No 3 Things by Yuri Benjamin Danoyan

Dear Yuri Danoyan,

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your well written entertaining essay, however, I do have a quibble about your assertion that "No one before has collected so many different evidence of ratio 3:1..." As I point out in my essay Sequence Consequence, such luminaries as Hegel, Aquinas and Freud promoted the 3:1 ratio for the human expression of an idea, the nature of God and the nature of human behavior. Most people use the 3:1 ratio in general conversation. You rightfully point out that there is only one law of Nature, without listing its three aspects, but then go on to mention that thermodynamics has more than one law. This is unrealistic. One real Universe can only be occurring eternally once in one dimension. The real Universe has three aspects of observation as does the one real dimension the real Universe exists in.

Dear Joe

Hegel, Aquinas and Freud epoch not aware lot of facts modern physics facts. But I agree so that the Hegelian triad of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis is close to me in spirit.

. Does nature recognize fancy mathematics? My essay is perhaps overly simplified, but addresses the real problem of Physics. Wherein lies "consciousness"? Very murky, but emergentism (growth) and panpsychism (memory are properties suggested that aligns them with probabilities of a 1-D, 2-D, and 3-D geometric world. i.e., your "3:1" , actually 3 lines to 4 points..See:

To Seek Unknown Shores

聽聽 http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1409

"This submission evolved from a question seeking answers that Diane and I

sought since 1961, "Why does anything do what it does?"

The same question Einstein put forward wisely:

"What I am really interested in is knowing whether God could have created the world in a different way; in other words, whether the requirement of logical simplicity admits a margin of freedom."(see Einstein quotes)

I think all participants of this contest try to find out answer.

Appendix 1 Cosmological picture of one cycle

Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch

c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10

G=10^22; G=10^-8; G=10^-28

h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28

alfa =10^-3; 1/ 137; 1

e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12

Appendix 2 Cosmological values of mass

Mp =10^-24; 10^-24; 10^-24

Me =10^-28; 10^-28; 10^-28

Mpl=10^-4; 10^-4; 10^-4

Mhbl=10^16; 10^16; 10^16

See Scale invariance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance

Appendix 3

Age of the Universe t=13,7 billion years

Duration of one cycle of the Universe T=144 billion years;

Question about size or radius of the Universe doesn't have sense.

As model of evolution the Universe can serve the evolution logarithmic spiral in polar coordinates from 0 to collapse and again to survive.

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

http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/EMT668/EMAT6680.F99/Erbas/KURSATgeometrypro/golden%20spiral/logspiral-history.html

http://jsxgraph.uni-bayreuth.de/wiki/index.php/Logarithmic_spiral

Sorry for wrong number G=10^22, actually G=10^12

Dear Yury,

I am agreeing with you that the expansion (BB) and gravitational collapse are the alternate-changing process. (To a favor of that, it shows also the last observations of Roger Penrouse & Vahe Gurzadian) http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101210/full/news.2010.665.html

Sincerely,

George

arrogant, I like . It is intresting to see the real generalists.

Mr Vahe and Mr Penrose, we can collaborate. We shall be arrogant and we shall show them what is the real spherization. If the pseudo scientists are frustrated and jealous, it is logic, if they are full of hate, it is logic.

In fact, the irony is arrived at its paraxysm. I respect Mr Penrose, if he wants he can be my mentor !!! We shall make incredible publications.and we shall win a lot of prizes ! the team is Mr Hawking, Mr Penrose and Mr Dufourny, the dream team in fact. I will be happy to collaborate with both of them .

I think that their works are so relevant.And we shall make also beautiful inventions. The determinism like a torch of knowledge and evolution.

We can work together simply. I need good mentors.I need to learn more , I need to share, I need to create. I need to have mentors. Penrose and Hawking are relevant.

Regards

Yuri, your statement

"Fermions. 12(6 quarks+3 leptons+3 neutrino).Spin =1/2

Bosons. 12(8 gluons+3 vector(2W+1Z)+1photon).Spin=1

Numerical supersymmetry not broken."

is interesting.

Have you shown that your "not broken ... Numerical supersymmetry"

gives cancellations in the Standard Model Lagrangian picture

that are as nice and useful as those of conventional supersymmetry ?

How do you justify considering the red, blue, and green quark states

as the same particle instead of the conventional 3 different particles

(distinguished by the 8 gluons of the color force)

which would give you

Fermions. 24(18 quarks+3 leptons+3 neutrino)

with

3 generations each with

1 lepton + 3 up-type quarks + 3 down-type quarks + 1 neutrino

?

I think generation #2,generation #3 are the effect of Influence from Future, just hints from the Future.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1919

More old preprint

Influence from the Future

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9607375

Tony

Some quote from Lev Okun "Physics of elementary particles"

" As for the fermions of the second and third generations, their role in the modern world seems negligible. At first glance, a world without them would be just as good. These particles resemble rough drafts, which the Creator threw as bad, and we are using our sophisticated techniques dug into his wastebasket."

I've often thought about this.I believe that next generations will show up in the future history of the Universe.

You are right.It's my fault. Bosons. 12(8 gluons+3 vector(2W+1Z)+1photon).Spin=1

Actually:

Bosons.4(1 gluon+3 vector+1 photon)

Fit for ratio 3:1; 12:4

Yuri

I did not understand your response post of 23rd. My last years essay was a top 10 finalist but not a winner (a crime perhaps?). Fair? and expert? I don't now, but the Solution, of course.

I just noticed your comment elsewhere; "We live in a universe that was born from a previous universe." which is entirely consistent with the recycling implicit in the essay and the Discrete Field Model, (and with my end notes this year).

The mechanism leading to this is as my current essay, unifying SR and QM consistent with Ken Wharton's view of re-mapping maths, but using non 'point' particles. The re-ionization mystery is explained by the 'rebirth' of galaxies via AGN quasars and their superluminal jets. The CMBR evidence suggests just a larger scale version of this for the universe.

I hope you will understand the kinetics and mechanism and score my essay, as I will yours, allowing that you are writing in a foreign language.

Very best wishes.

Peter

No atoms of space and time, there are only atoms of space, which name is Planck's constant or spin.Integer and half-integer.Even and odd.Yang and Yin.

Hello,

144 billions , I believe that it can be relevant for the maximum volume.So the begining of the contraction. This oscillation, unique is relevant. The cycle is unique.I see the max volume at 125 billions and the perfect equilibrium at 250 billions. So it is the begining of this eternal physicality.

The radius is relevant considering the maximum volume before the contraction.

The critical point of density before the contraction becomes relevant at my humble opinion.

Regards