Supersymmetry in nature- prelude to new paradigm. New mathematical language.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

Note: multiple posts have been split off: several OT posts and their responses.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86304-othijack-split-from-supersymmetry-in-nature/

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86306-we-only-see-spherical-surfaces-no-split-from-supersymmetry/

 

 

[naturephysic2345]

Mordred:

 

Firstly, I will no longer debate with you as to how you wish to define the term supersymmetry as opposed to how my model will show clear evidence as to what this supersymmetric phenomenon is.(Sigh- Recurssion). What I will do, and as an effective means of using your own statements and descriptions of supersymmetry ( contemporaneous with my own broad descriptions) to strengthen my axioms and proofs, is allow you to draw attention to any and every particular model you ascribe to. I encourage you to post your equations and long string of descriptions as coined relative to the SUSY endeavor..so that I can categorically and effortlessly show you that, on every point, you are describing the simple model that I am presenting. I believe this will prove to reinforce my arguments greatly. I hope you accept the challenge. However , lets not just speak on what we know or have read or have heard..lets both strive to provide the necessary predictable, observational , measurable and experimental axioms and proofs to support our words and claims.

 

While you are preparing yourself for this exchange of information and ideas I will get on about describing: Supersymmetry in nature- Prelude to a new paradigm- New mathematical language. This introductory statement will not just speak on the relationships but provide powerful and tangible observations, measurements and experiments that verify its merit.

 

The “specific meaning” of symmetry (in physics) does not invalidate the principled meaning of symmetry as being “the quality of being made up of exactly similar parts facing each other or around an axis...correspondence, balance,...similarity or exact correspondence between different things.”

 

If you look closely at the picture I posted, you will see that a real object is communicated to a reflective plane in a way that conforms to these definitions. All we have to do is state that the real object represents the quantum side of the equation (“E;”-left side of the equation) and that the reflected object, that exactly corresponds to this left side, is the right side of the equation, and represents the m'c2' position- (wave representation of Dark Energy. E-particle/light photon/). We see that a symmetry does not exist, and of necessity no geometry exists, if E is not relative to its reflected counterpart (dual-form). However, when the relationship is established (thus birthing the relativistic sum of the equation-E=mc2), we observe and measure that the relationship is a symmetric one. That is to say ...1/2 of the symmetric whole =E. And; ½ of the symmetric whole=m('C2').

 

Reiterate: Before this reflective relationship emerges there is no connection between two isometric points, thus no disparate points exist so as to begin to frame any shape, whether percieved as asymmetric, symmetric or supersymmetric. This original condition of things represents the existence of only the Euclidean state with no relativity to any separate, reflective branes/planes. This original state was a fluid state, and was not defined, nor could be described, with any mathematical model, nor could be described under any “specific physics terms.” Regardless:

 

Now I ask: When you look at the picture (model) that I posted earlier, is it really that difficult to see that the relativity between a real bit of information (quantum-real object existing outside of or between two reflective planes) and a reflected copy of this information, creates a perfect symmetry? All “Specific” physics-semantics aside, the question is rhetorical and the answer obvious.

 

This model expresses clearly the principle of symmetry. (refer to image accompanying this post). A principle that I propose is an emergent one! Further I would ask you, while we try not to relegate this principled meaning of symmetry: does the one ½ of the equation (E-left) 'face the other side?” Of necessity, and due to the obvious answer to this question, can we say that, therefore; the other side(reflected side) also 'faces to other side”-(reflector=E)? If we can see this aspect of symmetry(1/2 X 1/2=whole symmetry) evidenced in the picture; ( and our own cognizance of the fact) would we then contradict this by saying, because observation doesn't fit the predisposed and specific definition as coined in physics, we will deny that we just observed and measured ...symmetry? This model describes an axis of symmetry . Brief synopsis: One side of the graph is a mirror image of the other side. The converse is true. The 'only' (qualitative) difference being that, the left side is not dependent upon the existence of the right side where the right side, as a reflected isometric point, IS dependent upon the preexisting left side. This dictates that although they seem exact, one is a product of the other and not the other way around. As well that the equivalence of energy and mass is NOT expressed so long as the right side of the equation reflects the left side (and is not innately energy independent of reflection). The only way that the mass side can really be equivalent to the Energy side is when conversion occurs. I will state that conversion represents that the quantum side no longer reflects to a former dual copy and thus due to this loss of reflection ( loss of relativity between the reflector particle and its dual wave form) the mass wave disappears and can no longer be observed or measured as existing. Or: that the particle can no longer be represented as well as a wave.

 

Now lets deduce another consistent character of the model I am presenting.

We are expressing an equivalence of shape between a real object and a reflected one. No matter how you move or turn the real object this equivalence is expressed in the mirror image. If we increase the distance between the real object and the reflected one (on a number line- ½ distance from real object to surface of mirror , X, ½ virtual reflection of this distance) we have added the same distance quantity to both sides. So the distance between the Higgs branch to the dark matter reflective medium(Higgs field) represents ½- ( The real distance). However, to 'get to' the reflected object existing on the surface of the plane, we must double this real distance (reflect it). Thus , ½ reflected of real distance. The whole distance expresses a symmetric relationship, whereby, to get from energy to a mass object ( the real object to the reflected one) one must square the real distance. This means that the symmetry of distance represents ½ real distance X ½ reflected distance (to mass object point.)- (Please do not forget, before you raise issue with defining distance as symmetrical, that you refer to your mathematical logic in saying that “light has symmetry.”) This relationship of 'invariant under” and “invarient to” is expressed only due to the relationship between the real object and the SURFACE reflected object.

 

If we add recursion to the system, then the subsequent rows of reflections (stages, with finite dimensions, perspectively) and the phase space between (distance between stages) represent “ratios of distance” as well ratios of symmetry. How so? If you have a surface reflection you have a symmetry. This symmetry is distinct from all other recursive stages in that it is both first and the product of all other ratio symmetries. Thus, if this symmetry undergoes recursion, we have a ratio of 1-infinite. Yet all recursive symmetries are derived from this surface reflection. As well, we see a ratio of distance between recursive stages (phase space) always relative to the ratio of stages to phase space. <----(digress).

 

Despite any changes to the real distance between the real object and the surface plane of reflection , or despite the change in the distance between two reflective planes with Euclidean space between (branch space-linking information from one surface to that same information found on another surface), or despite that angular changes may occur between the two mirrors( either parallel or deviating from parallel-face to face) thus resulting in 'scalings, rotations'... the reflected half of the whole symmetric relationship remains invarient to or invarient under these changes. We can extend this constant to say that : Even when recursion occurs, these transformations (surface to stage 1, stage2, stage3 ---->) produce similar shapes. We have introduced trigonometry into the model!

