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

    I noted today in arXiv

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.5308

    Mixing Patterns from the Groups Sigma (n phi)

    We survey the mixing patterns which can be derived from the discrete groups Sigma (36 x 3), Sigma (72 x 3), Sigma (216 x 3) and Sigma (360 x 3), if these are broken to abelian subgroups Ge and Gnu in the charged lepton and neutrino sector, respectively. Since only Sigma (360 x 3) possesses Klein subgroups, only this group allows neutrinos to be Majorana particles. We find only a few patterns that agree well with the experimental data on lepton mixing and predict the reactor mixing angle theta_{13} to be 0.1

      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

      • [deleted]

      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

      Great paper Yuri!

      I think it's probably not just a meaningless coincidence that the number 18 keeps popping out for you, but it makes you wonder why someone else didn't notice the correlation sooner. I think the comments of Phil and Lawrence above are likely significant, or specifically that we may be seeing the octonions, quaternions, and icosians at work or evidence of E8 Physics. I talk a little about this in my essay this year. Nice work to put all of these particle relations in one place, though. Of course; the proton - electron mass ratio is especially significant, given that our bodies and the planet are made of them, along with their composite the neutron.

      I looked at your viXra paper referenced above, disputing the significance of the Planck length, and my friend Steven Kauffmann is pretty adamant about this. You might want to read a paper of his A self-gravitational Upper Bound on localized energy which asserts that the maximum energy concentration possible occurs before we reach the Planck length. It is also discussed in this FQXi Forum.

      More later,

      Jonathan

        I also appreciate the comments you left on the page for Dimensional reduction...

        The idea for 2-d quanta existing in 3-d space or 4-d spacetime comes up again and again. It absolutely does hint at the holographic principle at work, and to my mind it creates fractal boundaries - because the dimensions of space are not the same at all scales. I published a paper back in 2009 on Fractal Cosmology (attached below) in 'Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals,' and most of that content is still present in the Wikipedia article on that topic, which I also originated.

        Enjoy,

        JonathanAttachment #1: CHAOS6406.pdf

        Hello Yuri

        Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

        (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

        said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

        I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

        The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

        Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

        Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

        I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

        Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

        Good luck and good cheers!

        Than Tin

        Yuri,

        Fascinating! (and if I knew it was so concise I'd have read it much earlier!)

        I'm a great fan of geometry over mathematics as a more precise descriptor of nature, and geometry is at the heart of your proof. It looks like there must be something fundamentally important to it.

        I wonder if you can see anything in my own 3D geometry of curves and spheres based on the helix, and of higher order spaces, where your thesis may add light?

        Scoring you now. Well done.

        Best wishes

        Peter

        8 days later

        Dear Yuri,

        Another interesting essay! Thank you for stopping by and commenting on mine.

        All the best,

        Daryl

        Dear Yuri:

        I liked the quote from Wheeler. I am not sure I get the claim. It would really help if you could state the claim more clearly. What are the places where the angle of 18 appears? Are there exceptions? What works? What does not work?

        The point with these kind of things is that they might signify something deep or they might just lead you astray. People have invested a lot of time on the fact that the fine structure constant is 1/137. Why 137? As far as I can tell no good reason has been given yet.

        Also: It is not clear how this relates to the topic of the essay contest.

        It would really help if you'd work on the presentation.

        Cheers

        Olaf

        Dear Olaf

        Thank you for constructional criticism of my essay. It benefits rather than complimenting from nonprofessionals.

        I will try to answer your questions.

        1.My observation 18 deg concerning only pseudoscalar mesons where spin=0 and two charged leptons(mu and tau) where spin=1/2.But 18 deg no so important than symmetry around proton.This is an amazing symmetry was not noticed until now.

        2.Puzzle of 137 is more sophisticate than 1836,because contains 3 components (c,e,h) whereas 1836 contains only one(mass) component

        Cheers

        Yuri

        5 days later

        Dear Yuri,

        As I promised in my Essay page I have read your enjoyable Essay. Here are my comments.

        1) The phenomenon of 18 degrees is quite intriguing. In general, I do not think that such kind of phenomena in Science are coincidences.

        2) I have always been intrigued by the Golden Ratio. The connection with the angle of 18 degrees is fascinating.

        3) The relationship between the number of 18 and mass of quarks is really amazing.

        4) Thanks for pointing out special properties of number 18, I did not know them. That number is really special.

        5) Again, I do not think that the final coincidence between angle of 18 degrees and number 18 is an accidental coincidence.

        I have found your Essay very intriguing and enjoyable. Thus, I am going to give you a high score.

        I also suggest you to further proceed with your scientific research on the number 18.

        Cheers,

        Ch.

        Yuri,

        I regret that I had not been able to read your essay up until now. While I do not have the background that some of the other commentators have, I very much like how you have presented the empirical evidence and left it as an open question.

        Is it just a coincidence or is there something much deeper to it? Considering that you also point out that we aren't exactly sure what "mass" is (although I personally have another idea) then these bits of information such as the one you are pointing out may help us piece together the jig saw puzzle.

        I have rated you highly for the empirical evidence and open question.

        Kind Regards,

        Jeff

        Dear Yuri

        You have gone deeply into this matter and found some interesting regularities. I have no expertise in this area of physics, but I do have a question: If you express the degrees in radians you will get a different value than 18. Does this affect your results in any way?

        My own research also yielded an interesting angle: around 13 degrees related to the Strong Force. Is it a coincidence or meaningful ? I pose the same question as you have but in another scenario:

        Three Magnetic Dipoles Provide a Physically Realistic Simulation of the Repulsive-Attractive Nature of the Strong Force and of the Cabibbo Angle

        With best wishes in your work

        Vladimir