Comment on Does God Play Dice

 JD has left a new comment on your post "Does God Play Dice":

On the (phases) of particles...that makes sense for the quarks...particles of the same...or close to the same mass...particle phsyics would be simpler if electrons and protons had similar mass....being as their charge is near opposite...."Dice" no, we are God's ahem.."Experiment"...the universe plays dice ie...gamma ray burst..

I would like to thank JD for his enigmatic comment.  Enigmatic since I mentioned that my paradigm shift (The Fundamental Dilator) eliminates the mass asymmetry between protons and electrons..:) It is like my pearls felt onto some deaf ears..:)

My theory rethinks the Universe Laws within a four dimensional spatial framework where the 3D Universe is a lightspeed traveling hyperspherical thin shell.  Since the spatial manifold is four-dimensional, my Fundamental Dilator can be assigned a phase (phase of tunneling relative to spinning or rotating in the 4D spatial manifold).

As the Fundamental Dilator coherence spins, only an extremely well defined phase (overlap of the thin dilator with the thin hyperspherical shell) is seen in our Universe.  That is the phase I mentioned, not something that people don't understand like a wavefunction phase - which is a 3D cross-section of the 4D dilaton field.

This relationship between the 4D dilaton field and the associated de Broglie waves (and thus the wavefunction within the Schrodinger's equation) was explained when I tackled the Double-Slit Interference problem.

Today, I will not repeat myself. I will just give some hints where to find the understanding that you seek for soooo long.

 "Dice" no, we are God's ahem.."Experiment"...the universe plays dice ie...gamma ray burst..

I guess, I should NOT complain when my readers are whimsical themselves since I feel quite good when I manage to say something deep and mysterious..:)

Cheers, JD

MP

PS- Please feel free to ask questions.  You are soooo close to the Truth..:)

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…J 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.

ARE FERMION PARTICLES 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).

TWO is of course the Neutron

THREE are the Pions

FIVE are the CRAZY DELTAS

SEVEN are the KAONS

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

THIRTEEN are the LUCKY OMEGAS

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 Majorama Particles…:)

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

Listen Dr Fate's Music...:) I love it...:)

Dr. Fate

I am not someone given to believe in Fate. Unless it is Scientific Fate or the Fate of my scientific theory...

My last Blog explored the need to believe or better the imperative for believing contained in certain widely accepted theories. As you might know, wide acceptance is not an assurance of correctness..:)

By the way, surrounding oneself just with friendly admirers is what academia has been doing and that is what precluded a stronger revaluation of current models and created the censorship conditions that prevail today. One should welcome ideas and their purporters if they pass basic scrutiny. I did that with Dr. Chucanov. If one idea is not good, it shouldn't take a big effort to pinpoint its flaws.

For example: The Standard Model started with some nicely defined Up and Down Quarks... As usual, they asked us to believe. Someday, in some huge accelerator we would meet those little things and be happy that we knew they would come..:) When they did not appear, they asked us to believe that they were glued together...:) Oh, Good Lord....

Peter Higgs demanded us to believe that a Boson would come out of collisions in the heart of another beast (another accelerator - Large Hadron Collider)... It is just the beast that changed, the request is the same ---- Faith ....

No wonder some people see some similarities between Religion and Science. Both can be dogmatic and censor iconoclastic non members of the choir...

Despite of this requirement of Faith, I believe that Fate is a slightly different concept. They sound pretty much the same to me, but in one we have to drop disbelieve, rationality, questioning (Faith) while in the other we only have Rationality, Questioning to hold us up...

My believe in Fate is that there will be a theory in which things will fit so well and make so much sense that Anyone Will Be Able To See That Truth Has Been Spoken.

Of course, that will have to be followed by hardcore experimental proof...:)

A theory is just a guide...... A great theory can be a map...

Currently, I am placing my bets on my theory. I had other "Theories" in the past, but I knew that they were just concoctions in which things pointed, maybe, in the correct direction but they didn't hold water properly..;)

I've never bother people with hare-brain schemes like Peter Higgs or Alan Guth (Higgs Boson and The Inflation Theory), but I decided that The Hypergeometrical Universe deserved a closer look.

There is a path for redemption for Peter Higgs and Alan Guth or any other Big Wig. It is very simple, just take a position in favor of bringing (my theory and others) back into the realm of discussion... Not unlike reopening the Plenarium for debate.

Unsettle Physics!!!

