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

[Strange]

 

after I have articulated my proposals

 

When will you do that? We are on to the second page now.

[Acme]

...

Acme:

 

Did you perform the experiment? If so, what were your results? If you really scrutinized the system and paid strict attention to the peculiarities and strange phenomenon..can you discern any principles being expressed?

 

With regard to the differences between the two styles of mirror ( 1^st and 2ond surface ) and with regard to the ability to reflect and represent recursion( if relative to another 1^st or 2ond surface mirror.)-there is NO difference. However, I will be discussing the “spectral” phenomenon that occurs relative to the second surface mirror and as slightly opposed to the first surface mirror. This spectral phenomenon is relevant to holographic principles as well relevant when we consider the Planks length relative to my theorem. I will, for purposes of necessary chronology of discovery, conscientiously neglect to go into that for now. ...

I haven't done it yet as I [sadly] don't have 2 suitable mirrors at hand. However I intend to go to a friend's where they have some hinged vanity mirrors well suited to the task and I will give it a whirl. I'm certainly intrigued by your reference to Phi as it seems to imply I might find measurements that are Fibonacci numbers. ??

Nice to know my question wasn't entirely without merit.

[naturephysic2345]

Acme.

 

You are quite perceptive.

 

The Fib. sequence is just a drop in the bucket as it concerns the principles to be discovered within the model I will elaborate upon.

[elfmotat]

the model I will elaborate upon.

 

Please tell us what that model is. We can't discuss its validity unless we know what its predictions are.

[Bignose]

I will tell you what I think are some very appropriate definitions for the word.

...

3) “Entirely without fault or defect.” I will demonstrate that the supersymmetric reality of things is synopsised by this definition.

You know what would demonstrate this? Actually showing it making predictions that agree with measurements. As I wrote above, how much more prelude is there? When, when, when are we going to see some actual predictions? I'm going to reserve my 'not perfect' comment until you can, you know, actually demonstrate what you've claimed you can do about 5 times now.

 

It's time to put up. Let's see it already. If we don't understand something, we'll ask, don't worry. If the reply to this will be more copies of definitions from a dictionary or another 1000 words of 'introduction' or just promises of what you can do, I'm just about done here. As Strange wrote, we're on the second page now, 30+ posts in.

 

Let's see something already. Please?

Edited October 28, 2014 by Bignose

[ajb]

Ajb:

 

You, “missed something.” May I suggest that you review my former posts.

I see that you used the word supersymmetry in your earlier posts, but I fail to see the relevance of or essential need for supersymmetry in what you wrote.

 

 

Supersymmetry: The “continual” reproducing of a symmetry.

That is not how anyone else thinks of supersymmetry; or for sure I am very unclear on what you mean by this statement.

[Mordred]

I see from your post that you acknowledge the deficiency of the GUT model to appropriately explain.. gravity. As long as this is the case, and despite the very positive and noteworthy aspects of this model, perhaps a more refined model that DOES account for and explain the 'problem of gravity' should be considered. I will be taking that to task relative to this thread. As well, with the utmost of respect, so long as gravity is a real force and thus a reality in most ways, the GUT model is 'divorced from reality at least as it concerns appropriate and effective ways of explaining the .. gravity enigma

 

In conclusion:

 

I will purposefully (driven by a purpose)- fail to accept your challenge with regard to the 3 questions you posed. I will not do so in the interests of not cluttering or digressing from the discussions I am initiating relative to my thread. However, you can take heart that, after I have articulated my proposals, your questions will have been sufficiently answered. If you invest yourself in my ideas ( and for the most part I will respond to the appropriate aspects of your challenges or inquires) but for a little while (even if such represents indulgence on your part), You will see clear evidence that my knowledge of the subjects you allude to is not so inferior.

sorry but without seeing the actual model and lie algebra and corresponding mathematics involved in any new model regardless of subject I do not invest my valuable time into it. After all unless I see real work and understanding by the poster in question I have no faith in their willingness to prove their understanding of current models and show how their models work better than the numerous ones already out there. I've studied well over 20 different GUT models in extensive detail. They all have their pros and cons. My personal favorite is the SO(10) MSM model. As it doesn't introduce any exotic particles, uses a single seesaw mechanism and has only the 123 Higgs and its anti particle form. Coincidentally it may also explain dark matter, inflation and dark energy. I have posted the related papers in other threads. I have a few impressive dissertations on the various SO(10) models. Thus far I have yet to read anything in any of your posts that has convinced me that your ideas will improve upon the existing models.

 

Please show us an actual model or at the very least the work you have done on it. Prove to us your understanding. Once you can do that then you will have ppl willing to help. Until you can do so then we simply cannot offer assistance as we have nothing to work from to understand your model ideas. We have no way of knowing what your knowledge level is either.

 

The 3 questions I posted any first semester student in particle physics can answer they represented an entry level of understanding.

Is your model SO(10) MSSM or Su(5)MSSM? or some other breed? We have no way of knowing as you have shown zero work

Edited October 28, 2014 by Mordred

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

Everyone,

This thread is not progressing well, and everyone can improve the quality of their posts.

If your only contribution to this thread is going to be another demand for proof, predictions or a model, then please do not post. The message has been heard, I'm sure. I went through the thread, and counted: 5 comments about length, 8 comments about proof/evidence/predictions/models, several posts which were just impatient requests for an agenda (when will you do it?), and two were personal attacks, which I will address below. A lot of posts just repeat what was already said.

