspect that in the sense of Engels - Minkowski and Riemann
were also materialists (:0).
I hope you already understood that we will try to find solutions
where the space and time are some PROPERTIES of matter, not
vice-versa.
In above chapters we already have found some explanations
about space which we live in.
In this chapter I will try to show you that LOCAL PROCESSES
serve us as material carriers of time.
Thus I insist that 5time6 i! 7u!t a 8.AS9:. of ;OCA;
C<A"=.S.
On each structural level and in each locality this measure
reveals itself through the BASE parameters of LOCAL PROCESSES
(for this structural level).
Simply speaking, time is just objective (local-material-
structure-based) etalon of speed for ANY local processes.
Below we will try to find how each local process referred to
local-etalons of lower structural level. Meaning that local etalons
are always represents some lower-level structural basis for all
processes (objects) constructed on that basis. In some sense our
basis has the same meaning which it has in mathematics (:0).
--- <> ---
We could only guess why answer to the mystery of time, being
so evident, is not widely accepted for a couple of thousands years?
One of possible explanations could be in global similarity of all
local processes (on Earth surface, where we usually lived recently).
Thus people started to think that all processes are somehow
pushed by some universal source.
This source of changes even thought of as external.
Thus people completely turn of this source of changes from
local processes and even make it global.
Even those who guess that time is something about changes
- often have no courage to make last step and completely refuse to
look at time as to physical entity. They think: what if
somewhere `below` there is something which `force` all this to
move. or at least to change.
Ok, what if nature does NOT need any special forces to be in a
state of continuous changes?
Below I will try to show that usual state of nature (or any
significant part of it) - is a transient dynamic state of reaching
stability after receiving some or other disturbance.
So, you could think that the reason of changes is a tendency of
all systems to reach theirs stable states. Paradox as usual.
One famous scientist (you will guess who) 100 years ago also
had proposed that all systems could be essentially local - and thus
could have its own local time. But even he has not enough
materialistic roots to define local PROCESSES as a basis
(measure) of local changes. Being the Minkowskis disciple, he was
satisfied with the revealing plane as an enough explanation of the
nature of time. Thus, to get some processes as a basis of local
changes - he should have taken some local-metric clock firmly
attached to the local curvature of space. It does not matter that
his space later was declared as mathematical (Riemannian) - the
clock was continued to go, no matter what. (:0).
Possibly the entire material basis of local processes was stuffed
inside those clock? Khgm, and why you need some separate
immaterial locally curved space then? To explain why our stuffed
with material basis clock will slow-down when this space will
become more curved? Curiouser and curiouser as Alice said.
Oh, no, I do not want to be fired from job - forget it, lets kick
Minkowski instead - he has Russian roots, as me, so possibly the
bosses will say that it is theirs (me and Minkowski) own internal
affairs (:0).
Minkowski added to his spaces some operator of time (plane
of global revealing process). That was all of materialistic he could
allow himself in his spaces (lack of grants, possibly). And thus his
revealing PROCESS (?!) could NOT be depended of some other
real local processes. But this was already warmer. If somewhere
deep below at the bottom of structures (greetings from Newton)
laying down some most basic universal process, which is always
the same in any locality - wow, it could be exactly those
Minkowskis operator of time. It is only necessary to wait a little
until we reach the bottom of structures.
All other poor people like me have no chance (do not live that
long) to reach this bottom and have to live with something more
real as a basis for local processes. Possibly gravitation will be the
good choice? Hm, sorry, gravitation is changing with locality so it is
not such a good choice for the basis (measure of local time). For
the same reason we should refuse of atomic (laser) clock.
Experiments shown that processes in lasers do depends of the
local gravitational density. The same processes in lasers (and
other electron-proton systems) are going faster on Earth orbit
comparing to the Earth surface. Possibly my Picture-3 will explain
you something. If not, I have to explain that ALL processes going in
the more relaxed gravitational tensor (where gravitation is
stronger) - will be going SLOWER. So at the orbit of Earth, where
gravitational tensor of plankeons field is nearer to the initially
compressed state, all processes based on plankeons (gravitational
and electromagnetic) should have to go faster.
Alas, poor Minkowski, we will NOT find any REAL process which
could NOT depend of local MATERIAL basis. And thus we could NOT
use Minkowskis metric as a model of some REAL process.
