Why I Still Like String Theory

There is a new book coming up by Richard Dawid “String Theory and the Scientific Method. It has been reviewed by Peter Woit and Lubos Motl who give their expected opposing views. Apparently Woit gets it through a university library subscription. I can’t really review the book because at £60 it is a bit too expensive. Compare this with the recent book by Lee Smolin which I did review after paying £12.80 for it. These two books would have exactly the same set of potential readers but Smolin is just better known which puts his work into a different category where a different type of publisher accepts it. I dont really understand why any author would choose to allow publication at a £60 price-tag. They will sell very few copies and get very little back in royalties, especially if most universities have free access. Why not publish a print-on-demand version which would be cheaper? Even the Kindle version of this book is £42 but you can easily self publish on Kindle for much less and keep 70% of profits through Amazon.

My view is equally predictable as anyone elses since I have previously explained why I like String Theory. Of the four reasons I gave previously the main one is that it solves the problem of how quantum theory looks in the perturbative limit about a flat space-time with gravitons interacting with matter. This limit really should exist for any theory of quantum gravity and it is the realm that is most like familiar physics so it is very significant that string theory works there when no other theory does. OK, so perturbative string theory is not fully sewn up but it works better than anything else. The next best thing is supergravity which is just an effective theory for superstrings.

My second like is that String Theory supports a holographic principle that is also required for quantum gravity. This is a much weaker reason because (a) it is in less well known territory of physics and requires a longer series of assumptions and deductions to get there (b) It is not so obvious that other theories wont also support the holographic principle.

Reason number three has not fared so well. I said I liked string theory because it would match well with TeV scale SUSY, but the LHC has now all but ruled that out. It is possible that SUSY will appear in LHC run 2 at 13 TeV or later, or that it is just out of reach, but already we know that the Higgs mass in the standard model is fine-tuned. There is no stop or Higgsino where they would be needed to control the Higgs mass. The only question now is how much fine-tuning is there?

Which brings me to my fourth reason for liking string theory. It predicts a multiverse of vacua in the right quantities required to explain anthropic reasoning for an unnatural fine-tuned particle theory. So my last two reasons were really a hedge. The more evidence there is against SUSY, the more evidence there is in favour of the multiverse and the string theory landscape.

Although I dont have the book I know from Woit and Motl that Dawid provides three main reasons for supporting string theory that he gathered from string theorists. None of my four reasons are included. His first reason is “The No Alternatives Argument”, apparently we do string theory because despite its shortcomings there is nothing else that works. As Lee Smolin pointed out over at NEW, there are alternatives. LQG may succeed but to do so it must give a low energy perturbation theory with gravitons or explain why things work differently. Other alternatives mentioned by Smolin are more like toy models but I would add higher spin gravity as another idea that may be more interesting. Really though I dont see these as alternatives. The “alternatives theory view” is a social construct that came out of in-fighting between physicists. There is only one right theory of quantum gravity and if more than one idea seems to have good features without them meeting at a point where they can be shown to be irreconcilable then the best view is that they might all be telling us something important about the final answer. For those who have not seen it I still stand by my satirical video on this subject:

A Double Take on the String Wars

Dawid’s second reason is “The Unexpected Explanatory Coherence Argument.” This means that the maths of string theory works surprisingly well and matches physical requirements in places where it could easily have fallen down. It is a good argument but I would prefer to cite specific cases such as holography.

The third and final reason Dawid gives is  “The Meta-Inductive Argument”. I think what he is pointing out here is that the standard model succeeded because it was based on consistency arguments such as renormalisability which reduced the possible models to just one basic idea that worked. The same is true for string theory so we are on firm ground. Again I think this is more of a meta-argument and I prefer to cite specific instances of consistency.

The biggest area of contention centres on the role of the multiverse. I see it as a positive reason to like string theory. Woit argues that it cannot be used to make predictions so it is unscientific which means string theory has failed. I think Motl is (like many string theorists) reluctant to accept the multiverse and prefers that the standard model will fall out of string theory in a unique way. I would also have preferred that 15 years ago but I think the evidence is increasingly favouring high levels of fine-tuning so the multiverse is a necessity. We have to accept what appears to be right, not what we prefer. I have been learning to love it.

I dont know how Dawid defines the scientific method. It goes back many centuries and has been refined in different ways by different philosophers. It is clear that if a theory is shown to be inconsistent, either because it has a logical fault or because it makes a prediciton that is wrong, then the theory has to be thrown out. What happens if a theory is eventually found to be uniquely consistent with all known observations but its characteristic predictions are all beyond technical means. Is that theory wrong or right? Mach said that the theory of atoms was wrong because we could never observe them. It turned out that we could observe them but what if we couldn’t for practical reasons? It seems to me that there are useful things a philosopher could say about such questions and to be fair to Dawid he has articles freely available on line that address this question, e.g. here, so even if the book is out-of-reach there is some useful material to look through. Unfortunately my head hits the desk whenever I read the words “structural realism”, my bad.

update: see also this video interview with Nima Arkani-Hamed for a view I can happily agree with


273 Responses to Why I Still Like String Theory

  1. One alternative is offered in the book ‘Absolute Relativity theory of every thing’ via amazon. The author posits that the current concensus of dimensions is misleading. He promotes the concept that time and space exist as a background primary dimension – this being the original dimension pre big bang etc. It exists as a absolute where time is constant and can only have a unity value no matter what is happening in the universe visible or not. The kinetics associated with its constant emergence determines the Plank length, and association ability of matter (atomic infinitesimals ). The book/s he has written the latter being ‘Gravity Explained’ are not terribly well written but one munches through some interesting speculations and ideas.

    He does his best to explain that space is constantly emerging around us in One dimension. Then when matter is produced this is the cause for the 3 dimensions which we can easily perceive. So without the primary there cannot be any servant dimensions. He also explains that because of the idea that space is constantly emerging enables communication between different species and uses the example of an orchid which mimics a solitary wasp. I find that particularly compelling and have often wondered about that personally how a flora with no brain or eyes can copy features including pheromone of very specific and quite rare species. The flower in this case post dates the completed evolution of the wasp in this case by some 130 million years so they did not evolve at the same time – which means Darwin is challenged.

  2. String theory and LQG are certainly not the only options for a more unified theory. In fact returning back to the foundations laid by Garret Birkhoff and John von Neumann in 1936 offers new opportunities. They suggested quantum logic as THE proper foundation of quantum physics. QED, QCD, string theory and LQG have deviated away from this foundation. Staying closer to the countable physics offered by extensions of the quantum logic model offer unexpected views into the undercrofts of physics. See: “On the hierarchy of objects”; http://vixra.org/abs/1211.0120.

  3. Peter Woit says:

    Hi Philip,

    Cambridge didn’t send me a copy of this, it’s available on their ebooks site for free if you are at a university that has a subscription. I don’t know about Lubos, but I doubt he considers it necessary to read a book before reviewing it.

    The Dawid book really is an academic monograph, not aimed at the public but at philosophy of science academics, very different than Smolin’s. The high price is because they don’t expect to sell many copies, their market is almost entirely university research libraries. In cases like this, you could try contacting the publisher and asking for a copy, they’re generally happy to get any sort of attention for their books these days.

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      Peter, thanks, obviously me being paranoid about review copies.

      I realize that the book is being targeted differently but my point is that there is no reason why it should be. Without seeing a copy I cant compare technical levels but I remarked when I read Smolin’s book that I don’t believe such books are read by “lay people”. Although it may lack maths and some technical language you still need to be comfortable with areas of theoretical physics to appreciate what he is saying. There are no chapters explaining what you need to know about GR or QM which would be tedious to us but essential for a non-expert.

  4. deSitter33 says:

    Philip, I have the most profound respect for you grasp of things, but I cannot understand this. It is not just that string theory in itself is a catastrophe as physics. It is a catastrophe for science itself – for its practice, for academia, for many of us personally who were denied careers and forced to work “off world” so to speak. And it is not alone.

    Sometimes friends and acquaintances ask me physics questions. These are never things such as “what is energy conservation?” or “how does entropy work?” or “what the main point of relativity theory?” or “can you explain E=mc2 in layman’s terms?”. No – it is “when will be be able to travel in time?” or “will black holes from the LHC destroy the world?” or “did you hear that dark matter has been discovered?” or “why would God care about the Higgs boson and not say the electron?” or “can we really build warp drives?”. And this leaves out the many equally pointless and inane questions about the un-science of cosmology. The point is – these smart people have absorbed from the culture, in the form of a sort of mental suntan, all the b*llshit that passes for science reporting, all of which originates in the mind of this or that famous personage.

    String theory is only one aspect of a science culture gone completely to hell. Important work such as that of Cooperstock is ignored, while un-results and non-science cover the ground. It is not just that string theory is ridiculous physics with a record of failure. It is part of a catastrophe for the culture of science that includes the dark matter/energy fiction and the cosmology religion. I would be embarrassed to even admit that I took it seriously for 10 minutes.

    And on top of all that – gravity is not the spin-2 boson, so all that talk about quantum gravity coming from strings was just unicorn riding anyway. It seems that actual understanding of GR has gone almost entirely missing.


  5. Alex says:

    I was going to write

    “It is not just that string theory is ridiculous physics with a record of failure.”

    [citation needed]

    but then I read on

    “It is part of a catastrophe for the culture of science that includes the dark matter/energy fiction and the cosmology religion. I would be embarrassed to even admit that I took it seriously for 10 minutes.”

    and thought, no,

    [education needed] 🙂

  6. Robert L. Oldershaw says:

    Theoretical physicists: Hopelessly lost in the cosmos and too arrogant to ask for directions.

  7. Joel Rice says:

    In conventional terms I agree that Strings are ‘viable’, but I do not believe that ST is sufficiently viable to stop worrying about other ideas that might be just bubbling up. I took a look initially because of the E8 stuff and what it might say about octonions, and whether there was any connection to Dray and Manogue and Dixon et al. But I admit to not giving ST a “fair chance” – thinking particles are duality oscillators defined by complex octonions – rather than strings, and consequently am skeptical of the core assumptions of ST. Not that there is a viable theory – just lots of interesting questions. Is it possible or desirable to have a theory with NO free parameters ?

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      Octonions do seem to be quite important in string theory, but we should not get carried away with the beauty of one object. We need to ask what kind of bigger algebraic structures the octonions fit into. We think of octonions and E8 as being special because they are the biggest exceptional structures satisfying certain conditions, but those conditions may be too limiting. There are also E9, E10, E11 etc and other interesting Lie algebras that generalise further if you don’t force them to be finite dimensional.

      There may be a meta-law (to borrow a term from Smolin) with no free parameters. In M-theory, M may stand for meta. There are different solutions of the meta-law for different vacua that fill the string theory landscape and the low energy effective field theories cover much of the large parameter space of the possible QFTs.

      • D R Lunsford says:

        Sigh. Clearly octonions may have a role in basic physics. There is after all triality in quarks. But to make it the start of a search is no different than Kepler manipulating the Platonic solids hoping to understand the planets. And this has been going on for a long time – at least since Feza Guersy in the early 70s, with no results. It’s time to stop playing games and come up with some principles. If you are going to make octonions your muse, then what is the essential role of non-associativity? In any case the algebra of the world seems to be Clifford, not division.


      • Philip Gibbs says:

        Keplar just fitted the size of platonic solids to the size of planetary orbits. The match was never good enough that it should have been seen as anything more than numerology. When we find octonions on string theory we are not just saying that octonions are nice maths so we should slot them in. We look at string theory from a certain perspective and find that the octonions really are in the structure. It is not numerology. But string theory is more complex than octonion arithmetic so we need to look for bigger algebraic structures in string theory that help us understand more. It is not enough to like those structures for their aesthetic appeal. They need to be there. String theory is something we already have. We can’t make it up to suit us. We just have to find ways to understand it better.

        Principles are good if they work but otherwise they are useless. If you can guess the principles that define the laws of physics and work up from there you will make Descartes’s ghost very happy but I think none of us are that clever.

        Non-associativity is just one more algebraic tool, or rather the lack of one. It just tells us that we must not be confined by properties that mathematicians like because sometimes they are too confining.

        Mathematicians loved to classify finite dimensional lie-algebras but infinite dimensional generalisations are still largely unexplored except where they conveniently have similar properties to the finite dimensional ones. Guess where string theory takes us.

      • D R Lunsford says:

        So you are willng to proceed without principles. Fine.

        I should point out that quaternions do not essentially appear in physics. Complex quaternions are the even subalgebra of the Dirac algebra. Unfortunately they are not a division algebra, so why should anyone believe that the divisionness of octonions is essential?


      • carlmott5520 says:

        the algebra of octonions could to explain the invariance of lorentz,that is associated to the operator pt-broken-leading to the a
        spectral algebric geometry-the junction of spacetime in spacetime,and the operator cp is induced metric in riemannian geometry with the variability of space and time( contraction of space and time dilatation) that is vinculated the operator pt.
        in the octonions do emerge the string theory intrinsically linked to
        the spacetime continuum( with frequency only one associated to
        a vibration of a quasiparticles-being that the antiparticleas are exchanged by particles in the fforaward in spacetime and backward in spacetime,it is the metrics of the curvatures of spacetime osccilating to left-right handed infinitely.
        the noncommutative algebra insert the special theory of relativity as
        the junctions of spacetime to a hyperbolic geometry without inserting the twisting to each points of spacetime.

      • Joel Rice says:

        I did not mean to get on an octonion tangent, just to say that the notion of ‘no viable alternatives’ has a number of ideas nipping at its heels. I am old enough to remember when Field Theory did not seem to be a viable alternative – Weinberg must get a big kick out of that. I agree that there are no octonion theories that are guaranteed to put a smile on one’s face. But frankly, I suspect that Octonions are not as well understood in elementary terms as one would hope, for such a nice algebra. There seems to be plenty of room for exploring, and thus possibly new and relevant ideas which make algebraic sense,
        and which might or might not be stringy. For example, what use is made of 480 multiplication tables ? Gursey passed that by.
        I heard a lecture where these define particles and internal degrees of freedom. DRL: the nonassociativity gives us 2 pairs of parens to define all the duality oscillators, like (ao)(bc) and
        o(a(bc)). It would be independent of what particles do in space,
        just defining what makes one particle different from another, but they all have a complex phase. End of handwaving.

        If Lubos does find a way to find SM in MSSM at some ‘angle’ , can we call it a Motl Angle ?

      • hansvanleunen says:

        In the sixties Constantin Piron proved that the number system used in a Hilbert space must form a division ring. Contemporary physics deviates from the foundation laid by Garret Birkhoff and John von Neumann as well as from this result of Piron.

    • kneemo says:

      Joel, remember string/M-theory is a work in progress. Octonions may ultimately play an integral role in M-theory’s completion (arXiv:0807.4899 [hep-th]). U-duality groups in D=3,4,5,6 are already easily understandable as symmetry groups of octonionic based structures (arXiv:1002.4223 [hep-th]).

      • Why do string theorists ignore the results of Constantin Piron that Hilbert spaces must use numbers taken from a division ring for their inner product, coefficients and eigenvalues? Octionions do not form a division ring. Only real numbers, complex numbers ans quaternions form suitable division rings.

      • kneemo says:

        Hans, the observable algebras over the octonions and complexified octonions do have inner products and eigenvalues that are real or complex valued. The Hilbert space construction used for these algebras is based on the trace, where the Hilbert space is comprised of Hilbert-Schmidt operators with norm induced by the trace inner product. (arXiv:hep-th/9304124)

      • I wonder why people dive into the complexity of octonions, while the features of quaternions are hardly explored. Quaternionic functions are combinations of a scalar function and a 3D vector functions and like quaternionic number systems, these functions exist in 16 versions that differ only in their discrete symmetry sets. This is sufficient to store ALL properties of an elementary particle that they describe. The Hilbert Book Model explores the potential of quaternionic descriptors and is thus capable to explain the existence of the standard model and the origin of gravity and inertia. Octonions are not needed.

      • If someone opens a wiki page to collect the motivations for octonions in particle theory, I will be glad to contribute 😀 We have Evans’ triality argument, Duff “brane scan”, Hopf fibration for the 7-sphere…

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        alejandro, funny, I *just* created a wikipedia account for the first time… I don’t know if I should be the one to create the page though.. I don’t profess to know a lot about particles 🙂 I’m planning to create a page for Palm Distributions.. they describe the remainder of a process given its history…http://www.mathematik.uni-ulm.de/stochastik/fundl/paper/frey/survey2/node9.html

      • Be warned. WikiPedia applies the notability criterion!

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        Hans, thanks for the tip. I don’t think it’ll be a problem. Wikipedia already has a page on Point Processes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_process and Palm Distributions are so fundamental to the theory I’m rather surprised there is not already a page or at least section for it!

        Orwin, this seems interesting and very Laplacian… (punintentionl) ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinantal_point_process Hermite, Poission, etc..

      • Yep, wikipedia is definitely NOT the place for a wiki collaboration on octonions for BSM physics.

  8. carlmott5520 says:

    all the string theories doesn’t need of extradimensions or supersymmetry,but yes need of extended 4-dimensional manifolds with topological structures not all differentiables,or has non-smooth
    topological geometry with differents metrics ,then there are spacetimes that are “exotics structures” into of 4-dimensional universe.could think that lens appear as symmetries to the quantic vaccum symmetry breaking,so as a torsion tensor and an antisymetric tensor to explain the differents models to string theory to only 4-dimensions

  9. Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong says:

    I am reading your blog, that is, you are very inferential.

    After reading your review, I will definitely not buy Dawid’s book. “The Meta-Inductive Argument” is of course nonsense of itself. The histories of Standard Model and of the String theory are on completely different pathways. Thus, even if the argument itself were not wrong, the two have no common ground to compare with.

    I totally agree with your saying, “The ‘alternatives theory view’ is a social construct that came out of in-fighting between physicists.” The excuse of not knowing the alternatives was acceptable before the internet age. Today, if one does not know any better theories than the Standard Model, he is either too lazy or too narrow-minded.

    Voit dislikes String theory because that it is “not even wrong”. I do like String theory because it is “not even wrong”, a great toy for learning some math and physics although it cannot make any contact to the known physics realities (both on the gadget data or nature facts, such as the deriving the natural constants).

    I again truly appreciate your leadership on the issue, “What happens if a theory is eventually found to be uniquely consistent with all known observations but its characteristic predictions are all beyond technical means?”

    We will very soon reach the gadget capability limit. I would like to expand the scope of your statement. There are some known physics realities which are still mysteries to the Standard Models, such as the rising mechanisms for some nature constants {e (electric charge), ħ (Planck constant), c (light speed), Cabibbo and Weinberg angles }. If a model can derive those nature constants theoretically, it cannot be wrong.

    The nature is very nice to us by giving us an α (electron fine structure constant) which becomes the litmus test for the final physics. If a model is unable to provide a theoretical calculation for α, it cannot be the correct theory.

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      I’d like to point out that I did not review the book because I have not read it. Otherwise, thanks for your comments.

  10. Joel Rice says:

    Philip – re octonions in strings, i guess you mean Baez-Huerta ? I got Green/Schwarz/Witten but that was long ago.

    D.R.Lunsford. complex quaternions (pauli) are also subalgebras of complex octonions – obviously. There are LOTS of Clifford Algebras as the following routine shows

    for generators = 0 to N
    max = 2^nbr_generators – 1
    for signature = 0 to max // all possible signatures
    clr result[]
    for i = 0 to max // make the multiplication table
    for j = 0 to max
    k = i XOR j
    sign = clifford_sign(i,j,signature)
    result[k] += A[i] * B[j] * sign
    squares = i AND j
    negative_squares = squares AND signature
    if bitcount( negative_squares) is odd – flip the sign
    make strings from bits, concatenate
    sort the letters, if odd nbr of transpositions – flip the sign

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      Baez-Huerta wrote an interesting sciam article about it but the appearance of octonions in string theory goes back further. It is not clear to me where it originated.

  11. ohwilleke says:

    Regarding the economics of academic and special interest publishing, keep in mind that for an academic, the monetary return of publishing a book comes from your academic department and tenure committee, and your students who are required to buy the book, not mostly from royalties on purchases from random third parties. Tenure committees and full professorship committees care more about how many books you’ve published than how many copies your books have sold.

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      I am sure you are right, but I think the authors are misguided to think that way and professorship committees are even more misguided.

  12. Leo Vuyk says:

    Dear Phill,
    You wrote:
    Unfortunately my head hits the desk whenever I read the words “structural realism”, my bad.
    Why? I am an architect not able to “translate” octonion or quaternion algebras in 3D operations, I am happy with structural realism of the sub quantum world and geometrical operations.
    So I am convinced that structural realism in that sense, could restore reality at the sub quantum level against algebra mysticism by real sub quantum geometrical operations. See my proposal for 16 dimensional geometrical operations of the Higgs torus as a base for all other particles
    Sub quantum geometry and sub quantum spin in Q-FFF theory.

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      Your Q-FFF may well give some substance to the meaning of the phrase but in general it seems to be a non-specific term that means different things to different philosophers. I am wary of any term used by philosophers that is rarely used by physicists.

      • Leo Vuyk says:

        Thank you Philip,
        Yes I see your problem however:
        “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality” (Einstein).

        For a new quick scan of my Q-FFF model:

      • carlmott5520 says:


  13. hansvanleunen says:

    The combination of proper time with space fits nicely in a quaternion with real coefficients and these quaternion are suitable both as inner product values as well as can they serve as eigenvalues of normal operators. However, neither the Hilbert space as its lattice isomorphic companion, which is quantum logic offer a proper means to implement an operator that has either proper time or coordinate time values as its eigenvalues. Instead these model are well suited to represent a static status quo of the universe. In that case a dynamic model uses an ordered sequence of such static sub-models. It means that universe progresses with universe wide steps and it also means that universe is re-created (slightly different from the previous version) at every progression instant, In this view proper time corresponds with progression and with the sequence number.
    In this view the infinitesimal spacetime interval corresponds with the progression step and coordinate time (our common notion of time) is a derived construct.
    Problem with this view is that coordinate time can be easily measured, while in general in curved space proper time is not measurable. If you do not bother about this, then proper time based physics is far simpler than the common coordinate time – space – spacetime concept. The proper time – space models are automatically Lorentz invariant.

