CATEGORY:
Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)
[back]
TOPIC:
No 3 Things by Yuri Benjamin Danoyan
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 14:19 GMT
Essay AbstractAssumptions of physics need reconsider:1)4D spacetime. 2) Gravity as a fundamental force 3) 3 fundamental dimensional constants(G,c,h). Alternatives have been proposed. 1.Splitting 3D discrete space from 1D continues time.2.Gravitation as a Integral effect of the Universe. 3. Only Planck constant as a fundamental dimensional constant.
Author BioIndependent
Download Essay PDF File
Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 10:00 GMT
Yuri
Fascinating viewpoint. I agree absolutely with the following, and thought you may have read the link in my essay last year explaining a full ontological construction of a recycling mechanism;
"It seems that continuous time eliminates the problem of the beginning of the Universe and is appropriately incorporated in the theories of cyclic universes. For example, Penrose modern version of Heraclitus . http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/e06/PAPERS/THESPA01.P
DF Every Universe is the cause of the previous Universe and is originated from the remnant after Big Crunch. Time is a circle."
If you have not yet read it, and you wish to do so, tell me and I'll post it here. It solidly evidences your description. The astronomical evidence is all there, and it emerges naturally from the kinetic logic and mechanism for local reality described in my essay this year. It seems you may only have skimmed over it and missed the rich findings so far. I hope you can read it carefully and comment.
But still more questions exist than answers, so we'll all remain busy!
Best of luck and best wishes.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 13:22 GMT
Peter
As i see your last essay is not Winning Essays
Only 18 Winning essay.Your essay not included.
Is it a fair expert solution?
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 15:09 GMT
Dear Yuri Danoyan,
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your well written entertaining essay, however, I do have a quibble about your assertion that “No one before has collected so many different evidence of ratio 3:1…” As I point out in my essay Sequence Consequence, such luminaries as Hegel, Aquinas and Freud promoted the 3:1 ratio for the human expression of an idea, the nature of God and the nature of human behavior. Most people use the 3:1 ratio in general conversation. You rightfully point out that there is only one law of Nature, without listing its three aspects, but then go on to mention that thermodynamics has more than one law. This is unrealistic. One real Universe can only be occurring eternally once in one dimension. The real Universe has three aspects of observation as does the one real dimension the real Universe exists in.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 15:29 GMT
Dear Joe
Hegel, Aquinas and Freud epoch not aware lot of facts modern physics facts. But I agree so that the Hegelian triad of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis is close to me in spirit.
report post as inappropriate
Ted Erikson wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 21:02 GMT
. Does nature recognize fancy mathematics? My essay is perhaps overly simplified, but addresses the real problem of Physics. Wherein lies "consciousness"? Very murky, but emergentism (growth) and panpsychism (memory are properties suggested that aligns them with probabilities of a 1-D, 2-D, and 3-D geometric world. i.e., your "3:1" , actually 3 lines to 4 points..See:
To Seek Unknown Shores
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1409
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 23:17 GMT
"This submission evolved from a question seeking answers that Diane and I
sought since 1961, "Why does anything do what it does?"
The same question Einstein put forward wisely:
"What I am really interested in is knowing whether God could have created the world in a different way; in other words, whether the requirement of logical simplicity admits a margin of freedom.”(see Einstein quotes)
I think all participants of this contest try to find out answer.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 13:08 GMT
Appendix 1 Cosmological picture of one cycle
Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch
c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10
G=10^22; G=10^-8; G=10^-28
h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28
alfa =10^-3; 1/ 137; 1
e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 15:15 GMT
Sorry for wrong number G=10^22, actually G=10^12
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 01:20 GMT
Confirmation of lower limit velocity of light
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.3765.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 13:32 GMT
Appendix 2 Cosmological values of mass
Mp =10^-24; 10^-24; 10^-24
Me =10^-28; 10^-28; 10^-28
Mpl=10^-4; 10^-4; 10^-4
Mhbl=10^16; 10^16; 10^16
See Scale invariance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 13:58 GMT
Appendix 3
Age of the Universe t=13,7 billion years
Duration of one cycle of the Universe T=144 billion years;
Question about size or radius of the Universe doesn't have sense.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 12:46 GMT
Hello,
144 billions , I believe that it can be relevant for the maximum volume.So the begining of the contraction. This oscillation, unique is relevant. The cycle is unique.I see the max volume at 125 billions and the perfect equilibrium at 250 billions. So it is the begining of this eternal physicality.
The radius is relevant considering the maximum volume before the contraction.
The critical point of density before the contraction becomes relevant at my humble opinion.
Regards
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 13:18 GMT
The periodicity and the frequences appear when the uniqueness is understood.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 16:06 GMT
144 is the twelfth Fibonacci number, and the largest one to also be a square,[1] as the square of 12 (which is also its index in the Fibonacci sequence), following 89 and preceding 233.
I deeply believe in the anthropic principle.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 16:26 GMT
The fibonacci serie is just a serie of numbers. My calculations , them are based on evolution. I have compared several spheroids, foundamental of our physical Universal sphere. If we take the spherization like a foundamental of optimization.So we can link with several spheroids in evolution. The brain is fascinating in this line of reasoning with all its quantum entangled spheres and its rotations. If we make a simple graphic. We can see a correct oscillation of spherization.
The Fibonacci numbers are not sufficient. Like all series of mathematicians. That said, the primes are very intriguing when we distribute them inside a sphere in evolution.
I am also in agreement with both of these principles, the anthropical and entropical principles. In fact it is a little if I said that this infinite light above our physicality has created a project of optimization with spheres.The Universal sphere in spherization. The aim is the eternity in fact, a little if I said that we create the future universal perfect eternal sphere, perhaps it is the meaning of the paradise.The fact that this light is infinite above our walls is relevant considering the evolution. The future universal sphere is on the road of the physical infinity in fact. It is fascinating.
The primes numbers can help,with the 1 the begining of this physicality.
Regards
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 16:27 GMT
Also interesting when we compare the numbers 137 and 144 in the binary system.
137 (10001001); 144(10010000)
From the art point of view have something to ponder.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 16:30 GMT
I don't know well the binar codes you know.
But why do you think that they are relevant these numbers ?
Why do you think that they can be inserted with this max.volume ?
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 16:41 GMT
See my submission http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0014
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 17:00 GMT
I prefer that you explain here if it is ok for you.
I don't like reading the arxivs and vixras.:)
ps the art is a pure creation where the foundamentals are respected.
Regarsd
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 17:23 GMT
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 17:50 GMT
I prefer no.
I beleive that you are a friend of Lubos Motl. You know the strings can converge but frankly the spheres in 3D are more more more foundamental than these simple strings.That said the 2d convergences are relevant. But can we play with numbers like we want. I think that there are limits , like for all !
The probelm with the m theory and the 11 diemnsions is that the system of uniqueness and the quantization are not respected. Like the evolutive point of vue. That said, it is relevant for the computing and the creation of forms.When the coordonates are correctly inserted. The 3D universality, this Universal sphere, it is more than these defromations due to the variables or superimposed dimensions(which are all in 3D , don't forget ). So the cause of mass, is not explained. Now the oscillations can be relevant. But for that, the volumes must be inserted considering I am repeating the serie of uniqueness.tHE ROTATIONS ARE ESSENTIAL ALSO LIKE THE SERIE OF VOLUMES DECREASING.
The correpondances, convergences can be made. Even for the 3D computing also for the pictures. It is even relevant for the ads/cft correspondance.The branes also can be synchronized.If the serie of uniquenss , universal for the two scales, is inserted with determinism about the quantization of mass.It becomes very relevant for correct simulations.
ps to all, who can ecplain me what is the BFSS Model please ?
