Dear Chian, ( Chian Fan ), while i do welcome your solid asked question about - essentially - intrinsic dependency hierarchy and (so far) by mainstream physics unknown (or ignored) deep inter-constant relations on the lowest possible integer geometric level - I am somewhat disappointed that your long list of cited papers does not include even a single reference (or at least mention) to iSpace theory!

You know iSpace theory from participating in quite a number of high profile RG discussions we followed in the recent past, nevertheless you choose to completely blind-fold you question from the stunning results iSpace theory was able to achieve in the field of constants of nsture, mainly:

1) derive a working integer geometric model

2( derive exact values for 50+ constants

3) creste MkS/A compatible iSpace-SI units

4) create artefact free iSpace-IQ unit system

Especially with 4) there has been a leap-frog style groth in understanding of the geometrical and physical meaning of identified key constituents of iSpace theory:

The key units identified - and the sole physically required (with some exception to Boltzmann constant KB able to relate back to a 1:1 relation of Volt/Kelvin, so essentially proofing replaceability of Kelvin by Volt) base units V (Volt), A (Ampere), s (Second) and m (Meter) in form of iSpace-SI aka fully MKS/A-SI lab compatible units (100% value compatible, yet arbitrary precision to infinite number of desired digits - hence exact) are all units any unit systen will ever need (or should have defined).

The key comstituents identified in and with fully human artefact free iSpace-IQ unit system have been GoldenRatio iSpaceAmpere (the quantum of Ampere), 1/6961 iSpaceSecond (the quantum of time), 2*Pi3*1 iSpaceVolt (the quantum of Volt or simply 6 stemming from so called „changed distance definition“ based 6 cells around 1 cell LEGO style integer geometric Pi3=3 circle definition - actually the key ingredient to all of iSpace theory and with this actual understanding of core constants geometry) and finally GoldenRatio iSpaceMeter (and not 1 (!)), the quantum of distance (and not length as such), as distance is defined by integer multiples of hop-count (and not ever be definable in not exusting, purely mathematical contiuum, mentally constructed from the base error of introduction of 0 (zero) and consequential error of infinity.

Nothing - nothing ever - has either zero width or dimension or infinite extension. Nothing physically, at least for sure!

There is an endless list of things to discuss with respect of iSpace theory and physical metrological mainstreams inability zo see the obvious: maybe not everything (of your claimed 300+ constants of nature) has been solved, but the core 50+ constants of nature like FSC alpha, e, h, me, R, a0, re, …, G, H0 and all of Planck constants (snd possibly recently even mp!) are done and hence a solved entity in the sense of your question - and fully so!

Please (all) take the time to have a really deep look in my RG home peer reviewed and preprint papers (all done in precise and (mathematically for sure) error free PDFs in their native Mathematica (aka Wolfram Language) notebook form, required to understand and manage arbitrary precision math in the proper way (one can’t ever do this correctly in Excel nor in TeX).

If you choose to not do, I guarantee you sheer endless discussions on this thread (with me not participating - as such is boring) reinventing the wheel of what iSpace theory already achieved over the last 25+ years of its scientific existence.

I will post some of the related links to the most important papers and results of iSpace theory in a (soon) following separate post, as such was already available in the past, but was eliminated by RG team in the form of the originally existing project log.

Thank you and kind regards,

Christian G. Wolf

There are the constants, that define the scale of fluctuations-such as Planck's constant for quantum fluctuations, or Boltzmann's constant for thermal fluctuations. Or the scale of disorder fluctuations.

The other ``constants" aren't, in fact, constants, they depend on the scale and it's how they do so that matters.

One might think that the coupling constants of the known fundamental interactions are the ``fundamental constants": Only they aren't constants, they depend on the scale. And it's not known how many more there are. How Newton's constant and the cosmological constant depend on the scale isn't known-that's the problem.

Stam Nicolis Full wrong - as could be: „in fact, constants, they depend on the scale“. You may want to believe so (to save other models preferred by your brain) but iSpace exactly did what you claim not to be possible: remember - one counter example is enough to tear down the whole tower - and iSpace did so (and long ago). Everything is simply multiplicative exact - and necessarily to cope with any (also deeply seeker for by QM and relativity - but never achieved of course due to already wrong base Ansatz).

Dont get me wrong - QM (at least QED, not at all sure for QCD, rather the opposite) is a proper theory with respect to numeric results - up to end exactly the root of a0 and re - but everything “beyond“ (below) is fully wrong as geometry changes to LEGO subspace and (complex) relation (in 10D = 3D + 6D + 1D) of (simple) Pi3=3 over Euklidesn-Pi is spoiling your day. Pi/3 ir 1.047… about is exactly the found (measured) Muonic proton radius derivation from electronic proton radius - that simple - as Muon enters the region of LEGO subspace with its „radius“ around the proton.

The so called „running„ coupling constant alpha is not running (from inverse 1/128,.. to exactly 137.035999768…) as proven by iSpace theory: FSC alpha is a) exact and b) constant (like all other constants - for that matter)!

alpha = 2 * Pi / (PlankResitence / QuantumHallResistence)

or

alpha = 2 *Pi * ((299792458 Volt / (10^7 Ampere)) / (2*Pi3*6961 Volt / (GoldenRatio Ampere))

with Pi3=3 and exactly so (as all integer geometry only).

Dear Christian G. Wolf

I admire your passion for physics, the great effort you put into it, and the results you have obtained. I am sorry that I did not cite your paper in this question.

We all agree that there is value in exploring some physical problems in terms of the constants of physics. However, we should try to maintain the results and facts of existing physics as much as possible. Stam Nicolis 's use of fluctuation to determine the role of the constants h, kB is, in my opinion, very appropriate. His statement that some constants are related to scale, that is, to the levels of physical phenomena, is also appropriate, and both are beautiful understandings of existing physics. I have not been able to understand your concepts of quantization of time and ispace "complex-Space". If I understood it, it would definitely be considered an important reference in a formal paper.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Chian Fan Thank you for kind words explaining your (of course rightly so from mainstream physics point of view) position. It sounds sarcastic - but is not meant this way - to answer you (both) „.Ok, so you then don’t understand multiplication!“ but this is much more near the truth than you currently be able to imagine.

What I do criticize is your seemingly insbility to cope with new scientific results. It is far more difficult to forget whst one had to learn and and accept the new, but this is science.

We in IT had to go that all the time n shifts of only a couple of years, and as of now sometimes even every few month (such is of course not science like in case of Docker containers and JavaScript commands to come and go (by young inexperienced colleagues in our field, not having any assembly language background any more, let alone a 50+ years of C and UNIX heritage). But the big advantage is - we have routine to accept (or sometimes reject) the new.

The new is not always better thsn the old, and especially cannot cope (often) with all subtle detail aspects of the old (like was in the infants of Bohr model of hydrogen until QM was more fully developed and Schröfinger equation became mainstream - the new of the past and now the piece by piece not thrown away, but put into their right small(er) corner of validity with respect to the new.

But one thing csnnot ever happen in science - thus is standstill - now for more than over 100+ years. You all have to get out of your comfort zone, and do thst fast:

- cosmology in current form is a desaster

- relativity is basically ecpetimentslly refuted

- there is no dark matter, and no dark enrtgy

- both are inventions to save wrong models

- QM gets away better, but with a blue eye

- with James Webb even big-bang may fall

I believe I could made my point clear and you get the idea, do you? So - whatever it takes - I focused on the only thing not much touched or referred to by mainstream, if not outright ignored outside a small circle of very competent scientists in the realm of CODATA and that are the mechanics and inner - unknown by mainstream - intrinsic inner inter-dependencies of constants of nature themselves as reveiled by iSpace theory.

And those are luckily based on super-simple first order multiplicative mathematics only - do all if you and whole of mainstream has no excuse whatsoever to state not to understand it. As such is laughable and you know it - all what happens here is a methodological problem - you are not used to Wolfram Mathemstica and it IT developer precision style of naming things exactly. We in It have to do do, or the mess would be even bigger than it currently already is, despite such efforts - in IT.

So I choose to call electron charge not just e as you (mainstream) is used to but name it properly IT wise as therr are by design and nature of the things so many versions and variants once you use more than one unit system at the same time in the same paper. Still there us nothing to understand here, its more IT convention than physics convention, that’s all, But its tool wise at the resuired precision level for the job. Unit systems have been traditionally just a mess when it comes to comparing them, one cannot even read a book smd be sure what equations mean, without going into the foreword or appendix what the authors beloved pet unit system was he used when he Worte e or h.

Thsts why my scrips always show precise unique names in form of ASCII strings just like in IT to avoid thus core issue:

ie = iSpaceElectronChargeSI means this entity describes precisely the electron charge in iSpace-SI unit system (exact value and unit)

h2004 = PlanckConstantCODATA2004 which means it’s some measurement based, normalized and averaged by committee as released valid recommended from 2004 till (typically) 2008

h = h2019 = PlanckConstantCODATA2019 which by mathematical coincidence of definition of an iSpace-style exact Planck constant to truncated and rounded 9-digit pseudo-exact only value. iSpace values are actually-exact.

In no way it means like some think ie means electron charge e implied multiplicated (!) with complex double dash i imaginary operator. Of course any really very experienced scientists (sorry for this) knows that when used to for example using Mathematica in form of symbolic expressions often and routinely combining value, unit and even precision upper and lower error bound and more do mostly overlooked but required epsilon intrinsic mathematical precision bound (number of digits valid automatically in such expressions).

I hope you enjoyed day one of lesson one of my little intro style course on iSpace naming conventions - a must have - before going into actual physics of iSpace theory as soon been thought worldwide but for now on remote RG iSpace university channel designed by Wolf.

The only thing we will for sure not learn here is unfortunately multiplication of sometimes big numbers with arbitrary precision up to typically 40+ digits, to proof and show such value could hace come never from any experimental measurement or even CODATA normalization. But I think you’re all out there be able to find a way to cope with this, best get an own Mathematica or any CAS of your choice or even (not recommended) python based lib like used in AI these days all over.

Its a bit sad to have to start on that level but it is my sincere hope it helped - as all you fight is history of physics - and not super simple precise iSpace theory, the future of physics.

Dear Chian Fan,

I find that what you say emerges from a reasoning which seeks to find the ultimate physics. In my opinion, ultimate physics is first of all "exotic physics" because it uses "exotic means of calculation" for constants. In my opinion also it is based exclusively on constants determined theoretically and that the said theory leads to absolute values for the constants. In my opinion, ultimate physics is a continuation of current fundamental physics, there we find Planck's units, Einstein's equations of special relativity, his equations relating to cosmology, and you find many other formulas from physicists which worked in a purely fundamental way. Now to make what I have just said concrete, we must add that we must find the theoretical means to bring out constants that do not come from laboratories, but how to do that? Well, this is precisely the challenge to be taken up. In my opinion we must continue the work of Einstein, Planck, and others in order to find equations for Planck's constant, h, for the reduced constant of, h, for, HA, etc., but to find equations for these constants we must benefit from new constants, to be discovered. These constants to be discovered serve as a basis for calculating the fundamental constants of physics. It's a colossal job but it's necessary. By managing to get our hands on the missing constants at this time we can think about refining what is done and then moving on to another complementary but also very interesting step which is to find the trick to move on to absolute constants. And at that moment we will then have acquired the ultimate theoretical means to put things in order regarding the existing equations. Like for example carefully eliminating equations like for me that of Bohr for the radius of hydrogen because in my opinion it is not at all an absolute formula it will then be necessary to replace it with another more adequate so that it can be linked by example to the Rydberg constant and the classical radius of the electron. It will also be necessary to find the formula for the ratio of, h, to, reduced h, which in my opinion is slightly less than 2Pi as well as the equation for the speed of light etc. In the end we still have to find the mathematical link between what we are going to achieve and current physics. Because the infinitely small is mathematical and the infinitely large is mathematical and at this moment we can see that the two worlds are linked by the fact that it refers to the same means of calculation for the constants.

Jamil Kooli Good luck!

Jamil Kooli That - "h, to, reduced h, which in my opinion is slightly less than 2Pi" is exactly the plain sheer utter nonsense of 'wannabe-constant-of-nature-"experts"' whose only conclusion when measurement values do not fit any longer with required precison their "beloved" pet-model (G has only 4-5 digits, ok - when will all start to get this - unable for theory validation by a 1/1000 chance only) they invent that "idea" that 2*Euclidic*Pi based circle circumfence might be somewhat shorter or longer (relativistically or otherwise). What a bullshit - sorry to be fully direct here, but its required!

Jamil Kooli "In the end we still have to find the mathematical link between what we are going to achieve and current physics" Indeed. And its called iSpace theory, started about 25+ years ago to become what it is as of today. So you're all a little late in now trying to reinvent the wheel to do something which is actually fully developed available to use in iSpace. Game over.

Dear Chian Fan , dear all, with respect to my initial posting here (please see above) "I will post some of the related links to the most important papers and results of iSpace theory in a (soon) following separate post, as such was already available in the past, but was eliminated by RG team in the form of the originally existing project log." here we go with increasing complexity of peer-reviewed and conference papers or preprints on iSpace theory:

Method iSpace - Quick check of α and Φ0 from Markoulakis & Antonidakis

Preprint Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants - Comparions of...

Data iSpace - Exact Symbolic Equations for Physical Constants - S...

Article New novel physical constants metric and fine structure const...

Preprint Hubble constant H0 is derived from Newtonian gravitational c...

Preprint iSpace - Quantization of Time in iSpace-IQ Unit-System by 1/...

Conference Paper iSpace - Deriving G from α, e, R∞, μ0 and Quantum of Gravita...

Conference Paper iSpace - Exact Symbolic Equations for Important Physical Con...

Working Paper iSpace - The Theoretical Value of the Constants of Nature - Summary

Method iSpace - Analyzing Heisenberg uncertainty relation in iSpace...

and last but not least - for those persistenly too lazy to read any more:

TEGS | Introduction to iSpace | Christian Wolf

YouTube video 2h netto, 3.5h with scientific Q&A and related discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhGeANkwUME

Thank you and kind regards,

Christian G. Wolf

Christian G. Wolf,

In ultimate physics, it is experimentation that must be confirmed by theory, but current physics uses the opposite of this rule. The ultimate physics, on which I work, must transcend current physics to make it ultimate but in my opinion it is necessary to use Einstein, Planck, as well as any other fundamental theory like Balmer, etc. For me, especially Einstein and Planck, their theories all emerge from a parent theory that I call the ultimate theory. For the calculation of physical constants, the ultimate theory does not, in my opinion, rely on laboratories. Moreover, I already find that the ultimate theory is confirmed by the results of muonic experiments on muonic hydrogen and muonic deuterium. And this is also confirmed by the results of the observations of the Planck mission, result of 2018. We find the same new theoretical constants, involved in the calculation of the constants of the quantum world and cosmological parameters.

Christian G. Wolf,

Any adequate theory can be linked to other fundamental theories through mathematics. I believe at this thing.

Jamil Kooli Jamil, what do you believe is iSpace doing what you requested in your last post above? Are you able to write and understand your own words?

I'll close the discussion (with you) by citing myself from a 10+y old paper:

(PDF) iSpace - The Theoretical Value of the Constants of Nature - Summary. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286932596_iSpace_-_The_Theoretical_Value_of_the_Constants_of_Nature_-_Summary [accessed Jan 03 2024]."

# - - - quote - - -

"By now you might already agree deriving the presumably exact value and symbolic relations of that many primary physical constants fully within the error range ofpublished CODATA values cannot be accidental (or even a tricky form of numerology).

Looking backwards, that was really simple stuff. Some will say much too simple. But it is important to understand that these results are not an artifact of iSpace integer theory but of the relations of the constants themselves.

Any theory which is able to calculate (predict) the value and unit of these constants will show up exactly the same simple relations between them in any other unit system.

# - - - end of quote - - -

Christian G. Wolf,

Currently, CODATA constants cannot be used with 100% confidence to judge whether theoretical work is valid or not. Which means no one on earth can judge your work, mine and any other work 100%. Because everyone refers to CODATA. I said that we were looking for an ultimate theory that gives exact and absolute physical constants not from laboratories. Following this, it is the labs that must refer to these new utopian constants and believe me it is entirely possible to find them. At this point you can judge your work yourself and link it if necessary to the ultimate theory using mathematics. Good work is compared to absolute work, CODATA is not the ultimate reference. People must understand that well. I will give you an example concerning the CODATA value of Rydberg which CODATA claims is incredibly precise. For me if we use values which tend towards the absolute, the formula for the Rydberg constant will tend towards a value of 1.099. But no one talks about that. Believe me, as physics progresses people will realize that this value that I announce 1.099 for the Rydberg constant shows that the formula for the Rydberg constant can only give an approximate value and for me the formula current Rydberg constant must be replaced by another formula which is directly linked to the classical radius of the electron. The classical radius of the electron, the Rydberg constant, and the absolute radius of the hydrogen atom must be in perfect connection in the new ultimate physics. So here we also need to find a new formula for the radius of the lhydrogen atom. My article lists my formula for an absolute radius for the hydrogen atom but the journal has not yet published it. A COLOSSAL WORK ATTEND PHYSICS. A COLOSSAL WORK IS NECESSARY TO PUT THE PHYSICS IN ORDER!

Jamil Kooli **SOME** (like especially Newtonian G) "CODATA constants cannot be used with 100% confidence to judge whether theoretical work is valid or not". But I do not think this is anything new, is it? For experts, that is. All other constants (except human artefact truncated ones from CODATA 2019 should be avoided at any cost doing comparisons (unphysical) from CODATA 2014 and eariler show precise error bounds able to do any comparison one wants to do. However - if QED theory is involved - like in FSC alpha (9-10 digits) or in Rydberg-infinity (13-14 digits) care must be taken (but no problem). FSC can also be theory-less alternatively be derived by h/e^2 so by measuring e and h seperate (8-9 digits without any issue).

Christian G. Wolf,

According to my theory where all the constants are linked I give you the values which are very precise but they are not absolute values we have:

1- The value of the Rydberg constant from CODATA but not the formula. Note that the value obtained is precise, it is by chance because according to me there are already errors in h and the fine structure.

2- My value 0.87564 fm for the radius of the proton from the electronic hydrogen atom.

3- the radius of the muonic proton from the CREMA collaboration 0.8409 fm.

4- My value 0.8358 fm for yhe radius of the proton from the muonic deuterium appearing in my article.

5- My radius for the neutron 0.8775 fm appearing in my article.

6- My value 72.05 for H0.

etc.

Christian G. Wolf,

What I just gave you is linked constants coming from each other you can compare your work to those.

Here is some very real example of what (by some) claimed above would be not possible (or not useful) to do. Well, i call such results a perfect match!

(please see attached screenshot with raw iSpace results vs. CODATA):

Jamil Kooli Jamil, all - once and for all - what do you not understand that 4-5 digit "predicted" constant results are UTTERLY WORTHLESS for any theory (including iSpace and whatever the model)!? Take the hard ones, which are available like Rydberg and give a closed form equation beating the measurement based ones (at least the avarage over the last years!). That is the task - and here you and all others (with the notable, surprising from an iSpace point of view very positive exception of Gerd Pommerenke just plain fail to deliver - and miserably. You can model around what you want. Math based on simple statistical or required digit by digit comparison fails (over and over). And instead of learning from this - namely that all your models are wrong, and thats it - you claim nonesene like 2*Pi would not be precise.

Imho its even worse - at least some of you seem to fully lost grip on what it takes to do responsible science these days.

Dear Jamil Kooli

Here the link to the "very positive exception"

Preprint The Electron and Weak Points of the Metric System

Btw. it's compatible with iSpace. The very problem of CODATA is, that they fixedly defined some natural "constants" which aren't constants at all without taking into account existing (unknown to them) dependencies between different values. That leads to a missaccord between other measurands and it has even an impact on the definition of units of measurement. If the central bank changes the exchange rate, your balance will no longer be correct. You then determined all the older measurements in vain. Only 7 values ​​are genuine constants and all other values can be calculated from them.

Dear Gerd Pommerenke,

Many thanks.

Let me add to Gerds reply above it does not matter for solving the problem if one prefers the iSpace model (10D integer geometric) or the one as described above by Gerd Pommerenke (4D continuum based) - both proove to be surprisingly (logically and reasonably) correct exact value generating wise compatible - so e.g. while our Hubble H0 values seemed very different at first sight (71.99… from iSpace to 68.6… from Gerds model), i was able to show Gerds base equation - physically fully different from my iSpace based one - prooved to 100% identical despite full different derivation, with the sole exception of a single unitless correction value when multiplied by power of 3 (3D space!) to give exactly Gerds H0 from the iSpace pure quantum function based one.

It was (and still is) even more disturbing to find soon after, exact same value multiplied into an assumed promising model for proton mass (but initially way off wrong result) to become an exact correct result measurement wise confirmed by CODATA 1998, the last one with just enough still correct precision to get the most compatible, and hence best values consorted to exact (zero error bar by design) iSpace theoretic model.

Every CODATA normalization released after 1998 deviates more and more (slightly, still compatible!) from the optimum sweet-spot with minimum internal unit pressure (iSpace model has an intrinsic perfect unit pressure of 0 (zero). Thus is a clear indication of the iSpace model assumed geometric phase change to happen at exactly the root of a0 and re, nothing else than Compton radius over 2*Pi, going to visualize from LEGO to LEGO Duplo or maybe sand (perceived comtinuum) to LEGO (or stone size, if you prefer).

Such phase change makes any experimental result, esp. the ones requiring (QED) theory correction completely untrustworthy and hence effectively useless (for comparison, let alone „more precise“ CODATA recommendations.

There, at and below ~10^-13m Euklidic-Pi circles suddenly become Pi3=3 circles (by changed distance definition based LEGO style base integer geometric rules, of course quantizing everything below. So values below that precision (about CODATA 1998 based ones) cannot - and hence must not - be taken seriously for any experimental comparison against any theoretic model whatsoever, including iSpace theory itself.

Christian G. Wolf

You ran away from the discussion on the Oscar Chavoya-Aceves thread. But this is the position of an ostrich.

However, you cannot escape “fate”.

Therefore, I repeat my last answers to you, which you decided not to read.

1. A bit is a unit of information, not a real physical quantity. Therefore, Wolfram qubits and all his abstract schemes are far from real physics, they violate the principles of quantization of the material world and do not have the real “thickness” that space quanta have. This was the “last straw” and you ran away.

2. I found mathematical harmonies in the orbits of the planets of the solar system. They differed from real orbits by 3 to 10%. This is because it is possible for the mass of planets to accumulate due to their absorption of cosmic dust, which changes the nature of their movement and, accordingly, their orbit relative to the original figures. In addition, additional effects are possible due to the interaction of the ionosphere of planets with ions in interplanetary space. And especially during flares on Solar. Collisions with meteorites and fireballs have an impact. These changes are tiny, but over the billions of years of the existence of the Solar System, they are noticeable.

Thus, the real material world is always different from abstract mathematics. It is only a model that, to one degree or another, describes matter and the Universe.

3. Similarly for physical constants.

You need to believe in experimental measurements, since the real material world is not ideal, like Christian Wolf's digital models. It may contain distortions formed, for example, by violation of the principles of symmetry, parity, etc.

4. Although you took the position of an ostrich and stuck your head in the sand, hiding from our discussion, and decided not to stoop to communicating with the “chanics,” I offer you this option:

6961

2·2·2·2·3·5·5·5 + 2·2·3·3·5·5 + 2·2·3·5 + 1

or

(2x5)32 3 + (2x5)232 + (2x5)12x3 + (2x5)030,

Dear Valentin Nastasenko,

You mentioned the number 6961. This number is it used in physics calculations? if yes, does it produce good results for those who work with it? I'm curious to know. Thanks in advance.

Jamil Kooli 6961, or 1/6961 iSpaceSecond in proper orientation and intrinsic associated unit of human artefact free iSpace-IQ unit system is the Quantum of time. As this is a (long ago) made derivation of mine, it makes not too much sense to ask someone else in what it might be (physically) or not. In any case a non-additive prime number relation.

Preprint iSpace - Quantization of Time in iSpace-IQ Unit-System by 1/...

Christian G. Wolf

I am not aware of its use in physics, since it is composite and can be expanded into a series of prime numbers.

Its reception through prime numbers has a certain interest in the structuring of the material world. There are signs of systematicity in it.

1/6961 iSpaceSecond representing „just“ Quantum of time, so It’s „not of any use in physics …“ - currently outside iSpace theory in todays 2024 mainstream physics, but as time is omnipresent - its the physics.

Dear Christian G. Wolf,

Dear all,

Many thanks.

Jamil Kooli Dear Jamil, dear all,

thank you for asking the right questions, and in the hope to have been able to at least contribute a little the respective (authorative, from iSpace theory pointing view) answer(s).

Kind regards, Christian

Christian G. Wolf

Gerd Pommerenke

Jamil Kooli

It's nice to be at the peak of fame.

But I want to add a little doubt (not because I’m so harmful, but because this is the scientific truth):

1. The real material world is always different from abstract mathematics. It is only a model that, to one degree or another, describes matter and the Universe. My example with the orbits of the planets of the solar system is proof of this. They were influenced by external factors (cosmic dust, movement of ions in clouds from solar flares, impacts of meteorites and fireballs, etc.), which are scanty, but have accumulated over billions of years of the existence of the solar system, but digital models are unchanged.

2. Similarly, for physical constants, their experimental confirmation is required, since the real material world is not ideal, it has distortions that arise, for example, due to violation of the principles of symmetry, parity, etc.

3. The number 6961 is not a physical constant, since it is composite, in the form of a series of prime numbers, so it does not exist in real physics. This is an abstraction. You need to replace it in your theories and erase it from the mirror, replacing it with a series of numbers.

Universe is doing multiplication throughout. By no means it does repeated series adding. Only math affine (stubborn) humans do so.

And thus has a physical reasoning: multiplication is the most intense binding two (multiplied) entities possibly can have. Addition is also a form of much more loose binding - if nit misused by physicists to add ever more small „correction factors“ … to save their wrong theories.

Christian G. Wolf

In the real material world, at the quantum level, there are no multiplications and divisions, there is only addition and subtraction. What are “entities” in the framework of real physics. Or is it an abstraction? Then why are you talking about real physics?

If small “correction factors” are an objective reality, then they must be introduced within the framework of the accuracy for which you are fighting. According to my calculations, you will have an error already in the 8-9th digit, and with this accuracy the constants have already been determined.

If “save their wrong theories” refers to me, then I don’t have them. Besides, you haven't even read them, so how do you draw your conclusion?

But I have no objection to your theory, as I have already told you many times. It has the right to exist as a test facility.

"In the real material world, at the quantum level, there are no multiplications and divisions, there is only addition and subtraction" Wrong as could be: just F=m*a, E=m*c^2, ... what are you smoking to hallucinating that way?

Dear all,

We can use irreducible numerical ratios to refine certain equations of fundamental physical constants. Certain prime numbers can contribute to this.

Jamil Kooli "can use irreducible numerical ratios to refine certain equations of fundamental physical constants" yes, as long as its made clear the digit precision of those is (far - best twice at a minimum) beyond the best experimentally derived measured ones. As with every "use" - in form of typically multiplication - of them, you loose inherently epsilon precision. Mathematica (and if so, very few other CAS if at all) do that intrinsically and automatically for the scientist correct, so you do not need to worry. Any exact (symbolic) equation or relation is by the nature of the math behind evaluatable to arbitrary precision (whatever the model, be such exact by design (zero error bar) iSpace or otherwise).

Christian G. Wolf,

Some ratios may have several exact decimal places exceeding the few exact decimal places of CODATA for the same physical constant. but it all depends on the theory from which the ratios emerge.

Christian G. Wolf

I thought you were a decent scientist. And you turned out to be a homeless person from the gateway.

However, it is known that the transition from a scientific dispute to personal insults is a sign of weakness. I feel sorry for you, like a weakling who lost an argument with me.

Probably, the “entities” have finished you off, and you, not me, “smoke” in order to contact them.

You gave formulas that are a mathematical description convenient for us humans for our understanding of these things. But they are only a mathematical model, or a human abstraction, unknown to nature. Therefore, there is NO MULTIPLICATION IN THE MATERIAL WORLD. If it exists, then present this process as a physical reality, excluding the “calculator” in it. At best, there may be an Otto Hahn effect here.

At the quantum mechanical level there is an energy quantum E = hv, and then it is added up “physically” by a simple process of accumulation.

Strength is a derivative product of energy. There are real physical transient processes for it.

Jamil Kooli Jamil - your last reply is mathematical wishful thinking and you only show you‚ll never willing or able to learn, once properly informed by simple scientific facts (likely to save your wrong model like so many others do in mainstream, giving you good company at least).. Sorry, but i do this in my precious spare time only and give up here. All the best for your future research work, Christian

Valentyn Nastasenko Thanks, now I finally have my first critic.

Dear Chian Fan

There are only 2 universal constants, Planck's constant (h) and the constant speed of light (c). The term "universal" means that these constants exists everywhere in the universe at every moment. For example, in the early universe there was no matter, like we know it. So all the constants that are related to matter are not universal constants.

Now you can question the categorizing of Planck’s constant as a universal constant. Because without matter there is no emitter of electromagnetic waves and without electromagnetic waves there is no speed of light.

The significance of Planck’s constant is not the typical amount of energy it represents, it is the quantization of energy that is universal. Even in a universe without matter the propagation of energy in space is quantized. Moreover, the propagation must have a constant velocity too otherwise the 2 universal conservation laws (energy, momentum) cannot exist in a universe that is tessellated with basic quantum fields.

Both universal constants represent the properties of local differences within the universal electric field and its corresponding magnetic field (together electromagnetic field). Just like the 2 universal conservation laws represent the (combined) properties of the universal electric field and its corresponding magnetic field.

This is important because it implies that all the other constants and related phenomena are “build up” by the basic properties of the electromagnetic field. The consequence is that every model that suggests that there exists phenomena that are smaller than the spatial structure of the electromagnetic field itself (like the Standard model suggests) cannot represent physical reality in a reliable way.

With kind regards, Sydney

>>There are only 2 universal constants, Planck's constant (h) and the constant speed of light (c).

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

Planck's constant is just not a constant. See Preprint The Electron and Weak Points of the Metric System

for details.

Dear Gerd Pommerenke

I have read your abstract but I am afraid that our opinions are too far apart. Sorry.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm „>>There are only 2 universal constants, Planck's constant (h) and the constant speed of light (c).“

thus is wrong for sure , as iSpace theory (and btw. prooven compatible to this Gerds model Gerd Pommerenke as well) is able to derive constants of nature in exact symbolic form from few very simple integer geometric minimum quantum entities like GoldenRatio iSpaceAmpere - the Quantum of Ampere, 1/6961 iSpaceSecond - the Quantum of time, and only few more (actually 5-6 in total, dependent if one counts Euklidean-Pi (3.14…) as separate input entity (or not).

I know most of your model and think it’s also a very promising interesting one, but even so it’s impossible for any model to bypass hard physics of constants of nature as reveilled and shown beyond any reasonable doubt by iSpace theory.

Please just see page #2 of this discussion as posted by me some month ago already or my RG home, all papers and preprints freely available and very easy to understand (as most simple first order multiplicative math only involved, so no excuse for any one to time intellectual wise avoid to cross-check may claims themselves).

Dear Christian G. Wolf

The word "universal" is related to the concept of the continuum (that was the ancient interpretation of the nature of the universe). That means that a universal constant must exists independently from time and independently from position (place and moment).

Matter as a local concentration of energy didn't exist during the whole evolution of the universe. So every constant that is related to the existence of matter is not a universal constant, although I am not surprised if you find some constants categorized in this way in papers or even text books. I suppose that the authors want to express that these constants don’t change over time as long as the related phenomena exist.

Nevertheless, if you think that there exist more constants that are really universal, don't hesitate to name them, because I can use it in mathematical models.

The “physical” reason that h and c are universal constants can be determined because both constants are directly related to the basic properties of the universal electric field and its corresponding magnetic field. Both basic quantum fields existed during the whole evolution of the universe and are expressed in universal conservation laws too (energy, momentum).

But matter and the related strong force, weak force and gravitational force emerged from local concentrations of energy, created by the basic properties of the electromagnetic field and the Higgs field. So it is all about the way we categorize concepts.

An example. Discrete space and quantized space have nearly the same meaning. The term "quantum foam" means also the same. But if I use the term "quantum foam" in a paper I suggest that the meaning corresponds with the opinion of Archibald Wheeler about the concept (he coined "quantum foam"). Unfortunately his interpretation is directly related with quantum mechanics instead of quantum field theory, although his description of the mathematical properties of "quantum foam" are nearly identical with quantized space. So it is not always easy to decide which term to use when we write papers.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm ,

many thanks for your thorough welcome fully detailed reply and related background semantical information, actually not known to me at this detail level (it’s really welcome).

While there are substantial model inherent differences between our theories, I’d think a very deep look would find more common ground that what one might believe at first sight.

I cannot enforce, but warmhartedly endorse anyone to take iSpace less as a competing scientific model, but rather the option to get maximal integer geometric insight in one’s own (even fully different structured) model as exact constants of nature are what all models and theories are united with.

Thanks and kind regards,

Christian

Dear Christian G. Wolf

Today Phys.org mentioned a paper about the influence on the energy of electrons by surrounding atoms. See: https://phys.org/news/2024-03-quantum-energy-electron-tuned-atoms.html and https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-024-01390-6.pdf

The measured values were done with a sample time of about 10-12 second. That is impressive, but the energy changes within the spatial volume that is “occupied” by an electron are about 6 x 10-23 second. If you prefer the obscure Planck units, the number of changes are about 6 x 10-43 second…

However, this number of changes doesn’t represent the whole volume of the electron, these changes are related to the “fine structure” of the electromagnetic field. So it is about a structure with a metric of 0,5 x 10-15 m (or if you prefer the Planck length, it is about a metric of 1 x 10-35 m)

The consequence is that every value we use for calculations are average values. That doesn’t mean that these values cannot be used as a physical constant (if the value seems to be invariant during measurements at different moments and under different conditions). But it shows that real accuracy is not possible, not at least because every value represents a mutual relation between phenomena, so in modern physics there are no absolute values (yet).

The speed of light is supposed to be an accurate physical constant. In most of the grand theories (physics) it represents a (constant) velocity that is measured with the help of a known distant and a fixed amount of time.

But if we focus on the structure of the electromagnetic field the value of the constant speed of light depends on the “density” of the units of the structure of the electromagnetic field. But the “density” in every direction is determined by the geometrical arrangement of the scalars of the Higgs field.

The consequence is that if we “scan” the volume of the universe like it is a sphere and we are the “measurement instrument” in the centre of the sphere, the “density” of the structure of the electromagnetic field is not identical in every direction. The image above shows the imaginary sphere.

The black lines on the surface of the sphere represent the positions where the density of the electromagnetic field is equal. But in between these black lines there are enclosed squares and triangles on the surface of the sphere that have not the same density in the direction of the centre of the sphere. The squares represent an increase of the density and the triangles a decrease of the density in relation to the density of the black lines. The maximal difference is about 7% of the density of the black lines, thus the centres of the squares and the triangles differ about 14%.

The theoretical consequence is that we have to redefine the constant velocity of the speed of light. Because it is a constant in relation to the linear propagation of 1 quantum of energy within the metric of one single unit of the structure. It cannot be a true constant over long distances in every direction. Unfortunately, the value of Planck’s constant in relation to electromagnetic waves is also influenced by the density of the structure of the electromagnetic field.

So if we treat the constant speed of light (c) and the fixed amount of energy of Planck’s constant (h) as concepts of universal constants, there is no conceptual problem. But if we treat both universal constants as (true) absolute values we are kidding ourselves. I am afraid that most physicists don’t like this opinion.

With kind regards, Sydney

“【No.28】The Relation Between Mathematics and Physics (4) - Could All Physical Constants be Unified to a set of Fundamental Constants of Nature? …. Should this set of Constants Originate in the Equati ons that Dominate the Existence and Evolution of Nature?

There are over 300 physical constants in physics [1][2], c, h, G, e, α, me, mp, θ, μ0, g, H0, Λ, ...... with different definitions [3], functions and statuses…”

To answer the question above it is necessary before to understand – what is a fundamental phenomenon/notion “Matter” – and a few other fundamental ones “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, which are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in mainstream physics, and so in the mainstream really everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., are transcendent, etc., as well.

The phenomena/notions above can be, and are, rigorously scientifically defined only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- where it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set; including Matter – and everything in Matter - is nothing else than some informational system that is designed, organized, exists, and constantly evolves, be governed by the set of fundamental laws/links/constants;

- and more concretely in physics in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force , which is based on the conception.

In the model it is rigorously scientifically shown that Matter is based on a binary reversible logics, so Matter’s ultimate base is the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP.

So everything in Matter is/are some specific disturbances in the lattice, which constantly and always move in the utmost universal “kinematical” 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z), having so 4 velocities, c, [bold means 4D vector] that have the determined by FLE parameters above identical absolute values, c= lP/tP, and so most of the disturbances have 4D momentums P=mc and energies E=Pc.

Besides the Matter’s fundamental set above contains a number of logical rules, that determine concrete interactions of the disturbances, actions of which are observed as action of “fundamental Nature forces”. The rules also “are written” in the disturbances, mostly close-loop cyclic algorithms, so every FLE has corresponding additional to the “kinematical” degreases of freedom at changing its state, for 4[5] known Forces corresponding space dimensions are g,w,e,s dimensions.

So really in Matter the really fundamental constants are that relate to the above, i.e. that are Planck length, Plank time, and strengths of Forces, i.e. [why? – see the linked above paper]

- Gravity Force constant, G=ћc/MP2, where MP is Planck mass;

- Electric Force constant, e=√(αћc), where α is the fine structure constant;

- Nuclear [and with a well non-zero probability Strong] Force constant, gN~√[(1-√α)ћc].

- and corresponding constants for Strong and Weak Forces, but in this case interactions inside hadrons are seems determined by some additional to Nuclear Force rules.

The post is rather long already, so note also that SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO30The_Relation_Between_Mathematics_and_Physics_6-Are_Planck_Scales_Constants_Parameters_or_Principlesand

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Internal_and_external_problems_of_theoretical_physics

- are relevant to this thread question.

Cheers

Christian G. Wolf

Sydney Ernest Grimm

Gerd Pommerenke

The initial parameters for constructing the material world are the wavelength, the period of its oscillations and their energy for the Unified Field of the Universe.

Further, all fundamental physical constants are formed from them, which change during the life of the Universe, since symmetry violations, parity violations and other probabilistic processes arise in it.

And digital dependencies FOREVER remain the same abstractions.

I have already spoken about this many times. Therefore, one must trust the real CODATA measurements, but correct them taking into account these abstract mathematical calculations. But only! They are not the main ones, but the nature of the material world and the Universe.

So let’s continue [see SS post on page 5]

As that is pointed in the post, in Matter Planck length, Plank time, and strengths of Gravity, Weak, Electric, and Strong/Nuclear, Forces, which are actualized fundamentally by using the fundamental elementary physical action – Planck constant ћ, are the main fundamental constants; including that relates to “non-conventional Forces”, that, nonetheless, really act and contribute into corresponding potential energies of interacting elements of material systems – “spin-spin”, “spin-orbital momentum”, etc. “Forces”, but which are also actualized by using again ћ.

At that note, that really at least Electric and Nuclear Forces, are determined by one fundamental constant – the fine structure constant α – and, of course, eventually by Planck length, time, elementary action.

Besides the above there exist a number of other fundamental constants that make Matter as it is, first of all that are rest masses, m, of particles that constitute stable matter – protons, neutrons and electrons, m=ћω/c2, ω=c/NlP, where N is the logical length of a particle close-loop algorithm [more here see the SS&VT model papers that are linked in the post on page 1, or for first reading SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_particle_be_its_own_antiparticle],

so m=ћtP/(NlP2), i.e. in this case the real fundamental constants are Np, Nn, and Ne. Particles are specific cyclic disturbances in the FLE lattice that are created at impacts on a lattice’s FLE, so at large impacts a large zoo of some other algorithms are started, but these algorithms have some defects, and the articles decay.

Note also, that in mainstream physics yet a few years ago the 2015 list of utmost universal constant was rather long, see https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2015/10/fundamental-constants-latest-and-last, while didn’t contain Planck units besides Planck constant,

- but after the SS&VT model has became well known, despite that isn’t published in “conventional journal”, now a lot of fundamental points in the mainstream are correspondingly corrected – without any references to the model,

- in this case the recent list of universal constants in https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Category?view=html&Universal.x=85&Universal.y=7 is:

characteristic impedance of vacuum

Newtonian constant of gravitation

Newtonian constant of gravitation over h-bar c

Planck constant

Planck constant in eV/Hz

Planck length

Planck mass

Planck mass energy equivalent in GeV

Planck temperature

Planck time

reduced Planck constant

reduced Planck constant in eV s

reduced Planck constant times c in MeV fm

speed of light in vacuum

vacuum electric permittivity

vacuum magnetic permeability

- what is quite more adequate to the reality. Though note, that the pointed above fundamental constants that relate to “vacuum electromagnetic properties” really aren’t of course, fundamental constants, that is introduced for purely technical reason in the SI system;

- while, again, really everything in Matter is determined by lengths, time, and physical action, so in the much more natural at studying of Matter CGS system these constants are equal to 1. Examples for the Forces strengths equations in CGS, so without some ε0, etc. are in the SS post on page 5.

Cheers

CGS units are (and always have been) physically inconsistent nonsense and real scientists hence only use MKS/A SI units while however best would be to only use iSpace-SI (in labs) and iSpace-IQ units in theoretical work (using no human artefacts whatsoever) any more, just true proven physical primary quantized base units Volt, Ampere, Second and Meter (Kelvin doesnt count here as being lossless convertible to the aforementioned four primary ones).

Gödel showed that even Mathematics is an Incompleteness.

This is not understood by everyone.

In translation, it says that Mathematics is a system.

Systems are always incomplete because systems are limited to the ingredients of their systems.

Already by pointing out that the alphabet is its own system that is not related to Mathematics do we have all the evidence we need to prove that Mathematics is not covering everything.

Note how the word Incompleteness does not mean that something is missing, for that is not the case.

Mathematics can cover everything there is to cover by Mathematics. Yet Mathematics is limited in covering everything.

The distinction is so small, yet so important, that many have to work hard to wrap their heads around this.

In simple words: When using Mathematics, then one is automatically inside the Mathematical system. Mathematics is limited to being mathematics.

--

Could all physical constants be unified to a set of fundamental constants of nature?

How can we unify all when all aspects are in essence self-based and not based on the other aspects.

Why are folks so obsessed with making the Broken Vase whole?

My guess: Folks mis-label Space. They think space is a physical entity, and so the universe must be a unit, and something that is a unit must show unity among all.

Space is not a physical entity. It is a phenomenon. This is very important to understand because it turns the Universe inside-out, into its opposite. It reverses order of all energy/matter there is when Space is seen as a physical entity. What is up is then made down, and what is down is then made up. Horrible!

Dear Fred-Rick Schermer

I have been trying to understand Gödel's Theorem in a non-mathematical way and end up with only a vague feeling.

Your seemingly light tone is aphoristic and radiates the flavor of a Persian poet. I believe shows the essence of Gödel's theorem.

Whether physics can transcend mathematics or whether physics is merely a realistic subset of mathematics is a fundamental question. My view is that as long as physics is a causal system, it must be mathematically describable and complete.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Fred-Rick Schermer

Regarding your cubic quark model ["On an Abstract Model about Quark Creation" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380000515_On_an_Abstract_Model_about_Quark_Creation ], how about changing it to three orthogonal complex plane Euler rings? i.e., three heiωt located in separate planes in 3D coordinates,which would fulfill your description equally well and more realistically. And also focuses on explaining how 3 quarks make up protons and neutrons: ddu=he-iωdt+he-iωdt+he+iωut, uud=he+iωut+he+iωut+he-iωdt ，h is Planck constant, ωu, ωd are frequency (energy) of u and d quark respectively. They are not both stable structures, depending on ω and the external spacetime. Under certain energy conditions, there is a transition between u and d. This is called β-decay.

If you are interested, you can read the humble article :"Supersymmetric Standard Model (SSM)" and references there; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380105087_Supersymmetric_Standard_Model_SSM

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Chian Fan

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your curiosity.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems are as simple as it gets. Yet it is the simplicity that confuses many great thinkers because they are looking for a deeper truth, whereas the theorems are very superficial in the most important way possible.

I work with examples, and what I am trying to show is that all systems we use are incompletenesses. If we consider a system to be a completeness, then we involve ourselves in a fallacy.

The ancients Greeks made the most famous mistake in this respect (but so did many ancient cultures) of trying to appoint gender to everything, such as declaring the moon female (or male).

Indeed, when we engage ourselves in the male/female system, then all options are mentioned already with these two options, and this appears to be then an all-inclusive enumeration.

But try to decide if a rock is male or female and we should come away with understanding that this system is not all-inclusive. A rock is neither male or female, so the system falls short of identifying the rock. The system must return both options for the rock as zero.

With this example, Chian, I hope you see that the male/female system is an incompleteness. We cannot use it to describe everything correctly. It is limited to what it is.

--

Mathematics itself is also an incompleteness, but the confusing part is that it appears to be all-inclusive. It appears that we can use it to describe everything we want to describe.

Yet the truth is that we can only use the mathematical system to describe the reality in as far as it lets itself be described mathematically.

The simple example I already provided is that the alphabet can do things that mathematics cannot do. The alphabet or any system of writing shows that mathematics is limited to being mathematics. It does not matter how formidable mathematics is, because it is formidable. It is limited to being mathematics.

The more complex example is looking at the building blocks of the decimal system:

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

To keep the example simple, I am declaring this a complete set, a full enumeration of all building blocks of the decimal system.

Now, we can declare this complete entire set with 1. We have 1 set of building blocks, agree?

Do you see that I jumped systems?

I went from the decimal system to another system (for instance, the binary system) and most folks would not have given it any attention.

The 1 inside the set = unit.

The 1 of the set = whole.

These two 1s are not identical because they are not from the same system.

Even within mathematics, there are different systems.

--

I hope you see what I mean with superficiality of great importance. Both 1s are 1s indeed, but their truths are not identical. That's the entire perspective that Gödel captured real well.

As long as we do not recognize our tools as tools, we can, for instance, confuse the word tree with an actual tree. Again, their truths are not the same.

The brain is a fantastic tool, yet it is a tool. The universe is not inside the human brain, and yet the human brain can capture the universe inside the human brain.

In essence, that is what Gödel showed. The incompleteness of his theorems does not mean that there is anything missing. It just means that the minute we communicate, or try to capture something, that we are then always inside a specific system. No specific system can capture the whole of everything there is.

--

Lastly, the word universe itself. Is not a unit (though many people consider this word as if it is a unit). Rather, the word universe is a concept, it is a label, that by itself captures all there is without declaring anything in detail at all.

In another example, there are conflicting parts in the word Human Being that are not expressed because we stepped away from the male/female system and embraced instead a generic version of what we all are. The specific parts of male/female got replaced by an abstraction that does not go into these details.

Mathematics is a system of abstractions only. So, we have a superficial truth about mathematics here, because it does not show all details. It shows everything it can show but in a mathematical manner only. Superficial, but utmost important to recognize.

Gödel's theorems are a beautiful and simple way to understand that we are not living in the original state of the universe. We exist in the result, and the original state does no longer exist; it broke.

Thank you for being curious, Chian.

Chian Fan

Interesting thoughts, Chian, I had not thought about that option yet, and will investigate.

What works well with the 4D Cube is that the Incompleteness that I am looking for can be expressed.

In this case, I am referring with the term Incompleteness to the fact that everything we can lay our hands on is in one way or another specific, and therefore distinct from how other things are specific.

--

No quark exists by itself; neutrons and protons contain three quarks each, and this should tell us already that quarks were not produced under current conditions.

Obviously, we can move in deeper still at smaller subatomic levels and find additional data of great interest, but that does not change the conclusion that the specific conditions that created these outcomes are no longer in place.

This got forged under extreme conditions.

--

For the quarks, the model I am using for their creation environment is extreme pressure + torque. Both need to be in place. Pressure and friction.

Then, if we take a single cube from this extreme environment, then the 'breakage' (make that perhaps 'internal breakage') occurred in four different directions, as shown with the red-green lines in the visual. Meanwhile, the overall pressure was itself directional as well (singular in direction, inward motion). That means there are five manners of influence per each pyramid in that cube.

Once the extreme pressure had subsided (at the CMBR), the quarks would align themselves immediately, at extreme first opportunity, because they have one condition that must be overcome: their Incompleteness.

The specific position is found with the tip of the pyramids. The position is not found with the planes of the cube. Rather, it is the extreme center of the Cube in which the Incompleteness got established.

--

Let me try describe that center incompleteness first with the terms internal and external. I hope you are able to follow me, and apologies for making this such a long description.

The external 6 planes of the 3D cube are external aspects, situated on the outside. In regular 3D, we have planes indicating left-right, front-back, up-down.

Yet with the 4D cube, one can see that there is also the in-out pair of directions.

So, if you are sitting in a room, you can envision it spatially as 3D and be fine. Yet when you envision it spatially as 4D, then there is an internal aspect as well that is not described with 3D.

To get an idea, stand in the center of the room and recognize how you are in the center of the space. All of a sudden, you yourself are part of the picture in 4D, also taking up space in that spatial room yourself.

Meanwhile, with 3D, you are not necessarily part of the room because all your brain is capturing is the space of the room. Let's declare this capturing as abstract. Nothing wrong with that, and you yourself are not (part of) the subject matter.

Nevertheless, something vital is then missing: you yourself.

I hope you are okay recognizing that the brain can do two things that are basically the same with then one being realistic and the other being an abstraction.

--

If you get this, then we can go back to the creation moment of the quarks.

It is with their tips of their pyramids that these areas of warped original energy are most confused. Apologies for the anthropomorphic approach all of a sudden, but I need to invent words here to describe what is going on.

The four internal lines of breakage inside the 4D Cube are each 'simple' breakage points (meaning a clear delineation between sides). In the center of the cube where all six tips of pyramids come together, that is where the four lines all break in unison. That is not a 'simple' situation.

This is where the original state of energy is completely pulled out of whack.

Conclusion: each pyramid/each quark is a certain amount of original energy, and while the bottom of the pyramid has four distinct corners that declare the direction of the pyramid in very clear terms, the closer to the tip of the pyramid the more the truth of that direction is put in question.

--

Let me state this in a different manner, Chian, before explaining the situation further. Please bear with me.

If we have a pyramid with four corners representing four different realities of human beings, then we have:

Male, female, young and old. These four options are all very clear by themselves. Each position is either true or not-true.

Yet when we walk this up to the tip of the pyramid, then we can only find a single truth with human being. In top, we cannot have a single person who is male, female, young and old all at the same time. That person does not exist.

So, the top, trying to be singular, is one-removed from the specific truths.

I have been told that the word pyramid means "One that comes forth from height."

Structurally, that means that the tip of the pyramid is indeed visible for us, but it is not found at ground level. The word human being is an abstract truth, for instance, hanging above the specific truths.

--

So, that is what the quarks are, packages of energy that are mostly very simple and truthful, but in one spot their are completely incomplete in essence.

As soon as pressure subsided enough for the quarks to be no longer in an environment of extreme pressure (i.e. this happened at the CMBR), the quarks have no choice but to combine two or three of them to make the tips of their pyramids be (more) complete.

For instance, one can say that a female is young. Or a female is old. Or a young person is male, or an old person is male. One cannot say that a person is male, young, old, and female.

The greatest set is combining three, not four.

A female can, for instance, be in-between being young and old, and as such we have a specific combination of three. In truth, one will be more truthful than the second one. The third aspect will be fully truthful.

Delving into the specific level, we will either end up with one part being correct and two being iffy, or we end up with two parts being correct because the one that is iffy is not fully correct. For instance, a male who is definitively young, but on his way to being older.

Apologies for the human examples. I have tried to find other examples, but this is the simplest way to express the specific conditions. The point is that no tip of any pyramid can be all-inclusive, and that two parts are the minimum requirement to declare a truth, and that three parts is the absolute maximum to declare a truth.

Again, nearly all of the pyramid is truthful and just fine. It is the specific spot of the pyramid that is the issue.

--

There is another specific issue going on with protons. Protons are three parts in combination but two of the three parts declare themselves correct and the other part as incorrect. Meanwhile, the third one is declared correct by all three. So, there is a charge, a form of disagreement between two of them. One can call that a power struggle, a charge.

Then, the fourth component is pulled in from the remaining original field of energy, which is itself normally neutral.

The electron provides the neutralizing aspect to the positive charge of the proton with being negative in charge to the same level as the proton is charged positively. That way, both disagreeing quarks can maintain their position of disagreement and this will not undermine their otherwise precarious situation.

--

Apologies once more how I am just using language from different systems to explain the visualization of the 4D Cube. I am really short on expressing this in any other way.

The quarks are damaged original energy. Extreme pressure + torque caused original immaterial energy to get pulled apart in very specific spots.

Original energy did not have any overall disagreements in the original state of the universe. Yet since the mishap, there is now also specific disagreement expressed at an absolute manner, and this is expressed with the distinct tips of the pyramids that must be specific themselves, and can therefore not agree unless established as part of a larger agreement.

Neutrons are neutral already (but an agreement) and protons are neutral only together with the electrons.

Neutrons and protons are therefore agreements that got established at the CMBR. This form of energy of neutron and protons exists in its own state (i.e. this energy is now self-based), whereas the electrons and any original energy that is immaterial (some say that is 96% of all energy in the universe) is not self-based, but is rather collective in behavior and essence, never in disagreement.

Chian,

Will you try using this information and apply the Euler rings to it? That would be fun, right?

Dear Fred-Rick Schermer

If it was my curiosity that made you write such a long and informative answer that could benefit everyone, I am happy for myself!

All that is left for you is gratitude! Thank you for taking a physics problem to the new realm.“Where words come out from the depth of truth, Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection.”（Omar Khayyam）. Obviously, your description of quark confinement from incompleteness goes beyond attempts to start from appearances and is more capable of revealing the will of the Creator.

Your answers are a concise textbook of profound ideas that intertwine philosophy, mathematics, physics, and even life, and need to be read over and over again. For me, it is still difficult to comprehend, but it feels incredibly refreshing and unobtrusive. “Into this Universe, and Why not knowing, Nor Whence, like Water willy-nilly flowing: And out of it, as Wind along the Waste,I know not Whither, willy-nilly blowing.”（Omar Khayyam）. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is probably just this, like the singularities present in exact equations, whose information cannot be distinguished. is “The specific position is found with the tip of the pyramids” the case? Like the irrational numbers present in The set of real numbers, which cannot be expressed in finite numbers; or as in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which are just probabilities; or even more so, the axioms of physics, which have no cause and no reason.“Once the extreme pressure had subsided (at the CMBR), the quarks would align themselves immediately, at extreme first opportunity, because they have one condition that must be overcome: their Incompleteness.” Is this so?

The pursuit of truth is always a difficult road, and it is fortunate to be able to see what lies beneath the light, and I wish I could be on the same level as you to understand these expressions: “The brain is a fantastic tool, yet it is a tool.” “Mathematics is a system of abstractions only.” “It shows everything it can show but in a mathematical manner only.” “So, the top, trying to be singular, is one-removed from the specific truths.”.......Fortunately，“the specific conditions that created these outcomes (quarks) are no longer in place.”，“As soon as pressure subsided enough for the quarks to be no longer in an environment of extreme pressure (i.e. this happened at the CMBR), the quarks have no choice but to combine two or three of them to make the tips of their pyramids be (more) complete.” The processes are consistent with what I imagined. I use the term “Survival of the Fittest” to express this situation. The proper structure and spacetime conditions play a crucial role. In CMBR extreme circumstances, "quark" structures must be formed, but none of them can be stabilized independently. Only when combinations take place and new structures (2 or 3 quarks) change the stabilizing conditions of the old ones (1 quark), they can survive. This process can be extended to nuclei, atoms, molecules, all the way to macroscopic objects. This is logical.

But regarding the concrete quark models, we have a different starting point. With three generations and six quarks, their structures should be considered the same, but there may be deficiencies if the mass differences are not able to be reflected in the model. I still need to mull over your description and appreciate the reasoning, e.g., “with the 4D cube, one can see that there is also the in-out pair of directions.”

If I compare the Euler ring model to your theory, does incompleteness correspond to instability? It still needs to be explored.

If one can truly understand Gödel's theorem in one's life, one's life is almost complete; and if one can understand what you call "Broke", it is real complete. Thank you for your generosity in providing us all with this opportunity! I like your style and will continue to read and understand it.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

------------

* My intention is purely good and respectful, but there may be errors in English expression, so please correct them automatically.

Dear Fred-Rick Schermer

You write "Unity is then a position that is non-existent for the overall level, while Unity can be available at specific levels." in your book "The Proof of Nothing" [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377747282_The_Proof_of_Nothing] How can I understand it directly and quickly? You're talking about the functions of "unity" and "0" here, which are both of interest to me.

On the issue of Unity, there is a question "Can different forms of energy be unified?" [https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO10_Can_different_forms_of_energy_be_unified2] in addition to the question “Could All Physical Constants be Unified to a set of Fundamental Constants of Nature?” here.

You talked about the deterministic role of 0, which is exactly one of my questions, "The Relation Between Mathematics and Physics (2) - Is the Meaning of Zero Unified in Different Situations in Physics?" [https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO26The_Relation_Between_Mathematics_and_Physics_2-Is_the_Meaning_of_Zero_Unified_in_Different_Situations_in_Physics].

All inquiries are incomplete. If you have the time and interest, please browse around. I'm sure there will be many who will look forward to your insights.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Chian Fan

You are kind, Chian, and I feel honored that you like my work this much.

An important word to understand is synergy. It is my understanding that physicists are aware of it, but they do not use it all that much. Let me see if I can create a good storyline around it.

In my view, the universe is a result, which means there cannot be a single level at which we find unification. At minimum, one must have two levels to get a decent grip on reality.

I claim that the Structure of Everything is a pyramid, which would mean that ancient peoples all across the globe already worked out the Structure of Everything, eons ago. That means I cannot claim to be the first to see this, which is just fine with me.

The simple example of the pyramid is filled out with father, mother, daughter, son, each placed at one of the four corners of the pyramid, at ground level.

Walking up the pyramid toward the top, the word family can appear, a single word that is nevertheless not singular. Or, it could be Family Member, and as such this is a label that fits all four options at ground level. In top of the pyramid, we are then in an abstract reality because the specific aspects are not included here. We need to get down to ground level to express the specific aspect, which forces us to abandon the idea of unification.

No family member can be father, mother, daughter and son at the same time.

--

In Physics, the forces are expressed with weak-nuclear force, strong-nuclear force, electromagnetic force and the gravitational force.

They, too, can fit in the pyramid, yet something special needs to be incorporated here.

Twice do we place 'oppositional pairs' at the corners.

Weak-nuclear force in opposite position from strong-nuclear force, and electric force in opposite position from magnetic force.

Notice how the gravitational force is not mentioned yet. I split up the electromagnetic force into its two components.

There is a surprise that the pyramid provides. To show that, I am going to replace the forces with colors first.

Red and blue in opposite corners to one another, and yellow and green in opposite corners to one another.

Moving in direction toward the center, toward the other colors, the pyramid becomes a blending of these colors, and this blending contains distinctions, too, from bottom to top.

In the center of the pyramid, all colors blend into a gray outcome. The bottom is darker gray, the top lighter gray.

The gray area has the shape of a cone.

Where the pyramid has sharp edges, the blended gray color is smooth.

The cone is the tool to show how gravity functions.

Cut slices in the cone and one gets:

* Circle

* Ellipse

* Parabola

* Hyperbola

These are all the motions celestial bodies can make moving through space in relationship to one another.

The point is then that gravity can be unified with the other forces, but particularly when seen as the synergistic outcome of these other forces. As mentioned, there are then two levels, not one level, for all forces. It is an intrinsic outcome, started from the abstract pyramid and leading to the abstract cone.

With gravity as synergistic outcome, one can also declare the other forces as specific forces, and gravity as a generic force. Gravity is associated with any mass, whereas the other forces are specific outcomes of matter or energy.

--

Planet Earth is a unit, so we do see how a specific form of Unity can get established inside the larger reality called the universe. The universe is not a place of Unity, but there is order in the chaos. In my view, the largest reality for the organization of matter is a galaxy.

--

One can accept zero to be part of every system, or of every outcome.

This has led to Intuitive Mathematics in which there is always a third way. For instance, next to yes and no, there is 'maybe' as well.

So while there are in total just two answers (for instance, male and female), there is still a third option. Take a rock, for instance, and one has to return the question male or female with two zeros. The rock is real, the male/female system 'just' a system, and it must therefore contain the zero option, the way out. The system does not apply to the rock, there are third outcomes.

No system can return a completeness at the overall level or reality.

Zero is therefore not the unifying principle either. Zero declares that there are no unified principles (at the largest level).

It is with zero that we can have the space to consider the decimal system and the binary system. Both systems can do anything, mathematically, the other system can do as well. And yet they are not the same systems. All thanks to zero that did allowed other options to come into being just as easily as any other system.

Chian,

I followed you to one other thread N010. Let's see what happens? Thank you again for your kind words. I appreciate it.

Chian Fan

Chian, I decided to write a longer article about how the quarks present us the foundation of the material universe.

I hope you enjoy it and help me promote it.

Thank you, sir.

Preprint On Quarks Explaining Our Universe

Dear Fred-Rick Schermer

Thank you very much for your philosophical and imaginative descriptions of some important physical concepts . They are fascinating enough.

But to understand these descriptions of yours in depth, it is also necessary to pursue their precise meaning.

"In my view, the universe is a result, which means there cannot be a single level at which we find unification."

If we don't give a clear definition of "the universe", how can we recognize it as a result when we don't know what "the universe" is, how extensive it is, or what it contains? Are you suggesting that it is God's creation? Otherwise, whose result do we recognize it as? And how is it a result? Why is this "who" not contained within the universe, not part of it?

"I claim that the Structure of Everything is a pyramid,".

If you're making an analogy, a model, that's a good one. But if you are referring to reality, we need to ask on what basis is the pyramid the most basic structure? Is it the simplest geometric shape? It doesn't appear to be. What is a basic structure? I think it's an indivisible structure. Is the pyramid indivisible? Is the pyramid variable in size? Is the pyramid a stationary structure?

"In my view, the largest reality for the organization of matter is a galaxy."

Does "largest" mean largest in size? Or energy? If a galaxy collapses into a black hole, it becomes the smallest. Isn't a black hole a reality?

The meaning of "zero" is profound. I have copied your points into a special thread for further understanding.[https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO26The_Relation_Between_Mathematics_and_Physics_2-Is_the_Meaning_of_Zero_Unified_in_Different_Situations_in_Physics]

I look forward to your answers if you have the time.Thank you in advance!

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Chian Fan

Excellent and direct questions, Chian. You have an accurate mind, focused.

The pyramid helps declare the answers, since it is an abstract tool that allows the mind to capture reality.

The square of 1 is 1, and we find it in top position of the pyramid.

The square of 2 is 4, and we find four corners at the base of the pyramid.

This alone declares that there are two positions captured in the pyramid. It desires to be one and not-one at the same time. Ordinarily, that is not possible. Except... it is possible because it is an abstract tool.

Mathematics provides us abstractions, with 1 + 1 = 2 not telling us all that much. An abstract structure is provided as tool, but all by itself it does not mean anything. Only when we state that 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples, only then do we have something captured that is real.

That brings us to science because it is nothing more than capturing reality based on very specific grounds. It does not capture all there is by itself. We use this excellent methodology as a tool.

Gödel showed for mathematics how mathematics is 'just' a system.

Einstein's use of relativity proclaims the same reality.

The word Universe must therefore be understood in its own system, which is language. I also know it with the words Omniverse and the double term Whole-All as well.

In physics, the word Universe is meaningless. There is no scientific word Universe. Physicists borrowed it from regular language because physicists like to complete their physics. This completion, however, involves a non-scientific step. They jumped systems based on their desire; physics is also an incompleteness.

With Universe, there is an all-inclusive word that captures all that science can appoint plus all that science cannot appoint.

It is like 'human being' that exists one level above the specifics captured with man, woman, child and senior. There is no single human being, never was and never will be, who is male, female, young and old at the same time.

We capture one and not-one all the time in our minds. Scientists are the same in that respect like every other person on the planet.

Physicists do accept certain aspects as a given. The origin of the forces, for instance, is not explained in physics; they are 'simply' accepted as a given. They are what they are. Same with the immaterial energy that needs to be accepted as a given if one follows the Big Whisper model. Just like the Lambda-CDM model, both these Big Bang models accept that there was a resulting outcome of matter.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is (or is claimed to be) the oldest scientific data we have, and as such anything prior to the CMBR is not factual, except in light of the resulting data.

Immaterial energy does not need to be explained when accepted as a given. Yet one can discuss whether the immaterial epoch of the universe was conscious or not. Personally, I accept it as conscious, but the story can be told from a mechanical perspective just as well, avoiding the question about consciousness.

One can give Energy an additional aspect, described in no more details than as directed. Whether there was a Director involved or not is fun to think about, yet there is no need to pick one or the other option. My choice would be that of a collective, so no Director and no truly individual parts. Yet this is just about the prior state, which is guided by the same physical laws we know today, but whose completeness cannot be captured fully since our perspectives are all based on incompletenesses.

If there were a Director, that Director is now in pieces. If there were a single collective, that collective is now in pieces. The omelet was part once of an egg, yet the omelet is a result, so the egg must no longer be whole.

Spinoza made us look at ourselves and declared that the further back in time we go, the fewer words we have available to express that reality; our words, our tools, they peter out. The Aboriginals declare the same with their Dreamtime. We capture reality from our current perspectives, so we are limited if we want to capture the earlier reality, before there was matter.

Today, viewing matter, the largest amount of matter will be some enormous star I can hardly wrap my small head around. Yet it will be very insignificant in size compared to the enormous area in which matter is scattered.

To step toward a larger setting for matter larger than that largest star, one must encompass collectives of matter. That means that the next step in size is already an abandonment of matter in some respect. Here, we are then no longer involved with the size of matter, but rather with the spread and organization of matter.

This announces that there will be an end point after which the meaning of what we are capturing petered out. For me, the largest collective setting of matter that makes sense in an organizational manner is a galaxy. I am not fascinated by the Great Attractor, but it is an outcome indeed involving matter. I do not see much we can use this information for, but others may see some aspects that are fascinating.

I will discuss my view on black holes further if interested, Chian, but this reply is already very long. Still, the quick answer is that a black hole is directly related to the model from which it derived. If that model contains but one mistake, then the black hole outcome can be undermined.

I'm impressed with the questions you asked. My pleasure receiving them.

The thread question is scientifically answered in SS posts on pages 5, 6, and in detail in links in the posts..

Cheers

Dear Fred-Rick Schermer

Thank you very much for your generous, passionate and intelligent reply. Whether accepting or questioning your point of view, I am sure it must be very beneficial to try best to understand your way of thinking. Unfortunately I am not yet in a position to state my understanding as a whole, but can only question a particular sentence. Some questions require not only reading and thinking, but also paying attention for a long time to be able to understand.

——“Gödel showed for mathematics how mathematics is 'just' a system.” “ physics is also an incompleteness.” I am struggling to understand the full and precise meaning of this statement.

——“With Universe, there is an all-inclusive word that captures all that science can appoint plus all that science cannot appoint.” Can we know what that science cannot appoint?

—— “The origin of the forces, for instance, is not explained in physics; they are 'simply' accepted as a given.” The question that this statement triggered me to think about was, does force even need an origin? If force needed an origin, it would not be the most fundamental thing. This deserves a separate question for discussion about what force should really be.

—— “the immaterial energy ”; Does it refer to dark energy? Do we need to find a symmetrical position for everything? For example, matter energy vs. immaterial energy; bosons vs. fermions; ....... In that case, what does this mean?

—— “the Great Attractor”; is this a new term？

Hopefully, after reading your paper thoroughly, I will be able to resolve my query.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Chian Fan

Hi Chian,

A late reply, apologies for that.

Yes, you are absolutely right, it can take time to let information fall into place. Perhaps like being told about a specific tree and then trying to find out how it fits in with the forest (or hearing about the forest and then trying to fit all known trees in there)?

“Gödel showed for mathematics how mathematics is 'just' a system.” “physics is also an incompleteness.”

Let me try using a different approach, a different analogy. I'll use the mirror as the symbol to show that all systems are incompletenesses when trying to capture the whole of existence.

-- With mathematics as the mirror, we can see a reflection of reality that is very helpful in understanding that reality. This way, we have a tool and can use it accordingly. We receive insights, handy.

-- A distance has to be measured in the real world, and cannot be measured accurately in the reflection of a mirror. The mirror itself does not contain the distance.

If you get this point, then you should also recognize that all systems can be declared specific mirrors. They show us their specific information, but none of them equals the actual reality.

That is what Gödel showed. All systems we use are system specific. As such, they capture truths but they do not (as in never) capture the entire truth. A mirror can frame reality nicely, but it is not possible for a mirror to reflect back reality in its totality.

"Can we know what that science cannot appoint?"

In science we start with the data, and then we can jump higher to theoretical and hypothetical levels. Yet the reason for the higher jumps is to find something that is concretely possible. When we jump, we may end up forgetting that we jumped one level above the data and mistake the jump as the actual truth.

So, when starting with planet Earth, we begin with lots of scientific facts. Yet as soon as we move to a further range, like for instance the Solar System, then the captured information is no longer the same as before. Earth is a planet and it is material. Contrast this with the Solar System is Sun, planets, moons, space dust, and space, and therefore not just material.

That means there is a jump from one (simpler) reality to a more complex reality, and we better recognize what we did and not make them one kind.

I have just the perfect example for you.

Write your name on an envelope, your address, city, country, planet Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Universe, and hand it to the postal person.

The postal person will deliver the letter to the correct person (in this case you), but mentioned also how there are 8 items on the envelope, but only 7 are declaring a specific direction for delivering the letter.

The word Universe is non-functional for the postal person. It does not give any directions at all.

If you see this, then you should see that science can not capture a reality either that is functional for science with the word Universe.

Obviously, the postal person has no problem understanding what is meant with the word Universe, so that is not the issue. The word Universe is simply non-functional in this otherwise fully recognized system.

Some people do not like this, and they add the word Multiverse to the list. So now we have 9 items on the envelope, right?

Interestingly, the word Universe ended up becoming functional this time, because it is not just any Universe any longer; No, it is now our Universe.

Nevertheless, the empty can got kicked down the road. The non-functionality of the list is still the last item. This time, the word Multiverse is the non-functional word.

It does not matter how many larger and additional items we add to the list on the envelope, the last item will always be non-functional. Always.

"If force needed an origin, it would not be the most fundamental thing. This deserves a separate question for discussion about what force should really be."

I like your observation a lot, Chian. This is the crux to understand. When we want to understand everything, then we cannot place it on anything else. Everything has to be self-based. There is no alternative.

“immaterial energy”

This is a term I am using. With it, I point to all energy in the original state of the universe before there was matter. Plus, it also points to all energy in the current state of the universe that is not matter.

I'll leave it up to others to discuss dark matter, dark energy and the likes. As such, you need to forgive me for not declaring them better. I can, but I am not going to because these are terms used in specific models, and I am not certain all these models are correct models.

Nevertheless, I claim that the electrons belong to the realm of immaterial energy, and that it is the positive charge of the protons that is pulling the realm of immaterial energy to 'dip' into the material realm and produce electrons this way.

I view the electron as the tip of the iceberg of immaterial energy; the electron itself then indeed material.

Lastly, the Great Attractor is a term that is used for the Local Group (Milky Way and nearby galaxies). This group is part of the Laniakea Supercluster. The Local Group is bound to Laniakea. The Great Attractor is the central gravitation point of Laniakea. Basically, if we pull ourselves out and out and out, from Earth to Milky Way to Laniakea, then there is still some collective gravity in play at that larger level of Laniakea.

Again, I recognize this gravitational bending as happening, but I am not impressed : - )

Dear Fred-Rick Schermer

Thank you very much for your patience in explaining my questions， sentence by sentence in a million words. I am confident that Gödel's Theorem will eventually be understood and that everyone will see your point of view. Although there may be differences of opinion in some areas, it doesn't matter. What matters is that we agree in the pursuit of logical integrity.

"A mirror can frame reality nicely, but it is not possible for a mirror to reflect back reality in its totality. " Using the brain to comprehend reality may likewise presence Insurmountable Incompleteness .......In any case, it is expected that we will all be able to reach the furthest goal.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Chian Fan

Thanks for the good conversation, Chian, and for your supportive responses. I really appreciate it.

I think that, just as the forces of nature are the apparently different manifestation of the one original force, constants are also the operational elements of a single original constant, each in its specific context. To unify the forces and constants it is necessary to assume that there is a fundamental element within which natural phenomena develop and this is the ETHER

📷

Fe

Toni Scarmato Tomi, you are exactly right with ether and it’s relation to constants of nature.

iSpace theory has shown in ultimate integer geometric expressive form, what base entities under exactly what LEGO style so called „changed distance definition„ based geometry are forming such constants (exact calulated and presented for 50+ constants).

The two new unit systems, iSpace-IQ (the first to do away with any human artefacts whatsoever) and iSpace-SI (fully MKSA/SI compatible yet only using the base units Volt, Ampere, Second and Meter, each base quantized):

GoldenRatio Ampere - the quantum of Ampere, 1/6961 iSpaceSecond - the quantum of time (!) and 10*(1+111111+1) or 1111130 - the integer (!!) electron mass in iSpace-IQ unit system.

You really need the time to go line by line thru simple 60+ first order multiplicative equations in the following Mathematica document, which shows how to calculate e, h, and me in both eV and Kg and the 2 unit systems iSpace-IQ and iSpace-SI and how both relate, all in exact iSpace typical zero-error-bar implementations.

All the other iSpace related peer-reviewed, conference papers and preprints on my RG home show how and why all these century long open problems could be solved by iSpace theory comparatively easy - once and for all - by concluding a 10D spacetime based on 3D space, 6D subspace and 1D discrete time as prooven by the unavoidable existence of the quantum of time:

Method iSpace - Quick check of α and Φ0 from Markoulakis & Antonidakis

Preprint iSpace - Quantization of Time in iSpace-IQ Unit-System by 1/...

Article New novel physical constants metric and fine structure const...

Conference Paper iSpace - Deriving G from α, e, R∞, μ0 and Quantum of Gravita...

Conference Paper iSpace - Exact Symbolic Equations for Important Physical Con...

Preprint Hubble constant H0 is derived from Newtonian gravitational c...

Toni Scarmato

Christian G. Wolf - I repeat for the tenth time that the numbers remain unchanged forever, and the real physical constants depend on the conditions of the formation of the Universe, symmetry violations, pairing and other statistical laws.

Therefore, the main ones should be CODATA constants, and your constants are a reference point, and nothing more.

Valentyn Nastasenko I partially agree. It is clear that a system (CODATA) must be used for the units of measurement and the value of the constants but I am not convinced that the constants of nature are always the same everywhere and at all times.

Christian G. Wolf Very good I need to read the articles on iSpace. Thanks

Toni Scarmato

This is even more true since the DIGITAL OPTION OF CONSTANTS remains unchanged, forever.

Toni Scarmato „but I am not convinced that the constants of nature are always the same everywhere and at all times.“ such is fully your right to so - and follow any model you see fit best. But then you need another „iSpace“ style constant of nature explaining model with a minimum precision of CODATA values like 8-11 digits (with 1-2 digits of error bar and G as exception with only 4-5 and about 1 digit of error bar) let alone iSpace ability of zero error bar showing exact integer geometric equation relations (for practically any physical result equation and 50+ constants of nature native geometry and value). So … GOOD LUCK!

„numbers remain unchanged forever, and the real physical constants depend on the conditions of the formation of the Universe, symmetry violations, pairing and other statistical laws.“ Plain simple *NO*! It’s exactly the **OTHER WAY ROUND**!

And you (Valentin) refuse to accept simple scientific math based proof of results (like iSpace theory was able to, but your model was not …) hence you defend your one with unscientific „Rechthaberei“ style verbal exchange (scientific goes to listen to other one’s arguments in a mutual discussion, btw.).

If one dares to try to start a communication with here on RG or otherwise, where the only option for you seem to have the last word, or you outright stalk the person until and even when having asked you to stop (and blocked you long ago).

RG niveau has unfortunately imho passed the troll entry barrier some years ago, they - RG management under the influence of the technical scaling wise required money investment infusion of Microsoft (!) let it happen and we see the result.

Scientific work and open exchange is imho no longer truly possible on RG. Sad.

Toni Scarmato

Christian G. Wolf.

Blocking criticism towards yourself is a sign of your weakness.

An open exchange of opinions exists in ResearchGat. Otherwise there would be neither my remarks nor your answers to them.

And I clarified the gravitational constant in a PHYSICAL way, up to 12 digits, as I spoke about in the previous discussion. (There are publications). But you "didn't notice" it

Digital harmonies in the Universe exist because it is based on hexagonal quanta of space. I also talked about this in the previous discussion. Therefore, you should not be “surprised” by the connection between the constants and the number 6. But you also “didn’t notice” this, you are pleased to be the “discoverer” of digital harmonies, although they have already been known for hundreds of years, starting with the “Titius-Bode rule”.

Im am not at all blocking any criticism on iSpace or even myself, I opted out just if any baseless (!) criticism of you. Thats why I blocked you, as your style is (imho) useless to even try to argue.

Toni Scarmato

Christian G. Wolf

I was the first to support your work on ResearchGat. But when you began to “pull the blanket only on yourself,” I spoke out against it.

You have done a good THEORETICAL job. But it cannot replace real physics.

Currently, the PI number is determined with an accuracy of thousands of digits. However, for real physical formations there is no need for precision, more than 24 characters.

For fundamental physical facts, an accuracy of 12 digits is the extremely necessary level, since then Heisenberg’s uncertainty law comes into force.

After achieving an accuracy of 12-14 digits, all real values of physical constants “float”

Wrong. As could be. But you’ll never get it, so I don’t argue (with you). Energy conservation dictates - enforces - that everything needs to be exact. Heisenberg uncertainty is just a consequence of rotating with c LEGO exact 7D subspace-time (in 3D perceived only so called „continuum“). Every physical relation is an exact one.

The thread question is scientifically answered in SS posts on pages 5, 6, and in detail in links in the posts..

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko Sergey, while it is an interesting (and indeed far from absurd) model to think everything would be „just“ infomation it (imho) reaches too far with respect to all experimental results availabke.

While with looking at iSpace theories exactness it cannot at all be excluded to live in a fully data driven world, why don’t you then go the last mile and simply state we are living in a holodeck style virtual world?

Or isn’t that what your model or theory and mantra style repeated posts wanting to let us know over the last decade?

Toni Scarmato

Christian G. Wolf

This is possible in abstract mathematics.

In real physics there are no zero or infinite quantities.

There are very small ones, or very large ones, but FINITE.

Therefore, the limiting value is the minimum quantum of space of the Universe, less than which nothing can be. Zone 0 - at this level there is a quantum leap.

Hence the “blurring” of the maximum final accuracy indicator.

Multiples of quanta - per definition of such thing - are exact integer multiplies of one base quantum - whatever the (human defined like 1 (one) or GoldenRatio (1.61…) does not matter. Hence everything is exact.

„In real physics there are no zero or infinite quantities.“

iSpace theory never used (nor needs) zero or infinity. Quite the contrary, wrongly assumed 3D/4D continuum (integration) does so, and physically wrongly.

Please get your thoughts together before answering here (once again as stated already above last word “Rechhaberei“ style) stating both factually wrong and out of context.

Toni Scarmato

Christian G. Wolf

Where do “geniuses” like you come from who humiliate other people?

Using personal insults is a sign of weakness.

This is what those who cannot win an argument in any other way usually do.

Quantum is an integer value that is FURTHER changed by summation. But the quantum interval of Planck length 1.61 itself, as a QUANTUM UNIT, cannot be changed deeper. And assigning zeros (000000) after one also makes no sense. This interval is the factor limiting the accuracy of the last sign of the constants c, h, G, which form the Planck length and other unit Planck parameters. In addition, the value 1.61... from the “golden section” is significantly different from the value determined by CODATA, but it is their parameters, as mentioned earlier, that are primary, as actually established values.

Therefore, “Rechhaberei” refers to you. You are presenting your desired result as the actual result. Abstract digital quantities differ from real quantities in the Universe, since they are influenced by various external factors, incl. - of a probabilistic nature. I repeat once again - your work is good and useful, but it cannot replace real physical constants, but serves only as a guide for their values.

Toni Scarmato

I apologize for dragging you into this discussion. But Christian G. Wolf “blocked” me and will not read my remarks otherwise. My goal is to establish scientific truth.

Scientific truth comes from comparison of theory (like unavoidingly exact predicting results of iSpace due to its zero error bar design) to experimental results - and once predicted quantum of time in form of exactly 1/6961 iSpaceSecond has be found and confirmed you hopefully keep mouth shut.

Toni Scarmato

Christian G. Wolf

Search.

But time has a dimension t(s), and for you it is an abstraction.

It is true that theory and practice must be confirmed.

Valentyn Nastasenko Sorry but I'm only reading now. In discussions where unproven science comes into play, everyone must be free to express their opinion without imposing their truth. This is my thought.

Christian G. Wolf I'm reading your article on ISpace. I have a question. If I understand correctly, the constants in nature are linked to each other and can the units of measurement make them interchangeable? Thanks.

Toni Scarmato Tony, what does the term „units of measurement“ define (in you world, unclear to me)? All constants both quantum and cosmologic ines are indeed deeply related (as shown by iSpace theory).

Metric units (like SI) define base units, in case of SI Kg, Meter, Second, but in iSpace-SI only the 4 Volt, Ampere, Second, Meter, in iSpace-IQ only likewise iSpaceVolt, iSpaceAmpere, iSpaceSecond, iSpaceMeter).

Latter are surprisingly compatible (if not base unit value identities) except time, which is shown to have a quantum of 1/6961 iSpaceSecond and an SI definition induced (unknown so far!) human artefact of 47*14665487/10^24 (exactly). Both together form the so called iSpace-BaseTime or itB for short, when multiplied with GoldenRatio Ampere to give the electron charge.

iSpace-IQ „just“ get rid of this time artefact in all equations, but is otherwise metric value compatible to SI (fully unexpected also by myself). So only discrete time runs the quantum game, and with time prooven discrete everything is naturally quantized (thus proof i skip here, but is really simple to do if required).

The important physical ppint with iSpace units is, they base b primary geometrically quantized integer relations only and come with exact quantum values (like GokdenRatio, 1 (one) or 1/6961 and strict multiples (powers!) if them. Hence there is nothing like human artifacts defining them (298792458 is substituted by FSC alpha, where iSpace also knows the exact expression for, hence everything is exact.

Toni Scarmato “can the units of measurement make them interchangeable?“ what do you mean by interchangeable? A charge and a mass are two very different things which simoly cannot be „interchanged“ - ever.

You can replace mass by electrical base constants, however as iSpace is doing to reveal true physical base quanta are actually based on electric base units like Volt or Ampere.

Coulomb C = A*s, Mass Kg = V*A*s^3/m2, Energy E = V*A*s, Resistance Ohm = V/A and so on. Surprisingly even the very important Boltzmann constant kB can be replaced by such and exact expression (bringing quantum statistics and cosmology), so Kelvin would be otherwise never be able to be linked to Energy without at least some human artefact but it’s not required.

How "natural" are our constants?

We can build the following house to see how nature works and how we made it countable so far:

Imagine a 3D grid where each point consists of the property voltage with value in Volt (voltage field).

Each point has exactly 6 neighbours (up, down, left, right, front, rear) and one rule:

per time step the point's value gets the mean value of all 6 neighbour's values (balancing procedure).

If all points have the same value, nothing happens, no value will change.

If there is at least one value different, a voltage difference occurs and the balancing procedure changes the related values.

Goal is to always minimize differences locally, i.e., minimizing the sum of all voltage differences to neighbours.

This balancing procedure needs time, here time step by time step.

In the end, zooming out, this generates waves in 3D space (-> Maxwell's wave equation).

Simulations show that there is a non-integer number of time steps per period of such a wave, and also the generated wavelength is a non-integer number of grid positions.

But most important: there is one smallest possible wave at all!

And, there is exactly one speed of propagation of this wave within the grid (thus, in space)! We in our metric (SI) decided this speed to have the value of our speed-of-light c.

Additionally, the smallest duration of wave period is related to the PLANCK unit tpl in our SI, and the smallest wave's length is related to the PLANCK unit ℓpl in our SI.

The next step is to find the relationship between voltage differences and energy - we decided to use the elementary charge e in our SI to do this transformation:

E = e∙U.

We also have decided to transform wave period time into energy using the PLANCK constant h in our SI:

E = h∙c/λ.

With all these decisions, we finally can extract the unit of mass (kg) using

E = m∙c².

Sure, historically, kg, m and s were decided much earlier than all others,

but the later decided values of the constants e and h already contain them as historically defined.

Together with h and c, the PLANCK mass mpl can be derived from the PLANCK length ℓpl:

mpl = h/(2π∙ℓpl∙c).

Thus, since G/c² = ℓpl/mpl, also the gravitational constant G is derived naturally.

We can see, that there can only be one universe with only this one naturally existent set of constants! (no Multiverse, except, all obey the same nature/mathematics...)

Why do so many (if not all!) assume Planck constants (and with this Planck units as defined certain values to 1 (one)) would be physically primary in any way?

iSpace theory has clearly prooven they are not! Electric units form 4 base quanta as proven in iSpace-IQ unit system (the first to do away with any human artefact - hence that is what prooves it, indeed), the Volt, Ampere, Second and Meter.

Everything else is not primary and hence redundant, interestingly even including the Kelvin which an be replaced 1:1 by 1 Kelvin per 1 Volt, knowing Boltzmann constant kB exactly as well but result is not published yet (as all published 50+ other exact constants).

Check out my RG home or ask me 1:1 in case of doubt or questions. All that - iSpace - is very real.

Dear Christian G. Wolf,

I think that all the constants and units are man-made, all were decided at its own time historically and adjusted and fine-tuned against each other over the time.

What I explained previously is the natural/mathematical base to which all these man-made attibutes are applied to. My scope is to investigate on what is the basic reason why everything is as it is, naturally and mathematically. Mathematically, because that is the language which most of the time cannot be misunderstood!

Sure, even your 4 base quanta can be derived from that, there certainly are related transformations between SI and your system. To me it is just another way to look at the physical underlying reality.

It is not by-chance that there is a smallest length! It is a must. That is what I demonstrated. Man later related this to PLANCK length...

Additionally, the wave propagation speed within the medium is intrinsically given, as explained. Man later gave it the name speed-of-light and its value in our whatever unit system...

Doesn't your base system not also have a smallest length? Or something like speed-of-light?

Sincerely yours.

Andreas Schwarz Dear Andreas, with respect to „I think that all the constants and units are man-made, all were decided at its own time historically and adjusted and fine-tuned against each other over the time.“ wrong as could be - without reading (?!) - or not fully understanding - anything about iSpace theory.

So (maybe) all so far but not iSpace - as there is NO HUMAN ARTEFACT whatsoever in iSpace-IQ unit system. That was the problem to solve to understand constants exact value and geometry symbolically.

There is much more to say but ill do later as I have nor the time right now.

„Sure, even your 4 base quanta can be derived from that, …„ No, they cannot. That’s dead hard to do (and took me incrementally about 25 years and inventing a completely new LEGO style “changed distance definition„ 6D subspace (10D spacetime overall) based integer geometry to make iSpace from a method over a hypothesis with few constants like e and h to what iSpace theory is today, predicting the quantum of time to be 1/6961 iSpaceSecond or about 1.1 10^-21 second (its an exact value!) defined by tge 6D electron internal resonance self frequency).

Andreas Schwarz The actual smallest length is GoldenRatio iSpaceMeter (and can be converted exactly to iSpace-SI and hence MKSA-SI, but is way off of )mathematical obly, unphysical Planck units like Planck-length and Planck-time.