If it from bit, what does it mean ?(Puzzle of number 18) by Yuri Danoyan

Yuri,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

Jim

The most interesting exceptional structures in physics such as the E8 group and octonions are associated with the symmetries of the dodecahedron and icosahedron where the 18 degree angles rule. Good to see an essay linking to some real experimental nymbers, good luck.

Yes, 20 vertices in the dodecahedron, a proposed model for the fluctuations of the cosmic microwave background (J. P. Luminet). I like Week's paper because it explains Klein's model of the platonic solids from the Riemann sphere

http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0502566

The 10 vertices of half a dodecahedron corresponds to your number 18=180/10 and you have it at the end of my essay as a model of the pentagram (or its complement: the Petersen graph) on the real projective plane.

But be careful with the number-theoretical coincidences unless they follow from a solid physical model.

Michel

Dear Yuri Danoyan,

Thanks for your nice essay, well done

I enjoy reading it and rate it accordingly

If it from bit, what does it mean ?

very good question!

so my answer is: it is the Lagrangian~ which is everything physic is about

my essay may interest you

Bit: from Breaking symmetry of it

Hope you enjoy it

Regards,

Xiong

Copied from my essay blog:

It could be due to some aspect of the eigenvalues for gluons in a supergroup. The icosian has quaternions (roots) that have magnitude given by φ. The icosian is in a sense half of the roots space of the E8 group. The masses of hadrons is determined by the quark masses, which is induced by the Higgs field, and by the confinement properties of the QCD gauge field, called gluons. The differences in these fields in the Y-B plane is given by certain roots, and those roots in some cases have the magnitude of the φ = (1 sqrt{5})/2

That is about the best I can conjecture at this point. There might in some way be some semblance of reason for this.

LC

Hi Yuri,

I gave you good grade for all these mystical formulas. I hope you find some physics in them in the future. So what do you think of my formulas

alpha/FSC =.007297352568, charge ^2=3, 27=3^3, m_e, m_p are electron and proton mass

M_p/m_e= (27/2)*(1/(alpha) -1) -1/3 = 1836.152654

adel

Dear Yuri,

After reading your essay I agree 18 is a very powerful number. How did you get this information. Very brilliant. I will rate you high.

I have two requests to make of you. Can you tell me whether Planck length have relationship with 18? Also take a look at my essay and let me know if 18 can be useful to improve it.

Many thanks,

Akinbo

Dear Sir,

This is with reference to your query to Dr.Weinberg.

Both space and time are emergent properties born out of the perception of sequence. While space is the interval between the ordered sequences of objects that also is the background structure, time is the interval between the ordered sequences of events, i.e., changes in structures by energy.

Dimension of objects is the perception that differentiates the "internal structural space" from the "external relational space". Since such perception is mediated by electromagnetic interaction, where an electric field and a magnetic field move perpendicular to each other in a direction perpendicular to both, we have three mutually perpendicular directions. Dimension is used to determine the state of objects: if fixed, then solid, if fluid, then liquid and if loosely held, then gas, if not related to each other, then plasma radiation. Since time does not fit this description, it is not a dimension.

Number is a property of substances by which we differentiate between similars: if there are no similars, it is one otherwise many. Many can be 2,3,...n depending upon the sequence of individual perceptions. Infinity is like one: without similars. But whereas the dimensions of one are fully perceptible, i.e., discrete, the dimensions of infinity are not fully perceptible: analog and not the same as any discrete number. Since mathematics is accumulation and reduction of similars and partly similars, it is limited to discrete numbers and not analog infinities. Yet, like two different quantities can coexist, two infinities can coexist. Hence space-time coexist and being infinite, coexist with everything else. Thus, everything happens in space-time and it cannot loose its sense. We have written this to weinberg@physics.utexas.edu.

Regards,

mbasudeba@gmail.com

Dear Sir,

Your essay brings out certain interesting facts, some of which may not be pure coincidence. 9 x 2 or 6 x 3 could be the reason, which needs to be investigated further.

The views of Wheeler have to be considered carefully in the light of the Copenhagen Interpretation, which does not enjoy its earlier status. Information must be about something. Hence that something and not information is more fundamental.

There is much confusion about what constitutes mass. Some wrongly claim that Higgs boson provides mass to the universe. If mass is provided by the Higgs boson as well as via strong interaction, then either the link between these two processes or the difference between the two types of masses has to be considered.

In any equation, the left hand side represents freewill, as we are free to choose or change the parameters. The right hand side represents determinism, because once we choose the parameters, the reaction is deterministic. The equality sign represents the special conditions (like temperature threshold in transition states of chemical reactions) necessary for the reaction to take place. Thus, both sides of the equation are not always interchangeable. In the case of mass-energy equation, since energy always moves or inflates mass and vice versa, the ratio is fixed (c^2 does not represent the dynamical velocity, but a fixed quantity). But this does not make mass and energy interchangeable. If we convert a gram of carbon or LPG to energy, it will be easily proved to violate the equation. Thus, the standard pattern of calculating mass by dividing the energy by c^2 is not correct.

We have a different theory according to which, the accepted value of the charge of the quarks contain an error element of 3%. In stead of -1/3 and +2/3, they should be -4/11 and +7/11 in units of electron charge of -1. This makes the charge of protons +10/11 and that of neutrons -1/11. From this we have theoretically derived the value of the fine structure constant alpha as 7/960 (~1/137) and 7/900 (~1/128 at 80GeV). There is a relationship between matter and energy. Similarly, there must be some relationship between mass and charge. In some experiments, the charge-to-mass ratio is the only quantity that can be measured directly. The 2006 CODATA recommended value is e/me= 1.758820150(44)ﾃ--10^11 C/Kg. CODATA refers to this as the electron charge-to-mass quotient. Applying the formula Mpr/Mel≈1836.15, you can calculate the charge-to-mass quotient of protons and compare with the known values.

We will soon vote for you,

basudeba

Hi Yuri,

I have read the paper you mentioned in my blog. It is interesting but it would be nice if you could explain a bit more how you got to those conclusions and numbers. We definetely have a few findings in common. Have you looked at my theory ?

Regarding your essay, I am sure that the 18 degrees is not a coincidence and the reason is because it is linked to the golden ratio. In a part of my theory, I speculate that the Planck length has got something to do with the golden ratio. In fact, I believe that it is just a scaled down version of the golden ratio, in the same way that the proton's diameter is a scaled up version of the Planck length and the proton's mass is a scaled down version of the Planck mass. Take a quick look at my formulae and you will understand what I mean.

Good luck with the contest.

Cheers,

Patrick

Yuri,

"The most important,in our opinion, is the proton - to - electron mass ratio, the

rest mass of the proton divided by that of the electron (Mpr/Mel≈1836.15)."

Quite interesting theory. What do you see as the connection between the Higgs Boson and the mass it gives other particles in this "18" concept?

Jim

Looks interesting Yuri,

I'm enjoying the comments above, and have downloaded the Hagedorn paper. I'll be back after reading your essay.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

B.T.W.

Only rectangle where perimeter is equal to square by number

P=2x(3+6)=18 S=3x6=18

P=S=18 1D=2D

Dear Yuri -

The proton to electron ratio is indeed the most significant detail in the cosmos. It is the root of all reality, and if I'm not mistaken, your work offers a method of exploring it further.

In my work, I further re-evaluate our assumptions: something that must be done as thoroughly as possible before we can explore foundational questions usefully. I believe you will find this interesting, and hope you will soon have a look.

I have rated your essay, and I wish you the best of luck in the competition.

John

Dear Yuri,

Following your question on my page, I partially answered in my post above.

"Yes, 20 vertices in the dodecahedron, a proposed model for the fluctuations of the cosmic microwave background (J. P. Luminet). I like Week's paper because it explains Klein's model of the platonic solids from the Riemann sphere

http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0502566

The 10 vertices of half a dodecahedron corresponds to your number 18=180/10 and you have it at the end of my essay as a model of the pentagram (or its complement: the Petersen graph) on the real projective plane."

I don't know if one can encode your 18 degrees =180/10 on some representation of the pentagram. This would be fascinating. Neither the pentagram nor its complement graph can be seen as built from a 'dessin d'enfant' that needs to be drawn on an oriented surface, as I explain at the end of my essay. But the pentagram graph can also be represented as the Desargues configuration (not shown in the essay)

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

The latter may be built/stabilized by a dessin d'enfant (in fact many do the job) on the Riemann sphere. When I go to them, in a next publication, I will think about your observation.

Apart from the possible link to the Grothendieck's dessins, I found your observation very stimulating and will rate your essay accordingly.

All the best,

Michel