Of course, that would be slightly detrimental to your Superstar status but in History that would make you even Bigger. It takes a real scientist to second guess himself/herself, to revise one's own hypotheses and to appreciate the beauty in someone else's ideas.

Currently, I believe that the Fate of this theory is to have its own life. I am just the messenger.

Some people mentioned that Science requires a highly mathematical framework. I don't believe that to be the case. Any theory is just simple ideas dressed up in algebra. The ideas behind them are always quite simple...an Harmonic Oscillator here, a vibrating string there, mapping mass to a self-energy or not....making infinite equal to zero.... etc...etc...

All the math, the proposed Lagrangians, Green Function Propagators, Feymann Diagrams sums, Dyson Theorem, etc. are simple ideas... Superstrings wrapped around Calabi-Yau manifolds always reminds me Bacon Wrapped Scallops...:)

Those are simple analogies and they taste great...:)

I used Naked Science in my blog because it shows how rich this theory is and how much easier it is to think in terms of physical ideas than to get lost in algebra.

The goal is to See The Florest By The Trees..:)

If you oppose censorship, click the Chicken below and learn all about my plight...:)

Cheers,

MP

PS- Read this with the musical background...:) By the way, I identify myself with Dr. Fate...:)

Of course, not being a connosseur of marvel comics, I suspect Dr. Fate is a Force of Good..:)

Sapor Similis Pullus

Comment on the Mercury Perihelion Solution

Comments are always welcome

Comment on the Mercury Perihelion Solution

I found this site using google and i want to thank you for your work. You have done really very good site. Great work, great site! Thank you!

Sorry for offtopic

Comments are always welcome, as well as solid criticism. I tried to tie down the theory the best I could without the benefit of criticism...:)

In the Mercury Perihelion Prequel, I reviewed the why Paul Gerber's work was dismissed. He started with a velocity dependent formula for which he couldn't provide a convincing derivation.

I reproduced his formula when I derived the Gravitation force for a non-rotating Sun..:) In fact, Gerber's formula is a limiting value of my more general formula.

Of course, nobody derives the Gravitational formula from first principles in any theory other than in this one. Remember that this theory is derived to explain motion, interaction, action-at-distance and does it through the Quantum Lagrangian Principle and the Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Shock-Wave Universe Topology. All forces come naturally when I reconnected this theory to our Physics.

The derivation was done in the relaxed Fabric of Space condition, that is, I started the derivation using a flat local Fabric of Space.

I considered interaction between dilators where the probe dilator was moving radially with the expansion of the Universe. This happens when the local fabric of space is totally relaxed and its normal points radially- perpendicularly to our 3D Universe. This means that the force was derived as a partial derivative of the deformation of the local fabric of space from a given initial velocity(zero velocity). This is equivalent in Strict Relativity to consider the relative velocity zero while the bodies interact. Under those conditions, SR is well approximated by Newtonian Dynamics.

To recover the force for any velocity one has to use the Lagrangian Force equivalent, which we used on the Mercury Perihelion Prequel. For the case of Gravitational Lensing, the velocity amplitude (c) doesn't change. The only change is its direction. Under those conditions, the partial derivative was fine.

This is means that Paul Gerber's ansatz equation for a velocity dependent Gravitation was OK. He just did not have a understanding of the WHY...:)

As I mentioned, this theory passed the basic tests a theory has to pass to be discussed (Gravitational Lensing, Mercury's Perihelion, reproduced all the necessary forces and provide an alternative description to the remaining forces strong and electroweak).

There are a few remaining blogs I want to write but have been too busy to do. One of them has to do with our interest in traveling within our galactic neighborhood. This blog will disclose a new propulsion mechanism which is good enough for short travels.

To go further there is a way to create macroscopic Fabric of Space waves which would lead to light speed traveling of massive bodies. I know that this is forbidden by Relativity..:) of course, it is..:) but that is a just an artifact of the Newtonian choice of Force definition.

It is not that massive bodies cannot travel at the speed of light, it is that due to how one chose to interact them makes their interaction ineffectual to accelerate them to the speed of light. I will propose another mechanism to create motion.

I wrote about Newton's, Galileo's blunders...Of course, I've never meant to minimize their contribution... Just a provocative hindsight consideration aimed at creating a debate..:) As I always mention, nothing would be done without the work of our predecessors, luminaries..and no good theory can be built without strong debate and criticism.

Please, always feel free to compliment but also accept your need to criticize it. It is OK...:)

Cheers,

MP

Comment on Dr. Steven Chu's Letter

Comment on Dr.

