If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).

Current Essay Contest

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

Previous Contests

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013 *

* Contest closed to Entries. Submit Community Votes by August 7, 2013; Public Votes by October 31, 2013.*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Previous Contests

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

FQXi FORUM

April 24, 2014

CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Is Reality Digital or Analog?
[back]

TOPIC: Digital picture of the Universe by Yuri Benjamin Danoyan [refresh]

TOPIC: Digital picture of the Universe by Yuri Benjamin Danoyan [refresh]

Examples of physical evidences supporting the Ratio 3:1 are given. Concept of Metasymmetry and Broken Metasymmetry (BM) is introduced. The 3:1 Ratio has been found as a numerical measure of BM. An attempt have been made for explanation of BM as total effect Bose - Fermi mixture.

Independent researcher

Hello dear Yuri Benjamin Danoyan,

It's interesting and relevant.Congratulations. Could you develop please this ratio in an absolute zero and with the pauli principle and the Fermi energy?

"If the spherical volumes are inserted with a specific serie for the ultim entanglement,as a decreasing of the main central sphere.....thus ....2piV(2m/h²)exp3/2 epsylon exp 1/2....and if the real pure number is inserted,.....the mass appears proportional with the rotations of this ultim entanglement....." Could you also develop please the numbers and your serie with the 12 ?

Best Regards and good luck for this contest.

Steve

It's interesting and relevant.Congratulations. Could you develop please this ratio in an absolute zero and with the pauli principle and the Fermi energy?

"If the spherical volumes are inserted with a specific serie for the ultim entanglement,as a decreasing of the main central sphere.....thus ....2piV(2m/h²)exp3/2 epsylon exp 1/2....and if the real pure number is inserted,.....the mass appears proportional with the rotations of this ultim entanglement....." Could you also develop please the numbers and your serie with the 12 ?

Best Regards and good luck for this contest.

Steve

Thank you Steve!

Do you mean my other article about 12?

http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0014

Do you mean my other article about 12?

http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0014

You are welcome Yuri,

In fact it's intriguing this tetrahedre and the numbers.

Thanks for the articles, I am going to read it.

Best

Steve

In fact it's intriguing this tetrahedre and the numbers.

Thanks for the articles, I am going to read it.

Best

Steve

Hello Yuri, I just wanted to point out that Joshua's essay also talks about a 3:1 ratio I think. Is this the same point you're both making, or is it something different?

Kind regards,

Alan

Kind regards,

Alan

Hello Alan,

I guess you mean Book of Josuha from Holy Bible?

Can you show me CHAPTER please.

Thank for advance.

Yuri

I guess you mean Book of Josuha from Holy Bible?

Can you show me CHAPTER please.

Thank for advance.

Yuri

Alan,

there is no religion, there is only physics.

It is different.

Yuri

there is no religion, there is only physics.

It is different.

Yuri

The ratio 3:1 is not surprising me, and no simple ratio would surprise me.

Note that from 3:1 you have also 1:3 and thus why not 1-1:3=2:3, then 3:2, or 1:(1+3)=1:4, etc.

I am quite sure that most physical phenomena exhibits simple ratios.

Since the physicists have modeled many physical phenomena, then most simple ratios should be many times encountered. Cenverting them so that the 3:1 appears is just an exercise which should be frequently successful.

Would a ratio of two big integers (without common divisors) surprise you ?

Probably they would be more surprising than simple ratios, and in this case, all ratios would be surprising, discarding their value.

To summarize, I cannot deduce anything informative from the ratio 3:1

Regarding the difference between static and dynamic symmetry and the diffrence between discrete and continuous symmetry, I would say that they are rather artificial.

An unifying definition of symmetry, such as the one I publihed in 2007 (pdf downloadable from http://petitjeanmichel.free.f/itoweb.petitjean.symmetry.html) should cover all these situations, so that the concept of metasymmetry does not appear to me as being necessary.

