If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Previous Contests

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Previous Contests

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Jonathan Dickau**: *on* 1/30/18 at 5:52am UTC, wrote Thanks Tony, For your kind words shared offline. I'm sorry I could not be...

**Jonathan Dickau**: *on* 1/29/18 at 22:49pm UTC, wrote Hi Tony, I found this paper interesting, but excessively dense with ideas,...

**Jonathan Dickau**: *on* 1/29/18 at 16:18pm UTC, wrote Specifically... Gary's essay talks about 4-d embedding in a 5-d bulk, as a...

**Joe Fisher**: *on* 1/27/18 at 21:39pm UTC, wrote Dear Frank Dodd Smith and Georgina, Reliable evidence exists that proves...

**Gary Simpson**: *on* 1/23/18 at 10:45am UTC, wrote Tony, Jonathan Dickau suggested in my forum that there is a connection...

**Satyavarapu Gupta**: *on* 1/22/18 at 12:28pm UTC, wrote Hi Frank Dodd Smith Why NOTHING is Fundamental ? Dear Frank Dodd...

**austin fearnley**: *on* 1/11/18 at 17:12pm UTC, wrote I agree with you on the likely existence of other Higgs masses, though not...

**Lawrence Crowell**: *on* 1/2/18 at 22:33pm UTC, wrote I am going to address these responses in parts. I think at the start it...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Georgina Woodward**: ""The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the..."
*in* Why Time Might Not Be an...

**Jim Snowdon**: "On the permanently dark side of the Earth, the stars would appear to stay..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Georgina Woodward**: "Hi Jorma, some thoughts; You mention mutual EM connection. I think you..."
*in* Why Time Might Not Be an...

**Joe Fisher**: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..."
*in* Can Time Be Saved From...

**Joe Fisher**: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..."
*in* Can Time Be Saved From...

**akash hasan**: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..."
*in* Announcing Physics of the...

**Michael Jordan**: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..."
*in* Review of "Foundations of...

**Anonymous**: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..."
*in* Constructing a Theory of...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Can Time Be Saved From Physics?**

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

**Thermo-Demonics**

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

**Gravity's Residue**

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

**Could Mind Forge the Universe?**

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

**Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes**

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

FQXi FORUM

May 26, 2019

CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]

TOPIC: What is Fundamental ? NOTHING by Frank Dodd Smith [refresh]

TOPIC: What is Fundamental ? NOTHING by Frank Dodd Smith [refresh]

Fundamental = Starting Point of a Process Describing Realistic Physics including Lagrangian and Algebraic Quantum Field Theory (AQFT). This paper explores the Process through detailed worked examples. The Starting Point of Our Universe was a Fundamental Spinor Void Void = NOTHING so NOTHING is Fundamental

Frank Dodd Smith (a/k/a Tony Smith and Frank Dodd Tony Smith Jr was born in Cartersville GA on 13 March 1941, graduated from Cartersville High School, received A.B. summa cum laude in Mathematics in ł963 from Princeton, received J.D. in 1966 from Emory, active duty with U.S. Air Force 1968-69, is an active member of the Georgia Bar, attended Physics Graduate School at Georgia Tech with advisor David Finkelstein but received no degree, has web sites at http://valdostamuseum.com/hamsmith/ and http://www.tony5m17h.net , and since 2009 has posted papers at http://vixra.org/author/frank_dodd_tony_smith_jr

This paper seems to be proposing that math created everything in the universe and fermions "popped" out of the Fundamental Spinor Void Void; however fermions have properties. Does this fundamental "popping" process provide the mathemtatics required to derive how the fermions come to possess their physical properties? (energy fields, spin, mass, etc...)

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Scott, you ask "... Does this fundamental "popping" process provide the mathematics required

to derive how the fermions come to possess their physical properties? ...".

Yes. At the Cl(16) stage of Clifford Iteration E8 emerges.

The structure of E8 is a recipe for a Lagrangian

that prescribes properties of the fermions, spacetime, gauge bosons, and ghosts.

Details are in my papers listed as references.

Tony

to derive how the fermions come to possess their physical properties? ...".

Yes. At the Cl(16) stage of Clifford Iteration E8 emerges.

The structure of E8 is a recipe for a Lagrangian

that prescribes properties of the fermions, spacetime, gauge bosons, and ghosts.

Details are in my papers listed as references.

Tony

You paper is rather standard in leaving me scratching my head a lot. The graph of the E8 roots seem suggestive of a representation of gravitations as triplet entangled states of gluons. The SU(2,2) at the center is conformal gravitation and gluons might be thought of as composed from quark anti-quark annihilations. The four wings of quarks then should in some ways map to conformal gravitation.

