Wrong Assumption: E8 Cannot Unify Fermions and Bosons. Useful Truth: F4 and E8 Lie Algebras Have Both Commutator and AntiCommutator Structure by Frank Dodd Smith

Hi Tony,

Excellent summary of why E8 physics is not dead, by a long shot! I'm glad to see your essay was accepted and is posted here. I like the blue vs red highlighting to indicate the commutating and anticommutating parts of the geometric objects and groups you are dissecting. Let me redact here.

When Lisi first offered his 'Exceptionally Simple TOE' based on E8 it was only a partial triumph, and some view it as a failed attempt, because early versions of E8 physics don't fully explain bosons. But following Ramond's prescription lets us use the anticommutator terms to construct the bosonic sector.

This makes sense if we view the anticommutators as describing the involutive aspect, where the commutators describe the evolutive aspect. Since bosons are gregarious - nesting tighter than close packed spheres - there must be a geometric mechanism. Dimensions higher than 5, or perhaps 7, run out of expansiveness, as I discuss in my essay. Higher dimensions must be compact - curled up, inward facing, or minimal; is this part of the story?

While Lisi's model focused on the outside of E8, and modeling the fermions well, you are suggesting that we also need to look at the inward facing aspects of E8 to reveal the bosons. That's how I interpret your message anyhow. Good luck in the contest!

Regards,

Jonathan

Ha Ha!

Sorry Tony. It looks like I said it exactly backwards above, and now I have egg I my face - but perhaps some part of my comment makes sense anyhow. I got my inward and outward correct, but misstated the roles of the commutator and anticommutator terms - with respect to Bosons and Fermions. I'm glad you did not mix it up, however.

Thanks for your patience and forbearance, Tony and everyone else.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

are you really conscient of your general reasoning Jonathan ?

You must be rational !Forget so the irrationalities and decoherences.

Regards

Thanks anyhow Steve,

Tony knows quite a lot about spheres, and could probably help you get a handle on the mathematical rigor needed for your theory of spherization to be tested. As for extra dimensions, the real question is how big an array of dimensions and mathematical structures do we need to reproduce all the forms and symmetries we can clearly observe. Some think that E8 is 'too small,' but this essay shows there is reason to believe otherwise.

Your ideas for a theory involving spheres and higher spheres sound very interesting, and Tony pointed out some of the cool aspects of higher-order spheres in private correspondence - which give your ideas credence - however your theory is nebulous enough in its current form to be a cool philosophical ideal, but not yet a testable scientific theory.

If you read and can successfully understand what he is saying, you will find that this man is proposing something which can and will be tested - as the results from the LHC keep pouring in. Either we will see super-partners of some of the common particle types soon, as String theory predicts, or we will learn that we need to look elsewhere. We will know if Tony got it right.

Regards,

Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,

You know I have no probelm for the complementarity and the collaboration. I am a person with universal values.I am not perfect but I have faith in this universality. The probelm Jonathan, you know it , this monney like always.

I cannot accept these strategies. You cannot invent false discriminations with these pseudos maths. You know Jonathan, I don't laugh, I am going really to go at New york soon. I know the strategists and their hate and their taste of opulences. It is not my probelms.You do not imrpove, I am sorry, you just profit of an universal idea, revolutionarry, just for this papper governing our lifes. I am ready for collaborations if I am respeted.But I don't correspond ok ! stop your car Jonathan.I know that people does not want that I come at new York, but just for them, I arrive my friend. if you want, you can be in the boat, if not. Good luck on the entropical arrow of times.