 

If we have a circle reflected to a surface, then the reflected circle is the same as the real circle. No matter how far the distance between the two circles are, and if the mirrors are parallel, both the real circle and reflected one can be measured , and the ratio of the circumference to the diameter is invarient and equal to pi. We are saying that the real circle is being transformed into the reflected circle. As well, even if the mirrors are turned away from true parallelism, and though the reflected circle seems not to represent a true circle (pi) ( for instance..converts to an elipsis or even further stretches to a thin line)..we now know, based upon the principles being deduced relative to this new model, that the reflected circle(s) even if perceived to be anything but a real circle, is actually still reflecting a true circle. This states that everything is symmetric and that everything is made up of (comprised from) true circles(spheres -as an extension), but, based upon the power of observation, ( the eye as a plane of reflection/refraction..not to mention a mechanism of recursion. I will get to that!) as well changes from true parallelism to degrees away from parallelism of the plane surfaces, we perceive “less than” or “more that” and not as it truly is. Everything we see is really derived from the most symmetrical shape known to us -circles and spheres of reflected information.(pi)

If 'one' would you deny this reality, then place a circular object between two mirrors. Turn the true circle and you will see that the circle as reflected to a surface and continually (supersymmetrically) recursively reproduced ,(relative to the mirror to mirror relationship=recursion) though appearing to stretch on the left and right sides, is still really representing (reflecting)a true circle. We could go farther and say that; any or all elipsis or oblate spheroid are being observed as such(perceived) and even measured as such.. but really represent merely the turning of a true circle relative to a reflective plane or relative to a plane to plane relationship. The human eye ( and all other eyes) represents viewing true circles from varying degrees away from true parallelism to the plane surface of the eye. This should aid us in mapping relationships between objects. This algorithm demonstrates that, if the earth is slightly deformed at the poles (and it is) then we should be able to utilize this mirror to mirror phenomenon to determine, based upon measurements where the real object point is that is reflecting to the earth, as well the incidence angle of this reflector point. ( We can see this by using a light source shinning to a mirror, and by turning this light source away from true parallelism to the surface, measuring the degree of stretch relative to the reflected light circle . Once we get these measurement we can allow our mathematicians and astronomers to begin to discover the relationships between celestial bodies, planets, stars and galaxies. Not to mention those who study nature and cosmology ..helping us to see these same relationships evidenced in nature and the universal scale. I will broaden these descriptions as I continue. Suffice to say, I will use simple tools to do so, as well utilize one simple equation to discover all of these relationships. (Note: Due to this equation, we can also determine how far the real circles/spheres are from any reflected objects or systems by determining how big or small objects are, when relative to a real object ( between the mirrors), and by moving the real object to and from the mirror and measuring the consistent rate of change in the diameter and proportions of the reflected object. We can determine by the diameter of any object how far the real particle information is from the surface of these objects. Again, this will be described both principally and mathematically as I progress into this theorem thread.

 

If the speed of light has symmetry then all you are saying is that, that relative an observer and measurer, that the DISTANCE from light to any reflective plane (or eye) is squared and then proportionately symmetrically copied in the phase space between recursive stages relative to any or all Higgs reflective fields. What I am saying is that: Not only is the real object (particles) copied relative to a surface reflection and all subsequent recursive stages, but as well the SPACE between the real object and the reflected objects is copied to the surface and between all recursive rows. How this volume of space appears(perception) is relative to an observer existing within the system. Though we see the volume of phase space between stages seem to contract, it is still representative of and proportional to the real space between the real object and the mirror surfaces.

To illustrate. I can look at a stretch of road (that has been measured to be one mile before the experiment starts) from a distance and it seem less than a mile. Yet, the closer I get, the more able I am to see that it is actually a larger volume of space ( a longer line measurement). The only way to determine its “real “ length is to walk it and measure it. So, despite that when we look down into the virtual matrix, and it appears that the phase space and size (or dimensions) of each stage seem to contract, they are all really representing the true distance between a real object and a surface plane of reflection. The distance between stages ( or the fractional volume of phase space between seperate recursive stages) is the same at all points. This dictates that, every stage of recursion is symmetric to every other stage. This states that, the volume of phase space is also symmetric to the volume of phase space between all other stages. This states that, due to this repeated symmetry of both the phase space and the stage dimentions, we are realizing a supersymmetric relationship as defining the whole “VOLUME of phase space.” ( the whole system comprised of surface reflection and recursion). We are witnessing, observing, measuring and dwelling within a supersymmetric and thus recursive system. (Note: I stand by my definition of supersymmetry proportional to standing by the statement that supersymmetry=recursion.). I also concede to any formal mathematical statements, so long as they account for this decisive/recursive relationship. I cannot ascribe to those mathematical formulations, equations or logics that do not express this principle, as they are, and have been proven as; ineffectual in explaining the whole phenomenon of recursion. Thus they have not yet defined clearly supersymmetry (= recursion)

 

The two pictures that I have posted represent shades of an expanding higher mathematical equation

Acme

 

I am not ignoring your efforts. There are a lot of relevant challenges that are being raised in the room and I feel it imperative to address these. I ask that you continue to experiment with the system as you did with your posted pictures and annotations. If you continue to follow my descriptions ( as well as observe and measure the tangible system that I depict) you will be better able to see the relationships that I initiated discussion about earlier. As well, the things that I said that seemed to invalidate your measurements, will come to be understood as well. You conducted the experiment pretty much exactly as I suggested, and you were highly creative in the way you went about it. I would ask that as you listen to and stay involved in this thread ...keep the real object mirrors and measure close by. By doing this you will quickly grasp the principles that I espouse. I would further guess that any who do not choose to follow my line of reasoning by also experimenting as you are, will be less likely to observe and measure the supersymmetric relationships and thus will be less capable of seeing the superiority of the Recursion Scenario that I am describing.

[Mordred]

I could post and explain formulas all day long. The majority of the formulas do have symmetries.

 

I would be extremely hard presses to find a formula that didn't have some form of symmetry. The question is what kind of symmetry. Your model specifically describes either

 

projective or parity symmetry. If you have multiple reflections such as a crystal lattice it has wallpaper symmetry.

