Yuri Danoyan

Today Nature Physics Portal Alert announced intersting letter about Platonic solids. "Tetrahedron Dense packings of the Platonic and Archimedean solids" S. Torquato & Y. Jiao Nature doi: 10.1038/nature08239, for detail see http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S25/00/22A50/index.xml Best model of Metasymmetry is Tetrahedron(first Platonic solid),which have 4 faces and each face is an triangle . This means there isn't a side that faces upward when it comes to rest on a flat surface Possible 4 Falls in Face.Every time, when we throw as dice, 3 Faces open, 1 Face closed. 3 vertices lie in one plane, while the fourth is not. Аny tetrahedrons can also be proof of the ratio of 3:1.I call it tetrahedron logic. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedhttp://vixra.org/pdf/0907.0008v2.pdf

Phenomenon of 18 degrees also fit for charged non-stable leptons: MASS(MeV ) tan^-1 m/Mp mu 105.65 6.424 = (45-38.576)deg = (45-2x19)deg tau 1777 62.165 = (45+17.165)deg = (45+17)deg

Yuri: "I want to clearly represent the relationship between these symmetries: discrete &. continuous symmetries global &. local symmetries internal &. space-time symmetries" Lubos: "Sorry but there are almost no relationships between these 3 pairs of adjectives at all. Almost all 8 combinations exist, with an exception of "local spacetime" symmetries: local symmetries must be internal (but global symmetries may be both spacetime or internal). So 6 combinations exist. And even the local spacetime symmetries could be said to exist, with the diffeomorphisms being an example. So there's no diagram to draw." http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/06/symmetry-and-beauty.html#comment-1471013257045861008

IMHO Mpl only legal transaction,but not Lpl and Tpl, because they do not have a linear dependence between G AND c.

"A global symmetry is one that holds at all points of spacetime, whereas a local symmetry is one that has a different symmetry transformation at different points of spacetime. Local symmetries play an important role in physics as they form the basis for gauge theories."(Wikipedia) In the first case all points of spacetime mean homogeneity. In the second case different points of spacetime mean heterogeneity. Minimal homogeneity is the continuity (11). Minimal heterogeneity is the discreteness(10 or 01).

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/expanding_universe.html

My be answer there... http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

1.Continuous Symmetry[CS] can be both global and local. 2.Discrete Symmetries[DS] can be both global and local. 3.Global Symmetry[GS] can be both discrete and continuous. 4.Local Symmetry[LS] can be both discrete and continuous Right answer: #1 and #3 [CS]---->split to [GS]&[LS] [GS]---->split to [DS]&[CS]

1.Continuous Symmetry can be both global and local. 2.Discrete symmetries can be both global and local. 3.Global symmetry can be both discrete and continuous. 4.Local symmetry can be both discrete and continuous

What a pair of symmetries is primary? Discrete & continuous; Global & Local.

Volume 56, Number 6 · April 9, 2009 Leaping into the Grand Unknown By Freeman Dyson The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces by Frank Wilczek Basic Books, 270 pp., $26.95 Frank Wilczek is one of the most brilliant practitioners of particle physics. Particle physics is the science that tries to understand the smallest building blocks of earth and sky, just as biol-ogy tries to understand living creatures. Particle physics is running about two hundred years behind biology. In the eighteenth century, Carl Linnaeus started systematic biology by giving Latin names to species of plants and animals, Homo sapiens for humans and Pan troglodytes for chimpanzees. In the nineteenth century, Darwin created a unified theory for biology by explaining the origin of species. In the twentieth century, Ernest Rutherford laid the ground for particle physics by discovering that every atom has a nucleus that is vastly smaller than the atom itself, and that the nucleus is made of particles that are smaller still. In the twenty-first century, particle physicists are hoping for a new Darwin who will explain the origin of particles. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=22575. Only 3$

PARIS, MARCH 16 – Bernard d’Espagnat, a French physicist and philosopher of science whose explorations of the philosophical implications of quantum physics have opened new vistas on the definition of reality and the potential limits of knowable science, has won the 2009 Templeton Prize. From the mid-1960s through the early 1980s, d’Espagnat, 87, was a philosophical visionary in the physics research community. He played a key role during this revolutionary period of exploration and development in quantum mechanics, specifically on experiments testing the “Bell’s inequalities” theorem. Definitive results published in 1981 and 1982 verified that Bell’s inequalities were violated in the way quantum mechanics predicts, leading to a clear confirmation of the phenomenon of “non-local entanglement,” which in turn was an important step in the later development of “quantum information science,” a flourishing contemporary domain of research combining physics, information science, and mathematics http://www.templetonprize.org/

