Scales Solve the Continuous vs. Discrete Paradox by Ray B Munroe

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

Okay Ray, thanks for the info. I'll do my own thing and see if we get a match. They should be similarities for sure.

I will!

Alan

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

In all case it's bizare I am going to see if it is true or false by a serie of tests. It's interesting if the information is given ...That seems bizare .

For my results of experiments for substratums....all grows in the compost Ray, I have tested on many families of plants...after it's just a check of esternal parameters(H2O,Q,hv,...)Furthermore the natural resistance is increased.The argilo humic complex is fascinating.

Steve

Dear Steve,

Your background is Horticulture - a field that I have never studied. Perhaps the plant is picking up the metal pattern in similar fashion to the replication of DNA? Perhaps you could test that hypothesis?

Have Fun!

Hi Dr Cosmic Ray,

Horticulture is a passion,my background is never finished Ray, we learn all days , it is my reason of life, learning the foundamentals and its pure deterministic rationalities in all centers of interest.The biology shows us the mass and its evolution and its stability.The number of spheres thus is correlated.

The biology and the ecology is fascinating, really, all is in the spherical law.I have tested many many things in this topic.The physics dance in the biology dear Ray. The photosynthesis, the vegetal multiplication and its totipotence, the composting, the substratums, the in vitro(merystem),....biology is so wonderful.

For the test about this hypothesis, I think it's few probable, but it's relevant to see more far.The contact between metal and the vegetal can be interesting for the transfert of informations of polarization ond evolution in a pure toplogical geometry and its rationalities I insist.

For my new equations, I am persuaded it's right Ray, it's logic, these spheres possesse 3 motions mainly , linear, spinal and orbital....of course we can complete with the superimposings of the volumes also the function is analytique. For mvV it's the same logic for this constant, we can extrapolate thus in remplacing m for example with this simple relation. E/(c²o²s²).v1.v2. V =constant thus Ray(v1 vel.spinal,v2 vel.orbital .V volume....we can continue with the others general laws.The mass Ray is fascinating in fact and its evolutive polarity hv/m is so incredible in its pure complexification in 3D.

Now if you cahnge the sense of rotation for the light that explains many things......

ps .....Don't forget Dr Cosmic Ray that this constant is for all real physical spheres , quantics and cosmologicals.

Steve

For Japan if this equation is good , that can help...for the states of light and mass ...see the the radioactive particles.If all is under these equations, we can, betyter understand the mass and the light and its comportments.The aim is the neutralization in fact of theses emissions if we can check these 3 motions, we can check its comportments it's logic at my humble opinion.Now of course the magnetic fields are probably correlated with the volumes of the pure entanglement and their rotations implying rule of complemenatrity. The reactor has accumulated light and it rejects simply the radiations but unfortunally the velocities have changed due to gravity......it's for the future I think, at this momment the best is the cooling and the isolation of the reactor...best solution ....all countries must helps and all experts quickly.Each second is important.I don't understand how it's possible.

Regards

Steve

Ray!

Look what I just found! I just discovered that Descartes had been toying with the very same ideas about Archimedes screws in 1644, and was one of the very first to draw the field lines of a magnet using this methodology.

It implies that the atomic nucleus dipole emits both gravitons and anti-gravitons and that all modern physics based on Newton's equation are simple incorrect, despite Einstein's attempt to rectify the situation (he just made it worse in fact, oh dear(!)).Attachment #1: 1_Descartes_magnetic_field.jpg

I've done a quick doodle which shows how the gravitons/anti-gravitons should have been travelling in straight lines and that it's the combination of the forces which gives the resultant field lines seen in iron filings.Attachment #1: 2_Simple_Dipole.jpgAttachment #2: 2_Simple_Dipole_Magnet.jpg

Hi Alan,

You are in good Philosophical company with Archimedes and Descartes. I also have ideas as to how an Archimedes screw (or twisted rope) may be modeled. I see at least a couple of interesting questions:

1) At first, I worried about the idea of "anti-gravitons", but the Weak force has W bosons and their anti-particles the W-. Perhaps we have photons (the attractive nature of Electrostatics?) and anti-photons (the repulsive nature of Electrostatics?) that perfectly cancel each other out - perhaps due to conservation of electric charges and currents.

We cannot separate these natures out in magnetic applications because magnetism requires movement of both photons and anti-photons, therefore a magnetic monople is a twistor-like hybrid of a photon and anti-photon.

Somehow anti-gravitons (the repulsive naure of gravity?) do NOT perfectly cancel out gravitons (the attractive nature of gravity?), and thus gravity is weakly attractive. It is odd that any "non-conservation of gravitational charges and/or currents" may be of order 10^(-40). IMHO, this requires a Scale for stability because it is mathmatically improbable and philosophically illogical to have fine-tuning on the order of 10^(-40).