 

I can only conclude that the general lack of progress given the length of the thread (36 posts) is certainly not only due to the OP. The OP has had just 1 day so far, and one cannot reasonably expect anyone to show proofs/evidence/etc in such a short time. The relevant parameter in this case is time, not the length of the thread.

 

Or, to put all this in different words: Everyone, stop ganging up on our OP.

 

Elfmotat,
Personal attacks are against our rules.

Strange,

This too can be seen as a personal attack. Stop it. Be civil.

 

naturephysic2345,

You are posting in the Speculations forum. This forum has some additional rules. A very relevant section from the rules says:

If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can.

Since you (and Acme) seem to have the intention to do some tests there is no problem yet. It would be advisable however to show some progress in the posts (if there is none, sometimes it is better not to post).

 

Do not respond to this mod note in the thread. If you have any problems with it, use the report button.

[Mordred]

As GUT is part of the discussion here is a newer GUT model

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.1001

Part of what I mentioned previously

The links you had posted in one of your earlier threads represent the SU(5) MSSM model much has changed since those links to the webpages were written. There is an SO(10) suppersymmetric model however it suffers the same problem as the SU(5) supersymmetric model. (exotic particles that has never been found) however the SO(10) MSSM does offer a possible answer as to why the supersymmetric particles are heavier than their partners. Which SU(5) as far as I know failed to do.

As far as your holographic references as well as others I keep thinking of ADS/CFT correspondance which is probably not what you are referring to. Been extremely difficult to narrow down your line of research and model ideas. Hopefully you can provide some clarity as many of the concepts you posted exist in numerous unrelated models etc. However I can't even be sure on that despite several re readings.

Forgot to add there is numerous variants on both SO(10) MSM and SO(10) MSSM

 

MSM minimal standard model

MSSM minimal supersymmetric standard model

[Acme]

Acme.

You are quite perceptive.

The Fib. sequence is just a drop in the bucket as it concerns the principles to be discovered within the model I will elaborate upon.

Danke. Besides the mathematical framework of the sequence, I am familiar with it in nature through botany.

 

On to the experiment. I have done the first part and thought I'd post that before moving on. (Also I had to yield the lavatory for more mundane purposes.) Revisting your instructions:

...

Measure the length and width of one square side of the square block(record the measurements).. and position this measured side facing the surface of the mirror. Place a measuring stick (ruler) between the the real block and the surface of the mirror. Record the exact distance from the base of the square side to the surface of the mirror. (Note: Where any center to center measurement is precluded as relevant as the entire dimensions of the block face will meet at the same one dimensional surface of the mirror, and thus represent the same linear measurement) Try to assure that the mirror is standing exactly straight up with no deviation from parallel to the face of the real block. The reason I state this is that 'I will predict' that if you measure the REFLECTED block (length and width of sides-same) when the mirror surface is any degree away from true parallelism you will get a distorted measurement, or: That the length and/or width of the sides as measured relative to the reflected square will change from being the same (foursquare) to a slight deviation. Of necessity, if you make certain that the mirror plane is exactly parallel to the real square face then 'I will predict' that NO deviation will occur, and therefore, the measurements of the reflected square will express four-squareness.

I took a photograph and annotated it with my measurements. Clearly the face remains four-square in the reflection, however the top does not remain four-square as we would expect foreshortening in both the reflection and the real cube. To measure the reflection I held my rule to the mirror. When I changed my point of view the rule end no longer aligned to the reflection end. (I'm not sure if it's germane to any of this but I might mention I only have sight in one eye and so have no depth perception. Please advise me if this is going to be a problem.)

 

So here's my annotated photo of the setup. Let me know if I've done it right before I move on to the second mirror.

PS The cube face is 10 cm from the mirror face.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Acme

[Mordred]

This is off topic but those items merely altered the scale and which homogeneous is said to occur or be valid

 

the old value was 100Mpc the new value is 120 Mpc. At 120Mpc they no longer challenge the cosmological principle. However we can argue that in a new thread. As it has nothing to do with this one

[sunshaker]

Danke. Besides the mathematical framework of the sequence, I am familiar with it in nature through botany.

 

On to the experiment. I have done the first part and thought I'd post that before moving on. (Also I had to yield the lavatory for more mundane purposes.) Revisting your instructions:

I took a photograph and annotated it with my measurements. Clearly the face remains four-square in the reflection, however the top does not remain four-square as we would expect foreshortening in both the reflection and the real cube. To measure the reflection I held my rule to the mirror. When I changed my point of view the rule end no longer aligned to the reflection end. (I'm not sure if it's germane to any of this but I might mention I only have sight in one eye and so have no depth perception. Please advise me if this is going to be a problem.)

 

So here's my annotated photo of the setup. Let me know if I've done it right before I move on to the second mirror.

PS The cube face is 10 cm from the mirror face.

 

You only used one mirror? did you measure the next scale of reflection using two mirrors?

 

Is the size of each reflection, 75% of the previous, at each next stage of reflection down to as far as we can measure?

Edited October 28, 2014 by sunshaker

[Acme]

You only used one mirror? did you measure the next scale of reflection using two mirrors?