With respect to higher sporadic groups or the FG monster group, it seems to me that Jordan J3(O) is an automorphism of the FG and this is a route to this sort of extreme physics.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

With respect to higher sporadic groups or the FG monster group, it seems to me that Jordan J3(O) is an automorphism of the FG and this is a route to this sort of extreme physics.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

LC, thanks for looking at my paper.

The graph of E8 roots is based on the group structure of E8.

The “four wings of quarks” and leptons are the fermionic part of E8

that is

4 x 8 components x ( 1 lepton + 3 RGB quarks ) = 4 x 32 = 128

= 128 elements of the symmetric space 248-dim E8 / 120-dim D8

120-dim D8 has 64 + 28 + 28 dimensions and 64 + 24 + 24 root vectors

Each of the 24 root vectors are root vectors of a 28-dim D4.

One of the D4 contains a 15-dim subgroup SU(2,2) = Spin(2,4) of Conformal Gravity

The other D4 contains an 8-dim subgroup SU(3) for gluons of the Color Force

Therefore there is a map between the two D4 that as you suggest

connect Conformal Gravity with Color Force gluons.

The 64 of 128-dim D8 / 28-dim D4 x 18-dim D4 is related

to 8-dim spacetime position x momentum

The remainder of the D4 with SU(2,2) is related to Standard Model ghosts

The remainder of the D4 with SU(3) is related to Conformal Gravity ghosts

2nd and 3rd generation fermions and HIggs and Electroweak SU(2)xU(1)

emerge from 8-dim Octonionic spacetime of the Inflation Era

transition to Quaternionic M4 x CP2 Kaluza-Klein spacetime of our Era.

Details are in my papers on viXra.

Tony

The graph of E8 roots is based on the group structure of E8.

The “four wings of quarks” and leptons are the fermionic part of E8

that is

4 x 8 components x ( 1 lepton + 3 RGB quarks ) = 4 x 32 = 128

= 128 elements of the symmetric space 248-dim E8 / 120-dim D8

120-dim D8 has 64 + 28 + 28 dimensions and 64 + 24 + 24 root vectors

Each of the 24 root vectors are root vectors of a 28-dim D4.

One of the D4 contains a 15-dim subgroup SU(2,2) = Spin(2,4) of Conformal Gravity

The other D4 contains an 8-dim subgroup SU(3) for gluons of the Color Force

Therefore there is a map between the two D4 that as you suggest

connect Conformal Gravity with Color Force gluons.

The 64 of 128-dim D8 / 28-dim D4 x 18-dim D4 is related

to 8-dim spacetime position x momentum

The remainder of the D4 with SU(2,2) is related to Standard Model ghosts

The remainder of the D4 with SU(3) is related to Conformal Gravity ghosts

2nd and 3rd generation fermions and HIggs and Electroweak SU(2)xU(1)

emerge from 8-dim Octonionic spacetime of the Inflation Era

transition to Quaternionic M4 x CP2 Kaluza-Klein spacetime of our Era.

Details are in my papers on viXra.

Tony

I am going to address these responses in parts. I think at the start it appears you are arguing for the E8 as a sort of family structure. That it has conformal gravity SU(2,2) at the center makes some sense where the source of the gravity field is mass-energy that is ultimately equivalent to gravity. The four wings are roots for quarks and leptons and define the fermionic family structure. This is then presumably formally equivalent to a general gauge theoretic E8 or SO(32) ~ E8×E8. This then meshes with something I have hypothesied, which is that J^3(O) ~ E8^3, pertains to the heterotic gauge theory E8×E8 plus the family structure as given by the fermionic sector.

I'll just leave it at this question or comment to keep this from suffering with creep-scope.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

I'll just leave it at this question or comment to keep this from suffering with creep-scope.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Typo correction

In my immediately previous post the line

The 64 of 128-dim D8 / 28-dim D4 x 18-dim D4 is related

should be

The 64 of 128-dim D8 / 28-dim D4 x 28-dim D4 is related

In my immediately previous post the line

The 64 of 128-dim D8 / 28-dim D4 x 18-dim D4 is related

should be

The 64 of 128-dim D8 / 28-dim D4 x 28-dim D4 is related

LC, here is yet another typo and also material about J(3,O) and the Monster.

The typo is in the line

The 64 of 128-dim D8 / 28-dim D4 x 18-dim D4 is related

which should be

The 64 of 120-dim D8 / 28-dim D4 x 28-dim D4 is related

The Monster is the symmetry group of each Planck-scale cell

of the local Leech Lattice structure of 26-dim String Theory

with Strings having the physical interpretation of particle World-Lines.

