The Wisdom in a Grain of Sand

The Wisdom in a Grain of Sand....:)

What is in a grain of sand????...:)

The key to understanding the Whole Universe..>:)

That is what I believe... Check it yourself..>:)

Many of us have seen the experiment that demonstrates vibrational normal modes on a drum...:) For people who is not musically inclined, a drum is an acoustic cavity covered with a leather or elastic membrane...

The stretched material (leather) will vibrate and have normal modes defined by the boundary conditions. In this case, the boundary conditions is to have zero amplitude on the circular wooden frame that holds the leather sheet.

Normal modes are standing waves with an increasing number of nodes.




As you can see, the mode (1,1) has a node right in the middle. That is where the grains of sand will go.

Up to now this has been just High School Science...:) How come such a trivial problem can explain the whole Universe???

The answer is always in a change in paradigm or how do you look at what everyone have looked before and see something nobody has ever seen...:)

The solution is to think about our minute grain of sand as my four-dimensional dilator..>:) and the vibrations on the drum as the dilaton fields on the 3D Shock-Wave Hyperspherical Universe.
Let's take it slowly... One don't want to have a mental cramp...:)

If one considers how the standard experiment is done, one will probe only the second harmonic, that is, one will excite the drum membrane using a sound wave with the second harmonic frequency while pouring sand over the membrane.

As the frequency of the sound wave comes close to the second resonance frequency mode (1,1), the sand motion changes from chaotic into a coherent displacement and all the grains of sand move into the nodes. I mentioned the second harmonic because the first has no nodes...

That is how everyone plus the kitchen cat sees the experiment... That will not bring you any wisdom...

To see what I see, you have to see the grain of sand as my four-dimensional dilator. Since the grain of sand doesn't vibrate, one should consider it a zero amplitude dilator with undefined phase. Under these conditions the grain of sand (zero amplitude dilator) will move into the node where the vibration (dilaton field) has zero amplitude.

Up to now, there is no new wisdom... Now consider that the drum is excited by a sound wave with frequency equal to the sum of the the first and the second resonance frequencies. This frequency is the sum of the w1 and w2, first and second resonance frequencies of the drum.

Now add to the grain of sand an unique vibrating amplitude, the difference beating (w2-w1) and a random phase. The difference beating frequency is choosen because I wanted to make the correspondence between the dilator and a coherence between two normal modes as in my model. The beating or difference frequency is the tunelling frequency between two eigenstates of the 4D tunelling rotating double well potential.

The usage of the sum frequency to nonlinearly excite the two modes of the drum was used just to simplify the experiment (not to introduce sub-harmonics).

Now that we have the two normal modes beating with a fixed phase shift between them, one can start pouring the vibrating sand on the drum...

The first thing you will notice is that the grains of sand will not all want to move into the nodes... All of them vibrate and they don't want to be in a region where nothing is happening...:)

They will relocate themselves into the regions where their vibration is in phase with the supporting vibrating drum and the local membrane vibrating frequency is equal to the difference beating.

This simple thought experiment - I don't have vibrating sand nor a drum - explains my Lagrangian Principle. Dilators will move into regions where they are in phase with the dilaton field. Using this simple argument I reproduced all forces of nature.

The quantum part of it comes about if you make the sand very thin along one coordinate and make them to rotate, thus impacting the vibrating membrane differently depending upon their rotational phase. When the grain of sand is flat on its back, it impacts the most the drum membrane...(not a perfect analogy...but...:) When it is on its side (90 degrees rotated), it is too skinny to interact appreciably with the drum membrane. I guess I would have to make the membrane porous, such that the skinny grain of sand would not interact at all with the membrane....:)

This kind of on and off interaction is the basis for the Pseudo Time-Quantization.

Applied to our drum it would mean that all the grains of sand would interact only at specific phases of their rotation and would all move towards the maximum amplitude or zero phase, thus creating a Cosmological Sand Coherence....:)

Rotational and dilator frequencies have to be related due to the fact that we only see one side of these rotating dilator at each de Broglie step.. An electron is always an electron - has always the electron mass - and a proton is always a proton -has always the proton mass..

