Meeting a Terrific Challenge

Discussion of Larson Research Center work.

Moderator: dbundy

Post Reply
dbundy
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Meeting a Terrific Challenge

Post by dbundy » Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:58 pm

Hi Bruce,

Thanks again for your input. Thanks for sharing your take on the LST's Higgs boson in your 2012 post, which you link to above. I was out of the country at that point in time and not engaged in the LRC's theoretical development, though I heard the hoopla about it, even in Puerto Rico.

Your point about the spin 0 of the standard model Higgs boson is interesting. I made the comment that I was "tempted" to compare the RST's unit space/time progression to their concept of the Higgs, but actually, it's not even remotely possible, because the LST's theory of the standard model differs so fundamentally from the LRC's theory that any such comparison is pretty much impossible.

The LST community's theory of the standard model is posited to explain the relationships and properties of the model's content, but the content of the standard model is based on observation, on empirical data. My point is that, had Larson arrived at the same content and structure of the model, before the LST community did, it would have been tantamount to the "crucial experiment" that we've long talked about.

It's too late now, of course, but it's an interesting thought. Still, I think we can learn a lot from studying their theory, in spite of the huge differences in the foundations. It's unfortunate that their theory is a field theory, and that they explain the contents of the standard model as simply different excitations of those fields, including the Higgs field.

I don't think I could ever brook the notion that reality is founded in such an ad hoc fashion, after coming down from the world of awesome beauty and exhilaration, which Larson introduced us to, with his reciprocal system.

There's just no comparison. However, the fact that Larson developed his RSt the way he did, did not lead him to the observed contents of the standard model, but to his own model, with some unobserved contents.

Now, I have to qualify that, because the quarks and gluons of the LST's standard model are not directly observed either, but the existence of the quarks can be deduced from the LRC's RST-based theory. Not only that, but the division of the standard model's entities into two classes, fermions and bosons, by their peculiar properties, is easily shown, and we also can show why there are three sets, or families, of each, and no more.

There is more, but suffice it to say that the reason the LST theory needs the Higgs field is because each of the standard model entities has to have the property of quantum spin, integer spin for bosons and half-integer spin for fermions. Now, I'm not sure, but since the Higgs can decay into two photons, I would think that at least their helicities would be opposite, reflecting the 0 spin of the Higgs, but I have no idea.

What I do know is that the whole idea of their Higgs field giving mass to the particles of the standard model, emerges from the fact that fermions come in two versions - left handed and right handed, and to solve problems that arise as a result, they need the mass of the fermions to come from the Higgs field, not the EM or EW field.

Now, in our theory, we can plainly see that the chirality of the fermions arises from the reciprocity of the standard model contents. Futhermore, thanks to Larson's definition of force, which you alluded to, we don't have a need for autonomous forces such as the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces to explain why the atom has the characteristics it has.

Yet, we've barely scratched the surface. In particular, we are struggling with mass, but perhaps we can learn from your work, in this regard, which is quite impressive.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1449
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Higgs Boson

Post by bperet » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:26 am

Keep in mind that there are two factors missing from LST:
  1. No cosmic sector (3D time).
  2. No progression of the natural reference system at the atomic level.
The Higgs boson/field is their device to compensate for these missing factors.

This is somewhat revealing:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field wrote:If the Higgs field did not exist, particles would not have the mass required to attract one another, and would float around freely at light speed. Also, gravity would not exist because mass would not be there to attract other mass.
Just as astronomers had to conjure up "dark matter" and "dark energy" to account for these missing factors, physics has now had to conjure up their own version of "Higgs boson" and "Higgs field" to account for them at the atomic level--the "aether" of 19th century researchers.

The Higgs boson is a particle (cosmic, spatial rotation). When you take its conjugate by crossing the unit speed boundary, you end up with its nonlocal (wave) form, the Higgs field. Given my assumption that the Higgs boson is a kind of cosmic "rotational base," progression as an angular velocity moving at the speed of light, it is moving rotationally outward in time--and therefore its conjugate is a linear, inward motion in space--gravity--the Higgs field that gives particles their "mass," since mass is determined by the force of gravitational attraction.