As Marni D.Sheppeard said in viXra 1712.0076 v3

(following the works of Geoffrey Dixon and R. A. Wilson):

"... the 24 dimensional Leech lattice is neatly defined using octonion

triplets ... We start with the 8 dimensional root lattice L8

of the Lie group E8, generated by a set of 240 unit octonions ...

the 24 dimensions [ of the Leech Lattice ] sit in the

triplet of off diagonal octonion entries ... n J3(O) ...

the algebra... of 3x3 Hermitian matrices over ... octonions ...".

The 26-dimensional traceless part of 27-dim J3(O)

represents the 26-dim of 26-dim String Theory.

J3(O) ia the automorphism group of the Lie algebra F4.

F4 contains a D4 subalgebra and

52-dim F4 lives in the Real Clifford Algebra Cl(8) as

8-dim D4 Vectors + 28-dim D4 BiVectors + 16-dim D4 Spinors

By 8-periodicity, the tensor product Cl(8) x Cl(8) = Cl(16)

Since Cl(16) contains 248-dim E8 as

120-dim D8 BiVectors + 128-dim D8 Half-Spinors

you can ( viXra 1208.0145 ) see that E8 is made up of two copies of F4

one copy of F4 containing the D4 with SU(2,2) of Conformal Gravity

and

the other copy containing the D4 with SU(3) of the Color Force.

Therefore E8 physics has two types of J3(O) Jordan algebra symmetry

related to the Monster symmetry of 26-dim String Theory Leech Lattice cells

with Strings being physically interpreted as World-Lines of particles.

Tony

The typo is in the line

The 64 of 128-dim D8 / 28-dim D4 x 18-dim D4 is related

which should be

The 64 of 120-dim D8 / 28-dim D4 x 28-dim D4 is related

The Monster is the symmetry group of each Planck-scale cell

of the local Leech Lattice structure of 26-dim String Theory

with Strings having the physical interpretation of particle World-Lines.

As Marni D.Sheppeard said in viXra 1712.0076 v3

(following the works of Geoffrey Dixon and R. A. Wilson):

"... the 24 dimensional Leech lattice is neatly defined using octonion

triplets ... We start with the 8 dimensional root lattice L8

of the Lie group E8, generated by a set of 240 unit octonions ...

the 24 dimensions [ of the Leech Lattice ] sit in the

triplet of off diagonal octonion entries ... n J3(O) ...

the algebra... of 3x3 Hermitian matrices over ... octonions ...".

The 26-dimensional traceless part of 27-dim J3(O)

represents the 26-dim of 26-dim String Theory.

J3(O) ia the automorphism group of the Lie algebra F4.

F4 contains a D4 subalgebra and

52-dim F4 lives in the Real Clifford Algebra Cl(8) as

8-dim D4 Vectors + 28-dim D4 BiVectors + 16-dim D4 Spinors

By 8-periodicity, the tensor product Cl(8) x Cl(8) = Cl(16)

Since Cl(16) contains 248-dim E8 as

120-dim D8 BiVectors + 128-dim D8 Half-Spinors

you can ( viXra 1208.0145 ) see that E8 is made up of two copies of F4

one copy of F4 containing the D4 with SU(2,2) of Conformal Gravity

and

the other copy containing the D4 with SU(3) of the Color Force.

Therefore E8 physics has two types of J3(O) Jordan algebra symmetry

related to the Monster symmetry of 26-dim String Theory Leech Lattice cells

with Strings being physically interpreted as World-Lines of particles.

Tony

Hi Frank, I'm afraid you lost me right at the beginning; with the void is fundamental. However I did like the colorful illustrations. I think your essay is very complicated and esoteric,(too much for me), not an easy read but well presented. I appreciate the effort that must have gone into it. Kind regards Georgina

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Georgina, thanks for looking at my essay.

I see from your bio on a 2015 fqxi essay that you are “Biological Sciences honors graduate” and from viXra that you are interested in History and Philosophy of Physics. Here is an outline of how I see the history of how to construct physics models:

Ancient - African IFA divination uses structures equivalent to the 256-dim Real Clifford Algebra Cl(8) whose tensor product Cl(8) x Cl(8) is (due to 8-periodicity) Cl(16) which contains the 248-dim Lie Algebra E8 and its 120-dim subalgebra D8.

