naturephysic2345 Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) I believe that a more refined understanding of the power("force") of observation can endow us with a more effective way of discerning that nature is expressing supersymmetric relationships. I call this supersymmetric system the Recursion Scenario. I will be drawing attention to a recursive mechanism that allows information to be self similar, as well self replicative at every point within the system. This 'renormalization' of information, as existing on a reflective surface or horizon, then undergoing infinite propagation; is expressing the mirror to mirror relationships.I will describe Euclidean space as the 'Dark Energy (Isometry/Vector A)' side of the relationship, and describe the "other vector"( B) as a Minkowsky space time- that reflects energy. I will equate the Minkowsky plane or brane, and as relative to the Euclidean reality, to a reflective surface that represents invisible energy as visible reflected waves. I will demonstrate that this Minkowsky space is a Dark Matter medium that is relative to Dark Energy. Once the relationship is established, then, relative to a surface reflection, isometric points emerge and thus a former state of non -geometry (no relativity of invisible energy to reflected mass representation(s)) transforms to a state of geometry. When this geometric framework emerges, then along with it results geometric-form- mass as well as the ability to now observe and measure the formerly unobserved and unmeasured Euclidean state.I will describe the Minkowsky vector as a lower, inert form of energy (mass) and will l call these reflective surfaces lower dimensional-reflective systems.I will introduce relativity, and as also emerging in the system due to surface to surface reflection. Therein (surface to surface reflection) lies the potential for a recursive-supersymetric matrix to arise that allows Dark energy to propagate itself along a virtual recursive line or spacetime continuum.I will describe two mirrors in relative parallelism that reflect a real object lying between the two surfaces. I will refer to the space between the mirrors the Higgs branch. I will refer to the real object positioned between the two mirrors as Euclidean information ( Dark Energy information)-(particle, photon..Light). I will demonstrate that the sum of the Higgs field represents the sum of potential reflective points existing on the reflective surface. This sum of reflective points represents "a/the" sum of Higgs bosons. Where, if any part of the dark matter reflective surface lights up, we can say that Euclidean information is represented on the plane of reflection.. as a reflective boson point. The Higgs feild is the sum of its reflective parts(points) where; if any point reflects, we refer to this point as a Higgs boson point. The sum of Higgs bosons represent the sum of the Higgs field that reflects information. A black hole, as existing on a dark matter reflective surface, represents that; a point on the reflective surface cannot or does not reflect Euclidean information. I will equate the reflective horions to perspective Higgs fields. Both mirrors reflect the real object different directions(myriad- infinite). They not only reflect to each others surfaces, but as well, due to the mirror to mirror relativity- each mirror fractals this surfaces information through the process of recursion; whereby, the information on the surface undergoes a suppersymmetric perpetuation through the recursive continuum. The distance between each recursive stage represents 'phase spacing," while each distinct, self-similar and propagated stage represents its own dimension or layer (membrane) and as existing within the whole of the virtual supersymmetric system. This would state that any information existing within the system, whatever the stage of recursion, should express the same information. If we could discern this supersymmetric system then we should be able to both map distinguishable isometric points (distinguishable geometries) and determine that both the surface and thickness of any particular geometric point expresses the same information as any or all other points so observed or measured. I will be using nature as well as principles of physics to articulate these proposals. Edited October 25, 2014 by naturephysic2345 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 What predictions does this make, and how can this be tested? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endy0816 Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Some points seem to be of interest though please try to avoid too much verbiage. Generally short concise statements work best in forum discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 "I will..." so where are you going to actually do this? You have a preprint ready or similar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naturephysic2345 Posted October 26, 2014 Author Share Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) What I will introduce (per moderator flexibility/yielding), is a New theory or model from which to derive unique and testable postulates. I would be very appreciative if this noble forum will allow me the necessary leeway to articulate these axioms and proofs. By their very nature theorems are necessarily verbose and at times deep, but I assure those who accommodate me that the explanations, though abstract at times, will become lucid relative to pictures, graphs, illustrations and commentary. I can demonstrate that my proposals are observable and measurable proportional to being accurately mathematically expressed, and as well testable and predictive. It is important to emphasis that the contents of my theorem (voluminous), if closely scrutinized with an objective mind, will bring many things to light with regard to the standard model and its deficiencies. Furthermore, the proofs that I will provide will, in punctuated ways, present strong evidence for the system I will describe/depict and will involve both 'surprising and subtle.. connections between disparate areas of mathematics.' As an extension, these axioms, when expanded upon and applied, can categorically begin to explain all relationships (Everything) that we do not fully comprehend as occurring within the system. Recursion Scenario. I will state, precisely, that this recursion phenomenon is represented on the right side of the equation E=mc2. Einstein suggested that a ‘small domain of space-time is approximately flat space-time.’ I will speak on this asymptotically flat space-time and explain what it is and how it emerges. I will draw into the discussion both distinctions and relationships between Hamiltonian mechanics and Minkowski space-time. I will describe striking contrasts between these lower dimensional frameworks and as relative to Euclidean space. I will show how these perspective phenomena function both independently and synchronistically to create the relativity of mass to energy. I will introduce a new paradigm that can be observed and experimented with. These observations and measurements can be studied and deduced by realizing a yet unrealized potential related to the properties of recursion, and as representing the derivation of/to everything. Flat space-time suggests, in principle, that as it regards cosmology, such things as horizon(s), screen(s), membrane(s), D-branes, plane v/s bulk, strings, extra dimensions, super symmetry etc., are theoretical constructs that are worthy of consideration. These ideas, as abstract as they are, seem to be in an exciting way catching up with the data. What I will depict, and that which can be vividly expressed and observed if one understands this unique property relative to all things, is how space-time can and is being extended (Note: Implication-expansion of the universe)to a super-symmetric phenomenon. Understanding these things will naturally elaborate on the propagation of light (how, what, when and where), as well as better describe the ‘implied’ (inferred-more appropriately) expansion of the universe. More specifically or even implicitly, I would refer to a Holographic Scenario as a viable proposal. I believe the implications of this proposal can be vastly explanatory. However, I seek to, in a unique manner and following an exquisite methodology (that can be observed and experimented with both in nature and physic (and beyond)), present a more broadened perspective on such proposal(s). When I use the word exquisite, I refer to the principle as exquisite and not myself. The applications and implications related to the Recursion Scenario-property are infinite. It is very important and considerately relevant if it is our goal to remove the impurities relative to the pre-existing paradigm. It can improve and fine tune our understanding of…everything. I seek to introduce a more refined understanding of such scenario/principle. I will draw attention to, and and give comprehensive explanations with regard to this principle that has been hinted at for centuries. It is recursion that is, in principle, solidified as superiorly relevant in nature. This same principle (Recursion= A Constant!) has resided dormant in virtually every theory and every equation coined. This principle has literally been staring us in the face all along. Even further, this principle, as it is the “force” that controls everything, is expressed in everything and relative to everything. Recursion compels, as well, subdues all relationships, relativities, forces, objects, spaces and times; as well all events, all beginnings and all ends. This recursive-mechanism caused all space-time continuum's and ever balances any or all entropic changes that occur. In a real sense it represents a universal calibrator that in sovereign ways maintains the system - maintains the relativity between energy and mass! This phenomenon explains how the so-called nothing became something…Everything! It treats everything as malleable despite any entropic elements as originating or emerging within the system. It can effortlessly adjust to any and all such ‘thermodynamic’ changing circumstances. It is a hidden principle versus a thing necessarily, that both births and maintains the system with the entirety of its component parts. From the quantum parts to the macro parts(systems). If I am allowed to present this information, I can demonstrate that, with these principles in mind as well mathematically verified, one can 'forecast what will happen under specific conditions.' However, in order to do so in a way that can be fully grasped, my descriptions must be 'extremely thorough, exhaustive -(as well as accurate.') I will 'generate many new predictions,' and as a result of this volume of proofs, bonding (electromagnetism) everything to their common “string' denominator, it will be easier for