Of course, I would be delighted if you can exhibit a symmetry situation for which you prove that it cannot be covered from the general definition. But in this case, you must also state why it is anyway a symmetry situation, thus refering to an other definition of symmetry (please cite it rigorously, not intuitively).

All my best,

Michel Petitjean.

Note that from 3:1 you have also 1:3 and thus why not 1-1:3=2:3, then 3:2, or 1:(1+3)=1:4, etc.

I am quite sure that most physical phenomena exhibits simple ratios.

Since the physicists have modeled many physical phenomena, then most simple ratios should be many times encountered. Cenverting them so that the 3:1 appears is just an exercise which should be frequently successful.

Would a ratio of two big integers (without common divisors) surprise you ?

Probably they would be more surprising than simple ratios, and in this case, all ratios would be surprising, discarding their value.

To summarize, I cannot deduce anything informative from the ratio 3:1

Regarding the difference between static and dynamic symmetry and the diffrence between discrete and continuous symmetry, I would say that they are rather artificial.

An unifying definition of symmetry, such as the one I publihed in 2007 (pdf downloadable from http://petitjeanmichel.free.f/itoweb.petitjean.symmetry.html) should cover all these situations, so that the concept of metasymmetry does not appear to me as being necessary.

Of course, I would be delighted if you can exhibit a symmetry situation for which you prove that it cannot be covered from the general definition. But in this case, you must also state why it is anyway a symmetry situation, thus refering to an other definition of symmetry (please cite it rigorously, not intuitively).

All my best,

Michel Petitjean.

Hi ,

What is interesting is the first division, 1 2 3 or 1 3?

If we consider the ultim fractal....

Regards

Steve

What is interesting is the first division, 1 2 3 or 1 3?

If we consider the ultim fractal....

Regards

Steve

1,3,12 interesting for me, because the rotational symmetry groups of the tetrahedron - 12.

I don't think that simple ratios exhausted own potentialities.

I don't think that simple ratios exhausted own potentialities.

and +2 x4...the polyhedrization spherization seems under a specific serie of fractalization of the main spherical volume.Now a kind of metosis meiosis is important for a specific distribution of volumes.After it's the gravity and its codes which form by spheres and its properties with polyhedrons.4/3piR³...if the numbers of a and s are harmonized with the 4 forces we see the different forms in evolution of mass.That's why the only possiblity is the sphere which gives all others forms by deformation of spherical volumes.If now the canonicl equations are inserted x²/a²+y²/b²+z²/c²=1.....all that is fascinating even for the hyperboloids correlated with the evolution...the spherization appears naturally.The center is so so so important and its volumes also, this system is quantically and universally linked.

Best Regards

Steve

Best Regards

Steve

Yes, for me doesn’t matter 3:1 or 1:3,because you can read from left to right or right to left.

I am agree that most physical phenomena exhibits simple ratios.

You cannot deduce anything informative from the ratio 3:1.

I never see before such rich collection (as my) ratio 3:1 , concerning fundamental questions, before.

I try to understand where are roots this phenomenon.

It seems to me, It is in nature bosons & fermions and their interactions.

It seems to me, we havn’t full understanding nature of “spin”

Here I see big difference between my metasymmetry idea and supersymmetry idea.

I think not such important baryon asymmetry problem,as a fermion asymmetry problem.

I am agree that most physical phenomena exhibits simple ratios.

You cannot deduce anything informative from the ratio 3:1.

I never see before such rich collection (as my) ratio 3:1 , concerning fundamental questions, before.

I try to understand where are roots this phenomenon.

It seems to me, It is in nature bosons & fermions and their interactions.

It seems to me, we havn’t full understanding nature of “spin”

Here I see big difference between my metasymmetry idea and supersymmetry idea.

I think not such important baryon asymmetry problem,as a fermion asymmetry problem.

In the russian magazine "Химия И жизнь", 1982г, №9, стр40 have been printed my note " Geometry of Microcosmos". It has been shown formal analogy between properties non-Euclidian geometries on the one hand, and properties of fermions and bosons on the other hand.