    • carlmott5520 says:

      the invariance of lorentz appear just a mathematical tool to explain the existence of spacetime continuos,or explain the symmetry of spacetime derived by the left-right rotational invariance,globally.then the proper time is a function of exchange of coordinates to relativistics speeds-is associated to reversion of pt,that is initially not conserved,then the time is splitted curving the space by opposed orientation twos.then the time dilatation and contraction of space with the incresinf of speed,is due the violation of cp what does appear asymmetrically in the spacetime:particles and antiparticles.the antiparticles are generated relatvistic speeds that place the transformastion of energy into masss and viceversa imply not conservation

  14. Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong says:

    “… that the standard model will fall out of string theory in a unique way.”

    If this happens, we should accept that the string theory is correct. I would like to make this view into a law.

    Theory A (TA) has a set premises and predictions (PA) with consequences (CA), and there are a set of known physics facts (PF [including the topmost proved phenomenological theories]).

    Law 1: If PA is beyond the reach by any gadget in a foreseeable future but CA is encompassing the PF, then TA is deemed to be correct.

    With this law, string theory could be correct if it can “reproduce” the basic feature of the Standard Model which is proved phenomenological theory. Let’s start with a very small part of the SM to begin with. Can string theory reproduce the followings?

    a. “Exactly” 48 elementary particles, 2 x (18 quarks + 6 leptons). It will be a bonus, if it predicts more. But, these 48 must be precisely derived.

    b. Neff = 3 must be precisely derived in a subsystem. That is, Neff > 3 is allowed beyond that subsystem.

    c. Quark color must be a theoretical consequence, not a phenomenological result.

    Let’s make the above list simpler. If strong theory can “clearly” identify a “particular” string can be written as string x = {1st , red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ) = red top quark, then string theory must be correct.

    We should give string theory one more chance. There is a subset of PF {α (electron fine structure constant), Cabibbo and Weinberg angles, etc.}. If string theory can derive these “theoretically”, then it must be correct.

    With Law 1, we should have law 2.
    Theory A (TA) has a set premises and predictions (PA) with consequences (CA), and there are a set of known physics facts (PF [including the topmost proved phenomenological theories]).

    For TA, the gadget testing is exempt (waived), and it can roam complete “free theoretically”. That is, no “prediction” of any kind is needed from TA. The only task of TA is to “encompass” the proved topmost phenomenological theory, that is to produce it “directly”, such as string x = {1st , red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ) = red top quark.

    Law 2: If TA fails to accomplish the task above after it is worked over 20 years period by over 1,000 scholars, then, the premises of TA is inadequate, simply wrong.

    After one thousand people roaming free theoretically (without any physical restraint) over 20 years, the chance that any Alice Wonderland which is still hidden (not discovered) is very small. Thus, the validity of the Law 2 is very much guaranteed.

    • hansvanleunen says:

      Since the existence of color charge cannot be measured (it is deduced via the Pauli principle), much more particles may feature this charge. It would mean a fare larger variety of particles than the SM now discerns.

  15. Joel Rice says:

    Perhaps another angle is to ask – if the universe has supersymmetry and more dimensions, why doesn’t it flaunt it all the time, in a completely brazen way, rather than only under the most extreem circumstances ? Isn’t symmetry breaking put in by hand ? Is that really admissible in a TOE ? What bothers me is that sometimes strings sound like a regular theory, and sometimes like something beyond a regular theory. I don’t know whether you can have your cake and eat it too.
    … looks like the text widget ate the code indentation above.

  16. D R Lunsford says:

    quote “The combination of proper time with space fits nicely in a quaternion with real coefficients and these quaternion are suitable both as inner product values as well as can they serve as eigenvalues of normal operators. ”

    This is such a basic error that I’m just astonished that anyone could make it. You can’t mix relativistic scalars and the components of 3-vectors in the same algebraic entity. This is such an elementary blunder that I find it hard to believe I just saw someone make it.

    -shakes head in dismay at the dismal level of physics conversation these days-

    • hansvanleunen says:

      It is quite possible to built a consistent model of fundamental physics based on a quaternionic approach that does not use the usual relativistic scalars. I would agree that it is better to keep progression (equivalent to proper time) and space completely apart. In that case progression is no more and no less than a parameter that enumerates subsequent static sub-models. Again these sub-models can be modeled with quaternionic Hilbert spaces. Within these Hilbert spaces no dynamics takes place. Dynamics is modeled by the sequence. This model is called the Hilbert Book Model (HBM). Still the dynamic equations in the HBM store a combination of space and the sequence counter in a single quaternion, but that is a matter of convenience. For example in the HBM:

      Free elementary particles and their free composites obey the coupling equation:
      Φ = ∇ψ = m φ
      ∫|ψ|² dV= 1
      ∫|φ|²dV= 1
      ∫|Φ|² dV= ∫|∇ψ|² dV= m²

      The Dirac equation for the free electron runs ∇ψ = m ψ*
      The Dirac equation for the free positron runs ∇*ψ* = m ψ
      Φ = ∇ψ represents a differential continuity equation

      Φ, ψ and φ are quaternionic probability amplitude distributions (QPAD’s).
      ∇ is the quaternionic nabla. m is the coupling factor.
      m also represents the total energy of the ψ field.
      For elementary particles ψ and φ only differ in their discrete symmetries.

      • carlmott5520 says:

        the relativistics speeds to the relativity of space and time,is given by reverse spacetime,it is to the existence of antiparticles-that é product of spacetime relative given by both lorentz’s transformations modelled by the poincare’ complex group.then t’=-t=PT.
        the left-right handed rotational invariance not is conserved glibally,implicating the mesuration of the metrics of different curvatures of spacetime to a complex 4-dimensional manifolds
        then it permit a stable holomorphycs vector bundles with spectral brackets with non-hermitian hamiltonian matrices-characterized by
        split octonions-that is a pt symmetry breaking,locally,with complex variables,but conserving cpt globally.

      • hansvanleunen says:

        Using quaternions instead of complex numbers does not change physical reality.
        The above model is Lorentz invariant and implements relativity. It only offers a different view on the same reality.

      • D R Lunsford says:

        You are missing the point. Quaternions show up in physics in two ways that are acceptable. One is as the even subalgebra of the Dirac algebra (Pauli algebra) – these however have complex coefficients and do not form a division algebra. The other is in the FInkelstein-Jauch-Speiser precursor to the electroweak theory, where they are not spacetime objects, rather the grounding for a sort of generalized Hilbert space. This idea did not pan out and the original authors abandoned it.

        If you are going to insist that real quaternions have anything to do with Lorentz invariance, you are going to be wrong. There is a real spacetime algebra that enters in the consideration of Majorana neutrinos. It is not quaternionic. Division algebra mysticism is a dead end.


      • carlmott5520 says:

        biquaternions could to explain mathematically the invariance of lorentz,as well as the the special theory of relativity,as mathematical support.the mixture of complex and real coefficients
        mixtures demonstrate the junction of space and time into the spacetime continuities,already that both entities are completely differents.the time correspond to the exchanges of speeds in the space,but the motion is something dependent of reference frames
        to different observers.then the time is seen as rotations systems with asymmetrics left-right systems deforming the space,and curving the space in spacetime continuos.then the relative spacetime is associated to the opperator PT.that is demonstrate the variable spacetime-time dilatation and contraction of space,and PT-symmetry breaking lead us to the constancy and limit to the velocity of light given by lorent’s transformations.

      • hansvanleunen says:

        I deny this. Only a return to the foundation set by Garret Birkhoff and John von Neumann can open the door to the deep foundations of physics and this discovery journey will take a road along quaternionic representations. QED and QCD took a deviation that closed this door.

      • Fred Diether says:

        Forget about quaternionic Hilbert spaces. How about a classical local realistic explanation of quantum correlations via parallelized 3 and 7-sphere topologies?


        Normed Division Algebras are alive and well thanks to Dr. Christian.

      • hansvanleunen says:

        Why should I do that. I made a serious project of my model. See:
        http://www.scitech.nl/English/Science/OnTheHierarchyOfObjects.pdfI invite you to criticize this approach.

      • hansvanleunen says:

        The correct link is :


        The HBM is a simple, self-consistent and completely deduced model that is strictly based on quantum logic. It uses starting points that are developed by Garret Birkhoff, John von Neumann and Constantin Piron.


    • Joel Rice says:

      Hans: the discouraging thing about Hilbert space is that it says nothing about the architecture of matter; no clue about why muons exist. It needs Dirac algebra to get at spin and anti-matter, but Dirac is not enough to cope with particles. In effect you have to put that in by hand, into the Hilbert environment. I would like to see everything emerge from one algebra -the board, the pieces and the moves. Then we can put Hilbert space in its place. Consider a notion: if complex quaternions define the structure of space, would we not expect complex octonions to define the structure of matter ? We would certainly want stuff “in space”. All the complex octonions need provide is the stuff we observe. It would be cool if we could just ‘read it off’ by inspection, because it took Feynman to figure out how to deal with anti-photons. So it is an adventure with some nontrivial twists and turns – presuming it is a reasonable idea to begin with. But it can be put succinctly ! And it is a stark contrast with the idea of defining particles as strings in 10 dimensions.

      ARivero: re your mention below of generations being ad hoc. In 1966 I heard a guy explain that complex octonion algebra has Minkowski signatures only, (good for antimatter) and this allows one to split the set of frames into 4 classes where the even subalgebra has signatures +++, +–, -+-, –+, with the last 3 being like fermions. It springs right out of the algebra, so there is Nothing Ad Hoc about it ! He also mentioned that somebody told him you can generate the algebra with triplets (abc,oab,obc,oca) as (o,a,b,c) which looks like a Vector-Axial exchange. Can I hazard a guess that this has ElectroWeak pairing written all over it ? Of course, in ’66 electroweak was a gleam in some eyes. Not to mention that there was no Color, just flavor SU3 . If the poor guy tried to write an article he would have run into all sorts of hassles that took decades to resolve.

      • carlmott5520 says:

        appear me that theirs concepts are corrects,the mathematical of the octonions is very good

      • hansvanleunen says:

        The derivation of an alternative standard model starts with quantum logic, which I refined to Hilbert logic. Quantum logic is lattice isomorphic with the set of closed sub-spaces of a Hilbert space and Hilbert logic resembles this Hilbert space even more. Hilbert spaces must use members of a division ring as its number system. The Hilbert Book Model selected quaternions as the number system. The logic systems indicate that particles are based on fields that are configured by objects that belong to a lower level than these elementary particles. This discovery brings several new insights to the surface. The exploration uses some special hardly known properties of quaternions and quaternionic functions. This leads to a way to classify particles with respect to the discrete symmetry set of quaternionic functions such that an equivalent of the standard model results. All elementary particles of the SM are present but the new model finds a greater diversity because it attaches color charge to more targets and thus differentiates these targets according to this non-measurable characteristic.
        The model gives its own explanation for the origin of space curvature, inertia and mass.
        The model does not use strings, but instead the particles walk along a non-observable micro-path that runs along the lower level objects.

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        hansvanleunen, that sounds amazing, and in accord with some vague concept which I’ve been imagining, where can I find some papers?

      • hansvanleunen says:

        Stephen Crowley
        The Hilbert Book Model is described in http://www.scitech.nl/English/Science/OnTheHierarchyOfObjects.pdf
        You can find related papers on http://www.e-physics.eu

        The HBM is unorthodox and in many aspects controversial.

  17. Reason number three is the only one I buy. But of course, that is because of my arxiv hep-ph/0512065 and arXiv:0710.1526. Susy is there thanks to the existence of only three generations with only one heavy quark. All the other five quarks can operate as terminations of open strings and then they generate three generations of sfermions, no more, no less. It is a trick that you can only make with the actual particle content of the theory, any other number of generations spoils it. As for the Higgs, I still think that the whole issue of M-theory dualities is revolving about it; this is because wrapping a M2-Brane in a 2-dimensional manifold is a good trick to link D=11 and D=9, and the Kaluza Klein view of Standard Model pivots between both dimensions. Note that the non-chiral forces in the SM, SU(3)xU(1)_EM, are the group of isometries of a five-dimensional compactified manifold, CP2 x S1.

  18. Robert L. Oldershaw says:

    The physics equivalent of the Tower of Babel.

    Everyone blabbering about abstract and artificial modeling. Virtually no wisdom about physical nature. Progress impossible. Pseudo-reality prevails.

    • D R Lunsford says:

      Amen! For a tonic, read this paper by Alfven. You never hear these old sane guys blathering and dithering. Straight to the -interesting- point.



    • D R Lunsford says:

      BTW you are referenced in this paper! Was good to see you post here.


      • Robert L. Oldershaw says:

        That paper is entitled “The Continuing Case For A Hierarchical Cosmology”. It was a follow-up to de Vaucouleurs’ famous Science paper “The Case For A Hierarchical Cosmology”.

        The case is better than ever, but theoretical physicists seem oblivious to the most fundamental property of nature: its highly stratified hierarchical organization.

        de Vaucouleurs’ paper should be reprinted and listened to this time.

  19. String theory IS doomed to be the final theory, accept or not! One just cannot kill it. This has nothing to do with its successes (or rather, lack of them). For some years ago the discovery of SUSY at LHC was marketed as the fundamental prediction of string theory. Now I read “The more evidence there is against SUSY, the more evidence there is in favour of the multiverse and the string theory landscape.”:-) Any other theory would be dead as stone in this kind of situation but string theory magic continues!

    • Robert L. Oldershaw says:

      The “magic” continues only or the charlatans who promote this rubbish and their sycophants (including media enablers and the great unwashed posers).

      There is a growing number of people who resist pseudo-science, and demand a return to real testable science.

      It just takes time to overcome 40 years dumbing down and the attendant inertia.

    • D R Lunsford says:

      I have yet to see a Lagrangian with even a superficial resemblance to say QED, much less the whole thing. We live in sad times. People like Kaku and Rovi spread a weird new gospel of unphysical narcissism and those like Cooperstock and Disney are ignored.


      • Robert L. Oldershaw says:

        I think the pendulum will eventually swing back the other way, i.e., pseudo-science will once again yield to traditional evidence-based science.

        There is already considerable discontent with the current situation. All that is needed is a new understanding of nature that can do for physics what Darwinian evolution did for biology, i.e., provide a unifying paradigm that explains various enigmas, that makes definitive predictions, and that passes definitive predictions.

    • Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong says:

      @Matti Pitkänen

      How funny, yet even more true about your statement. There are two issues on this.

      a. Anything “not even wrong” cannot be wrong. It must be correct in some aspects. Anyone who worshipping the gadget verification as the only Gospel will become dinosaurs very “soon” as his wonderful gadget (LHC) will be out-of-date in 10 years and no new toy in the foreseeable future.

      b. Bing giving a complete freedom roaming “theoretically”, when a “pure theoretically construct” cannot making contact to some well-known and proved physics realities, it cannot have any physics value regardless of how wonderful correct it is otherwise.

      Thus, string theory must not be killed by lacking a testable prediction as the “testable” is 100% gadget dependent, and the capability of any gadget is limited by the human stupidity, nothing to do with the greatness of the Nature.

      On the other hand, while string theory can have zillion strings and zillion untestable predictions, it must meet one criterion, making contact to the known physics. It must produce 48 strings (out of those zillions) as follow:

      String 1 = {1st , red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = red up quark.
      String 2 = {1st , red, -1/3 e, ½ ħ} = red down quark.
      String 3 = {1st , blue, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = blue up quark.

      String 7 = {1st, white (colorless), 1 e, ½ ħ} = e (electron).
      String 8 = {1st, white, 0 e, ½ ħ} = e-neutrino.
      String 9 = {2nd , red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = red charm quark.

      String 48 = – {3rd, white, 0 e, ½ ħ} = anti-tau-neutrino.

      Being give unlimited (infinite) theoretical reasoning power (without any hindrance of any gadget testing), if string theory cannot produce and identify those 48 strings (out of its zillion strings), then string theory is simple “Wrong” as a physics theory.

      • A Rivero says:

        Tienzen, and it does. As I say, just build all the possible strings from five “elements” with charges as u,d,s,c,b and its antiquarks. and then you have the 96 bosonic strings you need to partner with the 48 fermionic strings you ask for. For instance, for the six partners of e,mu,tau you have exactly the strings terminating in a quark from dsb and and antiquark from uc. Exactly six. And so for all the other stuff; no more, no less.

    • Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong says:

      By all means, I do love string theory. With unlimited freedom on swinging the theoretical reasoning sword, no challenge of any kind can fail us, such as, the questions of “what is time?” or “where is the time coming from?” Yet, I would like to start with an easier challenge, producing 48 known elementary particles with strings. We only need to “engineer” two types of building blocks.

      a. The “line-string” (not ring-string): it has two “ends” and a “segment” which connects the two “ends”. That is, this line-string has three parts and can be written as (a, b, c). For my personal preference, I would like to use something else in the place of a, b and c, as below.
      Ling-string = (red, yellow, blue) = (r, y, b)
      When this ling-string is joined as a ring-string, the r, y and b disappeared. That is, the distinguishable parts of the ling-string are in fact following the color-rules.

      Yet, I would like to “engineer” three different ling-strings, purely by engineering. And, each string carries a (½ ħ).
      Ling-string (1) = (r, y, b 1)
      Ling-string (2) = (r, y, b 2)
      Ling-string (3) = (r, y, b 3)

      b. I am using these three ling-strings to make a set of music chairs. That is, I need some players to play this music-chair game. I “engineer” two types of players, V and A.
      V is transparent and carries 0 electric charges.
      A is opaque and carries 1/3 electric charge.

      The above is all I need. With them, there are some rules (theorem) for this music –chair game.
      1. (V, V, V) = (r, y, b) = white = colorless, as V is transparent.
      2. (A, A, A) = colorless = white, as A is opaque.
      3. (V, A, A) = (r, A, A) = red, (A, V, A) = yellow, (A, A, V) = blue
      4, (V, V, A) = (r, y, A) = blue (complement of r + Y)

      With the above, we can reproduce all 48 known elementary particles, as below,

      String 1 = (V, A, A 1) = {1st , red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = red up quark.

      String 2 = (-A, V, V 1) = {1st , red, -1/3 e, ½ ħ} = red down quark.

      String 3 = (A, A, V 1) = {1st , blue, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = blue up quark.

      String 7 = (A, A, A 1) = {1st, white (colorless), 1 e, ½ ħ} = e (electron).

      String 8 = (V, V, V 1) = {1st, white, 0 e, ½ ħ} = e-neutrino.

      String 9 = (V, A, A 2) {2nd , red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = red charm quark.

      String 48 = -(V, V, V 3) – {3rd, white, 0 e, ½ ħ} = anti-tau-neutrino.

      We have produced (engineered) all the known elementary particles by engineering two building material and one game (music-chair) rule. That is, the above strings have internal structure, the result of the music-chair game. These 48 strings are all different.

      Of course, this string theory is significantly different from all other string-theories (the M-theory, the F-theory, etc.). I call it the string theory “G”, the G-theory.

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        I *really like* that… the G-String theory 🙂 🙂 🙂

      • A Rivero says:

        The problem here is that the generations are ad-hoc. But I like that it at least goes a step beyond the traditional “fermion cube” arrangement.

      • Hmm, really it would be an interesting question to see if your strings 1 to 8 (the “fermion cube”) can be arranged as the 8 fundamental states of an open string. While the states of type I strings are also 8, they are not ordered by the SM gauge group as in the cube, but by SO(8) plainly… Reverting the argument, we should need an alternative to type I theory, perhaps an oriented open superstring (a beast which is claimed to not exist) where SU(8) has been twisted away.

    • Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong says:

      @ A Rivero: “The problem here is that the generations are ad-hoc.”

      Completely ad hoc, indeed, as the G-string was presented as only an engineering designed music –chair game.

      It is not the same as the M-theory string which is a strip-down string (without any internal structure) doing the sweeping to form some branes or making a suicide dive into a black hole in order to change its entropy. The G-string has an internal structure (with bells and whistles, [V and A]) and plays only the music-chair game. Yet, this game has many interesting properties and consequences. I will discuss the simplest five below.

      A. For one Line-string (a, b, c), it can produce “8” distinguishable music-chairs, {3 up-quark-like, 3 “anti”-down-quark-like, one electron-like, one e-neutrino-like}. Thus, if we want to produce a proton-like string (a ring-string), we need “8” more “anti”-music-chairs. Now, we have two very important consequences.

      i. The matter-like/anti-matter-like chairs are not divided by a “mirror”. That is, the matter/anti-matter symmetry is broken intrinsically.

      ii. In order to form a proton-like string, we need “16” music-chairs as the “domain”. That is, one Line string (a, b, c) must produce “16” music-chairs (with matter-like/anti-matter-like).

      B. When we push this music-chair game to its limit (infinite number of tiers deep), all the rules of the game is confined (locked) by a dimensionless pure number, Beta.

      Beta = 64 ( 1 + first order mixing + sum of the higher order mixing)
      = 64 (1 + 1/Cos A(2) + .00065737 + …)
      = 137.0359 …

      A(2) is the Weinberg angle, A(2) = 28.743 degrees

      The sum of the higher order mixing = 2(1/48)[(1/64) + (1/2)(1/64)^2 + …+(1/n)(1/64)^n +…]
      = .00065737 + …

      How to derive this number Beta is available online, and I thus will not repeat it here. But, we can get two very important consequences from the Beta equation. It contains two simple numbers {64, 48} which are the numbers for the music-chair counts.

