New Book

Hurray

The theory has been published in a new book:
Quantization and Discretization at Large Scales

Which is a fitting title for a book containing a theory (The Hypergeometrical Universe) where the Whole Universe interacts in a Quantized Manner (Stroboscopic Interaction).

My Prior books:

• Hadron Models and New Energy Issues
• Quantization in Astrophysics

I also learned about a list of Dissident Scientists..:)  As much as I would like to conform, my theory doesn't conform to current views and until I find a nice soul that will tell me wrong, I have the duty of defending the idea.  Not unlike Giordano  Bruno, but hopefully without the fire.

I am hopeful that before I forget about this theory and move on to my next project, some interested young students or curious Cosmologists/Particle Physicists will be motivated enough by a theory that settles down the dispute between Sir Isaac Newton and Christian Huygens in a total new way, by expanding Huygens Principle to all matter in a 5D spacetime while creating an Hypergeometrical Version of Newton's Laws.

Cheers,

MP

The ABC Conjecture

The ABC Conjecture and The Hypergeometrical Universe

The abc conjecture (also known as Oesterlé–Masser conjecture) is a conjecture in number theory, first proposed by Joseph Oesterlé (1988) and David Masser (1985) as an integer analogue of the Mason–Stothers theorem for polynomials. The conjecture is stated in terms of three positive integers, a, b and c (whence comes the name), which have no common factor and satisfy a + b = c. If d denotes the product of the distinct prime factors of abc, the conjecture essentially states that d is rarely much smaller than c.

What could the identity
                                                   a+b=c
where a,b,c have not common factors have to do with a Theory of Everything..:)
a,b, and c are said to be COPRIMES

In number theory, a branch of mathematics, two integers a and b are said to be coprime (also spelled co-prime) or relatively prime if the only positive integer that evenly divides both of them is 1. This is the same thing as their greatest common divisor being 1.

This equation and conjecture reminded me the process I went through when I create my Hyperon Family Assignment.  In the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory, all particles, isotopes are multiples of a Fundamental Dilator intervened by one of a couple of Transmutational Dimensional Notes.  These Transmutational Dimensional Notes map closely to Neutrinos, as the electron antineutrino in the Neutron decay.

For me, the ABC equation (Conjecture) within the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory represents the decay equation for particles. Integer number are represented by multiples of the Fundamental Dilator.

In any other theory where there isn't a single building block (The Fundamental Dilator), this statement wouldn't make any sense.

In the Standard Model, due to the complexity of the ad-hoc quantum number zoo, particles differ too much to be placed in a simple abc equation that regulates the composition of new particles.

Of course, since I am modeling a finite and small number of Hyperons, I didn't have to face the tremendous hard task of proving the ABC Conjecture.  I believe it has a position in the Physical Sciences in the description of Particle Decay or on a positive note, Particle Creation.  All particles should follow the ABC equation and be coprimes in term of Fundamental Dilator Moieties.

Cheers,

MP

Illuminati Puzzle Solution

Life is demanding and I still owe you the equation for all the particles and the solution to the Illuminati puzzle I created on the Verbum Significatium Posting.

A bright fellow/lady discovered the solution to this Illuminate Puzzle below:

The solution is: ENERGY FROM COLD

He asked me if this was some kind of Cold Fusion.  I told him not.

In my theory, Neutrons plays a very important role. They are first excited level of space deformation.

In my theory when matter collapses on itself to form a Black Hole, they form a neutron crystal with finite size and well defined compaction level  The distance between neutrons is defined by the dilaton wavelength (wavelength = Compton wavelength of a Hydrogen Atom).

The "force" that bring particles together (electromagnetism for charge particles), gravitation for neutrons goes to zero when they reached a level of compaction that brings them at distance equal to the Compton Wavelength of an Hydrogen atom.  There isn't any singularity in the interaction between dilators, so there isn't anything that requires the level of speculation that a Black Hole conjures in the impressionable minds of the Relativistic Scientists..:)

Of course, if the crystal is perfect and positions well defined, that means that the entropy within the volume of the "Black Hole" is zero, and all the entropy is in the surface of that neutron crystal.

That should come up as a nice touch considering that that is the expectation from current Black Hole Models.

