• [deleted]

Dear Wilhelmus,

I wondered if it was a conversion from European to American conventions.

Have Fun!

  • [deleted]

Hi Ray,

I remenber first meeting you through the "Lisi E8 TOE" Facebook page (Garrett defriended me after we disagreed over certain points for a couple of years - its too bad we never got a chance to seriously talk through the details), and I know that we both have an interest in seeing something like Lisi's model reach full maturity.

The D4 and 24-cell sound a lot like some of Lawrence Crowell's latest ideas. Lawrence and I have been trying to develop an E8xE8* ~ SO(32) where one E8 is strictly real, the other E8* is strictly imaginary, the SO(32) contains the complex representation that we need to mathematically describe CP symmetry violation AND the fact that any observer can measure - at most - only half of the dynamic varibles present in a given experiment.

In my opinion, the five-fold "pentality" symmetry is necessary to convert this D4/ SU(5) 24-plet into an H4/ ~SU(11) 120-plet or an E8 240-plet. If you read my FQXi essay from last year, you will see that my pentality includes left-handed up quark, right-handed up quark, left-handed electron, right-handed electron, and scalar (tachyonic) up-electron. Similar "pentalities" exist between down quarks and electron neutrinos, and other generations. This five-fold symmetry is the origin of the Golden Ratio, our need for scales, and the origin of mass (along the lines of Coldea et al's magnetic quasiparticle mass ratios). It may originate as the Petrie diagram for a 4-D Pentachoron.

I like your ideas - they are a unique way of interpreting Lisi's particle groupings. I had a different way of obtaining these particle groupings using Buckyball symmetries in my Prespacetime Journal article with Lawrence Crowell - "The Nature of Dimensions".

Good Luck in the Essay Contest & Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Ray

To talk your language for just a sec (ever conscientious objectors can be medics!)you may be interested in my post to Phil below. I've also noticed I haven't rated yours yet. I can see 'where you are', but think you have far more vision and potential than many. Have you scored mine yet? I understand why I never really did get your frank view as I struggled with yours as well. But I really do think the concept needs airing in SA. So try mine in these terms;

To Phil; "Thanks for your note. Glad you read mine. I didn't want to mix the conceptual with this at this stage, but, considering yours, is it possible you could look at mine in terms of a Q-net (as a fibre optic) and quantum registers QUBITS 'lumped' together - "wanderland", or right down to individiual bits ('balls S^3')

I believe SR and LT link to this picture via QC=SR, "2+2=1+3" (Hermitean picture or Klein correspondence).

If you're impressed with that don't credit me, you should read Lucian Ionescue's essay, that's been a bit overlooked and should be way up the list. I only saw it yesterday!

Let me know if that computes. You should spot that it is actually paradigm shifting! Great to see you on a late charge.

Best wishes

Peter

    • [deleted]

    Hi Peter,

    I commented more on your essay at your blog site. I think that your idea is a wandering of photons within S^3 that are statistically guided by the Principle of Least Action. My ideas incorporate qubits of strings perfectly well.

    Have Fun!

    Dr. Cosmic Ray

    • [deleted]

    Ray,

    I posted a followup to your post in my forum that you might find interestiing.

    Tom

      • [deleted]

      Thanks, Tom!

      I posted a response in your forum.

      Ray,

      Good news on the C-field front!

      The 12 Mar 2011 issue of 'Science News' has two articles on the C-field:

      The first (p.14) states that the C-field generated by a spinning Black Hole imparts (detectable) angular momentum to light passing through the field, circularly polarizing the light. Martin Bojowald suggests upgrading most telescopes to search for more of this.

      The second article (p.20) on quantum vortices has Kerson Huang of MIT speculating that the vortices in the (C-field) 'superfluid' after the big bang may be responsible for the gaps of empty space between galaxies.

      From 'Fly-by' mysteries to spinning Black Holes to the Big Bang, the C-field is being recognized as having physical reality responsible for observable effects.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

        • [deleted]

        Hi Ed,

        I'm glad that these ideas may reinforce your GEM-like concepts. Please don't misunderstand me - I think that "Gene-man" theory may explain a triality of generations and - when properly scaled (via S-Duality?) - may also explain a triality of color, but I think there is more to a TOE than the E, B, G and C fields and four particles. "Gene-man" theory may still be a good place to start...

        I finally put together a paper model of my lattice-like torus with Buckyball symmetries, and this could possibly explain spinning Black Hole phenomena. Regarding the "fly-by" mysteries, Rafael Castel had a simple suggestion that only involves General Relativity.

        Short of an unexpected ambush, it looks like our essays should make the top 35.

        Good Luck & Have Fun!

