Dreaming in Geneva by Arjen Dijksman

Arjen

Are you agree with my abstract?

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

Arjen

Great to read your essay. We both have a sense of theatre. I hope life is good for you.

But did you identify which assumptions may be wrong? Am I way of base in suspecting that if the God particle did not exist we'd have to invent it?

Yet what of it's implications, my own essay points out the implicit truth that space in not 'nothing', and goes on the find some seminal consequences of the 'one on one' interactions you discuss (or equally waves on particle).

I agree Relativity should not 'get in the way', as it does at present, but is only a theory to describe observed effects that QM cannot, or has not managed to, describe. I'd be massively grateful if you would analyse my findings that the quanta can produce the effects of relativity, even the SR postulates, from you particleular (sic) viewpoint.

The model also suggests both Casimir and 'density/pressure' aspects to gravity, but you may anyway recall that as well as the kinetic aspects, now far more complete and better understood. (are you familiar with the Dynamic Casimir effect?)

I hope you enjoy reading my essay as much as I did yours, and will comment.

Many thanks and best wishes.

Peter

Arjen,

You have the most wonderful dreams and a dazzling essay. Glad you made the deadline.

Viva Geneva,

Don Limuti

Your quote "the standard model longs for the Higgs particle in order to be a sound theory'

To my opinion Hiiggs particle is just pseudoscalar meson like sound of string where proton is major tone and other particles just undertones and overtones.

See Phenomenon of 18 degrees for pseudoscalar mesons(an observation)

http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0012

I get 18 x 7 = 126 close to Higgs.

Hi Arjen,

I really enjoyed reading your essay. Framing the various ideas that people might want to think over in the context of a story in a dream made your essay a breezy read. Also, I did not know about the physics research of Allais and his prediction with respect to the Miller experiment. That seems very intriguing.

Great Job,

Armin

Dear Arjen,

Nice essay and in a style unlike many of others I've READ. Yes indeed it appears like the Higgs has much in common with Nicolas Fatio's take on matters. Still I find some things remain to wonder about here, with that particularly to do with neutrinos, as it seems they interact with the Higg's field yet very little as to wonder what it is that has one particle be less subject to its influence. Then there is this dark energy said to be having space to increasingly expand and yet the local influence of either the gravitational or the Higg's field doesn't appear to be diminishing with it. That is one would imagine as space is expanding than the concentration of Fatio's particles would diminish with such and thereby lessen the influence. None the less with all the questions it poses it gives one something to think about.

"By proposing my thoughts, I do not fear the objections that will be raised by little persons. I address only the Savants, in time, those who are both excellent Mathematicians and good Philosophers, such as, for example, Monsr. Hugens, Monsr. Newton, and a small number of others. Those who are only Mathematicians, but have never applied their reason to natural Philosophy, and especially those Philosophers who have no understanding of Mathematics, I do not regard them as my Judges."

- Nicolas Fatio

Best Regards,

Phil

Arjen,

I agree we certainly have a glut of good food for thought, and not just from the 'superstars'. Much important stuff is missed.

Which brings me to my own essay, where I've been looking forward to your analytical view and comments. I do hope you have time to read it properly put together the kit of moving parts, and perhaps find the hidden but giant pot of gold.

Best wishes

Peter

Foucault pendulum is fun show!

Dear Arjen,

Interesting and enjoyable essay. Thanks in particular for pointing out the article by Phillip Ball. It's quite striking how complex and nonintuitive this is; for instance, he points out that if the spheres have the same size and charge they continue to repel. This of course leads one to think about differences between the interaction of identical particles and distinct particle types with respect to charge...

I remember planning to watch the Higgs announcement, but I fell asleep! Unfortunately, I didn't dream about anything interesting. Take care, and good luck in the contest,

Ben Dribus

Hello,

I have several ideas in all humility.The spheres are unique Mr Dribus it seems to me!

At my knowledge, indeed all cosmological spheres are unique also.

Why it will be different for the quantum uniqueness.

If the infinite light implies that we have a diffusion of informations with spheres.

So we can consider indeed the smallest spheres like bosonic informations. The fact that each information is unique shows an interesting road for the encodings correlated with my equations.

The volumes are so complex. The higgs are part of the system of uniqueness, so the central sphere is the most important volumle. The smallest spheres are very numerous for the system of uniqueness.see that this number is the same that our cosmological number of spheres.

Regards

Mr. Dijksman,

a thoroughly enjoyable essay! In your excellent historical overview, I found the following 2 quotes especially intriguing. First is a refreshing approach:

"... do we really need to talk about "forces". With hindsight, a force seems such an outdated concept. It can more conveniently be seen as a consequence of one to one quantum interactions. "

In this regard, what do you think about shape dynamics, the concept authored by Dr. Barbour, well written about by Daniel Wagner Fonteles (topic 1399)? The idea is new to me, having just learned it from Daniel's essay. Instinctively, I feel like this is the way to go.

Another quote from your essay about the Casimir force resonates with my geometrical approach to physics (in 4D geometry):

" The attractive force is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance when both objects are plates. Between a plate and a sphere, the force follows an inverse cube law. When both objects are spheres, it is an inverse square proportionality, like gravitation. Therefore, it seems rewarding to try to unify gravitation with the Casimir force[11]. "

My conception is that space, energy and time are 3 aspects of one and the same, a process, evolving locally, with either one being the expression of the other two (thus shape dynamics appears to fit the modeling requirements). My approach to physics is visual and I see physics at low energies of our own experience in 4D. Because you are so learned and hang out with Tommaso, whose blog I enjoy immensely, I would very much value your feedback on my essay, especially since it will be already past the ratings and we then be relaxed ( http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1547 ) Thank you!