This is the basis for Pseudo Time-Quantization...:)

This is a lot of Wisdom to be in such a small grain of sand...:)

It is also im my paper - the same one that Los Alamos is censuring..>:)

It is a National Shame...:)

Cheers,

MP

PS_ I finally learned how to allow you to forward the blog to someone you might consider to benefit from it... The envelop icon below allows for you to email my blog to everyone...

Please do so and also visit the Philica link on the top of the page... It is important that everyone who can understand it, learn about this theory....

I still don't have a review at Philica... I understand why... The paper is difficult to read... complex concepts, some math... and people don't want to stick their neck out ... like the Los Alamos ArXives moderator... It is safer just to say nothing than to express an opinion...:)

I exhort you to do it differently... Take a position!!!... bring this blog to all your friends and colleagues... This might be difficult, but I am blogging it into simple bits... hoping everyone can understand...

The more people visits my Philica Paper the more likely it will be seem by the scientific community and some resolution will take place...:)

Cheers.

No News in The Front...

Nothing New in The Front...:)

I have to say that I am disapponted with Los Alamos ArXives... I was hoping to receive some hint on why did they considered my paper INAPPROPRIATE...:)

I tried to guess why... but guessing might lead to errors..>:)

I think "INAPPROPRIATE" is a strong word for a brave new idea... It takes courage to state a new idea... it takes tremendous effort to publish it... The stablishment is just not friendly to creativity from others...:) and I was a scientist in the past... and still am one at heart...

As a scientist, I learned that Science made their quantum leaps when challenged... I presented a full frontal challenge to current Science and instead of being embraced, my theory was shunned - wait a second... it didn't have a chance to defend itself... It was censured......:) It is a shame... a dark day in Science...

I can understand that the most backwards sectors in society might consider it INAPPROPRIATE... dangerous ideas... but Science... The Moderator, who I suppose is a scientist, should had recognized the self-consistency of the theory and how it provides an alternative explanation to our reality... The innovative character of the theory jumps into the reader's mind, off from the Abstract... The allusion to an Universe described only in terms of geometrical constructs, where we all travel at the Speed of Light..:) has to be intellectually appealing... and not scary...:)

One should not be scaried about new ideas...:) If they make sense, they are what creates the introspective reevaluation of WHAT THE BLEEP WE KNOW...

Once I had my insight, I revised all Science and still have a lot to say... but I need to say that to someone that talks back... Science ...:) Not to a shy Censor...:)

I sent the email below to Professor Gizparg and to the moderator... but it seems that my address has been added to Los Alamos Arxives spam filter...:) I tell you, you have to admire the scientic mind...:)

Considering that I was the main author in my paper and that my submission requested that all the correspondence to be directed to me, it is a surprise that I am caught in a spam filter...:)

Cheers,

MP
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Professor Ginspard,

I recently submitted a paper to the Los Alamos ArXives after going through the trouble of finding an endorser and explaining my theory in detail.

That is the level of moderation or barrier that is advertised on the Los Alamos arXives site. To my surprise, the paper was still rejected and that after a lapse of at most 5 hours.

I consider it callous to substitute the lengthy discussions with my endorser and his careful reading of the paper with a few minutes review. I am supposing the moderator didn’t read only my paper during the elapsed five hours.

I kindly requested the moderator any example of the only and vague criticism contained in the rejection but never received any acknowledgement of the reception of my email or any reply.

I would expect more from a scientist.

Could you please review the moderation procedure and direct someone to provide me a meaningful reason why my paper was censured.

The reason why I made such an effort to publish at Los Alamos is because I value criticism and feedback. I receive neither from the moderator.

I just want for my idea what every idea should have. In a scientific debate you present your idea, receive/accept criticism, and respond with facts or logical arguments.

Accepting the moderator’s answer as a final critique would be to abdicate from what science has of most valuable – rational criticism. I am not about to do that. This is a scientific paper. Not a religious argument. Nobody should be protecting or hiding behind dogmas – I am not.

The paper is attached for your convenience.