      C. The “64” is the maximum number of music-chair allowed in the game. But, only “48” chairs are available for the players (V and A). Why? They are the results of the game rules and are a bit deep, and thus, I will not go into them here. But, from here, we do know the scope of the game.

      One type (team) of Line-string covers “16” chairs. Thus, the entire field allows only “3” teams to play, as 48/16 = 3. That is, the Neff of this game is “3”.

      D. There are “16” music-chair not reachable by the players. They are the dark-energy of the game.

      E. While the game is only played by “team one” (visible masses) currently, the other music-chairs do carry weights (the dark-mass).

      The five above roughly outline the scope of this music-chair game. If anyone asks, “Is G-string theory correct?” It will be the stupidest question, as this G-string is only a designed music-chair game, having nothing to do with the gadget testing or gadget data. The only question that I will ask is whether the “Nature” plagiarized this G-string design when it created this physical universe.

      • Tienzen

        Generations as I understand them in my Quasic theory are certainly not ad hoc say as mass and gravity seems to be in the measurement by string theory or other physics. G-string reads to me a humorous term in English btw. But can you see or apply these ideas like game theories in simple informational arithmetic, in information. But the “polarity” you ask of nature is a deep question as we debate if these lesser group formulations of string theories need apply at all after a better unified view (than say the obvious structure of this implying E8 and so on.


        You are asking the same question as to if open strings exist so we all have similar concerns or intuitions.

        If God created Nature by the ‘word” (rhea in Greek) then did she “plagiarize” some higher theory? I wonder why it is so difficult for some of us to see these structural things of simple geometry. Our convergence to a new physics (and as some in the pages think a new level involving consciousness of some sorts thus quasi religious reality or thinking) looks to me to have all the free developing quasi-fractal like complexity of merging spinning winds into a great tornando.. spin is important in this sense as the same question (see kimmo’s descriptive formulas which may be ad hoc or not- but what isn’t?


  20. Lawrence B. Crowell says:

    There are also the S and T dualities which give string theory some elegance. I would also include the fact it has representations or amplitudes that are given by special functions, such as Jacobi theta functions and zeta functions.

    There is no guarantee that string theory is correct. It would seem rather eggregious if nature should have absolutely no characteristics found in string theory. The time frame for finding SUSY has been rather long, and it will likely be longer before any confirmation of string theory predictions can come forth. There is precidence for this, where general relativity still awaits the detection of gravity waves. Even further in time the atomic theory was advanced by Leucippus and Democritus24 centuries before evidence supported it.


  21. Stephen Crowley says:

    http://resonance.is/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/1367405491-Haramein342013PRRI3363.pdf Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass ? *shrug* friend just sent this to me. Dunno what good it does besides make the head spin

  22. Mark Thomas says:

    Kepler at first tried to define planetary orbits using the Platonic mysteries in his irrational ‘Cosmographic Mysterium’. By today’s standards this would be considered crackpottery. Yet he emerged from this to define the laws of planetary motion in a mathematical beautiful rigorous form. Today’s irrational form of this ‘Cosmographicum Mysterium’ maybe the ‘String Landscape’. Something beautiful and somewhat disparate (ie first principles) may emerge from this which gives foundational perspective (maybe a pure Mathematical Structure). Otherwise final incomprehensibilty due to ‘the end game’ is no good. The last film for physicists would then be “How I learned to stop worrying about the Final Theory and learned to love the String Landscape”

    • Nah, Kepler _at first_ tried to define planetary orbits using the work in “Stereometria doliorum vinorum” and he succeeded, finding the area law.

      • Mark Thomas says:

        Hi Alejandro, Looking at the sequence of his publications the ‘Mysterium Cosmographicum ‘ was published ~1596 , his first 2 laws published about 1609 and “Stereometria dolorium vinorum” published ~1615. I am looking at it generally and maybe not scholarly refined as you might be (where maybe Kepler mentions prior ideas). Also, maybe i am not clear (not surprising) as I did not mean to say he developed his 3 laws from the Mysterium Cosmographicum but that he abandoned that method for something better.

      • Hmm Mark, you are right, the Mysterium precedes to the Stereometria. It seems I mix the details of the Mysterium with the Harmonice Mundi, which is a late work. Still, the closest work to the area law is the Stereometria, a work that accidentaly starts where Archimedes left and that shares foundations with the math needed for the area law, and I am surprised that it is usually neglected when speaking of Kepler work and ideas.

      • Orwin O'Dowd says:

        I don’t think that was accidental, Alejandro: if you read the Method of Archimedes carefully (letter to Erastosthenes, Heiberg MS), he talks about a parallelogram with inscribed cone, so the modern ed. scribbles ‘square’ (Bad Archimedes, Bad, Bad..): that’s the connics of Apollonius all dressed up dimensional variation, whereby the circle may appear an ellipse. As I was saying earlier, the epicycle with negative spin tracers and ellipse anyway (proof by the harmonic Pythagorean cos^2 + sin^2 – 1, interestingly)…. and was always a testable prediction, although the work in astronomy then went into optical corrections for refraction, lenses, etc.

  23. […] (2013 Updated Version)Semiconductor Device Physics and DesignUnderstanding Physics and RouletteWhy I Still Like String Theory /* 960) || ($(document).width() > 960) ) { // Viewport is greater than tablet: portrait } else { […]

  24. Word Up says:

    The question is how non-trivial is string theory as an extrapolation of the data?

  25. Dirk Pons says:

    An alternative possibility is that perhaps no single existing theory is perfect but each theory gives partial insights. Rather than one answer being ‘right’ and all the rest ‘wrong’, there may be space for contributions from many theories, depending on the level at which the problem is being viewed.
    We have seen this before: Newtonian mechanics is still a sufficient mechanics (at certain levels). And we know that general relativity, which replaced it, is still not perfect.
    Likewise string theory may yet give us the mathematical representation we need, even while other theories illuminate the problem better from different perspectives.
    There is no rush: none of these theories is going to triumph tomorrow, so we can afford to be less dogmatic and more open-minded about options!

    • There is no rush anymore! ToEbi is the TOE. It’s validated by Extended Cavendish Experiment and Rouvari Experiment and later this year by Extended Rouvari Experiment.

  26. Wes Hansen says:

    Why isn’t anyone in the blogoshere addressing the new paper (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/science/solving-a-riddle-of-primes.html?_r=0) by Yitang Zhang of New Hampshire University regarding the Twin Prime Conjecture? I thought it would generate a bit of excitement . . .

  27. Kepler originated the idea that the center of a straight line is a point at infinity or parallel lines intersect at an ideal point at infinity- intersecting lines also have a corresponding ideal point. Now when are we going to finish transformation theory on these terms that still thinks we need the limit idea of of plus or minus potential infinity so the old physics continues to think in terms of such reduction as if there is no infinitesimal as literal? So we merely develop the logs say with 5 base and 32 elements debating half or double of the picture.

    If a string is like such a line will it make a pair or be one thing- Wes, I did not think that twin prime proof interesting yet and certainly not fundamental but does seek the “standard things expected to fall out of string theory” but it is not the only game in town (not is this the TOE kimmo, what makes your unique beyond your sense of the scope of that theory? How can exponential notation of a vague connection of protective space to complex space give us answers- now Phil cited a paper that claims the string theory in the abstract there: “String theory currently is the only viable candidate for a unified description of all known natural forces.” Now, Phil, I have no problem with the term structural realism but only as a concrete idea of the physical as if a structure- not some sort of philosophy. This paper was in 2007… so my concerns for some time now on uniqueness as a general “newly emerging principle” is found independently before my postings and all that emerges from my sense of the truth of it is its growing importance in my thoughts. Yet it seems only to raise the bar as to speculations in paradox.

    I may download the pdf later this only from the abstract.

    I think in this case, other than a hint of no necessary realities as a meta principle, philosophy puts a drag on the research for science that should be free its method…but if I find the same sort of ideas what sort of uniqueness might this confirm of the general idea math mysteriously applies to physical descriptions?

    Yet we say of Kepler, who deduced the starry regular polygons, he was a number mystic in the music and the geometry- yet said of him he made he first “falsifiable” cosmological theory. Doesn’t anyone care to extend his first model to higher dimensions or being the concern of the 20th century the idea is still trying to catch on?

    Now, Wes considering these things does it really mean anything to say there is an infinity of twin primes, or even a last of them somewhere let alone a proof for it in the old physics-math manner? Can there not be a simple elementary proof as for so many other things?

    (error in posting this I think more I wrote:)

    Yes the octonions apply and perhaps the 24ions. ()and beyond) I have no doubts about SUSY but not in that form as the unique one. I was fortunate do know Euclidean n-dimensional geometry when it was out of fashion before string theory but beyond Coxeter what do the string theorist add new and not even apply all of him? Intrinsic to the method or stance philosophy in anguish or appeal to gods beyond the abilities or energies today or if ever of experiments over nominalism is the state of the wisdom today. We do not yet understand and still debate not to face such infinity or absolute nothingness.

    kimmo, keep this in mind as I read this not a place for pet TOEs of which it may seem a complete picture in your own universe that I feel strongly what I do not know or may not as well as science leads to science and in a strange mirror the bizarre pseudoscience begets pseudoscience flourishing as well. The old science begets the new in the main where in the end it is the little things in life that mean a lot and we miss the most. And very simple things like four consecutive number divisible by 24… prove important.

    Oh, where is the center of a string but as Kepler said at the ideal infinity or before him (should we not extend his falsifiable model to higher space new to us in the 20th century?) as if a center of a line? The old god is the circumference nowhere and center everywhere? ( If I did not repeat myself in the last post…) so our old methods of protective models taken as complex plane ones limiting from the start as powerful enough to describe a unified physics- this include the narrow perception of the uniqueness of string theory.

    • Otto: I’m a bit offended by your words. You *may* say ToEbi is a pet theory but can you say how many pet theories give working equations, experiments and capability to create antimatter bomb?

      I’m actually stunned by the fact that it’s quite possible to blow up whole Earth and nobody cares!

      • What happens if we extend your “equations” (sorry I have not seen them) to blow up the whole universe? I did not mean to offend- anymore than I want to be blind to my own errors or lack of wisdom… I want to know some things or answers in this lifetime but I must say I am pretty much satisfied with the pictures that seem to have endured over ideas of time. So my find young man what do you think your TOE might evolve to over time or your own work and enthusiasm (I praise that btw)? You do know there is evidence that matter and antimatter may coexist and not be as easy to explode as the great energy is imagined there to exist even in a paper clip. But yes, the world seems a dangerous place even from nature alone- in 2008 I saw on a stray cable channel that Springfield Illinios had tornado disaster near where I once lived… I did not know this. I am amazed we did not better prepare for this and other disasters…such amazement for me will make me a little impatient and cranky,especially with myself. Science or Pseudoscience or not I am growing a little less tolerant of being fed BS… but debate and communication is everything, thank you.

      • Dear Otto,

        Use few hours of your life and read these good. You may read Antimatter paper first in order to feed your appetite.


        I reply more later!

      • Otto: Hmm… blowing up the whole universe. I haven’t thought about it and at first hand I would say it’s next to impossible. But never say never 😉

        To me, the next step is demonstrating Extended Rouvari Effect which means annihilation of protons and neutrons. I’ll wait till the end of this year. If any real scientists haven’t done the experiment I’ll do it by myself. But I prefer very controlled lab environment because risks involved.

        Beyond that I have no exact plans. But I’m looking for a collaborator in order to continue research as full time “job”.

  28. Footnote: I did download and read the pdf and it was very enjoyable and a little dated… Higgs and all… I did not know it was philosophy (that ends with a call for new philosophy) thanks Phil for this link. Not that we actually have a new paradigm in methods although min distance (Planck) and no parameters are considered lately after all… in my post here above projective spell checked as protective! sorry…that is the core issue of the comment- a new math approach and topological itself is needed. After all I did name my blog create science and philosophy. Hmmmm an argument for string theory because of its complexity- interesting. Ok cheers for now- I am wordy because of my new on line access finally.

  29. Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong says:

    A Rivero: “Reverting the argument, we should need an alternative to type I theory, …”

    L. Edgar Otto: ” Generations as I understand them in my Quasic theory are certainly not ad hoc say as mass and gravity seems to be in the measurement by string theory or other physics. … But can you see or apply these ideas like game theories in simple informational arithmetic, in information.”

    Thanks for your comments. I did a bit more explanation on this generation issue at http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/05/23/how-icecube-observes-neutrinos-from-the-cosmos/ .

    The key issue here is about the “methodology” and the “epistemology” of physics. The people on the two side of the spectrum (Gibbs and Motl) have converged to a similar opinion, away from blindly worshipping the gadget (testing and data) epistemology. This is truly a great progress on physics, more important than the newly discovered boson at LHC.

    Philip Gibbs: “What happens if a theory is eventually found to be uniquely consistent with all known observations but its characteristic predictions are all beyond technical means?”

    Luboš Motl: “While the divorce may be frustrating, it’s a part of progress and a sign of progress that we may successfully answer questions that are extremely far from our abilities to directly experimentally test them; and on the contrary, we may perform experiments whose results may be hard to calculate (which is why most of these experiments may be considered to be “irrelevant mess” by the theorists). The increasing separation is inevitably linked to the ability of theorists to think about the natural phenomena ever more cleverly and indirectly; and to the experimenters’ ability to test things well beyond those that seem simple to the theorists.”

    Today, physics must face a new reality, our ability to “design” a universe in competition with the Nature. If many consequences of our design are identical to Nature’s, then our design criteria (not premises of a theory) are just as good as the Nature’s. And, there are many, many sign-posts of Nature can be compared to, such as,

    1. Cabibbo and Weinberg angles
    2. Is Alpha = 1/Beta?
    3. Is Neff = 3?
    4. Is there dark energy? How is it manifested?
    5. Is there dark mass? What is it?
    6. Is there a SM-Higgs-like boson?

    This will be the new methodology and epistemology of physics, and it will and must replace the gadget testing (data) only mentality.

    • Tienzen and all:

      Yes, I agree, our rational ability to design nature (that does not go against the more general laws of nature. Consistency or uniqueness in a theory is not enough. (thanx for the link on generations I will check it later…but let us not discount experiment any more than underestimate counting or space structure representations itself. I looked up fermion cube and was surprised the statements there as combinations for interpretations and types of such space (paper 2004) was about things I saw and used a few decades ago. On one hand the closeness to such ideas and methods seems so trivial and on the other hand so much written from such a small beginning of an idea- maybe this is all just for archiving for archaeologists in the future for we do not speak nonsense if decoded right. While we might not exceed nature’s cosmic code we certainly seem to influence our own directions of evolution. If science in the reality of it all seeks the concrete then maybe some of us should explore the particle zoo of our diverse theoretical minds and still realize maybe one of us will uniquely find the respect the world showed for Einstein (and lubos he had zero documentations so why not Weinstein if his theory is true and I do not dismiss from what I can see of it as crackpottery.?)

  30. Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong says:

    L. Edgar Otto: “ … we certainly seem to influence our own directions of evolution. …”

    This is a very important yet different issue, and I will not discuss it here. For the methodology and epistemology issue, allow me to make it a bit clearer.

    a. Old school — “premises, theory, predictions, gadget verification”.

    b. New school — “design criteria, constructing, designed product (consequences and outcomes), beauty-contest”.

    Now, we know quite a few “physics” facts (realities) of Nature.
    i. Planck date — dark energy (accelerating expansion of this universe), dark matter, Neff = 3 (minimum), etc. .

    ii. Nature constants (Alpha, c, e, ħ, etc.) and some quantum parameters (Cabibbo and Weinberg angles), etc. .

    iii. Neutrino oscillations, etc..

    For those simple physics facts above, the Standard Model cannot make any contact with them, let alone to derive them. Thus, the highest grade that the Standard Model can get is a big “F” (failed). The fact is that the Standard Model is only a hodgepodge of gadget data (cannot be wrong by having more of those similar data) but has zero theoretical foundation (to give rise to time, space, etc.).

    On the other hand, for the “designed (not discovered)” physics, it must do at least as good as Nature’s design if not better in the beauty-contest. That is, it must not only derive all physics facts above but must give rise to all other Nature facts (the rise of life, the intelligence, the morality, Mathematics, etc.). The design-criteria are that all known Nature facts must be reproduced in this designed universe. Yet, any link between the physics (of any kind) and morality will immediately “make the day” for those “crackpot Bishops” who ordain (of confer) it with an honorary title “the Greatest Crackpot”. Thus, I will reduce the design-criteria to a simpler one: “All (structures) things in Mathematics must be “derived” with this designed-physics, and vice-verse. That is, mathematics is no longer a “tool” for physics but must derive all physics principles with its “structures”; for example, the uncertainty principle must be a “manifestation” of mathematics structure. And, indeed, it is.

    What the “heck” is the prime numbers? Prime number simply indicates that it cannot be “reached” by “multiplication operation (MO)”. So every prime can be written with the equation,
    Prime (X) = MO (y, z) + delta (x)
    In fact, there are numbers (infinitely many) which cannot be reached by any type of “Algebra Operation (AO)” and it can be written as,
    N(y) = AO (a, b, c, …) + delta (y)
    As both space and time dimensions (coordinates) are simply number-lines, the uncertainty principle must be the direct outcome of those delta(s). Now, a physics principle is not simply written with mathematic symbols but is the consequence of the number-theory. From here, we can easily unify the quantum and the determinism, but not this time. We should talk about the hottest issue of the day (the Higgs) in this beauty-contest.

    In this designed-physics, there are two types of “decay”.

    a. A player (V or A) moves from one chair to another while drops one or two shoes.
    b. A “system” decay.

    Every system consists of two parts.
    i. The “internal” — having “n” chairs.
    ii. The “external” — surrounded by a sea of (virtue) chairs.

    When an internal chair is captured (arrested) by external chairs, the system breaks up (must decay). If the external chairs lack the energy to arrest an internal chair of a system, that system will not decay. These can be summarized as the “Show-will-never-end” principle: If the music-chair-game can be played forever “internally” (self-playing), the system will never decay. Otherwise, the system must open its door and let the external chairs coming, which leads the decay. With these, it is quite easy to show that Proton will not decay at the current vacuum energy level, and there is no Higgs issue here. Thus, I will only talk about the neutron decay.

    In Standard Model, d-quark is forced to get a sex-change into a u-quark by the suddenly appeared Angel (the W-). Then, this angel flies away as an electron and an anti-e-neutrino. In order to make some sense of this angel story, a Higgs egg was invented, as the angel was hiding in the egg all this time.

    In this music-chair physics, the story is a bit different. The three lonely chairs (u, d, d) cannot do the self-playing. It opens up its door and let in two external chairs {(u, u-) or (d, d-)}. Now, a three chair system is having “5” chairs, that is, the decay-product must have five chairs total. In the case of (d, d-) entered, two music-chair games are played (the laws of energy, quark colors, electric charge, etc. must be obeyed).

    a. Game 1: The players movement change (-d, d) into (-u, u) chairs. No hiding angel is needed at this time.

    b. Game 2: The players exchange in (-u, -d), and it results of e and anti-e-neutrino.

    The detailed schematic of this neutron-decay is available online, and I thus will not repeat it here. In this new story, the game 2 is the manifestation of the old friend (the W-). The blob of game 1 is now mistakenly identified as the SM Higgs. With today’s technology, it will be quite difficult for LHC to distinguish the chair-blob from the imagined Higgs egg. Yet, the consequences of two can be easily seen.

    i. The Higgs — leads the physics into a dead-end, no way out.

    ii. The music-chair-physics — be able to have a beauty-contest with the Nature in all areas, physics, mathematics, lives, intelligence, etc..

    • I would not give up so readily on the direction the Higgs concepts can take physics- a matter of possible interpretations. But we can apply the idea of something prime as if any irreducible singularity. The game idea as a counting game in defined in a self playing or isolated context or not does imply something hidden in the count is possible or even observed- for example the Neutron breaks down into proton and electron but on what level do we discuss the muon, electron neutrinos and anti-neutrinos in the count of decay? What is the unified theory between them. Why does half of two directions non associativity apply.

      Design is the leader of a process (that is why I take Holye’s term of intelligent design in nature without the usual capitalized religious notation. What I think grounds the use of these simple structural ideas (that is why I use the term Stereonometry for such ideas as energy defined by space structure). The idea of distinct “chairs” in the game suggest that what is internal or external if considered as finite really has no clear boundaries in the abstract so there is a free will possibility here regarding uncertainty in principle of which nature in her actuality seems to me to be quasifinite (my term) where what is real in any universe has evolving and useful meaning.

      If design structure BTW applies it certainly can be from a hierarchy fractal like in nature (tablecloth fractal or matrix) or could have almost hidden things as a principle that may be interpreted to change somewhat the laws of relativity of light… so at this point the basic constants may not be fundamental in a closed chair game including trying to solve something like Riemann’s hypothesis.

      Lubos in objecting to Weinberg suggest the old confusion between the 3+1 and other ways to count the fourfold forms. I am not confused on this when it is in terms of this chair game. We can easily represent things as three plus one or two x two to the nth in such a matrix and derive the generational phenomena- even go beyond to more exotic matrices, a standard beyond the standard theory with its own paradoxes at singularity. The same information can describe orthogon structures as well as those of triangle analogs of combinations (as in the Fermion cube) which turn out to be the same structure in different representations. This is readily seen in my quasic grid along with the technical analogs to why we have 8 and not 9 gluons and so on… we also can see the equivalence of bases where they physically apply particularly for the relation of four or eight dimensions (complex equivalents such as octonions) and 24 patterns just found in number theory. But can our mathematics ultimately explain Higgs mechanism as mass or even in these complicate realms we still have to add ad hoc the values in from experiment? The answer is in the stance we have for the inadequacies of number theory and especially how we handle the operations distinguishing them as say addition and multiplication.

