3 Dimensional String Theory by George Rajna

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

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

IS IT NOT QUITE AN IRONY THAT THE ESSAY THAT IS UNBEATABLY ESTABLISHED AS NO.1 (WITH 361 RATINGS AND ACVERAGE SCORE 8.7)IN PUBLIC RATINGS IS ALSO THE VERY LAST IN THE COMMUNITY RATINGS?

1 central sphere.....serie of spherical volumes decreasing....correlation primes.

perfect contact=the lattices disappear....EUREKA !!!

THE COMMUNITY RATING IS THE RATING OF THE COMPETITORS!

YA GEORGE,

I AM SO PERPLEXED ABOUT THE WHOLE THING.

SOME COMPETITORS WRITE GOOD COMMENTS ABOUT OTHERS' ESSAYS AND DO DEALS AND MUTUALLY GET HIGH RATINGS FOR THEMSELVES AND GIVE LOW RATINGS FOR OTHERS' ESSAYS. A VERY LOPSIDED PROCESS.

ON THE OTHER HAND DR. VASILYEVA AND OTHERS THINK YOU HAVE GOT HIGH PUBLIC RATINGS THANKS TO YOUR FRIENDS AND RELATIONS.

WHAT IS THIS? IS IT A PROFESSIONALLY ORGANISED COMPETITION OR IS IT A FARCE?

In the next phase the expert judges will give the real scientific value of every essay.

EXPERT JUDGES WILL ONLY LOOK AT THE FIRST 35 ESSSAYS ACCORDING TO THE COMMUNITY RATINGS. PLUS THEY MIGHT PICK UP ONE OR TWO ESSAYS IF THEY FEEL THEY ARE VERY GOOD BUT HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT OF THE FIRST 35.

They need to judge every essay because you are right about the lopsided process of the community rating.

all false George.You confound the computing 2d and the 3D realism , furthermore the extradimensions does not exist, it is just a fractal of 3D. see the axiom of dimensions !!! 3 vectors and the scalar Mr Rajna.

The strings are intresting, that is all, the spheres them are better.

The rest is vain after all.

The finite groups are essential.

The spherical Jedi

Hello Eckard, George,

I ask me if it was you George on linkedin who has hacked my net and now who tries to imply confusions, the usula suspects are bruce Watkins, Patrick Murphy,Shane Steinman,Jonathan,Tom,Brendan,Christi,Joy,Lisi,Florin,.....My parano is logic.

The principle of equivalence must respect the pure 3D and the correlated proportions. The rotations are proportional. My equations are relevant considering the polarity of evolution between m and hv. Indeed the fermions polarize the light in a pure general point of vue.The spherical 3D oscillations of synchro and sortings are relevant when we insert furthermore the volumes and the angles of the serie of uniqueness, so the spheres and their finite number. The cosmological correlation can be relevant considering that the number is the same for the fermions and the bosons. More the cosmological number.The gravitation is seen turning in the other sense than ligh , the 4 forces are unified !!! eureka so in all humility. The strings are interesting for the 2d, it can be relevant also for the 3d convergences. But the spheres are better. It is universal these spheres and the universal sphere.

Regards