This is how I see LST's interpretation of the Higgs system--not entirely accurate, as we know from Larson that gravitational motion is created by rotation in the time region, not the cosmic sector. But LST does not have a time region nor a cosmic sector, so they basically reinstate the 19th century aether "under new management."
Every dogma has its day...

dbundy
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Meeting a Terrific Challenge

Post by dbundy » Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:09 pm

Bruce wrote:
...so they basically reinstate the 19th century aether "under new management."
I like that.

And I've always liked Larson's concept of gravity as the inward scalar motion of matter. It explains it so simply and elegantly, showing at once why it cannot be modified or screened off, and why it is limited in such a way as to permit the formation of solar systems and galaxies.

However, the inward scalar motion of Larson's rotating photons presents a contradiction in terms, since rotation in the material sector is not a scalar motion. In the RS2, the rotation is scalar, by definition, because the reciprocal in the displaced aspect is a natural rotation, when viewed from the opposite sector.

In the LRC's RSt, on the other hand, the photon doesn't rotate at all. It consists of two 3d oscillations, one of which is progressing in time only, while the other progresses in space only. Consequently, the combo (S|T or T|S unit), is massless initially, propagating at the speed of the unit (space/time) progression.

If these combos become unbalanced, through additions of S or T unit oscillations, the result depends on the configuration of the combo. Joining two 3d oscillations is similar to joining two soap bubbles. They partially interpenetrate one another, forming a one-dimensional axis between their points of origin. Adding a third "bubble," not on the 1d axis, forms a 2d plane from the lines between the origins and adding another one to that combination, not in the plane, forms a 3d volume from the lines between the origins.

Of course, with these three primitives, many perturbations can be formed by adding more "bubbles." (see here)

However, in the case of bubbles, every bubble is the same type of structure, so we can only take advantage of the analogy so far. In the case of space and time oscillations, the entities are reciprocal motion structures, which makes things even more interesting, given that the unit combos propagate at unit speed relative to a fixed reference system and that mass is defined as a property that slows down the speed of that propagation to less than unit speed.

It seems clear that adding S and/or T units to the 1d combos affects the frequency of the combo, since that operation adds space or time to the combo. The more units of time, relative to the units of space a combo has the lower its frequency and vice versa, the more units of space it has, relative to its units of time, the higher its frequency.

However, a special case arises, if three of these 1d combos are combined in such a way as to form a 2d combo. In this case, it's as if three sticks were joined end-to-end, forming a 2d plane, instead of a 1d stack of parallel sticks, forming a bundle. The bundle configuration is easy to combine with other bundles to form larger 1d bundles, but it's difficult to combine the 2d planes, not only because of the three vertices, but also because the two opposite "charges," at each vertex, constitutes a particular positive - negative orientation, that restricts how they can match up with another, identical plane.

Consequently, the bundles act like bosons and the triplets act like fermions, in general. Could this result be a coincidence? Maybe, but then, if we continue the development of the theory, we quickly see that, as far as 1d "charges" go, the combos we end up with all correspond to standard model entities (except for gluons and Higgs bosons) and no others.

We can go on from there, as we have shown, to find the chirality and parity of the combos, and this leads to plus and minus beta decay processes, as we have also shown. Can all this still be due to coincidence? It's highly doubtful, when you look at the consistency of the logic and the complexity of the result. It's a pretty compelling case for the reciprocal system.

However, a key part is missing that is a major element: the mass of the particles has not been accounted for. It's the same problem the LST community had for decades, as they sought to explain mass in terms of a field. Now that they're convinced that they have found the boson associated with the Higgs field, they are ecstatic. Yet, there's a caveat: most of the mass of the protons is not due to their quarks, in their theory, but it is due to the energy of the gluons.