      But yes, free will and determinism is the acid test of philosophy so science too in the demonstration- until such questions of arithmetic are answered and applied to the symmetry questions of thermodynamics its laws are not the acid test we thought they were.

      I add that on the singularity level of things we may not always, at least locally, assign what is physics and what is the mathematics a one to one relationship thus not speak expertly of conservation laws. The ordering by complex primes or by partial integration ideas in the various dimensions suggest that somewhere we may have a more unified physics as well as better mathematical tools.

    • carlmott5520 says:


      • not sure if that was my typo but having trouble with setting spell checker on different systems… in the post I just made Wineberg should read Weinstein. crankpots is a good word for some who do not understand on the social forums and ask what are you smoking 🙂 Hey, I only claim to be a poet.

  31. vmguptaphy says:

    Geometric Properties of Space

    The essential question before me at this time; is how we explain geometric properties of 3-d space. These seem to be encapsulated in Pythagoras theorem, d = srt(sqx+sqy). We have proofs of this theorem which conform to circular logic. It is proved as a statement of fact, rather than a logical proof from a deeper concept.

    If anybody has ideas – please comment;

    Otherwise (anti-Conservation) concept that help unifies special relativity, general relativity and geometric properties of space to a layman shall prevail for picophysics.

    • The structure of information on an axis of a lower dimension is identical to that on the squared or higher dimensions. The state of 3 or n-space is at once holographic and fractal (holofractal) and some circular logic is not considered an error. Now of course we have to consider Fermats last theorem but that applies to this mixed representation. Does pico reduce down to this theorem or can it go further? Where is the elementary proof of Fermats insights? consider the simple fact that 25 26 27 separates a square 26 and a cube… in his note too large for the margin did he mean cube as algebra or as geometry? Part of seeing higher space is our intuition that it can be all linear if we knew how rather than the usual deep mathematical parallel methods of the long proofs.

    • I am not sure I made this clear… so let me try again. In the idea of such generations we can extend the chair game as if a general rule in number theory which Fermat called one of the most recondite of properties. So say we have 16 then three times it would be 48… but we can start with 4n chairs. In general the algebraic generation state is the factorial and half factorial count- that is the 384 rotations and inversions of 4D space is 256 plus half again as much… and so on. As information theory as if a matrix of some sort it runs parallel to how we encode in binary our computers so it is subtlety or hauntingly similar so can be confusing. This does not change the views of some sort of minimum only allows us to picture more easily so that we may resolve extension of such issues.

    • Orwin O'Dowd says:

      Horowitz in Israel arxiv:quant-ph/9602001v1 followed Jordan von Neumann and Wigner in seeking a representation in which the products of “observables” remain “observables,” through the product 1/2(AB-BA). The algebra invo,lved is known to be supplied only by symmetric matrices over the reals, complex numbers, OR 3×3 matrices over the octonions. That’s a striking result, it does suggest that the octionions give natural representaiton of dybnamics in 3D space, BUT the octonions are not associative. These guys can’t work with that, and blunder past the restriction into a mess.

      Observation IS NOT ASSOCIATIVE. If I can see you, that doesn’t mean I can see what yuou see!!! Robert A Wilson http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~aar/papers/wilsonleech.pdf) (constructs a 3D octonion Leech lattice from Coexter’s non-associative ring of integral octonions, and comes out by E8, which is not the familiar SU2 x SU3!

      Geoffrey Dixon (7stones.com/Homepage/10Dnew.pdf) reduces the 10D Dirac spinors to 4D (i.e. 3+1) and finds so(1,3) x su(2) x su(3): the so(1,3) is NOT an ordinary spin group, its the PIN group which introduces a higher-dimensional symmetry that is unknown in the classical, static SD!!!


      • Joel Rice says:

        over at the ‘n-category cafe’ site one can search for ‘octonion’ and get over 20 articles about various aspects of the subject from various angles, with commentary.
        I still do not quite get Jordan’s project about observables, and Feynman’s approach seems to provide the biggest bang for the buck, as far as mechanics is concerned. I look to complex octonions to make some sense of why different particles exist, rather than modifying QM, which seems to work fine the way it is. Ray Streater has a column on the web- ‘lost causes’ which listed some complaints about octonions in QM.
        A question seems to be – are octonions a TOOL for QM, such as extending Hilbert Space , or is that perhaps backwards ? One might suspect that putting Hilbert first is putting the cart before the horse. That is like assuming QM is somehow more fundamental than algebra.

      • Orwin, this is interesting from the logic’s sense. I did not quite understand what a Leech lattice referred to and it is clear to me my system (before I got tired of learned people in some forums using QM theory and its odd equations to dismiss my views and questions so when on to read on it starting with Dirac) beyond that we can at least abstractly extend such “lattices”. So it does answer the question of what is superimposed in higher symmetries and their “symmetry breaking”. I owe very much to Coxeter as so many now do yet not aware of it. Clearly the physical theory (unless one is content to treat it as mystery and simplify things perhaps too much as Feynman did for utility of descriptions) and the algebra correspond (not as in the reply to you which is more fundamental for we need merely to extend the ideas of algebra as we did for the first next level of geometry.
        All this is as simple as how we understand or what is suggested by numbers such as how many and what structures of space solids may exist by simple count (we can break the 4D twenty four cell into how many whats?).
        The symmetry as not associative on what we think of as a simple level or familiar one (or its higher “superlattices” is the simple forward motion into three space from one that carries the idea of communicating thru time and discretely with these lattice gray and error correction codes…for example our communications here where apparently we all are trying to hack the laws of the universe, ourselves, and each other.)

        So, in answer to your comments also Joel Rice that aspect where something of physics or QM describes in a deeper level it is not QM alone under the algebra or math that only grounds our ideas of particles- but a different way of these octonion like concepts which describe GENERATIONS as a primary symmetry of the quantum theory or any such group theory itself if in its physical expression assumes it is primary over physicality It is equal as we reduce binary higher dimensions into lesser dimensions.

        To me the weakness of string theory which looks very learned is the use of groups less than those of the monster variety E8 in context, except maybe for some limited technology phenomena as in chemistry. Neither QM nor GR are modified or obsolete in this sense but merely surpassed- not to say in the process our hopes to unify them our explorations were not also part of the picture. This is the state of things for the standard theory too. I like the poster who pointed out in a linked paper some idea of a ground somewhere that reconsiders co-variance etc for this is the idea based on 24 and perhaps all the number finite of electrons in the universe of Eddingtons Fundamental theory of 1929 with its 64 x 4 symmetric elements, his quantum relativity of which he thought the issue closed at the time- or some minds evidently for all time 🙂 Logic also follows these ideas of symmetry and moves if not evolves the same way – is that physics or mathematics? I certainly does seem to apply to the complexity of living things.

      • Orwin O'Dowd says:

        Joel, nothing whatever happens in Hilbert space – its a mathematical object. And a physical quantity is not a mathematical object – its representation is physical theory, not mathematics. I’m interested to find this 3×3 matrix over the octonions behaving like a physical theory: showing empirical content in generating an important prediction about non-associativity. I agree with Robert that empirical content is vital for physical theory – I just don’t screech about it. There’s loads of waffle out there about quaternions and octonions – which goes back to Tait (of the Thomson (Lord Kelvin)-Tait team) talking up Hamilton and Cayley as inventors of matrices, when Grassmann did that AND noticed the critical importance of the inner product and how it is defined. That was the trail I followed here.

        Thomson and Tait? Big deals circa 1870 when the published the last classic text in natural pihilosophy – and picked a fight with Darwin about the age of the Earth and were out by an order of magnitude, just like Kimmo in his old ToeBe site predictions – its the same vortex theory.

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        Orwin, that thing about octonions and Clifford algebras is interesting! I just got thru reading this non-physics book “How to be Idle” and near the end of the book they talk a little bit about some guys arguing about the existence or non-existence of matter then it mentions the “I refute it thus!” thing which Phil mentioned in the Time Reborn review blog post… funny how threads cross like that.. I had never heard the expression until vixra.. and then I randomly stumble across this book and there it is..

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        Check this out… Bearden’s take on the Maxwell EM/quaternion stuff…. http://cheniere.org/references/maxwell.htm and he has a picture taking with the late great Eugene Wigner! http://cheniere.org/images/people/wigner%20bearden.jpg

      • Orwin O'Dowd says:

        You are an uncanny investigator Stephen. But I’s come by this Alpha-guys already: they remind me of bible-punchers recruiting alpha-males for high-NRG preaching, which shows that lingitudional-wave tech is as old as the hills. there’s a definitive deconstruction of classical EM on archive.org, @ 40Meg download (think Download Manager): http://archive.org/details/ElectrodynamicsORahilly

        I hadn’t seen how interesting randomness could be till i started catching up with your links. First I twigged that Kolmogarov gave a topological axiom for of (conditional) probability. Did you know that Karl Popper struck back with a more powerful Borel-space framework for demonstrating the independence of the Kolmogarov axioms? Anycase, there’s an axiomatic thread here, even where there’s least structure.

        http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.4188 tackles Renyi entropies using the Slater method – another hot lead, the Slater determinant – in a Monte Carlo simulation: and the neat twist comes with the swap operator and the L log L scaling factor…

        I always though Slater got the hard end of the Bohr-Born controversy.

        The N-electron Slater determinant from fermion opertors:

        Off to semi-infinite linear programming via the Slater point and the zero duality gap:

        I’m now thinking that symmetries even with the PIN group need complementing with dualities & then consciousness becomes sort-of accessible. Its the zero duality horizon that we can now work with: zero duality = turing-completeness = linear computability. Consciousness, of course, ranges beyond, and feeling is a kind of rallying-cry to live through the uncomputable in existence…

      • Orwin O'Dowd says:

        Edgar, I see Coexter doing the rrrigorous math, but the existential significance is another matter… I respect you for respecting him, and that is associative… Its odd that the elementary typology of relations is the only dead cert axiomatics we have and its routinely ignored except for procedural matters. There’s a ruby in the dust here, and you propsected the vein for us. The pitty behind us is that Hilbert’s demonstration of axiomatics was pretty thoughtless, and, he thought, strictly meaningless: Frege froze in horror and Oswald Veblen (a former student of Peirce) politely took him apart. Only Stone understood Veblen then, and gave us Boolean lattices, which is the angle unfamiliar to you now, I think, via Heyting working over Peire’s logic of relations, which is why he is not recalled in these debates, and Peirce scholars wont notice us here, far from the maddening crowds…

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        Orwn, that is a very apt characterization… that is how I see those guys too… high-NRG preachers.. and if Bearden claims to have all this stuff about returning ones self to a naturally healthy state.. why on Earth does he appear so out of shape in his pictures? god knows how long ago they were taken… and all this crazy stuff about the yakuza destroying america with scalar weapons and stuff.. methinks the guy went off the deepend. Any way its funny you mention the preacher angle… I was talking with a friend of mine who works at a local coffee shop and she was remarking how Ft Worth, TX .. the downtown area.. is quite nice except for the fact that it is impossible to enjoy a peaceful day without a bible puncher thrusting some nonsense at you…. anyway, I just ordered, “An Introduction to the Theory of Point Processes: Volume II: General Theory and Structure (Probability and Its Applications) ” and from its description.. “This is the second volume of the reworked second edition of a key work on Point Process Theory. Fully revised and updated by the authors who have reworked their 1988 first edition, it brings together the basic theory of random measures and point processes in a unified setting and continues with the more theoretical topics of the first edition: limit theorems, ergodic theory, Palm theory, and evolutionary behaviour via martingales and conditional intensity. The very substantial new material in this second volume includes expanded discussions of marked point processes, convergence to equilibrium, and the structure of spatial point processes.” … ‘evolutionary behaviour’ … should be fun

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        Also… turning computability is an “extreme level of abstraction” as Matti mentioned on his TGD blog some time back… computation is not the be all end all..

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4106474?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21102357935337 Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes © 1938 “Measurement and its Importance for Philosophy” talks a lot about science and physics too… I’ll liberate it from behind the paywall soon as I remember my password…

      • Stephen Crowley says:


        there we go, and rightly so

      • A Rivero says:

        I have just created http://rcho.wikidot.com/octonions to start a collaborative effort on octonions for particle theory. Come and add your theory and/or links

      • If you also accept objections against octonions, then you might consider accepting http://www.scitech.nl/English/Science/OnTheHierarchyOfObjects.pdf
        The HBM is completely relying on quaternion technology.

      • Hans, I see your post today June 6th and linked to the paper.- On the Hierarchy of Objects. I think in the main it is the right direction but the actual next step in understanding nature (of which it is not clear to me at all our models cannot modify nature as a scientific and not just philosophic debate) both the quantum logic and the “Hilbert styles” are too limiting as well how we treat the ideas of inertia and continuity.

        Now, about 3pm cst I posted at http://www.pesla.blogspot.com not expecting it to be more than a self reference a more philosophic set of thoughts which addresses where I would differ with your assumptions. Not an exhaustive list and took a stretch for myself to understand and see. These centered structures in models that may only be seen as with or without a center as possible in structures – is there a center of the universe, some have said it is near us?

        Still, some of your intuitive conclusions will turn out correct where the model is part of the reality. Inner consistency or logic of a theory is not enough to encompass the higher generalization

        If any of you have not seen the water drop slow motion video linked at the bottom of my post- let me challenge you to apply these usual formulas and ideas to describe what is happening. I may address this paper in detail if you want.

        Some still feel Paul Exclusion, Excluded Middles, Mathematical Induction, and re-normalization procedures really need a firmer foundation. As perhaps all between singularity as the infinitesimal and a “time step” that we seem to say makes time flow concrete and directional. But in higher infinities at what point is it reasonable to confuse a point and a line, integers and an extended string as we look at a flow head on or from some curvy angle? If the light vanished between three polarized glass lens but comes back as in qm logic (and simple experiment) how is it that time or waves can make half of the information vanish that we ask where does it go and can it return?

      • in 2010 I created the Hilbert Book Model project in order to fulfill my personal curiosity and in order to be able to discuss with others about the subject. I am 71 and retired since 2001. I studied applied physics (theoretical physics was a sub-course) and started my career as a researcher in high tech industry. Only after my retirement I got enough time to dive into the fundamentals of physics. The HBM is a fully deduced model. It is strictly founded on quantum logic and the results of Garret Birkhoff, John von Neumann, Denis Piron and Denis Sciama. It uses trustworthy mathematical methods in order to extend this foundation.
        Currently the HBM covers fields and elementary particles. It touches composites and it touches cosmology. The fields include the gravitation field and the electromagnetic field. It also includes the quaternionic quantum state function.
        In what it covers the HBM is very powerful, but it is far from complete.

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        Hans, your model is pretty cool but I tend to agree that Hilbert space is just a computational tool of sorts and not part of reality per se. Great work though, a pleasure to read! –Stephen

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        actually it may be part of reality. *shrug*, Peace, Stephen

    • Hans, it is a wiki, feel free to login and add the link

  32. Robert L. Oldershaw says:

    According to Abraham Loeb (Harvard astrophysicist) and Douglas Hofstader (Gödel, Escher and Bach, …) the next major breakthrough in theoretical physics will be fundamentally conceptual and involve analogical thinking.

    Using mathematics as one’s primary discovery tool and working within the set of assumptions defining the conventional paradigm has led to blind alley (i.e., stick with the flawed SM or go with untestable pseudo-science fantasies).

    Physics has been selecting for analytical brilliance and selecting for (and accepting) conceptual mediocrity (string theory, multiverse, imaginary quarks, anthropic “reasoning”, WIMPs, Boltzmann brains, …) for several decades.

    This is what you get when you do that: “a slow motion train wreck”.

  33. Jonathan Kerr says:

    I agree absolutely Robert – the conceptual side of physics, which has been rather left behind for a few decades, is needed now. And to me the flaw that needs to be found – and can’t necessarily be found ‘using mathematics as ones primary discovery tool’, as you well put it – is to do with our view of time, or includes it.

  34. If any person, from unknown amateur to conference celebrity, thinks they know the way forward in our understanding of nature, let them prove that by showing that their ideas generate and pass definitive predictions.

    Want to see that actually done? Search on “Predictions of Discrete Scale Relativity”.

    No definitive predictions = no science.

  35. Robert- what sort of predictions would you accept? So many seem to write papers after the fact so it fits in their system. But what do you do if all your life there where things that came to pass and now would seem like a retroactive prediction? Is an obvious description as if a law of nature is a fact that somehow does not change or the changes rationally evolve is that really a prediction over time? If there is no prediction in principle does it mean there is a nature of some sorts but there is no science? I found the review of Smolin’s book as to what he stands as not very deep compared say to many here- not yet ready to meet my early and intuitive “predictions” save that it is obvious to me we gain a lot by thinking of a more concrete idea of time on universal or micro-scales if he predicts that and it does seem to sound scientific as an evolution theory (but the Planck background data seems to suggest a cyclic not evolutionary model for the universe.

    On the other hand, conceptually, and it is rather Platonic and Eastern he does predict we need to analyze the question of what is or what happens when we perceive things as wholes or parts- philosophy here not quite seen as science. Now pardon me if I am stepping on your theories- I will check out the discrete scale… Fractals are indeed interesting but not the only description and not necessarily known how they fit into nature. Again, I do not think when things are resolved the future of theory or of technology is as bleak as you seem to feel it is. On the other hand working outside academia I have often doubted my work because the answers turn out so simple in methods, concepts and in retrospect. I could not have predicted the utility of them but isn’t that the nature of science to test things even if a solution is unlikely as we learn from dead end researches? I do not think the metaphor of natural selection will hold as a viable scientific method nor will some of the old approaches become irrelevant necessarily.

    Believe me, no predictions no good speculation either- I ask of the limits of our imagination as philosophy but I keep on my mind a breakthrough looked for that would enable new ideas which blindly following them sometimes finds them right solutions- rewarding when someone predicts a particular project could not be done or it was overlooked for centuries in the inquiry into nature.

    I really thought some of these things where way beyond me or would take a long time in study even in school – the myth of genius or even mental illness and so on- but if it is accessible to an average soul then maybe after we sort out the conceptual zoo there is hope we have a better foundation to explore from. Sometimes mathematics and geometry seem too confining, but that usually means we become comfortable after confusions- as if we are in the eye of a storm- math is not to be dismissed off hand any more than we claim something like quantum theory or higher dimensions are mysterious, unknowable, and even mystical. But I must say this path I have followed was about as mysterious to think about as the universe when you ask the why of it.

    • Robert O I just read your paper and find it of the highest order among those I have read… I especially like the discussion for objects in space like neutron stars, and of the particle radii…I tend to see predictions may be beyond mere statistical standards
      and more absolute (I mean do naked singularities exist in nature… would be football shaped ends in computer simulations check out the ring nebula view news lately… self similarity is a wonderful thing, even without complex planes it seems to have analogical uses in all positive or neutral space. Do you predict that dark matter cannot be subdivided and do so strongly… where do fractals not quite match say natural trees? I predict that there are other forms of self reference involved in the description of the world and in this sense, limited by our thoughts or resources or experimental technology- I would say also there is a lot of work to do and this alternative a source of wide predictions too. For now mathematically I agree with Leo Vuyk and what is inside say stars as fractal like as you and Hawking envisioned of such centers- in math and physics mirror symmetry is everything… but which side of nature’s mirror do we imagine we are on? You have my attention.

    • Robert L. Oldershaw says:

      Definitive predictions are feasibly tested, made prior to testing, are quantitative or very uniquely qualitative, are NON-ADJUSTABLE, and are unique to the theory being tested.

      These definitive predictions are what guides science to real discoveries and what identifies pseudo-science as the untestable rubbish that it is.

      Succinctness is a great virtue.

      • I gave you the test for ToEbi (Rouvari Effect). Now I make a new prediction… based on ToEbi, Extended Rouvari Effect can be used as a WMD (Antimatter Bomb)… easily.

      • In “Show me the money!” spirit I’ll give detailed instructions how to make an antimatter bomb with (almost) household equipment. In order to make it interesting, instructions will be given step by step. I’ll give the first step today in ToEbi blog.

      • No…think of something fun or useful as a source of energy, and in this sense you should tweak or ADJUST your predictions or the theory- that would be an achievement like controlled fusion…Kimmo hmmm can you amplify your effect by finer wide band fractal antennas (without blowing up your smartphone?)

      • What good it does to enhance my theory? Seriously. Nobody won’t publish highly speculative paper. I gave experiments in order to prove ToEbi, nobody cares… Only effective way is to build that God damn antimatter bomb and use it. It’s hard to argue… 😉

        I won’t use it but somebody else will for sure.

    • Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong says:

      L. Edgar Otto: “Robert- what sort of predictions would you accept? So many seem to write papers after the fact so it fits in their system. But what do you do if all your life there where things that came to pass and now would seem like a retroactive prediction?”

      For any given number, it can be always approached by, at least, one numerological equation. For any given physics result, it is not hard to come up a theory to encompass it.

      On the other hand, a “system” (not theory) has a set of definitely outcomes regardless of the predictions or the postdictions (retroactive predictions). That is, the validity of a “system” must be judged with its internal framework and its “necessary” outcomes, not about the predictions or the postdictions.

      Furthermore, if a “system” can encompass more than one un-related postdictions, it then goes way beyond of retroactive predictions.

      • carlmott5520 says:

        the dark matter,dark energy,and antimatter must not exist in the nature.these factors are due the mathematical structures not totally corrects.the physical structures are incompletesthe antiparticles are phenomenon produced by the asymmetry of space and time. it is are bunched locally energy due the asymmetry
        of the transformation of mass into energy and viceversa ,that correspond the variations of speeds nearest of the speed of light.