His clocks will always be not in time with something real.
Of course I will not dare to underestimate his mathematical
achievements.
It was not so simple to me to understand that processes in
different localities does not have to change synchronously - and
thus it is no need not only in a common revealing plane, but even
in a procedure of synchronization. It is enough that all the nodes
are interacting (with nearest) and thus (!) changing its states as a
result of internal and external interactions.
--- <> ---
Several words (again) about time as a 5!ource6 of change!.
I already proposed that for the source of changes we should
take 5homeo!tatic6 propert+ of nearly all real !+!tem!.
Possibly it is main difference between SYSTEM and group of
elements. When homeostatic system (practically any real system
with loopbacks) takes some disturbance - it begins to return to the
steady (stable) state.
Even single loopback give to the system essentially new property
which elements of this system does not have. It is kind of a good
version of the Gdel theorem (:0). To be exact he said that any
system could not be reduced to the sum of its elements and always
had property which elements do not. I just specified the property
(:0).
Universe as a whole will never (I hope) return to really stable
state, even if we will not take into account energy-transformations
of different types. And possibly, universe as a whole had already
learned how to transform energy from lower to higher structural
levels. At least all living systems do. It is interesting, this is a
bug in our computer - or it was the idea? (:0).
And, as I have tried to argue with Newton, that ANY particle of
matter should have considered as SYSTEM - I also will insist here
that MOST of the objects and processes in this universe should be
considered as SYSTEMS with (potentially) stable states. Thus any
real object had tendency (reason, source of changes) to go to the
stable state in current conditions of external (and internal)
interactions.
Mathematical physicists prefer to ignore the (modern) Theory of
Systems, so they are applying <amilton>! principle of least
action. The Hamilton in some sense is the father of Theory of
Systems, but at his ages (1835) was not used such methods as
frequency analysis and transient spectra of system. Thus Hamilton
has tried to say something about the system, exploring transitional
diagrams of systems returning to stable state from the state with
excessive kinetic energy. Principle of least action states that any
system will select such version (way) of returning to stable
state, at which integral of action will be minimal.
Because Action is the area under the curve of transient process -
this principle means that system will minimize the energy (and
time) while returning to the stable state.
Modern Theory of Systems prefers to use such characteristics of
systems like stability measure, etc. But Lagrangian (under-integral
function minimized in Hamiltons action calculation) could be used
even when we does NOT know the structure of system.
No wander that physicists preferred to blindly seek any exotic
versions of Lagrangians that will be fit to any exotic theory. I could
name the last millennia (in physics) - the millennia of seeking for
the Graal cup of Lagrangians. With nearly the same aim - to reach
personal immortality. And not without success - Schrdinger even
gets the Nobel Prize for this.
It is much simpler (possibly) than trying to construct something
like (model of) REAL physical system and then derive ALL of its
properties from it.
--- <> ---
Speaking about mathematical methods in physics, we have to
remind about local-procedure approach. Possibly most evidently
this problem was formulated by Stephen Wolfram:
+eality is something li,e system of cell-automata $ith one and
the same program in each cell. .ells are interacting only $ith
nearest cells, long-range interactions e*cluded.
Philosophical categories usually does not used in mathematical
equations (:0), so we have to invent some new mathematical
formalisms which could directly (?) use two of above-mentioned
philosophical (physical) principles:
Principle of ;ocal ?i!crete@ proceure cau!alit+ (Wolfram
as example);

Principle of ;ocal ?material@ mea!ure! of change! (no idea
what could be used instead of metrics?).

Lets try to sort our problems philosophically first?
Those who had feared by the word (philosophy) - could skip next
chapter (:0).
CHAPTER SIX
<ierarch+ of philo!ophical efinition! ?in context of 5time6
pro/lem@
A C<A"=. - fundamental property of matter, synonym of
motion as philosophical category, most essential attribute of
existence. 5Time6 i! efine a! a mea!ure of C<A"=.S,
objectively referred to the basis of local processes. Which exactly of
the local-basis processes we should take (gravitation,
electromagnetism, etc.) as a normalization unit for all changes
(local time) - should be defined from system under consideration.
If the unification dream of modern physics will become true - it
will be most logical to take some of it (universal field) property as
a measure of local time. But do not hope that it will be
universally equal in any locality (:0).