2) Your screw threads need to vary in fineness based on the strength of a field. A simple example is the inverse-distance-squared dependance of simple gravitational and electrostatic fields. This variation in thread fineness requires these photons, anti-photons, gravitons, and anti-gravitons to have effective masses (so that longitudinal modes exist that may mix with transverse modes to produce the field equivalent of mechanical "screw threads"), and yet inverse-distance-squared field dependances imply zero rest-mass bosons. Perhaps the answer is Einstein's Mass-Energy Equivalence Principle, whereby a graviton (or anti-graviton or photon or anti-photon) of zero rest mass carries an effective mass due to its energy content (E=h*f for a photon).

I think that these questions are much bigger problems to tackle than how we might model an Archimedes' screw.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Hi Ray,

Yes, I'm pleased to be aligning myself with Archimedes and Descartes, it's a wonderful feeling.

I had the idea that photons/anti-photons are manifestations of graviton/anti-graviton configurations. I don't have an exact picture just yet though. I came to the conclusion that a magnetic monopole wasn't necessary incidentally. I deduced previously that the fine-tuning or 'non-symmetrical' emission of gravitons and anti-gravitons is due to the Mobius twist of a proton (and neutron?) toroid structure. If the toroid is composed of opposite pairs of 'fractal helical threads', then they can we woven in different configurations. This difference will have an effect on the interaction of particle radiation around the junction area. Edwin seemed to like this idea and mentioned that his C-field could be similarly imagined (I think).

I still don't quite understand your use of the phrase "fineness of thread" when talking about gravitons/anti-gravitons. I imagine that gravitons are all pretty much identical with their characteristics being due to their inherent speeds of spin which will all decay at the same rate over time. Photons on the otherhand, being larger structures -would- be able to have a different 'thread fineness', which is just another way of talking about their wavelength.

The inverse-square law needs to be treated carefully imo. The emission of photons from a straight tungsten filament coil is -not- the same in all directions. There's slightly less emission at the two ends in relation to along the length of the coil. This is very relavant to quantum particles where this difference is greatly exaggerated compared to the macroscopic world.

We're almost on the same page I think Ray, which is encouraging. Thanks so much for your input and help. This competition is so much more than I first imagined.

Kind regards,

Alan

Dear Alan,

When I started grad school. I thought I wanted to be an experimentalist (I later had a change of heart/ mind/ direction). My Thesis Supervisor wanted to stretch his equipment budget as far as he could, so I built some of my own equipment parts in the machine shop. I built nearly everything out of SAE type 304 stainless steel, and tapped my own screw threads.

If you play with machine screws enough, you quickly learn the standards. Note that some of these screw sizes have coarse, fine, or extra fine threads. A courser screw thread transfers longitudinal "change in velocity" faster than a finer thread does. But varying field strength requires varying screw threads.

OK - the fundamental electrostatic force falls off as inverse-distance-squared, but we can have dipole, quadrapole, etc. types of radiation that have non-isotropic distributions.

You still need varying screw threads to represent these varying field strengths.

Regarding photons, gravitons, "anti-photons" and "anti-gravitons", they are different - photons have an intrinsic spin of 1 h-bar whereas gravitons should theoretically have an intrinsic spin of 2 h-bar.

Edwin Klingman claims that there are only four fundamental particles and four fundamental fields. I like Ed, and we traded books, but the Particle Physicist in me doesn't see how four fundamental particles can work. It's clean and simple, but it's incomplete. Similarly, Jason Wolfe thinks that everything is made of photons. Once again, I like Jason, but he (and Constantinos Ragazas) cannot model fermionic matter with bosonic photons. Don't let "simplicity" lead you down an incomplete path.

Recall that my Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory says that photons and gravitons are different states of the Grand Unified Mediating (GUM) Boson. This allows them to be similar but different. You still have to explain the observational fact that gravity is weakly attractive, whereas electrostatics can be attractive or repulsive.

I've had a rough week. I had to put my 13-year-old dog "to sleep" this morning (she had liver cancer), and a drunk driver drove though my landscape and totaled my wife's 1986 Ford truck a couple of nights ago. I hope next week is better!

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Ray Ray Ray well well well ....study the simplicity and after you shall understand the real details.....business VS rationalism.....winner of course ther realism fortunally......the simplicity and the complexity are the same.Sometimee people try to say details of complexity but it's not details of complexity simply.

Don't let lead the system and this sad earth take your mind Ray!!!

Steve