  36. Robert L. Oldershaw says:

    Regarding the recent interest in glitch phenomena, i.e., a sudden and short-lived spin-up of ultracompact objects, the following can be noted.

    Both subatomic nuclei and neutron stars have been observed to undergo glitches.

    In published papers Discrete Scale Relativity has cited this highly analogous behavior as an excellent example of exact self-similarity exhibited by analogue objects on neighboring cosmological Scales of nature’s discrete hierarchy.

    A new paradigm awaits open minds: http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .

    It is exceedingly unified and makes many definitive predictions, some of which have been verified: http://www.academia.edu/2917630/Predictions_of_Discrete_Scale_Relativity .

    Robert L. Oldershaw
    Discrete Scale Relativity/Fractal Cosmology

    • Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong says:

      Robert L. Oldershaw: “let them prove that by showing that their ideas generate and pass definitive predictions.

      Definitive predictions are feasibly tested, made prior to testing, are quantitative or very uniquely qualitative, are NON-ADJUSTABLE, and are unique to the theory being tested.

      These definitive predictions are what guides science to real discoveries and what identifies pseudo-science as the untestable rubbish that it is.”

      Your position is not new but a reiterate of the very old one. Indeed, many very prominent physicists are going “off” from this old school, such as the M-theory or F-theory which predicts something way beyond the reach of any human gadget in the foreseeable future. Your demand is in fact giving them a hiding place. We should simply ask them to show what they can do to produce what are known, to reproduce all known physics from their theories.

      This is where the “design-epistemology” comes in. That is, the argument of predictions or postdictions is no more but is replaced by a “beauty-contest” which encompasses not one or a few predictions but “all” aspects of Nature. Yet, this new epistemology has some very strict rules.

      a. No known physics (principles, laws, data, etc.) can be a part of the design “base”. That is, no known physics can be “put-in” at the base.

      b. No known physics can be a part of the design “procedure”.

      c. The design “outcomes” can then enter the beauty-contest with the Nature, in all aspects (physics, mathematics, biology, philosophy and all the whatnot).

      Robert L. Oldershaw: “ … It is exceedingly unified and makes many definitive predictions, some of which have been verified: …”

      I did review your website awhile back. It has very good physics. And, “discrete” and “self-similarity” are two fundamental attribute of Nature. But, you have two problems.

      1. You personally carry not much weight. Correct and good physics will lead you to nowhere.

      2. Your work lacks the power of strike the core issue of today, such as the Higgs. That is, it can be comfortably ignored without any lasting consequence. On the other hand, the G-string has provided an alternative for the Higgs egg, a true beauty-contest. The LHC might mistakenly announce the Higgs egg as the winner, but the Nature will give the final verdict. If LHC is wrong, it will be marked in history on its blunder.

      • If Robert is wrong in that part of our nature visions then I am wrong too, we all are… but I read what you say as contradictions if I read it right… is this philosophy (epistemology?) maybe a sort of Bayesian convergence to some truth or a teleology to it? This fractal idea even in its qualitative or quantative forms (that is not a third view as a physics with is “known” by the way). So the general principle is “There are no necessary realities”-;and that does not forbid a necessary one that could be found- if we hack nature’s code we might find it . String theory does not address the weight problem and if your thinking as method or procedure (that can by such distinguishable indistinguishables in paradox know the “base” or measure real things in the teleology of “expected outcomes”) thinking is nowhere and will lead you nowhere. Do our paradigms not have a general adjustment by falsification, a sort of fuzzy logic for its beauty contests of natural selections? If the theories are positive and not proving negatives and retro-diction is more general but not true and you see this then what is the basis for your philosophy here? Can you not entertain the thought there are higher levels that unify things that is not an error of strictness? How do you really judge what is pseudo or real science then? Is your g-string compelling enough to dismiss strings and Higgs? If so then as the facts of the science tell us please. Go see John Baez blog of so many thousands of followers, does that carry much weight- His diagrams there are not beyond our understanding here but leave a little more to be done the way we do math like this.

  37. Stephen Crowley says:

    Have no fear everyone, Will and Jaden smith are hot on the trail of the theory of everything! cause like, multidimensional math, ya know. http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2013/may/30/will-smith-new-york-magazine-interview?CMP=twt_gu

  38. Dear Gong,

    1. “In science the authority of 1,000 is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” Even a nobody; so long as we are actually engaged in science.

    2. A far more important “core issue” today is the nature of the enigmatic dark matter (i.e., just about everything material). Discrete Scale Relativity predicts exactly what the dark matter is and these predictions have been published in the Astrophysical Journal 322, 34-36, 1987.

    • Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong says:

      Robert L. Oldershaw: “In science the authority of 1,000 is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”

      What you said is a “moral” law which is a bit higher than the physics law. In the music-chair game, a system will not decay if it can keep a “self-playing” going, especially when there is no external force powerful enough to disturb its internal dynamics. Both the M-theory wonderland and the Higgs game have enough internal energy, and they will not decay for a long while yet. But, they will eventually disintegrate when the true truth is known by about 14% [(1/e) ^2] of the population.

      Robert L. Oldershaw: “A far more important “core issue” today is the nature of the enigmatic dark matter… Discrete Scale Relativity predicts exactly what the dark matter is and these predictions have been published in the Astrophysical Journal 322, 34-36, 1987.”

      Bad, bad, bad. Is your “prediction” any different from those of M-theory? If you can reduce “your theory” to a base without any “known physics (principles, laws, data, etc.)” while you can reconstruct the entire “known physics” from that base, your theory cannot be wrong.

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        Funny ya’ll speak of moral laws… I was researching the things Orwin pointed out about the foundations of probability and came across http://www.scribd.com/doc/82118339/History-of-Probability-Upto-Kolmogorov see 2.2 Cournot’s Principle regarding “morally impossible” and “morally certain” events…

      • Orwin O'Dowd says:

        Laplace spoke of fortune physique and fortune morale (social status), and thought them correlated in the moral order: that was the wrap on Europe’s insurance industry, run up in Switzerland by the Bernoulli maffia – but the history is totally obscure until Rodrigues the banker pops up anticipating Hermite and Schrodinger. So J.M. Keynes took the gap to speculate in foreign currency for Cambridge while writing complete guff about correlations… which winds on into today’s “designer epistemology”: its all about Intellectuals doing Art for Art’s Sake && overdoing Absinthe. [Weirdly, there’s an old Artemisia herb recipe in there that’s good for chloracne (PCB-type pollution), if used as an aftershave…]

        The Two Cultures came apart in the process. And meanwhile Stahls at the Univeristy of Halle in Prussia was already onto diseases of overconsumption – but he was an animist!! & the whole scene got shot up by Napoleon && Hegel though he was seeing the Spirit of Reason in History in Person….

      • Orwin O'Dowd says:

        &&& I forgot to tell you about Chebyshev, who was a contemporary of Gauss, and the magic in Kolmogarov’s spectacular early career. Weirdly, if you take Ptolemey’s epicycles to be the wheels of Chariots of Fire rolling round the Celestial Sphere’s you get a cycloid problem (Aristotle gaped at it) with solutions in Chebyshev polynomials. So modern random dynamics came straight out of Astrology via Byzantine Neoplatonism.

        It’s that, or believe that Kepler used Egyptian tradition about so-called Platonic solids as dimensional regularization to solve the inverse problem of reducing the phaenomena, as we used to say. In that case, his invariant, the specific action, is the measure of dimensionality. Weirdly, I find that Democritus knew about that in the image of eidola, Fourier’s film coefficient, contemporary with Chebyshev.

  39. Robert L. Oldershaw says:

    For anyone who would like to see Discrete Scale Relativity’s predictions for the dark matter, and supporting empirical evidence for its candidates, a very accessible source is:

    http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/mass-estim.html .

    This was published in the journal Fractals 10(1), 27-38, 2002.

    Prof. M. Hawkins also has a review of evidence for ubiquitous primordial black holes in is paper “The case for primordial black holes as dark matter” which is readily available at arxiv.org.

  40. Kant returns again thru computer theory back doors, his awe of the starry sky above and the moral law within…

  41. Robert L. Oldershaw says:

    Kant was an early (Democritus was there in the 5th century BC) advocate of an infinite hierarchical universe, as was Spinoza.

    Alas, today’s cosmologists have little or no conceptual sophistication, and they do not bother to consult nature for hints.

  42. David Brown says:

    According to Witten, string theory makes 3 general predictions: gravity, nonabelian gauge symmetry, and supersymmetry.
    http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/papers/mmm.pdf Magic, Mystery, and Matrix
    I have conjectured that nature has supersymmetry in the form of superpartners if and only if nature is infinite. I have also conjectured that the Fernåndez-Rañada-Milgrom effect is empirically valid. Both of the preceding conjectures might be wrong.
    Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.
    The majority of the relevant experts disagree with the preceding statement — they are wrong and I am correct on this particular point.
    See Kroupa, P.; Pawlowski, M.; Milgrom, M. “The failures of the standard model of cosmology require a new paradigm”, International Journal of Physics D, Dec. 31, 2012
    Milgrom, McGaugh, and Kroupa understand the empirical facts — those who fundamentally disagree are wrong.
    Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology — fact, not opinion. All those who have a serious interest in gravitational theory need to understand Milgrom’s work.

    • David,

      I myself am a great admirer of Kepler and his model- as a practical matter NASA uses his ideas for nodes of orbit decay.

      I am not sure a “new paradigm” is a useful term anymore but what other term is there? I hardly think we should concentrate on dark matter as “particles” only without the cosmology data values coincidentally (?) corresponding to high energy physics models without the detail we have not yet found. Not to mention the question of structures sufficient in scale for entropy to allow the stability and growth of life changing or fixed over time.

      Interestingly you relate Witten’s epic papers in a link. But what if we take Kepler’s model and extend it not just to four but the more Newtonian 11 dimensional space- is that not the beginnings of a string program. That said we certainly have a sense of magic or mystery toward what we do not yet know in these matters and overlook Kepler’s more what is seen as mystical parts.

      An electron or with a classical radius and spin a solar system model can be viewed as them also epicycles in three space as we try to simplify the hard data. Certainly we should make clear the differences where we apply ideas of relativity in the small and in the large but that understood as part of the landscape for a general theory.

      While I very much enjoyed both linked papers I have to ask myself- Where is the new paradigm?

      L. Edgar Otto

  43. Robert L. Oldershaw says:

    Considering the following list of celebrity conference speakers:
    L. Randall,
    N. Arkani-Hamed,
    E. Witten,
    L. Susskind,
    S. Carroll,

    has any of these people EVER come up with an (1) original idea about nature that has (2) generated a definitive prediction, which (3) was verified experimentally?

    I think you will find that the answer is a resounding “No!”

    They have generated a lot of speculative pseudo-science (extra-dimensions, multiverse rubbish, supersymmetry hype, anthropic pretzel logic, etc., etc., but not one verified discovery about nature.

    What does this say about the state of theoretical physics today? What does this say about the credulous sycophants who hang on their every fatuous pronouncement? What does this say about the science journalism that enables this hype?

    And finally, where have you gone Albert Einstein? Science turns its lonely and very disappointed eyes to you.

    Robert L. Oldershaw
    Discrete Scale Relativity/Fractal Cosmology

    • I think Join The Winners -paradigm applies here. Most certainly it generates more income than supporting some unpopular ideas around. That’s how the world goes around 🙂

      If you want your place under the spotlight I have a job for you. Interested? Email me (mr.toebi@gmail.com).

    • Robert… how might we look deeper into the mathematics that may be involved when a galaxy has one spiral arm? Do computer simulations really come close enough or the underlying theory of how such arms form by probabilities? Could this have been predicted by theory before the observation? I am asking that which may not be as simple as it seems- I am not putting here a challenge. Sometimes new science comes from ideas related between those who specialize in depth…I see the shape reminding me of a neutrino in spin at the velocity of light. Does anything in your model help explain this scale connection?

      A photo of such a galaxy was on Astronomy Picture of the Day last month- I have followed this since it formed and most of the time I feel I see things backwards as to theory- and it inspired much poetry like the digital moon where by camera magic we can show the moon full yet include the background stars- that is the sort of full vision for connected deep ideas I mean.

      • Robert L. Oldershaw says:

        The emphasis should now be on a comprehensive, unified and general paradigm for all of nature.

        Modeling specific phenomena like spiral arms of galaxies is important (and , yes, I have published on this topic) but there is a more important and pressing problem right now.


        To all scientists: wake up; stand up; fight for what you believe in.

    • Stephen Crowley says:

      Robert, I showed this image which sums up some popular sentiment http://quoteinvestigator.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/einsteintech02.jpg and her response… “Too bad Einstein is dead” so… .there’s yer answer 😮

      • Steven, that captures my initial concerns and sentiment too…Einstein could come up with a lot of interesting and relevant philosophy.

        Robert, the ideologies of design as proof there is a more general way to view say the procession of pilgrims carrying candles around a mountain thinking they are not determined (Aquinas if I recall) under the view of an ultimate concern or Unified law… Is the universe not before us as if a great experiment? Does our gene code not have testable outcomes of nature’s own experiments?

        I agree we need something, but that something in parts is not new for some of us as we look at the procession evolving over time. I thought one the key to galaxy evolution was chirality but feel now that not fundamental. What is your most reasonable guess, well imagination as Es says, or speculation it is? I mean in what sense do fractals for example open and close or anything seems to move regardless of absolute or classical conceptions of mechanism and background?

        If you think my musings are pseudo science I would not mind if you told me so (actually to old to care now) – I am not saying you do btw I just want and we need to know some things is all. I am not sure how urgent it is but I admire your passion on it.

        We live and work alone it seems, a great new paradigm may arise in any of us. What I knew of the new string ideas and that of the behavior of black holes , what little with bits of popular reading here and there, was quite an awakening when I realized both theories applied to DNA reading and expression… where is the chaos in quantum theory? You know, it is said that the code is read fractally btw. But what is qm but a sort of fractional or partial dimensions in the first place?

        Where the string theory will fit experiment and prediction it is not simply a set of them (5 of)at first glance – for example that question of octonions and division algebra raised here- that partly applies but is not a simple as some understand it- nor is Einstein… nor can a unified theory be found without a deeper view of the branes and so on as if a development tissue theory.

        Maybe we should map such things as to what we agree or not is pseudo science… or at lest the terms- for example I think I use the concept of epi-cycle in a different meaning applied to theories than you do… thank you for the reply on what seems a simple matter of galaxy structures.

        I am pursuing some music for awhile- that too has made theoretical progress in the literature, what sounds good as a matter of proximities and so on as in my ideas of quasifinite maps and mirrors. I praise you and your original visions and wish i had seen it earlier in my life- I see the link in creative original physics of some here such as Matti and Vuyk who apply such a process and concept.

      • Orwin O'Dowd says:

        Out past the sedenions, the last outpost of logical structure, you come to just the 32-bit bandwidth of all natural alphabets. My whiskers are twitching having understood that Sanskrit has a punctuated syllabary, primordial African pattern intercut by rhythm, which then felt life the discourse of Nature. If non-associative octonions represent something of the branching of possibilities, possible worlds or data-takes of the one reality, next up is a music-like punctuation of it all, short of the integral meta-language level.

        Cantor got going just counting singularities in harmonics, and thought his math ability actually indifferent, so he wandered off into theology. But Stephen ranges up there in search of discrete distributions. I noticed the odd Cauchy or ‘flat’ distribution and marked a space for something.

      • In its quaternionic format the Dirac equation shows that elementary particles are the result of the coupling of two (quaternionic) fields.
        Quaternions have four storage bits for their discrete symmetries. Two quaternionic functions that offer the freedom of choice for free discrete symmetry selection offer eight storage bits. This is enough to store all discrete properties of elementary particles.
        See http://www.scorevoting.net/WarrenSmithPages/homepage/nce2.pdf
        for general info on hyper complex numbers.

      • Very nice and confirms my intuition on 2^n dualities (witch for me was the 6th or zero dihedron Platonic solid angle wise) that in 2004 such a paper was in progress. Is there still the idea there are nine levels of hyper complex numbers. But in the deeper and more general sense some abstract linear entity (such as a string or a Dedikind cut concept) is between two infinite collections. This at the heart of it is a more esoteric idea of continuity than the usual sense. And yes if we lose the symmetry of rotation (after all plasmas form tornadoes too, why not other such subdivisions as particles- 16 as complex numbers alone are NOT sufficient to describe particle decay and structure, its discrete aspects). But if we consider the raw bit count, let us say shadow bits beyond 4 or 8 to contain a physical level of all numbers in the exchange of information and in the realization of time asymmetry then certainly such angles can be applied as a stance to unifying theories. The other comment here today suggests some things are resolved in the extended branes into the diagonals (again a long time result of my quasics but with a deeper view as binary information theory.) In any case while the universe seems to have intelligibility and certainly more than the physical (see Lubos today and link to Gross- I think the ideas are coming along slowly buy save in the narrow physical case string theory in that complex space sense is not the totality of extension of quantum mechanics…Can we one day see them in the sense we now see atoms (that is the Higgs paradox issue here)? Or is it not as likely we have to ask if we can see anything here and now- after all light not reflected is invisible.

      • I use the results of Constantin Piron on the number systems that can be used with Hilbert spaces in order to refine quantum logic to Hilbert logic. Atomic Hilbert logic propositions represent lower order objects that act as step stones for higher order objects. These higher order objects are elementary particles that are represented by atomic quantum logic propositions. The step stones live only during a single progression step. During that progression step they produce messages that are transmitted by spherical waves in the embedding continuum. These waves are the contributions of the step stones to the potential functions of the corresponding particle. Two different kinds of potential are generated: gravitational potential and electrostatic potential. These potentials pose a dilemma. For the same kind of charge one is attracting and the other is repelling.
        See: http://www.e-physics.eu/Gravity_and_electrostatics.pdf

      • Great link Hans and goes back to the similar look of such formulas in the inverse square laws suggesting a unitary physics. I merely mirror the concept as to what direction nature reads the signs and how it does (signs a convenience or shorthand to simplify equations) that may be read as all physical as well. Spherical harmonics in the widest sense is also the equivalent indefinite plane or brane to which we may idealize heat transfer as all such geometries logically stand or fall together, Euclidean or non-Euclidean. In terms of structural information we can see readily an embedding of octonion numbers within the quaternion for complex systems… which may not appear directly connected. Of course many have suggested a connection of Dirac and such complex spaces. That is there may be or appear a multiple aspect as well as a unity one in these multiverse or many-world paradigms. Yet it seems certainly true to me that we have a hierarchy of number systems that can be synchronized embedding into each other although such a conceptual map was not discovered in its hierarchical order. We can say thing like the transfinite numbers may exist within a given physical structure also that behaves differently as if shifting states of crystals if something is present to structurally jump the parallel expression of codes – I think the term is non-degenerate (for example Phosphorous from asteroids, recently, as the key to going from RNA to DNA in the rise of life on earth and I suppose an overview of the elements so used in the periodic table where what seems so trivially made of the same substances has higher diverse effects.) Would the inverse law, the orbits and viriality apply to dark matter ideas as such? Would signs or operations change? Could there be in duality a shadow string in the wider but more vague connection of say gravity and electromagnetism but its nature not complex or supersymmetry ideas. If such signs have physical meaning where might they change and when over time? But I agree we have a logic and conceptual problem at the moment. Why in the first place do we not simplify things as the two forces of which for what we perceive or observe it is a concrete hypothesis of the continuum?

      • Orwin, about the more integer concept of alphabets (after all the sounds themselves in classical linguistic shifts may be thought to have something deeper analogous to quark like triality), this idea in my random encounters with “scientists and philosophers” on the net gets a lot of derision -especially as this idea of a unifying numeric or space structure is promoted by the more mystically inclined and even applied an only solution to the DNA (Hebrew alphabet say) which in a sense is a part of the seeming force of coincidence. I must have early manuscripts surviving from at least 95 or so discussing this sort of vision originally found for the physical reduction to shorthand as to what is the minimum symbols to convey the essential information before computer theory). I just want to add that there are other “bandwidths” or discrete widths that form the basis of alphabets. 16 for some North American indians, 32, and 24 and for English the all important 26. These possibilities of alphabetic ways of writing do seems to form not only spirals opened and closed but Platonic like polyhedra (or beginning with the 4D case polytopes) projective dual structures and lattices and so on. To combine alphabets and counting runs deep in our age of development over history but the theories can conflict without this simple idea of geometric structures… or given this much as part of what is stable in say Beautiful Minds like Nash… we can solve equations of singularity base 26. Did someone here just post of such structures imagined in cones? I find the use of such alphnumberic ideas great for the design of filing systems in the sense of a general unity for reference more than simple binary extensions into the vague potential and multversal infinity that I can find things made from my random labeling. Natures code in this sense may be only decoded by the inside joke of each others theories. A and B then the 24 to label hypercubes in a wider quasiphysical sense extends our Diracian and Eddington like algebraic systems. And thank you for what seems to me praise for my respect for Coxeter (I can handle rejection better btw and cannot believe all the praise and clear understanding from my post very physics like on my new dreamikin.blogspot com so I am posting less often for awhile there. Orwin, I am not sure we are on the same Higgslength but your comments and others here are to me a breath of fresh air in physics that inspires me to come back to these issues.