I have sent copies of notes to Professors Lev Okun, Yakov Zeldovich, and subsequently to Professor Vitaly Ginzburg with the request to express the opinion.

Here their short answers:

Lev Okun "Your analogy "Fermi-Riemann, Bose-Lobachevsky is original, but whether there is in this comparison any sense, i don't know."

Yakov Zeldovich "I think that according to the theory of a relativity curvature depends from... (Roughly-density of energy) and character of particles doesn't feel."

Vitaly Ginzburg "I join opinions of Zeldovich and Okun.

I have sent copies of notes to Professors Lev Okun, Yakov Zeldovich, and subsequently to Professor Vitaly Ginzburg with the request to express the opinion.

Here their short answers:

Lev Okun "Your analogy "Fermi-Riemann, Bose-Lobachevsky is original, but whether there is in this comparison any sense, i don't know."

Yakov Zeldovich "I think that according to the theory of a relativity curvature depends from... (Roughly-density of energy) and character of particles doesn't feel."

Vitaly Ginzburg "I join opinions of Zeldovich and Okun.

Yuri,

I am not sure why but I find the question you are posing tantilizing. It has been keeping me pondering while painting. Upon reading your essay as opposed to glancing through the document you refered to me I have come to realize that the 3 you are talking about isn't the 3 degree gap in the vectors of time I was referring you to. However, understanding the geometric structure of the tetrhedrons that define the space that the quantum phenomena you are observing is critical if you are going to apply them consistently to come up with an answer to the question in your essay.

In a nutshell,the tetrahedrons and triangles that are formed are not necessarily equilateral. Point connections between the three time vectors is perpindicular, while point connection angles on the plane are not. When you look at your different ratios you need to be consistent in how you are characterizing the layout of the four points of the tetrhedron. My recommendation to you is if you are looking at half of something, relate it to pi. If you are looking at something in balance, relate it to 2 pi. If you are looking at something relative to the observer, relate it to 3 pi. When you do that all angles will become some multiple of either 45 degrees or 30 degrees.

If you do this your question becomes is pi/3 a comprehensive principle of the universe, or is 2pi/3, or is 3pi/3 which leads you to is pi a comprehensive principle. The answer to that is yes. You do not need any verification scientifically for that.

I am not sure why but I find the question you are posing tantilizing. It has been keeping me pondering while painting. Upon reading your essay as opposed to glancing through the document you refered to me I have come to realize that the 3 you are talking about isn't the 3 degree gap in the vectors of time I was referring you to. However, understanding the geometric structure of the tetrhedrons that define the space that the quantum phenomena you are observing is critical if you are going to apply them consistently to come up with an answer to the question in your essay.

In a nutshell,the tetrahedrons and triangles that are formed are not necessarily equilateral. Point connections between the three time vectors is perpindicular, while point connection angles on the plane are not. When you look at your different ratios you need to be consistent in how you are characterizing the layout of the four points of the tetrhedron. My recommendation to you is if you are looking at half of something, relate it to pi. If you are looking at something in balance, relate it to 2 pi. If you are looking at something relative to the observer, relate it to 3 pi. When you do that all angles will become some multiple of either 45 degrees or 30 degrees.

If you do this your question becomes is pi/3 a comprehensive principle of the universe, or is 2pi/3, or is 3pi/3 which leads you to is pi a comprehensive principle. The answer to that is yes. You do not need any verification scientifically for that.

Dear Peter

I think really tantalizing

Euler's formula

e^iPi +1=0

I think really tantalizing

Euler's formula

e^iPi +1=0

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?

Just in case

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

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

Hi Yuri,

I have also played with broken tetrahedra. In Section 7.2 of my book, I used a tetrahedron of Hyperflavor-Electro-Weak, then I broke the Tetrahedral symmetry with different mass-energy scales.

Have you read Vladimir Tamari's essay? He uses tetrahedra with spinning vertices to try to build a TOE. Coincidentally, Gingras also used tetrahedra with spinning vertices to explain his Magnetic Spin Ice quasi-particle analogy of the Dirac Magnetic Monopole.