The higher orders ??? you think really that I am going to accept this strategy of false maths just for a team. The real universal and general scientists respect themselves between them.The others are from the pseudo part lmoving monney. You cannot say that your maths are correct if they are not corrzect. I know well my maths you know Jonathan, give me the latex, and we shall laugh in live.I classed numbers at the age of 15 or 16 perhaps. if you know, I have even the books of semendiaev and Bronstein in my heads with all the equations, and you say what the maths ??? Let me laugh. I just wait the good momment to show my maths. Already you have my equations and the generality of my theory, it is cool no? Not testable, let me laugh. You know my gauge, you prefer the strings or what ? it is not foundamental these strings like my spheres.I think that the probelm is just this monney. I cannot accept that people tries with maths. It is not integre like comportment. Me I have values and I am not here for the monney .I am here to share and to evolve with real scientists. Not the others. I am person who has a good heart Jonathan, for me the monney, the frontiers, the arms and weapons and all others stupidities are errors of evolution, it is just a step. I prefer to share than to profit of my monney, if you see what I say. I am ready for the share of the cake. But anybody will steal my works, the spherization theory is not to sell ok. The sharing of the cake, yes, the steal no ! You cannot make that, Jonathan and friends, it is not well. I have always dreamt to live in USA, I will go Jonathan.Very soon. It is not a play , perhaps for you, but not for me. My theory is rational. The Universe is a 3D sphere and the cosmological spheres also are spheres and the quantum spheres also....and you say what ? frankly let me laugh with your strategy. I forgive always, I am christian in my heart. So don't play but respect me, I will respect you.But don't oblige me to speak about things that I don't want in the medias of your country. I know that my theory has a value in billions at short, middle and long term.But the monney is not a main parameter of my theory of spherization. It exists things which are not to sell. Do you think that our stars and planets and BH are to sell. You know Jonathan. The Universal in 3D , not need of extradimensions, we need just the good fractal towards our walls separating this infinite light and the pure 3d physicality and its intrinsic spheres evolving, turning and imrpoving. It is not necessary to insert pseudo superimposings where the decoherences are the main conductor. Where are we going Jonathan??? New York has an universal responsability for the entire planet. You know really that the sciences are there for what ??? For a real universal optimization spherization in all centers of interest. The universe is a sphere in spherization Jonathan. And even for the religions, it is an answer.

My theory explains all Jonathan, all rationalist knows this evident truth. one day, we shall see all the truth and we shall say all, but how it was possible that we have not thought about that before.

Eureka Jonathan, the sharing is possible if I am respected simply.In all the cases, I will go at New York. I have nothing agianst people me, I am just parano because I have lost all due to bad systems of my country. I have suffer a lot due to bad persons. I know the human nature Jonathan. and that a lot of people can be very wicked, bad, naughty. I am shocked by these comportments. All my life I have been nice, all my life,I forgive, I have nothing Jonathan due to my kindness, I have lost all. I have only my works and my theory. I am strong and weak in fact. Of course I am very parano, and I must work on that.But if you know also my life and my young life. I have suffer a lot you know Jonathan, fortunally I have faith. My theory helps me to see the truth, and helps to accept the own sufferings. The heart and the universality, the sphere Jonathan. We are travellers from stars, we are catalyzers of spherization. The future is so incredible when we understand the project of this infinite light.The UNIVERSAL ETERNAL SPHERE. The physicality, this sphere and its spheres is a system in 3D and evolution of mass. The light becomes mass. It is relevant when we consider the infinite light above our walls....this light builds the physical sphere Jonathan.with the helps of finite groups considering the uniqueness.the helps so of these quantum spheres and these cosmological spheres.The 3D is essential for a real understanding of our proportions. The rotations must have a 3D system. The scales are all in 3D. It is an universal essential, like an axiom, a pure general formalism.

The maths are tools which permit to better encircle what is our pure physical 3D sphere. They are not there to extrapolate bizare things.

I need just to share my theory to the world, the rest is vain. I beleive humbly that it is a very improtant thing. Eevn the most important truth of all times. You know , when I have had this eureka, I was so exited to find this universality.

Regards

Frank

Are you familiar with preprint:Identification of the 125 GeV Resonance as a Pseudoscalar Quarkonium Meson? http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.6015

Yuri,

thanks for the reference to the recent paper at arXiv 1207.6015 by Moffatt that proposes to identify the 125 GeV LHC observation as a quark-based meson pseudoscalar.

