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 Akindo

    My attitude to Planck length very negative

    See my article

    http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0191

    Planck scale is illusion

    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,

      We forgot to add: division of a number by zero is not infinity, but leaves the number unchanged. We have written about it in many forums without contradiction. In case you want the proof, you can write to us.

      Regards,

      basudeba

      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