Thanks,

Marco Pereira
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission:
Paper: hep-ph/0610362
Title: The Hypergeometrical Universe
Authors: Marco A. Pereira
Comments: 23 pages, 8 figures.Please, send all the
correspondence to Dr.Pereira at ny2292000@yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rejection:
Your submission has been removed upon a notice from our moderators, who determined it inappropriate for the hep-ph archive. Do NOT under any circumstances resubmit to the original arXiv before first explaining the reason to moderation@arxiv.org AND receiving a positive response. Please direct all questions and concerns regarding moderation to the moderation@arXiv.org address.
--
arXiv admin
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Review
Dear XXX,
The moderators feel that the submission content has serious issues that need to be reworked before the paper will be at a publishable level. The paper contradicts or ignores many well-accepted physical theories without acknowledging these omissions or explicitly challenging the foundational literature. arXiv is not a repository for otherwise unpublishable material, and the moderators do not feel this submission is appropriate for any subject within arXiv. You should seek feedback from a conventional journal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sir or Madam,

The paper is about a geometrical theory - that is, it models matter as a metric modulation. It proposes a new model for matter in which a single dilator would account for most matter in the Universe.

A coherence between two 4-D space deformation stationary states (dilator) is used to create a continuous modulation of the spacetime (5D)metric (dilaton).

It also proposes a new topology for the Universe - a four-Dimensional Shock Wave topology.

Under these conditions, it is a given that this paper would differ significantly from current views.

As any theory, it should be judged within its own logical framework and on how it might disagree with "experimental" data available.

It is important to emphasize the word "experimental" because there are many constructs which cause paradoxes left and right in Science. These paradoxes have been taken as true as a matter of faith.

If a theory proposes a solution to some of these paradoxes, the solution should be evaluated within its logical framework.

Could you please provide a couple of examples supporting this statement: " The paper contradicts or ignores many well-accepted physical theories without acknowledging these omissions or explicitly challenging the foundational literature. "

I will do my best to provide you a convincing answer from within the paper. If not, I will be happy to change it to reflect your critique.

Thanks,

Marco Pereira

Number Two

Number Two

There are two important open problems in this theory.

Here is Number Two....:)

I created a Quantum Lagrangian Equation that provides the "Forces of Nature". That coupled with standard Classical Mechanics produces both Classical and Quantum Mechanics paradigms.

The problem is that this paradigm mixing is not clean... that is, one should expand the Quantum Lagrangian Principle to reproduced all the dynamics on 3D. The QLP is missing the Classical Mechanics dynamics. The dynamics should be written in terms of the 4D Volume projected on the 3D Shock Wave Universe on the de Broglie steps. Well, this is a view considering the QLP using only 5 dimensions. Even though the space is five dimensional, there are time projections. The time projection adds one more dimension to the problem. In my first simple theory, I did not want to makes things even more difficult to understand by dealing with more complex details.

One has to bring about a physical argument for inertia. I've already associated it to a 3D footprint of the 4D displacement volume. The larger the footprint of the region of the Fabric of Space that has to be tilted the stronger the required force. Thus one just have to express this statement mathematically within the framework of the QLP. Lagrangian Multipliers are a hint...:)

Remember that the total 4D volume always remains the same on both sides of the dilator, that is, the electron should be 2000 taller on the radial direction...:) Who would guess?

I will think on it on and off for some time... but I have hig hopes that someone else will solve it before me...:)

You have a month to solve the problem, starting counting now 11/09/2006 8:00 am...:)

Cheers,

MP

Number One

Number One

There are two important open problems in this theory.

Here is Number One....:)

A 5D Schrodinger equation - not directly related to our 4D Schrodinger equation needs to be created for the 4D volumes of the rotating tunneling dilator system.

I will think on it on and off for some time... but I have hope that someone else will solve it before me...:)

You have a month to solve the problem, starting now 11/09/2006 8:00 am.

Finding this equation will also mean the solution of the dilator dynamics problem.

Cheers,

MP

Plans for the Weekend

Plans for the Weekend

The Monkeys will remain here until I receive a reply from Los Alamos ArXives or when I get tired of waiting..:) Whichever comes first...:)

It has been almost one week and Los Alamos or the moderators of the Los Alamos ArXives did not send me a reply... I will keep you abreast of developments.

