14D" Geometric Unity"( Weinstien/Wolfram? ) 12 fermions 12 bosons

rr6

Banned
Banned
Completed article after my thoughts as follows;

14D Oberverse( Wienstien ) 12 fermions 12 Bosons( Geometric Unity )

Ok, so the most immediate observations for me are as follows;


First Observation:

12 vertexes of the nucleated 4 and 3-fold cubo-octahedron --- as associated with fermions in my scenarios for some 13 years now,

12 vertexes of the non-nucleated 5-phi-fold icosa(20)hedron ---- as associated with bosons in my scenarios for some 13 years now,

2nd observation;

10D( space ) + XYZ( cartesian ) + time = his 14D so, it is important for me, to understand that, the 10 great/equaltorial circle-like, bisecting planes( GrCP's ) of the 5/phi-fold icosa(20)hedron, define 5, 4-fold cubo-octahedra, tho they are sharing the same planes, i.e. they do not exist as four independent cubo-octahedon at same time. There has to be an overlap.

The ico has three axis sets 6, 10 and 15 that define the great/equatorial, circle-like bisecting planes.

So to be clear here, the ico. has smaller radius set of VE/cubo-octahedrons embedded within its total 31 GrCPlanes.

So, we say that, within the 5-phi-fold icosahedron, we have 4-fold and 3-fold( tetrahedral ) ergo fermions embedded withing only the icosahedron, when considering its 31 GrCPlanes.

In this scenario, there would be a diversion from my Rybonics Standard Model scenario, in that here above the bosons would corespond only to the ico's 6 and 15 GrCP's ergo;

5-fold 21 GrCP's go towards bosons

4-fold 10 GrCp's-- 5 shared cubo-octahedra --go towards fermions.

In my Rybonics scenarios, the 10 GrCP's-- 5 shared cubo-octahedra ---of the ico are associated with EMRadiation( photons ) not fermions.

And the independent set of 4- GrCP's that define a VE/cubo-octahedron are associated with mesons-- strange bosonic force exchanges between hadrons that are just two fermionic quark ergo weird unstable particles, just and the VE/cubo-octahedron is and unstable polyhedron.

r6

Geometric Unity, and 14-dimensional "observerse"

Roll over Einstein: meet Weinstein
What are we to make of a man who left academia more than two decades ago but claims to have solved some of the most intractable problems in physics?

In Eric Weinstein's mathematical universe there is no missing dark matter. Photograph: AP