Steven Chu's Letter

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Letter to Dr. Steven Chu":

You do understand that electrons and protons are completely different things, right? Electrons are fundamental particles, and protons are made of three quarks (two up quarks and one down quark) with gluons keeping the together.

Regardless, have you heard back from Dr. Chu yet?

If not, the point I mentioned above may be the reason, OR you mentioned "revise Science." I'm sure you meant well, but I think it comes across as too bold.

This comment was left by a well-meaning scientist...:)

He was way too kind. If I hadn't paid attention to the fact that seemingly a Proton and an Electron are different entities (different things), I would be arrogant.

That is a basic piece of knowledge mankind accumulated during its journey towards illumination...:)

He mentioned that by stating that my theory was an attempt to revise science, I had come across as too bold.

Hadn't I paid attention to the very relevant detail that an electron is different from a proton in the current understanding, I would be more than bold, I would be really stupid and arrogant.

Despite of the fact that I don't put my picture and name on each and every page of my blog, my name and information can be easily found in the pdfs. I believe that my theory is important, I am not. I am just the carrier. This means that everything I stated here, if wrong, would damage my projected image.

As the saying goes, Egg would be on my face. I think this is how science should be discussed.

There's got to be a penalty for overlooking a relevant piece of information in a scientific discussion.

I chose to have a public review of my theory and never shied away from criticism. In fact, I didn't have an option other than to post it here in this corner of the internet…:) . Well, it is also published in two books.

This lack of anonymity from my side is also the reason why I asked scientists to name themselves. That makes the discussion more interesting and intellectually more honest.

Don’t be shy, just remember that everything you say will live forever in the net..:)

The word revision comes from many things in my theory. A very salient new paradigm in my theory is the Fundamental Dilator shown below:

This is called the Balls Diagram because I used Balls to denote the orientation (by the lettering orientation) and tunneling phase of the 4D spatial metric deformation coherence with respect to our 3D Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Universe.

The spinning creates a stroboscopic effect (interaction only occurs when the deformations are flush with the 3D Hypersphere) which yields both Quantum Mechanics and the distinct character of the four fundamental particles (electron, proton, positron and antiproton).

On the other hand, one has to have Balls (in the figurative sense) to propose such a revolutionary model. Here Electrons, positrons, antiprotons and protons are really different phases of the same entity. I call this concept a revision of what we currently consider to be a particle.

If you had read a fraction of my theory, you would know that I proposed a paradigm where the four fundamental particles are just phases of the same metric deformation coherence.

A Horse is a Horse, of course, of course...:) and a Proton is different from an Electron, unless we are dealing with a revisionist theory (different view of the same reality) where they are the same...:)

Had you named yourself, it would be clear that you cast a comment without reading the basic tenets of my theory and egg would be on your face...:) It is just fair...:)

I would be delighted to discuss the theory with my critics - right here because this is the only place where a broad scope theory can be debated. If this were a review of my work, never in a million years could I point out that the reviewer didn't do a good job ..>:) In fact, the reviewer missed all the relevant points...:) (if you don't believe, read my other blog with the censorship events).

By the way, if I were wrong, I would love to hear a good argument. I hate wasting time and have other things to do...:)

I was asked if I received any reply from Dr. Steven Chu. I can tell that there has been a pick-up on the interest level of my theory.

Below you can see the Maploco displaying readers from several places:

Cambridge - Probably MIT's Dr Guth..>:)

Alamogordo - Most likely radioative scientists from White Sands...:) (I am guessing...:)

Berkeley - Probably some brilliant string theorist...:)

Stockholm, Sweden - Probably the Nobel Prize Committee...;)
Ithaca - Probably Dr. Paul Ginsparg..>:)

Many of my visitors do not leave comments, which is a shame...:) As you know, everyone is tempted to put down other people's ideas..>:) but very few have the courage to say something positive about someone else's controversial work..>:)

Dr Steven Chu, most likely asked our Luminaries to go and find out what this theory is about..>:)

I hope they do a better job than our well-meaning scientist. It would be inappropriate to conclude that the lack of a reply means that the theory is incorrect ...:)

The case in point is that most people have biases (e.g. an electron is a different 'particle' from a proton) and will simply discard the theory without even reading it as did the current critic. Of course, if the concept of particle were the only way to describe the immutable electron and if the electron were really immutable, then they would be right...:) I question the immutability and the concept that particle or particle-wave are the only way to describe an electron...:) Not only question, but provided an alternative description where there is no immutability and instead of a particle or particle/wave, the electron is modeled as a metric deformation coherence (thus highly mutable..:) and better described as a traveling wave-generator...

Of course, I also provided a new paradigm for interaction which yields quantum mechanics and relativity. I proposed that Relativity is in the eyes of the beholder in my posting The Image in the Mirror , that is, the hyperbolic nature of spacetime is due to the choice of equations of motion. I also solved a paradox there...:)

Using the Quantum Lagrangian Principle, the limiting velocity of light comes naturally...:)

Returning to the problem of biased critics. They might do with nice words like "well-meaning" but what is really important is that they read the theory before reaching a conclusion...:) or at least read the basic and very controversial paradigms and make a critique of them before concluding something..:)

Every so often, I repost my "The Silence of the Lambs" posting as a guide to controversy and to help critics to find their way without too much reading..>:)

I would like to make the discussion more fluent.

The Silence of the Lambs verses about the silence of the scientific community after being hit by a much simpler alternative explanation of the Universe. This would be the time that I would expect them to jump up and down and say Occam's Razor ..>:) as so many of them like to do...:) ( I hate that pompous line of speech). It contains many if not most of the controversial points of this theory in a bullet point form.

Thanks for the opportunity to point the why my theory revises science. It proposes a paradigm that provides an alternative view of particles, the cosmos etc....

Cheers,

MP

Location	Time
Astoria, NY, United States	Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:18:18 -0500
Atlanta, GA, United States	Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:38:49 -0500
Astoria, NY, United States	Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:32:29 -0500
Euless, TX, United States	Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:13:01 -0500
Pasadena, CA, United States	Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:49:54 -0500
Carrollton, TX, United States	Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:14:16 -0500
Wayne, NJ, United States	Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:59:58 -0500
Long Beach, CA, United States	Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:55:51 -0500
Seoul, Korea, Republic of	Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:42:11 -0500
New York, NY, United States	Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:21:50 -0500
New York, NY, United States	Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:02:56 -0500
Cambridge, MA, United States	Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:44:35 -0500
Hoboken, NJ, United States	Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:12:14 -0500
Joliet, IL, United States	Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:50:12 -0500
, United Kingdom	Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:28:26 -0500
Alamogordo, NM, United States	Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:54:06 -0500
New York, NY, United States	Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:30:39 -0500
Bridgeport, CT, United States	Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:04:48 -0500
Bangkok, Thailand	Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:22:21 -0500
Berkeley, CA, United States	Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:08:46 -0500
Warren, NJ, United States	Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:50:25 -0500
Wayne, NJ, United States	Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:49:52 -0500
Lawrenceville, GA, United States	Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:39:34 -0500

Mamaroneck, NY, United States	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:55:11 -0500
Stockholm, Sweden	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:44:47 -0500
, Europe	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:55:55 -0500
Bayonne, NJ, United States	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 12:22:00 -0500
North Dartmouth, MA, United States	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:24:23 -0500
East Brunswick, NJ, United States	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:04:22 -0500
Peoria, AZ, United States	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:54:04 -0500
Cambridge, MA, United States	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:07:55 -0500
Rosedale, NY, United States	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:03:06 -0500
Washington, DC, United States	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 08:50:34 -0500
Montgomery, AL, United States	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 08:44:59 -0500
Edison, NJ, United States	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 08:44:36 -0500
Brooklyn, NY, United States	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 08:26:40 -0500
Ashburn, VA, United States	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 08:23:34 -0500
Waddy, KY, United States	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 08:20:14 -0500
Munich, Germany	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 08:00:33 -0500
Berkeley, CA, United States	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 07:23:44 -0500
Spokane, WA, United States	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 04:08:22 -0500
, , United States	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 03:03:03 -0500
Warren, NJ, United States	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 02:03:54 -0500
Astoria, NY, United States	Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:08:25 -0500
Columbus, OH, United States	Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:56:47 -0500

Clifton, NJ, United States Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:02:56 -0500
Nottingham, United Kingdom Sat, 03 Oct 2009 10:55:07 -0500
Gatineau, QC, Canada Sat, 03 Oct 2009 10:35:35 -0500
Ithaca, NY, United States Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:33:32 -0500
Mount Kisco, NY, United States Sat, 03 Oct 2009 06:27:27 -0500
Yucca Valley, CA, United States Sat, 03 Oct 2009 04:11:30 -0500