        Dr. Cosmic Ray

        Ray,

        I've enjoyed all of our exchanges, and, as I've said, you are a true gentleman and a good man. You may have missed a statement in one of my last comments to the effect that I retract my rejection of multiple scales, as I have identified another aspect of my theory that is probably best conceptualized in terms of scale. I look forward in the future to discussing this with you.

        Congratulations on your placement. Now we'll see what the judges make of us.

        Your friend,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        • [deleted]

        Hi Ed,

        You said "You may have missed a statement in one of my last comments to the effect that I retract my rejection of multiple scales, as I have identified another aspect of my theory that is probably best conceptualized in terms of scales".

        I agree, which is why I said "I think that "Gene-man" theory may explain a triality of generations and - when properly scaled (via S-Duality?) - may also explain a triality of color"

        I'm glad to see that you received a lot more exposure in this contest than you did in the last one.

        Have Fun!

        Dr. Cosmic Ray

        • [deleted]

        Congratulations Ray!

        I am pleased that your 'resolution of the continuous/discrete dilemma through scales' made it into 'manifestation' for the panel to 'measure'. Funny! How even in 'real life' (compared to the life of a theoretical physicist) we have "continuous accumulation of energy before discrete (say about 35!) manifestation". We are closer than we think! And that's why the conversation must continue!

        Ready for the next round? I do mean for you to measure the true meaning of what I mean. Let's start with Planck's Law is a mathematical identity! Your favorite misunderstanding!

        Wish you well with the judgment!

        Constantinos

          • [deleted]

          You make me crazzy really dear Maverick

          Regards

          ps Cantor has made a big error when he has inserted an explaination for the unknown via the physicality. The reals are determinsitics. Cantor was false Dr Cosmic Ray.

          Steve.

          • [deleted]

          Masterfully done, Mr. Munroe. A quantum orthodox for some tastes, nevertheless...

          The 'witchdoctor'.

          lmao

            • [deleted]

            Hi Constantinos,

            I think I understand your ideas better than most. IMHO, there is a question about the "fundamentality" of Planck's Blackbody Radiation Law.

            In his essay, Sreenath declared that effect is more fundamental than cause (suggesting that a bottom-up reality is most real) because we measure data (effect) and deduce theory (cause). If this is your perspective, then Planck (and you) are 100% correct - end of story.

            BUT, I am also a fan of top-down reality - that IF our theories are correctly modeled and interpreted that we will be able to predict all experimental data. We don't have a single theory (a TOE) that can accomplish all of this, so the theories are currently "fragmented" in the sense that Quantum and Relativity seem so fundamentally different that we can never unite them, Bosons and Fermions seem so fundamentally different that we can never unite them, etc.

            Planck's Blackbody Radiation Law CAN NEVER explain fermions. However, if we reframe the "fundamentals" of our theories such that the Partition Functions for Bose, Fermi, and Maxwell spin statistics are considered "fundamental", then these Partition Functions naturally lead to these 3 major spin statistics, and build a framework capable of describing bosons (and Planck's Blackbody Radiation Law to any desired accuracy), fermions, or identical particles. By the way, your Properties of Exponential Functions assumes the Bose Partition Function.

            I hope that you see my point - I really can't explain it any better without sitting together with you over some beers.

            Congratulations on making the top 35 and Have Fun!

            Dr. Cosmic Ray

            • [deleted]

            Dear Tommy,

            Thank You! I think we have similar ideas on Consciousness - perhaps we should bounce them around some.

            Have Fun!

            Dr. Cosmic Ray

            • [deleted]

            Dear Ray,

            Congrats for entering in to the last 35 and in sight of an honourable prize.Your essay really deserved that because I saw thro' your essay your indepth knowledge and wisdom.

            sincerely

            Sreenath.

              • [deleted]

              Dear Sreenath,

              Thank You! I tried to stir up interest in your essay - I know that you did not make the latest cut, but hopefully you established some good friendships and contacts in this contest.

              Sincerely, Ray

              Congratulations Ray,

              Good to see you got into the finals again. Happy to be in the same shoes myself. But seeing how we were both near the top of the list of finalists last year, and failed to be awarded prizes, I can see being near the bottom of the cut this time making it more likely the judges will elevate our relative standing.

              Good Luck!

              Jonathan

                • [deleted]

                Thank You, Jonathan!

                And Congratulations to you as well.

                When we finished #3 and #5 in the last contest, I was certain that we would have both been in the final 18 (but we weren't). Now my perspective is that we each have about a 50% chance - 18 or 20 winners out of 35 or 37 finalists.

                It's been a fun run!

                Dr. Cosmic Ray

                Dear Ray,

                Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top 35 placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the potential prize winners btw:

                Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?

                Best wishes,

                Alan