3 Dimensional String Theory by George Rajna

Dear Dufourny: effectively spacetime-mass, also has fractal characteristics.

The fractality implies symmetry (same configuration), by changing the scale.

Eleven dimensions are needed, like it or not.

Precisely the integer part of the inverse fine structure constant to zero momentum, is a direct function of the possible states of polarization of the photon in 7, 3, and zero-dimensional (time = 0, "static point", ct = x4 = 0 )

The fractal dimension of four dimensions, plays a decisive role in determining the fractional part of the inverse of the fine structure constant (zero momentum)

And like it or not, appear again the extra dimensions, namely the seven non factorizable dimension, nor in Gauus integers, so that quantum entanglement can not "break". This last fact directly implies quark confinement.

[math]2^{3}-1=7=8\; gluons-1[/math]

[math]2^{7}+2^{3}+2^{0}=\left\lfloor \alpha^{-1}\right\rfloor =137

[/math]

137, being a prime number, is factorizable in spherical coordinates (2d holography), for the Gaussian integers, with a real part and a complex or compacted:

[math]137=(11d+4di)(11d-4di)=(4d+11di)(4d-11di)

[/math]

Fibonacci numbers, plays a role.

The first six Fibonacci numbers, the number of divisors of nonzero roots of E8 group, (240), are essential:

[math]\left\{ F_{n}\right\} _{F_{n}/240}=\left\{ 1,1,2,3,5,8\right\}

[/math]

[math]1\rightarrow U(1)\;;\;2\rightarrow SU(2)\;;\;3\rightarrow SU(3)\;;\;5\rightarrow SU(5)=SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)

[/math]

[math]8\rightarrow SU(8)\:;\: SU(8)\neq SU(a)\times SU(b)\:;\;(a,b)

[math]SU(8)=SU(8)\times U(1)=SU(7)+SU(4)

[/math]

[math]\alpha^{-1}=137.035999074=137+\frac{1}{\frac{\frac{(2\varphi^{3}-7d)^{4}}{7d}+dim[SO(7)]}{6}\:-3d+\frac{163}{6}}

[/math]

[math]163=1^{2}+(1^{2}+1^{2})+(1^{2}+2^{2})+(1^{2}+2^{2}+3^{2})+(1^{2}+2^{2}+3^{2}+5^{2})+...

[/math]

[math]+...(1^{2}+2^{2}+3^{2}+5^{2}+8^{2})

[/math]

The fractal dimension 4d:

[math]\varphi^{3}=[4;4,4,4...].\:;\:\varphi={\displaystyle \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{F_{n+1}}{F_{n}}}

[/math]

[math]\frac{1}{\frac{\frac{(2\varphi^{3}-7d)^{4}}{7d}+dim[SO(7)]}{6}\:-3d+\frac{163}{6}}=0.03599907367

[/math]

[math]2dim[SU(11)]=240\rightarrow E8

[/math]

Like it or not, eleven dimensions are necessary.

Dear Dufourny, thanks very much

Regards

It is not extradimensions, its just fractal of a 3D.

Like it or not, it is like that. The M Theory is interesting,but it is just projective geomatrical algebras where the vectors are always 3 for our pure realistic universe.

Ask to Mr Witten ,Joy and Lisi. :)

In fact, you know what? I think that Mr Witten fears for his theory :) You know me I have unified the 4 forces and explained the cause of mass ! in 3D. Why people are jealous like that with all your strategies.

Mr Witten be rational please. Like it or not.My Theory is revolutionary.Me I want well for the convergences but what is this circus ?

Now what are for you these 11 vectors ? if you have concrete answers , ok, but I doubt. you know x,y and z. What are these projections? with 11 dimensions ? dimensions of what ? in meter , in what ? because you know the planck scale and the other extrem the universal dimension cosmological are always in 3D we can calculate a particule in meter and the universal sphere in meter.I don't other things me ! The fractal is inside this gauge of scales in 3D. You can insert series, or this or that, it will noit change our universal domain in 3D you know. I beleive that people, the stringtheorists confound the holography and the computing with the realistic determinsitic universe,THE SPHERE AND ITS SPHERES :)

Like it or not, the universe is a sphere, like it or not, the particules also, like it or not the stars, planets, BH, moons...are spheres .like it or not, all is in 3D you know, yoàu can ask to Mr Witten he agrees with me :)

ahahah n tending to infinity and what after a hospital rule for the inderteminations implying extradimensions of course of course because fibonacci says to euler that Cantor and Lagrange are in the seventh dimensions to 11.

Of course !and what after a compactification for the pure reductionism also in 12 dimensions also.

Ironical. and the number 42 you know ahahah :)

I play like a child, you have began , I finish :)

ps eureka from belgium from a small humble horticultor ahahah I am going to make surf in my belgian beach.with my guitar ahahah

The crazyness is the begining of the wisdom, isn't it?

the kindness like the torh of true gentlemen!

here is a beautiful serie 1²+3²+5²+7².............+x²(serie finished)....insert the volumes now !

I am playing really like a child with all this circus.It is refreshing.

dear surfer ,Thank you very much, after we shall speak about entropy and its correlated distribution with primes inside a beautiful 3D evolutive sphere and its quantic spheres and cosmological spheres.See that the finite groups are essential for the serie of uniqueness.

