A new Epistemology

Copyright © 2000 by Dr. Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong

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.