I liked your essay because i twas easy to read and it through up some challenges.
Your section on Hidden Relations brought to mind the book Bible Code by Michael Drosnin. This book has been thoroughly debunked by mathematicians.
I am sure that the relations between fundamental particles can be unlocked by better reductionism than we are currently presented with by the Standard Model.
Thank you for your comments. I do not consider that there is any similarity between my section on "Hidden relations" and the book "The Bible Code". I am a mathematician and I understand the mathematical arguments that are used to debunk "The Bible Code". I consider that these arguments do not say anything very useful about my equations. Of course, anyone is welcome to apply these arguments themselves, and see what conclusions they come to.
I disagree with you that "better reductionism" will help us to understand mass. The mass of a proton is something fixed and very precisely known, while the masses of the constituents of a proton are at best very vague, and at worst undefined. More reductionism is precisely the opposite of what is required.
I didn't reply to your comments about predictive value of formulae. Given that my equations are meta-predictions rather than predictions, I do not claim great predictive power for them. But the equation $e + mu+tau+3p=5n$ does predict two or three more significant figures of the tau mass, and the equation involving the Higgs mass predicts one more significant figure of that. Several other equations have some limited predictive power also.
Dear Robert,
Thanks for your reply. This is what I like about Big bang:
"What does it actually explain that can't be explained in other ways?"
I answer: Nothing.
The Koide formula is incorrect and lacks a proton. I suggested the correct one: Improved Koide formula.
I've been to your blog, I don't know anything about group theory. I read a couple of articles.
Regards Branko
Dear Branko,
My take on the Koide formula is explained in my preprint "A proposed new model for the coupling of matter to spacetime" available from my blog. Essentially, it is a 3-dimensional approximation to a formula that must exist in 6-dimensional space. Indeed, it may even be reasonable to regard this 6-space as a 3-dimensional complex space, in which case we can say the Koide formula is the real part of a 3-dimensional complex formula. I do not know what the correct formula is, but you are surely right that it must involve the proton (and the neutron, I believe).
Robert.
Maybe I should add something about where the eight "hidden relations" came from. They are not just random equations, but are justified extensively (if heuristically) in terms of group representation theory, in two preprints that are posted on the website of the Isaac Newton Institute, Cambridge: http://www.newton.ac.uk/files/preprints/ni19011.pdf and http://www.newton.ac.uk/files/preprints/ni19013.pdf
Notice for example the parallel between the 3 generations of electron in e+mu+tau+3p=5n and the three generations of down quark in d+s+b+3pi=5n, which also throws up a parallel between the proton and the pions. The first equation has 12 fundamental particles on the left, and 15 on the right, so needs three neutrinos to balance the spins. The second equation has only 9 on the left, and needs 3 photons to balance the spins. All the equations taken together suggest that the muon and the tau particle, as well as the three heavy quarks, may be better treated as composite particles rather than fundamental, while on the other hand the proton and the pions might be better treated as fundamental. Just a thought.
Dear Robert,
I especially liked these deep ontological conclusions:
"The values, then, can only be explained by one supreme act of randomness at the origin of the universe in the Big Bang. Is this really an adequate physical explanation, or is it just a fairy story?"
"Predicting the unpredictable requires thinking the unthinkable. Restricting ourselves to thinkable unthinkables has not worked. To make progress, we may have to think unthinkable unthinkables. This is not a safe option. Thinking unthinkable unthinkables can lead to a complete paradigm shift. If we are not prepared for a paradigm shift, then we should not go down this road. "
"But if we want to go beyond the standard model, we must be prepared to think unthinkable unthinkables."
"Einstein's hopes of a rigorous consistent theory of all of physics have not been realised. But G¨odel's theorems do not prove that such a theory is impossible."
"So maybe, just maybe, if we can upgrade the theory from inconsistent inconsistency to consistent inconsistency, then the universe can do the rest, and give us a consistent consistent theory of everything."
