Digital picture of the Universe by Yuri Benjamin Danoyan

Hi Yuri,

I just skimmed some of these papers. As usual, I need to review them more closely when I have enough time. On the last page, Barbieri has 6 vectors e_1 through e_6. In my models, each of these 6 vectors represents a boson (and the anti-directional vector represents that boson's anti-particle - here we must treat the photon as a superposition of B_0 and W_0, because anti-photons do not exist). These 12 states may be represented by an SO(4)xSO(4)~Spin(4). If we also include the three basis vectors (the x,y,z in which the tetrahedron exists), then we have the 15 degrees-of-freedom of an SU(4)~SO(6).

Thank you for introducing me to Lampe's papers. I assumed that Lisi's trialty (also see Raymond Aschheim's essay) was good enough to explain the origin of three generations. Lampe is worried about the "spin problem" in his Tetron model. I don't think it should be a "Tetron" - lets call it a "Penton" where the fifth component is a tachyon that introduces the origin of mass (similar to the mass ratios of Coldea et al's magnetic quasi-particles), and requires a new type of spin-statistics (as Lampe suggests, but these tachyons probably behave like anyons on an M2 Black-brane as Lawrence Crowell and I have discussed). In my opinion, Lisi's misunderstanding about this 5-fold "pentality" or "Penton" symmetry was one of the most significant errors in his E8 TOE.

Have Fun!

Just in case

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-complex-numbers-are-fundamental-in.html

Dear Yuri,

Yes - Lubos Motl gave me a difficult time about the fact that E8 (and Garrett Lisi's proposed TOE) does not have complex representations.

In graduate school (in the early 1990's - prior to Super Kamiokande's discovery of Neutrino Oscillations), I learned that the TOE must include complex representations. For that reason, I concentrated heavily on the Special Unitary Groups - I especially like SU(5), SU(7), SU(11) and SU(27). Perhaps I am ignorant and never disected that part of TOE theory, but I thought that Super-Kamiokande's implicated discovery of right-handed neutrinos, and a proper representation for right-handed neutrinos within a theory (Lisi's was nearly correct), negated the necessity for complex representations.

I argued with Lubos until it was obvious that he thought I was crazy, but E8xE8*~SO(32). E8 has 240 real roots plus 8 basis vectors. SO(32) has an order of 496 and has complex representations. SU(11) has an order of 120 and has complex representations.

I reason that either:

1) Lisi's E8 TOE (240 roots) is wrong, and should have been based on SU(11)xSU(11) (120 order times two) with complex representations, or

2) Lisi's E8 TOE (248 order) is wrong, and should have been a Supersymmetric E8xE8*~SO(32) (496 order), where our E8 has exclusively real roots, our E8* has exclusively imaginary roots, and the two are "twisted together" (like a "twistor" algebra) into an SO(32) TOE with complex representations.

Lisi's E8 Gosset lattice implies Octonion Algebra. If we twist a real Octonion together with an imaginary Octonion, then we can generate a real Sedenion (where the progression of Clifford division algebra is: Real, Imaginary, Quaternion, Octonion, Sedenion...).

Peter - Imaginary analysis is part of our mathematical game. Certainly, we must eventually observe real numbers when we perform an experiment, but that does not negate the importance of imaginary numbers.

Besides, e^iPi +1=0 really is cool. Where else can you relate three different kinds of oddball concepts (such as e, pi, and i) into a simple equation?

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Dear Peter,

You said "If you are acknowledging that every point in real or imaginary space has to mathematically take the form of a complex number, then I can state to you that that is absolutely true. You need to keep that in mind when you work with ratios. If you say 1 for example you have to specify... one what?"

I agree that "units" are as important as the mathematics (real and/or imaginary "bits") that we use to measure the "it". I think that Julian Barbour's "Bit from It" essay addressed this idea very well. Barbour's example is: I cannot eat the number "1", unless that number has units of something like "apple".

I realize that I misread your comment, and gave an inappropriate answer earlier (although that answer may have been mostly appropraite for Yuri).

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

yes of course

ps beautiful team hihih

ps2 good luck hihih

Hi Yuri. I am not convinced of your work, but I like your inquisitive attitude! Wish more people had it.

I hope that http://holometer.fnal.gov/ confirm I was right

2D+1 for fermions

+

2D+1 for bosons

=3D+1; Ratio 3:1, because 1 Dimension is common.