 

Here is a list of types of symmetries

glide reflection

projective

Poincare transformation

spacial translation

spacial rotation

time translation

cylindrical

spherical

Discrete

 

the 3 types specific to particle physics

 

c-symmetry =charge symmetry(particle,antiparticle)

p-symmetry (everything appears as if in a mirror)

T-symmetry time reversal

 

super symmetry specifically means that every boson must have a superpartner (specifically a fermion that is heavier than its boson partner)

 

 

As stated nearly every formuls has some form of symmetry. You however seem to think they are all reflective, p-symmetry or wallpaper symmetry and call this by another symmetry name that already has a specific meaning.

Then you don't take the time to learn why this confuses those that do know the proper terminology.

 

which is surprising because you could save yourself tons of typing and having to continously explain repetively your posts.

 

Anyways I honestly cannot think of any formula that doesn't have sone form of symmetry. However they are all not reflective nor wallpaper or p-symmetry.

 

Most of the formulas is physics are geometric based most ppl don't realize that detail one of the required mathematics is differential geometry the extra dimensions for string theory sre geometric symmetry influences. Some dimensions describe a rotational dimension others describe a cylindrical infuence. These are specific dimensions where all the interactions of that dimension share the same symmetry.

 

This is a physics forum if any poster comes here and uses incorrect terminology or makes mistakes he should expect and appreciate corrections. After all we all come here to learn this includes posters trying to show his ideas in the specation forum. Too often though they figure they have solved the universe but fail to accept corrections and learn from them.

 

Can you demonstrate a formula with a non linear relation? e=mc^2 has a linear relation socis fairly easy to show a symmetry. I would like to see how your model idea works with a nonlinear relation such as one of the QM wave function equations.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Mordred

[Acme]

...

Acme

 

I am not ignoring your efforts. There are a lot of relevant challenges that are being raised in the room and I feel it imperative to address these. I ask that you continue to experiment with the system as you did with your posted pictures and annotations. If you continue to follow my descriptions ( as well as observe and measure the tangible system that I depict) you will be better able to see the relationships that I initiated discussion about earlier. As well, the things that I said that seemed to invalidate your measurements, will come to be understood as well. You conducted the experiment pretty much exactly as I suggested, and you were highly creative in the way you went about it. I would ask that as you listen to and stay involved in this thread ...keep the real object mirrors and measure close by. By doing this you will quickly grasp the principles that I espouse. I would further guess that any who do not choose to follow my line of reasoning by also experimenting as you are, will be less likely to observe and measure the supersymmetric relationships and thus will be less capable of seeing the superiority of the Recursion Scenario that I am describing.

No worries. At next opportunity I will move to the 2 mirror scenario, make my measurements, and post a photo.

I noticed Mordred listed symmetries and I recall that M.C. Escher has -in some sources- been credited with classifying symmetries before any mathematicians. (I was challenged here on this anecdote before and I have no interest in debating the subject again; it's not germane so don't start it up.) My point about Escher is that his classification came after his experiments and that seems in line with your methods. In the spirit of your work and I believe within permissibility of copyright I post this scaled reproduction of an image of Escher's from 1935.

Source

Edited October 31, 2014 by Acme

[Mordred]

Here lets try the tine dependant Schrodinger equation

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation

I have no problem with your research I just feel proper terminology is essential to avoid confusion. Particularly in the absense of the mathematics

Any forum has readers that never post or register so corrections of tetminology is even more important. We wouldn't want those readers to walk away with the wrong ideas of what a model states. Particularly one as well known but poorly understood as SUSY.

Lol call it recursive symmetry I dont think that name is used. Good luck on your research Im still looking for that paper I mentioned earlier as its very similar

[ajb]

Firstly, I will no longer debate with you as to how you wish to define the term supersymmetry as opposed to how my model will show clear evidence as to what this supersymmetric phenomenon is.(Sigh- Recurssion).

So you concede that you are not describing supersymmety as understood by the rest of the planet?

 

I encourage you to post your equations and long string of descriptions as coined relative to the SUSY endeavor..so that I can categorically and effortlessly show you that, on every point, you are describing the simple model that I am presenting.

You would like people to give you some simple supersymmetric actions and you will show how they are related to your ideas? If so, this is what I have been asking for! So, I suggest you have a look at N=2 supersymmetric mechanics in one dimension, or the simpler (but less interesting) N=1 case. You could do this in superspace (quite generally) or look at specific actions in terms of components. If you cannot relate your 'susy' to this simple case then you really need to rethink.

 

The “specific meaning” of symmetry (in physics) does not invalidate the principled meaning of symmetry as being “the quality of being made up of exactly similar parts facing each other or around an axis...correspondence, balance,...similarity or exact correspondence between different things.”

This is not really how would should understand symmetries. You have describes geometric symmetries of figures. We understand symmetry much more generally than this. For sure you cannot equate the transformations used in physics to such simple geometric terms; though you can describe them geometrically (as long as they are smooth). You should look up Lie groups and Lie super groups and their corresponding infinitesimal parts the Lie algebras.

 

 

 

 

Okay, so the ball in now in your court as they say. I have given you a challenge that needs to be addressed. That is show how your 'supersymmetry' is anything to do with the simplest examples of supersymmetry found in physics.

Particularly one as well known but poorly understood as SUSY.

I would say that supersymmetry is generally well understood. One issue that is quite complex is the construction of off-shell representations.

 

Did you have some issues in mind with this statement?

Edited October 31, 2014 by ajb

[Mordred]

Not really I refer to the general layman, some subjects are easier to self learn than others. Susy is simply one of the trickier theories as there is more model variations and contention than the SM models. Though atm some of the SO(10) MSSM variations are giving me headaches as each time I download an article or dissertation on the subject I come across variations in the lie groups.

 

due partly to variations in the number of higglets and subsequence seesaw mechanisms lol

 

but hey Ive only been at it for a couple of months as time allows. Lol

Thankfully I bought a couple of textbooks on the lie algebra that include the SO(10) group

 

the SO(10) MSM standard model us far simpler on the Higgs couplings as your only dealing with the 126 Higgs with 4 degrees if freedom including its antiparticle and max 2 mexican hat potentials via 2 max seesaw potentials in the 10^10 to 10^12 TeV range below VeV though the seesaws aren't an issue on the EWSB or chiral symmetry breaking

Edited October 31, 2014 by Mordred

[ajb]

Not really I refer to the general layman, some subjects are easier to self learn than others. Susy is simply one of the trickier theories as there is more model variations and contention than the SM models. Though atm some of the SO(10) MSSM variations are giving me headaches as each time I download an article or dissertation on the subject I come across variations in the lie groups.