Even our age by passport often do not equal to biological age.
That is why some biologists (Meien [9]) proposed to define
biological age not in standard years, but relatively to certain internal
biological events (embryonal stage for ex.).
A P:OC.SS B selected subset of changes. Process could be
considered as localized change supplied with parameters
(properties). Of course any such sub-division of matter would be
subjective. But how else we could construct our physical (and
especially mathematical (:0)) models?
A C"T.:ACTCO" B two-way influence of Processes. We should
try to avoid using any human subject, who will select which of the
processes are internal and which is external.
Interacting processes not only exchange parameters - it also
develops COMMON PROPERTY. Thus Interaction is a kind of partial
union by common parameters. I must stress that it is REAL
unification (by some parameter(s)). In that sense philosophy had
statement that our universe could be considered as unity (one
super-system). But while we stated the principle of Local Causality -
that unity should reveal itself through the chain of LOCAL
INTERACTIONS. But our nodes of universe are discrete, so it is
reasonable to propose (after the Plank) that any (?) interaction
should have horizon of propagation (discrete barrier of events).
Possibly those horizons and structural limits of systems - are
the same things, when we apply dissipation to any real system.
I think that even such systems as propagated photon could not
avoid horizons and dissipation (Halls effect).
Let me made one remark about the observation procedure in
Quantum Mechanic. None of the special observer needed for those
events to be happened. Observation in QM is USUAL interaction,
but with result of destruction for one of the interacted objects
(processes, systems). Such result of interaction we getting not only
in QM, but even in classical mechanic also. But for QM such result of
interaction is become normal (:0).

A P:OP.:TD B one of the attribute of Process or one of the
parameters of Interaction. Most of the Properties should be counted
as subjective, but for several of them had reached consensus
that it is real. More than that, some of the real Properties also
could be counted as eigenvalues. The difference between
eigenvalue and invariant is nearly the same as between physics
and mathematics (:0). For example, fine-structure constant (E) is
definitely physical eigenvalue for most physical interactions, but our
brave mathematicians not yet derived it as any group invariant.
A F9A;CTD B system (structural) invariant of Process or
Interaction. It is not absolute invariant but only in the borders of
that type of processes and on that structural level. Or, possibly,
vice-versa - we could say that Processes are equal qualitatively
only if we could find there equal quality (structures) for both.
Main difference of Quality from Property is not physical but
philosophical. Quality would exist even when we do not know the
exact value of it (:0).
Our current father of physics was possibly right that any
information about remote process we could get only through
Interactions with it and in this sense any Property is relative
(except eigenvalues, possibly). But Quality is not exactly the same
thing as Property. And thus (blasphemy) Quality is NOT relative,
until we reach the qualitative limits of its structural level.
A STAT. - in the context of this hierarchy it is a state of Process,
not object (below). Traditionally mathematics say states of Object
- and this is not exactly correct. Objects are responsible for
STRUCTURES, but States are defined by the Processes going in (on)
these structures. Of course it is a subtle difference, but
somewhere below we will try to discuss it. But if Processes could be
going ONLY in structural objects and on definite structural level,
then no difference will be found.
Interest question is about possibility to quantize Processes (and
thus its states). Possibly this is also a case of relativity (joke).
Relatively to structural level of electron its energy jumps surely
looks like quantum (discrete). But from the structural level of
magnetic media it is fast enough, but still continuous Process
(photon emission).
So we should not bravely (mathematically) spread results of
QM to the structural level which is below QM.
I want to say several words about state space in physics
(Hilbert space).
If only we could use this functional spaces directly applying its
formalisms to construct our local functional basis (local time) for
any other local processes - that would solve my dream to find
mathematical equivalent of my idea about essence of time (at
least). Because it is common knowledge that Hilberts State Space
is practically single mathematical formalism which does NOT need t-
variable (time) to work. Traditional time in this State Space is
reduced to demand of homogeneity of those State Spaces
(whatever this means physically).
If this approach will not help - I would have to be addressed to
the Lie algebra (its not a joke).
One thing confuses me as a physicist. All of the Hilberts States
(of physical system) are existing at once - never mind previous,
current or future. But physically NORE previous NORE future states
do exists. Future states will be generated from current states in
every node. And even if it is a kind of some non-dissipative (?)
periodic process (pendulum) - system itself does NOT know its
future states until it will be generated from current state. Of
course we could extrapolate practically any state of such system -
but this does NOT mean that their states already exist REALLY.