Just the hint.

"I believe that the theory that space is continuous is wrong, because we get these infinities and other difficulties, and we are left with questions on what determines the size of all particles. I rather suspect that the simple ideas of geometry, extended down into infinitely small space, are wrong" [2]. "Another way of describing this difficulty is to say that perhaps the idea that two points can be infinitely close together is wrong - the assumption that we can use geometry down to the last notch is false" [3].

[2]R.P. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (The M.I.T. Press, 1990), p. 166.

[3] R.P. Feynman, QED (Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1985), p. 129.

My guess:

There are Base Fermion and Base Boson of the Universe.

Base Fermion is proton Mpr=10^-24 g

Base Boson is Hawking black hole Mhbl=10^16 g

Mplank; Mpl=10^-4g

Mpl=sqrt(Mpr x Mhbl)=10^-4g

Rounding values.

You know my attitude to Supersymmetry

http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0022

hi ,

That can't be a vector in the gravitational stabibility!!! It's essential.This ratio is purely gravitational and the rotations imply time....it's totally different respecting the relativity.But it's just a thought but rational.

Regards

Steve

Hi Yuri,

Symmetries are important. I think that Supersymmetry may be the most fundamental symmetry. I am not certain that Supersymmetry must exist at the weak scale. I am not certain that Supersymmetry must be discovered at the Large Hadron Collider. But a true Theory Of Everything cannot exist without this fundamental symmetry.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Accurate definition:

Fermi-Riemann;Euclid;Bose-Lobachevski

0;1;Infinity.

Sign of Curvature:

Plus;0;Minus.

Hi Yuri,

Are you implying a 3-way Supersymmetry? I expect "Supersymmetry" to potentially be more complex than a simple 2-way symmetry between bosons and fermions. A 3-way SUSY might be the proper way to treat particles of respective intrinsic spin: 0, 1/2, 1 (and a 5-way SUSY might include spin 3/2 and 2 - check out Hyper-Susy in Figure 1 of this paper). The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model might be too sloppy in its differentiation between spin-0 scalar bosons and spin-1 vector bosons.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Yuri,

Your essay presents an intriguing exploration of examples of a 3:1 ratio in physics. Why space seems to be three dimensional and time one dimensional is a profound topic. One of the early explorations of this question was by Immanuel Kant. Physicist Paul Ehrenfest pondered why space is three-dimensional and developed arguments based on the laws of gravity and electrostatics.

I enjoyed your references to John Wheeler, who was an extraordinary thinker. Thanks for sharing your ideas.

Best regards,

Paul

Paul Halpern

"The Discreet Charm of the Discrete"

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/934

Some notes about variations of fundamental constants:

In discussion between L. B. Okun, G. Veneziano and M. J. Duff, concerning the number of fundamental dimensionful constants in physics (physics/0110060). They advocated correspondingly 3, 2 and 0 fundamental constants. Why they not considering case,where only 1 constant Planck-Dirac's constant; h/2pi=1,054x10^-27ergxsec?

This will be convincingly, because c not contain mass dimension for triumvir and G not contain t for triumvir

My be h only dimensionful constant of Nature? Some hint give Planck mass Mp=(hc/G)^1/2 .We simultaneously can decrease or increase c and G, but Mp remains unchanged.

As a consequence only Mp/Me=1836 true dimensionless constant?

Hi Yuri,

You and I have also had conversations about fundamental constants. Have you read

this paper about fundamental couplings (particularly Equation 5 and Table 3), and Section 6.2 of my book about Variable Coupling Theory (I think the link only gets you to my book's Lulu page, you still need to click "Preview" under the picture of the book's cover for a free partial preview)?

One and three are important integers - they are two of the first three Lucas numbers: 2, 1, 3, 4, 7, ...

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Hi Yuri

Excellent. I really can't believe I didn't come across your essay sooner, it was so obvious!

It also seems very consistent with my own essay, in two ways, firstly your concluding paragraph, which astonishingly seems to describe the content of my essay perfectly! and secondly; The discrete field model it describes seems to have a number of 3:1 ratios once we start looking. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803

If something is spinning just inside the circumference 'shell' at any cross section through a toroid will it not have a perfect 3:1 relationship with the radius?

I hope you have a chance to read it, but make sure your dynamic conceptualisation is turned up to full.

Do you know the Nadia whose posted in my string? Is she nice? (lol).

Best wishes

Peter