Okay, so this is more related to phenomenology. The basic structure of supersymmetric field theories, including those with gauge symmetries, is established. The same is true for stings and branes, well single strings and branes in effective descriptions anyway. The local supersymmetry is also very well studied and is of course supergravity.

 

So, my question to naturephysic2345 is not to necessarily show the MSSSM or something similar fits into his description, but something much simplifier we can easily discuss. Thus I suggest just looking at quasi-classical supersymmetric mechanics.

[naturephysic2345]

Mordred

0:39 PM

I will , as promised, categorically respond to the aspects of your challenges as well show that my model approximates aspects of every type-symmetry you refer to. As well I will respond to your last paragraph (“Can you demonstrate a formula with a non linear relation?)

 

Again, as this represents a worthy redirection of the purpose of this thread, It will take me a few days to appropriately articulate the explanations and accompanying illustrations. Bear with me.

 

Projective “symmetry”:

 

You will see that both RF's (reflective horizons) represent vector fields (Xa). The particle represents the infinitesimal symmetry that is projected to the Higgs fields perspectively (right and left ..represent the “Ce”(closed end's) of a string relationship). These HF's(Higgs fields) are the same as Xa. Or: HF=Xa. The projective structure, of/from the projected particle information, is a Dark matter(DM) reflective field that remains dark until a light ray comes into relativity (collides with-is projected to) to its surfaces from varying degrees and directions. (Note: I illustrate the difference between the 'lit up' Dark matter surface- (mirror to the right) as opposed to the left side mirror that is not lit up. I show the difference by making the left mirror darker than the right one. This left side illustrates that the Dark matter surface, if not lit up with particle information, is only reflecting “darkness,” thus, in most ways, is indistinguishabe from the invisible quality of the dark energy space it reflects. However, I will explain powerful ways to discern these dark matter surfaces, even if not lit up thus representing mass objects or systems, relative to a new mathematical/geometric language... accordingly)- ( I will also introduce a more refined understanding of black holes and wormholes.)

 

When these screens (DM=HF/Xa) are lit up by particle(s) they transform these infinitesimal bits of information to qualifying wave representations. The Higgs branch(HB)- (DE= dark energy, space between mirrors) connects these Xa -tangent spaces by serving as the information existing as/in the open part of the string and as communicated to both closed ends of the string relationship. The information existing on the surface of the HF's (perspectively – right and left) is the transmutable wave that has 'trans-formed' the particle information to their surfaces. The surface of the mirrors represent smooth manifolds that are connected to each other via reflection. As well, both reflective horizons, are of necessity, connected via the Higgs branch (space between mirrors), as well, connected in the sense that they are reflecting the same body of particle information. We can see that, though the symmetric bilinear forms represented on the tangent spaces are in most ways indistinguishable from the Euclidean information (the real object between mirrors), these general Riemannian manifolds are surfaces that separate the Euclidean information from any or all reflective recursive subvectors existing within both upon and within the Higgs fields.

These surfaces are not exclusively flat (for instance the curved surface of an eye= Higgs mechanism, manifold) rather , either asymptotically flat or curved. ( As in lensing.-- I will get to gravitational lensing!). We can see that any Euclidean information that is represented on these surfaces is represented as resembling the Euclidean particle information at each point on the Higgs mechanism surface. ( I will explain this by briefly saying that the Higgs fields are comprised of the sum of reflective points/potentials, thus, these individual reflective pints represent boson points. The sum of boson reflective points represents the sum of the Higgs field-reflective)

 

We will call the surface(s) of reflection the principle approximations of this dark energy information, and that, all other recursive representations are.. orders of approximation-(sub vectors; extending the symmetry of the surface to a supersymmetric system of self-similar symmetries) . Yet, in the strictest sense, the concept of the progressive refinement of the approximations is a reversal of the process that one witnesses in recursion. That is to say, each recursive stage is an approximate symmetry of the surface ( as the surface is the approximate symmetry of the particle side) and this symmetric surface information is gradually diffused or diminished in strength the farther from the surface any particular stage is found. (We will come to see how this model fully reconciles the 4 forces) But, if we reverse this process (think in the reverse-as I encourage others to do so and frequently), and imagine that we are/exist far back on a recursive stage and moving toward the surface (going toward the past), then the approximations of the information (the intensity of) will be progressively increased, and that, our understanding of the true strength of the information (singularity= point of conversion)would be exponentially enhanced if we could travel toward the surface(past) from our present point, or travel back toward the singularity from any future stage we may assume with time.

If you look at my model you will see clearly that the past, present and future lie on the same time line and every action occurs simultaneous with every other action or event. (within recursion as well due to the events on one surface as reflecting or reflective of the events on the other surface). What I mean is , if all stages( the whole recursive system of “time and symmetry continuance=supersymmetric continuity) represent a time continuum, then we would realize that, those stages nearer the surface represent more pastward than those stages existing in the middle(present) and as opposed to, but existing at the same time as,---->the futurewardly same events(occurring simultaneous with the past and present event(s)).

The Riemannian metric refers to the real metric distance between the particle and each perspective plane surface. All other metrics that emerge in the reflective/recursive system represent reflections of this metric. These reflected measurements represent both a beginning of the time continuum (beginning of time)-(occurring when the particle information first began to reflect itself) that occurs on the surface........ and then, the sum of this time (from past to present/ beginning to end)-(the predetermined time as well as entropic limit to the system) is divided into time increment. These time increments represent the phase space existing between recursive stages. These time increments can be either sped up (contraction of the phase space) or slowed down (expansion of the time increments)- (Where 'change” in PS-(phase space)= change in TI(time interval/increment)- ( And Where PS=TI) contingent upon the change in the real distance between the particle and the perspective manifold surfaces. The speeding up or slowing down of time =...the expansion or contraction of the phases space between recursive rows. This speeding up and slowing down of time (balancing of information= adding or deleting information from the system by moving the real object toward or away from the plane surfaces) seems to be dictated by the dark energy side. (implications?)