 

Is the size of each reflection, 75% of the previous, at each next stage of reflection down to as far as we can measure?

... On to the experiment. I have done the first part and thought I'd post that before moving on. (Also I had to yield the lavatory for more mundane purposes.) ...

[Mordred]

I'll see if I can find a specific paper thats related. The paper discussed the possibility of portions of the Observable universe being reflections of other portions. Not sure if I will be able to locate it. It was published roughly 8 years ago on arxiv and I cannot recall the author. I might still have a copy but my database of articles is over 300 gigs of pdf files. The paper wasnt the holographic principle though

http://www.theexamineduniverse.org/

 

its not the arxiv article but it has some coverage

I mentioned merely to show that similar research has occured so you may find supportive material with some searching

[Strange]

Your beautiful Photos, miss anatomy, and the panorama of the cosmos

 

I don't know about you, but I'm not spherical. And neither is the galaxy. And nor is .... oh, never mind. Yes, spherical surfaces are common, for good reasons, but we see all sort of other shapes as well (for exactly the same reasons, interestingly).

 

 

You forget that they all, are composed by tiny spherical material objects called atoms

 

But that isn't what you said. So I assume you want to retract your previous statement because it was wrong; that's good of you.

So here's my annotated photo of the setup. Let me know if I've done it right before I move on to the second mirror.

 

How did you measure the size of the reflected cube? Did you place the ruler next to the mirror?

 

Because, of course, if you had placed it next to the reflected image (e.g. by placing it next to the original cube) then both cubes would be the same size.

 

Is this anything other than the effects of perspective?

Math again? first dark energy was created to make the "math fit", second we do not understand "this dark energy",

 

What do you suggest? Just ignore the data that doesn't fit with out current models? Pretend it didn't happen? Or is it more productive to try and come up with an explanation?

 

Now we have its "homogeneous and isotopic" again to fit the math. But in certain places it is not, it is called "heterogeneous"

 

You have that back to front. Homogeneous and isotropic are (working) assumptions used to derive the math. So far they appear to true to quite a high degree of accuracy. But obviously not perfectly so.

 

 

it is either "homogeneous" or it isn't.

 

That is a bit like saying it is either grey or not.

[Acme]

...

How did you [Acme] measure the size of the reflected cube? Did you place the ruler next to the mirror? ...

... To measure the reflection I held my rule to the mirror. ...

Edited October 28, 2014 by Acme

[Strange]

 

...

How did you [Acme] measure the size of the reflected cube? Did you place the ruler next to the mirror? ...

... To measure the reflection I held my rule to the mirror. ...

 

 

Doh! Sorry, I missed that paragraph.

 

 

I'm not sure if it's germane to any of this but I might mention I only have sight in one eye and so have no depth perception. Please advise me if this is going to be a problem.

 

I think it may be an advantage in this context.

[Acme]

Doh! Sorry, I missed that paragraph.

No worries. So much for the implication that brevity breeds clarity.

 

 

I'm not sure if it's germane to any of this but I might mention I only have sight in one eye and so have no depth perception. Please advise me if this is going to be a problem.

I think it may be an advantage in this context.

 

As an aside, it's a disadvantage in most contexts. Gotta play the cards as dealt.

As pertains to the topic context, what specifically do you see as an advantage? Something that would improve my results? Is there some part of the experiment that would prompt you to close/cover one eye? I am of course still interested in any thoughts on the issue from naturephysic2345, particularly if it's going to skew my results. (A bit of geometry humor there. )

 

So I can use the cube block and mirrors whenever I want now so I'm in no hurry to try the two mirror setup before I hear back from naturephysic2345 on how I did on the first part. No point in compounding any errors.

 

So naturephysic2345, as I earlier alluded to Hofstadter I want to ask you if using a video camera pointed at a screen that the camera is feeding is an equivalent experiment to the 2 mirror setup. Any commentary on the equivalence or difference would be appreciated, particularly if it has some bearing on where you are going with all this.

 

That's all I got.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Acme

[Strange]

As an aside, it's a disadvantage in most contexts.

 

I bet.

 

There was an amazing article a while ago about a woman who had her 3D sight restored. Unfortunately the article is subscription only: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227112.900-how-i-learned-to-see-in-3d.html

 

As pertains to the topic context, what specifically do you see as an advantage?

 

I'm guessing it might make it easier for you to see the reflected image more "objectively". But I'm not really sure.

[naturephysic2345]

 

Ajb:

In order to understand what I mean by “Supersymmetry: The “continual” reproducing of a symmetry”- I will ask: What is the difference between symmetry and supersymmetry. I refer to a symmetry as a SOLE 'uniformity of a shape.” I refer to supersymmetry as 'a' sole shape “continually” reproduced. So when I refer to supersymmetry as evidentiarily a manifestation of recursion I illustrate this by stationing a sole object between two mirrors. This demonstrates that a sole object symmetry is now represented supersymmetrically – or “continually. I synonomize this supersymmetric effect with the recursion effect. Or symmetry (real object between mirrors) x recursion= symmetry(1), symmetry (2), symmetry(3)------> = supersymmetry or a supersymmetric system= The recursion phenomenon.

While “Scientists have discovered that nature contains symmetry in such things as butterflies, snowflakes, and faces, as well as in its own laws. They also have discovered that at particular points, symmetry ends and is replaced by asymmetry.”