Regards

:) weak and not sufficient. ahaha

you can delete you know. That will not change the lesson between us. Indeed alone I give you all, courses. Me I learn all days everywhere in a pure universal and deterministic way.

It is the most important.

Ahahah like it of not, elevan are necessary, yes of course Mr Witten. It could be relevant if you insert spheres for a real quantization, but it is just a suggestion of course.

The SO(0) to how many projective geometrical algebras ?frankly insert the volumes in 3D and after, you shall see the fractals inside the closed evolutive space time. So the finite groups appear with the constants, infinities.It permits to better understand the singularity and the singularities and so the infinite light above our walls.Infinity creates a finite evolutive sphere.....but the futuire of this physicality is the infinity also , eternal.Paradoxal, but so evident for a real understanding of entropy.

WoW! Submitted on Aug 29 and already (80 ratings)!!! I wish I had so many friends and relatives interested in 3D strings. Way to go George!

I guess congrats on your next award are in order :)

How do you know the community rating, Ms. Vasilyeva? I thought there is no access to this information.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Oops, my question was silly - I did not understand your statement. Sorry.

Best regards, Pentcho

Thanking you Mr Witten :)

Hello George,

I like your way of thinking. Nice short and to the point. Geometrically seen you take only the direction as measureable phenomenon. Then there is no need for a particle while only the value of volume/density/exchange of n measureable forces interworking upon n measurable forces occupying a certain space during a given time defines the working upon and the forming of thereof arising complex forms. By which every limit of a form is a sphere of exchange und by its complexity immeasurable into definite numbers. Only approximation. Uncertainty. Like a beautiful cocktail.

A way to bypass this is partly to read in chapter 4 of my essay in this contest: http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Hoebe_The_I_as_ObserverObse_1.pdf

I propose there a certain geometry by which form arises according to specific laws. These forms can only be thus and that. The basic form is 3-simplex. An important law is the law of harmony. Its gives way to beauty and that what fit well.

Taken your idea and mine together one could show the geometrical movement of phenomena all according to their volume/density/exchange of force and as force. These forces will be tetrahedral under pressure or low temperature and bi-tetrahedral when having enough space to expand in and as, and by a high value of exchangeability.

This way dark-matter could be seen as the sphere of exchange und by its complexity immeasurable into definite numbers, and its complexity is then merely the immeasurability of their sphere and size of interaction and its almost nothing-ness in density and every-ness in volume and exchange. Like you can feel yourself, but cannot pinpoint it in a location or now. Only the value of being does.

Interested?

All the best,

Jos Hoebe

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

Hello

The higgs are not really intresting because each sphere is unique.So the fractal of bosons is complex considering the volumes of spheres. The higgs in this line of reasoning must insert the fact that the smallest spheres are unique. The volumes of these informations are keys.The mass polarizes this light. The spherical volumes are more complex than these higgs in fact.

ibm.....intersting point of vue isn't it ?VOLUMES OF SPHERES AND ROTATIONS AND UNIVERSAL RELATIVISTIC PROPORTIONS.

Regards

indeed each planet or moon are unique like the stars also and the BH.....and our central main sphere also..the uniqueness is the answer Mr Witten and friends.

ps eureka :)

Regards

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

You can read in the essay:

"One of the most obvious asymmetry is the proton - electron mass rate Mp = 1840 Me while they have equal charge. We explain this fact by the strong interaction of the proton, but how remember it his strong interaction ability for example in the H - atom where are only electromagnetic interactions between proton and electron."

What wrong assumptions do you refer to? How do these wrong assumptions relate to 3D string theory?

Since English is not my mother tongue, I do not understand "... , but how remember it his ... ability ...".

Thanks for the opportunity to make clear this point. Our basic assumption that there is a strong interaction, very different from the electromagnetic, based on the color force. The essay explains that the diffraction patterns of the electromagnetic oscillators can give the base of the strong interactions, where the color is simple the 3 geometric dimensions of the space. The string theory is also based on oscillating things, but needs more than 3 dimensions to explain the physical forces, while my explanation places these things back into the natural 3 dimensional world.

You offered a theory instead of answering the topical question; or do you consider string theory a basic assumption on which the current physics with all its enigmas and paradoxes is based?

Doesn't string theory assume a block universe? I am questioning this assumption.

Eckard

I would like to answer your question with another question. Don't you think that the aim of the topical question is to propose some new point of view to improve our understanding of the physical world?

The original idea of the String Theory is that we are very familiar with the electromagnetic oscillations, and the electron - positron annihilation to photons gives a simple example to the energy - matter equivalence of Einstein. My essay shows that the stabile asymmetrical physical configurations can be explained by the electromagnetic oscillations, based on the Planck Distribution Law.

George

The challenge here is to create new and insightful QUESTIONS or analysis about basic, often tacit, ASSUMPTIONS that can be questioned but often are not.

My answer to your question is no, not as the first step, and for a good reason: More mere speculation added on speculations like string theory will presumably not resolve enigmas and paradoxes that are to be ascribed to unseen flaws possibly affecting our assumptions.

Eckard