Tag Archives: ToE

Updated My ToE Demonstrations to Wolfram Language (aka. Mathematica) 11

Please see the latest in .nb, .cdf demonstrations files and web interactive pages.

ToE_Demonstration-Lite.cdf Latest: 08/15/2016 (10 Mb). This is a lite version of the full Mathematica version 11 demonstration in .CDF below (or as an interactive-Lite web page) (4 Mb). It only loads the first 8 panes and the last UI pane which doesn’t require the larger file and load times. It requires the free Mathematica CDF plugin.

This version of the ToE_Demonstration-Lite.nb (13 Mb) is the same as CDF except it includes file I/O capability not available in the free CDF player. This requires a full Mathematica license.

ToE_Demonstration.cdf Latest: 08/15/2016 (110 Mb). This is a Mathematica version 11 demonstration in .CDF (or as an interactive web page) (130 Mb) takes you on an integrated visual journey from the abstract elements of hyper-dimensional geometry, algebra, particle and nuclear physics, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) in Chaos Theory and Fractals, quantum relativistic cosmological N-Body simulations, and on to the atomic elements of chemistry (visualized as a 4D periodic table arranged by quantum numbers). It requires the free Mathematica CDF plugin.

This version of the ToE_Demonstration.nb (140 Mb) is the same as CDF except it includes file I/O capability not available in the free CDF player. This requires a full Mathematica license.

(The CDF player from Wolfram.com is still at v. 10.4.1, so still exhibits the bug I discovered related to clipping planes/slicing of 3D models).

A ToE should…

An interesting post re:qualifications for a ToE prompted me to jot down my initial list of requirements. A ToE should inform, expand on, or rationalize, in a mathematically self consistent and rigorous way, the state of the current SM & GR confirmed experimental data:

1) Prescription (aka prediction, retrodiction or specific rationalization) for 3 generations of fundamental fermion and boson particles (and their resulting composite particles), including: charge, spin, color, mass, lifetime, branching ratio, and scattering amplitudes (aka. S-Matrix)
2) Prescription for CKM and PMNS unitary matrices and CPT conservation
3) Framework for the integration of QM and GR, including e/m, weak, strong and gravitational forces
4) Explanation for dark energy and dark matter in proportion to visible matter
5) Solution to the hierarchy problem
6) Provide a realistic computational model based on the above for the evolution of the Universe from BB to present
7) Explain an arrow of time that is consistent with GR and QM CPT conservation symmetries

Non-specific general appeals to the anthropic principle, landscapes, and/or multiverses tend to excuse or avoid prescription and thus become a benign point (or possibly even meta-physical or philosophical), such that they are not considered supportive of an actually verifiable (aka. scientific) theory.

If the theory says “we can’t know” or “we can’t measure” or “it just is that way” – it isn’t science or part of a ToE. again – my opinion and definition of “science”.

There is redundancy in this list, that is expected (even required). Of course, the beauty of the theory would be in conclusively demonstrating that throughout!

Until we can study an actual ToE that is put on the table – the list is only a guide to what might be needed. I am working on a ToE, but it doesn’t yet meet all the criteria (it’s hard work 😉

IF we have a ToE and really understand it, we should, as Feynman suggested, be able to explain it in plain language to anyone. But in the current state of physics, a completed ToE does not yet exist.

IMO, a ToE is about knowing the Universal Laws of Physics (ULPs). It isn’t, in detail, involved in knowing the Universal Initial Conditions UICs).

If you believe that the laws of “climate science” are known (don’t get me started…), then the only problem with predicting the weather is not so much about NOT knowing the laws – it is about not knowing with sufficient accuracy the initial conditions (location & momentum) of enough particles in the system. We’re missing the “butterfly flapping its wings in the Pacific” data points.

The Copenhagen interpretation of QM suggests that is impossible in principle to know any quantum system ICs (vs. the deterministic formulation of QM by DeBroglie-Bohm). Either way, my view is ToE=ULP.s w/o UICs. So prediction of all long term events specifically (like what I will think about next) is NOT the goal.

We just need enough of an idea about the UICs to initiate the computer model so it comes out close enough to get Earth like planets with weather and life forms thinking about this topic.