The distance preserving diffeomorphism between the Riemannian manifolds (the entropic controller of the system= Riemannian metric-real distance(s)) -(I.e., Higgs branch) merely controls the isomorphism(relationship) between the isometric points described as mirror right and mirror left. This diffeomorphic branch (HB) represents the cardinal or superior isometric point/location of the particle. This open part of the string (Oe) is the invertible function of the differntiable manifolds. This Higgs branch maps or determines the distance from itself to either plane of reflection, as well, can communicate itself in various ways to each surface merely by changing its distance and or altering its angle as communicating its information to the screens perpectively . (Note: For purposes of brevity I will neglect to explain the recursion as representing the Diffeomorphisms of subsets of manifolds. Though I post this relevant aspect to the illustration, I will elaborate on these principles later on.)

 

I will begin to break up my posts (thought symmetry breaking) into smaller portions, as it is apparent that long posts are often scorned, and I do not wish to approach this theorem in any way other than to encourage and maintain interest. ( I hope that by doing this the descriptions will compel one to examine my posts more thoroughly for accuracy.)

Mordred.

 

The SUSY principles are not tricky, as you infer...IF...you consider the axioms and proofs I am presenting. What is trickier than not is the difference between complex explanations and simple ones. As well models that are explained but not observed in any tangible ways..V/S..a/the Unified Field theory model that I am introducing.

[ajb]

More words, which I have a feeling you don't really understand the meaning of.

 

Can you just quickly tell me what is a Riemannian manifold, a connection, a torson free connection and a diffeomorphism? (without just copying Wikipedia). I am sorry if this feels like a test, but these ideas you should know very well if you have really made any significant development in physics. Unless you can do this (and make the links I suggested earlier) your 'theory' cannot be taken seriously.

[naturephysic2345]

Mordred:

 

“the SO(10) MSM standard model us far simpler on the Higgs couplings as your only dealing with the 126 Higgs with 4 degrees if freedom including its antiparticle/.............................................................. and max 2 mexican hat potentials via 2 max seesaw potentials in the 10^10 to 10^12 TeV range below VeV though the seesaws aren't an issue on the EWSB or chiral symmetry breaking

 

Forgive me moderators, but I merely do this so as to also challenge mordred to present his model in a more forthcoming visual and methodologically simple way. ( As he has insisted that I explain myself clearly. ) I would ask him to give us a clear model from which to extract (observe, measure and experiment with) his superymmetric proofs and axioms. As I encourage others to examine my model for scientific, mathematical and logically deductive validity. I will not persist in this method of communicating information as such would probably seem sophomoric. However when I fully articulate the logic's and proofs for the system I am describing, particularly as it concerns the supersymmetric relationships existing in nature such mathematical language (in all of its forms and relative to everything) will seem less insignificant and more universal.- Theory of Everything.

 

Below the picture 'sentence' lies the disparate complex sentence that is obviously homeomorphic to mine. Coined by mordred and translated by means of my more picture logic(model).

 

Though the SUSY models have substance (great substantiality ) I encourage these very very intuitive people to stop thinking in terms of mathematics SO MUCH and start thinking in pictures. I believe that some of the most profound advancements in science as well as mathematics were a product of very insightful people who thought in a higher mathematical (thus logical) framework. My isommetric thought represents an 'isomorphism sentence' (framed in pictures) and is approximate to and the same as (symmetric to) mordreds. I stopped where I did because if I started posting pictures of... Mexican sombreros/ seesaws/pots/ ewes or corals..I would have been laughed out of the room or booted. .

 

I hope this served another purpose of lightening the mood in the room. (Note: Sigh, Read the top row of pictures left to right then the next stage below right to left.)

Though I cannot provide full descriptions relative to every symmetric type presented by mordrum..I will briefly respond to each type. The full relevance of anything related to symmetry or supersymmetry (discovered everywhere) will be elaborated upon when I can redirect my attention back to the original theme of this thread: Recursion Scenario.

[ajb]

Forgive me moderators, but I merely do this so as to also challenge mordred to present his model in a more forthcoming visual and methodologically simple way.

So Modred has asked you to look at something quite technical and complicated. Maybe that was not so wise at this stage. My challenge of finding a link between your ideas and a toy-model of supersymmetric mechanics is probabily much more tractable, assuming what you have said has anything to do with supersymmetry.

 

Though the SUSY models have substance (great substantiality ) I encourage these very very intuitive people to stop thinking in terms of mathematics SO MUCH and start thinking in pictures.

In part you can think in terms of pictures, the great Sir Michael Atiyah told me 'geometry is just algebra that you can do with pictures'. From a modern point of view this is okay; geometry is algebra for which you can think 'geometrically'.

 

 

Anyway, it is not possible to simply forget mathematics and draw pretty pictures.

[naturephysic2345]

 

Ajb:

 

 

"So, my question to naturephysic2345 is not to necessarily show the MSSSM or something similar fits into his description, but something much simplifier we can easily discuss. Thus I suggest just looking at quasi-classical supersymmetric mechanics.”

 

As I have,... and therefore propose that ..you... consider less passively the much more simple and elegant descriptions I am presenting. Or ignore what I am explaning and just conduct the experiments yourself and see the descriptions are verifiable on every point. However , I will tell you, that as you may have studied your model for many years and thus can speak on it due to such scrutiny..you will be hard pressed to speak on my model even after discerning that it is genuine scientific and mathematic. I have worked with this model for more than a decade. As I have given the necessary attention to your model's. I have looked at “quasi-classical supersymmetric mechanics”..and such perusal has further non-trivialized my model. You see, I have no problem with dividing my time between others proposals and my own model. (this seems contrary to others approach). I have taken this approach for more than 2 decades and such open-mindendness to others, in many ways, symmetric to mine and not so opposed, has increased my ability separate the wheat from the chaff.

"So Modred has asked you to look at something quite technical and complicated.”

 

 

Yes. And after having done so to the proper degree (many years..as evidenced by my explanations and model) ..i wish to simplify his( those- as in many) technical and complicated approach to the problems inherent to physics. Though in no deliberate way do I relegate his insights, and if he (or you) can propose something that I haven't already researched- I will spend the necessary time to familiarize myself with it. Do you take this approach ajb? If so, and if you have really considered my explanations and illustrations (mathematical equations coined differently than yours or mordreds) I ask you to contradict them.

 

“assuming what you have said has anything to do with supersymmetry.”

 

You can assume such correctly. And I have provided the simple tools (and equations- that I will expand) to experiment with the model so as to easily “influence” you away from any standard model and in many ways much of the prescribed SUSY descriptions.

 

“In part you can think in terms of pictures, the great Sir Michael Atiyah told me 'geometry is just algebra that you can do with pictures'. From a modern point of view this is okay; geometry is algebra for which you can think 'geometrically'.

