A new Epistemology

Part four

9) Playing with numbers???
Subj: Re: A new Epistemology 10
Date: 3/12/2001 5:06:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: hinson@mail.lns.cornell.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
To: tienzen@iewu.edu

Just a few points about the "prequark" model, etc.

I am generally skeptical about the vast number of "alternative" theories out there, though when one is presented to me I try not to dismiss it out-of-hand. Yet the fact is that it is often easy to find reasons to dismiss many of these theories as they often quickly indicate some level of either ignorance concerning current physics theory or simplicity of their model which does not apply outside of very specialized cases.

Off hand, I won't dismiss what I have seen of your work; however I am far from endorsing it for several reasons. ...

... your derivation of the Cabibbo and Weinberg angles seems _extremely_ ad hoc! For example, if you want to divide the "wholeness" into 64 dimensions, why does it have to be pi/64 + (pi/64)^2 + (pi/64)^3 + ...? Obviously you come up with a number that is useful for you later on IF you also divide it by 2, but that is also quite ad hoc. You say "Obviously, the wholeness cannot be divided evenly." What do you mean by that? You divide the angle by 2, claiming that the other half is "insurance of a safety margin." Safety margin for what? You then give each of the 24 "matter" dimensions one unit of this angle each ,what about the anti-matter dimensions? You then take the remaining angle and again divide it among the 24 dimensions--this to me indicates that the matter dimensions each have some intrinsic angle related to them of "1.4788413" AND that either (1) they also have an additional "extra" angle associated with them, "13.521159"; OR that that additional "extra" angle is associated with the other 24 "anti-matter dimensions." The rest of your explanation seems to assume the former case: you go on to claim that if a particle wants to take up more of an angle, then it cannot simply double its "first-order" angle, it must rather take the "wholeness," subtract from that the two angles it has already been given, divide that by the 24 matter dimensions again, and then multiply THAT by 2. That makes no sense! The wholeness was already used up in the first place (360-24*A(0)-24*A(1)=0). If you are trying to "redivide" it in another way, then why does what was given to one particular particle the first time (A(0) and A(1)) have to do with dividing up the wholeness the second time? And what does ANY of this have to do with the actual concepts behind the Cabibbo and Weinberg angles? Your numbers come out close to them, but what physical reasoning makes YOUR explanation for "dividing the wholeness" in any way associated with those angles in the standard model?

In short, all this seems to be nothing more than playing with numbers until you get what you like. There is no rational and purely physical motivation for doing what you did--it simply happens to produce angles. that are CLOSE to the ones you are looking for.

If you care to address these questions, I'll be interested and will try very hard to find time to read your response. I've taken up a WHOLE lot of time I don't have just to write this message, but I am interested in whether you can come up with a reasonable response.

Thank you.
-Jay Hinson

Dear Dr. Hinson:
Thank you for your email and comments. The following is a short reply.

"..., all this seems to be nothing more than playing with numbers until you get what you like."

Can you do this? If you have enough lucks to perform this kind of magic, I will definitely be interested in the mystery behind each of these lucks.

No, I did not know what number (or numbers) I would like when I formulated the FU physics. The FU physics began with inquiring into two and only two very simply questions, one of which is asked by many five year old kids. Because these questions are so simple, and they are, of course, excluded from the scope of traditional physics.

The first question is "Where is tomorrow?" Tomorrow, of course, is real (for me, at least), but it is not even a valid question in traditional physics. In fact, a "guessed" answer of this simple question can be obtained very easily with a set simple equations with the following reasoning.

a) The entire material universe is "present."
b) Tomorrow is real.
c) Just as cars cannot move around if the parking lot is full, there must be a hole (empty slot) if time is going to move.
d) This hole (or the ghost world) must not be part of this material universe. Note: It does not truly matter whether these reasonings are right or wrong. The validity of this FU physics is judged with a new Epistemology.

The above reasoning can be expressed with two equations.
- i) T (time) > 0 (there is a hole)
- ii) Equation zero or rule A1.
Note: There are many other considerations for the formulation of Equation zero, such as: the intrinsic spin, supersymmetry, etc..

The second question led to the "angle calculation." This question was formulated with the following reasoning:
- a) If physics laws give rise to the entire universe (as physicists claim about the big bang), then the mathematics universe must be a subset of the physics universe.
- b) There are infinities in mathematics universe, but I (at least) cannot find their counterpart in physics universe. The material universe will "always" be a finiteness although it is unbounded.
- c) There must be a process which transforms infinities into finites and packs these infinites into "something" in the physics universe.
  
  Question two: Where are infinites in the material universe? Or, What process(es) can transform infinites into finites?
  
  There are two infinities in mathematics. So, there must be two processes for them.
  