1300 AD - Ramon Llull (quaternary phase) uses details of 120-dim D8 Lie Algebra as geometric basis for philosophical argument. Duns Scotus took Llull’s argument ideas from Paris to Oxford/Cambridge as a basis for Scholasticism but without the ability to experimentally measure the relative strengths of the forces of the Standard Model and Gravity and the relative masses of the elementary fermion particles and to compare those observations with the physics model of Llull’s mathematical Art, by 1700 Scholasticism had been displaced by the Enlightenment of Descartes et al.

Now - Llull’s geometry of African IFA can be seen as an accurate model for physics, thus justifying a revival of kgeometry-based Scholasticism.

For example,

each of the colorful 240 Root Vectors of E8 represents part of a Lagrangian of Gravity and the Standard Model.

Here is a connection with Biology of Consciousness:

E8 is 248 elements of 65,536 elements of Cl(16)

so 65,288 elements of Cl(16) are available to carry information in a Penrose-Hameroff microtubule-based Quantum Consciousness.

The maximum length of microtubules is about 40 microns so that each microtubule contains about 65,000 tubulins therefore there is a direct correspondence between

information contained in Quantum Physics Cl(16) cells

and

information contained in Microtubules of Human Brains.

Tony

I see from your bio on a 2015 fqxi essay that you are “Biological Sciences honors graduate” and from viXra that you are interested in History and Philosophy of Physics. Here is an outline of how I see the history of how to construct physics models:

Ancient - African IFA divination uses structures equivalent to the 256-dim Real Clifford Algebra Cl(8) whose tensor product Cl(8) x Cl(8) is (due to 8-periodicity) Cl(16) which contains the 248-dim Lie Algebra E8 and its 120-dim subalgebra D8.

1300 AD - Ramon Llull (quaternary phase) uses details of 120-dim D8 Lie Algebra as geometric basis for philosophical argument. Duns Scotus took Llull’s argument ideas from Paris to Oxford/Cambridge as a basis for Scholasticism but without the ability to experimentally measure the relative strengths of the forces of the Standard Model and Gravity and the relative masses of the elementary fermion particles and to compare those observations with the physics model of Llull’s mathematical Art, by 1700 Scholasticism had been displaced by the Enlightenment of Descartes et al.

Now - Llull’s geometry of African IFA can be seen as an accurate model for physics, thus justifying a revival of kgeometry-based Scholasticism.

For example,

each of the colorful 240 Root Vectors of E8 represents part of a Lagrangian of Gravity and the Standard Model.

Here is a connection with Biology of Consciousness:

E8 is 248 elements of 65,536 elements of Cl(16)

so 65,288 elements of Cl(16) are available to carry information in a Penrose-Hameroff microtubule-based Quantum Consciousness.

The maximum length of microtubules is about 40 microns so that each microtubule contains about 65,000 tubulins therefore there is a direct correspondence between

information contained in Quantum Physics Cl(16) cells

and

information contained in Microtubules of Human Brains.

Tony

Thanks Tony. I think the fundamental geometry of the universe is an interesting topic, and was a good choice of subject for replying to the competition question. Regards Georgina

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Frank Dodd Smith and Georgina,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

I agree with you on the likely existence of other Higgs masses, though not in the details. I have speculated (not in my contest paper) that there are Higgs masses at or around the top quark mass and 240 GeV. Also, I suspect one near the Z. And another one at a lower mass. I have seen other papers of yours a year or so ago as directed from Dorigo's blog site. My speculation is merely numerology as I fitted a formula of Higgs higher mass = 1.388 * higgs lower mass and this links in progression 91 to 126 to 176 to 244 GeV. Where I originally expected a factor of sqrt 2 to apply but needed to reduce it to 1.388. But it is numerology.

In my contest paper, I have 4D blocks of [colour] dimensions as high in fundamentality. I tend to think of the 4D blocks as being filled with stuff rather than being nothing. However, stuff [particles in my model, or fields in between interactions] in my paper boil down to be a repository of colour dimensions, somehow held together. Your use of the word NOTHING has made me question the circularity of dimensions being made of stuff where stuff is just a node to link/tie/hold dimensions in place. As in a manifold. Can organised groupings of dimensions [query nothingness?] still be called nothing even if the nothingness is organised and grouped? Must a dimension be nothing? I am not convinced, but your paper has made me think about nothing(ness).

Best wishes

Austin

report post as inappropriate

In my contest paper, I have 4D blocks of [colour] dimensions as high in fundamentality. I tend to think of the 4D blocks as being filled with stuff rather than being nothing. However, stuff [particles in my model, or fields in between interactions] in my paper boil down to be a repository of colour dimensions, somehow held together. Your use of the word NOTHING has made me question the circularity of dimensions being made of stuff where stuff is just a node to link/tie/hold dimensions in place. As in a manifold. Can organised groupings of dimensions [query nothingness?] still be called nothing even if the nothingness is organised and grouped? Must a dimension be nothing? I am not convinced, but your paper has made me think about nothing(ness).