Regargs
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 18:14 GMT
1.Lubos is not my friend.On the contrary, he is my enemy.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/07/archives-vixraorg-ag
ainst-arxivorg.html
2.I haven't idea what mean BFSS Model.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 18:43 GMT
:) an enemy?. but you know the hate is not good for health. Me I have not enemy but perhaps that for them, yes,I don't know, it is not improtant.The most important is to be universal.
The fact to have enemies has no real meaning for me youi know. The forgiveness is an essential parameter you know. I beleive strongly that thr secret is there, the universal love. The rest is vain. An enemy is not an enemy in this line of reasoning. I beleive simply that perhaps the simple probelm between both of you is the vanity. Perhaps that the arrogance of scientists imply a simple play of competition. It explains probably why a lot of scientists do not like to be critized. The syndrom of the searcher probably. I think that the vanity and the arrogance are more important inside the sciences community than inside a schools of young children.Perhaps that in growing we loose our innocence of child.
Make the peace with him :) like a child makes at school. hop in the hands. :)
BFSS model is Banks, Fischler, Shenker and Susskind (BFSS), it is correlation with Matrix theory. in 11 dimensions of supergravity.the steps of high and low energies can be classed. I beleive strongly that the serie of uniqueness must be inserted with the convergences with the rotating spherical volumes.My equations help for the steps of energies. The pure thermodynamics and heat are proportional with the rotations and the volumes of entangled spheres.the groups of uniqueness are finite and precise, implying a specific finite quantum number.This number is the same that our cosmological number in its pure finite serie, the finite universal group.
Regards
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 17:12 GMT
As model of evolution the Universe can serve the evolution logarithmic spiral in polar coordinates from 0 to collapse and again to survive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_spiral
http:
//jwilson.coe.uga.edu/EMT668/EMAT6680.F99/Erbas/KURSATgeomet
rypro/golden%20spiral/logspiral-history.html
http://jsxgraph.
uni-bayreuth.de/wiki/index.php/Logarithmic_spiral
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 20:49 GMT
Appendix 4
See Appendix 1
All these data can be interpreted as:
No expanding Universe, only shrinking space.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 23:04 GMT
Acсelerating No. Decelerating Yes.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 22:34 GMT
Conclusion:
Wrong ratio 3:1; Energy:Matter;
Right ratio 3:1; Matter:Energy.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Nov. 21, 2012 @ 04:40 GMT
Final conclusion about space and time.
The Universe expanding by by Fibonacci numbers law.
Space unfold like Golden spiral.
Reason of acceleration the expansion Universe over the last 6x10^9 years.
The lifespan one cycle of the Universe 144x10^9 years.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
George wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 07:09 GMT
Dear Yury,
I am agreeing with you that the expansion (BB) and gravitational collapse are the alternate-changing process. (To a favor of that, it shows also the last observations of Roger Penrouse & Vahe Gurzadian) http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101210/full/news.2010.665.ht
ml
Sincerely,
George
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 11:46 GMT
I am familiar with Vahe and Penrose works very well.I am supporter Penrose'S ideas.I sent this essay also to him.But no answer yet.
Vahe is arrogant person.I meet him about 30 years ago in Yerevan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 12:50 GMT
arrogant, I like . It is intresting to see the real generalists.
Mr Vahe and Mr Penrose, we can collaborate. We shall be arrogant and we shall show them what is the real spherization. If the pseudo scientists are frustrated and jealous, it is logic, if they are full of hate, it is logic.
In fact, the irony is arrived at its paraxysm. I respect Mr Penrose, if he wants he can be my mentor !!! We shall make incredible publications.and we shall win a lot of prizes ! the team is Mr Hawking, Mr Penrose and Mr Dufourny, the dream team in fact. I will be happy to collaborate with both of them .
I think that their works are so relevant.And we shall make also beautiful inventions. The determinism like a torch of knowledge and evolution.
We can work together simply. I need good mentors.I need to learn more , I need to share, I need to create. I need to have mentors. Penrose and Hawking are relevant.
Regards
report post as inappropriate
Tony Smith wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 19:34 GMT
Yuri, your statement
"Fermions. 12(6 quarks+3 leptons+3 neutrino).Spin =1/2
Bosons. 12(8 gluons+3 vector(2W+1Z)+1photon).Spin=1
Numerical supersymmetry not broken."
is interesting.
Have you shown that your "not broken ... Numerical supersymmetry"
gives cancellations in the Standard Model Lagrangian picture
that are as nice and useful as those of conventional supersymmetry ?
How do you justify considering the red, blue, and green quark states
as the same particle instead of the conventional 3 different particles
(distinguished by the 8 gluons of the color force)
which would give you
Fermions. 24(18 quarks+3 leptons+3 neutrino)
with
3 generations each with
1 lepton + 3 up-type quarks + 3 down-type quarks + 1 neutrino
?
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 19:50 GMT
I think generation #2,generation #3 are the effect of Influence from Future, just hints from the Future.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1919
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 20:08 GMT
More old preprint
Influence from the Future
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9607375
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 20:37 GMT
Tony
Some quote from Lev Okun "Physics of elementary particles"
" As for the fermions of the second and third generations, their role in the modern world seems negligible. At first glance, a world without them would be just as good. These particles resemble rough drafts, which the Creator threw as bad, and we are using our sophisticated techniques dug into his wastebasket."
I've often thought about this.I believe that next generations will show up in the future history of the Universe.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 20:50 GMT
You are right.It's my fault. Bosons. 12(8 gluons+3 vector(2W+1Z)+1photon).Spin=1
Actually:
Bosons.4(1 gluon+3 vector+1 photon)
Fit for ratio 3:1; 12:4
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 09:58 GMT
Yuri
I did not understand your response post of 23rd. My last years essay was a top 10 finalist but not a winner (a crime perhaps?). Fair? and expert? I don't now, but the Solution, of course.
I just noticed your comment elsewhere; "We live in a universe that was born from a previous universe." which is entirely consistent with the recycling implicit in the essay and the Discrete Field Model, (and with my end notes this year).
The mechanism leading to this is as my current essay, unifying SR and QM consistent with Ken Wharton's view of re-mapping maths, but using non 'point' particles. The re-ionization mystery is explained by the 'rebirth' of galaxies via AGN quasars and their superluminal jets. The CMBR evidence suggests just a larger scale version of this for the universe.
I hope you will understand the kinetics and mechanism and score my essay, as I will yours, allowing that you are writing in a foreign language.
Very best wishes.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 21:52 GMT
No atoms of space and time, there are only atoms of space, which name is Planck's constant or spin.Integer and half-integer.Even and odd.Yang and Yin.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 00:25 GMT
Appendix 4 Solution of cosmological constant problem
Theory: Cosmological constant is 10^94 g/sm^3
Practice: Cosmological constant is 10^-28 g/sm^3
Planck constant h=10^-28 g x sm^2/sec in 2D space embedding in 3D space
Only right value is experimental value.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 01:57 GMT
Note.In the 2D space Pauli's principle is not valid.There is no need introduce the concept of "color".
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 11:58 GMT
Does God play Dice?
Yes,but when He play, always falls the same 3:1
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 17:13 GMT
:) intresting point of vue.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 18:12 GMT
Another interesting point of view.
Despite my assertion of continuity of time, need to admit: Every cycle of the Universe is a discrete unit.
report post as inappropriate
Saibal Mitra wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 16:13 GMT
As promised, a few comments:
1) If you try to find hidden relations using numerology, you have to be careful about selection effects. If there are no relations between particle masses, you may still find a few relations by considering at a large enough number of particles.
2) I think that there are no fundamental dimensionful constants. So, I would side with Micheal Duff in that article you cite written by Okun, Veneziano and Duff.
