söndag 4 december 2011

Kea's lost thread. My inquiry.

Mitchell Porters blog 'The Lost Thread, Notes from the work of Marni Sheppeard' from a deleted thread at PhysicsForums.com, is discussing Sheppeard’s work. I have some years been following her blog and her difficulties. Sometimes I have felt sorry for her, sometimes frustrated, sometimes even angry. Those feelings are mutual, I think. She is a very 'unorthodox' person with an equally unorthodox theory or hypothesis. She claims everything must be done from scratch, everything must be created again, due to errors and misinterpretations in the past. Mitchell Porter asked me to write about my view of Keas science here, because I am an amateur. He said he would comment here, not at the thread. That is the reason for this post. First the background. This is only from recorded communications, not personal. Maybe I must point it out.

I have many times tried to have her speaking, in vain. Guess I am a bit lazy. Also that my interpretations as a layman cannot be so exact.

On Galaxyzoo she said oct.1.11:
Ulla's arrogance is mind boggling. This needs to be noted, because she is misleading people about the physics. She doesn't know the first thing about mathematics, let alone physics, and she thinks she can tell me about physics just because she reads Matti's blog. Ulla, you don't understand one paragraph of any of my papers, and you shouldn't believe everything the Dudes say about women in physics. I am always, always wrong, and behind the times, and stupid, and so on and so on and so on. You let your neurotypical groupie brain cloud your judgement. If you really cared about the science, you would spend more time studying elementary physics.

Dark Matter was first studied around 80 years ago. All theoretical physicists have been thinking about it since then. Mirror dark matter is one of the oldest ideas, and it is most certainly not Matti's own. In Physics, the details matter. Airy fairy tales don't mean shit.

Oops! Whom is she talking of? Me? It is pathetic, I am shy. The kindest person on Earth? Have I the right to talk to HER, sitting in the physics heaven? This only because I asked about dark matter, and said it could not be only from neutrinos. I think I made it clear I am no expert, so I would not mislead anybody. And Matti dislike mirror-talk (technicolor). My comment leading to this outburst:
I have thought of what kind of signal light is. It is entropy. This entropy seems to come from annihilation, and some say neutrino can act as a Dirac point. Light speed is a property of space in vacuum, not a function of something that travels through it.. Light creates negentropy (noise) in form of em-waves, and takes itself the same form (oscillate as quanta), because it is the surroundings. Only in this surroundings c=1?. This follows the uncertainty too?
This em-force is just one force, but it creates the entanglement and the macroscopic tensions; microscopic tensions are made of gluons, and those make up most of our gravity. Gravity is 'long-term memory' of Universe, and hence also entanglement ("sensors")? Kea has the non-locality there? The entanglement must be there in order to have reactions.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.3357 It has long been known that photon bremsstrahlung can lift helicity suppressions, also from W and Z-bosons. it has been proposed the excess electrons and positrons are not due to conventional astrophysics process, but arise instead from dark matter annihilation or decay
http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.2441,2010 flavor sensitivity

Nice to see that Kea finally has realized the dark matter scenario. But solely leptonic DM cannot be the whole truth. The whole DM-hierarchy nust be involved, because DM is also ordinary matter [over 95% of all matter is baryonic, quarks], but invisible to us. It also has 4D? And she has the prime field/world there. Why must she and Matti Pitkänen be so dam stubborn so they cannot even talk to each other. Sic!

I KNOW I am long from any "expert" on this, but still I can have questions and opinions. I have followed Keas blog in many years now, with bigger and lesser interest. She is one of few who knows what she talks about, but it is so hard to follow without math skills.

On a question I added: There are no facts in this story. This view follow the astrophysical view, and also TGD. Kea is coming to it? It is wrong to think DM would be some WIMPs or other exotic particle solely.

Graham Dungworth supported me. With many words as usual.
Ulla's conclusion is that the whole DM hierarchy is involved and Kiske valid response is whether that means that DM as ordinary matter is fact.

Many on the forum are aware of the total energy composition of the universe when expressed as approximately 4.5% normal matter, 20.5% dark matter(DM)and ~75%dark energy(DE). It matters little whether there is presently 73% DE from say WMAP. It is essentially a book keeping exercise. As we go into the future, forget reference frames, as the universe ages and remorseless expansion ensues by the time that the system doubles in size, the matter density drops as the cube of the expansion size. Thus a doubling of size leads to an eight fold reduction of matter density. The DE fraction is generated at constant density so when the universe is 8 fold greater in volume the matter fraction , normal matter and DM matter will represent ca. 3% and DE ~97% of the total energy composition. When the universe was young DE caused by the expansion of space was negligeable, as it ages the DE/matter ratio increases. After another doubling of size that is model dependent upon the Hubble flow the time factor varies; it could be ca. 40 billion years before the current universe has doubled in size. Again, because distant supernova were reported to be dimmer than predicted it would appear that the universe is now accelerating its expansion and that doubling time is decreasing.

All we know of physics concerns that 4.5% fraction of normal or ordinary matter. Stars and ourselves are constructed from it; as atoms, the elements we know of. Let's not quibble about ionised states and plasmas. All these atoms are made from more fundemental particles; protons , neutrons and electrons that include the latter's lepton cousin the neutrino. At a deeper description, the protons are built from quarks, the u and d types you are familiar with. There are a total of three copies of normal matter and these include higher energy forms of these basic building blocks. The second incorporates strange and charmed quarks and these are associated with different leptons the muon rather than the electron electron, the former is much more massive ca. 206 fold than the electron mass. Basically, you buy the whole package and the hierarchy of normal matter according to the particle physicists incorporates forty two 42 of these particles and the force particles by which they interact. This is no joke. When Doug Adams realised the significance of the numerosity of this package, you may haggle whether it's 36 or otherwise, but for him it was the forever immortalised secret of the universe; the secret of that 4.5% matter mass fraction although he never lived to know what the composition was.

The physicists have to satiate a large number of conservation laws within the SM. It is inconceivable to think of a universe constructed of say photons only; or of electrons only. At the most basic level, when a proton changes or transforms to a neutron, in standard nuclear fusion or in a supernova explosion, electric charge conservation necessitates that a positron is formed but this violates lepton conservation number so another particle must exist to conserve what a chemist would call stoichiometric balance, and that particle is the uncharged lepton or neutrino. You might quibble and say the neutrino is not a building blockand plays no role in atoms. You are taught that electrons have attributes or charges. First there is the mass charge. Electrons also have rest mass and electric charge and that they "spin", one of the two types of angular momentum. Additionally, conservation laws crop up that require they have what is called a further spin type or weak isospin. I've discussed these niceties before.
What Ulla alludes to is the whole hierarchy. Hierarchy has is a religious meaning. It is a priestly word. You have to accept the creed as a whole. One cannot pick and choose. Most physicists might object about this useage. However, they are left with one conservation law called parity that they cannot ignore. As a consequence they accept that if parity is conserveed in this universe, and it blatantly is not, then there must be areas where forms of antimatter exist- very doubtful-or that parity is conserved elsewhere in a multiverse. They would never like to admit that our universe just happens to be cack handed. It could have been left or right handed, pure chance decided the route that was taken. Whether you are religious or not swallowing the whole creed is difficult. It's impossible to avoid and yet we are discussing a 4.5% component. What about the rest? Unfortunately, this forum doesn't have the terabytes available to pursue an exhaustive discussion and neither would the whole planet were it restructured as a giant processor of information.

Ulla from a biology background hits us with a great truth. She accepts the creed. There must be other parity stuff around but where. All that other kind we know of is DM. There are many candidates for DM, the fashionable WIMPS for instance, but these don't address the parity problem but do admit different mass charges in supersymmetry extensions to the SM (Standard Model). In nature species carry around various attributes that are continually used. They don't carry useless spare baggage that would reduce their chances of survival. By the time molecular evolution evolved they all agreed to adopt the left handed chiral stuff, at least here on Earth. But that may not be the case elsewhere. Kiske then asks " Is the implication that DM is ordinary matter". The answer is yes but it may have differing mass charges and opposite parity or mirror chirality.
The preliminary Minos results was staggering news for physicists. It implied new matter of a type they never imagined and a problem that would hopefully go away.
If there are new neutrino types they would have to buy a more complicated hierarchy or creed, new baryons, new hadrons etc. After all supersymm or SUSY is long on doubling the hierarchy, many accept that and many don't; there's a reformation of creed going on. DM is nonbaryonic. That's burnt into the memory cells of most readers. If the new neutrino types exist that doesn't mean that DM is soley neutrinos, it means that there is a full hierarchy present of another or other or allo form of normal matter. An amazing coincidence of these predicted masses revels that such matter annihilations would give rise to a background radiationin the universe that is happening now and is not some relic radiation from a past that had a beginning, a creation event; the first line of the creed. All religions have a creed, several lines worth. Marni, Ulla and myself may have some differences but we agree on much as we rewrite the first lines of the beginning of a creation. We are not writing a new creed or hierarchy for matter of all types. We are addressing only that first single line where we conceive of a cold dark , stark and pallid place that never had an origin , that just existed timelessly as an ensemble of photons and neutrinos that was on the move, of a universe we know of yet to be created.

I continued:
In that way the DM could basically be only leptonic, if quarks are made from leptons. Neutrons can interact, maybe also neutrinos, I don't know. Photons can, which maybe is an indication of the quark compositeness. This is maybe the color problem of the strong force? About this we know almost nothing yet. And what we know talk against this picture. Leptons and baryons are conserved separately? This make also the conservation laws questionable.

The neutrino problem is OUTSIDE GR and SR, so Einstein may rest in piece. We have only seen a glimpse of a bigger frame (of entanglement?) as Wilczek said. First we must see if the FTL result hold. There is physics of uncertainty that say it may hold. Remember, they have thought of this in many years now, and concluded it was most honest to publish it. Very few got afraid and withdrew their names.

Also On viXra blog and on her blog we have had disputes. I asked Matti about his view on his blog.

ThePeSla said... The algebra of the sub-manifolds is in the cracks of the limits of our total standard theories and in the low dimensions, as Kea points also also, there is a Pythagorean relation- for me the 6 inside that triality triangle thus 24 is the hidden subspaces tangled or not.

Only in planes we have of course enumeration in quadratic time so to speak. These of course are in the cracks also as such early simple ideas as 24 dimensional lattices. But the reverse compliments and need for so many zeros in the assumed one dimensionality of a p-adic number as if the decimal reversed (and for some reason the composites dismissed as if primes can casually be taken or added to or subtracted from some power of 2 the even one) is an essential idea that tends to shift the ground, that is becomes a wider universe and its forces.

Matti: To me this talk of Kea about 24-D lattices, magic matrices, and Koide mass formula does not give much. I am simply unable to comprehend what is the point and big picture. In politically incorrect mood I would call it numerology;-).

I have heard about the numerology also from others, comparing to Eddington. Is her work just numerology?

I said...Well, if you don't understand Kea, how would I then? I have the same feeling, that her cosmology fails. But she uses the same numbers, the same structure as everyone else, how can then her construction need another type of Universe? Also her claim that neutrinos, that are non-interactive, make up the interactive DM (which is invisible ordinary matter in the cosmology of today) seems odd. That would mean that leptons are building stones for fermions [should be baryons] (3-quarks), and that we think is wrong. Quarks have the triality seen in her figures, though, but when she use them for neutrinos????

And why cannot she explain this in a coarse manner? I really don't understand her. She spit out harsch text, but when she meets a simple question she gets silent. Her 24-figure inside the triangle is fascinating, but then she refers to Pythagoras!!!! Is she a nut? I am astonished. Kea, if you read this, start talking.

I would rather think that neutrinos are in the non-Euclidean space (= outside GR) with a very small interaction with matter (GR). How would that interaction be seen in space with all the cosmic rays? And how do they interact with light? Orwen raid they pull out light from vacuum, but how? Annihilation is the opposite process? Can neutrinos be made interactive through a change of spin?

Matrices tells nothing at all of these circumstances. Remember that Kea mostly talk of abstract (= virtual, DM) braidings, and there is reason to suspect she travels at deep water. There is the entanglement, some kind of pressure, or heat, as environment etc. Is there any real 'structure' at all to do all those matrices with? Or are there just a quantum field as a 'soup' of numbers. Environment? So in fact she plays God. I would want to know what she thinks about this. No fairy fields, but she works in the fairy field? I have asked her many times, but as long as I cannot answer these questions her figures are just curiosa. And she wonders why nobody uses her works?

ThePeSla said... Ulla, Ulla,
I do not understand what you have against Pythagoras (and for that matter Kea's take on things). No one uses Kea's advancing work because they simply do not get it.

I answered: I have absolutely nothing against Pythagoras. He was a genious. I reacted on Keas way to refer to him as some kind of great insight. As if she was not aware of what she was doing?

No one understand her work, so why doesn't she write about her wiev. I want her 'Higgs mechanism' even if she has no fairy fields she have something instead. I want her cosmology, when she says she will make everything new, just a drawing is enough. Her matrices are exactly what you say, but you forget she works on the negative side of reality, abstract geometry (I wonder how it looks like, because I doubt it can have any matrices). Antimatter is annihilated, so those matrices must be very otherwise. The only reasonable thing she can use the matrices for is DM, but she says it is not there. She claims leptons (neutrinos) make up the 3-quarks. I have not seen any model for how she makes the bridge between leptons and quarks (the triality is not enough). She talks of l-adic braids but cannot get the unification, although Matti has done it for p-adic hadrons. I suppose you can read what I wrote.

I have absolutely nothing against Keas as person, on the contrary I wanted to help her. She reacted negatively when I tried to have her make peace with Matti, after their controversy. She should have defended her ideas, that's how this world works. You cannot sit like a child and spit out ugly words when someone asks something, even if it is just a stupid biologist.

I have quarrelled at Matti too over this stupidity, so the situation is quit. It doesn't matter if Kea says she owns something. It is her statement and future will tell. If there are two controversial scientists so near each other as Kea and Matti, it is very idiotic they cannot talk to each other because of that small controversy.

Maybe I am impatient, but I have followed her so long, and I waited she would come up with something now when the superluminal neutrinos are actual, but instead she start everything all over again. More than anything I want to give her a kick :) to get further.

Zero positive or zero negative, what is that? What exactly is zero? What is a string in no dimension? Words, words...

Orwin: Kea swims in the New Wave of category theory, which is good at the analogies the Medievals loved. But that's proper to language/Logos, not Nous, and hence the Romance gender-typing.

The New Wave take on a kind of computational proceduralism, as if to upgrade MATLAB for AI. Matti's with the new graphene hardware, in physics. But dialogue remains possible on Ulla's question of signals.

Matti : Dear Ulla, it is difficult for a layperson to see what is (or what is not) behind scientific terms and formulas.

Kea and me could not be farther from each other. Really. The only thing in common that we both have the label of crackpot but that's all.

Just look our ways of writing. I always give sequences of arguments and do analysis. Represents counter arguments and objections.

Kea gives some standard math formulas found from some source and not a slightest hint how this numerology might relate to her theory or physics in general.

I said... Ye, Matti, This is not my business in any way. I just get so frustrated when I read her small texts, where she swims on the same place year after year. When I write something to her she gets silent, and delete my comments.

And this PeSla is very successful in that too, of some reason. I must think thoroughly on why. I mean, this is your blog, and I cannot come here and chritizise your commenters. You know, my harsch tongue...
Orwin: To me the best one can expect of New Wave math is to incorporate fuzzy logic, which is better than assuming classical probabilities when approaching quantum theory. Here the philosopher to watch is Florentin Samandarache - he's like the guru of viXra. But ethnocentric, like Derrida.

Higher dimensions were known in the ancient world - Otherworld of the Celts; the higher self as 5th dimension; animal magnetism. But to piece together the evidence is very hard.

The 1/r distribution: the smaller a particle, the more it scatters: the length-scale of a Feynman diagram. So the soft microwave background is the scatter-grain of reality.

The hard part is to realize that reality acts through such appearances: special relativity, dressed charges, scattered signals. The appearance/essence distinction is not causal! Take mathematical form as an essence and you miss that!

Then I compared to Mattis theory that also has been taken for numerology.

Dear Ulla,

you have managed to monumentally misunderstand me if you think that I am some kind of numerologist. God grief! I cannot imagine anything more disgusting than random numerical considerations. Numbers predicted by TGD are the outcome of a refined conceptual models not just combinations of some magic matrices taken from sleeve without absolutely any connections to physics.

Koide mass matrix stuff is excellent example of numerology which makes me sick. It begins from an observation that a sum for square roots of charged lepton masses is near to 1/2 in suitable units. There is of course always some rational number to which it would be very near to. Only if it were exactly 1/2, the mass formula might have possibility to make some deeper meaning.

Then one feeds in magic matrices and starts to play with their sums and products. Hopeless. Hopeless because there are no physical principles involves, just random numerology getting more and more complicated.

I have developed totally different model for CKM matrices starting from physical and mathematical principles of TGD. Same applies to p-adic mass calculations. That the model predicts numbers as an outcome, does not mean it is numerology!

If some-one thinks highly of numerology, I can accept it. That someone thinks that I belong to the cast of numerologists, I cannot accept.

Orwin: To call TGD numerology is unfair: temperature has no dimension, it is a number, and rheology or fluid dynamics has several 'dimensionless ratios' as parameters (Reynolds number, etc). To make particles components of temperature is consistent thermodynamics.

Matti: Dear Ulla,

one thing I can tell that colleagues lie unashamedly when they talk about TGD, especially so if they are talking to a layman with no ability control the truth of what they are saying.

Homeopathy in many-sheeted space-time, crop circles, water memory, cold fusion, expanding earth: these are the favorite topics with which to debunk TGD. If you are a little bit analytic you indeed soon find that they *never* say anything about *contents of TGD*. What are the basic assumptions of TGD, how they criticize these. Never a single word. They use only simple emotional key words to induce negative emotions. This is how propaganda works in all dictatorships. By just looking any "criticism" of TGD you find that there is not a single word about what I am really saying: isn't this strange?

In analytic mood you might also notice they *never* mention that I just always emphasize that I am not believer or non-believer but am just asing: What if these phenomena are real, what TGD can say in this case? They just the claim that I am a fanatic believer. Again an enormous lie but represented with clear purpose.

These fellows might call themselves astro-physicists, physicists or whatever but they call themselves, but they are not scientists in the sense as I understand scientist. They are opportunistic career builders and ready to lie without hesitation if this helps them to develop their career or defend their position.

The hegemony, in particular the hegemony of finnish science, has excellent motivations for giving me a label of crackpot- a blind believer on all possible "bad science" and this what they have tried to do for all these years. Now the experimental results from LHC are flowing and it is becoming more and more obvious that I have been right all the time. Neutrino superluminality might turn out to be single experimental discovery demonstrating that TGD is the theory. No one in his right mind can anymore deny that am a top physicists and have been 34 years without human rights in a country in which most people can read. This is an incredible scandal and solely due to the enormous stupidity and arrogance of the academic power hegemony. Einstein in the patent office is nothing as compared to what these idiots have managed to do.

It is understandable that these fellows are fighting desperately to get rid of me before the bubble bursts. Revenge is also a deep motivation. They might quite well be able to prevent me from seeing the breakthrough, my health is not good. This does not however help them: the bubble will burst and the collective shame will be even deeper and these fellows will be regarded as criminals. And for full reason.

To Ulla:

this claim that TGD is numerology is probably the silliest claim that any scientists have made after the birth of Newton.

There is entire book -about 1000 pages- devoted to Physics as generalized number theory and second book to particle physics applications of p-adic physics. And then some empty head comes and claims that TGD is numerology!! God grief.

It is incredible what kind of idiots can receive monthly salary as physicists and astrophysicists.

Ye, that should be clear now . TGD is not numerology, what about Kea's M-theory?

What is numerology? Wikipedia says:

Numerology is any study of the purported mystical relationship between a count or measurement and life. It has many systems and traditions and beliefs. Numerology and numerological divination by systems such as isopsephy were popular among early mathematicians, such as Pythagoras, but are no longer considered part of mathematics and are regarded as pseudomathematics by modern scientists.

Today, numerology is often associated with the paranormal, alongside astrology and similar divinatory arts.

The term can also be used for those who place excess faith in numerical patterns, even if those people don't practice traditional numerology. For example, in his 1997 book Numerology: Or What Pythagoras Wrought, mathematician Underwood Dudley uses the term to discuss practitioners of the Elliott wave principle of stock market analysis.

Pythagoras and other philosophers of the time believed that because mathematical concepts were more "practical" (easier to regulate and classify) than physical ones, they had greater actuality.

Numerology is prominent throughout Sir Thomas Browne's 1658 literary Discourse The Garden of Cyrus. Throughout its pages the author attempts to demonstrate that the number five and the related Quincunx pattern can be found throughout the arts, in design, and in nature - particularly botany.

Modern numerology has various antecedents. Ruth A. Drayer's book, Numerology, The Power in Numbers (Square One Publishers) says that around the turn of the century (from 1800 to 1900 A.D.) Mrs. L. Dow Balliett combined Pythagoras' work with Biblical reference. Then on Oct 23, 1972, Balliett's student, Dr. Juno Jordan, changed Numerology further and helped it to become the system known today under the title "Pythagorean", although Pythagoras himself had nothing to do with the system.

Many alchemical theories were closely related to numerology. arabian alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan, inventor of many chemical processes still used today, framed his experiments in an elaborate numerology based on the names of substances in the Arabic language.

Scientific theories are sometimes labeled "numerology" if their primary inspiration appears to be a set of patterns rather than scientific observations. This colloquial use of the term is quite common within the scientific community and it is mostly used to dismiss a theory as questionable science.

The best known example of "numerology" in science involves the coincidental resemblance of certain large numbers that intrigued such eminent men as mathematical physicist Paul Dirac, mathematician Hermann Weyl and astronomer Arthur Stanley Eddington. These numerical co-incidences refer to such quantities as the ratio of the age of the universe to the atomic unit of time, the number of electrons in the universe, and the difference in strengths between gravity and the electric force for the electron and proton. ("Is the Universe Fine Tuned for Us?", Stenger, V.J., page 3).

More about Stenger below.

The discovery of atomic triads (dealing with elements primarily in the same group or column of the periodic table) was considered a form of numerology, and yet ultimately led to the construction of the periodic table. Here the atomic weight of the lightest element and the heaviest are summed, and averaged, and the average is found to be very close to that of the intermediate weight element. This didn't work with every triplet in the same group, but worked often enough to allow later workers to create generalizations. See Döbereiner's Triads

Large number co-incidences continue to fascinate many mathematical physicists. For instance, James G. Gilson has constructed a "Quantum Theory of Gravity" based loosely on Dirac's large number hypothesis.

Wolfgang Pauli was also fascinated by the appearance of certain numbers, including 137, in physics.

Stenger's research career involved work that determined properties of gluons, quarks, strange particles, and neutrinos. Stenger was a pioneer in the emerging research focused on neutrino astronomy and very high-energy gamma rays. His final research project prior to retirement as an experimental physicist was participating in the Japan-based Super-Kamiokande underground experiment. This work demonstrated that the neutrino was massive. Masatoshi Koshiba, the leader of the project, won a share of the 2002 Nobel Prize in Physics for his efforts.

Not bad for a numerologist! But look what they say. He is an skeptic:

Stenger is now mainly known as an advocate of philosophical naturalism, skepticism, and atheism. He is a prominent critic of intelligent design and the aggressive use of the anthropic principle. He maintains that consciousness and free will, assuming that they in fact do exist, will eventually be explained in a scientific manner that invokes neither the mystical nor the supernatural. He has repeatedly criticized those who invoke the perplexities of quantum mechanics in support of the paranormal, mysticism, or supernatural phenomena, and has written several books and articles aiming to debunk contemporary pseudoscience.

Stenger is also a public speaker, including taking part in the 2008 "Origins Conference" hosted by the Skeptics Society at the California Institute of Technology alongside Nancey Murphy and Leonard Susskind.

In 1992, Uri Geller sued Stenger and Prometheus Books for $4 million, claiming defamation for questioning his "psychic powers." The suit was dismissed.

In recent years, Stenger's books and articles have been mostly written for the wider educated public. These writings explore the interfaces between physics and cosmology, and philosophy, religion, and pseudoscience.

What really is this? Numerology that gives an Nobel and the Periodic Table (octonions behind it?). Is the truth in this statement?

Scientific theories are sometimes labeled "numerology" if their primary inspiration appears to be a set of patterns rather than scientific observations. This colloquial use of the term is quite common within the scientific community and it is mostly used to dismiss a theory as questionable science.

Dimensionless ratios? What is that? Alpha, fine tuning and hbar? That is anything must be numerology? Or...

What I asked Mitchell Porter?

Thanks Mitchell.

I have tried to understand her work in many years too, despite my outsider position. It is interesting, but the cosmology? She ought to spend more time to look on the frame, when she declares that her cosmology begans from scratch. Who can even think of citing her in that situation?

I would also want to see clearer the relations leptons – fermions [baryons again]. Now they seem intermixed. Baryonygenesis?

Her fairy fields as quantum information and abstract fields are nothing else than the virtual fields behind the Higgs mechanism. Why does she deny that? Also the eventual supersymmetry would need some light?

There should maybe be more thinking from this bottom-up view, as an effort to understand the microstates, but the endless possibilities in string-theory talk against it. How is the criticality, the finiteness, solved in her theory? Exactly what form of strings does she use? F-theory? She talks of a tripartistic world, and that should be seen in her strings (interactions)? The fact that she use many triangular forms does not explain her strings? In that case they are hadrons?

The situation now is very frustrating, and I understand also for her. I have tried to have her talk about these things, but she gets silent. Also her quarrel with Matti Pitkänen (his refusal to cite her, in spite of her being helping him with the categories) ended with her silence, instead of declaring her standpoints. That makes me suspicious. He talk of her science being numerology. That I think is going too far, but explains maybe her bad success.

I will post my 'explanations' in next post. I think she deserves all support she needs to carry on. At least the same value as Witten's has her research?

If I understand anything of it.

11 kommentarer:

  1. matpitka@luukku.com said... 6.12.11

    To Ulla:

    I want to make clear that I am not a believer on Higgs or no-Higgs as Kea is: this kind of belief contains just one bit of information or dis-information. If one claims that no Higgs is there, one must explain particle massivation: Kea provides no such explanation.

    Wikipedia is polite about numerology;-). One must define set of patterns in a very loose manner to get numerology into picture.

    Quark gluon plasma has transformed to strongly interacting quark gluon plasma. If we are ready to regard glass as plasma this terminology is ok.

    I listened a Harward lecture of a jet specialist Ian Stewart about jet QCD. They are developing numerical methods which are strongly physics inspired and this is good. They believe that what they have got is QCD but it is more. Thanks to god that physicists do not take mathematical rigor too seriously. QCD taken rigorously would take us nowhere.

  2. Hello Ulla. I'm just seeing this post for the first time... Maybe email is better. There are just too many things mixed together here.

  3. I decided I will say a few things.

    First, the Koide relation is true to very high precision. This is one of many reasons why Kea's work is interesting.

    Second, since TGD is mentioned many times in this post, perhaps I should state my opinion, that I don't believe it. Matti was one of the first people in the world with a theory of branes, and I remain curious about TGD's relationship to the string landscape, but I don't believe, for example, that the different mass scales in physics derive from Mersenne primes.

  4. It is good to have clear papers. I wanted to list my previous questions exactly of this reason. And the answers I have got.

    I know I have a tendency to mix too many things. This Kea also have pointed out. It is maybe mainly due to my low understanding of things? To get an oversight I need to mix many things too?

    Kea has also primes in her posts. I see many similarities, but also differencies. That TGD is so much here is because Matti has answered. I have not seen many answers. Your blog is valueable of that reason.

    I have not quite decided yet how this would proceed. Maybe as a list of important questions?

    The Koide ratio would be one of those. i would appreciate a link.

    The massivation mechanism, the scaling, in short her cosmology I would want to have at least a coarse picture of.

    I try to be careful with her ideas, but I will honestly also say my opinion.

  5. To really understand her, I think you would first need to understand the basics of ordinary physics - the different kinds of particles, where they show up in nature.

    Then, the next difficulty is that her work is very algebraic. This is one of her differences with Matti, a philosophical difference about which is more fundamental, Geometry or Algebra. From history of quantum physics, you could say Feynman is an example of geometry as fundamental, Heisenberg an example of algebra as fundamental.

    Usually we associate Einstein with geometric physics; what I mean by mentioning Feynman here, is that Feynman provided a way to visualize quantum processes, the sum over histories. Heisenberg preferred algebra; his biggest idea was the S-matrix philosophy, a set of algebraic properties which would determine all the numbers appearing in experiment.

    So if you ask Matti what the various particles are, he can draw you a diagram, tell you their shapes. So could a string theorist who was working with a particular geometry: the whole idea is that each particle is a string wrapped around the extra dimensions in a particular way.

    Kea is an algebraist - a category theorist. Even when she talks about braids, she really means an "abstract braid" which is essentially described by an algebraic relationship, and for which the picture of a braid is just a notation. In a theory like that, once you work it out, eventually you might be able to identify the various ultimate abstractions with something that is subjectively familiar to a human being, and maybe Kea has intuitive ideas in that direction, but for now, her work is all about finding structures, algebras, and other abstract objects which will give the right numbers.

    An example from ordinary physics is a "scattering amplitude". This is a quantity, that you calculate in quantum theory, which tells you the probable results of a particle collision. You have particles going in with certain properties, you have particles going out with certain properties, and you calculate the probabilities of this transition, using a Feynman sum-over-histories.

    Feynman's diagrams are supposed to represent a history - the lines are trails of particles through space-time - but they also always stand for a number, one of the contributions to the final probability. And the diagrams can be analyzed for their structural properties - how many loops they contain, other concepts from "graph theory". This leads in the algebraic direction of Heisenberg. A particle begins to look like just a label for a line in a diagram. You can develop a mathematical theory of how to label lines in diagrams. Witten's work on polynomial invariants of knots is a little like this. And it is the very abstract and general theories of these possible algebraic relationships, which provide some inspiration for Kea in her theoretical work.

    As I said, eventually we must find a way to subjectively understand such a theory, but also it must calculate correctly, and this is why so much of Kea's investigations are abstract.

  6. Thanks for this,

    Alejandros post http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/alejandro_rivero_fermion_mass_coincidences_and_other_fun_ideas-85187

    talks of Koides massivation. Koide formula is an equation between charged leptons postulated in the early eighties. As he explains in arxiv:1111.7232 it does not appear magically in middle air; it is the result of research in models with two or three generations, trying to predict the Cabibbo angle.

    That is ok., but the massivation is about quarks, not leptons. The mass difference between them is huge. Even if the mirror neutrino has highest mass, and the massivation happens on the mirror side, or behind the curtains, this doesn't explain it. Neutrinos are non-interactive, neutral particles. And massivation has to be geometric (square root?)? Bosonic fields can be abstract, pregeometric, but not massivation so much, only what wavefunction admit (algebraic), because a particle is both. When she drives her matrices she use geometry, collapsed braids, not both at the same time. Collapsing happen because of measurement (energytransfer, primes, l-adics?), or is that too otherwise in her theory?

    Then Koide went some steps beyond and considered quarks and leptons with substructure (=geometric), so that lepton mass quotients could predict the Cabibbo angle too, even if this is a mixing between quarks. But he also found that his models implied a relationship between lepton masses themselves.

    This I would want to enlighten. Is leptons making up the composite quarks? What exactly is the difference lepton:quark? This I asked on Galaxyzoo.

    Masses are expected to be predicted at very high energies, unification scale, near Planck scale, and then they run down to get the values we see at low energy.

    But there are also cold masses. What role has the temp. in her model? How does she count with thermodynamics? What she leaves out is also very important.

    And how would this make the quantum gravity?

    The Planck scale must be computated?

    I am also very interested in her 'triangular forms' if they could reveal something about the Platonic solides and carbon function?

    I will come back to this later, but not this week, as I said. Sorry for that.

    I think you wait too much from my post. I'll do my best, but I am no mathematician, as Kea also says. I must try to make it simple.

    Abstract geometry is very difficult to understand. Some kind of area, or possibility, but as a superposition of waves there are just a quantum soup, no geometry?

  7. Something like this?

  8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregeometry_%28physics%29
    In physics, a pregeometry is a structure from which geometry develops. The term was championed by John Archibald Wheeler in the 1960s and 1970s as a possible route to a theory of quantum gravity. Since quantum mechanics allowed a metric to fluctuate, it was argued that the merging of gravity with quantum mechanics required a set of more fundamental rules regarding connectivity that were independent of topology and dimensionality, and which could work independently of any assumptions we might make about the properties of a surface.

    Where "geometry" could describe the properties of a known surface, and the physics of a hypothetical region with pre-defined properties, "pregeometry" might allow us to work with deeper underlying rules of physics that were not so strongly dependent on simplified classical assumptions about the properties of space.

    Misner Thorne and Wheeler ("MTW), Gravitation (1971) ISBN 9780716703440 §44.4 "Not geometry, but pregeometry as the magic building material", §44.5 "Pregeometry as the calculus of prepositions"


    Gravitation and Inertia(1995). Ignazio Ciufolini and John Archibald Wheeler. Princeton University Press.

    In 1990, Wheeler has suggested that information is fundamental to the physics of the universe. According to this "it from bit" doctrine, all things physical are information-theoretic in origin.
    Wheeler, John A. (1990), W. Zurek, ed., "Information, physics, quantum: The search for links", Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information

  9. "What exactly is the difference lepton:quark?"

    The quarks are everything inside the atomic nucleus (proton, neutron), the leptons are everything outside the atomic nucleus (electron, neutrino).

    Also, leptons have electric charge 0 or +1 or -1, quarks have electric charge 1/3 (+ or -) or 2/3 (+ or -). But in the nucleus, three quarks combine to make proton with charge 1 or neutron with charge 0.

    The -1 charge of the electron and the +1 charge of the proton balance, so when an atom has as many electrons as it has protons in the nucleus, it is neutral. An ion is an atom with unequal numbers of protons and electrons (charge imbalance).

  10. 'I have often admired the mystical way of Pythagoras and the secret magic of numbers'- Sir T.B.

  11. Well, thanks again, Mitcell. You must realize I often ask a question insted of making long reasonings. I usually don't wait for any answers on those pedagogical questions.