A new hobby…
Powder coated, laser cut steel, & granite sculpture.
Taken up close with a 8-15mm fisheye lense (no correction).
They really are a bunch of holier than thou bureaucrats with limited perspectives. T. Ruin (sp) and JBL (like the speakers) and Dmcq – a cabal like no other.
Recreating the TheoryOfEverything.com site to give it a less technical and more artistic flair. While I haven’t put the shopping cart / sales processing capability back in, I figure those who appreciate the beauty of the visualizations will appreciate the facelift.
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!
I’ve been following an interesting paper titled “Nested polytopes with non-crystallographic symmetry as projected orbits of extended Coxeter groups” which has used my E8 to H4 folding matrix as a basis for not only understanding Lie Algebras/Groups and hyper-dimensional geometry, but also the genetic protein / viral structures of life (very cool)!
The Nested Polytopes paper was first put into Arxiv in Nov of 2014 at about the same time I submitted my related paper on E8 to H4 folding to Vixra. I created this paper in response to discovering that my Rhombic Triacontahedron / QuasiCrystal (D6 projected to 3D using the E8 to H4 Folding Matrix to E8 to H4 folding) work on Wikipedia and this website was being used by Pierre-Philippe Dechant, John Baez and Greg Egan.
The Nested Polytopes paper has since undergone 4 revisions. The first three seemed to be typical (even minor) tweaks, but with a different author list/order in each. Yet, the latest (V4) seems to have a massive change, different author list and a completely different title “Orbits of crystallographic embedding of non-crystallographic groups and applications to virology”.
While I KNOW they were aware of my work, I wasn’t really surprised they never referenced it – as it isn’t published in academic press. I AM a bit surprised by the extensive changes to a single paper on arxiv. They have removed some of the E8 /H4 references (ref: Koca) and added completely different sources. Makes you wonder what’s up with that?
The recent announcement for the potential LHC realization of composite particle resonance of the pentaquark (or meson-baryon molecule) is interesting. This, along with a prior confirmation of the dimeson tetraquark Z(4430), and prognostications for hexaquarks (or dibaryons), expand the “zoo” of composite particles now numbering in the thousands.
If by chance we can use these new discoveries to discern the mathematical pattern (symmetry) well enough to predict the particle masses, lifetimes, branching ratios and CKM (quark) PMNS (neutrino) mixing matrix ratios – that would be COOL!
Yet, given the current size of this zoo of particles, it seems that adding a few more bags of quarks to the mix may not do the trick, but I am always hopeful.
IMNSHO (In My Not So Humble Opinion ;-)… it is more a task of “naming the animals”.
or in Ernest Rutherford’s words:
“All science is either physics or stamp collecting.”
“The pentaquark search may be physics’ version of ‘stamp collecting'”. JGM
Please note, this is about the GEOMETRY used in what has come to be called “Sacred Geometry”. Upon further investigation, along with the Kabbalah’s “Tree of Life”, it seems even the Jewish “Star of David” (Solomon) is medieval and may not be sourced in authentic ancient Abrahamic theology.
As it stands, the so-called “sacred” origin of these, including the pentagon that shows up in the icosahedral/dodecahedral Platonic solids due to the Sqrt(5) Golden Ratio (Phi) relationship within my E8 to H4 folding, is likely medieval and mostly pagan. I am merely pointing out that E8 contains the geometry that many find “interesting” for whatever reason, and am not promoting the underlying cults that use them.
Video (Best in HD):
Copyright J Gregory Moxness 2015
Rectified E8 and F4 Triality (Original Work)
WikiMedia Commons source images:
Metatron’s Cube (User:Barfly2001)
Flower of Life (User:Life_of_Riley)
Tree of Life (User:AnonMoos)
I’ve integrated a few more demonstrations, see below for descriptions and pics..
The #13 pane (Chords) will address the psychology of the mathematical beauty of music. The 2D pane presents and s Pythagorean Meantone And Equal Temperament Musical Scales, while the 3D pane shows ’s 3D .
The #14 pane (Gematria) will address Theological Number Theory in the form of Hebrew gematria, H4, and Tori. This sociology pane deals with the idea of Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Koine Greek Gematria. The histogram shows the distribution of words used in the Bible according to their gematria value in Hebrew or Greek. Each word in each verse is selectable and shown in the distribution. Each word in the verse is colored by their value in Hebrew (if Old Testament), Greek and English.
Note: Hebrew is properly presented from right to left.