Wednesday, October 17, 2012

ARE Neutral Majorama PARTICLES 2^N NUMBERS


ARE Neutral Majorama PARTICLES 2^N NUMBERS


YES. I am sure the numerologists will have a field day..:)

As in any good Horoscope, there is a caveat. There are exclusions to the Prime Rule. They are associated with another nice mathematical formula, the formula for 2 to the power of another number. (2,4,8,16…)

TWO is the precursor to a Gamma photon from the annihilation of a Positron-Electron pair.


FOUR is the Pion Zero


EIGTH is the KAON ZERO

Later, I will show how the mathematical space topology and mathematical instrumentation needed to solve the Riemann Hypothesis also describes the mass of the Hyperons…:)

A hint. Look at the Fundamental Dilator coherence 'energy' diagram. The degenerated states on the two potential wells lose their degeneration due to the finite velocity of light, which creates a time delay for a spatial rotation within the 3D Lightspeed Expanding Hypersphere.

Think about what does it means to be real…:) and read the Meaning of Material Existence blog I wrote in the past.



ARE THERE Neutral PARTICLES = 2*N NUMBERS

As in any good Horoscope, there is always something for everyone. It just happens that 2N is also a valid mapping for Neutral Particles.

Of course, since they decompose into opposite charged particles, they have to be the SUM OF TWO PRIMES (Goldbach's Conjecture) or 2 Particles supported by the Riemann Conjecture…:) . All together supported by the ABC Conjecture..:)

SIX is the DELTA ZERO



Now that you know the answer to the question, it should be easier to derive the equation that describes the process...:) I wrote a book called The Flying Orchestra, which represents our journey through the Universe inside the Ligthspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Universe. Most of us :) are composed of isotopes, which turned out to be quite harmonious dimensional notes. The Hyperons are the basic notes of our Universe, that is, the most unique, cacophonous notes one can create- like Heavy Metal...:)

In comparison, the isotopes are like Mozart Symphonies...NAH....in fact, they are quite boring and more like Kenny G

In the next few blogs, I will address the isotopes, the mass equation (or God Equation if you so prefer :) .

I am awaiting for Steven Chu to say something before I write about how to make a neutral particle accelerator or anything accelerator or dimensional accelerator...:)

Cheers,

MP

Protons, Electrons, Antiprotons, Positrons and Neutrons


Riemann Hypothesis: Are all Spin Half Hyperons Primes?

YES.  I decided to add ONE to the prime sequence just as a rebellious guy I am..:)

In my theory one can easily relate ZERO to the dilaton field and its spatial modulation (electromagnetic waves).

ONE is clearly the Fundamental Dilator which represents all four fundamental particles (Electron, Proton, AntiElectron, AntiProton).

The topology is a point!

TWO is of course the Neutron

The topology is a segment!

THE CRAZY DELTAS


Riemann Hypothesis: Are all Spin Half Hyperons Primes?

YES.  

FIVE are the CRAZY DELTAS


The cylindrical axis of symmetry spins within the 4-D Spatial Manifold

THE PIONS


Riemann Hypothesis: Are all Spin Half Hyperons Primes?

YES.  

THREE are the Pions

The topology is a shown below:



The cylindrical axis of symmetry spins within the 4-D Spatial Manifold

THE XIS Star


Riemann Hypothesis: Are all Spin Half Hyperons Primes?

YES.  
ELEVEN are the XIS Star – This Channel decays into a KaonZero and a Pion Minus.


The cylindrical axis of symmetry spins within the 4-D Spatial Manifold

THE KAONS



Riemann Hypothesis: Are all Spin Half Hyperons Primes?

YES.  

SEVEN are the KAONS





The cylindrical axis of symmetry spins within the 4-D Spatial Manifold

Riemann Hypothesis and The Hypergeometrical Universe


Riemann Hypothesis and The Hypergeometrical Universe
 
Our love for knowledge and beauty has always driven us to find the most sublime analogies to represent what we are seeing in the Universe. Einstein wanted to read God's Mind. The Hypothetical Higgs Boson has been named by some as the God Particle. I equated the steps of my Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Universe as being somewhat similar to the Pendulum of Brahma. At each cycle we see ourselves changed by that Universal Operator.

Mathematics is always the Golden Standard of beauty. We always hope to find a nicely fitting mathematical equation to describe the whole Universe. Mathematicians (String Theorists) are especially hopeful..:). Of course, after all, that would be redemption to their endeavor of creating the least physical (most mathematical) theory in history.