I would predict that the influence of the “force of observation” disguises from view the reality that everything is indeed symmetric as well as symmetrically related and that any asymmetry as perceived is a result of this “force” influencing conclusions and altering the reality of things from view ( “the hidden supersymmetric law of nature”) . Furthermore, I would say that this same force of observation (inferior) is what disguises the reality that; all things are symmetric and symmetrically related as a result of existing within a recursive system, where a/the symmetry existing on the surface is supersymmetrically represented through the recursive matrix as either larger or smaller relative to observers and measurers. ( Note: How the whole of the information is percieved is related to how far a particular stage is from this surface as either expanded or contracted relative to an observer existing in the system.)

A relative observer, as existing in this system, is looking through these recursive stages (from their own stage or membrane, either toward the past or toward the future, or in the present- viewing the sum of the symmetries represented on their layer of recursion), and as well looking at either small or large portions of it, and therefore the true symmetry dwelling on the surface, and although communicated exactly the same throughout the recursive stages, is considerately being observed in parts and from many directions and from many different distances. Because of this physical/visual and intellectual constraint the true symmetric/supersymmetric relationships are hidden from view. ( Translation: We are trapped on a particular layer(stage of recursion) and looking through the phase space to/through other layers, but not able to dwell on those separate membranes of information. This means that we are “not able to travel back in the past or toward the future.' )

The overall theme of my theorem will seek to prove this is true as well demonstrate how to heighten our ability to realize both the symmetric and supersymmetric relationships. I will be providing pictures and illustrations to depict what I said in the former paragraph.. latter on . As well, I will show powerful axioms and proofs to define a new “special” rotational symmetry as expressing these symmetric and supersymmetric relationships, and as existing all around us and that can be both observed and measured.

Note: ' Physicists believe that particle“antiparticle pairs behave symmetrically, like mirror reflections of each other (mirror-reflection symmetry). In 1964 at Doe's Brookhaven Laboratory, when a slight but definite asymmetry between a subatomic particle and its antiparticle was noted, physicists saw the breaking of symmetry in nature. It was time to ask why.”

This supposed “asymmetry or symmetry breaking” is once again a product of perception and is an implicit result of the powers of observation as part of the experiment.

Acme:

There is one problem with your experiment. You stated that the measurement of the block was 10 cm and then deduced that the reflection was approximately 75% of this true measurement. However, (and one of the very significant things about what I am explaining) you altered your experiment, as well as interfered with the proper conclusion. Can you discern how? It has something to to with the location of the camera lens as opposed to the distance measurement you took between the real object and the reflected one. Actually, you introduced a 3

rd

vector which altered the experiment. Since it was the camera( and the location from where the picture was taken) that altered your measurement (thus the true mathematical phenomenon as being witnessed was lost) I will save the desire I have to speak on the human eye- as always a third vector relative to experiments and thus as altering ones view from correct conslussions. The eye is predominately responsible for altering our understanding of the true symmetric and supersymmetric relationships.

Before I help you calibrate the experiment I will wait to see if you understand where the problem arises and if you can figure out what went wrong.(Hint: “I took a photograph”-...You measured by 'holding your rule to the mirror'..yet, you observed from a camera that was farther from this point of measurement.)

We are conducting the experiment on a surface plane of reflection thus having monocular vision impairment will not at all effect your ability to conduct this particular experiment. As well you took a picture, thus any 3-dimensional abilities are not necessary as you can still 'measure' the system accurately. (Where lessened depth perception will not influence your measurements of the system)

As well, when you refer to the shift of the rule relative to the slightest change of your eye while measuring, this is a natural consequence of the power of observation as able to alter experiments with the slightest movement or change. I have devised many methods to maintain the system as still as possible so that both the observations and measurements accurately represent the mathematical and scientific “proofs.” This is why taking pictures where they are supposed to be taken are significant and thus requires a conscientious effort.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mordred:

 

When my model is fully described we will come to see that every minuscule reflected point as well all colossal reflected points (universe) are all reflections of each other (recursion) and as originating from, and as self replicating, the information residing on the horizon. I am saying that the entire universe, as regards the sum of its symmetric information, can be observed and measured as existing samely in points no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence.

We can imagine that the universe represents the reflected block that acme measured. We can postulate that when he introduces another mirror, and if we could measure a stage of recursion many trillions of trillions of trillions of stages beyond this universe-(block )- (surface reflection), that this same universe of information will be discovered as existing within microscopic point(s). I am saying that recursion not only replicates a 'surface' body of information, but as well contracts this information the farther from this surface. (This contraction represents a certain rate that is mathematically described). This means that every stage of reflection represents the entirety of the information on the surface to each perspective stage in the recursion. How we observe this information as well as the volume of this information that we do or can measure relative to any experiment, determines not only how we perceive it, but as well how we define it mathematically.

At the present time our paradigm of mathematics, derived from an inferior vantage point and intellectual awareness, determines the difference between seeing asymmetry or symmetry (and writing equations to describe it) as opposed to the real supersymmtric reality (the absence of effective equations to describe it.) Again, we need a new mathematical language that can make it possible to “step outside the matrix” and thus view the system and extract the principles as if we were a camera outside the mirror taking pictures and measurements, verses dwelling within the system and not realizing the recursive mechanism that drives and defines the relationships..