 

I believe you diminish both the profound and elegant(simple) power that geometry exerts on any or all mathematical or scientific experiments accompanied by descriptions. I will say that a purely geometric approach is necessary to discover a Theory of Everything.

 

 

“Anyway, it is not possible to simply forget mathematics and draw pretty pictures.”

 

I appreciate that you refer to my model as beautiful (“pretty”) and that you see, verses acquiesce (for the time being) to the “simplicity” of my descriptions. Furthermore, that the system I am describing is apparently hard to contradict as you have yet to do so. Appeals or retorts ('crutchum and argumentem?') to your models in no way have invalidated mine. I am waiting patiently for those refutations. Explain it any way you wish and I will categorically simplify it.

 

How long has it been since you read (reminded yourself of the wording of) Einsteins: Relativity- The Special and General Theory? What was the ratio of the proportion of mathematical statements to vivid illustration and thought experimenting(void of explicit mathematical sentences)? I will post the preface to this profound document so as to express the intent of my theorem. My theorem serves two purposes. 1) Present a model for a Theory of Everything 2) Make it simple!

 

Albert Einstein

 

Preface

(December, 1916)

 

“The present book is intended, as far as possible, to give an exact insight into the theory of

Relativity to those readers who, from a general scientific and philosophical point of view,

are interested in the theory, but who are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus of

theoretical physics. The work presumes a standard of education corresponding to that of a

university matriculation examination, and, despite the shortness of the book, a fair amount

of patience and force of will on the part of the reader. The author has spared himself no

pains in his endeavour to present the main ideas in the simplest and most intelligible form,

and on the whole, in the sequence and connection in which they actually originated. In the

interest of clearness, it appeared to me inevitable that I should repeat myself frequently,

without paying the slightest attention to the elegance of the presentation. I adhered

scrupulously to the precept of that brilliant theoretical physicist L. Boltzmann, according to

whom matters of elegance ought to be left to the tailor and to the cobbler. I make no

pretence of having withheld from the reader difficulties which are inherent to the subject.

On the other hand, I have purposely treated the empirical physical foundations of the theory

in a "step-motherly" fashion, so that readers unfamiliar with physics may not feel like the

wanderer who was unable to see the forest for the trees. May the book bring some one a few

happy hours of suggestive thought!”

 

Though Einstein chose a different approach in relaying his message was he really so “(non)-conversant with the mathematical apparatus of theoretical physics?” Are we not discussing those same “theoretical” constructs? Could we impute to Ol' Albert a limited and thus merely 'standard of education ...university matriculation examination?” Could Einstein have expressed himself in other ways outside of simple? Was most of what he wrote and spoke intelligible to anyone? Do you understand why I have repetitively shown that in order to show the 'sequence (recursion) and connections' in a chronological way is imperative? Do you see how patient and indulgent I am with constant appeals to deviate from these descriptions into a spiral of many opposing supersymmetric theories. If you pay attention and not be thinking so much of retort while I am speaking and posting then you will see that I am/have /will 'scrupulously adhere to” the proper scientific standards. ( I do not adhere so much to those aspects of “science and mathematics” that have not been so accurately embodied into a unified theory including the SUSY ones.) I do not fail to 'withold” any difficulties which are inherent to the subject.” .” ...” On the other hand, I have purposely treated the empirical physical foundations of the theory in a "step-motherly" fashion, so that readers unfamiliar with physics may not feel like the wanderer who was unable to see the forest for the trees. May the book bring some one a few happy hours of suggestive thought!”

 

Einstein was as modest as others around him were self-assured and complacent.

 

(Imagine that I am unfamiliar with physics ajb (strictly an analogy)and that I am a wanderer with only my powers of observation and ability to measure and experiment with things. Now: Explain your SuSy models. 2+2=4, regardless that that it can be explained principally in many ways and with appropriate degrees of freedom)

 

“More words, which I have a feeling you don't really understand the meaning of.”

 

I would bet that you say this to a lot of people.

 

“Can you just quickly tell me what is a Riemannian manifold, a connection, a torson free connection and a diffeomorphism? (without just copying Wikipedia).”

 

Scroll up and pay more than the usual attention to posts by naturephysic2345.

 

If you fail to experiment with the model I am presenting( spend a lot of time presenting yours) then you could not possibly take what I am saying seriously as you have neglected to consider it.

 

“I am sorry if this feels like a test,..”

 

I am not afraid of tests ajb. Are you? (please respond to the questions I have posed.)

Edited October 31, 2014 by naturephysic2345

[ajb]

As I have,... and therefore propose that ..you... consider less passively the much more simple and elegant descriptions I am presenting.

But you have not shown how these descriptions are equivalent to supersymmetry. That is my point. As such your descriptions are useless to me.

 

“quasi-classical supersymmetric mechanics”..and such perusal has further non-trivialized my model. You see, I have no problem with dividing my time between others proposals and my own model.

Can you show the equivalence of your 'supersymmetry' and the supersymmetry as found in these simple models or not?

 

Yes. And after having done so to the proper degree (many years..as evidenced by my explanations and model) ..i wish to simplify his( those- as in many) technical and complicated approach to the problems inherent to physics. Though in no deliberate way do I relegate his insights, and if he (or you) can propose something that I haven't already researched- I will spend the necessary time to familiarize myself with it. Do you take this approach ajb? If so, and if you have really considered my explanations and illustrations (mathematical equations coined differently than yours or mordreds) I ask you to contradict them.

It is not a question of contradiction here. The question is how is your 'supersymmetry' anything to so with supersymmetry. Either rather generically, we can discuss supersymmetry independent of specifics of a model (ie. a particular action) or we could look at some simple models.

 

You can assume such correctly. And I have provided the simple tools (and equations- that I will expand) to experiment with the model so as to easily “influence” you away from any standard model and in many ways much of the prescribed SUSY descriptions.

You have not provided any tools to show that your 'supersymmetry' is anything to do with supersymmetry. It is up to you do so this as you are the one making claims here, not I.

 

I believe you diminish both the profound and elegant(simple) power that geometry exerts on any or all mathematical or scientific experiments accompanied by descriptions. I will say that a purely geometric approach is necessary to discover a Theory of Everything.

I should remind you that you are speaking to a professional geometer who is working in mathematical physics. I completely agree that modern geometry is elegant and powerful in mathematical physics. That is why I work in that field. I also know what geometry means in the modern context.