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        Turns out the Einstein quote is a hoax or something, but still, he might have thought about it. Sedonians! I knew a guy who went off to Sedona, Arizona to meditate in the desert.. not sure how that went. Anyway, I’m not sure if I’m looking for discrete distributions or not… in point process theory the”points” of a process inform you about an underlying continuous intensity.. so it’s the wave/particle “duality” in another guise? Perhaps. On an unrelated note, this just came out (I have no affiliation with the guy, just another “coincidence”) 🙂



      • Stephen Crowley says:

        Edgar, your post at June 5, 2013 at 7:53 am was brilliant.. the first one of yours I think I grasped and understood 🙂 Good luck my friend, I’ve been working on maximizing sanity among friends, family, and associates… not much to be done about the “world at large” 🙂 Peace, Stephen

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        by maximizing sanity I mean identifying and eliminating delusions

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        Nevanlinna theory? amazing. I think I remember Lapidus mentioning this stuff in reference to his theory of fracal strings and membranes. I ‘freed’ the document at . Enjoy 🙂 http://vixra.freeforums.org/0s-of-higher-derivatives-of-meromorphic-functions-n-cplx-pln-t69.html

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        the quantum zeno paradox: http://vixra.freeforums.org/the-quantum-zeno-paradox-a-matter-of-information-t72.html mentions survival times, inter-arrival distributuions, the language of point processes…

      • Orwin O'Dowd says:

        Edgar, I mean 32-bit as an order of magnitude, i.e. above 16. And the punctuated syllable story suggests a foundation from below – like Julia Kristeva’s metaphoric register – and some bunch of humans were going to opt for the minimalist thing. Interesting to think that in America this modernist buzz is ancient, so that modernity now seems timeless. I guess some get restless, and want to head of to Mars or wherever.

        Anycase, intelligent sound as subtle energy (sabda) is the ancient and authoritative position on the subject, whatever the cynics may say now. Of course Chinese ch’i theory is subtle too in its own way, so I don’t buy any metaphysical closure here. D.T. Suzuki analyzed ch’i as a kind of undecidability, which is fascinating: http://archive.org/details/briefhistoryofea00suzuuoft

    • Orwin O'Dowd says:

      The CMB prediction-set:


      now hyped as A-OK by latest PLANCK data. Just read to the bottom of this Woit post (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5966) to discover that this is all with no capacity to even decide ANYTHING about the inertial frames involved…

      Ernst Mach revival time? Is cosmology just about smeared inertial frames, then? Anyone for, uh, uncertainty?

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereology of course being innovated in Europe and not the US.. they are too busy cowering in fear and pointing fingers and making up shit to innovate here, but I’ll innovate anywhere or anyway. Funny you mention Ernst Mach Orwin, at my last corporate dumbshit job here in Irving this fellow that set next to me claimed it was “all about” centrifugal forces and then when I sent him a link to a random math paper I wrote (having nothing to with anything except pure mathematics) he started rambling about dinosaur bones and the bible and creationism and then said entities at the DFW airport were interfering with the sound system at his church. I am very glad I don’t work there any more. The papers you linked to are from 2008… have there been any followups?


      • Stephen and all – I found this science daily link today which for me seems to confirm our topological and mathematical approaches of which many here were deep enough to treat this as a prediction… QED alternative physicists,,,

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        Egar, very interesting, your posts on Matti’s blog resonated well with me and I understood them.. perhaps we are on to something. Meanwhile, http://phys.org/news/2013-06-technical-murky.html I tried to blow the whistle on this when I worked at Yahoo in Richardson, TX but I was threatened that “bad things would happen” to me if I did. Everyone was just interested in their small sphere and keeping a paycheck rather than what was the right thing to do.

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        But I don’t care about all that spook business. This girl gets it right. http://www.rebellesociety.com/2013/05/31/hot-sex-for-real-yogis/

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        just came across this in my point process studies, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammersley%E2%80%93Clifford_theorem The Hammersley–Clifford theorem is a result in probability theory, mathematical statistics and statistical mechanics, that gives necessary and sufficient conditions under which a positive probability distribution can be represented as a Markov network (also known as a Markov random field). It states that a probability distribution that has a positive mass or density satisfies one of the Markov properties with respect to an undirected graph G if and only if it is a Gibbs random field, that is, its density can be factorized over the cliques (or complete subgraphs) of the graph. lol… Gibbs… vixra… it’s come full circle! lol sorry Phil if that was an illegal reference

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        http://phys.org/news/2013-06-source-intel-leak-outs-probe.html a true hero, may the quarks be with him

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        http://nautil.us/issue/2/uncertainty/a-universe-made-of-tiny-random-chunks “A new idea holds that the space-time that makes up our universe is inherently uncertain.” seems silly but what do I know

      • Orwin O'Dowd says:

        Stephen, you are back with Cantor’s controversial proof of infinity, an impredicative or second-order argument that uses Russell’s Paradox for a reduction ad absurdum. The paradox arises for lack of meta-language control, and here implies that without the drill-down to sub-structures, you can’t manage meta-language.

        Now drill up through the March/April ForeignPolicy.com to the techead at BOEING saying “We don’t identify choices and hold people accountable…” Dumball USA ain’t got no choices and that’s CYNICALLY REAL, OK….

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        lol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_phenomenon another Gibbs effect.. this is old and well-known of course.. but perhaps it underlies the phenomena of tinnitus… ?

    • no knowledge in the “reality”.approximations exist only in mathematical model.all would be illusion or all theirs illusions are
      generated by the mind interating with the exterior processes,giving to theirs orders,connections in the spacetime-ours interne fluxes,caled consciousness-that call of sensations. and the mathematical structures and models give forms to the physical world

    • Orwin O'Dowd says:

      That qualifies the result I cited earlier, that four particles are non-interactive. Of course, if entangled particles share a wave-packet, they can interact via the group velocity, at unbounded speeds. That was the point I raised in relation to the OPERA uproar, and CERN confirmed that packets propagate that way up to the vertex-point. So how much difference is there between this “fast smearing-out of wave-packets” and the inflation scenario in quantum cosmology? (Cf ForeignPolicy.com March/April, on the US as its own primary security threat).

      I’m enjoying the latest Qi Tea via Fairtrade from China, a detox special to a recipe I recognize – they’ve been working on it for over 1 000 years. And also glad to find real HARD brown sugar, that doesn’t absorb all kinds of gunk from the air in transit. But in respect of such I’m also annoyed: these natural sympathies are NOT ASSOCIATIVE: they are about accessibility between possible life-worlds, and that means YOU CAN’T REDUCE THEM TO ASSOCIATION OF IDEAS, WHICH THE MEDICAL PROFESSION STILL INSIST ON DOING. Psychologism is such tacky rubbish, and it has academia entangled in a dumb-ball.

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        Orwin, interesting, I am unable to breach the paywall to get the paper at M. Walter, B. Doran, D. Gross, M. Christandl. Entanglement Polytopes: Multiparticle Entanglement from Single-Particle Information. Science, 2013; 340 (6137): 1205 DOI: 10.1126/science.1232957 and post a new thread at vixra.freeforums.org that would be grreeeeeeaaatttt ( remember to gzip the pdf first, since the freeforums dont like you to post uncompressed pdf files)

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        Actually the article was so good I couldn’t resist spending $20 on it. I’ve liberated it at http://vixra.freeforums.org/entanglement-polytopes-multiparticle-entanglement-from-sing-t78.html enjoy

      • Stephen,
        the alternative view of physics lately seems to be tying many things together as our models get both simpler and at the same time more complex. The exploration of the multiverse ideas or those of inflation are steppingstones that have their place in the evolving world and from this wider view, as fundamental or foundational, such speculations themselves find a wider unity. The focus or particle like idea of a single such polytope (skeleton or intimate as the content say as with consciousness the usual paradox) suggests to me these structures as if the ground for say particles may have issues of distinct forms- that is is there a Majorana informational view of one not entangled entity polytope. I saw an article equating entanglement with wormholes (much like Pitkanen’s work I think) or in debates on gravity, loop, string, inflation, dark matter and so on, we can find in these posted articles already a unification of these frontier ideas as in the work of Leo Vuyk. Some papers seem put out with hindsight as if fresh science or fresh speculation as we all are sentient entanglements where our minds are a social multiverse of sorts as in the transfer between clouds of gases. But some papers lead the physics as if predictions and prophetics. We just need to find a little better terms than our quantum ideas so to understand the quantum world better. And in such hidden things as organisms it is important or should be as to what we get tangled up with as we seek nutrition.

  44. Orwin O'Dowd says:

    OMG, something constructive happened at FQXI! Leo and this fellow have reached an understanding via imaginary momenta and Higgs fluctuations, with a prediction of dark matter at 9 GeV, which is in close range of the only substantial signal at this point.


    • This is essentially correct although I imagine Leo and others contemplating string theory have deeper levels of understanding such processes which would affect the values with more focused definition (as if 5 bits is rather like a hyper markup to the zero level of entangled bits over the raw numbers and algebra,

      I note the author of that paper attributes a preamble to God. It seems to me that there are expected sides taken for such now seemingly ultimate models (here we appeal to mythology and humanities evolving stories over history) One more reductionist as if a material heaven (mystical unknowable quantum spirit grounding) or the more corpuscular or Bohr like onion atom of levels (that is more like Dante depending on how you interpret field and particle)
      The particle view is not necessarily excluded or beyond the reach of experiments but more and more rare I imagine…we cannot say if there are such wimps or not nor if but ghostly implied empty poles as the only view to hold not unified and rigidly in our models,.

      If we apply the sign of things over history especially in the western religions of the book we have a stance toward good and evil spirits of which modern physics (as if we can see spirits of the air that do nothing but sleep until some possible later awakening (there are 4 space paths to some ending of time or the actual time to flow toward it- but we need to see a little more in these fractal patterns where enters the fivefold) Is there such an ultimate? well, clearly in these philosophical or quasi-religious matters the one singularity of focus solutions is distant and is an exception, an archangel over the spirits we think of as ghosts or say aliens in fact or reality as if a phenomenon of such forbidden magic after all said a throw back to less scientific times- the exception then the greatest of contradictions of which we do not speak of directly.

      But I am not sure about the math equations and values here nor if they are unique in answers when we do have to comprehend the idea of multiverse- and yes find a higher unity again. As in the eye contact of autism the totality can develop to focus more on the periphery rather than the center- a promising theory of how in all possible models we may imagine and think the consequences if not the causes of such states of organic systems.

      see necromancy search wikipedia for something of this views I did not know before posting yesterday on a film clip at dreamikins.blogspot com for the poetic version. called Monkeyshine

    • Stephen Crowley says:

      Orwin, that paper is *pretty awesome*. I was just in a starbux in dallas and some rich douchebags were carrying on and acting *really uncomfortable* and rambling about quantum flucuations and the military and bill gates and utility companies.. .and claimed some sort of power just by referencing these things… when will people learn they don’t gain power by name dropping and making obscure references?

    • Stephen Crowley says:

      Kimmo, you crazy bastard, if you break anything or get us in trouble I’m gonna be pissed

      • Relax Stephen! “Trust me I know what I’m doing” (Sledgehammer) 🙂 Anyway, I won’t detonate it. And in order to create true antimatter bomb you need very precise fitting pieces and laboratory scale tools. With household equipment you only get some (depending on your precision) neutron and proton annihilation.

  45. Kimmo,

    You would benefit from taking a break from the certainty of your “theory of everything” as with “not credible” standard physics where it could exist somewhere in a form or view not rejected if those reviewing are able to understand (or we primitive primates have evolved enough if such things can ever be understood) – how do we know in theory at least how sound our visions?

    So to popularize your ideas first try to explore areas where some may raise counter points to your theories. What if your theory is true, what then is the consequences imagined or predicted? Some effect may be shown experimentally and still only have a hint of the true underlying causes or conditions. Then imagine in a now honorable work of Science Fiction now acceptable (Hoyle, Rucker, Assimov and so on leading the way) that as in solid science we change some natural process or law. Here, you can raise the issues of further consequences As If Your Theory is Not True how would the non-standard universe look in that alternative direction?

    In thinking about your blogging in that last link here to it – trying to see what it does mean if the matter is the way you describe it I can imagine vast scenarios for plots to show worlds where it could not be true- some of them close to the current chaos of frontier speculative physics and positions toward it.

    The important thing here is to try to understand why it is so hard for us to distinguish the facts and the pure fiction, the case and not just the debate for its own sake as a formality of winning by well drawn and formal yet simple pictures. What do we still need to know about the human mind?

    I know as this world spins the poles shift and some say if we write to Santa Claus he can be reached in Finland with his big bag of faster than northern light distribution toys (batteries not included), Maybe, if electron spin is not such an abstract concept but little balls – then all the elves could indeed bring us new sources of power and energy- maybe a smartphone fractal antenna actually would create from the nothingness your excess of photons. But those rare earth magnets are quite impressive toys, I want some.

    Anyway your mind is sharp and I think you could be a widely read sci fi writer or perhaps convey your ideas better to the masses or some of us who should do so to to better convey science to ourselves. Good thing thought alone in itself cannot blow up the world. On the other hand these partial theories of everything and quantum theory as a measure of our ignorance can as far as anyone really knows. But even that makes for dramatic sci fi.

    • carlmott5520 says:

      the QM ans STG are concepts different very much.these differences are bifurcatiions that go evoluing with time-dependent.as the time is antilinear could imagine that these processes never if will meet or never if met in the past,then past and future exist not.are just processes of that pass by ours consciuones.

      • Carlmott5520

        So what do you think about how mass enters our current equations? Is time just an illusion. If but a process entering our consciousness in a sense can the universe be conscious? Lines never meet or may in some far away ideal? From higher views we can just as well imagine all things linear not just non-linear, and all things symmetric… there is a balance of these cases. Now, if CPT (and presumably the ideas of conservation as three or separately or paired or not) could you add a forth condition which could account for mass or the energy of structure? How would you address kimmos reductions in his description of equations if these count the spin of electrons in shell theory- do we know yet why they orient in the first place or is that still a mystery in chemistry? Now, if the dimensionless constants change and very slightly over time is that not a higher time in a quasic finite quasi static universe? (multiverse). Is string theory really able to be grounded in quantum theory? Groups relate logically but what seems less than linear in higher spaces of many interacting dimensions…so one day may we not have more than 136 electrons in an atom? or now in the multiverse of the observable span are there not deeper and higher numbers say in the heart of quasars? What is the difference really in kimmos natural thoughts on this that do not look deeper into the nucleus as if a deeper and brane like space and how we, in theory at least, debate along the same natural thoughts of first guess simple discovery and reasoning? Why do gamma photons not change drastically over cosmic time and space or from some view they are so by illusions balanced in our familiar scale by passing thru dark matter like space lensing in the great voids? Are not ten Euclidean dimensions same as 4 as in Einstein? When it comes to hidden symmetries and such mysteries what Feynman said as to what he can imagine and understand- from my view qm and st are very much the same at least in how we may regard one as fact and all encompassing theory. But there is more to the world than bifurcation- and less too…

    • I’m too lazy to write books… pulling ToEbi together on top of another tasks I’m actually surprised about myself 😀 I just want to change the physics paradigm and it won’t happen without a brute force.

      • He said it better than I did long ago:
        “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”

  46. Robert L. Oldershaw says:

    Theoretical physics has ended up in a cul-de-sac from which it will be very difficult to extricate itself.

    Probably the best hope is with science students who are much younger than anyone currently writing physics papers.

    Perhaps they will study nature instead of abstract mathematical models. Perhaps they will finally break free of strict reductionism and absolute scale.

    Ad hoc fixes to the existing paradigm have not generated a unified understanding of nature despite heroic efforts over the last 40 years.

    We need radical new ideas that come from studying nature and applying pattern recognition that is not encumbered by abstract mathematical biases. These new ideas must be definitively testable, for a welcome change. Truly revolutionary efforts are long overdue.

    Robert L. Oldershaw
    Discrete Scale Relativity/Fractal Cosmology

    • Stephen Crowley says:

      I’m curious about your pattern recognition comments… isn’t that what all these frothing at the mouth spooks at the nsa think is going to “protect” us or bring about some grand safety net? Seems like more Kurzwellian technoutopianism

  47. Robert L. Oldershaw says:

    Pattern recognition, in one form or another, is the basis of the majority of scientific discoveries that have an appreciable theoretical content. See Douglas Hofstader’s new book, as well as Gödel, Escher and Bach, for enlightenment.

    Given your many obtuse and fatuous comments all over the blogosphere lately, I am concerned that you have gone off meds or are self-medicating excessively.

    • stephen crowley says:

      I think you are just a cranky old man advertising your supposed theory of everything all over the so called “blogosphere”. GEB is old and busted read that long ago.

      • stephen crowley says:

        Also incapable of comprehending my style of humor

      • Orwin O'Dowd says:

        The Gibbs paradox turned out to be really interesting. “ET” Jaynes did the hugest double-take late in his career when he went back to read Gibbs’ classic On Inhomogeneous Equilibrium. Came out jibbering about how its all in the mind, we need a theoretical break-through,… greasing the string bandwagon.

        And the Standard Kelvin -Caratheodory equivalence doesn’t actually work, but there’s meanwhile the Carnot-Caratheodory metric, which gives this submanifold solution:


      • Orwin O'Dowd says:

        I also think there’s room for all grades of representation through octonions and beyond – I don’t buy any octonion absolutism. Here’s the underlying Frobenius Theorem from Carnot-Caratheodory:


      • Stephen Crowley says:

        Orwin, very interesting, I remember studying “ET” Jaynes stuff very deeply back in 2005 or so. Now for the life of me I can’t remember why I felt compelled to study it only that it was a fascinating thing to think about or perhaps determine how this applies to “everyday life” (each of ours and to each his own, apparently)

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        Sorry, his or her own, or any other appropriate pronoun!

      • Orwin O'Dowd says:

        Trust your intuition, Stephen, this is one of the hottest leads around. A few now talk about two entropies, and I have an old derivation for entropy of mixing as Gibbs free energy density. The temperature proxies are just like that: chemical echoes, subject to their own chemical variances. There are scalign factors there, as Robert may have stumbled upon.

        One can take this right back to Peirce on information as intension x extension, an insight he had from tradition and never developed.

        Meanwhile, here’s where the Templeton money is going – re-staging the Schroedinger-Heisenberg stand-off. Yawn.


        They have to both be wrong in some way that opens up the problem. Which means also not shutting/shouting everyone else down.

        A PC-incorrect joke: What’s different about Black politicians? They stick their feet in the other guy’s mouth!

      • Orwin O'Dowd says:

        Like this noncommutative distance which is neither riemannian nor subriemannian:


        Just subject to the deformation of the holonomy. This seems to solve a problem that puzzles Matti, who perversely insists on Kahler (complex-valued) manifolds and yet wont admit that there’s a complex-valued dielectric.

        That reminds me of the young John Dewey (in the classic Bio by his sister), heading off on a fishing trip and scheming he’s a pioneer and getting a suss for discovery (uh, just geography…). Meanwhile their Indian guide is saying its the wrong phase of the Moon for fishing, and they can’t even hear him!!

        Cripes, the whole Bronze Age economy ran on that cycle,its all over their calendars. But today all we can say is that the Moon does not obey the law of gravitation.

      • Orwin O'Dowd says:

        When I was last thinking hard about these things, I saw a prospect for a new econometrics. We could use a standard that’s more even-handed between supply-side and demand-side, to undercut this mobbing of the middle ground in politics (aping what we don’t understand…). It the Palm distribution has any relevance here, do let us know.

        Now I’m thinking there’s probably a third factor too, migrations deforming the economic landscape, the economic mean flow, as it were. What with cities still growing fast only in parts of Africa, the countryside and its Pagan ways reasserts itself: Solar rationalism/intellectualism is in for a long sinking tide, which will erode the very foundations of Academe! The London lawyers who still congregate around the Temple have already thrown the gauntlet down, pushing for more admissions through apprenticeship and direct examination.

        Dark Moon Rising, as they say….

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        The Palm distribution is quite interesting but so far as I’ve been able to determine that “prediction” is only possible in the “infinitesimal sense” .. and the timescales so short that that it basically turns one stream of noise into another .. so the “generalized residual” is a form of martingale noise but depending on ones perspective you can emphasize the innovation aspect of it or the noise aspect of it. Folks were just complaining about this today on phys.org … “The problem with continuous trading is there’s no lower bound on the time differences that matter,” Wellman said. “Winning a race by one microsecond is as good as winning by a minute.”

        These high-speed trades are happening at what Wellman calls “superhuman, or sub-reality time scales—faster than anything relevant happens in the real world.”

        Well anyway .. it takes between 20 and 200 ms to blink the eyes….. strange indeed

      • Orwin O'Dowd says:

        Aren’t all commercial decisions like that? I rather think we’ve been skidding on an illusion since Jevons around 1870 took calculus to econometrics and set up the marginalist bandwagon. His main point was diminishing returns on food consumption, which tilted the playingfield from butter to guns – like the NeoCons in recent time. Jevons was wrong where there’s a value-chain in the food market: system repairs are intensive of vitamins,minerals and the like, and increase your health status. And the trend is now on, showing at stores like Sainsburys in Britain.

        Anycase, here’s Extended Charged Evens and Chern-Simons Couplings. Spooky Stuff. http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.1759

    • Orwin O'Dowd says:

      That was from Peter Woit being snotty about this interesting paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9506019. It reminds me of the very long road to a practical expression of Tarski’s theorem proving decidability for arithmetic on the real numbers: the workable solution required developing cylindrical algebras which bring in harmonic resources. That means we can expect testable results down this road, but these guys aren’t working on gluons or partons where the experiments are most suggestive.

      • Orwin…i was thinking last night of how to draw or map a globe into certain flat spaces and of course in this third dimensional or natural physics view (where physics is primary and math related as perhaps a secondary role). Tarski’s idea says we can divide the sphere into 5 regions but do not know the precise boundary in the small scale between them. So this is a math question where I am trying to see ways to map from the four space into three as the primary ground to begin (and so on into higher space systems where if we have a choice space trumps time.)

