Ray

Thanks for the posts. To make life easy, - edited response repeated here;

Before you go too far, I've done it on the drawing board and it's very interesting, but rather more Krispy Kreme 3-spheres that geodesic Architecture. I'd recommend that before you destroy the local stock of soccer balls you look closely into Hopf fibration. And are you familiar with Clifford Tori?

The Wiki Hopf page seems to be a good intro and has a nice dynamic slice clip showing the geometrical relationship, or Google it for some good piccies.

Lucian Ionescu has just reported back from a conference that Hopf seems to be becoming the next paradigm of guage theory! so it may be good to 'catch' that wave. (though I have to tell you, you'll end up with DFM local reality!).

You ask where do the 32 dimensions live? I may have mentioned I did the 'up & down' thing back at uni, though many universes, I recently got to 33 and realised (via logic and empiricism) that it was actually the 4th where they live Ray. Time. It's all about that other recent paradigm - recycling. If you really want to have fun and explore some logical conclusions check this out;

http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016 ..and let me know where you think they are!

Best regards, Peter

PS. Did you know, with respect to ways of thinking, as well as Buckminster Fuller and Christopher Wren (Royal Society founder), Boscovitch was also an Architect. The left / right brain thing is about massively more than just language and maths!

PPS. My guess is that according to the Law of Averages you should end up in the top 8 this year. (But of course laws are made to be broken!).

Hi Ray, (i've copied this over from my own thread)

Apologies for not responding sooner but I'm currently doing physical work from 9.30am to 4.30pm, which has been a bit of a shock to the system(!). Incidentally, I only have access to the internet from my local library, during the day, Tue to Sat morning. I'm cutting rhododendron trees back which carry the sudden oak death disease. It's a four week mandatory voluntary scheme which I'm currently enjoying.

I read your post with increased enthusiasm. We are starting to get to a common ground on many issues. A couple of points that need mentioning is the flux density of gravitons which can be an alternative to your "thread pitch" visualisation. The number of gravitons which interact per time scale will also influence the overall gravity force in a field. It's wrong to think that gravity is a weak force and always attractive though imo. It's only the resultant field from protons and neutrons in matter configurations which have a weak field. The gravitons could be emitted in a combination of repulsive configuration and attraction configuration for example, it's just that more attractive gravitons are emitted overall into the surrounding field. This ties in with magnetism and the electric field which have forces of repulsion as well as attraction. Both can be modelled via gravitons imo.

I hope this enough to be getting on with. Thanks for the correspondence.

Best wishes,

Alan

Ray,

Why aren't you addressing the 'single point' I raised in my post? I gave you 'my side of that issue' and I am waiting for 'your side'. We must show some discipline here, otherwise it becomes a 'thought fight'!

Reluctantly (because I don't want to be sidetracked) I am making the following correction to what you wrote in your last post to me.

You write, "I am concerned about your definition of Temperature - eta/tau makes a strange average - you might rather need the integral average over tau of d(eta)."

Ray, eta IS the integral of energy! I do not need the "integral average" for my definition of temperature because I HAVE the "integral average" over tau!

And a general comment: In all that I have done my objective is to trace and relate fundamental ideas. Not to develop a complete theory in all physical dimensions. For that reason I keep the mathematical formulations of these ideas to one physical dimension x and as simple as they can get. And at a level that the 'sense' to these cannot be mistaken. The formulations that you suggest for my ideas are more formal mathematically but lose sight of the 'physical realism' that I seek at this time.

And what are you doing up 3:00am? Cutting more soccer balls? I am concerned about you Ray! You fit the profile of a mad scientist!

Constantinos

Hi Constantinos,

One of my dogs woke me up at 2:30am (after 4 hours of sleep), so I ate breakfast, and got on the computer. I got frustrated cutting up soccer balls when I realized that I needed two more...

I'm not normally that "mad"...

OK - I'll go back and look at your question and tau again.

Regarding "extra dimensions", we have the Equipartition Theorem in Statistical Mechanics that allows us to treat averages over the three spatial dimensions equally - I'm not referring to that at all.

My problem is that E(t)=E_0 e^nu*t only has one integration constant, and cannot represent fermions. I'm suggesting that the general solution may be of the form E(t)=E_0 e^vu*t F_0 e^(-vu*t). Perhaps bosons just happen to have F_0=0, and perhaps the anti-symmetric wave-functions of fermions require fermions to have F_0=-E_0. I'm just suggesting that you reconsider the question of how many integration constants does your model require? A second order differential equation requires two integration constants - its basic Calculus!