These tetrahedral symmetries are important, but I am also working with pentachoral (4-D extension of the tetrahedron) symmetries. This introduces a five-fold "pentality" symmetry (the Petrie diagram of a Pentachoron is a Pentagon/ Pentagram with Golden Ratio component properties) that I think is related to the origin of mass based on Coldea et al's experimental results involving the mass ratios of magnetic quasiparticles near their critical point.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

I have also played with broken tetrahedra. In Section 7.2 of my book, I used a tetrahedron of Hyperflavor-Electro-Weak, then I broke the Tetrahedral symmetry with different mass-energy scales.

Have you read Vladimir Tamari's essay? He uses tetrahedra with spinning vertices to try to build a TOE. Coincidentally, Gingras also used tetrahedra with spinning vertices to explain his Magnetic Spin Ice quasi-particle analogy of the Dirac Magnetic Monopole.

These tetrahedral symmetries are important, but I am also working with pentachoral (4-D extension of the tetrahedron) symmetries. This introduces a five-fold "pentality" symmetry (the Petrie diagram of a Pentachoron is a Pentagon/ Pentagram with Golden Ratio component properties) that I think is related to the origin of mass based on Coldea et al's experimental results involving the mass ratios of magnetic quasiparticles near their critical point.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Yes, i read Vladimir Tamari essay and Vladimir read my essay

He wrote me: "You need to explain this Logic and how the tetrahedron relates to to 3:1".

My answer to him:

"Best model of Metasymmetry is Tetrahedron, which has 4 faces and each face is a triangle. This means there is 1 closed side and 3 open sides when a tetrahedron comes to rest on a flat surface. 3 vertexes lie in one plane, while the one is not. Аny Tetrahedron can also be proof of the ratio of 3:1.

I call this effect “Logic of Tetrahedron ”.

No reaction...

He wrote me: "You need to explain this Logic and how the tetrahedron relates to to 3:1".

My answer to him:

"Best model of Metasymmetry is Tetrahedron, which has 4 faces and each face is a triangle. This means there is 1 closed side and 3 open sides when a tetrahedron comes to rest on a flat surface. 3 vertexes lie in one plane, while the one is not. Аny Tetrahedron can also be proof of the ratio of 3:1.

I call this effect “Logic of Tetrahedron ”.

No reaction...

Hi Yuri,

I've played with these symmetries a lot. I think it may have something to do with an SU(4) (15 degrees-of-freedom, dgf's) decomposing into an SU(3)xU(1) (8+1 dgf's) plus 6 hidden (perhaps too massive to condense out of the "vacuum" of our low-energy Universe) degrees-of-freedom. Please check out Section 7.2 of my book. Compare and contrast the SU(4) Hyperflavor tetrahedron from my book with the SU(3) Hypercolour equilateral triangle lattice in my last CS&F article.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

I've played with these symmetries a lot. I think it may have something to do with an SU(4) (15 degrees-of-freedom, dgf's) decomposing into an SU(3)xU(1) (8+1 dgf's) plus 6 hidden (perhaps too massive to condense out of the "vacuum" of our low-energy Universe) degrees-of-freedom. Please check out Section 7.2 of my book. Compare and contrast the SU(4) Hyperflavor tetrahedron from my book with the SU(3) Hypercolour equilateral triangle lattice in my last CS&F article.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Have you read his article?

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9707010

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9707010

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!

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!

I think your theory close to Bodo Lampe

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+bodo+lampe/0/1/0/all/0/1

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+bodo+lampe/0/1/0/all/0/1

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.

+

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.

[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.

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

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

http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0022

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

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.

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

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

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?

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

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

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

http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0008

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Additional reference for Vladimir Tamari

My guess:

There are Base Fermion and Base Boson of the Universe.

Base Fermion is proton(neutron) 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.

Accurate definition:

Fermi-Riemann;Euclid;Bose-Lobachevski

0;1;Infinity

.

Sign of Curvature:

Plus;0;Minus

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?

