show all replies (9 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

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

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

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

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

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

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

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