A friend of mine insisted on the single electron double slit experiment and kept proposing me thought experiments on electronic diffraction. This is something impossible to do in your mind... One is testing or reading reality... :)

On the GUT paper, I proposed an alternative explanation for the Double Slit Experiment based upon my "Force" derivations .

As any alternative explanation of something, it has many challenges and of course, since nobody ask me any questions (not even the Moderator) I don't have all the answers at once... I have to think about it...:)

I went in the net and found a great paper by Dr. Tonomura on the double slit experiment and Aharonov and Bohm effect. The paper is at this site

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/42/14952?ck=nck

Of the cuff, I gave two simple answers that would explain this phenomena.. The first one woud have to do with windowing of of electrons... The basic argument that detection is different from emission. That is what I used in the past. It is based on collaborative interaction, that is, many electrons will interact with their collective dilaton field and that field will after passing through both slits or both sides of a biprism, create the interference dilaton field. This interferometric field will drive the single electron (which passed through a single slit) onto the detector array. Although the collaborative aspect of this field seemed to be a basic requirement, it might not be necessary and might be extremely accidental, considering the very short wavelengths involved.

An electron generates a wave as it propagages in four dimensions.

The Mach-1 dilator on the site below provides a great insight:

http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/doppler/doppler.html

This is how the dilatons are emitted from the dilators as they travel along the radial direction.

The Mach-0 or stationary source how a dilator stationary with respect to the Fabric of Space looks like. The non-zero velocity source in the same page is not a perfect depiction of how the dilator looks in 3D due to the lack of Doppler shifting...

You should remember my teachings...:)... Sometimes there are things that even the theory creator did not perceive or do not know...:)

Questioning or critique is the only way to improve one's theory.

This question and this paper will force me to review my thoughts about the single electron dynamics. I certainly don't expect anything to change, since the paradigm explains dynamics and has Quantum Mechanics built in.

Just to make sure everyone understands, I don't have any qualms with Quantum Mechanics. In fact, I used in my theory left and right. The 4D deformational levels are to be calculated by a yet to be discovered Schrodinger equation. The dilator rotational tunneling dynamics is a quantum problem, although the whole Universe probes each other's rotational (spin) phase at each cycle.

I reproduced Biot-Savart law, thus reproducing Electromagnetism. This means that AB effect can be understood within the Hypergeometrical Universe Model. It is just a matter of thinking a little and writing another blog or another paper...:)

I created the published document such that people can work on these problems and help solve the rest.... I certainly cannot and have no interest in doing everything...

During the weekend, I will try to think about this paper, AB and biprism effects.

If anyone from Dr. Tonomura's group is listening, could you please send me info about the size of the hole in front of the wire. That would give me an idea if there is windowing. Also relevant is if the plates are charge, that is, if the plates are part of the acceleration process and how far apart they are..

These are technical details which wouldn't be relevant if we knew the answer to this problem. My point is that a new paradigm brings about new questions in addtion to a new possible conclusion...:)

Cheers,

MP

Good News.....:)

The Monkeys will remain here until I receive a reply from Los Alamos ArXives or when I get tired of waiting..:) Whichever comes first...:)

They symbolize censorship..>:) Collusion... Conspiracy and other evils of life..:)

Now the good news, I went through the tremendous trouble of placing the paper in the open journal Philica...

The paper reference is shown below:
Pereira, M. (2006). The Hypergeometrical Universe. PHILICA.COM Article number 45.

Please, feel free to go there and review it.

Updated Version of the Grand Unification Paper Out

An Updated Version of the Grand Unification Paper is Out






Please follow the link to find an updated version of the Grand Unification Paper.

This is the basic paper to understand how one unify the forces of Nature....:)

Of course, this link is also available from the right side panel on this blog.

It should have a better flow... I redid the introduction and found three typos on the equations...

The paper still need better references to the current methodologies. Suggestions are welcome.

By the way, this is the Forbidden Paper... The one they don't want you to read...:)

I've been trying to get an open review, that is, a peer review in which people say what they want and let me know where did I go wrong and right.

I am currently pursuing such a venue with little success. Rules of the game are changed mid-way and the playing field is not plane. I shall let you know better what is happening by next week.


Cheers,

MP