These guys are very smart, and I am as dumb as a box of rocks, but I know from Larson (confirmed by Borg) that energy is not mass. A quantity of energy can be equivalent to a quantity of mass, but you can't just set the speed of light to 1, in Einstein's equation, and say, see? They are equal!

They are not equal, because mass is a three-dimensional quantity, while energy is a one-dimensional quantity, so there is an intrinsic difference, just as there is between 1d distance and 3d volume.

However, in the reciprocal system, while mass is 3d energy, with dimensions t3/s3, it is only the measure of 3d motion, with dimensions s3/t3. This is not the same for electrical charge, which is just a unit of 1d space, with dimensions of 1d motion, s/t, when moving.

Hence, the "charge" of our fermions increments from 0 to 3 (0 to -3), as units of space/time (time/space ) oscillation are added to the massless neutrino. One would think, then that, since the only difference between 3d motion and 1d motion is the number of dimensions involved, 3d mass would increment from 0 to 3 (0 to -3), just as "charge" does.

However, that is not the case since the down quark is the heaviest combo (4.8 Mev), followed by the up quark (2.3 Mev) and then, at a very distant third, the electron (positron) (.511 Mev). Why is this order of magnitude the reverse of the charge order?

Well, obviously because, while the 3d motion of the combos does increase from neutrino to electron (positron), that means the inverse of that motion, 3d energy, decreases, since they are reciprocals. Other factors enter in, but a quick glance at our RN equations, shows it plainly:

S|T = 3(1/2 + 1/1 + 2/1) = 12|12, for the neutrino;
S|T = (2/4 + 2/1+2/1) + 2(1/2+1/1+2/1) = 6|6 + 8|8 = 14|14, for the down quark;
S|T = (1/2 + 1/1+2/1) + 2(1/2+1/2+4/2) = 4|4 + 12|12 = 16|16, for the up quark, and
S|T = 3(2/4 + 2/1 + 2/1) = 18|18, for the electron (positron).

Analysis of the inner term of each particle, shows the down quark has one unit more of space oscillation than time oscillation (s/t = 2/1 + 2/2 = 4/3), while the up quark has two more units of time oscillation than space oscillation (s/t = 1/1 + 2/4 = 3/5), and the electron has 3 units more space than time oscillation (s/t = 6/3).

Of course, the polarity of the up quark is positive, which is what makes the "charges" of the proton combo work out, but it doesn't work out well for mass, since mass is not "charged" we might say.

Mathematically, at least, this is a lot like absolute values that have no polarity. If we remove the polarity for the 3d case, and add the numerator to the denominator of each inner term, as if we were to treat them in an absolute value sense, we get 4/3 = 7, 3/5 = 8 and 6/3 = 9, respectively.

Clearly, this is not going to get us to where we want to go, but it does show that the down quark, with the least added motion (1 unit), would have the most equivalent inverse motion (mass), the equivalent mass of the up quark would be less than that, because it possesses the next most motion (2 units), and the electron would be the least massive of all, because it has the most added motion (3 units).

To understand this, it helps to recall that we're dealing with the "seesaw" mechanism again. When the seesaw is balanced, as the three seesaws of the neutrino are, a pointer set in the center at the fulcrum point, pointing up to zero on a scale above, will move to the left or right when the seesaw is not balanced.

If we designate the units of the scale to the left of zero, as negative, and the those to the right as positive, then the pointer will indicate the left|right, or negative|positive, imbalance.

In our case, the neutrino is balanced, or zero, the down quark is -1, the up quark is -2 and the electron is -3 (the same holds for the antiparticles, but with opposite polarity).

Because, we are assuming, for the moment, that, in the case of 3d magnitudes, only the absolute values enter into the physical situation, unlike in the 1d case, the masses of the particles and antiparticles are the same, while their charges are opposite.