3) About cyclical universes, I would say that the evolution laws of any universe will make it effectively eternal. I.e. even if the universe evolves in away that gives rise to some state only once and would never return to that, you can use the evolution laws to identify any future state with past states. This is yet another reason (not mentioned in my essay) why I reject the concept of a physical universe :) .
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 21:31 GMT
1.Numerology for me not a means, not an end, but the result.
2.Planck constant for me only dimensional constant.
3.Read my essay about sacrifice of second law of thermodinamics
report post as inappropriate
Daryl Janzen wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 21:08 GMT
Dear Yuri:
You present some interesting points in this essay. Thanks for inviting me to read it! I'm sorry I was unable to take you up on your earlier invitation to join in on the discussion that was taking place on Phil Gibbs' site. By the way, I thought you would be interested to note that a (one) Schwarzschild black hole has three horizon radii only when Lambda is positive.
I personally think positive Lambda is a fundamental dimensional constant. In this case, a very nice scale invariant equation can be recovered from equation (4) in my essay by setting 2M=r_0-(Lambda/3)r_0^3, and then replacing all dimensional parameters (i.e., r, t, r_0, etc.) by a dimensionless one, X-->X'=sqrt(Lambda/3)X.
Best wishes, Daryl
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 03:25 GMT
Dear Yuri,
Interesting essay.
We wrote essays about similar ideas. Now to find missing links between all the phenomena you mention, but is worth your opening your intuition to these strange coincidences. Yes, for this reason you raised a remarkable question, I agree with you. Now we need to find the processes that are behind as those correspond to the physical laws that guide the conduct of energy in the universe.
My work : http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1552
Best regards,
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 14:04 GMT
My private correspondence concerning my first essay:
"The wording is very poor and even after one tries to sort out what the author intends to say, the ideas appear to be extremely incoherent." Fri 11/28/2008 9:58 PM
Gerardus 't Hooft , ( Nobel prize in Physics, 1999)
"I couldn't spend a lot of time on it, but a quick look did not lead me to anything that would make me want to reconsider the panel's decision. Sorry."
Sun 11/30/2008 6:55 AM
Frank Wilzek, (Nobel prize in Physics, 2004)
report post as inappropriate
Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 07:40 GMT
Dear Yuri Benjamin Danoyan,
As per
Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe; Gravity is not only a fundamental force, but also the prime force for the emergence of all other fundamental forces of nature.
With best wishes,
Jayakar
report post as inappropriate
Jeff Baugher wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 10:14 GMT
Yuri,
You stated:"Jeff
Appendix 4 Solution of cosmological constant problem
Theory: Cosmological constant is 10^94 g/sm^3
Practice: Cosmological constant is 10^-28 g/sm^3
Planck constant h=10^-28 g x sm^2/sec in 2D space embedding in 3D space
Only right value is experimental value.
See my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413#addPost"
I couldn't find the appendix. To me the obvious answer is that they both are correct (meaning that there is a large value for the cosmological constant but we can only detect the small value since we are interpreting the EFE incorrectly). Can you point out more directly your derivation?
Regards,
Jeff
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 15:03 GMT
Jeff
Can you read my essay Part 3 more attentively?
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 15:13 GMT
Dear Yuri, thanks for the link to essay 1512. indeed some âralels but paralels do not cross (perhaps in the infinite). I liked very much your essay, especially when you quote Aharonov " Everything you are going to do is already known to GOD, but you still have the choice" This is exactly what I describe when introducing Total Simultaneity, there all probabilities are "present", and every Planck moment you can make a choice between an infinity of possibillities, that need not to become "reality" , (so no multiverse), only one becomes part of your causal life-line 5that is why our universe is fine-tuned), so you could say that Total Simultaneity is GOD. That is why a lot of posts on my thread are going in this direction.
Eternal return is Immortality is another quote that i would like to comment, in our causal universe it is not nececerry that this eternal return is needed, the universe around is is a result of the interaction between our causal consciousness and the non-causal part in TS, in TS every possibillity is eternal, you could imagine that your causal consciousness is repeating the same probability for a certain causal time even infinite, but it stays causal, so with a beginning and an end, the real immortality is in TS, where all possible life-lines are eternal.
Good luck with the contest.
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 15:40 GMT
All solutions comes from God.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 13:33 GMT
Indeed ,but our simple human interpretations are so far of the real meaning of God, this infinite light without motions. God is the troch of all things. The spherization is his her project. It is a little if I said that the infinite light is the man, and this finite physicality tending towards the eternal physicality is the woman. It is relevant considering the polarization m/hv of evolution.
The road is the pure optimization spherization. God is more than our simple human interpretations. It is above our understanding. The real secret is this universal love. We optimize, we improve, we create, we harmonize, we catalyze,we love, we accept, we continue, we live ....
Best Regards
report post as inappropriate
The Spherical Belgian Jedi replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 13:34 GMT
Christian Corda wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 13:06 GMT
Hi Yury,
Nice Essay. Concerning your vision of the Universe, i.e. Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch; you could be interested to two works of mine:
1)http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.2523, published in Gen.Rel.Grav.40, 2201-2212 (2008).
2)http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4801, published in Astropart.Phys.34, 587-590 (2011).
In the first I discussed an oscillating Universe. In the second, together my collaborator H. J. Mosquera Cuesta we improved the model by showing a way to remove singularities.
I am going to give an high score to your Essay.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 13:44 GMT
Thank you Christian....I will read your articles.
report post as inappropriate
Angel Garcés Doz wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 22:19 GMT
Dear Yuri, I read your essay with attention.
My thought of physics is based on maintaining a balance between theory and empirical facts.
On this basis, there are points of your essay in which I fully agree:
4D space is not continuous, if not discrete, quantized. But a space quantization inevitably leads to a minimum quantization time lapse. Heisenberg uncertainty principle,...
view entire post
Dear Yuri, I read your essay with attention.
My thought of physics is based on maintaining a balance between theory and empirical facts.
On this basis, there are points of your essay in which I fully agree:
4D space is not continuous, if not discrete, quantized. But a space quantization inevitably leads to a minimum quantization time lapse. Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the absence of infinite oscillators, which invalidated the approximate mathematical method, not with physical reality, the infinite sum of Feynman paths, since the lack of an infinite amount of energy, forced to invent the method of renormalization. Method that bases its predictive success, a mathematical equivalence between the quantization of spacetime-mass and the renormalization Riemann zeta function.
I disagree, with all due respect to his work: gravitation is quite possibly the most fundamental force.
But you, makes observations on a general two-dimensional holography, which I find quite agree with the actual physical facts.
I mean the dimension two, or surfaces have the property to contain any information of higher dimensions, since for a d dimensional sphere is satisfied:
There are theoretical indications (string theory) and experimental very strong, which seem to show this basic and fundamental holography in two-dimensional surfaces.
Some theoretical and experimental indicators:
-The dimensionless factor of the entropy of a black hole
Casimir force:
The graviton, must necessarily exist. Experimentally the energy loss of high speed orbital systems, pulsars, indicating a loss of energy consistent with the predictions of general relativity, and due to the emission of gravitational waves.
Moreover, the so-called, big crunch, is purely an idea, without any experimental minimal support, direct or indirect.
By contrast, the inflaction, yes, is based on a theoretical and experimental basis
More specifically: if space-time dimensions and mass are completely equivalent, then it can be shown that the so-called Hubble constant, is actually the inverse of the twice frequency of the cosmological vacuum energy.
The scaling law in this case inflaction factor, must meet two basic requirements:
1) This factor must be a direct function of the value twice of the cosmological vacuum energy, with respect to the change of scale with reference to the maximum mass scale: the Planck mass
2) This same factor will always be at least equal to the fine structure constant, alpha, for zero momentum. This last fact ensures the separation point of the matter-coupling electromagnetic radiation (microwave background of the universe), in early universe.