other competent observers and measures to either acquiesce to or falsify the postulates. This new model predicts that information can be observed and measured as being the same at all points, and that the physical universe (and every mass object dwelling therein) is expressing supersymmetric relationships. This new mathematical construct can be expressed within a unique algorithm- such algorithm is derived from observing and measuring decisive recursive principles that are evidentiarily occurring throughout all of nature. These mathematical proofs can be derived from unique and higher mathematical methodologies (Higher Order Logic's) of observing and measuring information dwelling all around us. This new paradigm of reasoning and core mathematical logic, and as proven through axiom and proof, will demonstrate a veracious reality (a constant) that will represent the fundamental process that both creates and maintains the relativity between energy(Higher dimensional) and reflected matter (lower dimensional plane/ membrane). This shift to a more refined paradigm can be mathematically, geometrically, scientifically, anthropologically, genetically (Note: 'The Y-chromosome is a very disorienting Hall of Mirrors.'), linguistically, auditorily, anatomically (anatomy of mass) and universally discerned as being expressed everywhere and relative to everything. It can be tested in infinite ways, of necessity- if it represents a Theory of Everything. Once the principles are understood then the applications( tests) are limitless. Yet, it is as simple as placing objects between mirrors and observing and measuring the infinite (peculiar) principles to be mathematically ascertained. I have been studying these optic, physic and nature relationships for more than two decades. Einstein stated (quite sure of himself): “Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better.” I agree! Furthermore, I will add that: As nature conforms to facts and accuracy, these exactitude's (some refer to as ‘constants’) represent principles and laws, that if understood, will equally be proven a fundamentally reality of everything. Such reality need not be a matter of philosophy and theory if one can discern the supersymmetric relationships. Argumentatively, it can only be verified and embraced contingent upon the strict guidelines of science. Those noble scientific standards (principles), and that which results in resolution, reconciliation and unification, must be tested through observation and experimentation. I will explain what the 'strings' represent. After traversing the peculiarities of the discovery (the abstractness) and extracting the principles (disambiguous), it will become self evident and will subsequently and categorically demonstrate itself as brilliant in both design and purpose, as well, ability to explain things. I will also show how these strings relates to membranes. Yet, these “thin” layers can only be viewed in the anthropomorphic sense, as these thin surfaces relative to the thin principle ( related to the Plank's Length) are processes much moreso than physical or tangible things. Einstein said: “If you cannot explain it simply, you do not understand it well enough.” This has been the state of physics for the longest time. We need a simple and elegant (yet verifiable to the extreme) explanation of things. We need pictures that possess the innate ability to speak a thousand words easy to understand. We need this desperately so as to invalidate or even trump the burdensome and confusing equations and mathematical statements. Indeed! We need a new mathematical language charged with such self-explanatory and universally understood pictures that even a child could comprehend. We need a new paradigm with which to work from that will remove the scummy dross (equations-ineffectual; theories-plethoric, contradictory) so that the simple truths can be observed and measured in a way that not even the force of observation can influence the result of any given experiment. It is perception and this quirky thing called the power of observation that exerts its influence and thus leads to a steady stream of inconsistency and theory-falsifiable. Further predictions are expressed through holographic principles as well as the abstract strings(theories). We can predict that the strings represent both the distancial branches between disparate things (space between mass objects) as well as the mass objects themselves. We can describe the system as ..information...that serves to link all things, and as depicting both symmetric parts as well as a supersymmetric whole system. It predicts that the full sum of mass objects (reflected information) is derived from the volume of information existing on horizons, that subsequently undergo replication through the scientifically relevant/significant process of recursion. This would predict that the sum of all geometry (sum of reflected information) that exists in nature and the universe is expressing the infinite rotational sum of A/The geometry dwelling on the surface of a/the screen. It predicts that a huge galaxy, if observed and measured through a new mathematical framework, is described as a symmetric copy of a smaller diameter mass object (for instance the earth oblate sphere.-( Postulate: A galaxy is a reflective stage of the universe that is far from another recursive stage (earth) but that both stages are both representations of the same volume of information dwelling on a horizon. The galaxy, relative to an earth observer, is representative of a true sphere of information that, due to incidence angle, distance, degrees away from parallelism(extreme) etc...appears to be stretched. While the earth , in closer approximation to parallelism, and as existing on a separate phase of recursion (another layer or membrane representing the same information) appears more spherical and as an oblate spheroid.). It has something to do with what occurs when a recursive volume of phase space (and the objects represented on any particular stage) stretches or distorts true geometric shapes when two mirrors facing each other deviate, either subtly or extremely, away from true parallelism. It also has to do with the direction or manner that a light ray is colliding with a reflective surface. I will explain these myriad of 'renormalizations, variables, potentials and degrees of freedom' if permitted to on this forum page. Even stranger, the Recursive Scenario predicts that, within human languages, the recursion of information is so evidenced as to be able to determine with absolute accuracy that the sounds produced within languages (letters, pictographs) are describing distinct geometric shapes, and that such shapes and qualitative sounds, if organized and the principles articulated, can begin to describe that language also is a product of recursive and thus a supersymmetric mechanism.These sound-geometric relationships are expressing the relativity between invisible information (the space between things-void) and reflected information( the letters, words, thoughts, meanings). We can realize that when a mirror faces a mirror, and as reflecting a real object, that a 'string relationship' is being expressed. Even though the mirror surfaces are not really atatched to each other in a principled way they ARE! Indeed.. though they are not attached and there is a separation or a distance between them, the principles of reflection prove that a solid connection is occurring as linking two disparate positions in space to each other. This implicates reflection as well as recursion as the link or string that ties together the whole universe. Illustration : If we have two mirrors facing each other with an object/space between we can describe the scenario as 3 vectors ( one real object relative to 2 virtual reflected objects-planes) . This represents merely a symmetric relationship and as representative of the fact that ...The reflected objects are ½ the symmetry of the whole of the relationship between it and the real object dwelling outside of its space. If we add to the equation the process of recursion, then we see that all other virtual symmetries are representing a “continuation” of the symmetry of the real object existing between the mirrors. Every stage that exists within the 'volume of phase space' of each perspective brane/plane( right and left- divided by the space between) represents information on a surface being subsequently infinitely reproduced into a virtual recursive matrix. Each stage of recursion is literally attached to all other stages by a certain volume of space- distance between) -(phase space), and all objects and space in the matrix move proportional to all other stages. All recursive stages represent the continuation of a string relationship, where each stage( layer, brane, membrane) is connected to all other stages, and all stages move proportional to the distance between the real object and the surfaces of the mirrors. It predicts that all known forces, including the force of observation, are describing the same system, and are indicative of supersymmetric relationships birthed through this strange phenomenon called recursion. It predicts that the expansion of space is merely the illusion that occurs when reflective surfaces are, or come into, relativity with other reflective surfaces, and thus it is recursion that results in the perceptions of space expansion/contraction, length dilation,time interval, gravity, entropy, weak-strong forces verses surface(nuclear=singularity) force, etc.. It predicts that recursion molds all perceptions of time, the speeding or slowing of time (the refractive association to recursion) as well the concept of and experience of the time phenomenon. This model predicts that the past, present and future lie upon the same line and are only separated by thin membranes relative to a surface screen. These surface screens, as well all recursive (infinite?) membranes expressed theirin are expressing solidified principles! We need a new approach to information. Perhaps a more responsible approach is in order! We need to find a splendid (versus sedated and complacent) way to observe, organize and reason upon realities beheld and the underlying principles driving the realities. These principles up to the present era have been hazy at best. Any transparency seems elusive. Those of us who study nature as well as cosmology, and who pay arduous attention to detail and patterns, and who are ever cautious of anything that contradicts those observations(verses opinions), may be better equipped to see these relationships and reason on the implications. Or not. However, it is important to stress that the things I will present were arrived at, and a product of, taking a purely geometric approach to the problems inherent to physics and mathematics. As well, spatial