Admittedly, it's not much, but it's a start.

dbundy
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Meeting a Terrific Challenge

Post by dbundy » Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:56 am

Accounting for the mass in our model, as explained above, would be great, if it worked, but it's hard to make it work. One way of thinking about it, though, is reducing the 3d motion to 1d motion, as the LST has done with the 3d inverse motion:

s3/t3 x t2/s2 = s/t,

but what does it mean? Einstein revolutionized the world with the inverse of the above equation, because the world recognized what it meant immediately, and it's easy to understand how it would naturally jump on something that promised such a huge source of energy. But the inverse is not true. It's not so clear why the world would stampede to something that just as dramatically diminishes inverse energy, or motion.

This is especially true given that the idea of motion in their minds is always tied to the motion of something. They can understand energy, t/s, in its own right, without having to attach it to any object, but motion, s/t, makes no sense to them, if it's not perceived in connection with some object.

Ironically enough, though, they are looking for a very small force, the gravitational force, a graviton, it's just that they are thinking in terms of an autonomous force, something that doesn't actually exist, as Larson so elegantly pointed out, in his Basic Properties of Matter. Force is simply a quantity of acceleration:
...[Force] is, in effect, defined as the time rate of change of the magnitude of the total quantity of motion, the “quantity of acceleration” we might call it. From this definition it follows that a force is a property of a motion. It has the same standing as any other property, and is not something that can exist as an autonomous entity. (See chapter 13)

So, perhaps the 1d motion of the equation,
s/t = s3/t3 x t2/s2,
or velocity equals inverse mass times inverse velocity squared, is the motion of which the gravitational force is a property.

This would be a very compelling thought, if it weren't for the fact that the charge, or displacement of the up quark is positive. We thought about getting around that difficulty, in the previous post, by noting that, while 1d magnitudes are necessarily polarized, 3d magnitudes are not, and so maybe the 3d property of mass is similar to an absolute value in math.

But even that vague idea is problematic, because it effectively eliminates our seesaws, if you will. Another approach, however, might be that, since we know the masses of the negative electron and the positive positron are identical, maybe the mass of the up quark doesn't need to be treated in the same way as the masses of the down quark and the electron.

Maybe, we can simply convert the up quark mass into energy and then invert the energy, to get its 1d motion. Whereas, to get the 1d motion of the other two particles, we employ the inverse of Einstein's equation.

I guess there's no difference, we could treat all the masses the way we do the up quark mass, but using the inverse of Einstein's equation makes the point we want to make more clearly: the energy sector is the inverse of the velocity sector.

I have no idea it this will work, but I will play around with it for a while to see if something will come of it.

dbundy
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Meeting a Terrific Challenge

Post by dbundy » Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:59 pm

I'm making no progress on the mass issue. It's very difficult problem, but in the meantime, blaine posted a comment on division algebras, in the General Discussion area, and I tried to argue that since those algebras are vector based, they are not suitable for scalar motion based research.

My argument is that the mathematicians have confused dimension with "direction" in constructing their multi-dimensional vector algebra. I explained how it's important to connect the binomial tetraktys to 3d Euclidean geometry, so that the two "directions" of each non-zero dimension can be properly understood, in constructing a scalar algebra that relates to scalar motion.

I didn't want to go to the extent of using graphic illustrations, which I have provided in this area of the forum, so I just briefly alluded to basic concepts that demonstrate, through the tetraktys and Larson's cube, the fundamental fact that numbers, like physical magnitudes, have three properties: quantity, dimension and "direction."

In our development of the reciprocal system of mathematics (RSM), we've frequently pointed out how, unlike the vector based division algebras, the scalar based division algebras do not lose their algebraic properties with increasing dimension. This is important, because it prevents the LST community from employing their 3d numbers (octonions) to describe physical entities, forcing them to use their 1d numbers (complexes) instead.

Indeed, they don't even use their 2d numbers (quaternions) very often. It's not that they haven't tried, but the result hasn't been very satisfactory for several reasons. Again, the problem is that they have confused "directions" of dimensions, with dimensions. For instance, the 1d complex operations expand/contract/rotate the 2d plane, in order to relocate 0d points in the plane, measured by length and direction from the origin, which is a 1d line.