It looks like a good approach to solve a problem of reversing the
arrow of time. Physically any system does have ONLY FUTURE.
I like Wolfram position about Hilberts State Space:
'hould $e really imagine that the complete space-time history
of the universe someho$ al$ays e*ists, and that as time
progresses, $e are merely e*ploring different parts of it/ Or should
$e instead thin, that the universe--more li,e systems such as
cellular automata--e*plicitly evolves in time, so that at each
moment a ne$ state of the universe is in effect created, and the old
one is lost/
And even if this is a periodic system which could have
(practically) the same state as a period before - theoretically we
could distinct those two states referring to some number of
surrounding nodes. You do not doubt that anywhere in universe we
will find something different for this period? (:0). Or you promise
that you will make ALL of our universe exactly the same just to
convince me that you could repeat (reverse) time? (:0).
Now you understood why Minkowski had to invent his revealing
plane? Because Hilberts State Space needs some labeling
mechanism which will mark some of the states conserved there
with the (yellow?) flag active for a moment (:0).
But I really have no ideas how my generation (birth) of every
next state could be formalized mathematically?
None of the metrics does (not) allow this (?), as far as I know.
A O3,.CT or SDST.8 B group of Processes having common
(merging) number of Qualities. For merging a group of Processes
in System - between it should exist Interactions with common
invariants.
Mathematically it is a demand for Object to have some
(functional) symmetry group (of Interactions) with invariant(s).
And thus the border of the Object is a surface (or topological
sub-group) on which this symmetry is broken.
Possibly thats why modern mathematical physicists prefer to
seek groups of symmetry instead of seeking real objects.
I could not agree that physical Object (System) is exactly the
same as its symmetry group.
So my definition above is not complete yet (:0).
For example there is such essentially dynamic Object as
photon, which has dynamic symmetry and dynamic borders. But
of course it is not a problem for our brave math-boys to invent such
kind of math-symmetry (dynamic). Would not be surprised if this
already done before.
Ok, does this mean that I forgot to add the word Material to
object to allow it become physical instead of mathematical?
Let those brave math-boys invent some group which will
describe essentially discreet systems does NOT having any
infinitesimal elements and using sub-structural processes (with
essentially another rules) as a measure of speed for processes of
current level.
Hm, you said Superstring theory?
Do you really think that system with 32 (!) dimensions could
explain something to someone? Or, yes, our brave math-boys had
already understood all? Hm or, yea, at least bravest. I hope.
--- <> ---
Description of really necessary philosophical category had
finished at this.
In Russian version at this place was discussion of some a bit
more subtle philosophical questions. Like relations between
material structure and material changes.
But I am not sure that it fits with logic of English version, which
is come out much more strict.
Ok, lets skip further philosophic discussions and try to continue
with some or other physics (:0).
CHAPTER SEVEN
C! it change !omething when we u!e local mea!ure of
change! in!tea 5goo ol time6?
Let me repeat, that time is just a measure of changes (for any
process under consideration) objectively defined (by process itself)
with reference to local-basis processes.
So, for the referential local clocks the nature prefer to use not
the abstract clocks and rules but real processes consisted the
functional basis of considered process.
We already discussed above, that in this case we could not find
any locality-independent (material) basis for such clocks. But this
is completely agree with General Relativity theory (GR).
Difference is only in physical interpretation of gravitation - but
not in the idea that gravitation (as one of the basis processes in any
locality) should influence on local time.
Let me explain some details, so I doubt that this is necessary
(:0). Suppose that we have two equal clocks. In the same locality
(on my table) it will function equally. Which kind of the processes
(inside clocks) we should use to allow it function equally in locations
with different parameters of basis processes?
For example, could we avoid different speed of clocks in the
locations with different gravitation? For you possibly it looks
simple, but I did not know the means of screening the
gravitation. If you think that laser clocks will not feel
gravitation, hm. you are optimist then (:0).
That is nearly what the GR about - you could NOT screen-out
from gravitation, while it is essentially fundamental process for
ANY processes of one structural level above it.
And possibly that explains why the father of modern physics
could not reduce electromagnetism to curvature of space
(gravitation?). Because it looks like we could screen-out it and
thus exclude it from the basis (:0). Hm, original proof.