  It is not too hard to "guess" some answers. What process invokes infinite could be reversed to transform (or pack) that infinity into its "finite beginning."
  
  It will take "countable infinite steps" to trisect any angle with compass and straight edge, that is, the trisecting angle process will "house" the countable infinity.
  - a) Therefore, dividing angle (the Magic procedure) becomes one of the cornerstones of FU physics.
  - b) Therefore, one prequark is called Angultron.
  Note: the uncountable infinity is hiding in ... (see my books )
  
  With the above reasoning, did I have a number I like?
  No, I did not know what would be a good number.
  
  I would like to make a few more comments before answering Dr. Hinson's questions.
  
  One:
  - a) The Cabibbo and Weinberg angles are free parameters of their theories. They both have a measured value but cannot be calculated by any theory of traditional physics. Yet, these two parameters are the two most important cornerstones of the Standard Model. The electron fine structure constant (alpha) is also a measured value. It is a pure number (dimensionless), a very odd number. No theory in traditional physics can provide a theoretical calculation for it.
  - b) In FU physics, the above three physics facts can be derived (calculated) with a "consistent" logic.
    
    I will make a bet here:
    There is no other "path way" (in addition to the FU physics procedure) which can derive the above three known physics facts with a consistent logic (regardless of whether that logic is valid or not).
  - c) If the FU physics were developed before the measurements of those three parameters, then Cabibbo and Weinberg would have verified FU physics' predictions. Then, the FU physics would have been the greatest physics theory -- the predictions were verified.
    Because I am much, much younger than those two, my physics becomes "extremely ad hoc," just playing with numbers until I get what I like.
    These three numbers are cornerstones of modern physics. They must be loved (or liked) by every physicist. How come there is no other number playing magic deriving those lovely numbers?
    
    Is the epistemology above honest to itself?
  Two: A few words about the prequark model.
  - a) Prequark model is an excellent "notation system" for quark model regardless of whether prequarks themselves are real (true) or not. Even if prequarks were not real (not true), they are a great physics "language."
    see http://clik.to/quark
  - b) Prequark is not an assumption in FU physics. It is a direct consequence of FU physics. It is only a small screw of a big system. Its validity does not depend on whether it is verified in laboratories or not, but depends on how it performs in a big system and depends on the validity of this big system. I have showed that the FU physics is anchored with many physics facts.
  - c) Regardless of whether prequark is real or not, it is a great "bridge" between physics and many other known truths (disciplines), such as:
    - 1) Artificial Life (see http://clik.to/BioLife)
    - 2) Computability of mathematics.
    - 3) Superstring theory.
  Dr. Hinson's questions about how to calculate the Cabibbo and Weinberg angles have reached the core of this FU physics.
  - a) Why the wholeness is used "over and again?"
  - b) Why must the first order angles be subtracted from the wholeness (but only "one" each, not 24 of them) for the second order (etc.) distribution?
  - c) Why anti-matter is ignored during the matter distribution?
  - d) Why the distribution unit is divided by 2?
  Yes, these are the precise procedures. In fact, this kind of procedures is used in our daily life, daily, daily, everyday. Physicists view it as "making no sense" because the traditional physics is now far removed from common sense.
  
  "But he said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they said, we have no more but five loaves and two fishes; ... For they were about five thousand men. And he said to his disciples, Make them sit down by fifties in a company.... Then he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed them, and brake, and gave to the disciples to set before the multitude.
  And they did eat,. and were all filled and there was taken up of fragments that remained to them twelve baskets." Luke 9:13 - 17.
  
  For many physicists, the above miracle is just rubbish. Indeed, it is because bread and fishes cannot be divided over and again.
  
  However, there are things which can be divided over and again. Not only is the above "procedure" not wrong but is used in our daily life everyday.
  
  Example 1: American people is the "wholeness" of America's political power.
  - a) It can be divided once in terms of executive power. It can, then, be used again in dividing the legislative power, etc.. This wholeness is used over and again.
  - b) For the second usage (or the third, or...), the first "unit" (the concept of executive power, not a wholeness itself) must be subtracted from the wholeness (as the legislative wholeness does not contain any executive power).
  - c) Although the opposite party (anti-matter) is, indeed, part of the wholeness, it is ignored when the winning party dividing its pie.
  Example 2: The parents' love is a wholeness.
  - a) Parents' love is given as a whole to the first child, then again as a whole to the second child, etc..
  - b) Parents' love to grand children is all real but is "ignored" before their coming.
  Rubbish? Political powers and parents' love are not physics although they are, indeed, "real." Well, the wholeness of the universe is much bigger than American's political power and parents' love. What, then, is the "wholeness" of universe? To answer this, we must begin with the "Law of Creation."
  
  Law of Creation -- If B is created by "creating something from nothing process," B (the something) must remain to be "nothingness" in essence.
  See http://clik.to/CreationLaw
  
  Creation means dividing the wholeness (the totality).
  - 1) The wholeness is "Nothingness" before any creation.
  - 2) After the creation, the wholeness has an internal structure (defined with equation zero).
    64 dimensions = (16, 48)
    = (16, 24, 24)
  - 3) The wholeness is divided among those dimensions.
  - 4) There is a "unit" for this division.
  What is the "unit" of this division? The purposes of this "unit" are:
  - 1) Giving "something" (such as, Angultron(s)) to a creation process.
  - 2) Ensuring that there are enough "something" for all creation processes.
  - 3) Ensuring that there is no process which can take up "something" bigger than the wholeness.
  How to find this "unit" of division?
  - 1) Because there are 64 dimensions, the wholeness (Pi) should be divided by 64.
  - 2) But, there is no "other" restriction for the creation process. What if, some processes would like to use the 2nd power (or nth power) as the division unit? The compromise is to accept all possibilities and then see what will happen. So, Pi/64 + (Pi/64)^2 + ... to infinite
  - 3) Even this compromise is not able to divide the wholeness evenly (as without a whole number).
  - 4) The second strategy is to use the "uneven" part as the "unit."
  - 5) Will this "unit" give all creation processes an equal share? What if the last piece always gets a bit less than others? Perhaps, if we reduce this "unit" 10% in size, this concern will be solved. If 10% is good, why not 50%? It is always better to have something left over during any distribution. We can always distribute the left over second round with half the previous unit. Etc..
    So, the distribution unit is divided by 2.
  Yes, in FU physics, there is an "intrinsic distribution unit" ( A(0) = 1.4788413 degrees ) for any creation process.
  
  In FU physics, space-time sheet divides matter and anti-matter worlds. When a "matter" is created, it "sees" only 24 matter dimensions although 64 dimensions are created at the same time.
  So, anti-matter dimensions are ignored during the matter distribution.
  
  Each matter "dimension" will take up one "unit," and the remaining of wholeness can be divided evenly again for other use, that is,
  A(1) = 13.521159 degrees In fact, this become a new distribution unit. Although the other dimensions might not be occupied, a particle is allowed only taking its own share.
  
  As every particle is a "self," it is a wholeness and encompasses the followings:
  - 1) 24 visible dimensions
  - 2) 24 + 16 non-visible dimensions
  - 3) an intrinsic distribution unit A(0)
  - 4) its first order share A(1)
  - c) etc..
  If a particle wants to double its share, it must do the followings:
  - a) It must subtract the amount it already received, A(0) and A(1).
  - b) It must share with the other 23 dimensions regardless of whether they manifested or not, and
    A(2) = 28.75 degrees.
  The above procedure is, of course, not science. Science is the most clumsy way for finding truths. Science has failed dismally in dealing with so many simple truths. Many simple truths (such as, the rise of intelligence, of moral truths, etc.) are way beyond its reach.
  
  FU physics is, of course, not science. Yet, I will make a bet here: There is no other "path way" (in addition to the FU physics procedure) which can derive the three known physics facts (Cabibbo and Weinberg angles and electron fine structure constant) with a consistent logic (regardless of whether that logic is valid or not).
  
  "Wholeness" and "Totality" has been the cause for many paradoxes, such as, the Russell paradox, the Cantor paradox,..., the Kurt Grelling Paradox. Such an important concept (Totality) is, yet, way beyond the reach of traditional physics. Indeed, the nature of Totality is very bizarre, such as:
  - a) Nothingness is a Totality.
  - b) The "entire" universe is a Totality.
  - c) Every "self," (such as, I, Tienzen) is a Totality.
  - d) The "I" Totality has the same "size" as the Totality of the entire universe.
    - 1) I (Tienzen) am part of the entire universe.
    - 2) The entire universe is part of me (Tienzen).
    In fact, every electron is part of the entire universe, and the entire universe is "part" of every electron. This "indivisibility" is the cause for the "spooky action" in an EPR-like experiment which was done by Alain Aspect in 1982. That is, the concept of "Totality" is testable in terms of traditional physics.
    See http://clik.to/CreationLaw
    
    Also see page 67 of my book "Truth, Faith, and Life."
    "... the outer space (environment) and the inner space (surrounded by internal organs), ... Each creature is a "self," but every self is "nailed" down into the environment by its own gut."
  - 3) I (Tienzen) or every self, in fact, am the "center" of the entire universe.
    See the concept of "God space" in my book "The Divine Constitution," page 54.
  A new Epistemology
  Back to: A new Epistemology
  
  [goto other TOE topics]