One Thirty Seven Is The KEY by sherman loran jenkins

Dear Sherman Loran Jenkins, you very briefly and brilliant identified a fundamental problem in physics: "When we envision the structure of the vacuum we can then see why 1/137

is so central to all physical processes". I can only add, the physical vacuum is a state of physical space, which according to Descartes is matter. Look at my essay, where I spoke about the application in physics of the principle of the identity of space and matter of Descartes. I'll give you a rating after your comment.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Dear loran jenkins,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Sherman Jenkins, you correctly believe that the number 137 is fundamental, which determines the structure of matter. I read two authors who showed that this number is related to another fundamental number - 3.14 ...... I appreciate your essay because you are on the right track.

I wish you success! Dizhechko

Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Hi Sherman

I did not follow, why structure is required for vacuum "When we envision the structure of the vacuum we can then see why 1/137 is so central to all physical processes." Can you please explain a bit further? By the way....

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope your essay and hope for reciprocity ....You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

Sherman,

I found your essay had a very fine structure, constant good advice and unified sections. I suspect 1/137th is very fundamental, but who knows.... yet.? Nice concise job, well written, interesting, amusing and spot on topic!

If you've read any of my own recent finalist essays (from 2011 on) you'll see I've used the exact methodology you identify for your grandmothers jigsaw! First focussed on SR, I then tested the solution found (Peer scored both 1st & 2nd so clearly most agreed!) on QM (also cosmology etc with interesting results). A few months ago the last component slotted in to place and, shockingly, it all seemed to come together!

I hope you're competent enough to have a look and tell me where it might have gone wrong, as very few here seem able to do so!! (no faults found, they just seem to look and run away with a bout of cognitive dissonance!) I hope you'll also see Declan Traill's short essay for the matching computer code & plot).

Unlikely I know, but funny thing about jigsaw puzzles, it seems they're either right, if the bits all fit, or obviously wrong.

Nicely done for yours. Worth a decent score despite it's brevity.

Very best

Peter

Sherman,

I agree. Physics is closed minded. So I try Feynmans method, start by explaining it to a child...

A spinning sphere works well if I'm there to explain it; child or in the bar. But let me try my fishbowl: Go down to the other end of the bar, shine a pulsed (1 sec) laser back at my fish bowl. The light slows to c/n glass then back to c/n air (or water or vacuum with some particles to light up) then c/n glass & back again. OK? I then slide the bowl at v down the bar & 'beam' to you (it won't fall off, I've practiced lots!)

DFM analysis; As SR's postulates, the light does c/n in the rest frame of the fish bowl k' until it exits into the background bar rest frame k, so is further delayed, by v while in the bowls inertial system. A webcam in the moving fish bowl records the pulses being encountered more frequently then 1 sec. due to the Doppler shift. The barmaids webcam half way down the bar records apparent c-v (and c+v when you slide it back) while in the bowl! However those are NOT local propagation speeds. Evidence from another frame only gives 'apparent' speed.

DOCTRINAL interpretation analysis; No 'preferred' background frame can exist so the camera lied because the fishbowl really shrunk or expanded without cracking, and 'time itself' dilated in the bowl.

Now 5 of 6 children and barmaids understand and chose the correct logical analysis, in line with all optical science. Why can't 90% of academic physicists overcome cognitive dissonance to also do so? I last year suggested (apart from fear etc) that it's just our state of intellectual evolution. Is that fair?

Classic QM was a test of the DFM, which it seems to have a passed. A tranche of more fundamental truths emerge, including cyclic cosmology, changing the 'Law of the Excluded Middle', Determinism etc, many in previous essays.

Links available. I'm sure you've found others as good or better, do pass me yours. We have a bit of a consortium to make all coherent. Prof Chandra Roych.. also wants to go that way. Are you interested?

If all else fails could we mass produce coffins and use Max Plancks solution?! lol

Very best.

Peter

Yes please, Go for it.

