Yuri Danoyan

My own task is to represent discrete and continue symmetries and show: 1. Minimal simple binary means (0 or 1). 2. Applicability for introduction Metasymmetry. 3. Metasimmetry as a comprehensive principle of Nature.

My questions are : 1)Where is phenomenological proof existence of supersymmetry? 2)Why overcoming of mathematical problem to give out as a physical observation? 3)Does introduction of supersymmetry is violaition of Occam Razor "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." ?

My own task is repesent discrete and continue symmetries and show: 1. Minimal simple binary means (0 or 1). 2. Applicability for introduction Metasymmetry. 3. Metasimmetry as a comprehensive principle of Nature.

i want to know about initial axiomatics.... As a conservative, I do not agree that a division of physics into separate theories for large and small is unacceptable. I am happy with the situation in which we have lived for the last eighty years, with separate theories for the classical world of stars and planets and the quantum world of atoms and electrons. Instead of insisting dogmatically on unification, I prefer to ask the question whether a unified theory would have any real physical meaning. The essence of any theory of quantum gravity is that there exists a particle called the graviton which is a quantum of gravity, just like the photon which is a quantum of light. Such a particle is necessary in quantum gravity, because energy is carried in discrete little packets called quanta, and a quantum of gravitational energy would behave like a particle.(Dyson) I propose as a hypothesis to be tested that it is impossible in principle to observe the existence of individual gravitons. I do not claim that this hypothesis is true, only that I can find no evidence against it. If it is true, quantum gravity is physically meaningless. If individual gravitons cannot be observed in any conceivable experiment, then they have no physical reality and we might as well consider them non-existent. They are like the ether, the elastic solid medium which nineteenth-century physicists imagined filling space. Electric and magnetic fields were supposed to be tensions in the ether, and light was supposed to be a vibration of the ether. Einstein built his theory of relativity without the ether, and showed that the ether would be unobservable if it existed. He was happy to get rid of the ether, and I feel the same way about gravitons(Dyson) Dyson F "The world on a string" New York Rev. Books 51 (8) (2004); http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17094

Pauli's idea about "Division and reduction the symmetry" see thread http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34142 and Wheeler's idea "It from Bit" http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34160 have common base. Wheeler:"Tryihg to wrap my brain around idea of information theory as the basis of existence,i came ap with the phrase "it from bit".The universe and all that it contains("it") may arise from the myriad yes-no choices of mearusement(the"bits")". "Information may not be just what we learn about the world.It may be what makes the world". Quote as favourite saying "Less is more" Wheeler continued:"it is good principle of physics research.In thinking about the world in the large.As Philip Anderson told"More is different".When you put enough elementary units together,you can get something that is more than the sum of these units."More is different" may have something to do with "it from bit" What mean Pauli?Pauli first of all thinking about division,about binary splitting of symmetry until end,for understanding nature of embryonic symmetry.But embryonic symmetry lead as the same binary relations "yes or no","0 or 1".That's i would like to say about common between Pauli an Wheeler ideas.

How were results for graviton spin=2 obtained?

Matvei Bronstein's 1935 work on quantum gravity, the first in-depth study of the problem, is analyzed in the context of the history of physics and the scientist's career. Bronstein's analysis of field measurability revealed "an essential difference between quantum electrodynamics and the quantum theory of the gravitational field" and showed that general relativity and quantum theory are fundamentally difficult to unify. Featured in the story are Plank, Einstein, Heisenberg, Pauli, Rosenfeld, Landau, and Bohr. The methodological uniqueness of the quan*tum gravity problem is discussed. http://people.bu.edu/gorelik/cGh_Bronstein_UFN-200510_Engl.htm

an attempt to present the quote as an absolute truth, i am not so naive...

"I rather suspect that the simple ideas of geometry, extended down into infinitely small space, are wrong" R.P. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (The M.I.T. Press, 1990), p. 166. Why Richard Feynman didn't wrote about traditional space - time.Only about space? "I rather suspect that the simple ideas of geometry, extended down into infinitely small space, are wrong" R.P. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (The M.I.T. Press, 1990), p. 166. Why Richard Feynman didn't wrote about traditional 4-dimensional space-time .Only about space? According to Klein's interpretation, which is based on the projective geometry, the Euclidean, Lobachevsky and Riemannian geometry’s are in the unified scheme. Interesting that Dirac used projective geometry as power tool for his derivations.

Some times idea survive his authors Quote for me is starting points for development....

Why do you always quote other people? Other people are my smart advisers.

the electroweak and the strong force (using SUSY) and then hopefully gravity. According to Andrei Sakharov, Gravity is different matter "metric elasticity of space" and integral effect Fermi and Bose fields.See my thread. Other explanation: Effect of Metasymmetry

No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon. John A. Wheeler

I am familiar with Alain Connes view from Scientific American http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-geometer-of-particle "The picture that emerges from the Standard Model, then, is that of spacetime as a noncommutative space that can be viewed as consisting of two layers of a continuum, like the two sides of a piece of paper. The space between the two sides of the paper is an extra discrete (noncontinuous), noncommutative space. The discrete part creates the Higgs, whereas the continuum parts generate the gauge bosons, such as the W and Z particles, which mediate the weak force" It seems to me non esthetic.

Nobel Laureat Stewen Weinberg always emphasized his hostility to Philosophy and Religion. But "Dreams of Final Theory" is not Philosophical idea? My be even Religous idea? Because it grounded on Belief such Theory does exist.

Gerardus 't Hooft in his Nobel Lecture "A Confrontation with Infinity" did some important comment about applicability of differential equations: "The mathematics of differential equations grew out of this and nowadays it such a central element in theotetical physics that we often do not realize how important and how non-trivial these observations actually were.In modern theories of physics we send distances and time intervals to zero all the time also in multidimensional field theories,assuming that the philosopy of differential equations applies".p.360 "I have this critical note.As string theory makes heavy use of differential equations it is clear that some sort of continuity is counted on.We schould attempt to find an improved short-distance formulation of theories of this sort,if only to justify the use differential equations or even functional integral".p.370 http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1999/thooft-lecture.pdf Somebody know about string community reaction on this important notes?

In "The Character of Physical Law", Lecture#7 "Seeking New Laws" Feynman wrote about his strong suspicion on simple presentation of geometry on the smallest unit of space is wrong. Why Feynman didn't speak about traditonal 4-dimensional space-time unit,but only about space?

In the magazine Physics Today i read very interesting Frank Wilczek"s articles Whence the Force of F=ma? 1: Culture Shock, Physics Today 57 N10 11-12 (2004) Whence the Force of F=ma? II Rationalizations, Physics Today 57 N12 10-11 (2004) Whence the Force of F=ma? III: Cultural Diversity, Physics Today, 58 N7 10-11(2005) Total Relativity: Mach 2004, Physics Today, 57 N4 10-11 (2004) All articles you can read there http://xserver2.lns.mit.edu/~csuggs/physics_today/wilczekpubs.html For me real challenge was : "Perhaps all that complexity is a hint that the real number model of space and time is an emergent concept that some day will be derived from physically motivated primitives that all logically simpler." Whence the Force of F=ma? III: Cultural Diversity How about you?

If you are supposing that there might be some causal relationship between these instances, then tell us what you think it might be. Reason of supposition connected with notion of metasymmetry,where metasymmetric numbers are 11 and 13. 12 in the middle between them.See my thread http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34145

will see...

If i can do prediction i would be Nobel laureat

Just exploring the numbers is not crime against science. It is also science.

to the conclusion that there is a causal relationship... No conclusion,only supposition. Read please my final sentence in this thread.