Similarly, the 2d quaternion operations expand/contract/rotate a 3d sphere, in order to relocate 0d points on the spherical surface, again measured by the length and direction from the origin, but then rotating it, a 2d operation.

I suppose the octonion operations do similar things, but their 8 dimensions make their operations so tedious that only the most dedicated specialists, like Cohl Furey, are able to get a handle on them.

Of course, in our RST universe there are three and only three non-zero dimensions to work with. The interpretation of the quaternions as 4d and the octonions as 8d (and it doesn't stop there), is totally inadmissible, given the fundamental postulates of the system. Moreover, the connection between the tetraktys and Larson's cube, in the light of two "directions" per dimension, ties us to the Bott periodicity theorem, the proof of which shows there are no new phenomena beyond three dimensions.

Yet Furey, and before her Dixon, end up with a huge number of dimensions. In her model, Furey uses all four division algebras to come up with a 64 dimensional "abstract space" (1x2x4x8 = 64). The author of the article, linked to above, writes:
Within this space, in Furey’s model, particles are mathematical “ideals”: elements of a subspace that, when multiplied by other elements, stay in that subspace, allowing particles to stay particles even as they move, rotate, interact and transform. The idea is that these mathematical ideals are the particles of nature, and they manifest the symmetries of R⊗C⊗H⊗O.
Well, we can see that the key for them is to go back and recognize that scalar motion is a reality, just as much as vector motion is. The difference is that vector motion is the changing position of an object, while scalar motion is expansion/contraction of space over time, and when it oscillates, it creates the beginning of physical entities, which emerge as the entities of the standard model, as we have been describing it.

I wish I could talk to her!

User avatar
daniel
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:53 am
Location: P3X-774
Contact:

Re: Meeting a Terrific Challenge

Post by daniel » Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:28 pm

dbundy wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:59 pm
I'm making no progress on the mass issue.
I suggest you treat mass like Gustave LeBon did back in 1907, as momentum/velocity (t2/s2)/(s/t). This makes momentum (weight in the old days) a 2D quantity that parallels magnetic rotation.

dbundy
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Meeting a Terrific Challenge

Post by dbundy » Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:29 pm

Thanks daniel. I'm looking into it.

dbundy
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Meeting a Terrific Challenge

Post by dbundy » Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:45 am

Sorry, I didn't realize the link to Cohl Furey above, the LST physicist working to do particle physics using 3d octonions, was broken. I've fixed it and will repeat it here for the convenience of those interested in reading the article: Cohl Furey.

While I'm at it, though, I would like to repeat something else: Raul Bott proved that, mathematically speaking, there are no new phenomena beyond three dimensions. That proof was a bombshell at the time it came out, but it seems to be ignored in today's frenzy of string theory and multiverses.

The popular way of thinking is that we were limited to three dimensions until Einstein added time as a fourth dimension, but then came string theory. To borrow the words of one author:
Variations of string theory require the existence of up to eleven dimensions and a slew of universes, with our universe forming a three-dimensional membrane floating around some higher-dimensional donut. According to this theory, each point in space has six higher dimensions wrapped up in super-tiny geometries called Calibi-Yau Manifolds.
Of course, as we all know now, these ideas have gotten the physicists no where, but they won't give up. I've written about our connection with three dimensions and Bott Periodicity since at least 2006, when I made the connection between the Tetraktys and Larson's cube.

Bott periodicity has to do with the 23 = 8 "directions" of the binomials applied to the tetraktys (Clifford algebras), repeating ever after, like going around a clock face. You can't get beyond the eight "directions" of 23, any more than you can get around the numbers of a clock: The numbers only increase so far and then they effectively begin repeating, ad infinitum. John Baez shows this most clearly in his discussion of Bott periodicity, using the four normed division algebras, R, C, H & O, only he shows how the Os have to be thought of as pairs of H's (see here).

I showed the same thing in terms of the LRC's reciprocal numbers. Higher dimensions are just compounds of the first three (four counting zero) dimensions of the Tetraktys.

When we realize that the numbers of the Tetraktys are simply a mathematical form of Larson's 2x2x2 cube, then we can understand the scalar mathematics of adding and subtracting, multiplying and dividing, in three dimensions. The results do not mathematically manipulate higher and higher dimensions, but more and more iterations of three dimensions.

The bottom line is that the scalar system, thus defined, gives us three unit numbers, one for each non-zero dimension, by the Pythagorean theorem:

1) √(12 + 02 + 02) = √1
2) √(12 + 12 + 02) = √2
3) √(12 + 12 + 12) = √3

Adding, multiplying, subtracting & dividing these numbers is as straightforward as doing so with the so-called Reals; that is to say, the numbers are ordered and their operations are distributive, commutative and associative, regardless of their dimension.

I guess we could say that it is the straightforward math that could underlie the laws of nature.

User avatar
daniel
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:53 am
Location: P3X-774
Contact:

Re: Meeting a Terrific Challenge

Post by daniel » Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:39 am

dbundy wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:45 am
When we realize that the numbers of the Tetraktys are simply a mathematical form of Larson's 2x2x2 cube, then we can understand the scalar mathematics of adding and subtracting, multiplying and dividing, in three dimensions.
I have read every book and paper published on the Reciprocal System and nowhere in them do I find a "Larson cube," outside of your posts. The ONLY reference Larson made with a cube was to clarify that in a 3-dimensional system, there were EIGHT possible directions, not SIX as would be presupposed (± on each axis). That's IT. There is no magic cube to solve the mysteries of the Universe.

Larson's work is based on motion, not little boxes. One must learn to think in terms of motion--contours and speedometers--to understand what Larson was trying to explain. Most of your posts confuse structure with probability, which is why you cannot solve many of your issues.

Many of your concepts are confusing or just incorrect, such as this:
dbundy wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:45 am
The bottom line is that the scalar system, thus defined, gives us three unit numbers, one for each non-zero dimension, by the Pythagorean theorem:

1) √(12 + 02 + 02) = √1
2) √(12 + 12 + 02) = √2
3) √(12 + 12 + 12) = √3
First, a square root has TWO solutions, a positive and negative one, meaning you have SIX "unit numbers," not three. Second, you used the Pythagorean theorem--geometry--to obtain them. This is a COORDINATE system, not a "scalar system" (scalar = magnitude only, NO geometry). This is all based on the hypotenuse of triangles--Euclidean, not scalar. Perhaps you should study some projective geometry to get your terms correct.
dbundy wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:45 am
Adding, multiplying, subtracting & dividing these numbers is as straightforward as doing so with the so-called Reals; that is to say, the numbers are ordered and their operations are distributive, commutative and associative, regardless of their dimension.
"So-called Reals?" What do you call them?

A "real" number defines an ordered set, with properties of distribution, commutation and associativity. Not the other way around. "Imaginary" numbers also have these properties because the operators are just axis designations and the magnitudes are of the real set. 2i + 3i = 3i + 2i; 2i * 3i = 3i * 2i. All it says is that you are doing a "real" operation on the "i" axis--could just as well be X, Y or Z, as well as i, j or k. You lose these properties when you exceed the single dimension that real numbers define, because we have no way to express an ordered set of planes or volumes, without reducing it to a single property such as area or volume--to stick it back on the 1D, real ordered set as a projection. Complex operations confuse people because they represent spin or twist, which cannot be represented by a displacement on a straight line--it requires a plane (Argand plane) to do it, which means you've lost the ordered set and therefore, the properties associated with the "real" line. This is the situation with straight lines, as well. A rectangle of (3,2) is not the same rectangle of (2,3), yet they are both "reals" and have the same area.

dbundy
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Meeting a Terrific Challenge

Post by dbundy » Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:20 pm

Hey daniel,

Thank you so much for your comment! I really appreciate that and I am anxious to respond to each of the points you have addressed. Unfortunately, I'm headed out to the movies in a few minutes, but if I get back in time, I'll take a shot at answering your great comment. Thanks again.

Post Reply