 

Strange.

“Because, of course, if you had placed it next to the reflected image (e.g. by placing it next to the original cube) then both cubes would be the same size.”

This is a matter of perspective that is moreso dictated not by how close the block is to the mirror but how far your eye is from both the mirror and the real block. The size of both blocks will change , despite that they are only separated by a Planks length-(= the principle of reflection), relative to how far you and your eye is from the two blocks. Yes! I refer to the Planks length as the thin surface of a horizon that reflects invisible energy. More explicitly I am proposing that the only separation between real energy and mass is the thin principle/property of reflection. The farther away a recursive stage is from this thin reflective surface the farther they are away from the 'Plank.'

 

Note: “The Planck length is the length scale at which the structure of spacetime becomes dominated by quantum effects, and it is impossible to determine the difference between two locations less than one Planck length apart.”

 

Simple analogy: The structures (reflected mass of energy) existing on the surface of reflection, as well as all virtual recursive aspects of this surface information (fractaling of this same energy information) are birthed due to a thin principle of reflection(the Planks length)- relative to Dark Energy. The Planks length is defining the surface of a dark matter reflective medium. If you place the real block to where it touches this 'skin of reflection' it will be “impossible to determine the difference between to locations. However, if you move the real block away from touching the point of the mirror, then, due to the distance between the two (½ real and 1.2 virtual reflected distance) you can discern the difference(s). If all mass, existing as a result of a surface reflection and recursion, were to go beyond this thin demarcation then we could say that no mass would be observed any longer, as the real block is no longer in relativity to the mirror(or mirrors). Thus, beyond this thin property of reflection, or: outside of this reflective horizon, would be where the quantum block returns to itself and where it no longer reflects itself. The quantum particle will no longer be ½ the symmetry of the whole of the symmetry existing between it and its reflection. It will no longer reflect and represent only the 'symmetry' or condition of itself.

 

Acme: Yes the video camera facing a screen is the same. Yet! I will say that doing things in this manner(video to screen) is more efficient in seeing the relationships I will define. I have a few videos on YouTube showing these things. I will not introduce those videos until The appropriate time.

 

From this point forward , aside from necessary responses, I will focus on the things I wish to present in harmony with the purpose of this thread. I assure all who are involved that I am giving my undivided attention to everything that is stated in the room and will for the most part try to gear my theorem to a necessary degree to both respond to challenges as well stay on point.

Edited October 29, 2014 by naturephysic2345

[Acme]

...

Acme:

There is one problem with your experiment. You stated that the measurement of the block was 10 cm and then deduced that the reflection was approximately 75% of this true measurement.

But I did not deduce the 7.5 cm, I measured it with the rule. After I made the measurements I recorded them as you said and I took that 'record it' to mean write down the measurements. While I see that saying 7.5 is 75% of 10 I did not make or record that deduction.

 

However, (and one of the very significant things about what I am explaining) you altered your experiment, as well as interfered with the proper conclusion. Can you discern how? It has something to to with the location of the camera lens as opposed to the distance measurement you took between the real object and the reflected one.

But the camera had nothing to do with the experiment. You said nothing about a camera; as an afterthought I decided to take a photo and post it to witness my setup. Adding my recorded measurements to the photo was another afterthought. Would my experiment have been wrong if I had simply posted my written recording of the measurements?

 

Actually, you introduced a 3^rd vector which altered the experiment. Since it was the camera( and the location from where the picture was taken) that altered your measurement (thus the true mathematical phenomenon as being witnessed was lost) I will save the desire I have to speak on the human eye- as always a third vector relative to experiments and thus as altering ones view from correct conslussions.

But as I say; the photo was an afterthought and I did not take any measurements from the photo.

 

The eye is predominately responsible for altering our understanding of the true symmetric and supersymmetric relationships.

Before I help you calibrate the experiment I will wait to see if you understand where the problem arises and if you can figure out what went wrong.(Hint: I took a photograph-...You measured by 'holding your rule to the mirror'..yet, you observed from a camera that was farther from this point of measurement.)

I can understand that my point of view by-eye certainly altered my perception of the setup. I looked at it from innumerable perspectives as I moved around setting things in place and taking my measurements. It was all that looking that satisfied me that I had followed your directions. I also did some looking just to see what it looked like from different points of view.

 

We are conducting the experiment on a surface plane of reflection thus having monocular vision impairment will not at all effect your ability to conduct this particular experiment. As well you took a picture, thus any 3-dimensional abilities are not necessary as you can still 'measure' the system accurately. (Where lessened depth perception will not influence your measurements of the system)

Acknowledged.

 

As well, when you refer to the shift of the rule relative to the slightest change of your eye while measuring, this is a natural consequence of the power of observation as able to alter experiments with the slightest movement or change. I have devised many methods to maintain the system as still as possible so that both the observations and measurements accurately represent the mathematical and scientific proofs. This is why taking pictures where they are supposed to be taken are significant and thus requires a conscientious effort.

Acknowledged on natural consequences. I'm still unclear about where the camera is 'supposed' to be and if I had used no camera is that the same place my eye is 'supposed' to be. ?