There are a lot of open questions in modern physics.
Most of the universe is missing, for example. The atoms we know about
account for less than 5% of the mass of the observable universe - the
rest is dark matter (around 25% of the mass of the universe) and dark
energy (a whopping 70%). No one knows what either of these things
actually is.
At the subatomic scale, we know there are three
families of fundamental particles - called "generations" - and each one
contains two quarks, a neutrino and a negatively charged particle (the
lightest being the electron). But why are there three generations in the first place?
And the big one: why do the two pillars of 20th century physics, quantum mechanics and Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, not agree with each other?
Solving these problems, the last one in particular, has been the goal of many
generations of scientists. A final theory of nature would have to
explain all of the outstanding questions and, though many (including
Albert Einstein himself) have tried, no one has come close to an answer.
At 4pm on Thursday at the University of Oxford, the latest attempt to fill the biggest holes in physics will be presented in a lecture at the prestigious Clarendon Laboratory. The man behind the ideas, Eric Weinstein, is not someone you might normally expect to be probing the very edge of theoretical physics. After a PhD in mathematical physics at Harvard
University, he left academia more than two decades ago (via stints at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem) and is now an economist and consultant at the Natron Group, a New York hedge fund.
He may have an impressive CV, but Weinstein
is in no way part of the academic physics community. He will speak in
Oxford at the invitation of Marcus du Sautoy, one of the university's most famous and accomplished mathematicians who also holds Richard Dawkins's former academic position as the Simonyi professor of the public understanding of science. Weinstein and du Sautoy met as postdoctoral mathematics students at the Hebrew University in the 1990s.
Weinstein has been working on his ideas to unify physics for more than two
decades, but he only shared them two years ago with du Sautoy, who since then has been keenly studying the mathematics. "I get so many letters
and emails to me explaining big theories of the universe and I don't
take them all so seriously," says du Sautoy. "Eric's been telling me the story of his ideas and what I immediately found appealing about them
was the naturalness of them. You don't have to put in extraneous things. There's a beauty about it that gives you a feeling that there's a truth about it."
In Weinstein's theory, called Geometric Unity, he
proposes a 14-dimensional "observerse" that has our familiar
four-dimensional space-time continuum embedded within it. The
interaction between the two is something like the relationship between
the people in the stands and those on the pitch at a football stadium -
the spectators (limited to their four-dimensional space) can see and are affected by the action on the pitch (representing all 14 dimensions)
but are somewhat removed from it and cannot detect every detail.
In the mathematics of the observerse there is no missing dark matter.
Weinstein explains that the mass only seems to be missing because of the "handedness" of our current understanding of the universe, the Standard Model of particle physics. This is the most complete mathematical description physicists have of
the universe at the quantum level and describes 12 particles of matter
(called fermions) and 12 force-carrying particles (called bosons), in
addition to their antimatter partners.
"The Standard Model relies
on a fundamental asymmetry between left-handedness and right-handedness
in order to keep the observed particles very light in the mass scale of
the universe," says Weinstein.
He says his theory does not have
the asymmetry associated with the Standard Model. The reason we cannot
easily detect the dark matter is that, in the observerse, when space is
relatively flat, the left-handed and right-handed spaces would become
disconnected and the two sides would not be aware of each other.
"Imagine a neurological patient whose left and right hand sides were not aware
of each other," he says. "You'd have a situation where each side felt
itself to be asymmetric, even though anyone looking at both halves
together would see a symmetric individual whose left hand
counterbalanced the right."
He proposes that dark energy is a type of fundamental force that could sit alongside gravity,
electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces. This force pushes
space apart and its strength is variable throughout the universe.
Furthermore, Weinstein's theory predicts the existence of more than 150
new subatomic particles, most of them with exotic properties (such as
electric charges that are greater than one, which is the maximum seen in nature at present).
Radical ideas that claim to solve all the
problems of physics - so-called final theories of everything - have come and gone countless times in the history of physics and many are notable for emerging from outside the traditional world of university physics
departments. In 2007, physicist and surfer Garrett Lisi made headlines when he claimed to have found a way to unify physics. Lisi's ideas never took off, because his theories did not make enough
predictions that could be tested in experiments, the hallmark of a good
scientific idea.
Weinstein has not shared his ideas too widely
yet. Scientists who have seen some of the details similarly agree that
there is some elegant mathematics in his 14-dimensional observerse. But
it takes more than elegant mathematics to make a good scientific theory.
The current leading candidate to unify the fundamental forces of nature is M theory (also known as superstring theory), which proposes that all the
particles we know of are actually, at the tiniest scale, vibrating loops of energy. Despite decades of effort from the cream of the theoretical
physics community, however, M theory struggles to make any
experimentally testable predictions.
David Kaplan, a particle theorist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, has seen
and discussed some of Weinstein's ideas with him. On the plus side,
Kaplan says it is "phenomenal" that someone coming from outside academia could put together something so coherent. "There are many people who
come from the outside with crazy theories, but they are not serious.
Eric is serious."
But he says the theory is incomplete and should
have spent more time being critiqued by academics before receiving any
wider public attention. "What I would encourage him to do is modest
things and take steps and commit to a physical manifestation of his
theory to say 'here is a set of instructions and a set of equations,
do this calculation and you can make the following predictions.' And
then see if his theory matches with the real world or not. He doesn't
have enough of a case. What I'd like him to do is to keep working."
Edward Frenkel, a mathematician at the University of California, Berkeley, has been
discussing Weinstein's ideas with him for the past year. "I think that
both mathematicians and physicists should take Eric's ideas very
seriously," he says. "Even independently of their physical implications, I believe that Eric's insights will be useful to mathematicians,
because he points to some structures which have not been studied before, as far as I know. As for the physical implications, it is quite
possible that this new framework will lead to new answers to the big
questions, after necessary work is done to make precise predictions
which can be tested experimentally."
Jim al-Khalili, a nuclear
physicist at the University of Surrey who has seen a summary of
Weinstein's ideas (but not the maths) is sceptical. He says Weinstein
will need to do a "heck of a lot of convincing" if he wants physicists
to take his ideas seriously. "My main concern with Weinstein's claims is that they are simply too grand - too sweeping. It would be one thing if he argued for some modest prediction that his theory was making, and
importantly one that could be tested experimentally, or that it
explained a phenomenon or mechanism that other theories have failed to
do, but he makes the mistake of claiming too much for it."
Until
Weinstein produces a paper, physicists will remain unconvinced and,
crucially, unable to properly assess the claims he is making. His
lecture at Oxford today will give more mathematical details and
Weinstein plans to put a manuscript on the Arxiv preprint server - a website where scientists often publish early drafts of their work,
many of which subsequently get published in peer-reviewed journals.
Du Sautoy defends the unorthodox way that Weinstein's ideas have filtered
into the world and expects corrections and updates to become apparent.
"We live in an age where everything has to be sealed and delivered and
complete when it's delivered and complete when it meets a journal and,
in fact, that's not how science is done," he says.
Einstein's
theory of general relativity, he added, was not a finished product when
first presented, taking a decade of evolution and discussion to get into its final form.
"I'm trying to promote, perhaps, a new way of
doing science. Let's start with really big ideas, let's be brave and
let's have a discussion," says du Sautoy. "Science is very much an
evolutionary process and [Weinstein's] is such a wide-ranging theory and involves such a wide area of mathematics and physics, this is an
invitation to say, 'This is speculative and it's claiming a lot so let's see where it can go.'"
Whatever happens, says Frenkel, Weinstein
is an example of how science might change in future. "I find it
remarkable that Eric was able to come up with such beautiful and
original ideas even though he has been out of academia for so long
(doing wonderful things in other areas, such as economics and finance).
In the past week we have learned about an outstanding result about prime numbers proved by a mathematician who had been virtually unknown, and now comes Eric's lecture at Oxford.
"I think this represents a new trend. It used to be that one had to be
part of an academic hub, such as Harvard or Oxford, to produce
cutting-edge research. But not any more. Part of the reason is the wide
availability of scientific information on the internet. And I think this is a wonderful development, which should be supported.
"I also
see two lessons coming from this. The first is for the young generation: with passion and perseverance there is no limit to what you can do,
even in high-end theoretical science. The other lesson is for me and my
colleagues in academia and I say this as someone who on most days
takes an elevator to his office in an Ivory Tower, as it were we
should be more inclusive and more open to ideas which come from outside
the standard channels of academia, and we'll be better off for it."
 
"14D Observerse" quotes and links added

Oops I forgot to put the following in quotes to make clear these are not my thoughts bu those of an article about tthe ubject matter. My apologies to all of those who thought this following was my thoughts, and not someone elses.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/may/23/eric-weinstein-answer-physics-problems

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23595-weinsteins-theory-of-everything-is-probably-nothing.html

http://www.andyross.net/weinstein.htm

http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/eric-weinsteins-invisible-theory-of.html
..."Geometric Unity, and 14-dimensional "observerse"

..."Roll over Einstein: meet Weinstein
What are we to make of a man who left academia more than two decades ago but claims to have solved some of the most intractable problems in physics?

In Eric Weinstein's mathematical universe there is no missing dark matter. Photograph: AP

There are a lot of open questions in modern physics.
Most of the universe is missing, for example. The atoms we know about
account for less than 5% of the mass of the observable universe - the
rest is dark matter (around 25% of the mass of the universe) and dark
energy (a whopping 70%). No one knows what either of these things
actually is.
At the subatomic scale, we know there are three
families of fundamental particles - called "generations" - and each one
contains two quarks, a neutrino and a negatively charged particle (the
lightest being the electron). But why are there three generations in the first place?
And the big one: why do the two pillars of 20th century physics, quantum mechanics and Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, not agree with each other?
Solving these problems, the last one in particular, has been the goal of many
generations of scientists. A final theory of nature would have to
explain all of the outstanding questions and, though many (including
Albert Einstein himself) have tried, no one has come close to an answer.
At 4pm on Thursday at the University of Oxford, the latest attempt to fill the biggest holes in physics will be presented in a lecture at the prestigious Clarendon Laboratory. The man behind the ideas, Eric Weinstein, is not someone you might normally expect to be probing the very edge of theoretical physics. After a PhD in mathematical physics at Harvard
University, he left academia more than two decades ago (via stints at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem) and is now an economist and consultant at the Natron Group, a New York hedge fund.
He may have an impressive CV, but Weinstein
is in no way part of the academic physics community. He will speak in
Oxford at the invitation of Marcus du Sautoy, one of the university's most famous and accomplished mathematicians who also holds Richard Dawkins's former academic position as the Simonyi professor of the public understanding of science. Weinstein and du Sautoy met as postdoctoral mathematics students at the Hebrew University in the 1990s.
Weinstein has been working on his ideas to unify physics for more than two
decades, but he only shared them two years ago with du Sautoy, who since then has been keenly studying the mathematics. "I get so many letters
and emails to me explaining big theories of the universe and I don't
take them all so seriously," says du Sautoy. "Eric's been telling me the story of his ideas and what I immediately found appealing about them
was the naturalness of them. You don't have to put in extraneous things. There's a beauty about it that gives you a feeling that there's a truth about it."
In Weinstein's theory, called Geometric Unity, he
proposes a 14-dimensional "observerse" that has our familiar
four-dimensional space-time continuum embedded within it. The
interaction between the two is something like the relationship between
the people in the stands and those on the pitch at a football stadium -
the spectators (limited to their four-dimensional space) can see and are affected by the action on the pitch (representing all 14 dimensions)
but are somewhat removed from it and cannot detect every detail.
In the mathematics of the observerse there is no missing dark matter.
Weinstein explains that the mass only seems to be missing because of the "handedness" of our current understanding of the universe, the Standard Model of particle physics. This is the most complete mathematical description physicists have of
the universe at the quantum level and describes 12 particles of matter
(called fermions) and 12 force-carrying particles (called bosons), in
addition to their antimatter partners.
"The Standard Model relies
on a fundamental asymmetry between left-handedness and right-handedness
in order to keep the observed particles very light in the mass scale of
the universe," says Weinstein.
He says his theory does not have
the asymmetry associated with the Standard Model. The reason we cannot
easily detect the dark matter is that, in the observerse, when space is
relatively flat, the left-handed and right-handed spaces would become
disconnected and the two sides would not be aware of each other.
"Imagine a neurological patient whose left and right hand sides were not aware
of each other," he says. "You'd have a situation where each side felt
itself to be asymmetric, even though anyone looking at both halves
together would see a symmetric individual whose left hand
counterbalanced the right."
He proposes that dark energy is a type of fundamental force that could sit alongside gravity,
electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces. This force pushes
space apart and its strength is variable throughout the universe.
Furthermore, Weinstein's theory predicts the existence of more than 150
new subatomic particles, most of them with exotic properties (such as
electric charges that are greater than one, which is the maximum seen in nature at present).
Radical ideas that claim to solve all the
problems of physics - so-called final theories of everything - have come and gone countless times in the history of physics and many are notable for emerging from outside the traditional world of university physics
departments. In 2007, physicist and surfer Garrett Lisi made headlines when he claimed to have found a way to unify physics. Lisi's ideas never took off, because his theories did not make enough
predictions that could be tested in experiments, the hallmark of a good
scientific idea.
Weinstein has not shared his ideas too widely
yet. Scientists who have seen some of the details similarly agree that
there is some elegant mathematics in his 14-dimensional observerse. But
it takes more than elegant mathematics to make a good scientific theory.
The current leading candidate to unify the fundamental forces of nature is M theory (also known as superstring theory), which proposes that all the
particles we know of are actually, at the tiniest scale, vibrating loops of energy. Despite decades of effort from the cream of the theoretical
physics community, however, M theory struggles to make any
experimentally testable predictions.
David Kaplan, a particle theorist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, has seen
and discussed some of Weinstein's ideas with him. On the plus side,
Kaplan says it is "phenomenal" that someone coming from outside academia could put together something so coherent. "There are many people who
come from the outside with crazy theories, but they are not serious.
Eric is serious."
But he says the theory is incomplete and should
have spent more time being critiqued by academics before receiving any
wider public attention. "What I would encourage him to do is modest
things and take steps and commit to a physical manifestation of his
theory to say 'here is a set of instructions and a set of equations,
do this calculation and you can make the following predictions.' And
then see if his theory matches with the real world or not. He doesn't
have enough of a case. What I'd like him to do is to keep working."
Edward Frenkel, a mathematician at the University of California, Berkeley, has been
discussing Weinstein's ideas with him for the past year. "I think that
both mathematicians and physicists should take Eric's ideas very
seriously," he says. "Even independently of their physical implications, I believe that Eric's insights will be useful to mathematicians,
because he points to some structures which have not been studied before, as far as I know. As for the physical implications, it is quite
possible that this new framework will lead to new answers to the big
questions, after necessary work is done to make precise predictions
which can be tested experimentally."
Jim al-Khalili, a nuclear
physicist at the University of Surrey who has seen a summary of
Weinstein's ideas (but not the maths) is sceptical. He says Weinstein
will need to do a "heck of a lot of convincing" if he wants physicists
to take his ideas seriously. "My main concern with Weinstein's claims is that they are simply too grand - too sweeping. It would be one thing if he argued for some modest prediction that his theory was making, and
importantly one that could be tested experimentally, or that it
explained a phenomenon or mechanism that other theories have failed to
do, but he makes the mistake of claiming too much for it."
Until
Weinstein produces a paper, physicists will remain unconvinced and,
crucially, unable to properly assess the claims he is making. His
lecture at Oxford today will give more mathematical details and
Weinstein plans to put a manuscript on the Arxiv preprint server - a website where scientists often publish early drafts of their work,
many of which subsequently get published in peer-reviewed journals.
Du Sautoy defends the unorthodox way that Weinstein's ideas have filtered
into the world and expects corrections and updates to become apparent.
"We live in an age where everything has to be sealed and delivered and
complete when it's delivered and complete when it meets a journal and,
in fact, that's not how science is done," he says.
Einstein's
theory of general relativity, he added, was not a finished product when
first presented, taking a decade of evolution and discussion to get into its final form.
"I'm trying to promote, perhaps, a new way of
doing science. Let's start with really big ideas, let's be brave and
let's have a discussion," says du Sautoy. "Science is very much an
evolutionary process and [Weinstein's] is such a wide-ranging theory and involves such a wide area of mathematics and physics, this is an
invitation to say, 'This is speculative and it's claiming a lot so let's see where it can go.'"
Whatever happens, says Frenkel, Weinstein
is an example of how science might change in future. "I find it
remarkable that Eric was able to come up with such beautiful and
original ideas even though he has been out of academia for so long
(doing wonderful things in other areas, such as economics and finance).
In the past week we have learned about an outstanding result about prime numbers proved by a mathematician who had been virtually unknown, and now comes Eric's lecture at Oxford.
"I think this represents a new trend. It used to be that one had to be
part of an academic hub, such as Harvard or Oxford, to produce
cutting-edge research. But not any more. Part of the reason is the wide
availability of scientific information on the internet. And I think this is a wonderful development, which should be supported.
"I also
see two lessons coming from this. The first is for the young generation: with passion and perseverance there is no limit to what you can do,
even in high-end theoretical science. The other lesson is for me and my
colleagues in academia and I say this as someone who on most days
takes an elevator to his office in an Ivory Tower, as it were we
should be more inclusive and more open to ideas which come from outside
the standard channels of academia, and we'll be better off for it."..."""
 
Back
Top