The Hubble constant, or frequency of "negative" energy, repulsive, the cosmological vacuum, obeys a simple second order differential equation, which in turn directly implies a twice scaling factor volume of a sphere in four dimensions, his beloved 4d sphere, dear Yuri.
This dimensionless factor has a product factor, which is the length Planckian associated due to the fine structure constant, zero momentum
In short, an equation can be worth a thousand words:
I was very pleasantly surprised, its discovery, the pattern of pseudo scalar mesons, that having zero spin, this pattern must have a clear relationship with the vacuum Higss, among other things
Always be learning new things, thankfully
In general, your essay seems interesting and worthwhile
Thank you very much, Yuri¡¡
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
S Halayka wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 17:32 GMT
Hi Yuri,
I haven't had time to fully understand your essay yet, but I do like the idea of circular time. I once read a book called Transcendent by Stephen Baxter that goes pretty deep into the consequences of circular time. Perhaps you may like it, if you haven't already read it. Of course, there is also Stephen King's The Dark Tower series, which frequently states that "Ka is like a wheel".
- Shawn
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 19:26 GMT
S Halayka replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 23:53 GMT
Well, as long as you don't make a frequent habit out of putting some random stranger in-between us by asking them for a negative opinion on my essay or my taste in fiction, then I suppose you're quite welcome.
- Shawn
report post as inappropriate
S Halayka replied on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 16:43 GMT
Hey Yuri,
You started explaining your theory on my page, but you didn't finish. It would be most helpful if you used that opportunity to help everyone see your point of view clearly by writing a guide, rather than just use it to spam everyone with random numbers.
- Shawn
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 17:00 GMT
Halayka
Could you please read again my essay with all my comments?
For best understanding also please read my last contest essay.
All the best.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Vasily Kletushkin wrote on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 18:27 GMT
Hello Yuri. English I do not know and have not read your essay. Tried to understand the annotations and comments. Your suggestions can be implemented by writing metaphysical books. Only one space. Time is of simultaneity. Measure the space required. Content can be measured. All types of energy comes from the heat and all kinds of material - from the information. Gravity does not have neither heat nor the information (structure). She comes to the origin of the heat. Complete thermodynamic formula M.Plank in MDM, he found the quantum of action, analyze not yet started. Since metaphysics can find in my essay.
Information-Energy Quantum Balance by Vasily Kletshkin
14 posts • created by Vasily Kletshkin • Aug. 30, 2012 @ 12:08 GMT
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 18:42 GMT
Василий
Н
77; верю,что без знания английск
86;го можно выступит
00; с опроверж
77;нием каких-либ
086; постулат
86;в физики.
Из
074;ините....
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 17:16 GMT
Dear Yuri,
I want add information about Planck units according to the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter (my Essay). About the meaning of the Planck length. It is close to radius of particles (praons) which relate to nucleon in the same way as nucleons relate to neutron star. It is supposed that in neutron as much praons as neutrons in the neutron star. Now about Planck mass. From the theory it follows that Planck mass is equal to product of proton mass and similarity coefficient in size between star and atomic levels of matter. So the Planck mass is not a mass of real particle, since there is should be similarity coefficient in mass, not similarity coefficient in size.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 17:42 GMT
For better clarification my approach
I sending to you Frank Wilczek’s 3 keen articles
http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Ab
s_limits388.pdf
http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/physt
oday/Abs_limits393.pdf
http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_toda
y/phystoday/Abs_limits400.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:35 GMT
Dear
Very interesting to see your essay.
Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.
So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.
Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.
Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:
You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.
Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?
The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?
Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?
You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.
Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?
Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.
Regards !
Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY
August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 02:28 GMT
Freeman Dyson interesting point of view.
The New York Review of Books Volume 51, Number 8, 2004
"The question that I am asking is whether there is any conceivable way in which we could detect the existence of individual gravitons. It is easy to detect individual photons, as Einstein showed, by observing the behavior of electrons kicked out of metal surfaces by light incident on...
view entire post
Freeman Dyson interesting point of view.
The New York Review of Books Volume 51, Number 8, 2004
"The question that I am asking is whether there is any conceivable way in which we could detect the existence of individual gravitons. It is easy to detect individual photons, as Einstein showed, by observing the behavior of electrons kicked out of metal surfaces by light incident on the metal. The difference between photons and gravitons is that gravitational interactions are enormously weaker than electromagnetic interactions. If you try to detect individual gravitons by observing electrons kicked out of a metal surface by incident gravitational waves, you find that you have to wait longer than the age of the universe before you are likely to see a graviton. I looked at various possible ways of detecting gravitons and did not find a single one that worked. Because of the extreme weakness of the gravitational interaction, any putative detector of gravitons has to be extravagantly massive. If the detector has normal density, most of it is too far from the source of gravitons to be effective, and if it is compressed to a high density around the source it collapses into a black hole. There seems to be a conspiracy of nature to prevent the detector from working.
I propose as a hypothesis to be tested that it is impossible in principle to observe the existence of individual gravitons. I do not claim that this hypothesis is true, only that I can find no evidence against it. If it is true, quantum gravity is physically meaningless. If individual gravitons cannot be observed in any conceivable experiment, then they have no physical reality and we might as well consider them non-existent. They are like the ether, the elastic solid medium which nineteenth-century physicists imagined filling space. Electric and magnetic fields were supposed to be tensions in the ether, and light was supposed to be a vibration of the ether. Einstein built his theory of relativity without the ether, and showed that the ether would be unobservable if it existed. He was happy to get rid of the ether, and I feel the same way about gravitons.
According to my hypothesis, the gravitational field described by Einstein's theory of general relativity is a purely classical field without any quantum behavior. Gravitational waves exist and can be detected, but they are classical waves and not collections of gravitons. If this hypothesis is true, we have two separate worlds, the classical world of gravitation and the quantum world of atoms, described by separate theories. The two theories are mathematically different and cannot be applied simultaneously. But no inconsistency can arise from using both theories, because any differences between their predictions are physically undetectable"
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 04:25 GMT
Why is Quantum Gravity so hard?
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/07/
14/why-is-quantum-gravity-so-hard-and-why-did-stalin-execute
-the-man-who-pioneered-the-subject/
" The reason is that, when it comes to gravity, mass is the gravitational analog of electric charge. You do not have freedom to choose mass and (gravitational) charge separately, as you do in electromagnetism." (Gennady Gorelik blog)
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 00:43 GMT
Yuri,
You wrote:
"2. If you take away all matter, there is no more space 3.The theory contains no absolute elements. I am also a supporter of opinion that gravity is not a fundamental force. It seems to me that Sakharov's view about gravitation as elasticity of space is close to truth."
Are you saying that without matter gravity doesn't exist. Would Einstein say this? Can the vacuum of space be empty? Not according to Krauss in Universe from Nothing. What do you think?
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 02:07 GMT
Gravity doesn't exist without matter.
I am not agree with Krauss.
Every cycle the Universe in the end gives product for next cycle.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 15:23 GMT
Once again, why G and c not fundamental.
Because in the same space - time they vary synchronously, but in Planck units of length and Planck unit of time they have different dependencies, and therefore none of them are true.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 15:32 GMT
Once again, why is not always suitable 4D space-time.
Because it does not solve the problem of beginning.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 15:42 GMT
Once again, why gravity is not a fundamental interaction.
Because it is emergent and graviton does not exist.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 22:47 GMT
My discussion with George Ellis
Yuri
Dear Dr Ellis,
First of all I would like reminding to you one quote from famous neurophysiologist Warren McCulloch, known for his work on the foundation for certain brain theories and his contribution to the cybernetics movement .