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Ray,

I really shouldn't be doing this, and should insist on a disciplined discussion! But ... since you raised this point in your last two posts to me I can't avoid it.

You write, "My problem is that E(t)=E_0 e^nu*t only has one integration constant ... ".

I am not sure I know which paper you are referring to here. In my essay, I assumed the 'exponential of energy'. Though I could have approached the derivation of Planck's Law differently and directly from my purely mathematical 'Planck-like' characterization of exponential functions. But I wanted to use my very simple and elegant mathematical identity (involving integrals and integral averages) that directly leads to Planck's Law. I want to make the point simply and directly that Planck's Law is a mathematical identity and not a physical law dependent on some physical behavior of nature.

If you are referring to how I later derived this 'exponential of energy' in my "What is the Matter with de Broglie Waves?" post -- that involved differentiating and not integrating. So I am a little unclear as to what you are talking about.

Your earlier comment about second order pde resulting in two constants of integration, I agree. But where am I solving these? My post "If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave" is the only place where such pdes show up and lead to the wave equation. By 'wave' here I simply mean solutions to the 'wave equation'. But I don't solve any of these pde.

Your suggestion concerning fermions is interesting. Perhaps you can develop this idea further. I lose sight of the 'sense' and 'physical realism' that broadly I am arguing for.

Are we having fun yet?

Constantinos

Hi Constantinos,

I looked at your paper again. True, your master equation is a differential equation, but you assumed a solution, and I want to make sure that you have assumed the most general possible solution for this application.

If your derivation is truly general, then it says that we only need Bose statistics, and don't need Fermi statistics. I think that Fermi statistics are correct, that you have made a modeling error based on not using the most general possible solution, and that Planck's Law only dictates part of Reality - the Boson part of Reality.

I apologize that I don't have time to work out the details now. I'm carrying on similarly in-depth conversations with Sreenath, Yuri and Basudeba. At work, I'm in charge of Inventory (The end of the fiscal year is my least favorite time). At home, I'm doing some remodeling of my 1973 house. And my Florida State Seminoles are playing in the Sweet Sixteen tomorrow night. Busy, busy, busy...

I would like to see you model your solution as:

E(t) = E_0 exp(nu*t) F_0 exp(-nu*t)

I think that would also be equivalent to using cosh(nu*t) and sinh(nu*t) solutions.

It would be interesting to study these four simple cases:

1) your case, F_0 = 0

2) E_0 = 0

3) F_0 = E_0, and

4) F_0 = -E_0

There are three major types of statistics: Maxwell, Bose, and Fermi, and at least one proposed statistics: Anyonic.

I currently consider the three different Partition Functions to be the most fundamental level of deriving these three major statistics, but if your single equation can yield all four statistics with a single general solution, then that may be journal-worthy. I still think you have more work to do.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Ray,

I've been thinking some more. I thought of a three braided helix 'rope' as the configuration of the proton and neutron toroids. The central thread at the start of the creation of the structure could have a repulsive nature and emit anti-gravitons. The other two would be the familiar Archimedes screw gravitons in attractive configuration. It's a novel thought that needs expanding on I think. Anyhow, bye for now,

AlanAttachment #1: Three_Braided_Helices.jpg

    Hi Alan,

    The 3-braided rope sounds a lot like the 3 colors of QCD, but we have color-confinement, so the gluon rope does not extend past the proton's radius.

    "Z" and "S" twisted ropes may spiral like a screw, and may represent the left- and right-handedness of Fermions (back to CPT symmetry). A rope is usually more flexible than a screw, and that is how I envision strings.

    The mathematics of mixing longitudinal (from Mass-Energy Equivalence) and transverse modes on a string to create the equivalent of a logarithmically twisted rope (or screw) sounds challenging.

    An anti-graviton thread? Huh?

    Have Fun!

    p.s. - You might also bounce some ideas off of Lawrence Crowell and Philip Gibbs - they are working with 3- and 4-qubits of strings. At the discrete extreme of reality, a 3-qubit might be 3 neighboring lattice points. But at the continuous extreme of reality, a 3-qubit might be a 3-braided rope. Perhaps a 4-qubit has analogies with a 4-braided rope.

    Hi Ray,

    Yes, the 'threeness' of the quark model is something that influences me a great deal. It might be sending me down the wrong path though. Funny you should talk about 4-braided ropes, that's exactly what I had deduced and was going to post. It's more symmetrical, with the two pairs moving in opposite directions as well. The so called 'weak gravity field of matter' is the residual effect of symmetry breaking in the internal geometric dynamics of protns and neutron configurations. This still leaves the gravity force as a relative strong force.