 

How long has it been since you read (reminded yourself of the wording of) Einsteins: Relativity- The Special and General Theory? What was the ratio of the proportion of mathematical statements to vivid illustration and thought experimenting(void of explicit mathematical sentences)? I will post the preface to this profound document so as to express the intent of my theorem. My theorem serves two purposes. 1) Present a model for a Theory of Everything 2) Make it simple!

A model by definition is a mathematical construct. Also you should try to make any physical theory as simple as possible, but no more so.

 

Are we not discussing those same “theoretical” constructs?

There is a difference between discussing football and playing football...

 

We can discuss theoretical physics without doing theoretical physics, I agree.

 

Do you see how patient and indulgent I am with constant appeals to deviate from these descriptions into a spiral of many opposing supersymmetric theories.

No, I see that you keep on avoiding trying to relate your ideas to what theoretical physicists across the world are doing.

 

(Imagine that I am unfamiliar with physics ajb (strictly an analogy)and that I am a wanderer with only my powers of observation and ability to measure and experiment with things. Now: Explain your SuSy models. 2+2=4, regardless that that it can be explained principally in many ways and with appropriate degrees of freedom)

You would like me to give a short review of supersymmetric theories? I don't have the time or the will to do that justice. So, I suggest you read up on what you can and we can discuss it from there.

 

 

I would bet that you say this to a lot of people.

Maybe surprising not. I only make such comments when people throw technical words about when it is clear they don't real understand them.

 

If you fail to experiment with the model I am presenting( spend a lot of time presenting yours) then you could not possibly take what I am saying seriously as you have neglected to consider it.

I don't see that you have really presented a model here. Anyway, I am happy to let others experiment and report back their findings. What I am interested in is why you say 'supersymmetry', state that this is something to do with supersymmetry, at least indirectly while being unable to show that any of what you have said is anything to do with supersymmetry.

 

I am not afraid of tests ajb. Are you?

Please see above.

 

Now, unless you can show some connections here with real physics I will no longer post in this thread. I don't think this will bother you much, but you have wasted an opportunity to discuss supersymmetry, or at least the mathematical elements with an expert who was willing to engage with you.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

Supersymmetry has a specific meaning in physics, and it's not clear you have made any connection to this. You have continually eschewed any actual math, even though the title speaks of a new mathematical language. You have referred to your model but have not presented one. I see lots of promises, but not any follow-through.

 

I will reiterate the question I I asked in the very first response and don't recall seeing an answer to: What predictions does this make, and how can this be tested? That's important because it's a requirement of the speculations section — some kind of evidence or testable prediction, or a model from which these could be deduced. Without that the thread will be closed.

 

The short version of this is that it's put up or shut up time.

 

[Mordred]

Roflmao whoever said the SO(10) MSSM or SO(10)MSM model is mine. I could only wish.lol these are two particle physics models that represent the standard model+The Higgs and supersymmetry+the Higgs. I posted a professional peer review paper on both of them in this thread.

 

Now I know you have no idea what supersymmetry means in physics if you didnt understand the post you qouted. Ajb certainly did as that quote and post was directed to him. I know he is familiar with GUT theories and is familiar with the terminology I used in that reply

 

http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://pdg.lbl.gov/201

3/reviews/rpp2013-rev-higgs-boson.pdf&sa=U&ei=275RVISPJsyuyATPkoL4DA&ved=0CAsQFjAA&sig2=teCad_WamYVBYYFp58KqGA&usg=AFQjCNG-I9NqClw2oId0WdmvIBEHzBc92g

 

 

My apologies I posted the paper on another thread.

 

Anyways the link covers SO(10) both in the standard and supersymmetric model.

 

If you study this article you will realize why your model has nothingvto do with the accepted supetsymmetry (Susy) model and understand the post you quoted which I posted in reply to Ajb

Edited November 1, 2014 by Mordred

[naturephysic2345]

Moderator:

I have not contradicted that sypersymmetry has a specific meaning any more than I ignore the reality that within this so called 'specific' meaning the definitions and descriptions are not identified clearly and definitely, nor can this ( or at least ,,has this) definition of supersymetry been proven factually. Not to mention that , and as also indicative of the standard model, the present supersymmetric definitions obviously have not provided enough clarity and transparency to prevent 'competition'(contradiction) among supersymmetric models. When one wins a race one wins a race..with no need for any more competition. Furthermore, that these definitions (verses the principles implied- as superiorly relevant) have not met the 'requirement(s) clearly and precisely...so as to embody GUT. In the issue of the later, these definitions have not been proven or verified through observation, measuring or experimentation. These three fundamental requirements are what result in clear and precise scientific and mathematical statements.

 

Or to put it another way:

The Final Contradiction - Caltech Theoretical Particle Physics

theory.caltech.edu/people/.../str115.ht...

California Institute of Technology

 

 

“When a new theoretical edifice is proposed, it is very desirable to identify distinctive testable experimental predictions. In the case of superstring theory there have been no detailed computations of the properties of elementary particles or the structure of the universe that are convincing, though many valiant attempts have been made.
In my opinion, success in such enterprises requires a better understanding of the theory than has been achieved as yet. It is very difficult to assess whether this level of understanding is just around the corner or whether it will take many decades and several more revolutions.
In the absence of this kind of confirmation, we can point to three qualitative "predictions" of superstring theory. The first is the existence of gravitation, approximated at low energies by general relativity. No other quantum theory can claim to have this property (and I suspect that no other ever will)....(My Recursion model does)
The second is the fact that superstring solutions generally include Yang--Mills gauge theories like those that make up the "standard model" of elementary particles. (My Recursion Scenario describes this mechanism-Yang—Mills gauge)
The third general prediction is the existence of supersymmetry at low energies (the electroweak scale). (Equally explained in depth by the Recursion Scenario)

 

I do not state that my model (Recursion scenario) in any way is associated with any string model. I state that that my model is a clearer and more precise (thus “specific”) definition of what supersymmetry IS. When I refer to the recursion phenomenon as embodying the principles of supersymmetry I merely show that my model extends the definitions of string theory and as well introduces a new cosmological constant. The proposed cosmological constant is recursion. In principle, and what one can determine if they really read my posts, examine the picture equations and experiment with the model (Reiterate: Place object(s) between mirrors and simply observe, measure and experiment with the model) is that the relationship between the standard supersymmetric model(s) and my recursive model can be expressed simply/principally as:

 

'adding another (other-infinite) class(es) of symmetries.”