Easier, but NOT easy!

Universal History Simulations Added

I’ve added more features to the Universal History N-Body Gravity OpenCL GPU Simulation. Here are a few snapshots…

Big Bang – Planck Epoch
outNBody_1a (7)

Inflationary Epoch(s) w/Pre & Post (These are built into my ToE as an accelerating space-time, varying FineStructure, c and hBar)

ElectroWeak Symmetry Breaking Epoch
outNBody_1a (10)

Quark-Gluon Plasma Epoch
outNBody_1a (11)

Meson Epoch
outNBody_1a (5)

Baryon Epoch
outNBody_1a (4)

Lepton Epoch
outNBody_1a (6)

Big Bang NuceloSynthesis Epoch- Nuclei of Hydrogen/Helium/Lithium
outNBody_1a (2)

Photon Epoch- Atoms of Hydrogen/Helium/Lithium
outNBody_1a (3)

Matter Dominated Stellar NucleoSynthesis- Quasars
outNBody_1a (9)

ReIonization- Galaxies
Galaxy

Dark Ages- Large Scale Structure
outNBody_43a

Recombination- Solar Systems/Chemistry/Biology/Sociology
outNBody_1a (8)

Higgs Mass Prediction Confirmed!

CMS closes major chapter of Higgs measurements

image1_1

http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/cms-closes-major-chapter-higgs-measurements

Glad to see the more accurate CMS (as well as ATLAS’) Higgs mass homing in on my prediction of 124.443…GeV/c^2 (see http://theoryofeverything.org/TOE/JGM/ToEsummary.pdf).

Can’t wait for more data next year. Of course, validation that the theoretical model works as expected is as important as the experimental verification.

New TheoryOfEverything Visualizer Features

I cleaned up some of the N-Body physics screens, and created a few animation sequences showing the simulation runs available (if you have Mathematica and source code (available upon request and appropriate use-case)).

This is a video of a preliminary Galaxy formation in N-Body gravitational physics.

This is a video of the solar system (not yet using the OpenCL N-Body code for GPU parallelism).

This is a video of the Compton Effect in 3D, which I plan on using to show how Big Bang Inflationary Quantum effects are explained.

outNBodyPhys

outNBodyPhoton

I’ve also improved the capabilities of the other demonstrations.

outHadron

I've added an N-Body Gravitational Simulation Pane and enhanced the Composite Quark Hadron Model Pane

The N-Body Gravitational Simulation (not yet complete) uses Mathematica’s OpenCL GPU computing capability to simulate standard (Solar System), GR (Black Hole Centered Galaxy formation), Large Scale Universal Structure, and Quantum GR (Big Bang Inflationary) physics.

I’ve consolidated the Meson/Baryon panes into a single Hadron pane that now includes the formation of the recently validated TetraQuark Hadrons.

Please see ToE_Demonstration.cdf or as an interactive web page) that takes you on an integrated visual journey from the abstract elements of hyper-dimensional geometry, algebra, particle and nuclear physics, and on to the atomic elements of chemistry. It requires the free Mathematica CDF plugin (25 Mb). ToE_Demonstration.nb is the same as CDF except it includes file I/O capability not available in the free CDF player. This requires a full Mathematica license (25 Mb).

outNBody-1b

outNBody-1a

QM-GR-N-Body

Meson

Baryon

TetraQuark

Another look at integrating the Pascal Triangle to Clifford Algebra, E8 Lie Algebra/Groups, Octonions and Particle Physics Standard Model

Pascal-g

Modified Lisi split real even E8 particle assignment quantum bit patterns:

Lisi_Particle_Assignments

Assigning a specific mass, length, time, and charge metrics based on new dimensional relationships and the Planck constant (which defines Higgs mass).

ToEsummary

The split real even E8 group used has been determined from this simple root matrix (which gives the Cartan matrix upon dot product with a transpose of itself):

DynkinE8Full.svg

This Dynkin diagram builds the Cartan matrix and determines the root/weight/height with corresponding Hasse diagrams.

E8Hasse

E8HassePoset.svg