Moffat also has an even more recent version 5 of arXiv 1204.4702 in which he says

"... We conjecture that a 125 GeV resonance ... composed of a quark-antiquark state may have been observed at the LHC ...".

I had earlier made a similar proposal in papers such as viXra 1203.0027

but Moffatt seems to have been unaware of my efforts because he makes no reference to my work.

However,

in light of the 2012 LHC data released around July 2012,

I think that the 125 GeV observation is most likely the Higgs and not such a pseudoscalar meson.

Prior to that, based on LHC data through 2011, there were two digamma bumps:

around 125 GeV (a cross section somewhat higher than Higgs expectation)

and

around 137 GeV (a cross section somwhat lower than Higgs expectation).

My earlier proposal was that

a Higgs was around 137 GeV

and

a pseudoscalar meson was around 125 GeV.

When the 2012 LHC observations were announced in July 2012

the new data showed in both CMS and ATLAS that the 137 digamma bump had gone away (probably a statistical fluctuation) so that

only the 125 GeV digamma bump remained.

My view now is that the Standard Model shows that a Higgs necessarily exists,

while it is not necessary that such a pseudoscalar meson exits,

so

since the LHC sees only one digamma bump (the one around 25 GeV)

it is almost certainly the Higgs and not a pseudoscalar meson.

Of course, if the 137 GeV digamma bump should reappear in the LHC observations for the second half of 2012, then my pseudoscalar meson (and Moffat's) might again become a possibility

but

I do not expect that to happen.

Tony

Frank

Could you please read my essay?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

Tony

See all my answers to you

Tony

My phenomenon 18 degrees can help you to confirm your calculations.

18x7=126

18x11=198

18x14=252

18x18=324 See http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/08/conformal-standard-model-and-second.html#more

I sending to you Frank Wilczek's 3 keen articles

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits388.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits393.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits400.pdf

All the best

Dear Tony,

Interesting essay. Regarding the spin-statistics theorem, have you looked at Paul O'Hara's essay about the Pauli exclusion principle and spin statistics? I wonder if this has any bearing on your research program.

Also, I am not quite sure what the triality-based supersymmetry between bosons and fermions results you cite would imply... you say that it doesn't require superpartners of the type predicted by certain versions of string theory and unseen by the LHC. Does it relate bosons and fermions already appearing in the standard model?

Finally, you might like my essay here, though it's about a different area of research. Take care,

Ben Dribus

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Ben, yes my triality-based supersymmetry between bosons and fermions does relate bosons and fermions already appearing in the standard model in this way:

Bosons = 16 generators for Conformal U(2,2) producing MacDowell-Mansouri Gravity plus 12 generators for the Standard Model SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)

for a total of 28.

Fermions = 8 first-generation particles and 8 first-generation antiparticles

antisymmetric pairs of which produce the 8/\8 = 28 bosons described above.

(Note that the 8 particles are electron, red up quark, green up quark, blue up quark, neutrino, red down quark, green down quark, and blue down quark.)

Sergey, thanks for the information about rankings but I am not interested in trying to game the system to get higher rating. I do not view this "essay contest" as a competitive race but as a place to put ideas that people might find interesting. Therefore, I do not really care about ratings but am content with the fact that my essay is in a place where it might be read by people who might be interested in its ideas.

Tony Smith

Ironical ahahah learn the real spherization band of comics .after perhaps you can speak ... irritating, full of hate...logic for the second part of the sciences community.Learn and don't teach ahahah

Regards

Dear Tony,

Thanks, maybe this was evident in your paper, but I am a bit of a newcomer on some of these issues. Take care,

Ben

Dear Tony

220-240Gev: 18x(12,13,14)

174-180Gev: 18x(9,10)

130-145Gev: 18(7,8)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Yuri

The only thing he did not clean

up is the case d = 26, which remains a tantalizing mystery

http://www.math.uh.edu/~tomforde/Articles/Missed-Opportunities-Dyson.pdf

Reference from Dyson's article