Like in any other crystal, the Black Hole (made of a perfect neutron crystal) contains domains. In this case, the domains are made up by spin domains, not unlike a ferrimagnetic Yttrium Iron garnet of my childhood..:)

As the Black Hole cools down, the wavefunction of these neutrons extends into opposite spinning domains creating the conditions for annihilation and relaxation of the space.

Matter should simply disappear in a flash of Gamma Rays, leaving no trace other than the kinetic energy freed from the disappearance of the Gravitational Field.

I believe this is the mechanism of Gamma Ray Bursts.  They should happen when neutron domains becomes cold enough to annihilate themselves, leaving just the Gamma Ray (coherence between flat metric and deformed metric states).

Cheers,

MP

Request for Criticism...:)

Request for Criticism

Today, I was going through some amazing videos about Dolphins and Beluga Whales (amazing animals) and I found a reference to a toroidal machine (supposedly a double tokamak or something like that) and the name of Nassin Haramein.

I googled him to find out more about the design and saw a New Age Indian fellow talking to gullible New Age People.  I also found a critique of Nassin's narrative:
http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/06/whats-so-misleading-about-nassim.html#s2

Since I crave criticism, I went on and sent Bob (the guy who wrote the Up blog criticizing Nassin) a request for criticism...with a built in criticism to Bob's critique..:) Just to start the ball rolling.  I believe that Science should be fun, criticism can be a two-way street or a vigorous scientific debate.  All of those options are fun and enlightening.

Below is the email I sent to Bob.  Hopefully he will engage me and help me explain my ideas or correct them.

Dear Bob,
 I liked your criticism of Nassin Haremain’s charlatanism…
 Could you please use your nice skills to criticize my work.  I believe that only through criticism or critique one can progress.
 The work is shown in the blog
http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com I have had a very hard time finding a single scientist who would make any criticism of my work..:) and that is not fair…J If it is bad, it should be easy to find an evident error.
 For instance, it is quite disturbing how easily you repeat the current blurb about the expansion of space (space coming out of nowhere) while not coming with a simple explanation like my lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface (a 3d Hypersurface where our Universe is located).  Please check the blog, pdfs, books or ask questions on the blog. I will be more than happy to explain anything.
 This topology doesn’t require you to create space as you go… explains expansion without dark energy, etc..
 Cheers,
 MP

In any event, we might benefit from his sharp tongue.

Cheers,

MP

New and nice features

Please sign in and support this blog...:)

I've created this theory and tried the best to convey its simplicity, beauty and connect it to philosophical musings (the beginning of times), ontological considerations (the intermittent existence), mythology (Plato's Cave and Goddess Huntress Diana...:)

I will get back soon to polish it once more and to make sure everything holds together with new information (e.g. subluminal or superluminal neutrinos, Voyager is decelerating due to its own anisotropic infrared emission pattern.:)..

The questions about neutrinos is how much of the neutrino speed discrepancy is explained away in this case, detected away since the measurement is the result of an experiment.  The same goes for the Voyager's deceleration.  How much deceleration is explained away by flimsy arguments (they look flimsy to me at first glance) changes the current size/age of the Universe but doesn't change topology nor calculations.

My intention is to wait a little to find out the details of those explanations and then redo the calculations.

They have no substantial effect on the model. I have absolutely no reason to consider the superluminal neutrino not superluminal at this point and expect that once good measurements are done, this matter will be settled down on the side of unexpected discovery and not as a confirmation of restrict relativity as everyone is betting right now..:) To bet on no surprises is what one calls an easy bet...because it is just dogmatic... no reasoning behind...Einstein never bother to explain the why the speed of light is a limit... this is just a dogma or hypothesis... not a conclusion..:)

In my theory, the neutrino is ejected and accelerated to its final velocity during the dilatonic interaction at the ejection time, that is, the neutrino will surf the dilaton waves for a few cycles before being out of range.  Since the neutrino coherence has a different frequency than the fundamental dilator coherence, I would expect dispersion, so I would expect the neutrino final velocity to be different than the speed of light.  The amount depends upon dispersion, which I cannot know until I model all the hyperon family masses.

Cheers,

MP

Hyperluminal Neutrinos..:)

Hyperluminal Neutrinos

Today I will talk about a blockbuster research result from CERN. They discovered that Neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light.  That has been in the News, hot from the Press...:) Earth shattering discovery.

