The Topological Unified Field Theory on the Complex Hopf Fibration

Steve Dufourny

Jianhong Zuo Sorry, you are right it is not facebook after all FQXi and furthermore the work of Jenny is excellent, she has good ideas general and good mathematical developments. I learn with this kind of works the maths. Regards

Jenny Lorraine Nielsen

Thanks all for your thoughts everyone I tremendously appreciate it. I also appreciate everyone has an opportunity to share their feedback and programs of research. Together we will crack the Universe 🙂

yusrob

Jenny Lorraine Nielsen
Dear Jenny!
You write:
“Together we will crack the Universe”.
The fundamental, foundational mysteries of nature and the Universe have already been discovered and understood within the framework of my “Theory of Nature” (in Russian), https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSTON. Read my short article on solving this problem. Here it is: “Nature as an Objective Reality”, https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSNAA.
This article establishes the algorithms for the evolution of nature and the Universe. This is a completely dialectical-materialistic model of the evolution of both nature and the Universe. It seems to me that this solution to the problem of evolution reveals an important absolute truth about NATURE.
Sincerely,
Robert Yusupov from Vladivostok (USSR), author of “Theory of Nature”, independent researcher, dialectical materialist, Marxist, communist

Jenny Lorraine Nielsen

My theory requires one empirical dimensional constant admission to set the ratios to a unit. I use the VEV / Fermi constant, but any known input with units (such as "c") should do, then the ratios between constants as geometric spectra can be used to make predictions.

anonimus

Jenny, I am a bit surprised by your statement "Together we will crack the universe". Because I thought that your paper supposed to be "the crack". At least that it shows the right path. So maybe we can discuss some related aspects.

The "crack" of the universe is about the description of its (dynamical) reality with the help of a model. And because we can check a small part of the universe with our senses we are allowed to conclude that the universe has a volume (3D) and its appearance is geometrical. In other words, our model must be a 3D model that describes the dynamical structure of the universe in geometrical terms. Now let us focus on the consequences of the concept of a model.

Is a model equal to a theory? Because in physics we have a number of grand theories and if a theory is equal to a model why do we have different grand theories? The concept of a model is that the model describes all the relevant aspects of a subject to reconstruct the subject. That is why we can compare a model with a map of a landscape. Even if we never visited a part of the landscape we can find our way. If we ask a LMM (e.g. Gemini or Deepseek) about the direct relation between the concept of a model and the grand theories the LMM will answer that none of the grand theories represent a true model. In other words, if we want to "crack" the universe we cannot use one or more grand theories as the foundation of our hypothetical model. The consequence is that not all the concepts that are used to create a grand theory are trustworthy.

There is another problem too. Is it possible that more than one model fits our universe? Because I can fantasize that I create a model that describes reality at a scale size that is much larger than the smallest scale size in the universe. But at the moment I search for a convincing example I have to admit that this is nonsense. I cannot choose a metric at random.

So here we are. We have to create a model that describes the "mechanism" behind the observed transformations in the universe. Transformations that are partly invisible and partly visible (detectable). The latter is termed "phenomenological reality". Actually, physics is about phenomenological reality.

Jenny, do you agree with my opinion? And if you agree, do you know a way to surpass these problems?

Steve Dufourny

anonimus Hi, not easy to crack this universe due to deepe limitations physical, mathematical, ontological . But general models and theories can givre the road, I consider the spherical volumes like fundamental object in my theory of spherisation, the optimisation of the universe,a possible universal sphere, I consider also that we have maybe an omnipotent infinite eternal consciousness in 0D and that we express finite parts of consciousness with our finite physical structures but I don t assert these assumptions, I try partitions with the tool I invented the spherical topological geometric algebras. The works of Jenny are very interesting generally, physically and mathematically. We search answers and all concrete models permit to evolve. I invite alsdo all persons interested to look at the works of Bob Coecke, he sent me his book quantum in pictures, he is relevant and his works permit to have new tools to superimpose. The ontology of the universe seems important also, strings, points in 1D in this GR or spheres or others, we cannot assert but partitions can be extrapolated .Best regards

« Previous Page