temporal, diagrammatic, visual and logical reasoning embody relevant methods of observation and mapping relationships between things. In the particular: Mass objects relative to surrounding space. Or: The relativity of energy to mass. I can demonstrate that information, whatever its form or manifestation, follows a universal principle at every point the same as every other point. From the Quantum bits to the huge macro systems, ‘they’ all follow the same principle(s) and thus speak on the same reality. Einstein stated: “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”-Einstein We created a standard model, and it is that very model, accompanied by a strange insistence toward clinging to it, that has resulted in ‘this’ same problem existing in cosmology. I will show that an exact (no more, no less) 180 degree about-face is necessary to shed that archaic and ineffectual skin. I am encouraging others to observe and think...In the reverse! I will show how effective it can be to flip the standard model 180 degrees and observe and experiment with it from this new perspective. We need to turn the system all different directions and thus observe it from a myriad of different vantage points. We must look at the patterns in more 3-, 4-, 5th-dimensional ways. All the while, remember that the force of observation changes things. Record these changes. Study them with a view to understanding the principle that results in the changes. I will introduce these many methodologies of observing and measuring. I will demonstrate that such new observing/measuring results in a better understanding of information: How information emerged, how it is absorbed and how it is disseminated to all points in the physical universe. Even more significant: Where it originates and the purpose behind the exchange of information from the E side of the equation to all other “sides” relative to, and a product of, this superior side. The standard model along with its definitions regarding a cosmological constant is old and dry. However, it has served a purpose. Unfortunately and truly, that purpose cannot be realized until it is disposed of. That sounds like a paradox, but it isn’t. I will modestly attempt to explain why it isn’t. Suffice to say, once this concept/theory (a spectral indication of the reality) is replaced, then, as Einstein stated, thus indicating that the mathematicians/equationists do not possess a monopoly on understanding, and thus observation and measuring is an ability that most normal people have : “Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics.” Indeed! A new mathematical language will emerge not dissimilar to entropy and gravity as emergent phenomenon. This phenomenal language will be understood by lay as well as the scientific elite. I admit that mathematics scares me or perhaps bores me, one or the other. I haven’t quite decided on which one to the greater degree. However, the way I see, and what I can speak upon due to discovering a vital and universal principle, is much more simple and intellectually palatable, as well, much more efficient and effectual in explaining things. I appreciate that, for the most part, theoretical physicists have the ability to paint pictures in the mind that relegate the power of equations and mathematical terms. It is also true that on the converse side of abstract and efficient logics one is bombarded with jargon and complicated terminologies (mathematics and equations) used relative to a flawed paradigm. Despite these perturbances in my search for unified theory, I take solace in knowing what I know, thinking the way I think, observing the way I observe and experimenting the way I experiment. As a result of this contentment in achieving and discovering, I, like Albert, relegate the mathematics and the equations that are incurable in orthodoxy. I have no problem in saying, as did Einstein, “I can assure you my difficulties in mathematics are still greater.” In that which I am inferior, I make up for in my powers of observation. These observations I would like to share with any others who would be interested. The not-so-reputable, yet highly insightful theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde proposes: ‘gravity as an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies.’ That is a reasonable and logical postulate. However I would respectfully amend that statement and say: Gravity...changes in information associated with the positions of mass relative to the position of space! You will notice I refer to mass in a plural sense while referring to space in a singular sense. That sounds simple. I think. What do I mean? Firstly, we associate forces with invisible processes for the most part. That being the case, I feel a very relevant aspect of information or changes in information have just as much to do with the change in the space (area) between mass bodies as it does with changes in merely the ‘positions of material bodies.’ I am saying that: As mass represents information that can be read, so too, invisible space represents information that can be read! In order for any changes to occur between two physical bodies’ positions, the space between them and around them must ‘move’ proportionately. The space must yield to the mass or not. That is an abstract concept (but a reality nonetheless) that we fail to account for appropriately. If the... space between... physical bodies is therefore changing proportionately to the change in positions of the mass objects...then we have to say in some sense, the space between objects is changing shape. (I will discuss the relevance of a higher dimension dwelling right alongside a lower dimension later on.) If one seeks to understand or explain Dark Energy, or the ‘nothing’ existing between physical bodies, then sa geometric approach is imperative! If we wish to discover the difference between mass and energy we must shift to this geometric resolve. If we desire to understand relativity better, then we need to account for the invisible space and realize that its existence next to mass is telling us something very important. It represents higher dimensional information existing right alongside lower dimensional information- Sharing the same space, existing together at the same time, though existing at two different places. We need to see the phenomenon that creates this relationship between mass and space. We need to highlight a principle that isn’t fully expressed in the equation E=mc2. This principle is implied in the equation. Unfortunately, it is implied where the equal sign is represented. Perhaps this little symbol (=) may turn out to be the most relevant symbol in all of mathematics. As our measurements of mass objects tell us “things” about those objects, the same is true of empty space. Our measurements of space and any changes to space, begin to geometrically/partially explain the whole of space. These spatial measurements and experiments serves to explain partially the whole (bulk) nature, quality and phenomenon of Dark Energy. For now I will say that, mass objects are, in some principled way, assuming the space of the bulk state. I will also say that in no way are the mass forms’ existence within this higher space really affecting, or in any sense, truly changing the fluid state. How could that possibly be the case? A simple principle will explain this. It will subsequently explain the instance of the big bang and every other past and present instance. Perhaps ‘these’ principles will also afford to us the ability or prowess to understand how the future relates to the past and how entropy drives all events and relationships between past, present and future. The concepts of static (state) versus fluid (state) is something that needs to be better understood and defined. These two converse/inverse states can be defined if we fully understand the principle of recursion as what motivates the system. Recursion explains the relativity between the two opposite sides of a string, and that, these two disparate points are connected due to the open part of the string that dwells between them. Two sides are closed (static-finite), the 'other side' is open! I will refer to the fluid, or smooth side, as the particle side (I will qualify this subsequently), and the reflected sides as the wave representations of the particle side. I will describe the 'plural waves' (volume of phase space between each recursive stage as well as each crest of a wave as representing each recursive stage) as representatively a origin-surface wave accompanied by all recursive waves from this surface wave. Two sides of the string are fixed while the open side is fluid. (Note: This despite that the space between mass objects are perceived, and even measured as, moving proportionately to the motions and changes in positions of the mass objects.) Aside from these things I will say: All parts of the string continuum (recursive propagation of light) can be defined equally due to the real cosmological constant that results in the relativistic system. These reflective/recursive relationship are emergent . When this system emerges then the relativistic principles emerge as well. This relationship expresses that a former state of nothingness (simply: not able to be observed or measured) is now able to be observed and measured- primarily through the phenomenon of sound and geometry(shape). We can read the information and any or all changes in the information along a time continuum. We can do so explicitly through geometry. Geometric measurements are a prelude to mathematical determinatives. Mathematical determinatives for the most part fortify truths and realities. Truths and realities paint more vivid pictures than words or equations could ever approximate or describe. Information = Geometric observations and measurements. Geometry is the informational template that emerged at some epoch time in the past, and that exists everywhere making everything understandable. Before geometry (a principle driving relativity) emerged then we can say quite simply that NO geometry existed. There was only one thing (versus shape) that existed. It had no form, no perimeter, no circumference, no boundary and no relativity to any ‘other’ geometric space/shape. No information was observed or could be measured. It could not be measured because it was infinite and had no other relativity, thing or observer so as to define its shape relative to anything else. It could not be observed or measured for there were no observers or measurers to draw such geometric (or otherwise) distinctions or distinguishing qualities. That state was not defined, yet represented the sum of itself. Itself (everything) relative to, and at that former moment, nothing else. A principle (property/process) resulted in a sudden change. When this principle emerged, (reflection accompanied by all