        The first result as far as simple drawing goes (I just wanted to map the wmap for a globe and paint it in an actual model) is that in these representations we only can do it as a strip- thus a cylindrical map (as the usual appeal to five space solutions of which the large scale boundary is not clear between regions) The intuitive second result is that in imagining what happens viewing from the three space dimension is that what is the space analog there is really a model of two interrelated or distinct higher cylinders of which this modeling seems to ground vaguely such ideas theoreticians mention in caveats as to what may be speculative intuitive concerns.

        How many variations say of Five for the Higgs and can it be such a mathematical particle on this level?

        I found the paper interesting and while my ideas are really procedural and appear too simple this 2008 paper seems far from my view into its own direction toward a simplicity. I do like the idea it goes beyond the exponential notation in using them in the standard matrix forms— what should be obvious in the observation of branes and negative force views concerning things that suggest dark matter in the cosmological constants.

        But into three space there may not always be a prefect representation of these shadows of othogons as five dimensional space filling solids very symmetrical in 4 or 5. In which case there seems a higher sense of the beauty if seen from within the higher space emphasized to view to which we do not find such beauty in the partial but unique unitary models. The reality of complex mapping aside seems to me a math that does indeed need this spirit of higher analogs (as some have said here beyond the quaternions or octonions…

        In multiversal ideas such math may seek in the search for a physics of unity, beauty in balance, this same principle as the complexity of mathematics as unity of beauty and symmetry, in an intelligible world where it is anyway, finite or not.

        The first result or comment for Leo Vuyk’s raspberry model was for me to think rather it was wild strawberries in this wider view of physical space…but in truth even the wild strawberry has seeds as do some models that treat the universe as organic and replicative…

        I will post on my pesla blog this comment so to include a drawing of the wmap from poles to poles… it certainly does seem to include a direction of the hot and cold differences globally.

        It takes some practice to remember dispassionately to keep the dimensions separate as to the dimensional grounding of views.


      • Orwin O'Dowd says:

        I feel you straining, Edgar, at the weary literalism of the very idea of space. Anaximander did the cylinder as projection of the globe for a map, I take it – but Carlo Rovelli has a book out on him, and is now the Expert. Huh, “first scientist” my foot. The Planetary Theory which had the planets as solid objects crops up in Patanjaki, well before Krsna, in the earlier Bronze Age.

        But Anaximander apparently got geography mixed up with logic: anycase, some time later, in the tradition of logical literalism known as Port Royal, (where the privateers hung out in Jamaica) they were scheming the world HAS TO BE a torus, which got me thinking that the Calabi-Yau torus is doing something for how we operate bodies. It is the case that the brain starts out that shape, wrapped around the gut, in the waist of a spider or ant.

        As for the Scholastics, if the soul is the form of the body, does it grow with the body? Or is it rescaled in that weird way of the Banach-Tarski theorem? To me, only a pluralism of mtter, life, mind and consciousness, not to mention spirit, can make place for all these possibilities, and that means physical literalism is going to strain ever harder between the math and the facts.

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        That is rather spooky Orwin… The shit literally builds up and flows around buildings and structures and whatnot… some people can’t decide if its energy, information, or “air”.. and encryption on wifi doesn’t have anything to do with anything… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondo_Effect nasty stuff I think thats what the random rich starbucks guys were yelling about the other idea making reference to some unknown-to-me “solid-state physicist” in the area (DFW “metroplex”)

      • Orwin, not quiet sure how to take your comment on the “strain” of ever more conflict as if physics in general is so constipated or my simple recollection of very early thoughts on such things were either as an obscure flux of logic or literalism… something Steven does see as rather spooky. At the time some sci mags did suggest the proper shape of electrons as tori was considered in the popular sci mags. Perhaps, some say the world is a torus only we had not made the discovery as we did it a sphere up from flatland. In any case the logic of it for those who can write convincingly of a hollow earth is hard to defeat by the usual methods short of experiments – if indeed this can be mapped- interestingly many theoreticians got their start in surveying. But thanks for the comment of a needed mix of diversity in the brew.

        Take away the material (except maybe whatever energy is in the most general form along with its electromagnetic picture) and it seemed to me the newly discovered Van Allen belts were part and not a spooky torus around the earth… the logic as literal as our thoughts of physical matter. Now this of course only is a strain if we narrow our idea of space dimensions as three which is a way to understand where physics trumps math as the natural basis to begin, and it works just as well, our musings on nature.

        I rather like the idea that we can deal here with information not dependent on its model as strictly mathematical or physical. But I feel ease not strain on thinking about such things other than the nostalgia of recalling how I thought about it as a child (my dad was more an engineer in radio, not much for deep theory that had no applications but an influence nevertheless) the joyful nostalgia was things like taking his lenses and watching the transparent heartbeats of pond snails in an egg case.

        We as a civilization may indeed feel such nostalgia for those old eras and other cultures where in the childhood of our scientific age they walked and played along the beach when it teemed with life in all its changing varieties. Between the symmetry of the reed and the lily pad forms the tori we are only with a beginning of bilateral symmetry by which in the abstract mirror outside of time and scale considerations we are an abstract unified sphere… the truth of such things, even in part, may depend on what levels we take real to the surreal powers of our group divisions and dimensional interrelations.

        Is the cylindrical question not related to the idea of a general linearity if that is taken to higher dimensional insights along the lines of the transfinite spaces? Or do we still call such transcendental values around that which seems to remain real a cloudy realm of non-linearity bounded where we cannot exceed cardinality?

      • Orwin O'Dowd says:

        Maybe I’m reacting to something in your language, which I feel as a semantic over-load. Anycase, it now seems to dissolve through the mirror and the memories. You know, Peirce was actually the historic force behind the comoputational theory of mind, but they never noticed the topological substance of his logic: the “Peircer Reduction Thesis” has been chopped away by logicians, and the topology is noticed only across the hall in the Intuitionist camp, where they wave at it through the Sheves and Toposes of their rhetoric.

        Meanwhile, on the history of philosophy, David Hume actually spoke about Antinet, yes Ant-ient, and that’s also remembered in Freemason tradition. Herodotus mentions people called the Ants who were mining gold (Eldorado?), and Darwin thought ants have a slave-making instinct.

        I now see that Peirce’s topology was related to Hamilton’s quaternions and, yes, those torus atoms: and the fashion for blowing smoke-rings in London clubs, with Cuban cigars, naturally. But that means your Seal-brain World Animal (the Walrus in Lewis Carol, more romantically, the Mermaid) has a bi-quaterion brain, and the mirror of language is at the octonion pitch…

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        Edgar, funny you mentioned surveying.. that’s the family business, http://www.crowleysurveying.com 🙂 I’ve often thought it was interesting if not completely normal everyday business to engage in matters of relativity and recording and measurement… just stumbled across http://surveying.mentabolism.org/oldest.html

        Surveyors through the ages have been a combination of scientist, astronomer, mathematician, cartographer, and engineer. This person designed dams and aqueducts, created land holdings, made maps, determined areas, explored uncharted lands and recorded his findings and prayed for peace between neighbours.

        We still hope for peace between neighbours but nobody bows down to us as we pass by.

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        Orwin, that extended charge stuff IS spooky.. I can just imagine people scattered through random corporate office buildings across the world randomly building up massive amounts of charge before going to release it out to the sky completely unaware that any charge had been building, like, freaking Jaws (the movie) or something….god lets hope not. The thing about the Hawkes process stuff I’m working on is it should bring under control any bounded measurable process… so that’s good.. in theory, I was talking about finance and my friend thought I was talking about incoming missles… and I’m like well.. the mathematics is sufficiently general to cover both cases and this context of semantic and knowledge based overlap comes into play

  48. Consider this pattern, symbolic, observable, predictive, mind bending without meds if we rise above the cul-de-sac we naturally live in (if we can play nicely). Were we not once young men who at the tea of the old men (myself and Fred Hoyle who said in October 1st is Too Late perhaps some young person most likely serving now in England will find ways out or answers)… does that change along with the dead ends and loops or round’a’bouts?

    What is in the symmetry and heart of it all that so many now find hauntingly similar in the spirit of it (or for that matter a new generation of which we today are late but now are defined as a part of it (born again for me leaped into the new century with all the memories of the last created anew after the vanished millennium) but these deeper questions of fractals, strings, dark and creative discrete relativity just shy of mirrors and singularity? The honest work of Hogg in quiet research to mine the clearer pictures in the data from deep sky? Can we not see here the insights of Leo, or of Matti? Does this not converge, as said the sprouting violets of independent non-Euclidean development, perhaps Pierre and crystal classification then the others arise from one root source?

    As Gibbs the new age of bits, information a primary consideration. Maybe the geeks with their sense of humor, shallow sit com puns not as deep of humor healing our whistles in the dark as we try to see ourselves truly in the mirror. Nature not to remain seen as all mystery or a joke.

    Evidence this ennui and stagnation, disappointment as the hiatus in the game so unfulfilled our anticipation (that cannot rest once set in motion as it exhausts us to care then to take new effort to move or explain really the mass therein for now… between each other in our social gravity that longs as much for poetry and not anodyne’s where thinking, sorrow, or just plain living is a pain.

    You have done well in your cup and hour, that best of canvasses given but one to paint… You all have honored we imperfect monkeys standing together we find our wings we may not see save in future legends while in our cores inside we wonder of the gods who loaded the dice, some magus, magicians choice, cosmic gravity is wake left as riddles as they walked away.

  49. For an accurate discussion of the present state of theoretical physics, see Peter Woit’s blog Not Even Wrong and the thread entitled “Farewell To Reality”.

    It is a discussion of an important new book by Jim Baggot of the same name.

    The community responses are very interesting, especially the two by the book’s author (about #45 and # 55).

    It is nice to see Reason stand up to Authority and make it clear where the real power lies in nature.

    GAME ON!

    Robert L. Oldershaw
    Discrete Scale Relativity/Fractal Cosmology

    • Robert et al…

      An interesting read and definitely a book to await with anticipation. If we want to play the game we should not assume there is no third party in the picture but we can be cheerleaders in pointless theoretical debate and impossible experiments.

      This is quite beside what predictions can be made from blowing smoke rings from Cuban cigars other than they may vibrate here and there in crystalline formations or break into lesser ones in the case of ink drops falling in water.

      “By experiment and experience I mean the same thing…” says Peirce in his practical approach which fell out of favor by those arguing from the views of the Skeptical Inquirer. His “Threesomeness” idea as to what is reasonably valid points out what is one man’s premise is another man’s conclusion and vise verse. Feelings in the working out science may or may not be part of the method as valuable, not the redentialism of what discovery or invention belongs to what group or whom. This view comes before string theory so gives an answer now for what seems to be without a good one… why there are different neutrino flavors and how many?

      So as pure space the tablecloth fractal applies in a positive view at least just as well as pure symmetry where negative in variety Such logic, a breach or not with other logic’s in design such as quantum logic may or may not come back to classical models- but even there what is valid is a local and historical matter to which the list does not match to more modern syllogism. In this sense we are in a wider universe of discourse as our abilities and symbols evolve and we apply logic as a branch of philosophy to the foundations of nature deeper than assumptions of our small local regions or space or views of understanding. Are we to deny four space as a real but somewhat hidden concept? Only few people deduce a 24th valid syllogism even when it violates all the set of rules.

      I will set this debate out for now. But if someone can figure out what I am saying they will understand my position:

      Between Duff and Baggott – a pox on both their houses!


      • Robert L. Oldershaw says:

        And what is the basic problem you see with J. Baggott’s arguments?

        Could you be very succinct, 25 words or less?

      • I find Mike Duff to have the better arguments, but that does not say that he has proved string theory right. The discussion only proved that it is very difficult to prove string theory false.
        Again that does not prove string theory right.

        Personally I belief in the (BNP) foundation that is generated by Garret Birkhoff, John von Neumann and Constantin Piron. That foundation renders nature fundamentally countable and quaternions suffice as the ultimate number system.
        Contemporary physics significantly deviates from that foundation. It is complex number based and uses non-countable function spaces instead of separable Hilbert spaces.
        String theory and loop quantum gravity deviate even more from the BNP foundation.

      • Orwin O'Dowd says:

        Judging from the flack Woit’s getting, the whole string theory – D-branes – M-theory – F-theory development is washed up now, and and the real reason seems to be computational: since Grothendieck if not before there’s been this imperative to “tame” topology, and the “elegant theory” was slated to do that. I think they’ve been overtaken in the computation stakes by the like of a cylindrical algebra – talk about orchestral maneuvers in the dark!

        Meanwhile the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has this fascinating list of topics people won’t write about, starting with Plato’s Forms and Aristotle’s Science. The whole Academic tradition has gone numb at its roots!

    • I will give it a shot Robert. Both side are no even wrong and miss each others point. Is time or any concept that uses Aristotelian motion now broken not the ground for this debate? What of space itself as separate regions. Leibniz monads where things are similar within resonates with its parts without yet are “windowless”. How otherwise can there be vector fields. Sorry my posts here are in a complex space non-linear order by accident or mistakes. How is it we may apply your brilliant idea of fractals (with nature’s limitations) and not move toward the string like hypotheses in that realm of reason as something actual or virtual to find out what is the natural model? It is sometimes short words where the meaning has to be long winded and ideally formulas condense things and obscures them in simplicity. What is the purpose of life in this universe as an experiment without real predictive teleology but that its purpose evolves so to ask what is the purpose?

      • Using space elements can indeed offer a door to a deeper solution. A coherent distribution of step stones can represent an elementary particle. That distribution of discrete objects can be described by a continuous scalar density distribution and an associated current density distribution. Via appropriate Green’s functions the discrete distribution can be converted into a scalar and a vector potential function. The scalar density distribution corresponds with the quantum state function of the particle.
        Thus a particle is no more and no less than a collection of step stones. The step stones are used one by one and are randomly distributed. In this way they constitute a micro-path that is travelled by the particle, even when it is at rest.

    • Hans, you book and drawings read clear to me. (we are treating things on the axiom of a correspondence of such real and complex algebras by simple space and standard notations – thus we can ask by reason or experiment if this extends into octonion symmetries absolute and relative involved)

      Robert, in 25 words or less:

      What Hans says only draw the orthogons into the next few dimensions.

      • the octonions and some types of lie’s algebras as the graded are in the foundations of STR and GTR ans theirs connections with topological quantic field theories that are immersed in the strings theories to lower dimensions as 1 and 2

      • hansvanleunen says:

        I wonder why most physicists ignore the results of Constantin Piron who in the sixties proved that separable Hilbert spaces can only use numbers taken from a division ring for defining the inner product of it vectors. Hurwitz tried octonions and failed. If you still belief in octonions, then prove that you can close subspaces of Hilbert spaces with norms based on octonions.

      • hansvanleunen says:

        Baez investigated hyper complex Hilbert spaces in great depth: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/rch.pdf

      • carlmott… I think I understand, read between the lines of what appears that you say… yes, we can look with benefit down to lower dimensions (including zero and null polytope roughly dimension -1… Dirac used the more two valued than the 4 valued system but knew of both… Hans considers such mathematical limitations and cites Baez on hypercomplex numbers (now in space alone what happens after 8 dimensions where the hypersphere fills the hypercube volume? what happens at nine dimensions? From our lower adjacent dimensional view the difference appears again.

        Hans there is more to consider in the general reality than Hilbert and other such general spaces to which the mere diagonal dimensions taking time to expand do not capture the structural logic of the brane idea. If we can have biquaterions why not bioctonions… a neutral spin idea or value as a scalar if indeed it is a finite stepping stone (and yes Robert a general absolute structural continuity to which stings embedded is a fractal idea in the taking of natural time SR GR and QM as subspaces that may embed some string ideas.)

        Hans, not sure if it is more than a statement of the problem but the key idea is in that first book link of yours which is the question in a neutral scalar particle defined as one and not directed path of many can be generally linear and thus the fifth view you suggest as Majorana-like. Why are there only 8 and not nine interger stepping gluons but for these reasons… at the exotic group of 8 dimensions where is the relativity if there is no distinction between intrinsic curvatures and flatland? Well, even Dirac mentioned new possibilities for some future QCD in the wider atom theory and the problems of how we measure the scales of quarks and so on. There is at singularity a region which is the initial one that contains these cancellations wherein on the face of it how can we say the Higgs is scalar then prove it can be seen or reasoned out without higher operational and symmetry concepts? How can we prove this to the satisfaction of all the theoreticians involved? Yet this region is a unit singularity that begins to project down levels including what we cannot be directly certain we can think about as an existing thought.

        Now, before that one paper or link by decades if we can think in the embarrassing observation the universe is flat I found it a simple matter to covert 4 fold and 8 fold binary spaces of any base actually where the scalar neutral numbers do not depend on the base change (there is nothing to distinguish them but some abstract thought that raises our general comprehension.

        If we are just chemicals, that is quantum creatures, the of course we are comfortable as being bilaterally symmetric…yet this could be biquaterion symmetric… or on a grounding level at the boundary of a jump if time is the stance as to what is the natural and real… are we not at least quadroquaternion or bioctonion in your sense? Now to see this merely rotate the cubic objects with your six hands! Wonder perhaps which is the inside or outside or even the divided Klein bottles. Your matrices, and a few by marni shepphard a couple of years ago were on the right path but these are not complete in the logic of how they apply (I miss that brilliant lady)… if there are particles in particles even at rest then why not the same for such matrices Jordan-like?

        See the new black hole pictures (and Leo understand this creative symmetry idea as well Matti the deeper p-adic structure as if a finite fractal creativity or source. We can be seen as a tori as well if we turn the universe inside out… and so on to even more interesting and logical topology where the only restraints we need is our self-referential loops and what there is in nature despite our sense of what is reality.

      • Orwin O'Dowd says:

        What happens at 9D and above? Curiously, it now seems that chaos gets ironed out, or you can see that where you remember Kaluza-Klein:


        So if String theory is perched up there, is it just evading the chaos of reality? Any my big question now, are the thee generations of particles not just linear, periodic and chaoitic versions of the basic stuff of reality? This is the triality that Poincare discovered in celestial mechanics, but that early work of his is scarcely even noticed, let alone analyzed or appreciated. And he just waved students over to Hermite, who was grappling with…inverse problems.

        Now they’re saying, talkign back to Woit, that the Standard Model is a mathematical mess…because they can’t invert it, they can’t take SM stuff, bung it in a variational model and engineer materials. So who said we live in an engineered reality? That God was an MIT graduate?

        David Hume made his reputation arguing that the Argument from Design fails, that Nature is not like human creations. But now what is the theory of human creations, since we live surrounded by then now? Can physics be enough here??

  50. hansvanleunen says:

    However, see for a deeper study on octonions.


    • Stephen Crowley says:

      hans, interesting links, cool, stuff, but what do we *do* with octonions or quaternions? besides, think, and stuff. One of the things I’ve noticed is the annoything sensation of driving and listening to digital satellite radio in the car… there appears to be some relativistic lag with respect to… well, basically everything, http://www.rebellesociety.com/2013/06/20/new-realities-anxiously-await-our-permission-to-breathe/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=new-realities-anxiously-await-our-permission-to-breathe

    • Orwin O'Dowd says:

      that is where our gripes pick up today: watching a an Internet connection fail as it writhes around the globe, the dull sound of a “live” concert piped to a mixing studio in another city, and in the background, the war in memory, viruses, adware, gaming scams.

      Back when I was patching Windows XP, I found a thermodynamic software curiously stabilizing the system… with TWO copies of asyncfilt.dll. That’s Asynchronous Filters, and now its Asynchronous Digital Subscriber Lines (ADSL) which fail continually.

      Filters come down on the Stone lattice representation of everything Peirce was staggering through, and do real data-processing work. But you won’t find them noticed in logic or logic-related computer science. So what about the markets? the failing value in studio recording holdings? The ongoing crisis in Holywood??

    • Orwin O'Dowd says:

      Thanks, Hans: that is deep. If octonions are not associative but alternative, their modal logic (possible worlds system) is that of Brouwer, the originator of intutionist logic. Conventional logicians can’t cope with his idea that to be possibly necessary, something must be true. Indeed, but conventional logic won’t “access” its own existential conditions, because that would allow self-reference and paradox. Brouwer simply threw out the Law of the Excluded Middle, but that’s unconventional. Still, his possible worlds must then be simply existential, and the meta-language placed above it all, as he did by deriving all mathematics from transcendental acts of the creative subject. That would leave the octonions as something like the creative medium: in the classic sense, intelligent sound, the subtle body… which gets quite Zen.

      • hansvanleunen says:

        Nature’s logic is not Brouwer’s logic but the logic introduced in 1936 by the duo Garret Birkhoff and John von Neumann, which is currently called “traditional quantum logic”.
        In addition to the above reference I like to guide you to:
        John Baez, he investigated hyper complex Hilbert spaces in great depth in: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/rch.pdf

        My personal project, which is called “Hilbert Book Model” is based on these starting points. It explores the undercrofts of physics. In that project I introduce a complete new level of lower order physical objects, that reside below the elementary particles and that represent atomic propositions of a refinement of quantum logic. I call that refinement “Hilbert logic”.

      • Orwin you have the higher view of things we need to sort out more up to date theories…

        now Hans, there is nothing wrong with your project and Brouwer is non necessarily everything either- but nature’s logic or cosmic codes and so on is a very wide room of facts and imagination.

        I still think we are limited by our quantum logic even if it does take a higher step to include a gray middle of entanglement. For me there is what I call Quasic logic seem my blogspot today- now if this is a possibility perhaps you may want to consider it- the math is simpler and applies to your understanding of how to deal with simple space. Nature as if a creative force in motion or an atom at an instant.