    Thanks for the tips. I need to get to grips with the current language you are all using.

    Cheers,

    Alan

      Hi Alan,

      In my primary TOE models, "color" is a 4-plet that includes (red up quark, green up, blue up, white electron). Pati-Salam Theory (and Lisi's E8) uses similar ideas but calls the electron color violet. I think "white" is more appropriate because red green blue = neutral white in color theory, and electrons are color-neutral.

      The discrete end of the 3-qubit might be a triangular lattice "unit cell", whereas the 4-qubit might match up with a tetrahedral "unit cell" (like a Face-Centered Cubic Close-Packing lattice).

      Have Fun!

      Hi Dr Cosmic Ray,

      I congratulate you for the final.It's cool for you. In a thread with Edwin, you say"Occam's Razor is a balance between Simplicity (I often equate Simplicity and Beauty) and Necessity (a theory needs to explain as many details as possible "

      It's not really the meaning of the Occham Razor, in fact you know it's a sorting between rationalities and the irrationalities. Simplicity possesses its details. That doesn't mean that this simplicity needs irrational extrapolations. In fact it's a bad utilization simply of complexs and reals numbers and thus the symmetries.A theory of course needs details but good details sorted by a pure rational Occham Razor ....simply.You know Ray one day we shall see the truth and we shall say all...Oh my God.

      ....you know these words Ray I suppose.

      Your friend

      Steve

        Hi Steve,

        Most people focus on the "Simplicity" aspect of Occam's Razor. These so-called "irrationals" arise from the "Necessity" side of Occam's Razor. There are certain "structures" that any TOE must explain. Any TOE needs at least a 4-D Quaternion algebra to explain Electromagnetism (Maxwell's four equations can be rewritten as a single Quaternion equation). Furthermore, CP symmetry violation implies an additional level of complex mathematics (this is the level of mathematics (this involves the color force, not electromagnetism) that Lisi's E8 TOE did not include - unfortunately a single E8 has strictly real representations and cannot represent CP symmetry violation) which effectively doubles the size of our 4-D Quaternion into the equivalent of at least an 8-D Octonion. Then there is the question of how to unite Bosons and Fermions under the same mathematical umbrella. IMHO, this requires SUSY and another effective doubling of degrees-of-freedom into at least 16-D? The question of "Where are these extra dimensions hiding?" introduces the need for Scales and perhaps more dimensions for a fully consistent model. The radiative stability of the Weak Scale vs. the TOE Scale also requires SUSY and/or Scales. Each problem introduces more complexity.

        I realize that my model gets so far away from "Simplicity" that it appears "irrational", but can you explain the KNOWN experimental facts of CP symmetry violation, different Spin Statistics for Fermions and Bosons, and the stability of the Weak Scale in a more compact, more simple, more beautiful structure? If so, I will proclaim your genius throughout this blog site!

        Have Fun!

        Dr. Cosmic Ray

        Hi Dr Cosmic Ray,

        I feel obliged to use the automatic translator. I then rectified by my poor English, literal. I'm tired of repeating, but it is a clear need! You know Ray, the goal is not to superimpose irrationalities, or recite a mathematical or scientific swarm of ironies, not the main thing is to understand the Newtonian proportions. The road is deterministic and purely real. How would you explain the origin of the mass with external causes such gravitational scalable systems. The scientific community and its sequel makes me think of the court and its royalist mired. Jointed like puppets, they sneer beneath the tired hands of the forgotten. The sorting is much more than this simple definition you quote me above. It would be vain and useless to try to run square pieces in the heavenly vault of stars. Consistencies are they not preferable to inconsistencies and violations of our rights. Would you ask a bird not to fly and dream. It's like if you would not be watered by the water if I can say with ease. You are more intelligent Ray than these ironies.he Universe is a sphere in 3 dimensions, it's essential Ray, really.Of course the scales are slamm or big but all is in 3D and relativelly proportional.It's essential for gravitation.

        I continue with my bad english.