In the last century he wrote:
''As I see what we need first and foremost is not correct theory,...
view entire post
My discussion with George Ellis
Yuri
Dear Dr Ellis,
First of all I would like reminding to you one quote from famous neurophysiologist Warren McCulloch, known for his work on the foundation for certain brain theories and his contribution to the cybernetics movement .
In the last century he wrote:
''As I see what we need first and foremost is not correct theory, but some
theory to start from, whereby we may hope to ask a question so that we will
get an answer, if only to the effect that our notion was entirely
erroneous. Most of the time we never even get around to asking the question
in such a form that it can have an answer."(Discussion with John von Neumann
John von Neumann Collected works, Volume 5,p.319)
It was about mind - body relationship and brain function
My question is the following:
I think this is applicable to modern physics?
I put forward 3 questions:
1) 4D space-time?
2) Gravity as a fundamental force?
3) 3 fundamental dimensional constants(G, c, h)?
My attempts to get answers see my essay
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413
Ellis
1) 4D space-time? -- yes!
2) Gravity as a fundamental force? -- of course: but it's not a force like other forces, it's an expression of spacetime curvature, because of the principle of equivalence. Its the gravitational field (the Weyl tensor) that is more fundamental.
3) 3 fundamental dimensional constants(G, c, h)? -- well it's the dimensionless constants that really count. The "Living Review" by J-P Uzan is great on the topic: see here
Ellis
I have read your essay and still do not understand the set of numbers you give above. It is completely unclear what they refer to. Nevertheless I have two comments:
1. Your theory seems mainly numerological. I can't see what the underlying theory is that is supposed to lead to those numbers. Is it based in M theory, or general relativity, or loop quantum gravity, or what?
2.Your proposal is I think a form of cyclic universe. But no one has yet provided an unproblematic mechanism for a bounce between cycles, despite many attempts to do so.I did not see any mechanism presented in your essay that will resolve this problem (which is one I once spent many years thinking about).
Ellis
You don't provide a coherent theory, just a set of numerological statements. Additionally those are dimensional statements, and so entirely based in the choice of units. You can get any other result by changing the units, so they have no physical meaning.
Yuri
All scientific community used as basic Planck units.
My approach close to John Moffat proposal a variable speed of light approach to cosmological problems, which posits that G/c is constant through time, but G and c separately have not been. Moreover, the speed of light c may have been much higher during early moments of the Big Bang.
Ellis
John Moffat is a serious scholar, but he got the varying speed of light effect wrong. What he proposed was not a physical effect, it was just a change of coordinates. It can be eliminated by a change to more suitable coordinates.
Yuri
In my approach in duration cosmological time
Appendix 2 Cosmological values of mass
Mp =10^-24; 10^-24; 10^-24
Me =10^-28; 10^-28; 10^-28
Mpl=10^-4; 10^-4; 10^-4
Mhbl=10^16; 10^16; 10^16
See Scale invariance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance
Scaling law has not been canceled.
Ellis
Moffat's later bimetric theory was OK, it was his first varying speed of light theory that was wrong. I did not see in your essay that you are proposing a bimetric theory.
There has been a huge amount of work on the possibility of varying constants since Gamov. Please see for example J P Uzan et al here and links therein: there are many constraints on such theories. You'll need to tie in to this literature in order to be taken seriously nowadays.
That is my final comment on your essay on this thread.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 10:14 GMT
Dear Dr Wharton
First quote from your essay: "The LSU blends time and space together just
like GR, while the NSU has to grapple with a dynamic evolution that seems to single out time as\special".
In my essay I write about this issue ,but contrary.
See my letter to Dr Stephen Weinberg.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413
Hi Yuri,
I think I disagree with Weinberg's response to your interesting question -- I don't think that you can discretize space while not discretizing time, at least not in any GR-friendly way.
That said, I'm not a particular fan of discretization at all -- at least not the conventional justifications for it. (That was the last essay contest, which I linked to above.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 10:18 GMT
My essay devoted at first to splitting space from time.
GR-is not completed theory,as SR.Why i must be friendly to her?
Wharton
You certainly don't have to be friendly to GR or SR -- many quantum theorists take the same view.
For me, I guess I just have too much respect for Einstein's hard-won insights, and too little respect for our human intuitions about time.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 10:26 GMT
Julian
Are you agree with my abstract?
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413
Julian Barbour
I can agree with some of Yuri's abstract, mainly because it only invites us to reconsider
report post as inappropriate
Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 10:32 GMT
Yuri,
Thanks for the feedback. I just read your essay, which I found interesting in several regards. I note that you mention the idea that space can be described in terms of angles. Julian Barbour suggests something similar with his "shape dynamics," but doesn't suggest quantization.
You point out that the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions are of similar strengths and that gravity is much weaker. This is true, of course, but it's also interesting to think about the size scales on which these interactions dominate. The strong and weak interactions have very short range, while electromagnetism dominates up to about the everyday scale, where gravity takes over.
You also point out some interesting numerical relationships. There is much speculation about the dimensionality of space and the number of particle generations, but the 18-degree thing is something I have not heard of before. Take care,
report post as inappropriate
Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 10:38 GMT
Yuri,
Let me make sure I understand. So you think that the ratio c/G is constant, but neither G nor c are independently constant? Do you mean constant in "space" or constant in "time?" Take care,
Ben
Yuri answer
Variation constants in time.Within a single cycle.
report post as inappropriate
Tanmay Vachaspati wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 10:44 GMT
Dear Yuri,
It is really interesting that you predict black holes of mass 10^{16} gms. These are the ones that are evaporating just about now and producing a gamma ray background. Do you know the recent constraints on black hole masses? I believe the constraint might be right around 10^{16} gms but it would depend on their number density as well.
Best,
Tanmay
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 10:45 GMT
Tammay
As you see mass of nuclon 10^40 lesser than black hole mass
it is close to
Dirac large numbers hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_large_numbers_h
ypothesis
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 10:53 GMT
Concerning the abstract of your Essay, in my opinion gravitation as a Integral effect of the Universe is not in contrast with gravity as a fundamental force. In that case, if you split 3D discrete space from 1D continues time can you construct a metric theory of gravity which is needed to taken into account experimental measures which guarantee that Equivalence Principle is valid at a level 10 to minus 13?
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 10:56 GMT
It turns out we are allies in this matter
Sean Gryb
It seems we are, though our motivations are different.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:05 GMT
Whether the Future Already Exists....
I think generation #2,generation #3 are the effect of Influence from Future, just hints from the Future.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9607375
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan Kerr wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:06 GMT
Hello Yuri,
thanks. These papers suggest that there may be influences on the present from the future, but how can one suggest something like that without first putting forward a conceptual picture of time? Time does certain things, we know exactly what it does, but not why. To me something physical is clearly going on, and I think a reliable conceptual picture is needed before anything else - and it must be one that fits the clues well.
Our present interpretation of what we know about time has major problems (see my conversation from today and yesterday with George Ellis on his essay page, who thinks the same, and has argued very strongly that standard block time is wrong). But the spacetime interpretation tends to deflect people from investigating these questions, because what we observe then looks like something unassailable to do with the dimensions, and wrapped up in the nature of the time dimension somehow.
But without a reliable conceptual picture of what the equations are describing, why try to guess what time might or might not do? People who look only at the mathematics might do that, some tend to work as if they have the whole picture in front of them already.