        “What I cannot create, I do not understand.” – Richard Feynman

      • hansvanleunen says:

        Quantum logic is a good choice for a trustworthy foundation of an otherwise deduced model of physics. The foundation is extended by reliable mathematical means. this implements the deduction process.

        In the Hilbert Book Model, entanglement enters the model only after a huge number of extension steps. It is due to the fact that nature’s building blocks have a set of discrete properties that can be observed via indirect means, while the building block may extend over rather large distances. So measuring the same property at nearly the same instant at quite different locations will give the same result. When the property is changed shortly before these measurements were performed, then it might give the impression that an instant action at a distance occurred, because light could not bridge these locations in the period between the two measurements. The explanation is that the building block at each progression instant moves to a different step stone and that these step stones may lay far apart. Apart from the property measurements, in this process no information transfer needs to take place. The measurements must be done without affecting the building block. At each arrival at a step stone the building block transmits contributions to its potentials. If the measurement uses these potentials, then the building block is not affected. According to this explanation, at least one progression step must separate the two measurements.

      • Hans – first let me state my reaction to the video tonight from public radio on Krauss who came up with dark matter:

        I almost had to stop halfway thru the discussion group… if this idiot becomes a household word it will be the privy. It summarized the very worst or best swan song of the old guard physics party line beloved by NPR and PBS. We need a fourth definition of nothing namely what this “theoretician” does not know reacting as a male to stress to that part of his brain he is but does not know. The female is more unified and nurturing as a full brain being. As the most profound definition of God is as a woman- man places woman between himself and such an ultimate concern. The creative idea of dark matter in both substance and metalanguage does not have to be something like a nameless God – nor how probable in measure one can be thought to be- distant or intimate and existential but both looping in concept and in totality. All stances are tenable as logic as to if God exists atheism or theism. Herein is a wolf of tyranny with sheep skins of cultural reductionist in the name of diversity. Why say what is the reality when there can be no necessary ones and that not forbidden- so to dismiss philosophy as logic, epistemology, and metaphysics in its heart then talk about it. This is bad philosophy as well as bad science.

        Your step idea Hans does seem to me to follow from a more spatial view of the process of say particle generations which is the a priori case assumed in my quasic theory as a quasifinite physics so if the truth you seem to be agreeing or approaching there.

        But to all of you consider this from today when it comes to wormholes and their mouths and so on:


      • hansvanleunen says:

        The HBM considers physics as a kind of fluid dynamics. In quaternionic format the Dirac equation is a special form of the differential continuity balance equation. The HBM uses a coupling equation that holds for all elementary particles and their composites. it runs
        Φ = ∇ψ = m φ
        ∫|ψ|² dV= 1
        ∫|φ|²dV= 1
        ∫|Φ|² dV= ∫|∇ψ|² dV= m²

        The Dirac equation for the free electron runs ∇ψ = m ψ*
        The Dirac equation for the free positron runs ∇*ψ* = m ψ
        Φ = ∇ψ represents a differential continuity equation

        Φ, ψ and φ are quaternionic probability amplitude distributions (QPAD’s).
        ∇ is the quaternionic nabla. m is the coupling factor.
        m also represents the total energy of the ψ field.
        For elementary particles ψ and φ only differ in their discrete symmetries.

        The differential continuity equation
        Φ = ∇ψ
        is equivalent to an integral balance equation.

        This equation can be split into a surface integral and two volume integrals.
        The surfaces where the surface integral equals zero divide universe into compartments, where the surfaces act as horizons through which no matter is exchanged.

        The compartments may contain one or more black holes that tend to suck the rest of the compartment empty. In the process not only the BH’s, but even complete compartments may merge. In this view the BH’s indicate the return of the compartment to the virginal state of nature. When the final BH comes to rest, then the evolution of the compartment may restart. The driving force behind this is the gravitation caused by matter in other compartments.
        This means that the HBM evolution process is a never ending story
        There are no wormholes in this picture or you must see the merge of compartments as such..

      • Hans, I am at a disadvantage in working out the applications of the calculus but I think I follow the spirit of it looking up the Greens function… do such differentials ground what is physical in the reality (surely this is where the idea of space and its dimensional values enter these kinds of equations) and this the “unreasonableness of mathematics some say corresponds to physics”? Surely our ideas of symmetry as thermodynamics are deeper than that of our standard symmetries including the separation and what seems the old link between the complex spaces and the structural algebra…how we see partial integration. I see why you as I tend to see physics as still a wide open terrain even in steps and why you approach from a simpler level of physical structure. But in a sense is our view of such things (including the Higgs as viewed to any limit of power that Mike just commented on.

        In that we strive to bring unity as a model of the universe so the idea of supersymmetry vanishes, it the physical (natural) reality of it as well as our current limits of perceptions; at the frontier or face of such ideals what trace or diagonal of information that describes changes and ground of physical states corresponds exactly to the higher volumes as structural products. Only the temporal sequences may raise questions of illusion or division into infinitesimal limits or divergences. This evidently is a problem in the power of the calculus itself as a modeling tool to which we probe the universe and in a partial view we fancy a system of gain or loss of holographic information in the breaking of such regions of space- perhaps in deeper ideas of entanglement including wormholes or their mouths as such a region as you suggest and I hold true in the “quasic” view- a view that also strives to explain and wonder at why the universe has such irregularity when it could be simply crystalline. In that case the identity of objects between each other certainly may simplify to your Hilbert program. But is this all?

        I saw a great photo from accuweather of the most clear of lakes to which the reflection on the bottom is mirrored on the surface and tried to express or modify it as more than simple limits of what we may contain or be limited to in a plane drawing. I added the rows representing necessity or chance, order or freedom by three levels or flavors of particles in the simple half coincidental golden ratio of five objects. Now, looking into the center of it we find a fourth region with only an ideal limit beyond potential infinity in the projection or the boundary of the photo itself is also a limit of the depth of field two ways as we imagine being at once inside or outside of it.

        I will post it on my blog so you may see it- it is a little crude and free hand and uses Paint because I wanted to be close to the logic of such drawing…control the steps of it 🙂

        Your idea with many others here does seem to fit in to what at bottom is a general picture and one moreover that is not a dead end of strings, experiments, nor looping quantum gravity in the varieties of approach.

  51. mike says:

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with liking string theory and some simpler version of it is probably correct, but when the LHC is confirming no superpartners with the Higgs mass known and no Higgs anchoring mechanisms from SUSY found, scientists need to accept theories that aren’t working and start working from the evidence they do have. Waiting for 14 Tev is a vain holdout for some childish wish that the evidence will change when we know SUSY evidence would be present.

    • hansvanleunen says:

      Some applications of string theory suit condensed matter physics.

      For many physicists the Higgs mechanism is still obscure.

      String theory may have no news for particle physics.

      Apart from the Yukama potential, the potential functions used in strong force calculations are derived from scattering measurements instead that they follow from from properly understood Green’s functions. Without a strong computer you cannot calculate strong forces.

    • Orwin O'Dowd says:

      “String theory may have no news…”
      Indeed, here’s the viscosity/entropy relation from the string theories, but they all converge on one problem in fluid dynamics, where what matters is the shear stress.


      • Stephen Crowley says:

        hans, regarding the strong force/strong computer comment.. is there not the odd thing that the strong force is operating in the computer which is calculating the strong force and thus the referent of the forces which one is calculating come into play? Orwin, interesting stuff… several years ago.. some crazy shit happened and I could literally see what looked like purple liquid gathering on the ground and cars driving thru it and splashing it up… the phenomena experienced was too vivid to be hallucinated.. yet it wasn’t ‘visible’ to all participants in the same way.. later read in the book In Search of the Riemann Zeros that there might exist some ‘perfect liquid’ primordial type stuff… could literally see the cosmic rays beating down on the atmosphere like one of those half-spheres on top of the slurpee cup at 7-11… (just waiting for Robert to tell me to take my meds again, lol) so… of what relevance are black holes here on the Earth?

      • Orwin… that was a great link and some evidence seems to relate it to things like new shifting states of crystals in general which as chemistry is a quantum thing. In my terms it is the atmosphere as if the perfect liquid (brane or black hole surface) is like and atmosphere of sorts…what is natural and physical then is our perception of such an atmosphere as things seem to move against the string landscape, Essentially, and from Hans-like structural view the zero polygon symmetry does indeed have a difference and direction up from a total zero- thus we can see the vacuum as if a false one that we distinguish from what some think an absolute one (or do not yet work out such a distinction which includes how we see negative spaces or inversions of what is finite or not from natures view and in our earth bound perspective so to speak.

        And Stephen… what great effects locally within such an atmosphere if imagined as useful anthropic states…even a small trace of chemicals can add a little chaos to our thoughts and mind natural or external in its quantum balances…after all we need to see or imagine such shifts in our own conscious worlds replete or empty as with meds, and the natural hallucinogen DMT is thus part of the process of our thinking as we shift from awake to dreams.

      • Orwin O'Dowd says:

        Here’s more, in Anticipatory dynamics (advanced potentials) with the proper Grassmannian analysis:


        But that’s not just plain Hilbert space: these structural tensor products are like that, and that’s where I diverge from Hans. Where dualities, times, complementarities and supersymmetry interact it gets meta-structural, a range of ontological options open. Poincare saw that, but got carried into the stream of Conventionalism, which was Idealist and felt ok. But the shot eachother to peices in two Great Wars and left us to pick upo the pieces.

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        Orwin, that Dirac observable paper is really interesting… actually clarifies some questions I’ve had regarding simultaneity…

        Edgar, I watched a neat documentary on DMT on netflix some time ago… interesting stuff.

        carl/Orwin, I was reading thru this point process book and *just happened* upon the page mentioning that point process theory analysis/interpretation of the Riemann zeta zeros has been studied at
        http://www-stat.stanford.edu/~cgates/PERSI/papers/coram03.pdf and http://oz.berkeley.edu/tech-reports/574.pdf

        especially see the paper @ berkeley.edu link, “he point processes for general
        characters, which don’t appear to have been mentioned previously in the literature,
        can be thought of as \interpolating” between the fermion and boson cases.”

        and also http://www.ams.org/journals/tran/2001-353-07/S0002-9947-01-02800-8/S0002-9947-01-02800-8.pdf


  52. carlmott5520 says:

    where riemann zeros have intrinsic relations with the physics of the universe?
    appear that zeta-functions have relations with the mathematical property of opperator PT,that implies relations between the entropy
    and the quantic mechanics with the stronger violations to CP in the
    D-mesons,whwre the neutrons make appear two electric moments
    exchanging the left-handed into right handed and viceversa linked to the T operator metrics

    • carlmott5520

      when we convert a structural space (stereonometry in my terms) into a structural time and do not separate the operations at a singularity into the real and imaginary parts to render the mathematics an algebra of addition logic closure rather than of the multiplicative variety including exponentiation, we tend to see the abstract structure embodied in the patterns of arithmetic and its corresponding geometries.

      Statistical methods will tend to correspond especially when chance or necessity in details over a system may be interchanged partially where we discern choices of sets as if non-linear thus a fuzzy hidden physicality.

      In the charts on the links thru Steven we see a trial of 1190… does anything exist beyond the group count of 1152 and beyond some boundary as integers must it diverge in such lattices of 24 self dual objects? Is the zero here not a little distant from a grounding zero as in the complex plane… in this sense in the inverse one half of the real value is complete for a universe but suggests there is more at singularity for a multi Riemann set of things that maps as a multiverse.

      In the totality hinted at in this view, before big bangs or scales or symmetrical balance beginning at binary T or time shows up as the skewing of the bell curves, a higher expression of what we think of as time and on the balance favor toward the positive direction as matter…yet we might also say such a universe may be cyclic as existing successively or randomly in span of totalities.

      Meanwhile, the string idea and its landscape can have a vast range of representations and ways to develop lesser dimensional theories for them almost as daunting to enumerate or we may assume intuitively these are parts of one view with hierarchies of such philosophic paradoxes. Such replete wisdom in a sense, such as compactification ideas or what is possible in four space Riemann manifolds despite this complexity does not escape the range of such mathematics although I understand that multiply reentry of structures suggests to some in the depths and span of such spaces an outside influence as if to explain certain things as if from an outside universe in time in succession or from the higher general time as absolute aether.

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        What I thought was striking in the paper “New tests of the correspondence between unitary eigenvalues and the zeros of Riemann’s zeta function” is the following..

        3.5. A cautionary note
        We end with a cautionary note. Recent work surveyed in [5–7] has emphasized that random
        matrix theory alone does not suffice to match all questions about the zeta function; some
        number theorymust also be built in. A striking example of this is Berry’s work on the variance
        of the number of zeros in an interval of length L, chosen at random, e.g., in (T , 2T ) for T large.
        Random matrix theory predicts that this is of order logL while Berry’s formula (and data)
        shows it is not monotone in L. Since the variance determines the covariance by polarization,
        the close match in figures 8 and 9 may not hold for sufficiently large T.

      • Orwin O'Dowd says:

        Sounds like an inverse problem that need regularizing. Lambert


        solved the inverse problem in celestial mechanics with FOUR equations, three kinematic and one final mass-scaling solution.


        AND he added a query about DARK MATTER, where we await the results for the so-called Higgs boson. Is there a gluino lurking in there in the backreaction feedback?

        The Moon meanwhile dissents via tidal feedback, which must be supersymmetric (sea of fermions with comolex dielcteic and boson field)….

    • Orwin O'Dowd says:

      Edgar: the multiverse as statistical problem – that clarifies my intuition, thanks. This guy might interest yoiu, on the edge of current philosophy:


      Wittgenstein’s mystique? He kept a copy of Spencer’s Principles of Psychology in his rooms and never opened it…so it became implicit as a presence in their academic Being…

      carlmott: the handedness is intriguing, with massive neutrinos and the Koide angle:


      I see a PIN group here, beyond the Weyl paradigm.

      • Orwin, thanks for the link to marni’s page… the internet landscape is very wide so we can get lost…the idea that for something to exist a sentient things must see a single photon of it (provided there is not prime viewer that so grounds our being)- but where do we find the links if we cannot access the light?
        This idea of information and black holes as if a multiplicity of worm holes to connect what is inside to the outside is good but the same physics or similar physics should also address the idea of a singularity connected also… doubly connected so to speak and yes beyond Weyl…(I dont know what PIN means here) so we need both the more Hilbert loop spatial methods and the string methods on all scales and consideration of energy and so on.
        As the science daily article on what part of the brain over time accesses the past so as to imagine the future as if we subjectively time travel… to the extent we see in the past is the extent we can see into the future is a quantum saying.

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        Edgar, the PIN group has to do with Clifford algebras and quadratic spaces, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pin_group and looks like this might be good, http://www.amazon.com/Quaternions-Clifford-Algebras-Relativistic-Physics/dp/3764377909%3FSubscriptionId%3DAKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q%26tag%3Dduckduckgo-z-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3D3764377909 and also see http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0210060 which purports that Clifford algebras relate to our perception of the passage of time. I’m also not a fan of string theory and am inclined to believe Clifford algebras are more relevant but who knows… if you want that book Edgar and don’t feel like dropping the cash just lemme know your address at stephen.crowley@hushmail.com and I’ll command amazon’s robots to send you a copy of the book 🙂 Also, tooting my own horn here but I got a paper in the newly formed Asian Journal of Mathematics and Applications, http://scienceasia.asia/index.php?journal=ama&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=53


      • Stephen Crowley says:

        Also, saw this on Lubos’s blog(I find interesting stuff there occasionally although I find his attitude to be very distasteful and arrogant), http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5767 Higgs->GammaGamma … strange stuff… god damn gamma rays…

      • Stephen, and Orwin

        I have a lot of homework to do with those new links here so I may have to address them later. Clifford ideas when I encountered them late are the closest thing to my own independent view but in a sort of hidden way or its inverse… so in a sense we can unify partially the structural gauge like looping view and that which seems to be the topology implied in string theory.

        I also wanted to do some drawings to convey what I feel finally worthy enough to post as a viXra paper that strikes me as a new step or explict statement of what I have to find the words for with out the burden of the viewer learning an obscure language of equations and symbols (but these are there).

        And yes Orwin it appears metaphysics or philosophy in its traditional forms in the way I posted it to facebook status (of which I included it as a new footnote to my pesla blogspot com)

        It begins: God is that place whose center in the universe is close to the mystery hidden just past our one universe’s creation as nowhere, yet in a multiverse circumference the super-symmetry is everywhere.

      • Stephen, I find your paper pretty sound mathematical physics.

        The link to the Clifford space and all its consequences for physics (and the statement of a need to explain time beyond the usual relativity) treats powers and dimensions the opposite way I do or assumed. I find it good that such explanations can suggest what happens physically even if this way of looking at dimensions or powers (polyvectors?) loops and such do not distinguish such structural physics from the more string like view.

        The idea elsewhere of the Monster or Moonshine structures was for me simply the logical extension of 4D chess as a reference space for variations on it and into nD representations which are decidedly from a flat or Euclidean view. I used 4 base notation KKK to NNN of klmn for the aspects of 24 things with no necessary privileging of which are vectors of a certain type. The 256 regions or cells naturally suggest the 120 4-space elements, atoms in the electron configuration.

        Cautions on zeta function is good advice… still I find it amazing that common sense integers show up in our equations and extend beyond chaos of 8 dimensions. But this makes sense above the levels of what is multiverse or universe distinguishable for what forbids and absolute uncertainty of a higher order too as part of the whole or possible picture- other than evolving time- at what dimensions does the universe like a chess game play itself? Does physics determine these numbers or the numbers determine the physics?

        I have a recurrent thought lately that we may be able to judge the level of a theory as to how it can be useful to incorporate and understand deep theories on a lesser level of generalization and unification, Such subjective time seems to move by leaps.

        Recent results from the science papers suggest a lot more to the dynamics of how this applies to biological systems to what the information is within our outside our genome—a wider inclusion of organisms of diverse and interacting phenomena. There is more than one way to read the 4 base code GUAT and these correspond to our core stances to the two modern physics. Oddly enough I considered the basic triangle inequality also as needed new interpretations and physics, a third arm of physics.

        I like the ideas cited by Sabine H. concerning boundaries thru walls of a domain (the axions in a cited link as more general than what we imagine of Higgs behavior) provided we make no unnecessary assumption that there is a minimum field vibration and in such a fractal hierarchical multiverse we can ignore the hidden things vanished like super-symmetry. These considerations I have called the quasifinite universe or that level of physics models I call Ultranscontinuum. I find other than hidden in the formalism of the algebra or matrices no one who has explicitly connected that uncertainty of the zeta zeros to the models- then again what is the span and scale of its proofs? Surely we still have the edge in our models and imaginations as theory evolves.

        Other papers speculating on the half particles do not but hint at some contribution to the idea of dark matter…but if we inverse the creative aspect of what is concrete if not illusion in cause or time the symmetric string like mirror by the logic is dynamic too so leads to ideas like Leo V who takes a universe view of multiple subdomains with effects on all scales (if I read that right but do not assume I may speak for him or anyone).

        I should go over each formula in your paper if it did not take years on each line full of so much math as it did for Coxeter, as always the survey of the landscapes is the start and measure of physics…

  53. Kelly McKennon says:

    I don’t like string theory because it seems like what the mathematicians of eld were doing when they were trying to show that Euclidean geometry did not need the parallel postulate. Of course this criticism applies to more of modern physics than string theory, but I am new here, and don’t know a more pertinent place on this site to make these comments.

    Seems to me that our senses are likely with us mostly for survival purposes. Consequently parts of reality which are largely irrelevant to our survival may not be subject to our perception. Nonetheless they may affect and influence other things which we do perceive.

    Consequently, without taking these things into account, no theory can unify physics.

    My experience with mathematics tends to make me believe than when things become too complicated, one is not looking at them the right way.

    • Orwin O'Dowd says:

      That’s an interesting analogy. They tell us that the Cosmic Microwave Background is blackbody radiation at the Planck temperature of 4.3 degrees K. But if you don’t have a cosmic equilibrium you don’t have any temperature in the strict Carnot sense. So either we have Lamba = 0 cosmic equilibrium and NO COSMOLOGY or a huge non-linear non-equilibrium problem and NO CMB TEMPERATURE.


      This is called The Professional Consensus, and it runs with the paranoid style in politics and foreign policy.

      • Hear! Hear! Orwin

        Taxation arithmetic does not match that of common sense accounting for the system reaches maximum entropy while its laws maximum complexity until the old generation dies off as Planck said for new ideas and it all begins again (most likely 🙂 unless we untie the Gordian knots the way Alexander did or in despair that nature does not always apply Occam we either lather up the old razor or grow our beards, pick up hippie chicks with simple tunes or lay on her a metaphysical rap that the gods made so the species survives a little while longer.

        In the swing of the pendulum we now need a new era of applied sciences with all the new discoveries and data. We have actually done remarkably well in the last period of theory for all the diversity found.

      • Stephen Crowley says:

        Edgar, thanks for the kind comments about my paper, yeah it is heavy math and I doubt it applies to the universe or anything like that 🙂 How did you know I had a tax notice sitting on my desk grumbling about it? Years ago I bought a junk server for $500 and slapped it in a data center and the city claims it’s valued at $75,000 and expects me to pay up. Their math SUCKS. Occam’s razor is damn near worn out I think…

  54. Stephen, I thought for awhile we all ran out of words or the comment thread was closed (or perhaps Phil had enough of my informal posts. That or we await the new power of the LHC in hopes it solves some things. Anyway, I just posted an article called Teslascope perhaps to entertain us in the meantime.


    • Stephen Crowley says:

      I think we all just ran outta words 🙂 I’m visiting London, I’m hoping I’ll stumble across Mr. Higgs in a pub or something and get the inside scoop, lol, I know… fat chance… interesting post, it makes my head spin though. Peace 🙂

%d bloggers like this: