Dear Yuri,

It is really interesting that you predict black holes of mass 10^{16} gms. These are the ones that are evaporating just about now and producing a gamma ray background. Do you know the recent constraints on black hole masses? I believe the constraint might be right around 10^{16} gms but it would depend on their number density as well.

Best,

Tanmay

Concerning the abstract of your Essay, in my opinion gravitation as a Integral effect of the Universe is not in contrast with gravity as a fundamental force. In that case, if you split 3D discrete space from 1D continues time can you construct a metric theory of gravity which is needed to taken into account experimental measures which guarantee that Equivalence Principle is valid at a level 10 to minus 13?

Hello Yuri,

thanks. These papers suggest that there may be influences on the present from the future, but how can one suggest something like that without first putting forward a conceptual picture of time? Time does certain things, we know exactly what it does, but not why. To me something physical is clearly going on, and I think a reliable conceptual picture is needed before anything else - and it must be one that fits the clues well.

Our present interpretation of what we know about time has major problems (see my conversation from today and yesterday with George Ellis on his essay page, who thinks the same, and has argued very strongly that standard block time is wrong). But the spacetime interpretation tends to deflect people from investigating these questions, because what we observe then looks like something unassailable to do with the dimensions, and wrapped up in the nature of the time dimension somehow.

But without a reliable conceptual picture of what the equations are describing, why try to guess what time might or might not do? People who look only at the mathematics might do that, some tend to work as if they have the whole picture in front of them already.

Anyway, that's my take on it. In the second paper you refer to, they suggest drawing a card and using it to decide how to operate the LHC, and they say this might make it shut down totally. I'm not objecting to this on the grounds that it's a form of gambling, but the LHC was very expensive, and if they think that will happen, they shouldn't risk damaging it. There has to be a cheaper version of this experiment.

Dear Yuri

I do agree on some of your points, but not ll f thm. In particular, I think that timeis discrete. You can always interpolate with a continuum time, but at the price of losing the locality of interactions, a too big price to pay. As for the fondants constants, these are just the three universal constants of Dirac automata, namely: the Planck time, length, and mass. The Panck constant is derived from them, as you can read in my essay.

Thank you

Mauro

Dear Yuri:

Thanks for the interest in my article. In your article you mention these four assumptions that need changing:

1. 4D spacetime.

2. Gravity as a fundamental force.

3. 3 fundamental dimensional constants(G,c,h).

At this level of discussion I would agree with all of them. In my view the 4D spacetime is only an emergent object and not fundamental, gravity is emergent, and because of that the gravitational constant G can not be of fundamental importance. In fact I provide a formula for G in my essay. The devil is of course in the details.

I particular like the last sentence of your essay:

"I would really wish to those who are working in the field of fundamental physics problem to not remain unemployed."

Yuri,

every system can be described in terms of elementary space-time cycles describing elementary particles. A universe composed by single particle would be cyclic as a pendulum in the vacuum. An universe composed by more non-intearctiong particles, i.e. elementary space-time cycles, has an ergodic evolution. If interaction is also considered, with the corresponding modulations of space-time periodicities, the evolution is chaotic. See for instance subsection "comment and outlook" at the end of sec.1, arXiv:1110.0316.

Yuri,

In relativity space and time mix each other. QM is telling us that space-time is intrinsically cyclic in elementary systems, the periodicity is described by undulatory mechanics (think to wave-particle duality). When this is used to describes the non-relativistic limit it is possible to see the radically difference nature of time w.r.t. spatial coordinates. This limit is obtained by putting the mass to infinity (rest energy) and the momentum to zero. In undulatory mechanics, through the Planck constant, this correspods to put the time periodicity to zero and the spatial periodicity to infinity. in classical mechanics, time is extremelly compactified whereas the spatial dimensions have infinite compactifications. Thus we have an effective 3D description in which the flow of time is an emerging (relational description) phenomenon associated to the tiny periodicities of these elementary cycles (i.e. the elementary particles).

regards,

Donatello

Hi Yuri,

Thanks for taking the time to direct me to your essay.