potentials for recursion to occur) along with it necessarily came a first, a second, a third and an infinite amount of relativities. It was at this time that the relativities (observers and measurers) began to define (for themselves intellectually and emotionally) this original state; much as the relativity of a tree limb to other tree limbs, once the tree comes into existence or emerges, can now aid in defining the invisible nature and quality of the space between the limbs. That space ‘between’ the limbs would not be observed to exist if the tree were not there. However, remove the tree from the equation and the space remains as now assuming/remaining at the point where the tree is no longer observed nor can be measured any longer. What are we observing and measuring? We are observing and measuring infinite aspects of the original, eternal bulk side. We are observing this “thing” because of a principle that by design represents a static womb overflowing with life and animation. We exist inside the space of this unique property that allows invisible energy to reproduce itself and therefore propagate its energy and light and produce other beings. We are not measuring the singularity, we are measuring the original condition or thing that exists a Plank's length beyond the singularity. We are observing and measuring what is being ‘projected’ to our thin membrane or plane of existence. It is the singularity that represents the phenomenal principle and that which separates the real energy and light from the mass representations of that light and energy. This property as added to the system is also NOT part of the original state/condition/thing, but separate. But this separation is profoundly minuscule. This bulk ‘dimension’ (condition/state/thing/information) is but a thin distance (a thin principle) from the surface of every physical object and/or system. I believe strongly that I have discovered a principle, that if understood fully, will refine the standard model. This principle possesses all the necessary ingredients to embody a Unified field theory. Actually it (the principle) is not limited to physics, but goes far beyond in its ability to explain things. I can demonstrate its superior relevance through observation, measuring and experimentation. This principle, in a unique way, describes a supersymmetric system that is derived from the processes of reflection, refraction and recursion. I draw particular attention to the phenomenon of recursion. The implications of these discoveries are vast, and, due to its all-encompassing nature, it necessitates a great volume of descriptions, illustrations and associations between “disparate” things (I will equate “great volume” with the word “grand” as in GUT.). It represents the “law of nature” proportional to also being a constant that, when comprehended, can explain everything. I am insistent in proposing that the principle (accompanied by associative principles) represents a sobering reality. I say this because 'it' has been staring us in the face all along in a myriad of ways throughout nature and the universe. I am also proposing that it can only be expressed relative to a new mathematical language and that such formulations may dictate that a complete about-face must occur with the present paradigm. I am presently working arduously to describe this mathematical framework. The descriptions are as numerous as they are simple and elegant. Reiteration: The descriptions, terms, symbols, sentences and associations will be derived from pure observation (a new way of observing and understanding the very “powers of observation” as well as information) while utilizing higher mathematics in viewing the 'particular system' (model). The system can be measured and experimented with in infinite ways. I am connecting the dots in very abstract, yet observable, ways and the “language” that I am using is necessary in both explaining and showing the principles in a manner that maximizes one's ability to comprehend. However, though the explanations and unique equations may be complicated, the accompanying illustrations, images and actual experiments will serve to soften and simplify the words. Ultimately, when the principle is demonstrated as applicable to literally everything, it will become more and more lucid through application(s) and the complexity of it all will evaporate. I assure the moderators that this thread will always maintain a professional and dignified tone. I would invite you to participate with a view to potential collaboration as well as critique. I accept all challenges or refutations to the proposals I will present. I will say that, aside from higher mathematics, my proposals will be equally charged with geometric principles, and will decisively highlight relevant intersections of information and as existing within a supersymmetric phenomenon being expressed everywhere and throughout the universal system. Edited October 26, 2014 by naturephysic2345 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Some points seem to be of interest though please try to avoid too much verbiage. Generally short concise statements work best in forum discussions. Oh well. You tried. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 There's definitely a lot of words there, but I don't think you actually said anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) Inasmuch as I find merit in Hofstadter's discussions and experiments with recursion, reflection, and fractalization, and inasmuch as I had to be willing to wade through Hofstadter's verbiage to see that merit, I haven't minded at all reading all of what naturephysic2345 has written so far. Not that I don't have my limits; appealing as Fuller's verbosity & Synergetics was at it's start, enough became enough and I gleefully kicked him to the curb. We shall see what we shall see what we shall see. Edited October 26, 2014 by Acme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) I admit that mathematics scares me or perhaps bores me, one or the other. There are an awful lot of will's and would's above, but this sentence right here cuts to the heart of the matter. In science, usefulness of an idea is largely based upon the predictions that idea can make, and how closely those predictions agree to what is measured. This is almost wholly and intrinsically a mathematical activity. For example, if idea A makes predictions that are 10% off from what is measured, and idea B's predictions are only 5% off, then idea B is favored. Because it is more useful. Furthermore, if you try to avoid math and only do words, you step into the very real problem that words take different meanings to different people at different times. Limiting yourself to only words is closer to story telling, not science. Trying to do science in only words is really trying to do it in 'hard mode.' This is why so very much of physics and indeed most science involves mathematics. I would highly recommend you get over your fear or boredom, and express your ideas mathematically, if only because it will be significantly easier for other people to understand exactly what you are predicting and talking about. So, with all those will's and would's and Einstein quotes, is there an actual tangible verifiable prediction? Something that says in conditions x, you predict we will measure y? Also, I really kind of hate this attitude about 'mathematics scares me or perhaps bores me' when the title promises 'new mathematical language'. Try not to promise one thing and then tell us you aren't going to do it in the middle. Also also, as a suggestion, you may want to work on communicating concisely. There is an awful lot of text in the last two posts. As noted above, good communication on a forum is usually short and to the point. Long walls of text are hard to read and typically end up just being ignored. Edited October 26, 2014 by Bignose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naturephysic2345 Posted October 27, 2014 Author Share Posted October 27, 2014 Please do not misunderstand my meaning. When I allude to mathematics ( being 'scared and bored') I refer to the convenient absence of lucidity relative to the equations. Equations so coined and couched in standard mathematical symbol but are not appropriately transliterated to words and pictures in a way that the masses can understand. There are equations written that even the so-called 'greatest' mathematical minds cannot comprehend. I am simply and appropriately saying that; if an equation can be written, why can it not (and should it not) also be explained in simple language and elegant descriptions so that even a common person can visualize the meaning of the equation. Aside from this, you will notice that I refer to the mathematical model that I will present as being a 'new' mathematical 'language,' I do not describe it as being void of mathematical relevance. As a concept, and when fully defined, mathematics is by no means confined to alpha-numeric statements. Rather, mathematics represents much more! It is the pursuit or 'study of structure, space as well as change.' This preliminary aspect of mathematics is just as relevant as when the structures,spacial significancies and changes are translated to the equations. Mathematics is the focus on observing and mapping patterns and relationships so as to discover principles and formulate solutions to problems. I refer to mathematics as a method of reasoning that can many times transform an opaque concept into a transparent realization. A new mathematical language can be expressed in ways totally devoid of any numbers or equations as it depicts obvious mathematical realities through abstractification, pictures and insights; many times based purely on observation, measuring and experimentation. One can show relationships between things in a vivid way and still be following mathematical logic as ultimately demonstrated through clear and concise mathematical insights. If the present language of mathematics, profuse with obscure terms and symbols, and utilized by the whole world, were effective, then we should have progressed more than we have. As it stands, many times it requires rigorous arguments, axioms and proofs totally independent from any mathematical context FIRST..before the new mathematical language can be transliterated to orthodox symbol and structured equations. I will describe the language of nature and the universe outside of any meta physical or philosophical predisposition. In order to do so I will have to assist others to become familiar with the principles and show that their significance can only be understood relative to a particular type of mathematical logic and consistency of reasoning. This requires deducing solid and testable associations between disparate things existing all around us. These associations-connections