 

Acme: Yes the video camera facing a screen is the same. Yet! I will say that doing things in this manner(video to screen) is more efficient in seeing the relationships I will define. I have a few videos on YouTube showing these things. I will not introduce those videos until The appropriate time.

Very good. I have experimented with this a bit myself as well as studied some of Hofstadter's screen stills and classifications of different setups and resulting patterns. As an aside, are you familiar with Hofstadter's writing?

 

Thanks for your consideration & don't hurry any response on my account as you have the others to respond to as well as the work you want to present. I am if nothing, patient.

[ajb]

In order to understand what I mean by “Supersymmetry: The “continual” reproducing of a symmetry”- I will ask: What is the difference between symmetry and supersymmetry.

First you need to specify a symmetry of what. This will depend on the context, but usually in physics one means the invariance of an action or a quasi-invariance of a Lagrangian. So for now lets us just speak of transformations...

 

Supersymmetry often means something quite specific in physics, but I will be a little more general here; by 'supersymmetry transformation' I will mean a transformation law that has a Grassmann odd 'group' parameter. Thus we are really thinking about the full diffeomorphism group of a supermanifold (we need the internal Homs and not just the categorical morphisms of supermanifolds).

 

This includes the standard supersymmetry as formulated in superspace, ie. in terms of odd translations etc, as well as BRST transformations and kappa-symmetry.

 

Now, in relation to 'standard supersymmety' at the level of the particles (or fields) we have transformations that mix both fermions and bosons. That is we have situations for which these two very different families of particles are indistinguishable. Or you may like to think of multiplets; every fermion comes with a boson partner and vice versa.

 

We can discuss some mathematical aspects here in some detail; I am an expert in supergeometry, but not some much the phenomenological aspects of supersymmetric quantum field theories.

 

 

I refer to a symmetry as a SOLE 'uniformity of a shape.” I refer to supersymmetry as 'a' sole shape “continually” reproduced.

You will need to find another name for this as supersymmetry already has an established meaning. This was the root of the confusion and bewilderment. Why did you call your recursive idea 'supersymmery' when a quick look at particle physics (via google say) would have told you that there is already a specific meaning here?

Edited October 29, 2014 by ajb

[naturephysic2345]

Mordred: (And in part--- ajb):

 

I have proposed that the “symmetry of what” represents a symmetry existing on a surface.- ( The sum of information that is rotationally symmetric and is communicated through the virtual space by means of recursion). Here I equate 'symmetry of what' to whatever sum of information that resides on a reflective surface, and as necessarily a symmetric representation of the Euclidean information it reflects. ( I explained this in a former post) . I discribe this surface “object” (the “what”) as a preliminary template of information, and as a reflected copy of Euclidean information (Dark Energy) to a plane or brane. I describe the surface as a dark matter medium (isometric reflective vector relative to the isometric Euclidean condition or state) that receives this invisible particle information and, if relative to other reflective horizons the potential of recursion can occur.

 

I refer to supersymmetry outside the standard interpretations, and thus, merely express the.. PRINCIPLES... as indicative of the recursive mechanism. I will show that the models that seek to express a supersymmetric condition of things, are really depicting the “continual” reproduction of a thing (object or energy) or quality.. =Recursion.

 

I refer to supersymmetry as a.. principle.. and not to be confined to any strict or specific supersymmetric model. (Note: All supersymmetric models, to date, have not been verified as the absolute reality). However, the principle that is hiding from view is being expressed in highly creative and relevant ways relative to virtually all models that deal with supersymmetry. While these models WILL eventually replace the standard model, they have not been so all inclussively revealing as of yet. We have not attained to a Theory of Everything that brings the necessary mathematical and scientific transparency we are searching for.

 

I am stating that , by considering supersymmetry, and as defined in various ways, (all speaking on the same principles) we are better equipped to find solutions of the Einstein equation and with regard to such things as , for instance- a system of second-order differential equations for g.

 

I am saying that by introducing the principle behind supersymmetry (“continual” as opposed to singular=supersymmetric law of nature verses symmetric=recursion) we would in essence be imposing more symmetry into the system and thus can 'expand' the equations so as to find solutions. I will equate the “finding of solutions” to discovering the hidden phase space both in nature and of our universe! I am proposing that 'hidden phase space' emerges due to recursion. Where the symmetry on/of the surface is further continued, or is reproduced/copied and thus adding/imposing more symmetry into the system resulting in a matrix or lattice. (Note: “Lattice models are also ideal for study by the methods of computational physics, as the discretization of any continuum(recursion) model automatically turns it into a lattice model. )-(The human brain is far more capable of solving problems than any computer, especially if such problems are so complex as to necessitate abstractifying, intuition and logic. Furthermore, and I will assert, some problems cannot even be algebraically or analytically solved outside of first observing, measuring and experimenting with a system. In these mathematically chaotic contexts I will say that using formal mathematics before higher mathematical logic and deduction is no different than putting the cart before the horse.)