My highest point and hope that to overcome the crisis of understanding, the crisis of interpretation and representation in the philosophical basis of fundamental science, physicists will call upon the paradigm of the whole to help. And the dialectic of "coincidence of opposites"... "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers" (J. Wheeler)
With kind regards, Vladimir
Dear Vladimir,
I thank you for your positive comments. I appreciate the deep ontological arguments about the foundations of quantum mechanics, and the crises of interpretation that arise from them, but the more I think about them, the more I feel that the problem is not so much philosophical as mathematical. There are problems with the mathematics that are not generally appreciated, and to my mind the philosophical problems arise largely because of errors in the mathematics, that lead to mathematical concepts that are difficult to relate to physical reality, for the simple reason that they are mathematically inconsistent. It is hard to discuss these issues seriously, because most people (including me, no doubt) understand at most one of the three subjects of mathematics, physics and philosophy.
Robert.
Dear Robert,
It was a real pleasure to read your clear contribution.
I understand that you are mostly mathematician and no philosopher, but really you touched very philosophical issues.
The whole time I was reading your essay I thought"Robert is looking for the reference of reference" a subject that I also give attention and try to reason in my interpretation.
As a mathematician, you will have some problems with my essay and I respect that, but if you are interested you can find it HERE , I should be interested to hear the opinion from another side.
Best regards
Wilhelmus de Wilde
Dear Wilhelmus,
Thank you for your kind remarks. I find that philosophy can often be useful as a way of clarifying issues, although I count myself very much an amateur in philosophy. I read your essay, but as you guessed, I found it hard to understand. You treat the problem of consciousness, which I try to avoid, although it plays a prominent role in certain approaches to the interpretation of quantum mechanics. As I mentioned above, I believe that consciousness enters into this debate through a misunderstanding of the underlying mathematics. On the other hand, my approach says absolutely nothing about the problem of consciousness, which remains completely out of my reach, and remains a central philosophical problem.
Robert.
Dear Robert,
You are absolutely right. The problem of justification of mathematics, which is more than a hundred years old, is problem No. 1 for cognition as a whole, especially physics. Some philosophers consider it to be an "eternal problem". I strongly disagree with this. Clearly represented the situation with the foundations of mathematics and logic M. Kline in "Mathematics: Loss of Certainty" and A. Zenkin in SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS. Some mathematicians claim that "as physics has solved all the theoretical problems of chemistry, thereby" closing "chemistry, so mathematics will create a" unified theory of everything "and" close "physics." (Interview with mathematician L. Faddeev The equation of the evil spirit ). How can mathematics "close physics" if the problem of justification is not solved. For some reason, mathematicians are currently facing the age-old problem of the justification of mathematics, "language of Nature", "swept under the rug." Just look at the "Millennium Problems" of the Clay Mathematics Institute...
The problem of the mathematics justification (and therefore knowledge in general) is a comprehensive ontological problem. Therefore, I define the problem of the mathematics justification more broadly - the problem of the ontological basification of mathematics. I took the concept of "basification" from geology, where "basification" is understood as a hypothetical process of transformation of the granite layers of the Earth's crust into basalt layers. Metaphor: it is time to start "cracking" instead of "granite" - the "basalt" of Science ... Please look at my approach to the problem of the basification of mathematics and knowledge in general. I will be very happy to hear your questions and criticisms.
With kind regards, Vladimir
Thank you for your honest reply Robert.
We respect each other.
Wilhelmus de Wilde
I thank you again. Respect is often lacking in these debates, and is much appreciated when it is displayed.
Respect.
Robert.
Dear Vladimir,
I confess that I do not understand the problems you are referring to. The "problem of justification of mathematics" is not a problem that I recognise, as a mathematician. Mathematics does not seek justification, and develops independently of such "justification". Mathematics, like physics, and other fields of human endeavour, develops because it appears to be "useful" - whatever that means. Platonist ontology of mathematics is far removed from any concerns of any mathematicians whom I have worked with over 40 years. Or am I misunderstanding the meaning you give to the word "justification"?
Robert.
Dear Robert,
Unfortunately, I did not study English and rely on the translation of the Google translator. In Russian, "justification" sounds more accurately "обоснование", i.e. search for reliable "foundation". And what foundation can be the strongest and most reliable7 This is an ontological basis.
The problem of justification (substantiation) of mathematics is the problem of "foundations of mathematics", which M. Kline described well in his book "Mathematics: Loss of Certainty". Interestingly, as mathematician, do you agree with the conclusions of M. Kline?
I am not a mathematician, but I am interested in the question: Why did Mathematics, "language of Nature", lose Certainty? So physics has lost its Certainty? And all knowledge has lost Certainty? The loss of certainty in the foundations of mathematics, and therefore knowledge in general, ultimately raises questions: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability ...