But by this logic, when the anti-gravitation will be invented, we
will have to seek some other basis for good clocks?
Other prove that possibility to screen-out some basis-process
does not mean that it is not so fundamental (?).
Thus we deduced that GR (and SR) is not about possibilities to
manually change basis of the good clocks, but about such simple
idea that we could NOT find ANY unchangeable (!) basis for any
clocks.
But there is other (opposite) part of this deduction - in reality
basis is never consists of only ONE process. It was in skipped
philosophical part - reality, it looks, on all structural levels consists
at least of TWO entities which is irredundant (gravitation and
electromagnetism, etc.).
--- <> ---
And now we inevitably should have to step on a slip ground of
comparisons with Special Relativity.
Going further with attempts to find solid basis for any local
processes, we simply have to mention about free movement.
I am very sad to confess myself guilty. To be not fired from my
job, I possibly will quit myself. Or even commit some kind of suicide
(:0). Keep calm - it is our Russian humor.
Hm, what is a list of my crimes really are?
Because our lattice vacuum is always in absolute position -
we do not need (on structural level of lattice-defects) to use
relative references describing any movements.
And now strait to the problem.
Coul !ome o/7ect 5feel!6 parameter! of it! 9"CFO:8
movement ?relativel+ to lattice-gri@?
If the answer is yes - then we will get nearly the same
picture as in SR but a bit different way (and possibly I will be
pardoned (post-mortem)).
In classical physics what we are going to do is corresponding to
denying of Galilei principle.
But, wait, is not Lorentz-covariance was invented as a
substitution to the Galilei principle? So, possibly, it is not such a
crime already? (:0).
And I have some other excuses. In the case of defects going
(jumping) over lattice-grid situation looks a bit different than
free movement in BLANK vacuum.
And our case is even more complicated because defect of lattice-
grid is not only interacting with lattice, but is a part of its structure,
according to Yang-Mills-Rovelli paradigms.
I think that someone still asking and what about Galilei
principle?
This man (and Galilei, in opportunity) we will calm that it is not
his (Galilei) eparchy already. NONE of the free movement in
blankness now (not) exists. Physical vacuum is not blank from
Diracs time already (:0). And thus any real model of uniform
motion could not be a model of Galilei. Of course at small speeds
Galileis model will be reasonable approximation.
But for the speeds of defects jumping compared with the speed
of media-deformation - inevitably will be aroused some non-linear
effects. Evidently there will be some limit of speed and I would not
be surprised if it will be equal to the maximum speed of deformation
for this media.
Of course you could interpret this as increasing of mass with
the speed, if you think that it is funnier. But physically correct
would be to propose that at the speed boundaries we already could
not transfer any additional impulse to the defect because any other
defect (or even gravitational and magnetic fields) could not catch
up with it.
So, it is possibly time to answer the question - could some
object feel the value of its uniform speed?
My answer is yes.
Could this fact (that parameters of object somehow changing
with the changes of uniform speed) influence on experimental
values received from this object in different conditions of uniform
movement? Again yes.
For those who had not grasped yet, I could remind that most
convincing of SR was the facts of prolongation life-span for
particles moving with near-the-light speed.
With new paradigm of time as a reference-measure to basis
processes (see above) - the explanation of this effect looks simple
enough. At the near-the-light speeds particle has become not so
strongly connected to basis processes and it is slowing down
particles internal time. Believe you or not.
And I still do not see principal difference in results between
this theory and SR (:0). Ok, possibly Lorentz-covariance formula
should be corrected a bit. Oh, no, not guillotine, please. (:0).
--- <> ---
Post-mortem discussion about using eigenvalues (informational)
exchange instead of referential interactions.
Father of modern physics thought that we have no other means
to get information from remote object then send some kind of the
messenger there. But better two messengers (:0). And by interval
between messengers (when they will return) - we will evaluate
what is going on there.
In other words, in the center of SR paradigm lays-down the
proposition that ANY information (?) about remote system we could
get ONLY by sequential observations. I think that Lorentz sincerely
proposed that none of the other types of interactions (not) exist.
If so, ok, relativity as absolute and none of the means to
know what is really happening there - does not exist (:0).
But. wait. if you want to know how many sheep (lambs) had
remained in your herd - you will send someone to count it.