Euler's Beta Function relationship to the Strong Force model was immediately recognized as the sign we are on the right track, after all, for a theory to be correct it has to be aesthetically beautiful….:) Form over content…very typical of our Mankind always driven by superficial calculations….:)

It just happens that there isn't any indication that physics doesn't matter, that is, there isn't any indication that at the end of all, we will have everything described by a simple mathematical equations that overrules all physical properties.

For example, there is the wave equation which describes all waves as long as they have a natural velocity or one knows the elasticity of the medium where those waves propagate. This means that even though we have the knowledge of an equation which would describe such a general phenomena as waves, the physics is still there in the form of a pesky constant.. :)

This does not demerit the scientists who found those beautiful equations, it just serves as a reminder that there might be a limit on what mathematical abstraction can achieve.

It has been said with some understated deepness that the Riemann Hypothesis might be the solution to the Theory of Everything, that is, something, some force, some string might be represented somehow by the zeros of the Zeta function along the critical line. The details are fuzzy since this is just a wild (albeit educated..:)  guess...:)

Scientists look down to Horoscopists all their lives…:)  It is well know that vague statements can always find resonance within some fraction of the population and thus keep the readers happy and aware of their daily best options…

One might say that the same happens in Science. There is a difference. Since we are a much more educated bunch than the average person, our guesses are better educated..:) that is, there is something deep in the number theory applied to Primes..:)

Of course, this is just because people doesn't know how to think about numbers and one should expect that if the zeros of an equation are primes, most likely the logic behind the construction of the equation is such that only certain primes will be zeros..:)

It is like being surprised that f(x)=(x-1)*(x-2) has zeros equal to 1 and 2.

Number theory is just not developed enough to see the underlying logic behind the Riemann Hypothesis and the Zeta Function (or Eta Function on the Analytic Continuation).

As usual, the statement that the Riemann Hypothesis should be relevant to our understanding of the Universe can be decomposed into the simpler statement that Primes will be relevant..:) I am a simple minded man, so I will cut to the chase and explore this proposition..:)

Nobody bothered to think about Primes because nothing in Physics looks like Primes. If a poor string theorist looks around and think about making Primes to be some property of strings them we might end up with 10^500000000000000 possible Universes with different string theories explaining each one of them..:)

A Standard Model Physicist is not in much better position. Let say that zero are electromagnetic waves, the ONE is… The next basic particles are electron and Proton … Neutron might be TWO but that does not solve the problem. Electrons and Protons are certainly not equal in the Standard Model and the analogy dies there…:)

Of course, that is not the case in the Hypergeometrical Universe.

THE LUCKY OMEGAS














Riemann Hypothesis: Are all Spin Half Hyperons Primes?

YES.

THIRTEEN are the LUCKY OMEGAS (below are two decay channels)



The cylindrical axis of symmetry spins within the 4-D Spatial Manifold

Monday, October 08, 2012

Under the Night Sky


Under the Night Sky

In the last few days, I had to revisit my feelings about the creation of my theory. I have to say that despite of my own personal emotional investment on the idea, I always keep enough distance that I can say that this is a nice and simple idea that should be part of the discussion.

 I would never state that this is a theory of the 23rd Century that made landing on our 20th Century minds as some people from String Theory have said…J Just to be part of the discussion is a good target. Not because this is the most complex theory… but because this is the simplest theory and should be addressed.

As those obnoxious people say, Occam's razor. 

Before we address the reasons why everything failed (before they explained why the failures were to be expected..:) in the current theory (the detection of quarks, quantum chromodynamics color charges etc), we should consider the simplest theory we can create that equally explains reality.

 That said, I believe that myself and other crackpots from the internet (J), assorted String Theorists, Higgs Bosonists etc have in common the moment of discovery. We were all struck by some vision that requires a sizable amount of attention and the sacrifice of months, years of continuous thinking, always trying not to lose the thread of thought. Not unlike the thread in the Minotaur Cave Allegory, this is thread of thought that might bring a new level of understanding on the Wonders of the Universe, which would also bring us into the light.

 Every time I think about why I am trying to do what I am trying to do, I remember of our (Mankind) trajectory… From our days inside caves, marveled by the stars in the sky (always the same sky as the one in the picture), gullible enough to believe that the Sun is the Eye of a God, in fact that everything worked by Magic of some sort.

Scared, afraid of their own shadows, curious little monkeys…J That curiosity brought us far in a short period of time… extremely brief considering that those stars above have barely moved…

We might not even last long enough to leave any mark whatsoever in this Universe, but that shouldn't stop us from trying. Despite of our disagreements on theoretical basis or merits of any theory, we all are driven by the best emotions (least selfish) that Mankind is capable.

One cannot envision how the Universe works and not know one's place in it. Nothing more than a handful of Star Dust that strived to look up into the sky and wondered about both The Why and The How.

 Cheers,

 MP