"For practical use Planck length, time and energy are obviously irrelevant."

I am sure Planck mass(energy) eternal relevant.

I am not sure about Planck length and Planck time.

I will try why:

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.I think that the speed of light and speed of gravity the same independently the are luminal or superluminal.

In the formula Planck length G/c^3 no linear link.

In the formula Planck time G/c^5 no linear link.

All the best

There are Base Fermion and Base Boson of the Universe.

Base Fermion is proton(neutron) 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.

Accurate definition:

Fermi-Riemann;Euclid;Bose-Lobachevski

0;1;Infinity

.

Sign of Curvature:

Plus;0;Minus

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?

"For practical use Planck length, time and energy are obviously irrelevant."

I am sure Planck mass(energy) eternal relevant.

I am not sure about Planck length and Planck time.

I will try why:

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.I think that the speed of light and speed of gravity the same independently the are luminal or superluminal.

In the formula Planck length G/c^3 no linear link.

In the formula Planck time G/c^5 no linear link.

All the best

This is my guess:

There are Base Fermion and Base Boson of the Universe.

Both have radius size 10^-13sm

Base Fermion is proton(neutron) 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

10^16g/10^-24g=10^40

Fgr/Fem =1/10^40

Rounding values.

Regards

Yuri

There are Base Fermion and Base Boson of the Universe.

Both have radius size 10^-13sm

Base Fermion is proton(neutron) 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

10^16g/10^-24g=10^40

Fgr/Fem =1/10^40

Rounding values.

Regards

Yuri

Summary:

Value of Planck Mass is Geometric Mean of Values Mass of Proton(Neutron) and Mass of Hawking Black holes.

Mpr=10^-24 g

Mhbl=10^16 g

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

Mpr/Mhbh=1/10^40

Сontribution of Proton in the curvature of 2D space(+) positive

Contribution of Black hole in the curvature of 2D space(-) negative.

Total contribution in the curvature of space(0)

Fermi-Riemann;Euclid;Bose-Lobachevski

(disjoint lines)

0;1;Infinity

0;1;Infinity

Value of Planck Mass is Geometric Mean of Values Mass of Proton(Neutron) and Mass of Hawking Black holes.

Mpr=10^-24 g

Mhbl=10^16 g

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

Mpr/Mhbh=1/10^40

Сontribution of Proton in the curvature of 2D space(+) positive

Contribution of Black hole in the curvature of 2D space(-) negative.

Total contribution in the curvature of space(0)

Fermi-Riemann;Euclid;Bose-Lobachevski

(disjoint lines)

0;1;Infinity

0;1;Infinity

Earth (planet number 3) and the nearest star the Sun (1) are in the ratio 3:1.

Maybe coincidence, maybe not.

Maybe coincidence, maybe not.

Hi Yuri,

Life is beautifull and also full of coincidences, personally I go for the quintessence, five, dodecahedron, Leonard de Pise, nature seems full of it. But that of course is also coincidence, my coincidence. If you search hard you will find everything according to your ideas for example GOD is three letters and I one ...

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

Life is beautifull and also full of coincidences, personally I go for the quintessence, five, dodecahedron, Leonard de Pise, nature seems full of it. But that of course is also coincidence, my coincidence. If you search hard you will find everything according to your ideas for example GOD is three letters and I one ...

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

Dear Yuri,

Just another conincidence or the underlying absolute truth, it's how I or singularity wants to see it.

Soul, Mind and Body : I

3:1

Love,

Sridattadev.

Just another conincidence or the underlying absolute truth, it's how I or singularity wants to see it.

Soul, Mind and Body : I

3:1

Love,

Sridattadev.

This submission http://vixra.org/abs/1108.0031 can help for confirmation triality idea.

O

The traditional view continuous from discrete gives

way to the inverted paradigm: discrete from

continuous.Yuri Manin

http://www.ams.org/notices/201002/rtx100200239p.pdf

way to the inverted paradigm: discrete from

continuous.Yuri Manin

http://www.ams.org/notices/201002/rtx100200239p.pdf