I did visit your essay and copied the following:

"For practical use Planck's length, time and energy are obviously irrelevant. But I am sure that Planck's mass eternal relevant."

I agree that the Planck mass is extremely interesting (that is what my essay is about). But do not throw out the Planck length too soon. If I may point out, the Planck mass when compressed to have a wavelength of a Planck length is a black hole. And this may fit in with points in your essay.

Hello Yuri :)

I was hoping someone would send me an email but I didn't expect anyone to notice that I had put my email address as a footnote, so thank you.

I read your essay and I am in agreement with you on a lot of the ideas. For example, I also think that the universe must recur and I think that the supposed "time asymmetrical" arrow of time is not the true description of reality. (After all, why would it be? Everything else in physics is symmetrical!) I was very interested by the quotation, you mentioned, from Dirac: "It seems very likely that sometime in the future there will be an improved quantum mechanics, which will include a return to the causation and which justify the view of Einstein." I agree with Dirac on this one, and I think (although I suspect you will already be aware of it) you would find Sir Roger Penrose's interpretation of quantum mechanics interesting: It is an objective one (does not rely on 'measurement' or 'observers') and uses gravitational effects to explain wavefunction collapse. I recommend that you read Penrose's book Shadows of the Mind in which he explains his interpretation. (You may also want to look into Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber theory of quantum mechanics, which is related to Penrose's).

In addition, I thank you for mentioning Gottfried and Weisskopf in your essay. I did not know about their suggestions about gravity. So I look forward to investigating their work. (I wonder if it could be made to work with Penrose's interpretation of quantum mechanics?)

Overall I really like your ideas and I think that they are on the right track; keep on developing your ideas!

If I may be allowed to humbly suggest advice for improvements then I would say: First, and most importantly, get all of your ideas down into writing! (I keep a rough notebook which I write down all of my ideas in - in a very, very, messy 'shorthand' form) Once you have done that then the second thing to do is to work out the maths behind your ideas in a clear, easy to understand way. After that, and this is the most difficult part, take a lot of time to make sure that when you finally come to expressing this in essays/articles/academic papers, it is written in the most 'professional' way you can (good grammar, punctuation, spelling e.t.c) and make sure you get your references organised very well. (This is something I am not very good at - and keep practising. I had to write out five drafts of my essay before I submitted it! - I even typed out a draft of this email!) Otherwise, sadly, your ideas could get 'lost in translation' and unfortunately some people will dismiss them without even attempting to understand your ideas. (This happens to me a lot when I try to explain my own ideas to other people).

Regards,

Reeve Armstrong

Dear Yuri,

"law 3:1" isn't necessarily the use of "law" that is contained in "physical law", since those tend to be based on vast numbers of experimental observations, whilst usually only covering logically-connected facts, which are usually explained by one simple but broadly-reaching physical principle. Viz "Newton's second law", "Stefan's Law" as useages, and reflect what set of observations each of these laws covers/explains/sets up a framework to quantitatively address. Of course, what is held to be logically connected varies from aeon to aeon. I'm not here to discuss history, but I seem to recall Snell had no idea why Snell's law held. Thus it may have had "experimental law" status before it was firmed up as a straightforward result from the assumptions of geometrical optics. Still, it concerned *just one kind of optical behaviour* (for many materials), which made it plausible for it to have an explanatory mechanism. This is a whole lot less plausible for the set of things you note to come in 3 to 1 ratios, because each of these ratios concerns very different physical entities. Optics of glass, optics of water, optics of air have a homogeneity about them that space, time, particles and energy do not. As you say, the 3:1's you mention concern "container", "spin content", "energy-matter". Very nice if there is a common explanation for them all, but counting out 3 to 1 ratios is not an explanation per se, but rather an observational fact that *needs* explanation if it is to be considered more than just a coincidence. I then don't see enough of this kind of *explanation for* 3:1 here.

Each proposal in your abstract is individually reasonable to think about.

These are all good things to ask oneself questions about.

I know and like your quote of Dirac.

My main question is precisely where the 10^16 comes from. If you can answer that to my satisfaction, I'd also like to know what principle causes of you to adopt the geometrical mean.

Some loose notes on things that would help the presentation:

* it is best to list references at the end in a bibliography rather than inserting them in the text.

* that the binary system form uses only one symbol is not relevant. After all, the binary system has a lot less symbols. 111:1 and 111:11 in binary also only use one symbol and aren't your ratio; thus using only 1 symbol in binary very much lacks in anykind of predictive power (as opposed to description of *what fits* the 3:1 ratios that you rightly observe are common in physics). Question: how many 1:1, 2:1, 4:1 ... ratios can you think of? Is the number of 3:1's *statistically* significantly higher?

(also would need better sampling technique than "what you can think of" or "what constitutes a majorly important part of physics").

* Use latex, it's well worth the initial bother of installing and learning how to use.

* Is probabilistic really "the other side" of deterministic? (can you think of any other "opposites" in some sense or other of each of these?)

* numerology is essentially not an established means of mathematizing physics. A lot of readers will be put off by your comments about 1836. your

1836 -> 9 argument is a basis dependent argument that is then plugged into a particular basis (so not even consistent within its own framework). Try writing 1836 in base 7, 8 and 9 and repeating the argument. If people had 8 fingers rather than 10, would you have come up with the same argument for beauty, and, if not, is it really beautiful? Compare "1729 is the first number to be expressible in 2 different ways as sums of 2 cubes". That is

*not* a basis-dependent statement. It is *harder* to come up with reasons why a number is interesting for basis-independent reasons like that. The argument you give is true for 8136, 8163, 1863, 2745... Thus one can't use ' "mirror symmetry in binary" predicts "9 is interesting" predicts "1836 is a significant number that ought to be realized somewhere important in nature" ' as a chain of reasoning that predicts anything rather than just describing something you already knew an answer for. As well as high nonuniqueness in the second leg of that, mirror symmetry in binary digits doesn't discern between 11, 101, 100001, 111... Finally, proton to electron mass ratio is *not an integer* (look it up), so predicting it as an integer from manipulations only defined from integers is unlikely to reveal a deep truth about nature. We know that ratio to *how many decimal places* nowadays?

* What you take from Gottfried et all is an idea, not a certainty. For that paragraph, see also Carlip's most recent Review on ArXiv, you may well like it if you haven't seen it already. Finally, Misner Thorne and Wheeler (the respected if ancient GR textbook) lists Sakharov's approach as one of "six routes to (general) relativity".

* arXiv:1208.3096 's idea of Mach's Principle does not play any significant role in my work or Julian Barbour's or any of our current/former collaborators'. As in technical work that is going somewhere, rather than work explaining what is and isn't Machian or work on the history of Machian considerations.

* Gravitons may be largely irrelevant to quantum gravity, as they presume small excitations about a fixed highly symmetric background, which is false wherever GR/Quantum gravity is really interesting ie high curvature regimes, chief of which are some parts of black holes and the very early universe. Of course, there's some regimes in which gravitons are plausible and are studied. But I don't agree with the idea that quantum gravity = gravitons as conceived of within a fixed background worldview of physics.

That means your "because" has holes in it - ie gravity may be fundamental but still there's little role for gravitons in the most interesting applications of quantum gravity.

* Numerical supersymmetry is of little use in your given context. No particle physicist would claim that the *observed* fermions are superpartners of the *observed* bosons. To be a superpartner of something requires to have many things in common with it or paired in a particular manner. Look at what charges, masses and behaviours under strong and weak interactions the unobserved superpartners of each of the observed particles has. Quite clearly one cannot replace the squark, say, by any of the observed leptons and still call the theory supersymmetric. The evidence for supersymmetry is not that great at present precisely because we've observed *no two* particle types that are superpartners of each other. It is always "this particle supposedly has a superpartner *that has not yet been observed*", and that means a whole lot of consistency checks can't be done, since they could only be done if both members of such pairs of particle species were observed

Edward

Dear Edward

First of all thanks for such an abundant review...

-----Original Message-----

From: E. Anderson [mailto:ea212@hermes.cam.ac.uk] On Behalf Of E. Anderson

Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 7:19 AM

To: Yuri Danoyan

Subject: RE:

Dear Yuri,

"law 3:1" isn't necessarily the use of "law" that is contained in "physical law", since those tend to be based on vast numbers of experimental observations, whilst usually only covering logically-connected facts, which are usually explained by one simple but broadly-reaching physical principle.

Viz "Newton's second law", "Stefan's Law" as useages, and reflect what set of observations each of these laws covers/explains/sets up a framework to quantitatively address. Of course, what is held to be logically connected varies from aeon to aeon. I'm not here to discuss history, but I seem to recall Snell had no idea why Snell's law held. Thus it may have had "experimental law" status before it was firmed up as a straightforward result from the assumptions of geometrical optics. Still, it concerned *just one kind of optical behaviour* (for many materials), which made it plausible for it to have an explanatory mechanism. This is a whole lot less plausible for the set of things you note to come in 3 to 1 ratios, because each of these ratios concerns very different physical entities. Optics of glass, optics of water, optics of air have a homogeneity about them that space, time, particles and energy do not. As you say, the 3:1's you mention concern "container", "spin content", "energy-matter". Very nice if there is a common explanation for them all, but counting out 3 to 1 ratios is not an explanation per se, but rather an observational fact that *needs* explanation if it is to be considered more than just a coincidence. I then don't see enough of this kind of *explanation for* 3:1 here.

Each proposal in your abstract is individually reasonable to think about.

These are all good things to ask oneself questions about.

Yuri: ratio 3:1 kind of everything theory.By minimal means to write the maximal facts.

I know and like your quote of Dirac.

My main question is precisely where the 10^16 comes from. If you can answer that to my satisfaction, I'd also like to know what principle causes of you to adopt the geometrical mean.

Yuri: I intuitvly feelling that contr-partner of nuclon must be the same diametr but his quantity by 10^40 lesser than mass of nuclon.I get 10^16g;

My intuition told me Mpl,Lpl,Tpl looking agly together. Mpl not perfect

match with Lpl an Tpl

I didn't see beautiful proportion in this case.

Some loose notes on things that would help the presentation:

* it is best to list references at the end in a bibliography rather than inserting them in the text.

Yuri: I am agree that is not corresponding scientific rules of text

* that the binary system form uses only one symbol is not relevant. After all, the binary system has a lot less symbols. 111:1 and 111:11 in binary also only use one symbol and aren't your ratio; thus using only 1 symbol in binary very much lacks in anykind of predictive power (as opposed to description of *what fits* the 3:1 ratios that you rightly observe are common in physics). Question: how many 1:1, 2:1, 4:1 ... ratios can you think of? Is the number of 3:1's *statistically* significantly higher?

Yuri:yes it following long years observation texts of modern physics.

Also by minimal means maximal facts.

(also would need better sampling technique than "what you can think of" or "what constitutes a majorly important part of physics").

Yuri: I answered above

* Use latex, it's well worth the initial bother of installing and learning how to use.

Yuri: I agree

* Is probabilistic really "the other side" of deterministic? (can you think of any other "opposites" in some sense or other of each of these?)

Yuri:To my mind G'Hooft superdeterministic view reflects of reality

* numerology is essentially not an established means of mathematizing physics. A lot of readers will be put off by your comments about 1836. your

1836 -> 9 argument is a basis dependent argument that is then plugged into a particular basis (so not even consistent within its own framework). Try writing 1836 in base 7, 8 and 9 and repeating the argument. If people had 8 fingers rather than 10, would you have come up with the same argument for beauty, and, if not, is it really beautiful?

Yuri:don't forgot binary systems is minimal symbol used system, it from bit

Compare "1729 is the first number to be expressible in 2 different ways as sums of 2 cubes". That is

*not* a basis-dependent statement. It is *harder* to come up with reasons why a number is interesting for basis-independent reasons like that. The argument you give is true for 8136, 8163, 1863, 2745... Thus one can't use '

"mirror symmetry in binary" predicts "9 is interesting" predicts "1836 is a significant number that ought to be realized somewhere important in nature"

' as a chain of reasoning that predicts anything rather than just describing something you already knew an answer for. As well as high nonuniqueness in the second leg of that, mirror symmetry in binary digits doesn't discern between 11, 101, 100001, 111... Finally, proton to electron mass ratio is *not an integer* (look it up), so predicting it as an integer from manipulations only defined from integers is unlikely to reveal a deep truth about nature. We know that ratio to *how many decimal places* nowadays?

Yuri:the Universe working in dynamic regime. Proton and electron mass changing, but scaling law the same.

* What you take from Gottfried et all is an idea, not a certainty. For that paragraph, see also Carlip's most recent Review on ArXiv, you may well like it if you haven't seen it already. Finally, Misner Thorne and Wheeler (the respected if ancient GR textbook) lists Sakharov's approach as one of "six routes to (general) relativity".

Yuri:

1.I familiar with Carlip works and have correspondence with him,but he not understand my idea in 2D space no gravitation,no G newton and as consequence not valid Planck lenth.

2.Sakharov idea is not popular now, only Matt Wisser his supporter as I now.

* arXiv:1208.3096 's idea of Mach's Principle does not play any significant role in my work or Julian Barbour's or any of our current/former collaborators'. As in technical work that is going somewhere, rather than work explaining what is and isn't Machian or work on the history of Machian considerations.

Yuri:it was just for example..

* Gravitons may be largely irrelevant to quantum gravity, as they presume small excitations about a fixed highly symmetric background, which is false wherever GR/Quantum gravity is really interesting ie high curvature regimes, chief of which are some parts of black holes and the very early universe. Of course, there's some regimes in which gravitons are plausible and are studied. But I don't agree with the idea that quantum gravity = gravitons as conceived of within a fixed background worldview of physics.

That means your "because" has holes in it - ie gravity may be fundamental but still there's little role for gravitons in the most interesting applications of quantum gravity.

Yuri:Gravity is different kind of force my be emergentic?

* Numerical supersymmetry is of little use in your given context. No particle physicist would claim that the *observed* fermions are superpartners of the *observed* bosons. To be a superpartner of something requires to have many things in common with it or paired in a particular manner. Look at what charges, masses and behaviours under strong and weak interactions the unobserved superpartners of each of the observed particles has. Quite clearly one cannot replace the squark, say, by any of the observed leptons and still call the theory supersymmetric. The evidence for supersymmetry is not that great at present precisely because we've observed *no two* particle types that are superpartners of each other. It is always "this particle supposedly has a superpartner *that has not yet been observed*", and that means a whole lot of consistency checks can't be done, since they could only be done if both members of such pairs of particle species were observed

Yuri: supersymmetry is fiction. Only metasymmetry is real and 3:1 law is real

With generations 12:4=3:1

Without generations just 3:1

Thank you very much Edward!

Yuri

Edward,

drew your attention to all my articles in vixra

Authors: Yuri Danoyan

Category: High Energy Particle Physics

[4] viXra:0907.0022 submitted on 19 Jul 2009 What Wolfgang Pauli Did Mean?

Authors: Yuri Danoyan

Category: High Energy Particle Physics

[3] viXra:0907.0014 submitted on 17 Jul 2009 Maximum Number 12 on the Spectrum of Mass of Elementary Particles

Authors: Yuri Danoyan

Category: High Energy Particle Physics

[2] viXra:0907.0012 replaced on 18 Jul 2009 Phenomenon of 18 Degrees for Pseudoscalar Mesons

Authors: Yuri Danoyan

Category: High Energy Particle Physics

[1] viXra:0907.0008 replaced on 1 Jul 2010 Is Ratio 3:1 a Comprehensive Principle of the Universe?

Authors: Yuri Danoyan

Category: High Energy Particle Physics

Going in a bit deeper, there's an observationally obvious but hard to explain difference between mass and charge: charge has *two signs*. How does that fit in with your ideas? And any ideas about cosmological variation of c and G? (Like any original reason why there should be any, preferably with some law *deduced*, not described, as to what form that variation would take).