Digital picture of the Universe by Yuri Benjamin Danoyan

"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.

Hi Yuri,

That is an interesting guess that would fit into my essay's framework because:

1) bosons and fermions are reciprocal lattices such that one is very large and the other is very small, and

2) the ratio of these two values is Dirac's Large Number 10^16 g/ 10^-24 g ~ 10^40 which is my anticipated "complexergy" number for our "Classical" Scale.

In my opinion, any TOE must have both boson and fermion basis "vectors/charges" in order to properly satisfy frame conditions such as the Coleman-Mandula Theorem. This also implies that Supersymmetry may be necessary.

I have been thinking about your ideas and Vladimir Tamari's ideas. He uses tetrahedra with spinning vertices. The tetrahedra are 3-dimensional and based on an SU(4) Lie Algebra. The vertex "spin" may be represented by a 1-dimensional U(1) Lie Algebra. Put it all together, and we have this 3:1 dimensional fundamental ratio that you so correctly emphasize. Look at the Lucas number series: 2,1,3,4,7,11,... and we recognize that 1 and 3 are sequential entries in this series.

Nonetheless, 3:1 is only part of the picture. I think we have something like a 28-D SU(29) TOE that decomposes into a (10+3+1)-D SU(11)xSU(4)xU(1) (times its Scaled and Supersymmetric 14-D reciprocal lattice) at lower energies, the SU(4)xU(1) represents Space and Time (its reciprocal lattice represents momentum and energy), and the 10-D SU(11) represents Scales that we can't see either because they are smaller than the Planck constant (Hyperspace), or larger than the speed-of-light constant (Multiverse).

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

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

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

Yuri,

You make some interesting points, and although I think you need to do some work to weld all this into a coherent theory, I would encourage you to keep on the same line of research.

Since we share a love for Euler's geometric interpretation of the complex plane, and for geometry in general, you might like to read this preprint, fig S2.2 in which I show all external and internal points of four closed tetrahedra map to the open internal plane of a 10 dimension sphere, giving you your 3 1 tetrahedral geometry. I find this geometry to be unstable, however, splitting a 4 dimension sphere into a 2 2 (two 3-ball) configuration. This was key to my conclusion that the four dimension horizon is identical to the 10 dimension limit.

All best,

Tom

http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0008

Dear Sir,

Your essay is interesting, but these are all conjectures. We had posted a comment below the Essay of Mr. Armin Nikkhah Shirazi, where we have deduced the ratio 3:1. This is based on a concept introduced in our essay. You are welcome to read it.

Regards,

basudeba.

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Yuri/Desktop/velocity.pdf

Stefan Marinov's article

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-05.PDF

Dear Yuri

Did you see this result about there being a dodecahedral pattern in the 'shape' of the cosmos. Would this bolster your 3:1 idea?

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18368

My interpretation of this is that it has to do not with the macroscopic shape of the universe, but the result of the 3-dimensional micro-structure of the ether. In my earlier 2005 Beautiful Universe model on which my present fqxi paper is based, this may be the result of the FCC (crystal-like self-assembled face-centered cubic) lattice pattern of the ether nodes.

Cheers

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir

I am also admirer of Lumine't theory.

Number 3 and number 12 connected because

http://math.univ-lyon1.fr/~chapoton/trinites.html

Regards

Yuri

http://www.neverendingbooks.org/index.php/arnolds-trinities.html

Additional reference for Vladimir Tamari