represent a unique understanding of not just patterns but how and why they are occurring. Even further, making it so logically true and absolutely discerned as to 'what” is being implicated as to the cause, that no argument can be presented against it... as the discovery itself will be the only mathematical and scientific resolve from that point forward. The higher mathematical model that I will modestly try to explain will have a more logical and deductive, as well intuitive quality. However, with time and when all axioms and proofs are considered, it will be natural as well as beautiful when it is subsequently transliterated into equations. The language and pictures that I will use ( Thus the constructed- New Mathematical Language) will stand on its own merits as representing a systematic, broad and all inclusive explanation of everything. This new paradigm of realization will result from the 'the systematic treatment of magnitude, relationships between figures and forms, and relations between quantities expressed symbolically.' I favor the following particular definition of mathematics: “The science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations. Science of structure, order, and relation that has evolved from counting, measuring, and describing the shapes of objects. It deals with logical reasoning and quantitative calculation. Since the 17th century it has been an indispensable adjunct to the physical sciences and technology, to the extent that it is considered the underlying language of science.” As mathematics “cuts to the heart” of all maters, a new mathematical construct, and that which I will express in not a little symbolic and visual terms, will cut to the heart of the standard model. I believe that if considered and applied the Recursion Scenario will prove 'useful' toward scientific and mathematical progression. A very real aspect of its usefulness will result from 'the predictions the idea can make, and how those predictions agree to what is measured.” In no way do I avoid math, save my indifference toward over complicating things that can be logically and coherently explained and understood in simple and elegant ways. Although my theorem will represent a narrative or theme throughout, in no way does it represent any storytelling. I challenge others to scrutinize the proofs I will present to invalidate the proposals or in a definitive way prove that it represents fanciful thinking. Correction: “..so very much of physics and indeed most science,” though involving superficial mathematical concepts, represent theory and conjecture and do not in any concise or precise way prove that the mathematical predispositions lead to any resolution. As well, I respectfully disagree- that by expressing ideas within the constraint of formal mathematics, with no other degrees of freedom in the areas of intuition and abstract reasoning..that 'it will be significantly easier for other people to understand exactly what you are predicting and talking about.' I would also encourage others, if they really understand any particular profound equation as extant today ( E=mc2 for instance) to try to explain it to me with no appeal to others ideas, no incorporation of algebraic sentences, or any formal symbols or termiologies. I would thus encourage them to explain it the way they see it or rationalize it in their own mind and using simple pictures and explanations that even a child could understand. When one is able to do this, that person will be the one to change the standard model of logic and thus mathematics. (Note: I would be interested in hearing anyone explain the Einstein equation in terms other than those terms, jargon and equations that are utilized by physicists or mathematicians. I would challenge others to fully express the Einstein equation just using 6 pictures. In other words, use 6 figures that everyone is familiar with and place them in succession in a way that forms a statement or a sentence. Accompanying these 6 figures one can then use two paragraphs to explain what the succession of symbols are saying or describing.) By saying that physics and math is predominately mathematical you are in a very real sense saying that the.. effectual ..aspects of physics and science is based upon logic; with observation, measuring and experimenting being a prelude to such logic's. I quote Einstein a lot because he realized these higher mathematical (simple thought experimenting) and more effective methodologies of thinking and intuition. Though he stressed observation he relegated mathematics. This mode of thinking and comparing seemingly disparate and contradictory concepts, is what set him apart from orthodoxy. Such 'thinking outside the box” and thus deviating from the orthodox and formalistic( predisposed) style of thinking is how he established himself as one of the greatest “thinkers” verses equationists or necessarily mathematicians in history.Without further adieu, you are correct , I 'have promised” to present axioms and proofs to describe a new paradigm that can replace the standard model. If I may, I will begin to do just that. I will not promise, nor do I ascribe to the supposed superiority of “short and to the point” as opposed to communicating precisely. I do not believe that those two prerequisites or constraints are reconcilable, especially when describing a theory of everything! However, if one really reads my 'long wall of posts” they will see that it is simple and represents easy reading. I further assure all those concerned that when the pictures begin to be posted- that 'pictures are worth a thousand words,' and thus the need to explain things 'so much' will be diminished. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Please do not misunderstand my meaning. When I allude to mathematics ( being 'scared and bored') I refer to the convenient absence of lucidity relative to the equations. Equations so coined and couched in standard mathematical symbol but are not appropriately transliterated to words and pictures in a way that the masses can understand. There are equations written that even the so-called 'greatest' mathematical minds cannot comprehend. I am simply and appropriately saying that; if an equation can be written, why can it not (and should it not) also be explained in simple language and elegant descriptions so that even a common person can visualize the meaning of the equation. I again repeat what I wrote above. Math lets us turn your idea into specific predictions and gives us an easy metric to evaluate the accuracy of those predictions. Words are often far worse at this. And there is very, very little requirement that any equation or concept or idea need to be elegant or understandable by anyone. Accuracy of predictions is valued by far most greatly by science. And I guess, if you get a moment, I'd really like to see a citation for "There are equations written that even the so-called 'greatest' mathematical minds cannot comprehend." Because this just seems silly to me. Why would anyone create an incomprehensible equation? I'm hoping there is some kind of misunderstanding here, because I don't get it. It sounds a lot like a sly sound-bite to me, because I can't understand how such a situation could arise... Without further adieu, you are correct , I 'have promised” to present axioms and proofs to describe a new paradigm that can replace the standard model. If I may, I will begin to do just that. I don't think anyone is stopping you. Let's see it. Let's see some actual predictions based on your idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 ... I will not promise, nor do I ascribe to the supposed superiority of “short and to the point” as opposed to communicating precisely. I do not believe that those two prerequisites or constraints are reconcilable, especially when describing a theory of everything! However, if one really reads my 'long wall of posts” they will see that it is simple and represents easy reading. I further assure all those concerned that when the pictures begin to be posted- that 'pictures are worth a thousand words,' and thus the need to explain things 'so much' will be diminished. Here here. While I understand the reticence here over tackling lengthy posts, I think the argument that length alone prohibits undertaking such reading is overplayed. I've read all you've written so far and found your writing rather easy reading and look forward to your pictures. Let's taste some puddin'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endy0816 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 (edited) I'm sorry but to me this seems longer instead of being any clearer. It also keeps diverging from topic which is less likely to happen when communication is kept short and concise. I personally like talking about systems of symbolic expression, Einstein and the like; but none of that is what the thread is supposed to be about. There's also a need to adopt your writing style to the medium of expression, which notably many here already do and achieve better results as a consequence. Edited October 27, 2014 by Endy0816 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Please do not misunderstand my meaning. When I allude to mathematics ( being 'scared and bored') I refer to the convenient absence of lucidity relative to the equations. Equations so coined and couched in standard mathematical symbol but are not appropriately transliterated to words and pictures in a way that the masses can understand. There are equations written that even the so-called 'greatest' mathematical minds cannot comprehend. I am simply and appropriately saying that; if an equation can be written, why can it not (and should it not) also be explained in simple language and elegant descriptions so that even a common person can visualize the meaning of the equation. Aside from this, you will notice that I refer to the mathematical model that I will present as being a 'new' mathematical 'language,' I do not describe it as being void of mathematical relevance. As a concept, and when fully defined, mathematics is by no means confined to alpha-numeric statements. Rather, mathematics represents much more! It is the pursuit or 'study of structure, space as well as change.' This preliminary aspect of mathematics is just as relevant as when the structures,spacial significancies and changes are translated to the equations. Mathematics is the focus on observing and mapping patterns and relationships so as to discover principles and formulate solutions to problems. I refer to mathematics as a method of reasoning that can many times transform an opaque concept into a transparent realization. A new mathematical language can be expressed in ways totally devoid of any numbers or equations as it depicts obvious mathematical realities through abstractification, pictures