Best wishes

Austin

report post as inappropriate

Tony,

Jonathan Dickau suggested in my forum that there is a connection between your essay and mine. I have added yours to my reading list and request you do the same for me. I'll comment further after reading your work.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan Dickau suggested in my forum that there is a connection between your essay and mine. I have added yours to my reading list and request you do the same for me. I'll comment further after reading your work.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Specifically...

Gary's essay talks about 4-d embedding in a 5-d bulk, as a basis for his construction. I commented that the 5-d --> 4-d transition appearing in DGP gravity, in the black hole --> white hole construction of Pourhasan, Afshordi, and Mann, and in related theories by Nikodem Poplawski arising from ECSK, also find an analogy in your current work.

In a comment above you talk about the "8-dim Octonionic spacetime of the Inflation Era transition to Quaternionic M4 x CP2 Kaluza-Klein spacetime of our Era." In my research; I identify this transition with the point (-0.75, 0i) on the Mandelbrot Set. In my current essay; I briefly talk about how this point models the rolling-ball analogy for G2 proposed by Elie Cartan. So there will be something to compare notes about.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Gary's essay talks about 4-d embedding in a 5-d bulk, as a basis for his construction. I commented that the 5-d --> 4-d transition appearing in DGP gravity, in the black hole --> white hole construction of Pourhasan, Afshordi, and Mann, and in related theories by Nikodem Poplawski arising from ECSK, also find an analogy in your current work.

In a comment above you talk about the "8-dim Octonionic spacetime of the Inflation Era transition to Quaternionic M4 x CP2 Kaluza-Klein spacetime of our Era." In my research; I identify this transition with the point (-0.75, 0i) on the Mandelbrot Set. In my current essay; I briefly talk about how this point models the rolling-ball analogy for G2 proposed by Elie Cartan. So there will be something to compare notes about.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Hi Tony,

I found this paper interesting, but excessively dense with ideas, which made it difficult to follow the thread at times. The central point in the opening section, and perhaps of the entire essay, hinges on what David Finkelstein said in his paper on "Unitary Quantum Relativity" which is very cool, except that the paper sits behind a pay wall for those without academic library access. Once one grasps the iterative process with Clifford algebras, as a way to build something from nothing, your main point falls into place more easily. Perhaps a recap of some of what appeared in that paper would make the meaning more transparent.

This is a great snapshot of the current state of your research, as well as an honest attempt to get to the root of questions about 'what is fundamental?' But I think you tried to squeeze more extra details in than would fit, while your readers might have been better served if you filled some details in that appear only in your references. So I gave you high marks for points I see as well-explained or representing clear progress on fundamental Physics questions, but only partial credit for comprehensibility on the rest.

Much food for thought and so I'll read it again.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I found this paper interesting, but excessively dense with ideas, which made it difficult to follow the thread at times. The central point in the opening section, and perhaps of the entire essay, hinges on what David Finkelstein said in his paper on "Unitary Quantum Relativity" which is very cool, except that the paper sits behind a pay wall for those without academic library access. Once one grasps the iterative process with Clifford algebras, as a way to build something from nothing, your main point falls into place more easily. Perhaps a recap of some of what appeared in that paper would make the meaning more transparent.

This is a great snapshot of the current state of your research, as well as an honest attempt to get to the root of questions about 'what is fundamental?' But I think you tried to squeeze more extra details in than would fit, while your readers might have been better served if you filled some details in that appear only in your references. So I gave you high marks for points I see as well-explained or representing clear progress on fundamental Physics questions, but only partial credit for comprehensibility on the rest.

Much food for thought and so I'll read it again.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Thanks Tony,

For your kind words shared offline. I'm sorry I could not be more affirmative of this generously informative essay, in the context of this contest. I realize you have a lot to share and difficulty finding a funnel or shoehorn of appropriate dimension to condense what you know into shareable form for those not steeped in your work already, or to present it in small enough chunks to make it digestible to our more feeble minds.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

For your kind words shared offline. I'm sorry I could not be more affirmative of this generously informative essay, in the context of this contest. I realize you have a lot to share and difficulty finding a funnel or shoehorn of appropriate dimension to condense what you know into shareable form for those not steeped in your work already, or to present it in small enough chunks to make it digestible to our more feeble minds.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.