 

In order not to seem too evasive( I typically take things at my own pace, but will step out of character) with regard to 'your' appeal(s) for prediction and testable data I will briefly synopsis the following, but in no way stop here if given time:

 

We can refer to this scenario as a homogeneous space. A topological (dark matter) reflective medium first receives light ray (particle information) and further replicates this information forming group G. This describes the Minkowski space as being the combination of surface information and recursive information as all part of the same framework or matrix. The properties (and underlying supersymmetric principles) of this virtual space are therefore preserved despite the “continuous” so-called “deformations.” It is reflection, combined with recursion, that stretch and bend the space ( much as can be witnessed when a real object is between two mirrors and one moves the mirrors in and out and turn them all different degrees and directions away from true parallelism) . It is also the process of recursion ( same principles as supersymmetry) that results in the connectedness or continuity...while the reflective surface represents the boundary to this virtual system. This boundary is a principle verses a tangible thing so much, in that, the only thing that separates the real space( and object) from the virtual space is a thin skin of reflection. Beyond this thin membrane of reflection ( a Planks length beyond) one enters into the Euclidean dark energy (or quantum) condition or state.

 

We can refer to the group G as both the phase space and each stage of recursion that is separated by this area of space. It is a non empty manifold that resembles the Euclidean information ( though is not equal to; one is the higher dimension space the other is a lower dimensional, energy-inert reflected space) near every point. This phase spacing (recursion mechanism) represents the “neighborhood” that is described as homeomorphic to/of the Euclidean space. We have a two dimensional manifold surface accompanied by a multidimensional recursive 'thickness.' ( “virtual depth—perception” ). ( Note: I take issue with the string theorists '12 dimension' inference, as well any supersymetric model that confines the dimensions to anything but infinite- This includes, but is not limited to, the volume of dimensional modes expressed within The Super G-string model.)

 

In order to see my meaning with regard to infinite dimensions, you have to see the recursive principle that I am depicting as representing an infinite “string” of dimensional modes related to the infinite layers/stages one witnesses in mirror to mirror reflection. Each mode is separated by a certain volume of phase space that contracts from the surface through the recursive matrix, and as well is either contracted or expanded relative to an observer. The 'infinite” combination of both phase space and separate recursive membranes of information from the surface, represent the “volume” of phase space.

 

Both the surface AND recursive 'continuity space' represents the virtual informational transliteration of the Dark Energy information. Any transformations or renormalizations of this surface information occur implicitly through recursion. This recursive system, and at all points proportional to all other points, shifts to all changes in the distance or even movement/&momentum of the REAL OBJECT existing between the two surfaces. This same proportional rate of change, occurring both in the phase space and with each layer as moving closer or further from each other due to the change in this phase space, can happen due to the contraction of the REAL space between horizons relative to each other. Not dissimilar to this reflective plane to reflective plane relationship is the relativity of the reflective/refractive/recursive 'mechanism eye' to any or all other reflective points. The eye is a Higgs field just the same as any and all other reflective/refractive horizons are perspectively represented as Higgs fields. Thus the eye, in most ways, ALSO both causes and can determine 'change' in this measurable system. Actually-predominately...The eye (force of observation) results in the changing of measurements, and can express one true measurement in one experiment and another true measurement in another experiment, yet, the experiments contradict one another.

 

This mirror to mirror model (qualitative..principles extracted from) is expressing the isomorphic relationships, whereby the 'equal shape” on the surface is inversely represented to the next row. This row is inversely changed at the next row...so on and so forth. (Note: One can observe this phenomenon by placing a light on the side of a spinning top and placing the top between two mirrors and spinning it. You will notice that the first stage of reflection moves opposite to the direction of the real top. Where the lights will intersect at a certain point (center to center) the real light is traveling one direction and the first stage of reflection is moving the other direction...where the lights intersect cancels out the opposite spin. If you then compare the 2ond stage of reflection to the first stage you will see the same 'cancellation ( or balancing of entropy) occurring , whereby stage two is opposite stage one, but, moving the same direction as the real top between the two mirrors. This 'recursion of inversion' is telling us something very valuable. I will speak on these relevant principles further on.)

 

Because you bring up very relevant things in your responses I will post an image illustrating the preceding paragraph. This image will represent a slight diversion from how I was going to begin expressing my theorem in a way that best fits the chronology of discoveries. Yet! I feel it will be a fitting start.

 

Not only is the information on each recursive row, isomorphic of the former row, but the surface reflection is isomorphic of the space (or object) between the mirror surfaces. As well, the space between the recursive stages is proportionally a representation or an isomorphism of the phase space before and after. (Note: Of necessity, the bijective function, mathematically essential...can be inferred from the same model,and, therefore the experiments will verify that it is observed and measured as occurring within the system.). All of these phenomena are working together to describe a supersymmetric system, and as a result, serve to strengthen the mathematical and scientific validity of the Recursion Scenario -model I am introducing.