Today, a picture of the world is being imposed on society, based on the hypothesis of the "Big Bang" ? You, as I understand it, do not support this hypothesis. Didn't mathematics play a role here when physicists build a picture of the world on the basis of theories without their ontological basification? I am not a mathematician, not a physicist, not a philosopher, but my mind does not accept the "scientific picture of the world", which does not answer fundamental scientific questions about the nature of the "laws of nature" and fundamental constants. Therefore, I once got involved in solving the problem of justification (basification) of mathematics (knowledge). I wonder what your opinion on the article by Carlo Rovelli Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics ? I found that your essay is deeply philosophical.
With kind regards, Vladimir
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you for the clarification. I confess that I have not thought deeply about the foundations of mathematics: in my work in finite group theory and representation theory, subtleties about the foundations do not often arise. We usually assume the axiom of choice, but it is probably not necessary in fact. I have not read Kline's book, so cannot comment on it.
Thank you for pointing to Rovelli's article. I agree with everything he says. The philosophy in my essay fits in with what he says about methodology: essentially I am arguing, as Rovelli does, that the methodology of modern fundamental physics doesn't work, and I am pointing out another possible methodology. I agree with Rovelli that having random ideas and hoping they will work is doomed to failure, and that the road to progress lies in carefully examining the contradictions in existing theories, and thinking philosophically about them.
Best wishes,
Robert.
Dear Robert,
Your deep philosophical approach to the foundations of physics, theoretical and practical knowledge in mathematics (finite group theory, representation theory) just push to solve the age-old problem of the foundations of mathematics (justification of mathematics) and knowledge in general.
Question: What "finite group" (ontological) underlies knowledge and the Universe as a holistic eternal process of generation of structures? How can it be represented in a geometric symbol?
With kind regards, Vladimir
Dear Robert,
The improved Koide formula is in the Table at the end of my essay.
Branko
Dear ROBERT ARNOTT WILSON, I thank you for your interest in my essay. Probably, the desire to understand why others think so has pushed you to this, and it is likely that I will give you high marks for this. If you agreed that space is matter, and matter is space that moves, as it is matter, then time here has a separate meaning, which is already contained in the concept of motion. Therefore, I do not use the expression "space-time." It is necessary to distinguish the concept of physical space from geometric space. Indeed, in mathematics, as you know, there are many spaces, but all this is abstraction. If, as you say, "to fully describe matter, I need both 4-dimensional space-time and 4-dimensional momentum-energy to create an 8-dimensional" reality ". Then, to describe dimensions, interactions, and so on, I need two copies of 8-dimensional reality multiplied together to give 64 dimensions that contain all possible dimensions and interactions. ", You can proceed further. Just do not forget that all these are abstractions and do not try to declare it existing separately from the object under study, as you did with the physical space that was separated from matter.
聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽I invite you to continue the discussion of my essay, in which I show the successes of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics, based on the identity of Descartes' space and matter: "The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics. by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich ".
聽聽聽聽聽聽At the very beginning of the essay, I repeat twice the idea that rectilinear motion, in essence, is a motion around a circle of infinitely large radius and, if this radius is reduced, then in infinitesimal laws of motion of the theory of relativity will go over to the laws of quantum mechanics.
聽聽聽聽聽聽聽Next come mathematical formulas that only spoil my essay, but without them in any way. I will be pleased if you catch their main meaning and bless me for the further generalization of modern physics. I give high ratings to those who visit my page and leave her comment on it regarding the neo-Cartesian generalization of modern physics, even if they did not agree.
Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.
I did not intend to imply that "spacetime" is separate from "matter". The two are simply different aspects of the same thing. But I do need spacetime and not just space, because the mathematics that I use does not permit the separation of time from space in general. This separation only arises when we take the point of view of a particular observer, at which point we have a fixed definition of time, and therefore a fixed definition of mass. All the forces that deal with fixed mass (electromagnetism and gravity, and maybe also the strong force, depending on your interpretation) then crystallise out. But the weak force is different, because it does not preserve mass, and therefore does not preserve time. That is the real reason why I need spacetime and not just space - without a unified spacetime, I cannot explain the weak force.
Robert.