Anyway, that's my take on it. In the second paper you refer to, they suggest drawing a card and using it to decide how to operate the LHC, and they say this might make it shut down totally. I'm not objecting to this on the grounds that it's a form of gambling, but the LHC was very expensive, and if they think that will happen, they shouldn't risk damaging it. There has to be a cheaper version of this experiment.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:13 GMT
Giacomo
Are you agree with my abstract?
report post as inappropriate
Giacomo Mauro D\'Ariano wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:14 GMT
Dear Yuri
I do agree on some of your points, but not ll f thm. In particular, I think that timeis discrete. You can always interpolate with a continuum time, but at the price of losing the locality of interactions, a too big price to pay. As for the fondants constants, these are just the three universal constants of Dirac automata, namely: the Planck time, length, and mass. The Panck constant is derived from them, as you can read in my essay.
Thank you
Mauro
report post as inappropriate
Amanda Gefter wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:19 GMT
Hi Yuri,
I enjoyed reading your essay. I must admit I did not fully understand it, but you seem to be drawing some interesting connections.
All best,
Amanda
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:25 GMT
Dear Olaf
Are you agree with my abstract?
report post as inappropriate
Olaf Dreyer wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:26 GMT
Dear Yuri:
Thanks for the interest in my article. In your article you mention these four assumptions that need changing:
1. 4D spacetime.
2. Gravity as a fundamental force.
3. 3 fundamental dimensional constants(G,c,h).
At this level of discussion I would agree with all of them. In my view the 4D spacetime is only an emergent object and not fundamental, gravity is emergent, and because of that the gravitational constant G can not be of fundamental importance. In fact I provide a formula for G in my essay. The devil is of course in the details.
I particular like the last sentence of your essay:
"I would really wish to those who are working in the field of fundamental physics problem to not remain unemployed."
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:31 GMT
Donatello
My essay part 1 devoted to cyclic universe.
What is your attitude to cyclic direction in cosmology?
report post as inappropriate
Donatello Dolce wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:33 GMT
Yuri,
every system can be described in terms of elementary space-time cycles describing elementary particles. A universe composed by single particle would be cyclic as a pendulum in the vacuum. An universe composed by more non-intearctiong particles, i.e. elementary space-time cycles, has an ergodic evolution. If interaction is also considered, with the corresponding modulations of space-time periodicities, the evolution is chaotic. See for instance subsection "comment and outlook" at the end of sec.1, arXiv:1110.0316.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:35 GMT
Donatello,
If I understood you correctly, you are not ready for a radical break space from time?
report post as inappropriate
Donatello Dolce wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:36 GMT
Yuri,
In relativity space and time mix each other. QM is telling us that space-time is intrinsically cyclic in elementary systems, the periodicity is described by undulatory mechanics (think to wave-particle duality). When this is used to describes the non-relativistic limit it is possible to see the radically difference nature of time w.r.t. spatial coordinates. This limit is obtained by putting the mass to infinity (rest energy) and the momentum to zero. In undulatory mechanics, through the Planck constant, this correspods to put the time periodicity to zero and the spatial periodicity to infinity. in classical mechanics, time is extremelly compactified whereas the spatial dimensions have infinite compactifications. Thus we have an effective 3D description in which the flow of time is an emerging (relational description) phenomenon associated to the tiny periodicities of these elementary cycles (i.e. the elementary particles).
regards,
Donatello
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:46 GMT
Hi Yuri,
Thanks for taking the time to direct me to your essay.
I did visit your essay and copied the following:
"For practical use Planck’s length, time and energy are obviously irrelevant. But I am sure that Planck’s mass eternal relevant."
I agree that the Planck mass is extremely interesting (that is what my essay is about). But do not throw out the Planck length too soon. If I may point out, the Planck mass when compressed to have a wavelength of a Planck length is a black hole. And this may fit in with points in your essay.
report post as inappropriate
Reeve Armstrong wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:52 GMT
Hello Yuri :)
I was hoping someone would send me an email but I didn't expect anyone to notice that I had put my email address as a footnote, so thank you.
I read your essay and I am in agreement with you on a lot of the ideas. For example, I also think that the universe must recur and I think that the supposed "time asymmetrical" arrow of time is not the true description of reality....
view entire post
Hello Yuri :)
I was hoping someone would send me an email but I didn't expect anyone to notice that I had put my email address as a footnote, so thank you.
I read your essay and I am in agreement with you on a lot of the ideas. For example, I also think that the universe must recur and I think that the supposed "time asymmetrical" arrow of time is not the true description of reality. (After all, why would it be? Everything else in physics is symmetrical!) I was very interested by the quotation, you mentioned, from Dirac: "It seems very likely that sometime in the future there will be an improved quantum mechanics, which will include a return to the causation and which justify the view of Einstein." I agree with Dirac on this one, and I think (although I suspect you will already be aware of it) you would find Sir Roger Penrose's interpretation of quantum mechanics interesting: It is an objective one (does not rely on 'measurement' or 'observers') and uses gravitational effects to explain wavefunction collapse. I recommend that you read Penrose's book Shadows of the Mind in which he explains his interpretation. (You may also want to look into Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber theory of quantum mechanics, which is related to Penrose's).
In addition, I thank you for mentioning Gottfried and Weisskopf in your essay. I did not know about their suggestions about gravity. So I look forward to investigating their work. (I wonder if it could be made to work with Penrose's interpretation of quantum mechanics?)
Overall I really like your ideas and I think that they are on the right track; keep on developing your ideas!
If I may be allowed to humbly suggest advice for improvements then I would say: First, and most importantly, get all of your ideas down into writing! (I keep a rough notebook which I write down all of my ideas in - in a very, very, messy 'shorthand' form) Once you have done that then the second thing to do is to work out the maths behind your ideas in a clear, easy to understand way. After that, and this is the most difficult part, take a lot of time to make sure that when you finally come to expressing this in essays/articles/academic papers, it is written in the most 'professional' way you can (good grammar, punctuation, spelling e.t.c) and make sure you get your references organised very well. (This is something I am not very good at - and keep practising. I had to write out five drafts of my essay before I submitted it! - I even typed out a draft of this email!) Otherwise, sadly, your ideas could get 'lost in translation' and unfortunately some people will dismiss them without even attempting to understand your ideas. (This happens to me a lot when I try to explain my own ideas to other people).
Regards,
Reeve Armstrong
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Edward Anderson wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 15:05 GMT
Dear Yuri,
"law 3:1" isn't necessarily the use of "law" that is contained in "physical law", since those tend to be based on vast numbers of experimental observations, whilst usually only covering logically-connected facts, which are usually explained by one simple but broadly-reaching physical principle. Viz "Newton's second law", "Stefan's Law" as useages, and reflect what set of...
view entire post
Dear Yuri,
"law 3:1" isn't necessarily the use of "law" that is contained in "physical law", since those tend to be based on vast numbers of experimental observations, whilst usually only covering logically-connected facts, which are usually explained by one simple but broadly-reaching physical principle. Viz "Newton's second law", "Stefan's Law" as useages, and reflect what set of observations each of these laws covers/explains/sets up a framework to quantitatively address. Of course, what is held to be logically connected varies from aeon to aeon. I'm not here to discuss history, but I seem to recall Snell had no idea why Snell's law held. Thus it may have had "experimental law" status before it was firmed up as a straightforward result from the assumptions of geometrical optics. Still, it concerned *just one kind of optical behaviour* (for many materials), which made it plausible for it to have an explanatory mechanism. This is a whole lot less plausible for the set of things you note to come in 3 to 1 ratios, because each of these ratios concerns very different physical entities. Optics of glass, optics of water, optics of air have a homogeneity about them that space, time, particles and energy do not. As you say, the 3:1's you mention concern "container", "spin content", "energy-matter". Very nice if there is a common explanation for them all, but counting out 3 to 1 ratios is not an explanation per se, but rather an observational fact that *needs* explanation if it is to be considered more than just a coincidence. I then don't see enough of this kind of *explanation for* 3:1 here.