Within the framework of the Hypergeometrical Universe theory,  a more fundamental theory, this higher than the speed of light amazing discovery is simply explained away with a simple phrase:

 Hyperluminal Neutrinos  ==  Dispersion
That is Electron Neutrinos are just asymmetric mode dilatons 

Einstein's made many great contributions to Science. The photoelectric effect; proving the existence of atoms by modeling Brownian motion. I have to say, even Restrict Relativity was a great achievement since it emphasized the need for an interpretation where observed (proper) time had to be expanded to explain the observed Universe. I consider General Relativity his least contribution due to the ad-hoc nature of his equations and the resulting confusion of equations with a pole.  They were the source of the Black Hole conjecture.

In the past, I went further and  explained how the passage of time is dependent upon which laws we choose to describe the Universe in The Image in the Mirror posting. Within the Hypergeometrical Universe, instead of Newton's Gravitational Law (the one with a horrendous pole at zero distance), I proposed that dilators (Hypergeometrical Universe "particles") dilate in phase with the surrounding dilaton field.  This is called the Quantum Lagrangian Principle and it is easily supported by considerations of metric deformation quantization (which lays a level deeper than our observed Quantum Mechanics).

By the way, that pole is the reason why we were misguided into considering the existence of a singularity or dressed singularity or Black Hole. The negation of the existence of a singularity naked or covered is different from saying that there isn't compact distributions of matter that irradiates little or no visible ligth.  This objection only refers to the spacetime representation with Mass Dependent Curvature.  This curvature is dependent upon what laws we use to describe motion. If you law has a pole, then the curvature or spacetime will have to have a singularity.  If you choose a law without a pole, there will be no need for a singularity.

The Quantum Fundamental Principle defines the position of dilators at each consecutive de Broglie step of expansion of the Hyperspherical Universe.  There is an accumulation point at 45 degrees with respect to the hyperspherical 3D universe. At that angle, matter is traveling at the speed of light and displacements at each de Broglie step approaches asymptotically zero, that is, no motion at time goes by on each and every other reference frame.  An dense assemble of dilators will create exact these conditions and light (which is generate by charge motion) will not be generated. In fact, the Black Hole should really be seemed at low frequency radiowaves from that line of reasoning.

All particles, with the exception of the Neutrino, are variations of the Fundamental Dilator and represent coherences with periods close to multiples of the Fundamental Dilator period.  This makes them strong interacting.  Since they contains the Fundamental Dilator as one of their sub-coherences, they contain local metric deformations that have non zero displacement volume per cycle  in nature.

The Neutrino, on the other hand, is a ellipsoid of revolution with only two non-null axes.  Since the axes have opposing values the total displacement volume per cycle is null and it also has the wrong frequency.

I haven't paid enough attention to the 4 dimensional ellipsoid of revolution physical model for the dilators, but I will try to make everything coherent there.  The physical representation of the dilators is not necessary for this theory to make sense.

Protons, Neutrons, etc have three non-null axes of revolution. Electron and Electron-Neutrino have only two. Electron has a non-zero displacement volume per cycle while neutrino has a zero displacement volume per cycle due to its opposing sign axes' lengths.

This will become clearer next.

Let's review the Neutron Model to make sense of what I just wrote.This was first present in the Review of the Hyperon Family Up to the Pion.


Review of Electron, Proton and Neutron Models

Let take a look at the Fundamental Dilator once again.

The Electron(Proton):

The fundamental dilator is a 4D coherence between stationary states of deformation. The deformation of space is quantized, that is, can be represented as states in a 4D double potential well.

The respective coherence for Electron and Proton are shown below:

and for a Proton:

Notice that the Proton and Electron coherences differ only by which is the initial (in phase) state in the coherence. The states associated with the Electron (0,-2/3,-1/3) and (0,-1/3,-2/3) differ not by "energy" since they have the same 3D volume (the Hpergeometrical Universe equivalent to Energy is the 3D projection of the 4D Volume) but by time. It takes time to rotate the dilator around (at the speed of light) and that introduces an extra phase delay on the Tunnelling Process with respect to the Spinning Process. Remember that all particles in the Universe are described in terms of combinations of this two fundamental dilators and that they have Spin Half, that is, they spin at half the speed of tunneling...:) A nice touch, I might say...:)

The Neutron is the first dimmer or two chord sequence. Its Balls Diagram is shown below:
 Notice that I decided to use Red Balls for Positive and Green Balls for Negative moieties...:) Electrician Conventions... (never cut the Green Wire...)  :)

Notice that the diagram above introduce one transmutation chord:

• Electron-Proton Transmutation Chord

The dimmer character is derived from the impossibility to determine which dimensional note (Electron or Proton) is in phase with the Universe. Under these conditions the Neutron is represented by the two states (one starting with the electron and another starting with the proton) with half probability each one.