        The complexs are in 3D Ray and all gravitational stabilities also as an elementary particle, a sphere and its rotation spinal and orbitals and its volumes ....as our Universal sphere is in 3D also , a planet is in 3D, a flower on the other side of Universal sphere is in 3D. A intelligent creation on a planet in an other galaxy possesses eyes and he sees in 3D also.A star is in 3D,the sphere of Fe of our Earth is in 3D, a reaction nuclear is in 3D...and you say me that quaternion is in 4D now an its explains the electromagnetism, I am sorry I see still a 3D and a polarity between mass and light simply, the complexity is always in 3D, we are far of our walls at my knowledge.A photon also is in 3D he turns and travels in 3D. The scales are farctalizables, that doesn't mean that these scales imply bizare things.Our Universe is logic since the begining.....not need of extra bizare things.Could you develop the CP violations please Dr Cosmic Ray.Don't forget that if ele.art. are spheres and if the number is finite thus we have a specific fractal, with specific volumes. We can say that the velocities of rotations spinals and orbitals are proportional with mass.....The hv turns in the other main sense, you shall understand Ray why the 3D is essential for the proportions with gravity ...ps eureka but chuuuuut it is a secret :)

        ps2 have you seen yesterday,I am happy lol Autriche- Belgique 0-2 two goals, we can still be qualified for europa cup,it is cool, in all case our soccer players are better than our government and its politicians. :)

        ps3 with your capacity of mixing of ideas and theories, if you are totlly rationa, you shall be ver very relevant Dr Cosmic Ray.I think ,and I say humbly, that you must study the biology a little, really, you shall see I am right simply.

        Your friend

        Steve

        (c²o²s²)m=E.........have you thought ...if the time evolution is inserted wawwww after all mass is light+time...to meditate. this equation is logic for the 3 main motions of hv.if now we insert the sortings with volumes and these vel. of rot......now the cosmological number can be appraoched and thus inserted for the specific finite number.The thermodynamical cooling of evolution becomes so relevant where the volumes and their rotations more the sense of rotation....all can be explained and quantized.....now of course we know c but what about o and s .

        Regards

        Steve

        more mvV=CONSTANT FOR ALL PHYSICAL 3DSPHERES(mass,speed of rot,Volume) of course this equation can be completed with all rotations and volumes mv1v2V if we consider the rotation orbital and we can continue with the thermodynamical properties.

        Best

        Steve

        Hi Alan,

        There is a smooth homotopy between a pair of nested soccer balls and a lattice-like torus. Such a torus would have 120 vertices. If each vertex is one of Vladimir Tamari's spinning tetrahedra AND a 4-Qubit (along the lines of Philip Gibbs' and Lawrence Crowell's essays - I expect the discrete end of a 4-qubit to look like a tetrahedron), then these spinning tetrahedra may be twisting a 4-braided rope (a screw-like string).

        Four times 120 yields 480 degrees-of-freedom, which looks a lot like a 16-dimensional SO(32) ~ E8 x E8* TOE.

        I'm also playing with the idea of four soccer balls being deformed into a trefoil knot. This might represent a 31-dimensional Spin(32) or SU(32) TOE.

        The bizarre aspect of the trefoil/ tetrahedra model is that we can define two different kinds of "chirality" - left- or right-handed trefoil knots, as well as left- or right-handed (S or Z) twisted rope. Perhaps this is "over-kill", and I only need the (two different chiralities of trefoil knots) times (four soccer balls per knot) times (sixty vertices per soccer ball) ~ 480 degrees-of-freedom ~ SO(32) TOE.

        Have Fun!

        Dr. Cosmic Ray

        Dear Dr. Ray,

        Thanks for your response.If you need any (you definitely need) clarification,please, inform me.Iam obliged to respond.The paper is surely long, for it has got to be, as in it I have tried to bridge the gap between GR and QM on entirely new concepts and this takes a little bit of time to assimilate them.Merging GR and QM, which leads to the theory of QG, also means formulating a TOE. The theme of the paper is,' by distorting GR how it is made to comply with all the forces of the quantum world'. QM, in the paper, is understood on entirely different grounds as it is to comply with the dictates of QG but is in complete agreement with its current interpretation.So this is an additional 'angle' from which you view QM.

        Looking forward to hear more discussion on this.

        Regards

        Sreenath.

        Ray, I just realize an amazing property of the plant world. You'll understand, just now in my garden, I guided a creeper, a clematis. These plants cling to the air with a kind of spiral. Last year, I tour it with a link store-bought. These littlwe chains for plant are recovered with PVC and within a thin metal leash. Ray you know what, these little chains in metal recorved by pvc make the same than the plant,it is crazy! The information is given with this metal link and the contact I think, I su^ppose it's proportional with the r , the nature of the metal and this and that, it's relevant for the biological conductivity ....

        regards

        Steve