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/426 First Juried Prize: Julian Barbour on "The Nature of Time" (download essay) The jury panel admired this essay for its crystal-clear and engaging presentation of a problem in classical dynamics, namely to find a measure for duration or the size of a time interval. The paper argues lucidly, and in a historically well-informed manner, that an appropriate choice for such a measure is not to be found in Newton's pre-existing absolute notion of time, but rather emerges, in the form of ephemeris time, from the observable motions and the assumption of energy conservation. The paper also suggests how this emergence of duration might be relevant to problems in quantum gravity.

New information from The FQXi Inaugural Essay Contest February 2009 – Essay Contest Winners Announced!

You can read also about Dyson attitude to string theorists today p.221

Intersting quotation from from Freeman Dyson intersting new article: http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200212p.pdf "Manin sees the future of mathematics as an exploration of metaphors that are already visible but not yet understood. The deepest such metaphor is the similarity in structure between number theory and physics. In both fields he sees tantalizing glimpses of parallel concepts, symmetries linking the continuous with the discrete. He looks forward to a unification which he calls the quantization of mathematics."

This article is attempt of popular explanation recent successes of string theory.Unfortunately it is also difficult to understand, but i hope to read some comments here.

Solving quantum field theories via curved spacetimes Strongly interacting quantum field theories are notoriously difficult to work with, but new information about some of them is emerging from their surprising correspondence with gravitational theories. Igor R. Klebanov and Juan M. Maldacena pp. 28-33 http://ptonline.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=PHTOAD000062000001000028000001&idtype=cvips

I starting from concept discrete-continuous symmetries.. We have 2 different kinds of symmetry: discrete and continous. Basic difference between them: Discrete symmetry transfomations are static symmetry (reflections,parity,etc).They not demanding motion,change in time. Continous symmetry transformations are dynamic symmetry.They demanding motion (rotations,translation,shifts,etc), change in time. Does exist universal symmetry, where included both symmetries discrete and continous? I have tried to introduce the concept of unified symmetry where included both symmetries discrete and continous and call it Metasymmetry. Now to Metasymmetry. If we try to represent discrete symmetry and continuous symmetry by minimal means, using at least two symbols, what should we do? We can use signs 0 and 1 Then the minimal discrete symmetry may be represented as 10 or 01 and minimal continuous symmetry as 11.For represent continuous symmetry we used some Approximation without which our reasoning would be impossible. Now, going back to symmetry between the discrete and the continuous we may use representations as 01 11 or 10 11or 11 01or 11 10. General conclusion is as follows: Total numbers of unities to zero makes up invariant Ratio of 3:1. Best model of Metasymmetry is Regular Tetrahedrons,which have 4 faces and each face is an equilateral triangle . This means there isn't a side that faces upward when it comes to rest on a flat surface Possible 4 Falls in Face.Every time, when we throw as dice, 3 Faces open, 1 Face closed. At first glance concept discrete-continuous symmetries and concept symmetry-antisymmetry nothing in common , but when we try to compact describe them, can see that the two concepts are the same. Pair of discrete-continuous look like a pair of symmetry(11)-antisymmetry(01or10) , if represent them in same symbolic form 01 11 ; 10 11; 11 01; 11 10. Idea inspired by John Wheeler's article "It from bit"{1} What can be said about Metasymmetry ? Metasymmetry is metastable symmetry. When it is falling apart, then is the effect 3:1 emerged. Ratio 3:1 is the numerical measure of broken Metasymmetry

I did search "metasymmetry" in Google and saw these authors, but they are far from my sense,i guess.

Metasymmetry about division and reduction to 3:1; Supersymmetry about multiplication nx2.

The splitting into something discrete and something continuous seems to me to be a basic issue in all morphology. - Hermann Weyl

Sorry for the trouble. Here is the correct link : http://www.danoyan.net/resultoftotaleffectfermi%26bosefields

my address yuri@danoyan.net i can send you as attacment

All essence this thread can read here: C:\Documents and Settings\Yuri\My Documents\Time.htm