The Nature of Neutrinos


Below we show the Anti-Neutrino Coherence.

The anti-neutrino corresponds to the composite of the two transmutation chords found in the neutron coherence. That is the reason that if you split a neutrino, you will be able to create anti-mater out of Matter.

Someday I will explain that in a posting..:) Splitting Hairs and Neutrinos...:)

The 3D Volume Displacement equation is given by:
Neutron(1/3,1/3,-2/3) = Proton(2/3,2/3,-1/3) + Electron(0,-1/3,-2/3) + Anti-Neutrino(-1/3,0,1/3)

That means, unlike the electron which is also has only two axes but corresponds to a net decrease in local metric displacement volume (decrease in one phase but a net increase in the alternative phase when protons become a net decrease), the neutrino is always a net zero local metric displacement volume change.  In the example above, the anti-neutrino corresponds to a shrinkage along the X dimension and an stretch on the Z dimension.  This local metric modulation changes the moment of inertia of the sub-coherence and allow for the electron-proton transmutation.  The local metric modulation changes the moment of inertia and in doing so changes the timing between tunneling and spinning within the four-dimensional spatial manifold.

The anti-neutrino corresponds to the electron-proton + proton-electron transmutation.  I struggled to figure out if that sub-coherence was supposed to be in the lower states or in the upper states.

I had to decide if the transmutations corresponds to this sequence
(0,-2/3,-1/3) > (2/3,2/3,-1/3)>(2/3,-1/3,2/3)>(2/3,2/3,-1/3)
or
(0,-2/3,-1/3)>(0,-1/3,-2/3)>(0,-2/3,-1/3)>(2/3,2/3,-1/3)
that is, I had to decide if the delay was cause by a 3D rotation (rotation within the 3D hypersurface) while the coherence was in the lower or in the upper state (proton or electron states).

After looking at the assignments for all the hyperons and analyzing all hyperon decay equations, I decided that the anti-neutrino (electron-neutrino) would correspond to a 3D rotation (rotation within the 3D Hypersurface) while the neutron coherence was in the proton state, to my surprise.:)  I was hoping for a neater result, that is, that the anti-neutrino would correspond to a rotation while the dilator coherence is in the electron state..:) but such is life... full of disappointments..:)

Now we know that the neutrino corresponds to a coherence involving the following diagram

it becomes easier to understand the relationship between this diagram and the (-1/3,0,1/3) representation.


If I shrink everything along X and and equally stretch everything along Z, that would correspond to a rotation around the Y axis, or a rotation in the 3D space.


Now let's compare the Neutrino with light.  

In my theory light is a modulation of the source position of the dilaton field. The dilaton field is continuously irradiated without loss of energy.  In the same way an electromagnetic field would be irradiated without loss if there weren't any absorbers around.  For an electromagnetic coherence to decay and energy be absorbed or irradiated, a dephasing event has to occur. Like in the case of a Boy in the Swing, if one doesn't push the swing in an out-of-phase fashion, energy is never lost nor absorbed (disregarding friction). The propagation of the dilaton field occurs in a pristine 4D spatial manifold without anything to absorb that dilaton field.

Both have zero net metric displacement per cycle. They differ in the nature of their modes.  Like electromagnetic modes, electromagnetic waves are just modulations of a modulation (the dilaton field).  The dilaton field can be thought as a TEM00 or totally symmetric mode. Of course, the Electron Neutrino can be thought as the first asymmetric mode.  The dilaton mode is not transversal, it is volumetric. The Neutrino mode is asymmetric and transversal.

In the case of deformation of the local metric, one would expect DISPERSION, that is, different modes with different coherences and frequencies would travel at different speeds, thus the difference in speed between Neutrinos and Photons.

Please feel free to ask me questions.  They will help me to clarify the points in this posting.

QED.

Cheers,

MP

PS_ I refreshed the version of my theory, that is, the PDF in this page corresponds to the paper I presented at the 7th Vigier Symposium in London last year.