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
3 comments:
In a HyperGeometrical Universe viewpoint, the bond angle between Hydrogens and Oxygen central atom in the water molecula can be be viewed in a perfect hypertetrahedrical simmetry arrangement. The central angle of any n-Tetrahedra is ArcCos(-1/n), where n is the dimension of the polytope. Displacing n+1 repelling charges in a n dimensional hypersphere with positive charge baricentrum, the stable arrangement will be infact the central tethrahedric angle. This spherical codes in 4D hypergeometrical unicers is the angle:
arccos(-1/4) = 104° 28' 16.39"
the same bond angle of the water molecula. Is it a coincidence?
Scientists use to say that water Hydrogens bond angle of water mulecula differs by 5° respect then the 3D-tetrahedral central angle 109° 28' 39.04" = arccos(-1/3) due the hybridization of orbitals s and p in sp, but in the example of the Methan CH4 infact the hydrogens lie on ArcCos(-1/3) teatrahedric arrangment angle.
But in the Water example they just interprets respect than a 3D viewpoint of the problem. But I suppose that other 3 "hydrogens" in the hypersphere exchange continously with the 2 Hydrogens on our 3D hyperplane and the Oxygen it's at the center of this pentachoron. So water it could be H2OX3, where X are stable "hydrogens" in other embedded 3D subworlds. The problem for dimensions greater than 3 is that hypergeometrical universe are unstable unless for embedded 3D world interconnected like in the Water Example.
Do you think that an hyperchemistry which interconnets 3D subworlds could be done at this age with a hypergeometrical universe theory?
Fedematico,
I read your intriguing comment and will have to take some time to think about it. Up to now, I understand the link between the Hypergeometrical Universe and Schrodinger equation. Once I got that, I stopped thinking about Quantum Mechanics. What I thought would be my last contribution would be to calculate the masses of all particles and isotopes using a simple equation. I am on vacation, once I get back I will tackle and make a proper reply. Thanks, Fedematico
Fedematico,
Please contact me at my external email. I liked your interesting way of thinking, not only because it is daring but because it shows intellectual capability that I would enjoy exploring.
Cheers,
MP
ny2292000@yahoo.com
Post a Comment