Each proposal in your abstract is individually reasonable to think about.
These are all good things to ask oneself questions about.
I know and like your quote of Dirac.
My main question is precisely where the 10^16 comes from. If you can answer that to my satisfaction, I'd also like to know what principle causes of you to adopt the geometrical mean.
Some loose notes on things that would help the presentation:
* it is best to list references at the end in a bibliography rather than inserting them in the text.
* that the binary system form uses only one symbol is not relevant. After all, the binary system has a lot less symbols. 111:1 and 111:11 in binary also only use one symbol and aren't your ratio; thus using only 1 symbol in binary very much lacks in anykind of predictive power (as opposed to description of *what fits* the 3:1 ratios that you rightly observe are common in physics). Question: how many 1:1, 2:1, 4:1 ... ratios can you think of? Is the number of 3:1's *statistically* significantly higher?
(also would need better sampling technique than "what you can think of" or "what constitutes a majorly important part of physics").
* Use latex, it's well worth the initial bother of installing and learning how to use.
* Is probabilistic really "the other side" of deterministic? (can you think of any other "opposites" in some sense or other of each of these?)
* numerology is essentially not an established means of mathematizing physics. A lot of readers will be put off by your comments about 1836. your
1836 -> 9 argument is a basis dependent argument that is then plugged into a particular basis (so not even consistent within its own framework). Try writing 1836 in base 7, 8 and 9 and repeating the argument. If people had 8 fingers rather than 10, would you have come up with the same argument for beauty, and, if not, is it really beautiful? Compare "1729 is the first number to be expressible in 2 different ways as sums of 2 cubes". That is
*not* a basis-dependent statement. It is *harder* to come up with reasons why a number is interesting for basis-independent reasons like that. The argument you give is true for 8136, 8163, 1863, 2745... Thus one can't use ' "mirror symmetry in binary" predicts "9 is interesting" predicts "1836 is a significant number that ought to be realized somewhere important in nature" ' as a chain of reasoning that predicts anything rather than just describing something you already knew an answer for. As well as high nonuniqueness in the second leg of that, mirror symmetry in binary digits doesn't discern between 11, 101, 100001, 111... Finally, proton to electron mass ratio is *not an integer* (look it up), so predicting it as an integer from manipulations only defined from integers is unlikely to reveal a deep truth about nature. We know that ratio to *how many decimal places* nowadays?
* What you take from Gottfried et all is an idea, not a certainty. For that paragraph, see also Carlip's most recent Review on ArXiv, you may well like it if you haven't seen it already. Finally, Misner Thorne and Wheeler (the respected if ancient GR textbook) lists Sakharov's approach as one of "six routes to (general) relativity".
* arXiv:1208.3096 's idea of Mach's Principle does not play any significant role in my work or Julian Barbour's or any of our current/former collaborators'. As in technical work that is going somewhere, rather than work explaining what is and isn't Machian or work on the history of Machian considerations.
* Gravitons may be largely irrelevant to quantum gravity, as they presume small excitations about a fixed highly symmetric background, which is false wherever GR/Quantum gravity is really interesting ie high curvature regimes, chief of which are some parts of black holes and the very early universe. Of course, there's some regimes in which gravitons are plausible and are studied. But I don't agree with the idea that quantum gravity = gravitons as conceived of within a fixed background worldview of physics.
That means your "because" has holes in it - ie gravity may be fundamental but still there's little role for gravitons in the most interesting applications of quantum gravity.
* Numerical supersymmetry is of little use in your given context. No particle physicist would claim that the *observed* fermions are superpartners of the *observed* bosons. To be a superpartner of something requires to have many things in common with it or paired in a particular manner. Look at what charges, masses and behaviours under strong and weak interactions the unobserved superpartners of each of the observed particles has. Quite clearly one cannot replace the squark, say, by any of the observed leptons and still call the theory supersymmetric. The evidence for supersymmetry is not that great at present precisely because we've observed *no two* particle types that are superpartners of each other. It is always "this particle supposedly has a superpartner *that has not yet been observed*", and that means a whole lot of consistency checks can't be done, since they could only be done if both members of such pairs of particle species were observed
Edward
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 15:36 GMT
Dear Edward
First of all thanks for such an abundant review...
-----Original Message-----
From: E. Anderson [mailto:ea212@hermes.cam.ac.uk] On Behalf Of E. Anderson
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 7:19 AM
To: Yuri Danoyan
Subject: RE:
Dear Yuri,
"law 3:1" isn't necessarily the use of "law" that is contained in "physical law", since those...
view entire post
Dear Edward
First of all thanks for such an abundant review...
-----Original Message-----
From: E. Anderson [mailto:ea212@hermes.cam.ac.uk] On Behalf Of E. Anderson
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 7:19 AM
To: Yuri Danoyan
Subject: RE:
Dear Yuri,
"law 3:1" isn't necessarily the use of "law" that is contained in "physical law", since those tend to be based on vast numbers of experimental observations, whilst usually only covering logically-connected facts, which are usually explained by one simple but broadly-reaching physical principle.
Viz "Newton's second law", "Stefan's Law" as useages, and reflect what set of observations each of these laws covers/explains/sets up a framework to quantitatively address. Of course, what is held to be logically connected varies from aeon to aeon. I'm not here to discuss history, but I seem to recall Snell had no idea why Snell's law held. Thus it may have had "experimental law" status before it was firmed up as a straightforward result from the assumptions of geometrical optics. Still, it concerned *just one kind of optical behaviour* (for many materials), which made it plausible for it to have an explanatory mechanism. This is a whole lot less plausible for the set of things you note to come in 3 to 1 ratios, because each of these ratios concerns very different physical entities. Optics of glass, optics of water, optics of air have a homogeneity about them that space, time, particles and energy do not. As you say, the 3:1's you mention concern "container", "spin content", "energy-matter". Very nice if there is a common explanation for them all, but counting out 3 to 1 ratios is not an explanation per se, but rather an observational fact that *needs* explanation if it is to be considered more than just a coincidence. I then don't see enough of this kind of *explanation for* 3:1 here.
Each proposal in your abstract is individually reasonable to think about.
These are all good things to ask oneself questions about.
Yuri: ratio 3:1 kind of everything theory.By minimal means to write the maximal facts.
I know and like your quote of Dirac.
My main question is precisely where the 10^16 comes from. If you can answer that to my satisfaction, I'd also like to know what principle causes of you to adopt the geometrical mean.
Yuri: I intuitvly feelling that contr-partner of nuclon must be the same diametr but his quantity by 10^40 lesser than mass of nuclon.I get 10^16g;
My intuition told me Mpl,Lpl,Tpl looking agly together. Mpl not perfect
match with Lpl an Tpl
I didn't see beautiful proportion in this case.
Some loose notes on things that would help the presentation:
* it is best to list references at the end in a bibliography rather than inserting them in the text.
Yuri: I am agree that is not corresponding scientific rules of text
* that the binary system form uses only one symbol is not relevant. After all, the binary system has a lot less symbols. 111:1 and 111:11 in binary also only use one symbol and aren't your ratio; thus using only 1 symbol in binary very much lacks in anykind of predictive power (as opposed to description of *what fits* the 3:1 ratios that you rightly observe are common in physics). Question: how many 1:1, 2:1, 4:1 ... ratios can you think of? Is the number of 3:1's *statistically* significantly higher?
Yuri:yes it following long years observation texts of modern physics.
Also by minimal means maximal facts.
(also would need better sampling technique than "what you can think of" or "what constitutes a majorly important part of physics").
Yuri: I answered above
* Use latex, it's well worth the initial bother of installing and learning how to use.
Yuri: I agree
* Is probabilistic really "the other side" of deterministic? (can you think of any other "opposites" in some sense or other of each of these?)
Yuri:To my mind G'Hooft superdeterministic view reflects of reality
* numerology is essentially not an established means of mathematizing physics. A lot of readers will be put off by your comments about 1836. your
1836 -> 9 argument is a basis dependent argument that is then plugged into a particular basis (so not even consistent within its own framework). Try writing 1836 in base 7, 8 and 9 and repeating the argument. If people had 8 fingers rather than 10, would you have come up with the same argument for beauty, and, if not, is it really beautiful?
Yuri:don't forgot binary systems is minimal symbol used system, it from bit
Compare "1729 is the first number to be expressible in 2 different ways as sums of 2 cubes". That is
*not* a basis-dependent statement. It is *harder* to come up with reasons why a number is interesting for basis-independent reasons like that. The argument you give is true for 8136, 8163, 1863, 2745... Thus one can't use '
"mirror symmetry in binary" predicts "9 is interesting" predicts "1836 is a significant number that ought to be realized somewhere important in nature"
' as a chain of reasoning that predicts anything rather than just describing something you already knew an answer for. As well as high nonuniqueness in the second leg of that, mirror symmetry in binary digits doesn't discern between 11, 101, 100001, 111... Finally, proton to electron mass ratio is *not an integer* (look it up), so predicting it as an integer from manipulations only defined from integers is unlikely to reveal a deep truth about nature. We know that ratio to *how many decimal places* nowadays?
Yuri:the Universe working in dynamic regime. Proton and electron mass changing, but scaling law the same.
* What you take from Gottfried et all is an idea, not a certainty. For that paragraph, see also Carlip's most recent Review on ArXiv, you may well like it if you haven't seen it already. Finally, Misner Thorne and Wheeler (the respected if ancient GR textbook) lists Sakharov's approach as one of "six routes to (general) relativity".
Yuri:
1.I familiar with Carlip works and have correspondence with him,but he not understand my idea in 2D space no gravitation,no G newton and as consequence not valid Planck lenth.
2.Sakharov idea is not popular now, only Matt Wisser his supporter as I now.
* arXiv:1208.3096 's idea of Mach's Principle does not play any significant role in my work or Julian Barbour's or any of our current/former collaborators'. As in technical work that is going somewhere, rather than work explaining what is and isn't Machian or work on the history of Machian considerations.
Yuri:it was just for example..
* Gravitons may be largely irrelevant to quantum gravity, as they presume small excitations about a fixed highly symmetric background, which is false wherever GR/Quantum gravity is really interesting ie high curvature regimes, chief of which are some parts of black holes and the very early universe. Of course, there's some regimes in which gravitons are plausible and are studied. But I don't agree with the idea that quantum gravity = gravitons as conceived of within a fixed background worldview of physics.
That means your "because" has holes in it - ie gravity may be fundamental but still there's little role for gravitons in the most interesting applications of quantum gravity.
Yuri:Gravity is different kind of force my be emergentic?
* Numerical supersymmetry is of little use in your given context. No particle physicist would claim that the *observed* fermions are superpartners of the *observed* bosons. To be a superpartner of something requires to have many things in common with it or paired in a particular manner. Look at what charges, masses and behaviours under strong and weak interactions the unobserved superpartners of each of the observed particles has. Quite clearly one cannot replace the squark, say, by any of the observed leptons and still call the theory supersymmetric. The evidence for supersymmetry is not that great at present precisely because we've observed *no two* particle types that are superpartners of each other. It is always "this particle supposedly has a superpartner *that has not yet been observed*", and that means a whole lot of consistency checks can't be done, since they could only be done if both members of such pairs of particle species were observed
Yuri: supersymmetry is fiction. Only metasymmetry is real and 3:1 law is real
With generations 12:4=3:1
Without generations just 3:1
Thank you very much Edward!
Yuri
Edward,
drew your attention to all my articles in vixra
Authors: Yuri Danoyan
Category: High Energy Particle Physics
[4] viXra:0907.0022 submitted on 19 Jul 2009 What Wolfgang Pauli Did Mean?
Authors: Yuri Danoyan
Category: High Energy Particle Physics
[3] viXra:0907.0014 submitted on 17 Jul 2009 Maximum Number 12 on the Spectrum of Mass of Elementary Particles
Authors: Yuri Danoyan
Category: High Energy Particle Physics
[2] viXra:0907.0012 replaced on 18 Jul 2009 Phenomenon of 18 Degrees for Pseudoscalar Mesons
Authors: Yuri Danoyan
Category: High Energy Particle Physics
[1] viXra:0907.0008 replaced on 1 Jul 2010 Is Ratio 3:1 a Comprehensive Principle of the Universe?
Authors: Yuri Danoyan
Category: High Energy Particle Physics
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Edward Anderson wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 03:10 GMT
Going in a bit deeper, there's an observationally obvious but hard to explain difference between mass and charge: charge has *two signs*. How does that fit in with your ideas? And any ideas about cosmological variation of c and G? (Like any original reason why there should be any, preferably with some law *deduced*, not described, as to what form that variation would take).
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 03:13 GMT
Throughout the history of the Universe mass values will vary, but the ratio will remain the same.
Big crunch epoch approximately Mpr=10^-23g; Mel=10^-27g
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 03:27 GMT
Charge in Big Crunch will increase about 10-12 times
Confirmation this value came from
G.Gamow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 759 (1967). e^2 ~ t.
See also my submission http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0014
Maximum Number 12 on the Spectrum of Mass of Elementary Particles
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 10:32 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.
Cood luck.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 06:08 GMT
Hi Yuri,
I have to say that your essay was one of the most fun to read - a veritable smorgasbord of energetic, sparkling ideas. I'll want to look at material you referenced. That certain numbers and ratios appear almost ubiquitously surely hints at things we don't know but ought to. The fine structure constant is another of those mysterious numbers which no doubt has a profound meaning in conjunction with quantum mechanics.
Thanks for your contribution,
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 11:48 GMT
Steve
don't forget please impartially evaluate my essay
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:30 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 08:22 GMT
Dear Yuri!
1. You asked me - why 12 - dimensional Space-Time? I answered you in your topic: 3 - linear + 3-wave + 3-vortex (Greek-dine). Therefore synthetic extended Space - is 3M (mea), but not 3D (dim).
2. Time - is the memory of material structure at a certain level of its whole being. That is his nature. Time is a burden. Time is the price of the Becoming.
3. I agree with you that the true model of the Universe is a model of Eternal Universe. Modeling of Universe must begin with one of the ancient Axiom (Superaxiom): "In the Beginning Was the Logos ...". This is the meeting point of Knowledge and Faith, Science and Religion.
4. You have the right question, the right way, but I have not found an essay ontological justification of your hypotheses.Today the fundamental physics and mathematics - not ontologically grounded science.
Sincerely, Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Jin He wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 15:42 GMT
FRS G F R Ellis just said that many posts on 2012 FQXI contest are trash.
Stephen Hawking went to China to cheat money and fame. FRS George F R Ellis came to FQXI to cheat money and fame. They thought they could save Physics. Amazing!!
But they and their assouciates can control physics on Earth indeed.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 03:21 GMT
To my opinion charge and mass two sides the same coin.
So the of Newton’s law and Coulomb's law have the same form.
So c and G vary so synchronously in cosmological evolution time.
So ratio e/m constant for proton and electron
So quantum gravitation problem is pseudoproblem.
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 03:28 GMT
Just in case:
Max Planck Scheinprobleme der Wissenschaft
http://www.quantum-cognition.de/texts/Planck_SCH
EINPROBLEM.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.