and insights; many times based purely on observation, measuring and experimentation. One can show relationships between things in a vivid way and still be following mathematical logic as ultimately demonstrated through clear and concise mathematical insights. If the present language of mathematics, profuse with obscure terms and symbols, and utilized by the whole world, were effective, then we should have progressed more than we have. As it stands, many times it requires rigorous arguments, axioms and proofs totally independent from any mathematical context FIRST..before the new mathematical language can be transliterated to orthodox symbol and structured equations. I will describe the language of nature and the universe outside of any meta physical or philosophical predisposition. In order to do so I will have to assist others to become familiar with the principles and show that their significance can only be understood relative to a particular type of mathematical logic and consistency of reasoning. This requires deducing solid and testable associations between disparate things existing all around us. These associations-connections represent a unique understanding of not just patterns but how and why they are occurring. Even further, making it so logically true and absolutely discerned as to 'what” is being implicated as to the cause, that no argument can be presented against it... as the discovery itself will be the only mathematical and scientific resolve from that point forward. The higher mathematical model that I will modestly try to explain will have a more logical and deductive, as well intuitive quality. However, with time and when all axioms and proofs are considered, it will be natural as well as beautiful when it is subsequently transliterated into equations. The language and pictures that I will use ( Thus the constructed- New Mathematical Language) will stand on its own merits as representing a systematic, broad and all inclusive explanation of everything. This new paradigm of realization will result from the 'the systematic treatment of magnitude, relationships between figures and forms, and relations between quantities expressed symbolically.' I favor the following particular definition of mathematics: “The science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations. Science of structure, order, and relation that has evolved from counting, measuring, and describing the shapes of objects. It deals with logical reasoning and quantitative calculation. Since the 17th century it has been an indispensable adjunct to the physical sciences and technology, to the extent that it is considered the underlying language of science.” As mathematics “cuts to the heart” of all maters, a new mathematical construct, and that which I will express in not a little symbolic and visual terms, will cut to the heart of the standard model. I believe that if considered and applied the Recursion Scenario will prove 'useful' toward scientific and mathematical progression. A very real aspect of its usefulness will result from 'the predictions the idea can make, and how those predictions agree to what is measured.” In no way do I avoid math, save my indifference toward over complicating things that can be logically and coherently explained and understood in simple and elegant ways. Although my theorem will represent a narrative or theme throughout, in no way does it represent any storytelling. I challenge others to scrutinize the proofs I will present to invalidate the proposals or in a definitive way prove that it represents fanciful thinking. Correction: “..so very much of physics and indeed most science,” though involving superficial mathematical concepts, represent theory and conjecture and do not in any concise or precise way prove that the mathematical predispositions lead to any resolution. As well, I respectfully disagree- that by expressing ideas within the constraint of formal mathematics, with no other degrees of freedom in the areas of intuition and abstract reasoning..that 'it will be significantly easier for other people to understand exactly what you are predicting and talking about.' I would also encourage others, if they really understand any particular profound equation as extant today ( E=mc2 for instance) to try to explain it to me with no appeal to others ideas, no incorporation of algebraic sentences, or any formal symbols or termiologies. I would thus encourage them to explain it the way they see it or rationalize it in their own mind and using simple pictures and explanations that even a child could understand. When one is able to do this, that person will be the one to change the standard model of logic and thus mathematics. (Note: I would be interested in hearing anyone explain the Einstein equation in terms other than those terms, jargon and equations that are utilized by physicists or mathematicians. I would challenge others to fully express the Einstein equation just using 6 pictures. In other words, use 6 figures that everyone is familiar with and place them in succession in a way that forms a statement or a sentence. Accompanying these 6 figures one can then use two paragraphs to explain what the succession of symbols are saying or describing.) By saying that physics and math is predominately mathematical you are in a very real sense saying that the.. effectual ..aspects of physics and science is based upon logic; with observation, measuring and experimenting being a prelude to such logic's. I quote Einstein a lot because he realized these higher mathematical (simple thought experimenting) and more effective methodologies of thinking and intuition. Though he stressed observation he relegated mathematics. This mode of thinking and comparing seemingly disparate and contradictory concepts, is what set him apart from orthodoxy. Such 'thinking outside the box” and thus deviating from the orthodox and formalistic( predisposed) style of thinking is how he established himself as one of the greatest “thinkers” verses equationists or necessarily mathematicians in history. Without further adieu, you are correct , I 'have promised” to present axioms and proofs to describe a new paradigm that can replace the standard model. If I may, I will begin to do just that. I will not promise, nor do I ascribe to the supposed superiority of “short and to the point” as opposed to communicating precisely. I do not believe that those two prerequisites or constraints are reconcilable, especially when describing a theory of everything! However, if one really reads my 'long wall of posts” they will see that it is simple and represents easy reading. I further assure all those concerned that when the pictures begin to be posted- that 'pictures are worth a thousand words,' and thus the need to explain things 'so much' will be diminished. Why does it take so much space for you to say so very little? Your posts are void of anything meaningful, and they're incredibly tedious to read. They're also very annoying to reply to because it's hard to figure out exactly what you're trying to say. Please distill your points into something less winded so that we can actually have a discussion. I think you'll find that very few people here are fans of wordy fluff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naturephysic2345 Posted October 27, 2014 Author Share Posted October 27, 2014 (edited) Bignose: I will ask that you use math to test a brief prediction I will make. All you need to conduct the experiment is a mirror, a square block and a simple measuring stick. Measure the length and width of one square side of the square block(record the measurements).. and position this measured side facing the surface of the mirror. Place a measuring stick (ruler) between the the real block and the surface of the mirror. Record the exact distance from the base of the square side to the surface of the mirror. (Note: Where any center to center measurement is precluded as relevant as the entire dimensions of the block face will meet at the same one dimensional surface of the mirror, and thus represent the same linear measurement) Try to assure that the mirror is standing exactly straight up with no deviation from parallel to the face of the real block. The reason I state this is that 'I will predict' that if you measure the REFLECTED block (length and width of sides-same) when the mirror surface is any degree away from true parallelism you will get a distorted measurement, or: That the length and/or width of the sides as measured relative to the reflected square will change from being the same (foursquare) to a slight deviation. Of necessity, if you make certain that the mirror plane is exactly parallel to the real square face then 'I will predict' that NO deviation will occur, and therefore, the measurements of the reflected square will express four-squareness. I will also predict that, once you establish the relationship between the real square and the reflected square ( of the real square), that you have an emergent symmetry that would not exist if the real square were not relative to the mirror surface. I am drawing attention to a 'special' type of symmetry! - whereby two different locations, separated by the distance you recorded, and thus existing at two places simultaneously.. share a symmetric relationship. I am showing that invisible energy becomes an isometric point when relative to its reflected 'copy' as representing an emergent isometric point. I am showing that geometry is being birthed from a former state where the only point that existed was a sole condition , not relative to any other points and thus not defined in any geometric terms. I will predict that as soon as you bring the mirror into relativity to the real square that the relationship is defined no longer as 4-square with 4 right angles (the sole real block) but 8-square with 8 right angles. (E2). Here we see a strange symmetric system emerging. Such symmetry (Dark energy1/2 to dark matter1/2) is necessarily contingent upon the existence of the sole preexisting condition (Note: I will predict that if you add another mirror relative to the face of the first mirror, in true parallelism and as able to also reflect the real object existing between the two mirrors, that if you use your power of observation and look in either or mirror you will determine that the 8-square 8 right angles symmetric relationship- (½ symmetry = real object ..1/2 symmetry =surface reflection of real object) has suddenly converted to a 'very disorienting and seemingly infinite' string of squares all bearing 4 sides and 4 right angles and all emerging relative to and because a real bit of information has both reflected to a plane and is undergoing recursion of itself.). I will predict that one who has not considered this phenomenon with any more than passive scrutiny( or