Before that, my own 1/137th is the fine structure surface fermions required to couple with EM in the 2-fluid plasma transition zone (Maxwells TZ). With motion that then increases to remain a constant with /b]inertial mass, because a denser TZ is required to perform the speed change (LT) between frames.(Inc local virial rotations F = ma = mv2/r). It's also the 'Unruh effect'.

So effectively pair production (Higgs process) from increased 'pressure' or motion through the ambient medium. Max density is however ~10^22/cm^-3. which is plasma 'optical breakdown' density' & rather hot. I identified a "a 'virial kinetic entity' (VKE)" defining/bounding a local system, i.e. a heliosphere, and initially also wrote;

Principle II of space as a wave medium can then be more clearly interpreted as the energy being 'handled' by the particles; ( 'At each point in space, waves from all wave center 'particles' in the universe combine their intensities to form the mass-energy density of space.');

Mass-energy density of space ~ mc2 = hf = k [SUM(Fn) 2/rn2)]

I'm sure you have a more complete fundamental derivation with some proper sums (I don't do those - see my top scored 2015 maths essay!) which I'd love to see. Let me know if you see any connections at all with the above.

Very best

Peter

Dear Sherman

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don't rate them at all. Infact I haven't issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?

My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn't then gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.

By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

Dear Sherman:

That was a fun read!

I agree with the "Mental" section of your essay that a useful meaning of fundamental is that which brings us ever closer to the truth.

I further agree that it's not so much the actual number 1/137 that is fundamental in this sense but how it arises. Nevertheless, if derived as you indicate, its value may be indeed a key a to a better (more fundamental) understanding of the physics of the Universe.

Luis Felipe Patino-Cuadrado

Dear Sherman Jenkins,

There are three kinds of pions or pi-mesons: positively charged pi(), negatively charged pi(-) and electrically neutral pi(0). The masses of pi() and pi(-) are equal, and are 273 times the mass of the electron. The mass of pi(0) is 264 times that of the electron. Perhaps, one unit of electron or positron charge has some relationship with 9 units of electron mass.

Quantum Mechanics claims that an electron can be both spin-up and spin-down at the same time. In my conceptual physics Essay on Electron Spin, I have proved that this is not true. Please read: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145

Kamal Rajpal

Sherman,

Interesting. Do you have a definition of 'charge'? Whats the maximum packing density? And where do you find the dodecahedron in the CMB? I assume in the underlying helix, but as an astronomer I've analysed the anisotropies & plank data in detail and haven't seen it. I've look outside lots of boxes, but what am I missing?

I do like your essay anyway, particularly;

"Science and technology have outpaced social and political development". (I'd suggest adding intellectual development!) also;

"Fundamental is surrendering the old stories and weighing new ideas." Though I can't see most of the academic community warming to that as it'd marginalise them!;

"Both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics derive from more basic principles." Spot on; precisely the 'discrete field' model my (all finalist) essays since 2011 have constructed. And as you say above; It's about the structure of the vacuum.

The above questions are tricky, so let me give you my own working assumptions.

'Charge' emanates from rotations. +/- = S/N poles. Thus my essay.

Max packing density is 'optical breakdown density' of plasma where EM won't penetrate and heat peaks, around; 10^-23/cm^-3. We find it on the nose of probes on re-entry.

CMB Anisotropies. The model I've built (do look as it rather unifies SR & QM) predicted no BB and 'precession' of two streams of re-ionized matter around a node, giving a helical distribution. That's not a guess, it's the exact pattern of quasar jets from ('SMBH') active galactic nuclei in a recycling model. The other anisotropies, particularly an asymmetry also emerge. Sure it got into a minor journal but mankind (Editors & Academia anyway) needs rather more intellectual evolution yet. Scale Invariant Cyclic Model HJ.v36-6 2013 (Other essays & papers in that archive).

But all science and theory is provisional! I liked your essay, and just maybe the twisty dodecs mean something useful. I can't see it yet, but a score boost coming anyway. I hope I haven't put you off liking and doing the same for mine! (did you check out Declan Traill's confirmation the mechanism works!?)

Very best

Peter