 

You have to understand that, any model or theory that deals with supersymmetry, can be placed nose to nose to my model and be discerned as, and in most ways, self-similar to my proposals. That is to say: My model in most ways is,( though I will show how my model is superiorly explanative and relevant in other areas) in principle and substance, a mirror image of others, though I merely describe it differently and with minimal complex terminology and jargon. We are not so dissimilar in our conclusions, intuitions and abstractifications. I will guess that some of the most stimulating conversations that will occur in this thread will be between us. As 'YOU” represent 'blocks' reflecting to me( the symmetry of your thought and concepts) I will be a block reflecting to you-(same symmetrical ideas-not so incongruent or inverse/converse to yours). It will be difficult to distinguish differences between our shared, as well different proposals. The only differences I believe will manifest themselves when a particular aspect of my proposals are compared to yours, that is “surface to surface reflection=recursion)- (verses just mirror matter concepts or the like- more symmetrical in gist). My model, I am confident, will provide more robust and observable/measurable descriptions and will elaborate upon , enhance and refine the supersymmetric sentences and statements that you are using, which in essence, and by principle deduction, are indistinguishable from the new mathematical language that I am using to describe the same phenomena. Another thing that l may result in polarization between our 'models,' and that which I refer to in the body of this paragraph, is the “approach” and methodology of explanation. Your 'language', though unique to mathematics in some ways, will, for the most part, follow prescribed formalism and thus be much more complex sentences and mathematically verbose descriptions, whereas my approach will deviate from this formal mathematical model of articulation and thus be more lucid ( though-equally verbose) and inherently following higher mathematical principles of deduction (logic and thought experimentation ). Now you may understand a former statement that I made as to being “scared or bored” with OTHER aspects of mathematics, that, even though they can lead lead to a same conclusion, they are for the most part not my style of arriving at those same conclusions. In this sense, I favor that I am divested of this mode of math and can think more clearly, though equally mathematically and in other ways.

 

 

I will predict that my recursion model will explain fully the following things: As well that this recursion scenario will describe all aspects of:

 

-mappings that retain topological properties of a given space= Recursion

-The relationship between two or more reflective surfaces=homeomorphism (where both surfaces are homeomorphic)

-Bi continuous function= recursion

-recursion=bi continuous function(s) as a result of occurring due to the relationship between topological spaces

-Inverse function=recursion,recursion,recursion(Infinite--/--/--/--> o <--/../../../..infinite)

-”A topological space is a geometric object” (reflected object on a reflective brane)

-recursion= continuous stretching (space -mass expansion) of this topological geometric sum of information (rotationally symmetric- but I will get to that)

-recursion= new shape as separate from the surface geometry but representing the geometry the same. The only difference in the recursive system, as opposed to the origin surface of the recursion, is that recursion makes this geometry “new” in the sense of contracting it away from this surface or expanding it toward a relative observer.)

 

-The topology geometry ( rotational geometry existing on the surface and thus the representational and rotational sum of all other self-replications or recursive geometries) does not change when homeomorphisms are applied. Translation: A surface reflection does not contract or expand relative to the recursive changes, rather the recursive changes occur relative to this surface and relative to the distancial change between a real object and this first surface stage. A surface reflection is not dependent upon a recursive process, rather recursion is contingent upon both a surface reflection and the relativity of a surface to a surface and as separated by a certain volume of Euclidean space. All recursive stages are a product of a surface reflection and not the other way around. The surface reflection is not homeomorphic of the recursive stages that proceed it , rather the surface reflection is solely homeomorphic of the space between the mirrors and not dwelling inside the mirrors. I will explain this further on with pictures graphs and illustrations.

 

For the sake of not no being to “fluffy” relative to any given single post, I will broaden the applications of this recursion scenario by dissipating it over the course of this layered theorem. I will allow a little “phase space” for others to respond before I assume the next stage of progression.

 

Note: Please disregard the allusion to "hint: Power of observation, double slit experiment."(This image was designed to be used latter on. I decided to post it per relevance, to this post)

Edited October 29, 2014 by naturephysic2345

[Mordred]

As mentioned before the term symmetry has a specific meaning in physics.

 

When something in physics has symmetry it is invariant invariance means that it does not change due to another tranformation.

 

one good example is the speed of light. It is invariant regardless of observer so the speed of light has symmetry. The same usage of terminology applies in tensor mathematics. Which makes sense as physics requires mathematics.

As for the rest I will wait for the model metrics as your writing style and lanq usage is too confusing to me. Nothing personal but everytime I read your posts I get more and more confused as to what your model is describing

Edited October 30, 2014 by Mordred

[ajb]

I refer to supersymmetry outside the standard interpretations, and thus, merely express the.. PRINCIPLES... as indicative of the recursive mechanism.

You have not, as far as I can see reinterpreted supersymmetry you have made some definition of something unrelated (as far as I can tell) and called it also 'supersymmetry'. This is a big mistake and suggests you don't know about supersymmetry.

 

Has someone shown you a picture of the proposed sparticles being represented as the 'mirror image' of the particles?

 

 

I will show that the models that seek to express a supersymmetric condition of things, are really depicting the “continual” reproduction of a thing (object or energy) or quality.. =Recursion.

This recursion of a symmetry reminds me of fractals. There is a repeated pattern in the set at different scales.

 

I refer to supersymmetry as a.. principle.. and not to be confined to any strict or specific supersymmetric model. (Note: All supersymmetric models, to date, have not been verified as the absolute reality). However, the principle that is hiding from view is being expressed in highly creative and relevant ways relative to virtually all models that deal with supersymmetry. While these models WILL eventually replace the standard model, they have not been so all inclussively revealing as of yet. We have not attained to a Theory of Everything that brings the necessary mathematical and scientific transparency we are searching for.

These models have nothing to do with your ideas, as far as I can see. To make any sense of this you must show me how your 'supersymmetry' is related to what everyone else on Earth means by supersymmetry. If not, you will need to really rethink what you are doing. In fact until you do this the rest of your post is meaningless.