 

I believe that the principle to be derived from “adding” symmetry to any system is a recursive principle. This recursive “function,” is embodying all aspects of both the Lagrangian as well as the Hamiltonian. (Note: I will propose that the symmetry added is not just “any” symmetry but self-replicated symmetry from a surface reflection. Within this amended definition, I believe it is fair to say that if a sole symmetry is infinitely reproduced and infinite amount of directions and distances, and all symmetries are existing within a matrix or system, that we are describing a state as “exhibiting the characteristics of its type to an extreme or excessive degree.” This definition of “super” combined with symmetry would tweak the specific definition of supersymmetry to read:

 

Symmetries- exhibiting the characteristics of its type to an extreme or excessive degree.=Supersymmetry.

This being stated: I stand by “my” definition of supersymmety as well cannot accept anything else but recursion as producing this supersymmetric effect/phenomenon. Though within that statement I do not in any way invalidate that the overall principle meaning(s) being expressed in SUSY. If I did seem to contradict those principles (verses specific definitions) I would be contradicting my own model.

If given the time and ability to highlight this relevant recursive phenomenon I believe that any who consider it will see how effective it is toward a Unified field Theory.

Unfortunately (or fortunately- we will see) I am at the mercy of the moderators as it comes to being given the necessary time to present axioms and proofs to verify the model I am presenting. On that note: If your patience runs out this will not invalidate the recursion scenario nor will I feel that my endeavors on this forum were a waste of my time.

As far as predictions. I have stated a few directly. I'm confused as to why the moderator implies that I have not. I will introduce more predictions that can be observed, measured and experimented with if given the opportunity. I will show that this model has a superior predictive quality and will demonstrate this with regard to many disparate areas of the sciences as well as mathematics.

The following represent statements I have made in the body of my posts:

 

“ This new model.. predicts.. that information can be observed and measured as being the same at all points, and that the physical universe (and every mass object dwelling therein) is expressing supersymmetric relationships.”

 

“ Further.. predictions.. are expressed through holographic principles as well as the abstract strings(theories). We can ..predict.. that the strings represent both the distancial branches between disparate things (space between mass objects) as well as the mass objects themselves. We can describe the system as ..information...that serves to link all things, and as depicting both symmetric parts as well as a supersymmetric whole system. It.. predicts.. that the full sum of mass objects (reflected information) is derived from the volume of information existing on horizons, that subsequently undergo replication through the scientifically relevant/significant process of recursion. This would.. predict.. that the sum of all geometry (sum of reflected information) that exists in nature and the universe is expressing the infinite rotational sum of A/The geometry dwelling on the surface of a/the screen.”

“It predicts that recursion molds all perceptions of time, the speeding or slowing of time (the refractive association to recursion) as well the concept of and experience of the time phenomenon. This model predicts that the past, present and future lie upon the same line and are only separated by thin membranes relative to a surface screen.”

“We can read the information and any or all changes in the information along a time continuum. We can do so explicitly through geometry.” (<----prediction.)

“This principle possesses all the necessary ingredients to embody a Unified field theory.” -( -predictive)

 

There are many more predictive statements found within my posts.

I do not discern your meaning when you say that I have 'continually eschewed” math, unless of course if you are referring to not making formalistic mathematical statements. However, I will say that if it appears that I have eschewed math it may be for relevant reasons and only concerning those mathematical aspects that are not fully right or proper when trying to formulate a language relative to highly abstract concepts. On this note I will remind one that mathematics is an expanding phenomenon proportional to the need for it. Many times, and as the history of math verifies.. new forms of logic and deduction (mathematics), as well as mathematical constructs have had to be devised to bring solutions to problems that former mathematical standards were not efficient in dealing with. As well , may I respectfully and appropriately extend the definitions of mathematics to include such disparate areas as the following”

 

Model theory; Catagorical logic; mathematical logic; intuitionistic logic; reverse mathematics; recursion theory, etc..

When I refer to a New Mathematical Language i articulate such terms, symbols, sentences and euations using these higher mathematical frameworks of logic. Such mathematically logical approach in no way has been prooven as ineffectual or so inferior throughout the evolution of mathematics. No! The reverse is true- in many ways and relative to many progressions in mathematics.

However, if this room, or moderators or anyone else requires or mandates that only first order logics be utilized, and that all axioms or proofs be stated in this language, then perhaps this forum is not geared toward nor aligned with these relevant and effective “other “ logics. In that case , either I will decide to depart from the forum or my model will be placed in the trash and we all will move along to other mathematical and scientific venues.

 

Suffice ....Any new proposal represents specualtion (most of the string model is considerately speculation not disimilar to the present standard model) untill given enough time to be validated or not.

 

G H Hardy-”It is never worth a first class man's time to express a majority opinion. By definition, there are plenty of others to do that.”

G H Hardy- “mathematician, like a painter or a poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs,(recursion scenario) it is because they are made with idea.” - Parenthesis added

[ajb]

I have not contradicted that sypersymmetry has a specific meaning any more than I ignore the reality that within this so called 'specific' meaning the definitions and descriptions are not identified clearly and definitely, nor can this ( or at least ,,has this) definition of supersymetry been proven factually.

But supersymmetry does have a clear definitions and descriptions. It is true that no evidence has be uncovered that supersymmetry is realised in nature, but that is a slightly different question.

 

 

I state that that my model is a clearer and more precise (thus “specific”) definition of what supersymmetry IS.

Then why have you not show that there is a clear relation between what the physics community means by supersymmetry and what you mean by supersymmetry? If you cannot establish a link then how do you know the two are related in any way? This is a serious question that you need to think about.

 

 

So, I think I am done here...

 

I wish you luck and I hope you see the error of your ways.

[Mordred]

I'm done as well you have zero prep work yet claim your model replaces years if work of countless professional physicists. You don't even acknowledge any understanding of GUT or the Supersymmetry model. When asked to show your work your response is "wait for it"

 

present your model when you have some work to present.

 

look into the existing models and subsequent terminologies.

 

learn the mathematics behind them they are in fact mostly geometric.

 

till then I'm done wasting my time

[swansont]

 

“We can read the information and any or all changes in the information along a time continuum. We can do so explicitly through geometry.” (<----prediction.)

“This principle possesses all the necessary ingredients to embody a Unified field theory.” -( -predictive)

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

What is necessary is to have predictions from the model, not predictions of what the model will be able to predict. When you can, e.g. use geometry to read information, and make a comparison with experiment, or have a unified field theory that can make comparisons with experiment, then you'll have something.

 

That's when you can re-introduce the topic

closed