acknowledgement) will find it as hard to map this supersymmetric system as geneticists discover when trying to map the y-chromosome. Such chromosome represents a 'crystal palace” and a “very disorienting Hall Of Mirrors.” Imagine the task of mapping these relationships on a nature scale or even more burdensome on a universal scale! Yet there is a way to map these redcursive disparate points. I will be utilizing a higher mathematical framework to do so. I will be presenting this utility relative to this theorem. I will predict that a real object (real Euclidean information) will be “continually self replicated” due to the process of recursion. I will further postulate that what you are observing and measuring is exactly what is happening both in nature and on a universal scale. Based upon this simple experiment we have determined that a real object exists outside of a virtual recursive matrix, yet, as a result of this recursive phenomenon both the area and dimensions of the real object is expanded. As well you will notice by looking at your measuring rule, and as reflected into the mirror strange things are occurring to the real measurement (you recorded) as relative to this distance as reflected from stage to stage. I will predict that your original measurement (the real distance between the real object and the surface of the mirror) will contract relative to this line measurement as measured from the surface of the mirror to where the first reflected square emerges in the system. What do I mean. I am drawing attention to a recursive algorithm. Whereby the Inverse square law as well as the golden ratio is being vividly expressed and continually expressed down the string of phase spacing. If your real distance was lets say 6 inches how will this 6 inch measurement (at what rate) be represented in the mirror? As well how will the space between each stage of recursion contract(at what rate)? And as well, if the measurement of the square sides were 4x4x4x4 relative to the real object, what will be the measurement of the square sides of the first reflected square, the second and so on and so forth? The key to understanding this phenomenon lies in may years of studying and experimenting with this recursive phenomenon, physics and optics. If you can deduce the answers to these questions quickly I will be impressed. If you cannot determine these things then I would encourage you to pay close attention to the theorem I am presenting. We can call the distance between the mirrors as welll as the real square the condition of the fluid state of information and as represening the open part of the string relationship. We can call this open space (void=Dark Energy) the Higgs branch and as linking the closed parts of the string(right and left reflective plane surfaces). These closed ends of the string are perspectively 'Dark matter candidates' and represent that two Higgs fields (two reflective planes/surfaces/horizons) are relative to each other, and as both reflecting Euclidean information and subsequently propagating this information to every point in the virtual recursive matrix. Postulate: What you are observing and measuring, (such observations and measurements will be explained mathematically as I proceed) is occurring on every level, both within nature as well the entire universe. What will be derived from these observations, measurements and experiments is a new mathematical language as well as a catastrophic shift to a new paradigm. Such “special” template (fabric of spacetime) will categorically expose the deficiencies ( mere perceptions) of the standard model and introduce a new cosmological constant. If you pay more than the usual attention to the verbose yet simple things I am expressing in brevity relative to these illustrations, you will begin to witness many bonafide, though peculiar, “sub-constants” that are being explained through these simple observations and measurements. I will predict that if you have a real object circle suspended from a string ( or a real circular diameter of light ) in front of two mirrors, that, if the mirrors are in exact parallelism, the real circle will be communicated to the reflective mediums as a true circle. Conversely, I will predict that, if while the real-true circle suspended from the string is reflected to both surfaces, you begin to move the perspective plane surfaces away from true parallelism to each other, that the reflected circles will begin to stretch to ellipsises and then disks. I will predict that, regardless if the reflected circles are no longer perceived as circles due to both the influence of the powers of observation and the deviation from true parallelism of surface to surface, that we KNOW that all reflected stages are in reality reflecting a true circle-object or light source. The implications are expanding, and we have only just began to depict and realize the recursive system. If you decide to experiment with this, and as you are doing so, I will continue to explain these myriad phenomenon as dictating the geometric and supersymmetric relationships existing in nature and occurring on a universal scale. elfmotat Preemptively, though respectfully, I will quote something you stated on one of your threads that I have perused "Worst of all is the occasional crackpot with just enough genuine physics knowledge to actually be dangerous" To some, who may not be paying more than the usual attention to others ideas..they may vehemently cry, "crackpot." Others may have 'genuine physics knowledge' reinforced by a deep understanding of relationships as evidenced on all scales including but not limited to ..physics. . Edited October 27, 2014 by naturephysic2345 -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 I am with Bignose on this one, can you stop saying what you will do and just do it, please? If not I am sure this thread will get closed. You have your opportunity so use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 elfmotat Preemptively, though respectfully, I will quote something you stated on one of your threads that I have perused "Worst of all is the occasional crackpot with just enough genuine physics knowledge to actually be dangerous" To some, who may not be paying more than the usual attention to others ideas..they may vehemently cry, "crackpot." Others may have 'genuine physics knowledge' reinforced by a deep understanding of relationships as evidenced on all scales including but not limited to ..physics. . I definitely don't think you're anywhere close to having "enough knowledge to be dangerous." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 ! Moderator Note Everyone,Please focus on the contents, or stop replying. You have made your point that the texts are long. It is very undesirable that - with the exception of the OP - nobody has made a single comment that is actually on topic. You are all taking this thread off topic, and that is against the rules. In order to give naturephysic2345 a chance, I am going to enforce the rules about going off-topic a lot more in this thread. For your information, there is no rule against fluffy text, or lengthy posts. If you don't like some text, then don't read it. But if you don't read it, please do not respond either.naturephysic2345,While it is undesirable that nobody focuses on the contents, and instead write about your writing skills, you should realize that it is unlikely that you get any useful feedback if people will not read your texts because they are too long, or don't get to the point. As far as I can see you haven't violated any rules but it can sometimes be valuable to at least consider what your critics are saying. I am not saying that you must change. I leave the choice to you. I am merely trying to create a functional scientific discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 The reason I state this is that 'I will predict' that if you measure the REFLECTED block (length and width of sides-same) when the mirror surface is any degree away from true parallelism you will get a distorted measurement, So, your prediction is that we must obey the known laws of optics. Ok, I'm sorry, but I don't find this very profound. I will predict that a real object (real Euclidean information) will be “continually self replicated” due to the process of recursion. I disagree with this. The real object is not replicated. Just the image of that real object. That's different. If you decide to experiment with this, and as you are doing so, I will continue to explain these myriad phenomenon as dictating the geometric and supersymmetric relationships existing in nature and occurring on a universal scale. This is what I'd like to see. I'm not convinced of the deeper meanings of the reflections in the mirrors, but if they can lead to useful (that is, accurate) predictions on a universal scale, then I am willing to listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naturephysic2345 Posted October 27, 2014 Author Share Posted October 27, 2014 (edited) Significant things stated about Spersymmetry. The following are references discussing supersymmetry: (I encourage others to consider these insights) -Of Particular Significance Conversations About Science with Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler -Introduction to Supersymmetry - Hitoshi Murayama -Supersymmetry and the Crisis in Physics | Not Even Wrong. I will extract pertinent portions of these three reference works to represent a prelude to the discussions that will ensue relative to this thread. Namely: “Supersymmetry is a conjectured symmetry of space and time — and a unique one...