When he will return, first question he asks will be: in which
referential system you want the answer? (:0).
Yes, it is example of informational interaction where the frame
reference, fortunately, does not have such a big sense.
But could we find any example of informational interactions in
abiocoen (non-living matter)? I am not sure.
But this example possibly confirm that reality is still exits (:0)
and the question what is really happening there still have some
sense (?).
Lets try to understand what is really happening in a systems
propagated on the lattice-greed with a speed of light? For example
with light itself (photons). Does time is stopped there?
It depends from what photon (not we) select as basis
processes. If none of the processes faster then photon propagation
over the lattice exists (?) then time for photon really should stop
- and time in any sense. But we as materialists (hope you are?
(:0)), should have to propose that some (?) processes are still going
inside photon - else how could it propagate then? So, possibly,
the speed-limit for all processes is not so rigid? Or photon still
does NOT reached it EXACTLY? This is more possible.
For explanation of this difference I would prefer to remember
such fundamental divider as E constant. but I have no enough
data for that (:0).
Other loophole for photons to be changing (material) systems -
to propose that nature has some lower structural levels than
lattice-vacuum and even lower that magnetic media.
But, possibly, it will be enough to count that magnetic media is
already structurally lower than lattice-gauge field.
If this is true, than by the law of advancing speed with the
structural level (down) we should propose that changes in magnetic
media is going a bit faster that in plankeons field.
To save the globality of speed-limit - we could propose that
electromagnetic changes are spreading ONLY by lattice and thus
only in common with gravitational changes. Exact explanation of
this hypothesis by model described in this book - I could not offer.
Except, possibly, adding proposition that magnetic media is not
completely contiguous (which is very strange for liquid-like
medias). For example, there exist some channels in plankeons,
which could be closed in some conditions. Meaning that magnetic
media between pre-compressed plankeons primarily is NOT
contiguous. Hm, it does not look like working hypothesis.
From the other hand, proposition about electromagnetic
processes being faster then light-speed is complete absurd (:0).
---<> ---
Ok, one thing remains - to propose that C<A=:. i! the
5unattaina/le6 propert+ of 5<.A*D6 ?G@ particle! (defects of
lattice-grid). And thus electro-dynamic is something about
(gravitational) jumps of defects with CHARGE - so it could NOT
propagate faster than waves of density-transients on lattice (on
plankeons, gauge-gluons).
---<> ---
From this proposition is one interesting consequence.
We does NOT banned for ANY processes in magnetic media to be
faster then density-transients on lattice. We only banned CHARGED
interactions not to comply with -limit.
Could we invent some experiment-scheme which will allow us
direct measuring of tangential magnetic-media changes (B-field)?
It is hardly possible because in such instruments we are banned
to use ANY heavy parts (:0).
Even light in this experiment we have to count as heavy. First
because of its speed, which hints us that photon propagation in its
center has some dynamic lattice-defect (I have mentioned it
above). Tangential whirl of magnetic media in photon does not
have reasons to spin faster than in its source (electron around
atom), so it even does not have to spin with light-speed.
Hm, why we need faster than light processes in photon in this
case? Possibly to explain how the primarily slow (in a moment or
turn-up from atom) whirl of magnetic media (in photon) - later
could catch-up with light-speed deformation (in the center of
photon)?
Ok, lets try to recollect the reason why we started this discussion
about possibility for photon to have something faster than
inside? Because in other case we would have to admit that time is
stopped there. Unfortunately it will stops in both senses - and as
basis processes inside - too. Which looks hardly possible for me.
I think that by selecting basis processes as a representation of
local time - we implicitly added kind of new law. Some thousand
year ahead father will teach son: If you see that time stops for
some system - try to find lower basis process for it, sonny.
But the question remains - does it REAL slow-down for this
system (mu-meson, photon, etc.) - or just relativity illusion?
Or possibly exactly for such cases we should be contended with
explanations of SR? Sonny, what is the difference for you - is it
real or illusion? (:0).
--- <> ---
AfterworH
Those who had patience to reach the end of this book, possibly
wants from me some instructions about returning physics to
reality.
Ok, try to reread remarks about local causality (very old idea)
and local time (possibly will looks like new to you).
In this book I have tried to represent a bit more detailed method
of defining local time through the basis processes.
It is for you to decide - is it about something real, or next
attempt to add some formal method.
Of course the idea of time as a measure of local changes is very
far from formal definition yet. And it is not because I could not
find nearest math-group for representation (like Lei-algebra etc.).
If you does not skipped chapter about Newton and infinitesimals
you should understood my scepsis about any classical math-
methods in this case. For essentially structural systems even
topological approaches still remains in continual paradigm. And
discreet approaches like QM is too special to describe wide
enough range of real physical (structured) systems.
And why you need physics and philosophy then? (:0).
The problem of PHYSICAL interpretation of new idea, in my
humble opinion, is NOT in finding Lei-group for it - but in attempts
to construct a world from it.
Being a bit closer to computers (then possibly some of the
readers) my idea of world creation could looks like this:
Pict.3. (CTRL+click here to jump to description)
It is still a big riddle to me why practically none of those who call
themselves physicist does (not) even try to collect ideas in
something living. Or they think that theirs runes on the tombs
(math-formulas) could be revived by some magicians of future
ages? (:0).
*aleri+ *H Pimenov,
January 2011 (English translation)
April 2007 - first Russian edition
(ISBN 978-5-900891-74-7)
;iterature:
1. A.A.orynoa, B.H.[enncoa "Hoaan 1eopnn npoc1panc1aa-apeHenn n 1nro1ennn".
http://www.lattice-space.net/Docs/Denisov_v13p4_1.pdf (PDF-qan, 8 M6)
2. A.A.orynoa "Penn1nanc1ckan 1eopnn rpaan1ann", 2003 r.
http://www.lattice-space.net/Docs/orynoa_opon.htm
3. B. . nnnnn, A. A. naoepoa, . . op6n "nno1ea c1pyk1yp
npoc1panc1aa". http://gipotesa.ilibrary.ru
4. Cortez, Patino, Quevedo "THE FIELD-TO-PARTICLE TRANSITION PROBLEM".
http://www.lattice-space.net/Docs/Quevedo_field-to-particle_0501036.pdf
5. M.enernn "pak1neckan rpaanc1a1nka".
http://www.lattice-space.net/Docs/Telegin_pg.pdf
6. op6aean "cnoa 1eopnn nenyc1oro aakyyHa".
http://www.lattice-space.net/Docs/op6aean_2001.pdf
7. ..onaea Cnnepre1nka. Hoa arnn na npo6neHy .
http://www.lattice-space.net/Docs/onaea_Cnnepre1nka.doc
8. A.Macias, H.Quevedo "Time Paradox in Quantum Gravity"
http://www.lattice-space.net/Docs/Alfredo_Macias_0610057.pdf
9. Meyen, Sergei V. 1987. 0undamentals of 1alaeobotany. London
9-2. A.A.apoa Anann 1nnonornecko konennn apeHenn C.B.Meena
10. Siepmann "The Future of Time Theory"
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-6/e6-4.htm
11. Siepmann "Why Time does not Exist"
http://www.lattice-space.net/Docs/Siepmann_e3-1.pdf
12. P.H.nHenoa "Ma1eHa1neckne 1eHnopanne konc1pyknn"
http://www.lattice-space.net/Docs/R_Pimenov1.pdf (PDF-qan 2 M6)
13. Amrit Sorli "Time as Stream of Change"
http://www.lattice-space.net/Docs/TimeAsStreamOfChanges.pdf
14. Bakman, Pogorelsky "THE NOTION OF TIME IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY"
http://www.lattice-space.net/Docs/Bakman_0701109.pdf
15. .epnek "nonep a1oHnoro aeka. An6ep1 n1en"
http://n-t.ru/ri/gr/pav09.htm
16. C.Rovelli Loop Quantum Gravitation
http://www.lattice-space.net/Docs/Carlo_Rovelli_book.pdf (pdf, 5 M6).
10. ..onaea BpeHn o6ek1nano peannoc1n kak qnnocoqckan ka1eropnn n
qnneckoe nonn1ne
http://www.lattice-space.net/Docs/onaea_BpeH.doc
11. Eftichios Bitsakis Space and Time: The Ongoing Quest, Foundations of Physics,
Volume 35, Number 1, Jan 2005, pages: 57 83
http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/q421574x71566476/?
p=808cb34b2aea44ea9bb3b41aeb424eaapi=0