“if supersymmetry were a symmetry of nature, every type of elementary particle that we know of in nature would have to have partners we have not discovered yet...share exactly the same interactions with other particles and their superpartners... symmetries may be hidden from view (physicists often say spontaneously broken, but really this is not a good image to have intuitively — the symmetry is still there, it has just been made difficult to recognize.) ..One example involves rotational symmetry.. But far out in space, far away from all the planets, moons and stars, the laws of nature are rotationally symmetric. Your experiment will give the same answer no matter how you orient it. (Incidentally, measurements of light emitted from very distant atoms do indeed confirm this.) What the earth does is confuse us. It makes us think that down is a very different direction from up or from left. But that apparent difference is not intrinsic to the laws of nature. The difference arises because the earth is nearby, hiding rotational symmetry from our view... Higgs field, suffusing the universe and changing its properties] hides supersymmetry from view, everywhere throughout the universe...You see that supersymmetry breaking (the hiding of the symmetry from easy view)--has pushed all the superpartners up to a mass scale around or above the top quark mass... namely anti-matter... it is possible to "borrow" energy within the time interval allowed by the uncertainty principle. Once there exists anti-matter... what we consider to be an empty vacuum undergoes a fluctuation.. Because the gravity is believed to be unified with other forces at an extremely small distance called Planck length...For every particle, there is a superpartner whose spin differs by 1/2. By doubling the number of particles again, there is similar cancellation between the process with ordinary particles only and another process with their superpartners... necessary ingredient in the only available candidate for quantum theory of gravity, string theory...Supersymmetry actually makes the unification of three other forces, strong, weak, and electromagnetic, also a reality...three forces change as a function of energies, and become closer to each other at very high energies. ..It is not an exaggeration to say that most of the world’s particle physicists believe that supersymmetry must be true—the theory is that compelling." Edited October 27, 2014 by naturephysic2345 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 You can assume that some of us are okay with supersymmetry, the basics anyway. However, I fail to see where supersymmetry has been involved in your earlier posts? Maybe I have just missed something as you have posted large walls of text. See if you can break down the message here, details we can discuss later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 It is not an exaggeration to say that most of the world’s particle physicists believe that supersymmetry must be true—the theory is that compelling It does have a real sense of beauty about it, sure. But it certainly isn't perfect. And experimental evidence to support it very weak at this time. About the best that can be said is that is still falls within known experimental constraints. So, how much prelude is left? When are we actually going to get an actual testable and falsifiable prediction? As above, I am willing to listen if you can demonstrate actual predictions. But my appetite for prelude and flourished promises of what to come is waning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 I will ask that you use math to test a brief prediction I will make. All you need to conduct the experiment is a mirror, a square block and a simple measuring stick. ... In performing this experiment, what -if any- difference will be observed if front-surface mirrors are used as opposed to the commonly available back-surface mirrors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 (edited) Why not look into the SO(10) supersymmetric particles? This group includes the Higgs bosons with its supersymmetric partner. The research that is ongoing in the Higgs is the search for other Higgs bosons and the high energy metastability for the seesaw mechanism. As far as GUT even the standard model can unite the 3 forces any of the GUT models can. The problem is gravity itself and every model suffers this problem. The minimal standard for any GUT model is the other 3 forces. There are numerous GUT models both standard and supersymmetric that accomplish that. Of course we do... No wonder we get such nonsensical "theories" posted here when people are this divorced from reality. I'm with you on this its Ok to post new ideas but I wish ppl would at least study the research already out there and show the maths of their new theory instead of a bunch of technical sounding words thrown together to make their ideas sound impressive. No model works without the math anything less than that is just speculative talk Perhaps the OP can show his knowledge. Or at least his understanding of particle physics by answering 3 questions. Which lie algebra group specifically covers the supersymmetric particles? Which lie algrebra groups covers the standard model particles? Is [latex]S_3[/latex] Abelion or non abelion? If you can't answer those 3 questions then I recommend buying Griffiths "Introductory to particle physics" and studying it before you try to invent a new model The last question is there as the answer cannot be googled where the first two can be. Also the answer to the last question isn't in Griffiths book. It requires an actual understanding of lie algebra Edited October 27, 2014 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naturephysic2345 Posted October 27, 2014 Author Share Posted October 27, 2014 Ajb: You, “missed something.” May I suggest that you review my former posts. Bignose: I would be very interested in your definition for the word “perfect.” I will tell you what I think are some very appropriate definitions for the word. 1) “completely correct or accurate.”-I believe that anything that is a symmetric copy of another thing is not asymmetric(imperfect) rather can be stated as being “correct or accurate” and thus self-similarly (same as). Furthermore, I would say that, if an object is supersymmetrically copied or continued, and as existing within a recursive system, that any and all such recursive stages “correctly and accurately depict the same symmetry dwelling on the surface. (Note: I would also predict that, if one object seems different from another object, that, though the perfection IS there, it is 'hidden from view.' I would further say that, it is the force of observation that is resulting in the perception(s) that the two objects are disparate/different and not 'completely and accurately'- the same. What we need to discern is the hidden principle that will prove they are the same, despite the influence of the power of observation that results in a different conclusion. Some exclaim, “power of observation- alters experiments”- may I remind you of the double slit experiment.). 2) “possesses all the qualities you want.”-(perfection). If we could discover the supersymetric 'law of nature' then we would realize that not only is it elegant and beautiful it will also 'possess all the qualities you want”- (definition of “perfect”).. to represent a Unified Field theory. (Note: Supersymmetry (recursion) represents the mechanism that has 'all the necessary qualities' to prove that all forces are manifestations of the same phenomenon/process.) 3) “Entirely without fault or defect.” I will demonstrate that the supersymmetric reality of things is synopsised by this definition. I will again appeal to the former consensus that it is the power of observation ( related to entropy and information) that results in any and all perceptions as to defect and fault. I will extend this to say that, the 'formal' definition of Entropy is failing to remain ever conscious of the fact that, any entropic experiment so conducted is hopelessly at the mercy of the power of observation. Thus if the definition of entropy, as coined and defined, is perceived as being “random or disorderly” I would bet that this is because of the relative observer who is both observing and measuring the “change” of the system. I would further state that, before observers and measurers emerged, the state of entropy was “no changes.”( or no entropy as occurring ) As well, if no changes were occurring, then the entropic condition would neither be defined as approaching order or disorder. It would be a fluid state with no perturbances acting upon it. ( No wave representations-mass). This nonentropic reality of things would be same at all points where any so-called changes would not be happening anywhere. Not only does the supersymmetric system unite all (“possess all the qualities”..we want and need to arrive at reconciliation) forces, but it as well: 4) 'satisfies all requirements (and) corresponds to an ideal standard or abstract concept.”-(perfect)..with which to formulate a Theory of Everything. Lastly, but certainly not to be relegated: “perfection” is defined as 5).- “faithfully reproducing the original.” All things duly noted, and the reason why I posted the 5th -'special definition' last, is to draw attention to a terminological link between the word (process)-recursion and the word( process)-supersymmetry. Can you determine the decisive relationship in these two words so coined and defined: Supersymmetry: The “continual” reproducing of a symmetry. Recursion: The process of “repeating” items in a self-similar way. Is it difficult to distinguish the two terms? If so, (and it is..so!) then we are on our way toward a Uniform field theory. I will continue to articulate these relationships so as to get a better view of the hidden reality of things. Acme: Did you perform the experiment? If so, what were your results? If you really scrutinized the system and paid strict attention to the peculiarities and strange phenomenon..can you discern any principles being expressed? With regard to the differences between the two styles of mirror ( 1st and 2ond surface ) and with regard to the ability to reflect and represent recursion( if relative to another 1st or 2ond surface mirror.)-there is NO difference. However, I will be discussing the “spectral” phenomenon that occurs relative to the second surface mirror and as slightly opposed to the first surface mirror. This spectral phenomenon is relevant to holographic principles as well relevant when we consider the Planks length relative to my theorem. I will, for purposes of necessary chronology of discovery, conscientiously neglect to go into that for now. Mordred I see from your post that you acknowledge the deficiency of the GUT model to appropriately explain.. “gravity.” As long as this is the case, and despite the very positive and noteworthy aspects of this model, perhaps a more refined model that DOES account for and explain the 'problem of gravity' should be considered. I will be taking that to task relative to this thread. As well, with the utmost of respect, so long as gravity is a real force and thus a reality in most ways, the GUT model is 'divorced from reality” at least as it concerns appropriate and effective ways of explaining the .. gravity enigma In conclusion: I will purposefully (driven by a purpose)- fail to accept your challenge with regard to the 3 questions you posed. I will not do so in the interests of not cluttering or digressing from the discussions I am initiating relative to my thread. However, you can take heart that, after I have articulated my proposals, your questions will have been sufficiently answered. If you invest yourself in my ideas ( and for the most part I will respond to the appropriate aspects of your challenges or inquires) but for a little while (even if such represents indulgence on your part), You will see clear evidence that my knowledge of the subjects you allude to is not so inferior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts