PreprintPDF Available

Reciprocity as an Ever-Present Dual Property of Everything

Authors:
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.

Abstract and Figures

Reciprocity may be understood as relation of action and reaction in the sense of Hegel's philosophical definition. In this contribution, a more mathematical than philosophical reflection about reciprocity as an ever-present dual property of everything was given. As a crystallographer, the author is familiar with the action of Fourier transforms and the relation between a crystal lattice and its reciprocal lattice. Importantly, integration of the function √1 − − 2 respectively its reciprocal leads to the area enclosed by a circle in contrast to its circumference or boundary. A generalization of the reciprocity term was stimulated by results of the famous Information Relativity theory of Suleiman with its proven physical manifestation of matter-wave duality, compared to the set theoretical E-Infinity theory developed by El Naschie, where the zero set represents the pre-quantum particle, and the pre-quantum wave is assigned to the empty set boundary surrounding the pre-particle. Expectedly, the most irrational number φ = (√5-1)/2 of the golden mean is involved in these thougths, because this number is intimately connected with its inverse. An important role plays further Hardy's quantum entanglement probability as the fifth power of φ and its connection to the dark matter. Remembering, the eleven dimensions in Wittens M-theory may be decomposed into 11 = φ-5-φ 5. If we have the wrong look at our world, we will completely fail.
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Reciprocity as an Ever-Present Dual Property of Everything
Hans Hermann Otto
Materials Science and Crystallography, Clausthal University of Technology,
Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Lower Saxony, Germany
E-mail: hhermann.otto@web.de
Abstract
Reciprocity may be understood as relation of action and reaction in the sense of Hegel’s
philosophical definition. Quoting Kant, freedom and ethical necessities are reciprocally
limited. In this contribution, a more mathematical than philosophical reflection about
reciprocity as an ever-present dual property of everything was given. As a crystallographer,
the author is familiar with the action of Fourier transforms and the relation between a crystal
lattice and its reciprocal lattice, already pointing to the duality between particles and waves. A
generalization of the reciprocity term was stimulated by results of the famous Information
Relativity (IR) theory of Suleiman with its proven physical manifestation of matterwave
duality, compared to the set- theoretical E-Infinity theory developed by El Naschie, where the
zero set represents the pre-quantum particle, and the pre-quantum wave is assigned to the
empty set boundary surrounding the pre-particle. Expectedly, the most irrational number φ =
(5 – 1)/2 of the golden mean is involved in these thoughts, because this number is intimately
connected with its inverse. An important role plays further Hardy’s maximum quantum
entanglement probability as the fifth power of φ and its connection to the dark matter.
Remembering, the eleven dimensions in Witten’s M-theory may be decomposed into the
Lucas number L
5
=
11 = φ
-5
φ
5
. Reciprocity is indeed omnipresent in our world as piloting
waves that accompany all observable earthen and cosmic matter. As a side effect of the IR
theory some fundamental constants such as the gyromagnetic factor of the electron,
Sommerfeld’s fine-structure constant as well as the charge of the electron must be marginally
changed caused by altered relativistic corrections. Consequences also arise for our vision
about the evolution of life and consciousness.
Keywords
Reciprocity, Reciprocal Lattice, Fourier Transform, Archimedes’ Constant, Matter–Wave
Duality, Pilot Wave, Golden Mean, E-Infinity Theory, Information Relativity Theory,
Gyromagnetic Factor, Fine-Structure Constant, Quantum Entanglement, Dark Matter and
Cosmos, Superconductivity.
2
1. Introduction
Recently, the author reported on a reciprocity relation between the mass constituents of the
universe and Hardy’s maximum quantum entanglement probability of two quantum particles
[1][2][3][4]. Hardy’s maximum probability was before connected with the dark energy
question, using a fractal Cantorian set theory developed by El Naschie (E-infinity theory) [5]
and further elaborated by Marec-Crnjac [6]. However, in the last years a step was made in
direction of a unification of physical theories with the Information Relativity theory of
Suleiman [7][8]. Whereas great philosophers understood reciprocity as relation between
action and reaction (Hegel [9]) or as connection between freedom and ethical necessities
(Kant [10]), in this contribution a more mathematical as well as physical view on reciprocity
was given. Because the term reciprocity has something in common with the concepts of
duality and complementarity, their different meaning was shortly addressed in the Appendix I.
The following chapter deals with the Fourier transform and the reciprocal lattice of
crystallography that describes results of diffraction on crystals as a special kind of particle
wave duality. The reciprocity relation between boundary and enclosed area of a circle is
shortly treated, followed by the reciprocity property of the golden ratio in a separate chapter.
Then the fractal Cantorian set theory of El Naschie [5] and Marek-Crnjac was appreciated
[6]. The final chapter illuminates consequences of the famous scale-free Information
Relativity theory of Suleiman with its proven particle-wave duality, which explains for
instance the double-slit experiment [11] and suggests dark energy as piloting waves of
moving matter, touching up the old De-Broglie-Bohm theory [12][13][14]. The work was
supplemented by thoughts of the author about further consequences of the IR theory. It seems
that the secrets of the electron, spin, tremor and the anomalous gyromagnetic factor (g
e
) as
well as electron pairing in superconductors [15][16], can simply be explained or corrected
with this new theoretical approach to demystify the physics even more. The inferred
Sommerfeld fine-structure constant α may be altered as well as the experimental g
e
value,
concerning the relativistic shift correction. Related to it, the charge of the electron has to be
changed, too. In addition, a corrected version of the Niehaus EZBW (extended Zitterbewegung
may serve as a probabilistic model for the electron [17]. Consequences also arise for our
vision about the evolution of life and consciousness. Obviously the Hagedorn temperature
scales with the second power of the golden ratio. The conjecture is that all things are
interwoven with the reciprocal, where connection with the golden ratio indicates some system
stability.
The particle – wave duality is also essential in the quantum information theory, where the unit
of information is given by the quantum bit (qubit) coined by Schumacher [18], which exhibits
the aspects of particle localization (counting) and wave interference to represent a signal with
high fidelity [19]. Such two-state quantum system can be represented by the superposition
principle: 

, where z
1
and z
2
are complex numbers,
and 
[19]. However, the quantum information aspect cannot be a main topic of
this limited contribution.
3
2. Fourier Transform and Reciprocal Space
The diffraction of X-rays of sufficient wavelength on crystals leads to a characteristic
diffraction pattern, where the electron density of a crystal structure is transformed to a
reciprocal lattice, weighted with intensities  
where F(h) represents structure
amplitudes (Fourier coefficients) according to the transform
!"
#$% (1)
The vectors r = xa + yb + zc and h = ha
*
+ kb
*
+ lc* are position vectors of the crystal lattice
respectively the reciprocal lattice of a diffraction pattern. The lattice parameters a, b, c
respectively a
*
, b
*
, c
*
are the repeat units along the lattice axes. The reader may follow a
reciprocal lattice exercise in more detail, given as a lecture in [20].
The inverse Fourier transform, using the structure amplitudes as coefficients, delivers the
electron density of the crystal
&
'!"
#$
&
(2)
where $
&
is the reciprocal volume.
In this way, a crystal structure can be completely solved by means of a diffraction experiment.
However, because only intensities I(h) are measured, phases of the structure amplitudes are
lost and must be recovered by elaborated crystallographic methods.
Applying a transform such as the Fourier transform one goes from the object space to the
image space or reciprocal space. If the original variable would be the time, then the
transformed reciprocal variable would be a frequency, exemplified by the Laplace transform
of electrical decay processes. Going from the object space to the reciprocal space one may
heretically ask, what could be the Fourier transform of the entire cosmos, delivering an
inverse universe or whatever else?
3. Relationship between Boundary and Enclosed Area of a Circle
Quoting the references [21] [22], the area enclosed by a circle of radius 1 yields
() *+,-
.
#- (3)
where π is Archimedes constant, the well-known circle constant. One obtains the
circumference C by using the reciprocal of the integrand
/  ) *
+'0
1
.
#-% (4)
This connection between the boundary and the enclosed area is of fundamental importance. It
may be thought of as a geometrical analog to the more general matterwave duality that is
being treated below. Besides, Archimedesconstant π and the golden ratio φ as the fractal
numerical dominators of our existence show an intimate numerical connection, and we may
ask, in which manner nature makes use of this [3] [23]. An elegant continued fraction
representation of π was given by Lange [24].
4
4. Mushkolaj’s Reciprocal Transition Temperatures
In 2014 Mushkolaj [25] has presented a theory of critical temperatures for phase transitions
such as superconductivity, using an elastic atomic collisions model as well as an elastic spring
model. He found two inverse T
c
functions of the form
2
3
45566789
:9
:;-
'
2
3
<=67>89
:9

:;-
(5a,b)
where M
1
, M
2
are the colliding or by a spring connected masses, and x is the distance
between atoms respectively the spring stretch length in Hooke’s region.
If we associate the atomic collision model with particles and the spring model with waves, we
are faced with a reciprocity relation between the two excitation variants and again with the
duality between particles and waves in a special form.
5. The Golden Mean Beauty and Its Intrinsic Reciprocity Property
The golden mean or golden ratio φ is an omnipresent number in nature, found in the
architecture of living creatures as well as human buildings, music, finance, medicine,
philosophy, and of course in physics and mathematics [26][27]. It is the most irrational
number known and a number-theoretical chameleon with a self-similarity property. On the
other hand, its infinite continued fraction representation is the simplest of all and is
represented by [28]
(6)
?+@,
A%

It impressively underlines the fractal character of this number. Most obviously, the golden
mean mediates stability of a system, because only ‘particles’ as the center of gravity of
vibrations with most irrational winding survive. Important relations involving φ are
summarized below. However, to prevent confusion, in textbooks of mathematics the
reciprocal value for φ is frequently used.

?
+B'
 C%DECFFGEEH?
'
?
+BI
%DECFFGEEH(7a, 7b)
?
,?C%FEGDDCH
?
'
?%DECFFGEEH
(8a, 8b)
?

'
?
'
J@ (9a)
or equivalently ?
'

'
?
J@ (9b)
?
B
'K
IK
?
C%CGCDGG*FH(10)
5
K
L
B
?
(11)
?
M
?

Hardy’s maximum quantum entanglement probability of two quantum particles [1][2] exactly
equals the fifth power of φ (Figure 1). This asymmetric probability distribution function with
p
τ
as entanglement variable, running from not entangled states to completely entangled ones,
is given by
N<
O
'P
Q
IP
Q
(13)
This function, displayed in Figure 1, turns out to be a central topic of the Information
Relativity theory of Suleiman [7] [8] by mapping the transformation of his relative energy
density (see Chapter 9 and compare the red curves in the Figures 3 and 4).
The probability function according to Equation 13 can be recast to an adapted distribution by
means of a varied Fisher transformation (Figure 2) [29]
+B
RST
IP
Q
'P
Q
U+@:V=WV7X<
O
(14)
where the pre-factor was chosen as V
+B
?
. Then one gets for Y
YZ
[\]T
^
_
U'
[\]T
^
_
UI
`
abc
d
e
'
(15)
Figure 1. Hardy’s quantum probability P for two particles [1], where p
τ
can be thought of
as entanglement variable, running from not entangled states to completely entangled ones.
Compare it with the equivalent red curve in Figure 3. [3][7]
A comparison is made between the curves displayed in the Figures 1 and 2 with the result of
the IR theory in Figure 3, but in logarithmic representation.
6
Figure 2. Fisher transform of Hardy’s probability function, representing an asymmetrical
distribution with its maximum now at z = φ
-1
(see Equation 15 and Figure 3).
Figure 3. Fisher transform [29] of Hardy’s probability function (blue curve) [1], compared
with the more convincing, but nevertheless slightly asymmetric redshift representation of the
energy density according to the information relativity theory (red curve) [8] (see also Figure
4). The green curve is a further adaption in direction of the red curve.
Moreover, in a subsequent contribution a geometric analog to Hardy’s probability function
will be presented with significance, besides geometry, to crystallography, electrostatic,
botany, coding theory and other disciplines.
Infinite continued fraction representationsof φ
5
and its inverse yield
(16)
?
@


A%

7
(17)
?
,@
?
@



A%
We notice that L
5
= 11 is a Lucas number. It results from the definition
f
g
?
'g
,?
g
(18)
The L
n
number series was named after the French mathematician François Édouard Anatole
Lucas (1842-1891).
Many researchers have found the golden ratio to be important by trying to uncover secrets of
the universe and its mass respectively energy distribution [3][4][5][6][7][8]. In the next
Chapters this significance will be demonstrated.
If one deals with exponential functions, the author has learnt from Sherbon [25] that the
Lambert W-function can serve as an analog to the golden ratio for exponential functions.
Again, it is shown a sort of reciprocity, if one writes the relation as follows
-<h hJ (19)
Especially is ih -<j,hk C%@Dl*FGC*H , (20)
h
-<j,hk (21)
and mT
U:-<n,hT,
Uo%
(22)
The quoted publication of Sherbon [25] is highly interesting for all researchers, who want to
learn more about of the fundamental nature of Sommerfeld’s fine-structure constant.
6. Golden Ratio, Archimedes’ Constant and Sommerfeld’s Fine-Structure Constant
Often you wonder why our world is what it is. Fundamental numbers such as the golden
ration φ, the circle constant π as well as Sommerfeld’s fine-structure constant α and their
obvious similarities play an important role. Some approximations should illustrate it. So one
can connect the number π with the reciprocal of the Sommerfeld constant p
'
qFl [23][27]
or with Hardy’s quantum probability φ
5
[23].
)q F
r
Ms't
F%*@GGH%, (23)
!'M
!
C%C*@ClHq
K
L
= 0.04508… (24)
M
!
C%G@*GGDHq
B
?
C%G@*G@H (25)
p
'
Fl
B
?
B
Fl%CFDCH (26)
8
These approximations, believed to be accidental by others, may find now and then application
in the following discussions.
7. Golden Mean and Madelung Constant for a Rocksalt -Type 2D-Lattice
In a previous publication the author drew attention to the numerical similarity between the
golden mean and the Madelung constant [30] for a two-dimensional rocksalt-type lattice [4].
The Madelung constant α
2D
was iteratively determined with very high precision by Triebl [31]
giving
p
u'vewx
%D@@*DDlGGH. (27)
The α
2D
value is very close to the quotient of two Fibonacci numbers, 21/13 = 1.615385.., and
can be adapted to φ
-1
by only slight distortion of the square net along the two dimensions or
by involving the third one to allow a quite flat curvature [4].
The difference to the inverse of the golden mean φ
-1
is only marginal and gives
?
'
,p
u'vewx
C%CC*GFDH (28)
This almost numerical equality was applied to Villata’s lattice universe [32] consisting of
matter and antimatter with gravitational charges of opposite sign at positions of a 2D rocksalt-
type lattice. Then the ratio of repulsive contribution to the attractive one gives
p
u
q?
'
?
'
(29)
This relation leads the author to a proposal for the golden mean based calculation of the mass
constituents of the universe [4] independent from other approaches and with only marginal
differences to such results [5][6].
A certain reciprocity property may be suggested for a two dimensional rocksalt-type matter-
antimatter lattice independent of whether it is a real possibility. The question is whether a
conditionally flat lattice universe with a Madelung constant of φ
-1
would guarantee sufficient
stability to exist over long periods of time.
8. Golden Mean as Dimension of Empty Set and Zero Set
El Naschie’s E-infinity (ε
) theory [33], not commonly known or accepted by physicists,
originates from a fractal Cantorian set theory [34] as a number-theoretical route of physics for
explaining the dualism between particles and waves that can help solving cosmological
mysteries such as dark matter and dark energy [35]. The quantum particle P
Q
is symbolized
by the bi-dimension of the zero set, while the guiding wave W
Q
surrounding the quantum
particle is given by the bi-dimension of the empty set according to
#6yz7#
3
g
(30)
where n is the Urysohn-Menger topological dimension [36][37] and
#
3
g
?
'
g'
(31)
9
represents the Hausdorff dimension [38], where
{
is the golden mean as defined before.
It results for P
Q
#6yN
|
C? (32)
respectively for W
Q
}~•h
|
,?
(33)
By using these dimensions a probabilistic quantum entanglement calculation [6][33] with
velocity restriction €4 delivers effective quantum gravity formulas for the cosmological
mass (energy) constituents of baryonic matter e
M
, dark matter e
DM
, entire dark constituents
e
ED
, and pure dark energy e
PD
as follows
'K
IK
?
K
L
C%C*@CE*Gl (34)
ƒu
,
B
?
C%G@*G@C (35)
u‚
M
?
t
C%EE*l (36)
„u
?,
C%lFDCDE (37)
u‚
„u
(38)
Recasting the matter amounts into a suitable form,
.
@?
B
u‚
.
@?
B
'
C%E (39)
a reciprocity relation was confirmed between e
M
and e
DM
giving a persuasive equation for the
pure dark energy [3]
„u
,
.
@?
B
@?
B
'
C%lFFlF%F… (40)
Such quantum entanglement based coincidence means that the constituents of the cosmos
should not be considered independent of each other, which was confirmed by the IR theory.
Importantly, if one compares the results given here with the following ones of the information
relativity (IR) theory, then El Naschie’s set theoretical approach is restricted to€ 4,
whereas the more general IR theory delivers results for the recession velocity
3
in the
hole range 0 β 1 (c is the speed of light).
9. Information Relativity Theory of Suleiman and Golden Mean
Many formal explanations or physical constructs that bothered long time the world of physics
are overcome by the new exciting Information Relativity theory, developed by Suleiman
[7][8]. It is not the intention of the author to keep the reader away from studying this theory in
detail for himself. Therefore, only a sparse introduction was given. Suleiman found an
overlooked flaw in Newton’s physics and corrected physical processes for time displacements
between observer and moving bodies. Transformations for time duration, length, mass density
10
as well as energy density were applied to a whole bunch of physical phenomena, which could
be explained now in simple and beautiful clarity. For instance, Suleiman derived for the
matter energy density e
M
of a moving body with velocity v and rest density ρ
o
€
ˆ
4
'‰
I‰
ˆ'‰
I‰
(41)
where
3
is the recession velocity respectively
ˆ
ˆ
4
.
The matter energy density reached its maximum at a recession velocity of ?%
Replacement of this special value in Eq. 41 gives

Še0
ˆ'K
IK
?
ˆ
?
B
ˆ
:C%CGCDGG*H (42)
Remembering, φ
5
represents Hardy’s quantum probability at the maximum. This result was
commented by the author in a publication before mentioned [3].
Suleiman aptly characterized the behavior at the critical point β
cr
= φ as phase criticality at
cosmic scale [8]. The dark matter density transforms as
Υ
Ž
‰
I‰
. (43)
The relations are depicted in Figure 4. If one calculates the energy density amounts (ratios) of
matter and dark matter contributions at this point, one gets again a golden mean representation
like Russian dolls nesting
?
M
?
C%FDCDlGlDHC%lDFGFCFH % (44)
The difference gives ?
,?
M
q+,
t
!
.
The case, where according to the Information Relativity theory of Suleiman [7][8] just at the
recession velocity of ß = 1/3 the matter and the dark matter density will be the same, delivers
for the density amount the reciprocal of another Lucas number, namely L
6
= 18 (see Chapter 5
and Figure 4)
u‚
f
r
'
•
C%C@@@@@H ?
r
?
'r
'
qC%C@@lECEGH?
r
(45)
Furthermore, if the recession velocity at β
eq
= 1/3 is mirrored at β
cr
= φ, it resulted β
mir
=
0.9027. In its vicinity at β = 0.89297 the matter energy density would be exactly φ
5
/2 =
0.04508497… respectively the dual dark component 0.7523… 0.763932… = 2φ
2
(Figure 1).
It approximately indicated a situation that is elaborated for € 4 by means of the fractal set
theory summarized before in Chapter 8.
11
In Figure 5 the energy densities were illustrated via the redshift, which reads as z = β/(1-β). It
is suggested to fit the only slightly asymmetric red curve with the aid of a Cauchy function of
exotic non-integer order on the basis of the golden mean introduced by the present author
some time ago [39].
Suleiman’s IR theory validates once more the importance of the golden mean in solving
physical phenomena. Reciprocity is given by the proposed duality between particle and wave.
As was demonstrated by Suleiman (Figure 6), an increase of the redshift z caused the matter
density of the travelling corpuscular particle successively to diminish, while energy is
transformed into the wave-like dark component and vice versa [8]. This supports elegantly the
concerns of the work here presented.
Figure 4. Golden mean dominance in the evolvement of the energy density with the recession
velocity according to the information relativity theory of Suleiman [7][8].
Φ
5
represents Hardy’s maximum quantum probability. Red curve: matter energy density, black curve:
dark matter energy density, green curve: energy density sum.
12
Figure 5. Energy densities related to the red shift z = β/(1-β) (logarithmic scale) according to
Suleiman [8]. Colored curves have the same meaning as in Figure 1. Now the coincidence
point is at z = ½.
Figure 6. Suleiman’s famous reciprocal (complementary) duality between matter density and
dark matter one. Logarithmic scale, red arrow at z = ½, blue arrow at z = φ
-1
= 1.61803398…
(see also Eq. 39). Applied matter density transformations in terms of the redshift [8]:
dI
,
Υ
d
dI
13
10. Mystery of the Electron and Golden Mean
The electron, considered as center of compacted information, still keeps its secrets, but not for
long. Whereas the hydrogen atom problem was just solved by Suleiman [8] without any
assumption of quantization of the electron’s orbits and using IR transformation of length as
x
x
I‰
'‰
, (46)
other constructs like the electron spin [25] or the measured anomalous gyromagnetic factor of
the electron may be solved fractal-deterministic, supported by application of IR
transformations. Also the fractal nature of electron pairing in superconductors should be
reassessed this way.
The g
e
factor of the electron, conceived as a classical charged particle, is determined by the
relation
>
•
˜
,
Š
(47)
where is the observable magnetic moment,
•
is the Bohr magneton, and
is the spin of the
electron, e respectively m are charge respectively mass of the electron, and X
is the reduced
Planck constant.
However, the spin as half-integer quantum number of the electron was introduced without any
physical justification [40]. Very recently, a first attempt has been undertaken by He et al. [41]
to connect the golden mean with the ad hoc spin-1/2 construct. Such golden mean approach
may be the result of dark halo movement around the stretched electron in the sense of the
Information Relativity theory.
Remembering that the ‘anomalous part’ of the gyromagnetic factor
;>
was recently given by
a simple and solely golden mean representation with sufficient accuracy [42]
;>
57T
?
D
*
UC%CCFGFH% (48)
while a series expansion yields a value more accurate up to the tenth decimal place
>
K
š
t
,
K
š
t
,
t
K
š
t
M
%CCFGFC*H
(49)
This result may be compared to the high accuracy of the best known experimental value for g
e
determined as one-electron cyclotron transition for an electron trapped in an electrostatic
quadrupol potential (Penning trap) [43]
>
%CCFGFC*FDE@ (50)
In a subsequently presented seminal idea of He et al. [41] the spin quantum number s in the
spin momentum term
˜
8 was replaced by a quantized golden mean ? giving
œ
8?? (51)
14
with the value ? = 0.6190713336307(34) as HeChengtian average [44][45] to adapt the full
accuracy of g
e
/2. One can calculate ? by a very simple formula, which resembles the
representation for φ (Eq. 7a) and delivers exactly the given value
?› 
j8@>
>
,,k
8>
, (52)
and for the IR corrected value of g = 0.0023190900 (see Chapter 11)
?› C%DGClFlH (53)
Using this formula, the gyromagnetic factor resulted simply as function of α/π [46]
>
qž
Ÿ
!3
ž
!
%CCF*l (54)
giving ? C%DGClFC%% (55)
where v
K
is the Klizing speed and c the speed of light.
The latest released values of Sommerfeld’s fine-structure constant α [47] respectively its
reciprocal value is quoted according to NIST [48] being
pC%CClGlF@@DGF (56)
p
'
Fl%CF@GGGCE*% (57)
An approximation using the α/π series expansion yielded
>
qž
!
,
!
%CCFEllEH (58)
or >
qžRS
!
%CCFElE%%% (59)
and further ?› 
nž@*:RS
!
,o (60a)
nž@RS
!
t
,oC%DGClCGGH (60b)
The deviation between this a bit underdetermined ? value and the newly relativistic corrected
one is in the seventh decimal place as well as the corresponding g-factors. It is hoped that
precisely re-determined experimental factors may lessen these deviations further.
One may ask, what the infinitely continued fraction representation of ? would result in. We
can write similar to the golden mean [28]
(61)
?› +
@¡,
,¡
,¡
,¡
A%

15
The calculation with
¡
C%CCFl*ll*q
rr%r
˜
q
¢
K
q
K
L
yielded ? = 0.619071096. Indeed,
the number 266.D
is very interesting. Division of this number by integers frequently delivers
numbers with repeating decimals, exemplified by 266.D
/ 24 = 11.
. If one associates this
number with rounds, then one would need 27 ones to complete 20-times the full 360 degrees
extent.
With an assumed involvement of the fifth power of the golden mean in the continued fraction
representation one may speak of a nested golden mean representation. This result supports
once more the fractal-deterministic approach chosen for the physics of the electron beyond the
ad hoc half-spin assumption, characterizing the electron as complexly nested resonating
entity. An alternating approach for the gyromagnetic factor is given in the Appendix II.
11. Alteration of Fundamental Constants
The calculation of the electron’s gyromagnetic factor is the prime example for application of
the QED. However, a cascade of Feynman diagram calculation must be done to determine the
pre-factors of systematic perturbative expansions in powers of pJ) [46][49]. It is not so long
ago that Gabrielse et al. asked “whether it is likely that other adjustments of the QED theory
will shift the α that is determined from the electron g?and answered “we hope not” [50].
Nevertheless, the QED theory should be corrected for IR transformations to iron out some
flaws, and the author suggests a considerable simplification of QED calculations as a renewed
successful tool, altering the inferred α constant, and related to it, the charge of the electron.
Also importantly, the experimental value of g must be corrected, too. The applied relativistic
shift of the cyclotron frequency ¤
3
‹•
¥Š
(ω
c
= cyclotron frequency, B = magnetic field
strength in Tesla) was performed using the familiar relativistic factor ¦
.
However
,
¦ should
be replaced by
the mass transformation according to the IR theory [8]
Š
Š
'‰
I‰
. (62)
For the classical case the corrected frequency ω
c
is
¤
3
¤
.
,
ƒ
§
Š3
1
) (63)
where the energy E
n
of the nth quantum state of a harmonic cyclotron oscillator is given as
¨
g
T7
UX
¤
3
(64)
The classical relativistic shift δ in the cyclotron frequency per energy quantum was
approximated by the level spacing of the harmonic oscillator giving [51]
¡,X
¤
3
Jy4
. (65)
For the IR theory one yields a much greater and positive shift because the cyclotron frequency
yields now
¤
3
q¤
.
::ž
ƒ
§
Š3
1
) (66)
The relativistic shift δ is approximated by
¡q
©ª
«
©g
¤
.
ž
Š3
1
:
©8ƒ
§
©g
¤
.
ž
Š3
1
ƒ
§
 :X
¤
3
:¤
.
ž
ƒ
§
Š3
1
(67)
The gyromagnetic factor as g/2 can be determined from the observed eigenfrequencies [51]
16
œ
ª
˜
_
'ª
˜
¬
ª
˜
«
'ª
˜
¬
(68)
where the ¤˜ values are marginally modified with respect to the free-space values, ¤
e
is the
anomalous frequency, and the spin frequency is ¤
-
¤
3
¤
e

ª
˜
^
1
ª
˜
«
¤˜
Š
is the magnetron
frequency, using the dip frequency ω
z
in Hz [51]. For the experimentally chosen cyclotron
frequency of ν
c
= 149.2 GHz, the classical relativistic shift is calculated to be δ = 2π ·182.1
Hz compared to the IR corrected one giving δ = +2π ·14.78 Mhz. One can estimate that g
becomes noticeably smaller by a factor of approximately 1.0001, meaning a correction of g
e
from the seventh decimal point downwards to about >
q%CCFGCG®
Now the scientific community is waiting for a most precise redetermination of the g
e
-factor as
well as the related Sommerfeld constant by experts [49] [51]. The aforementioned
Zitterbewegung approach of Niehaus [17] should be revised by that author himself. The
comment of the present author may have fulfilled its true purpose, if research on this topic
proceeds well with application of the IR theory [52].
12. Fractal Superconductivity
Nature presents much more relationships to keep in mind, where the golden mean is involved,
and superconductivity is no exception. However, we must reassess the theory considering the
dark matter surrounding the moving electrons, which dive into the dark after marriage, or in
other words, become superconducting under special conditions. Before a golden ratio in the
spin dynamics of the quasi-one-dimensional Ising ferromagnet CoNb
2
O
8
was experimentally
verified next a phase critical point by Coldea et al. [53], the present author suggested linking
the optimum hole doping ¯
.
of high-T
c
superconductors with the golden mean in the form of
Hardy’s maximum quantum probability of two particles [15]
¯
.
q
!
?
B
C%GF (69)
Obviously, this optimum is again near a quantum critical point in the phase diagram. In
addition, the relation of the Fermi speed to the Klitzing speed comes out as
°
Ÿ
q
!
?
B
C%C@l (70)
Both relations document the fractal nature of the electronic response in superconductors. It
was suggested recently that the same is true for conventional superconductors [16]. Also
Prester had reported before about evidence of a fractal dissipative regime in high-T
c
superconductors [54].
Interestingly, some time ago the present author connected the optimum transition temperature
T
co
of high-T
c
superconductors with a Fibonacci number f
i
,
proportional to a domain width,
by the relation T
co
= 12000/f
i
[15]. One yields the integer number 45, again as a product of
solely Fibonacci numbers, when dividing this number by the number 266.D
(see Chapter 10).
Quantum entanglement of two moving electrons may be influenced by local interaction of
their interwoven dark matter surroundings, quoting the cogwheel picture of Suleiman [8].
What happens, if two stretched electrons locally interact to become superconducting? May
such particle stretching in the end lead to a double-helically wounded wavy entity, which
escapes in the dark? Nature is known to copy itself again and again. So the double-helix
approach is not only beautiful, if we quote Gauthier’s proposed entangled double-helix
17
superluminal photon model [55]. Therefore, a model calculation for superconducting electron
strands is suggested based on this idea, addressing the problem of left and right (mirrored)
strands as well as objections against an apparent superluminal velocity. The double helix
strand in nature is a special fabric of duality.
13. Evolution of Life
Nature repeatedly applied its building plans, based on the hierarchical golden number system,
from largest to smallest dimensions, from the cosmos to the smallest living cell. Inasmuch the
golden ratio is involved, reciprocity is considered as a vital element of life. Recently, thoughts
to the link between cosmology and biology are impressively formulated [56]. Self-similarity
as an element of chaos is intimately connected with self-organization of life producing
compacted information and consciousness. However, visions about life such as England’s
provocative approach of dissipation-driven adaption [57] or Pitkänen’s formulation [58]
suffer from not considering duality of particle and wave or reciprocity of matter and dark
matter [8] and should be adapted to the new physics.
The evolution of life may take place similar to the statistical bootstrap model of colliding
heavy particles, so the Hagedorn temperature T
H
comes into play. I quote the formulation of
Rafelski and Ericson [59] to explain this: “When a drop of particles and resonances is
compressed to the ‘natural volume’, it becomes another more massive resonance. This process
then repeats, creating heavier resonances, which in return consist of resonances, and so on.”
This nesting looks like a Menger sponge [56][60]. The process could explain the evolution of
life with T
H
around ambient temperatures.
With respect to the entire energy density of φ
2
at the phase critical point β = φ one may suggest
formulating the Hagedorn temperature T
H
proportional to the squared golden mean φ, where
p
±
is formally the tension of a string.
2
²eœ
q?
:
³
(71)
It remains to interpret the not liked string tension by a more appropriate thermodynamic
quantity at ambient equilibrium conditions.
14. Conclusion
The duality between a compacted entity and its surrounding in general as well as the duality
between a moving particle or body and the accompanying wave or reciprocity between matter
and dark matter is the very spice of life. This was proven by the beautiful information
relativity theory of Suleiman. Reciprocity is impressively formulated by the words of
Wolfgang Pauli: “God made the bulk; surfaces were invented by the devil” (quoted from
[56]). As a consequence of the IR theory some natural constants such as the gyromagnetic
factor of the electron, Sommerfeld’s fine-structure constant as well as the charge of the
electron are proposed to be marginally altered. The interpretation of superconductivity is
influenced by the IR approach, too. Also the evolution of life may find a new basis. If we have
fully understand the new IR physics with its particlewave reciprocal dualism and intrinsic
harmony, then we can shape our environment more effectively to achieve a balance between
plants, animals and human beings, which enables a long-term life for all of us on earth. In
this sense the golden mean should provide more beauty than chaos.
18
Acknowledgement
The author appreciated the critical reading of the manuscript by Prof. Ramzi Suleiman,
University of Haifa, and the Triangle Research and Development Center (TCRD), who
enriched the scientific community with his famous information relativity theory. The author is
also grateful for the constructive criticism of a very creative reviewer.
References
[1] Hardy, L. (1993) Nonlocality for Two Particles without Inequalities for Almost All Entangled
States. Physical Review Letters 71, 1665-1668.
[2] Mermin, N. D. (1994) Quantum mysteries refined. American Journal of Physics 62, 880-887.
[3] Otto, H. H. (2018) Reciprocity Relation Between the Mass Constituents of the Universe and
Hardy’s Quantum Entanglement Probability. World Journal of Condensed Matter Physics 8, 30-35.
[4] Otto, H. H. (2018) Mass Constituents of a Flat Lattice Multiverse: Conclusion From Similarity
between Two Universal Numbers, the Rocksalt-Type 2D Madelung Constant and the Golden Mean.
Journal of Modern Physics 9, 1-13
[5] El Naschie, M. S. (2013) Quantum Entanglement: Where Dark Energy and Negative Gravity plus
Accelerated Expansion of the Universe Comes from. Journal of Quantum Information Science 3, 57-
77.
[6] Marek-Crnjac, L. (2013) Cantorian Space-Time Theory. Lambert Academic Publishing,
Saarbrücken. 1-50.
[7] Suleiman, R. (2018) A Model of Dark Matter and Dark Energy Based on Relativizing Newton’s
Physics. World Journal of Condensed Matter Physics 8, 130-155.
[8] Suleiman, R. (2019) Relativizing Newton. Nova Scientific Publisher. New York, 2020, 1-207.
[9] Inwood, M. J. (1995) A Hegel Dictionary. Blackwell Reference. Oxford, U.K.
[10] Caygill, H. A. (1992) A Kant Dictionary. Blackwell Reference. Oxford, U.K.
[11] Suleiman, R. (2016) A relativistic model of matter-wave duality explains the result of the double-
slit experiment. ICNFP, EPJ Web of Conferences, 1-14.
[12] De Broglie, L. (1923) Waves and Quanta. Nature 112, 540.
[13] Bohm, D. (1952) A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of “Hidden”
Variables. I. Physical Review 85, 166-179.
[14] Bohm, D. (1952) A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of “Hidden”
Variables. II. Physical Review 85, 180-193.
[15] Otto, H. H. (2016) A Different Approach to High-T
c
Superconductivity: Indication of Filamentary
Chaotic Conductance and Possible Routes to Room Temperature Superconductivity. World Journal of
Condensed Matter Physics 6, 244-260.
[16] Otto, H. H. (2019) Super-Hydrides of Lanthanum and Yttrium: On Optimal Conditions for
Achieving near Room Temperature Superconductivity. World Journal of Condensed Matter Physics 9,
22-36.
[17] Niehaus, A. (2017) Zitterbewegung and the electron. Journal of Modern Physics 8, 511-521.
[18] Schumacher, B. (1995) Quantum Coding. Physical Review A 51, 2738-2747.
[19] Ionescu, L. (2008) On the Arrow of Time. arXiv:4180v2 [physics.gen-ph], 1-22.
[20] Otto, H. H. (1980) The Reciprocal Lattice: An Exercise. Lecture given at the Universities of
Regensburg, TU Berlin and TU Clausthal.
[21] Assmus, E. F. (1985) Pi. The American Mathematical Monthly 92, 213-214.
[22] Finch, S. R. (2003) Mathematical Constants. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Applications
94. Cambridge University Press, New York.
19
[23] Otto, H. H. (2017) Should we pay more attention to the relationship between the golden mean and
the Archimedes’ constant? Nonlinear Science Letters A 8, 410-412.
[24] Lange, L. J. (1999) An Elegant Continued Fraction for π. The American Mathematical Monthly
106, 456-458.
[25] Mushkolaj, S. (2014) Transition Temperatures. Journal of Modern Physics 5, 1124-1138.
[26] Olson, S. (2006) The Golden Section: Nature’s Greatest Secret. Bloomsbury, 64 pp.
[27] Sherbon, M. A. (2014) Fundamental Nature of the Fine-Structure Constant. International Journal
of Physical Research, Science Publishing Corporation, 1-9.
[28] Otto, H. H. (2017) Continued Fraction Representations of Universal Numbers and
Approximations. Researchgate.net. 1-4. DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.20110.66884
[29] Fisher, R. A. (1915) Frequency distribution of the values of the correlation coefficient in samples
of an indefinitely large population. Biometrica 10, 507-521.
[30] Madelung, E. (1918) Das elektrische Feld in Systemen von regelmäßig angeordneten
Punktladungen. Physikalische Zeitschrift 19, 524-533.
[31] Triebl, R. (2011) Iterative Bestimmung der Madelung-Konstante für zweidimensionale
Kristallstrukturen. Physikalische Projektarbeit, TU Graz.
[32] Valleta, M. (2013) On the nature of dark energy: the lattice Universe. Astrophysics and Space
Science 345, 1-9.
[33] El Naschie, M. S. (2004) A Review of E-Infinity and the Mass Spectrum of High Energy Particle
Physics. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 19, 209-236.
[34] Cantor, G. (1932) Gesammelte Abhandlungen mathematischen und philosophischen Inhalts.
Springer, Berlin.
[35] El Naschie, M. S. (2017) Elements of a New Set Theory Based Quantum Mechanics with
Application in High Quantum Physics and Cosmology. International Journal of High Energy Physics
4, 65-74.
[36] Urysohn, P. (1922) Les multiplicés Cantorennes. Comptes Rendus 175, 440-442.
[37] Menger, K. (1928) Dimensionstheory. Springer Verlag, Leipzig und Berlin.
[38] Hausdorff, F. (1918) Mathematische Annalen 79, 157-179.
[39] Otto, H. H. (2018) An Exercise: Cauchy Functions Compared to the Gaussian for Diffraction
Line Profile Fitting. Researchgate.
[40] Uhlenbeck, G. E. and Goudsmit, S. (1926) Spinning Electrons and the Structure of Spectra.
Nature 117, 264-265.
[41] He, J. H., Tian, D. and Otto, H. H. (2018) Is the half-integer spin a first level approximation of
the golden mean hierarchy? Results in Physics 11, 362-362.
[42] Otto, H. H. (2017) Gyromagnetic factor of the free electron: quantum-electrodynamical correction
expressed solely by the golden mean. Nonlinear Science Letters A 8, 413-415.
[43] Odom, B., Hanneke, D., D’Urso, B., and Gabrielse, G. (2006) New measurements of the electron
magnetic moment using a one-electron quantum cyclotron. Physical Review Letters 97, 030801.
[44] He, J. H. (2004) He Chengtian’s inequalityand its application. Applied Mathematical Computing
151, 887-891.
[45] Lin, L., Yu, D. N., He, C. H., etal. (2018) A short remark on the solution of Rachford-Rice
equation. Thermal Science 22, 1849-1852.
[46] Schwinger, J. (1948) On Quantum Electrodynamics and the Magnetic Moment of the Electron.
Physical Review 73, 416-417.
[47] Sommerfeld, A. (1919) Atombau und Spektrallinien. Friedrich Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig.
[48] The NIST Reference of Constants, Units and Uncertainty, NIST Gaitherburg, MD 20899, USA.
20
[49] Gabrielse, G., Hanneke, D., Kinoshita, T., Nio, M., and Odom, B. (2006) New Determination of
the Fine Structure Constant from Electron g Value and QED. Physical Review Letters 97, 030802, 1-
4.
[50] Gabrielse, G., Hanneke, D., Kinoshita, T., Nio, M., and Odom, B. (2007) Erratum: New
Determination of the Fine Structure Constant from the Electron g Value and QED. Physical Review
Letters 99, 039902, 1-2.
[51] Odom, B. (2004) Fully Quantum Measurement of the Electron Magnetic Momentum. Thesis,
Harvard University, Massachusetts USA.
[52] Otto, H. H. (2018) Does Nature Journal Once Again Oversleep the New Era of Physics.
Researchgate.net, 1-2.
[53] Coldea, R., Tennant, D. A., Wheeler, E. M., Wawrzynska, E., Prabhakaram, D., Telling, M.,
Habicht, K., Smeibidl, P., and Kiefer, K. (2010). Quantum criticality in an Ising chain: experimental
evidence for emergent E8 symmetry. Science 327, 177-180.
[54] Prester, M. (1999) Experimental evidence of a fractal dissipative regime in high-T
c
superconductors. Physical Review B 60, 3100-3103.
[55] Gauthier, R. (2013) Transluminal energy quantum models of the photon and the electron. The
Physics of Realty: Space, Time, Matter, Cosmos, World Scientific, Hackensack, 445-452.
[56] El Naschie, M. S., Olsen, S., Helal, M. A., Marec-Crnjac and Nada, S. (2018) On the Missing
Link between Cosmology and Biology. International Journal of Innovation in Science and
Mathematics 6, 11-13.
[57] England. J. L. (2013) Statistical physics of self-replication. Journal of Chemical Physics 139,
121923, 1-8.
[58] Pitkänen, M. (2015) Jeremy England’s vision about life and evolution: comparison with TGD
approach. http://tgdtheory.com/public_html/., 1-9.
[59] Rafelski, J. and Ericson, T. (2019) The Tale of the Hagedorn Temperature. CERN Courier, 41-48.
[60] Menger, K. (1928) Dimensionstheorie. B. G. Teubner Publisher.
[61] Bohr, N. (1934) Atomic theory and the description of nature. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
[62] Bedau, H. and Opperheim, P. (1961) Complementarity in quantum mechanics: A logical
analysis. Synthese 13, 201-232.
Appendix I
About the Meaning of the Terms Reciprocity, Duality and Complementarity
These terms, omnipresent in many disciplines of science (physics, mathematics, philosophy,
music, economy, etc.) can certainly have different meanings, even if they have something in
common.
In mathematics, a reciprocal of a number is its multiplicative inverse, but an inverse is not
necessarily a reciprocal. Reciprocity in the amounts of matter and dark matter is formulated
according to Equation 39 of the main text. Important for mathematics and physics, a
reciprocal vector system can be created by Fourier transformation. However, reciprocity in
physics may have a more general meaning when describing a mutual dependence or
influence.
Duality in mathematics can be demonstrated on platonic solids, also familiar for a
crystallographer. The convex hull of the center points of each face of a starting polyhedron
21
results in a dual polyhedron such that, for instance, the cube and the octahedron form a dual
pair, but the tetrahedron is self-dual. In physics, the most prominent example for duality is
that between matter and piloting wave in the sense of the De Brogly Bohm approach [12].
According to the IR theory of Suleiman [8] the relation between matter density and the dark
matter surrounding may be quantified as ‘reciprocal duality’, where an amount of matter is
transformed into an equal amount of dark matter depending of the recession velocity
respectively redshift of a moving body (Figure 6).
Finally, the concept of complementarity in quantum physics has been formulated and coined
by Bohr in his Como lecture of 1927, describing the familiar case of reciprocal uncertainty
between position and momentum of an electron as conjugate variables [61]. It means that it is
hardly possible to know simultaneously with an arbitrary accuracy the outcomes of these
variables. Another example of conjugate variables is the magnetic field strength in
comparison to the electric one. An elaborated logical analysis of complementarity has been
given by Bedau and Oppenheimer [62]. In his late years Bohr was interested in philosophical
aspects of complementarity as given in the Yin and Yang conjugate principle of the ancient
Tao, and on his gravestone the Taoist symbol is engraved.
In mathematics, a number and the complement to a number add up to a whole of some
amount. If one performs the reciprocal of these numbers and renormalize the resulting values,
then complement and primal number change their values [4]. In this way one may speak also
of reciprocity when dealing with matter density and the dual dark matter density according to
Figure 6. Appendix II
Another approach for the gyromagnetic factor used the fifth power of ? with the value ?
5
=
0.09092922100312. An approximation is the inverse Lucas number L
5
= 11 as combination of
two inversely related irrational numbers (see Eq. 13 to 15)
?
'B
,?
B
'

'
C%CGCGCGCH% (72)
However, physically more convenient is the expression
!:‡
Ÿ
3
= 0.0917012… , where v
K
is the
Klizing speed and c the speed of light. This term keeps no dimension, as required. If we are
working with a speed, according to the IR theory the information offset has to be corrected.
The speed transforms as
, (73)
combining the length transformation
x
x
I‰
'‰
with the time transformation
´
´
'‰
, where
β = v/c is the recession speed [8]. Surprisingly, an additional
´
´
'
,
term is needed to
give more accuracy and the following simple formula
ž
!‡
Ÿ
3

!‡
Ÿ
3
,
!‡
Ÿ
3
L
) = ž
!‡
Ÿ
3
,
!‡
Ÿ
3
L
= 0.61907254…. (74)
leading to
œ
%CCDCC@GlCG=>
%CCFC (75)
Remarkably, this value is almost identical to the result of [37], because
22
K
š
t
%CCFCCF (76)
Only now we are allowed to associate the term
!‡
Ÿ
3
with Sommerfeld’s fine-structure constant
α [41] applying
!‡
Ÿ
3
*)p (77)
where α is a measure of the strength of interaction of an electron and a photon in the quantum
electrodynamics theory (QED). The charge of the electron in QED (Lorentz-Heaviside) units
has the numerical value of ,+*)p.
The accurate experimental value for the gyromagnetic constant could be attained from Eq. 74
using an adapted fine-structure constant of
p
±
C%CClGllGG@@DDG (78)
respectively p
±'
Fl%CFlFDDGEEGll* (79)
where p
±
,p D%*F:C
's
(80)
Tackling the problem of the not fully adapted accuracy in comparison to the experimental
value, one can multiply the term under the fifth root of Eq. 74 by a factor of 0.9999902180 or
alternatively reduce the Klitzing speed by a factor of 0.99999004931863 respectively the
charge of the electron by a factor of 0.99999502464694. This adjustment may result partly
from a correction of g as well as α with respect to the IR theory, besides needed radiative
corrections.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Chapter
Full-text available
"A personal note" - Prologue to my book entitled "Relivizing Newton", published last month by Nova Science Publishers. Link to the Nova's book's advertisement, which includes the book description, table of contents, and two endorsements by Prof. Dr. Hermann Otto, and Nobel Laureate, Prof. Vernon. L. Smith.. https://novapublishers.com/shop/relativizing-newton/
Article
Full-text available
Recently, many seminal papers deal with the syntheses, stability and superconducting properties of super-hydrides like LaH10 or YH10 under high pressure, reporting critical temperatures near room temperature. In the first run one will assume that the involved metal atoms contribute a number of 3 electrons to the pairing pool corresponding to their valence. However, another possibility may be that the cationic valence is somewhat smaller, for instance only 2.29, resulting in a nominal electron number per hydrogen of σo = 0.229 ≈ 3/13 instead of 0.3. Then, we will have a numerical equality to the optimum hole number in the cuprate high-Tc superconductors, a number that reflects the fractal nature of electronic response in superconductors. However, if one still keeps up the oxidation state of +3 of lanthanum, one would need 13 hydrogen atoms to match the optimum σo. Such composition may be found at the phase boundary between the observed LaH10 and LaH16 phases. Partial ionic replacement is suggested to shift the super-hydride composition into the σo optimum. Micro-structural phenomena such as multiple twinning and ferroelastic behavior as observed with cuprates may also influence the superconductivity of super-hydrides. Finally, epitaxial growth of super-hydrides onto a specially cut diamond substrate is proposed.
Article
Full-text available
This paper shows that the half-integer spin is the first level approximation of the quantized golden mean, and the electron magnetic momentum can be exactly calculated using the classic quantum mechanics without the spin-1/2 theory, where the g-factor was introduced to predict the magnetic momentum. The golden mean predicts an exact value of 2 for the g-factor, and other quantized numbers of the golden mean lead to the g-factor to deviation from 2. Our result demonstrated that quantized golden mean evokes a new and challenging branch of physics. We anticipate the quantized golden mean to be a starting point to solve puzzle and paradox in physics and to revitalize a more sophisticated physics based on the golden mean.
Article
Full-text available
A fast flash calculation of the Rachford-Rice equation is very much needed in many engineering applications, especially in multi-component mixtures. This paper suggests a direct and hands-on calculation by a pocket calculator or a Chinese abacus. The calculation is based on an ancient Chinese mathematics called as He Chengtian average. An example is given to show the simplicity and effectiveness of the ancient Chinese algorithm.
Article
Full-text available
In this short contribution, a reciprocity relation between mass constituents of the universe was explained governed by Hardy’s maximum entanglement probability of φ5 = 0.09017. While well explainable through a set-theoretical argumentation, the relation may also be a consequence of a coupling factor attributed to the normed dimensions of the universe. Also, very simple expressions for the mass amounts were obtained, when replacing the Golden Mean φ by the Archimedes’ constant π. A brief statement was devoted to the similarity between the E-Infinity Theory of El Naschie and the Information Relativity Theory of Suleiman. In addition, superconductivity was also linked with Hardy's entanglement probability.
Article
Full-text available
The present short letter provides some rational speculative arguments based on mathematical facts linking cosmology with biology in a relevant new way, shedding light on the beginnings of life.
Article
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals Volume 19, Issue 1, January 2004, Pages 209–236 Cover image A review of E infinity theory and the mass spectrum of high energy particle physics M.S. El Naschie Show more doi:10.1016/S0960-0779(03)00278-9 Get rights and content Abstract The essay outlines the basic conceptual framework of a new space–time theory with application to high energy particle physics. Both achievements and limitations are discussed with direct reference to the mass spectrum problem. 1. The main purpose of the present work In what follows we would like to give a short account of the so-called E infinity (ε(∞)) theory, the main application of which has been so far in determining coupling constants and the mass spectrum of the standard model of elementary particles. I am afraid I will have to make a long story (which took many years of work) quite short with all of what this entails in reading it. The results of E infinity are at present contained in dozens of published papers too numerous to refer to them all, but for the purpose of filling the gaps in the present summary, half a dozen papers which are mentioned at the end may offer good help in overcoming the inevitable shortcomings in a condensed presentation (see Ref. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7]). 2. An outline of the conceptual framework of the theory 2.1. General remarks The main conceptual idea of my work (which is encoded in Fig. 1 and Fig. 5) is in fact a sweeping generalisation of what Einstein did in his general theory of relativity, namely introducing a new geometry for space–time which differs considerably from the space–time of our sensual experience. This space–time is taken for granted to be Euclidean. By contrast, general relativity persuaded us that the Euclidean 3 + 1 dimensional space–time is only an approximation and that the true geometry of the universe in the large, is in reality a four dimensional curved manifold. In E infinity we take a similar step and allege that space–time at quantum scales is far from being the smooth, flat and passive space which we use in classical physics [1], [2] and [3]. On extremely small scales, at very high observational resolution equivalent to a very high energy, space–time resembles a stormy ocean [1]. The picture of a stormy ocean is very suggestive and may come truly close to what we think the high energy regime of the quantum world probably looks like (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4). However such a picture is not accessible to mathematical formulation, let alone an exacting solution. The crucial step in E infinity formulation was to identify the stormy ocean with vacuum fluctuation and in turn to model this fluctuation using the mathematical tools of non-linear dynamics, complexity theory and chaos [1], [8] and [9]. In particular the geometry of chaotic dynamics, namely fractal geometry is reduced to its quintessence, i.e. Cantor sets (see Fig. 5) and employed directly in the geometrical description of the fluctuation of the vacuum. How this is done and how to proceed from there to calculating for instance the mass spectrum of high energy elementary particles is what I will try to explain and summarise in the following essay. Full-size image (112 K) Fig. 1. Tiling the plane using Klein’s modular curve in the Beltrami–Poincare representation. E infinity theory alleges that the quantum gravity of space–time is a hyperbolic fractal on a Klein modular group akin to what is shown in the figure. The relevance to high energy physics is more direct than one may suspect. For instance, the Weinberg mixing parameter sin2θw at the electroweak scale is given by the cosine of the 3π/7 angle of Klein’s modular curve as cos(3π/7)≅0.2225 in excellent agreement with the experimental measurement. Similarly the number of triangles gauged in our mass norm gives the approximate value for the constituent mass of the fundamental light quarks. Since we have 168 automorphisms, then the number is (2)(168) and the masses are given by mu*=md*=336 MeV for the up and down quarks. In addition the 42 point unique orbit of the original Klein curve corresponds to the inverse of the quantum gravity couplings constant in the non-supersymmetric case. Figure options Full-size image (144 K) Fig. 2. A depiction of T. Right’s cosmos as a form of sphere packing on all scales. This is very similar to the author’s S(∞). This space is related, but by no means identical to the Cantorian E infinity space. One notes the similarity with Fig. 4. However Fig. 4 was published for the first time in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 11 (2000) 453–464. By contrast, T. Right’s cosmos was conceived by him in the middle of the 18th century. Figure options Full-size image (138 K) Fig. 3. A fractal-like universe, with clusters of clusters ad infinitum as envisaged by the Swedish astronomer C. Charlier who lived between 1862 and 1934. This work was clearly influenced by the work of the Swedish astrophysicist A. Swedenborg (1688–1772). Figure options Full-size image (69 K) Fig. 4. An artistic impression of E infinity space–time published by the author almost two and a half centuries after the work of Swedenborg and without any conscious knowledge of this or similar work of the same period. The figure represents a form of space made up of turbulent disorderly packed 3D spheres. E infinity space is similar only it has infinitely more dimensions. Figure options Full-size image (75 K) Fig. 5. An alternative two dimensional construction of a topological equivalent to the Cantor set using pairs of circles. The E infinity limit set is very similar but has infinitely many dimensions and not only two like here. Figure options As is well known, special relativity fused time and space together, then came general relativity and introduced a curvature to space–time. Subsequently Kaluza and later on Klein added one more dimension to the classical four in order to unify general relativity and electromagnetism. From this time on, the dimensionality of space–time played a paramount role in the theoretical physics of unification leading to the introduction of the 26 dimensions of string theory, the 10 dimensions of super string theory and finally the Heterotic string theory [10] dimensional hierarchy 4, 6, 10, 16 and 26. This is all apart from the so-called abstract or internal dimensions of various symmetry groups used, for instance, the 8 dimensions of the SU(3) of the strong interaction. By contrast, in E infinity theory we admit formally infinite dimensional “real” space–time [1] and [2]. However this infinity is hierarchical in a strict mathematical way and we were able to show that although E infinity has formally infinitely many dimensions, seen from a distance, i.e. at low resolution or equivalently at low energy, it mimics the appearance of a four dimensional space–time manifold which has only four dimensions. Thus the four dimensionality is a probabilistic statement, a so-called expectation value. It is remarkable that the Hausdorff dimension of this topologically four dimensional-like “pre” manifold is also a finite value equal to 4+φ3, where with the remarkable self-similar continued fracture representation (which is in a sense self-similar as Fig. 1, Fig. 2 and Fig. 5): There are various ways for deriving this result which was given in detail in numerous previous publications. However maybe the simplest and most direct way is to proceed from the mathematical definition of E infinity. 2.2. Definition of the E infinity space Definition E infinity refers to the limit set of a pre-geometry model of the transfinite extension of a projective Borel hierarchy [11]. From the definition of the above and in particular the definition of Borel sets and projective hierarchy [11], it follows that if the sets involved in the Borel set are taken themselves to be transfinite Cantor sets (see Fig. 5), then the Hausdorff dimension of E infinity could be written as [1], [2], [8] and [9] where d(0)c is the Hausdorff dimension of the involved transfinite sets where the superscript refers to the Menger–Urysohn dimension of the one dimensional Cantor set, namely 1−1=0. Now there is a well known theorem due to Mauldin and Williams which states that with a probability equal to one, a one dimensional randomly constructed Cantor set will have the Hausdorff dimension [1] and [2] equal to , i.e. the golden mean φ. Setting dc(0)=φ one finds as anticipated. It is now instructive to contemplate the following. The intersection rule of sets shows that [1] and [2] we can lift dc(0) to any dimension n as follows Thus taking d(0)c=φ and n=4, one finds In other words, we have which shows that the expectation value of the Hausdorff dimension of E infinity is 4+φ3 but its intrinsic embedding “expectation” dimension is exactly 4 and that although the formal dimension is infinity. In fact the expression ∑∞0n(dc(0))n may be regarded as the sum of the weighed n=1, n=2, n=3, … dimensions where the weights are the golden mean and its power. That is why E infinity is hierarchical. Note that intrinsic embedding is just another name for the Menger–Urysohn dimension and that our intuitive embedding dimension for dc(0) is not zero, but one. Similarly for dc(4) it is 5 and not 4. 2.3. The limit set, Kleinian groups and Penrose tiling It then turns out that the limit set of any Kleinian-like group is a set which is best described in terms of chaotic Cantor sets (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 5) and E infinity [9]. This fact is clear from the work of Mumford et al. [12]. Another surprise was the realisation that is just twice the isomorphic length of the so-called Penrose-hyperbolic fractal tiling [1] and [2] where ϱ is the radius of the circular region considered. In other words if one projects the space–time of vacuum fluctuation on a Poincare circle we will see a hyperbolic tesselation of this circle with predominantly Klein curve-like geometry [13] which ramifies at the circular boundary exactly as in many of the famous pictures of the Dutch artist M. Echer. It is an important part of our thesis that actual quantum space–time strongly resembles the hyperbolic geometry of the ramified χ(3π/7) Klein curve (see Fig. 1). We started with the picture of a turbulent sea which we took to model vacuum fluctuation then moved to model the space–time of the vacuum using infinite numbers of unions and intersections of an elementary random Cantor set only to find at the end that this is the limit set of the well known Möbius–Klein transformation of space [9], [12] and [13] which may be represented using the Beltreram–Poincare methods of hyperbolic geometry [1]. In other words, quantum space–time is conceived here as a hyperbolic fractal in which the low resolution major part is the original Klein curve while the high resolution part at the circular boundary may be considered a transfinite correction which may be superimposed to it following certain rules, just like in a perturbation analysis of a weakly non-linear problem. For instance, and as will be shown later on, the dimension SU(5)=24 will be replaced by 24−φ9=24−0.013155617=23.98684438 and similarly Dim E8⊗E8=496 will become 496−k2=45.96747752 where k=φ3(1−φ3) and φ9 are examples of such transfinite “corrections”. We will see later on that the Heterotic string hierarchy is also imbedded in E infinity and that the theory is clearly related to A. Conne’s non-commutative geometry [14] as well as the four dimensional fusion algebra and M. Friedman’s theory of four dimensional topological manifolds [14]. It is worthwhile to note that in all the preceding theories, our Hausdorff dimension plays a pivotal role [14]. 2.4. The string connection and KAM theorem Having mentioned string theory, we should mention that in string theory particles are perceived as highly localised vibration of Planck length strings, so that strictly speaking, within string theory there is no essential difference between a resonance particle and say a meson or an electron. The nice thing about the geometrical–topological picture which E infinity theory offers is that the string picture may be retained yet in another form, namely as a sizzling Cantor set [2], simulating string vibration and that such strings are embedded in E infinity as will be shown. Thus the two theories remain reasonably compatible. However we are running ahead of the logical sequence and we should return to the Cantorian hyperbolic geometry of quantum space–time. It is well known that hyperbolic geometry is highly distortive. Taking the original Klein curve as an example [13], all triangles are essentially the same, yet they are distorted and the further away from the center of the Beltrami–Poincare projection we are, the larger the distortion is. It is here that our basic conjecture regarding the mass spectrum of high energy particle physics come to the fore. We will show that all particles are just different scaling of all other particles as long as we disregard all other aspects and concentrate on energy. E infinity has a set of scaling exponents which distorts the “figure” of any particle so that it all depends on the region which the particle inhabits, or said in another way, it all depends on the way we probe space–time (see Fig. 1). Exactly as in Einstein’s general relativity and even far more so, space–time topology decides on the mass spectrum which we observe. Seen that way one should really expect infinite numbers of elementary particles but this is clearly not the case. It is one of the main pillars of the E infinity theory to hold that the whole issue is that of stability. Only stable particles could be observed. Again it is one of the most important results of E infinity theory to reason that the question of stability of elementary particles is closely related to KAM theory, Arnold diffusion and the vague attractor of Kolomogorove [2] and that the most irrational number that exists, namely is the secret of the stability of certain elementary particles [9] and [13]. Vibration simulating particles which do not have a sufficiently irrational winding number dissipate as fast as they are produced. 3. Dimensions and coupling constants 3.1. The fine structure constant and the special orthogonal group SO(n) Now we need to show some quantitative results. We start by deriving an important dimensionless quantity namely the low energy fine structure constant α0. Within E infinity theory this α0 is no different from the expectation value of the Hausdorff dimension of E infinity, namely and its inverse may therefore be regarded as a dimension while α0 itself may be thought of as a probability in the fashion of the interactive theory dealing with massinger particles rather than in the theory of electromagnetic field. In fact in E infinity theory all coupling constants α0, αs and so on will be regarded as probabilities to absorb or emit the corresponding massinger particle. Let us give first a formal derivation of α0. We know that the special orthogonal group SO(32) is similar to the E8⊗E8 group of strings which is the only theory which has a graviton arising naturally from its basic formulation. Now the dimension of SO(32) is equal to that of E8⊗E8 and is given simply by [10] and [13] Next we take n to be the non-integer Consequently one finds the expectation value Taking 20 copies of that one finds where k0=φ5(1−φ5)=0.082039325⋯ This is the value of the global which may be written more conveniently as where Clearly we need not justify setting 20⊗SO(4+φ3) equal to as long as we can show that it gives the right physics and is consistent. Nevertheless, we will return later on to give a more intuitive justification beyond the fair numerical agreement with our “physical” reality. This is done by linking to the so-called expectation π meson [2] and [13]. 3.2. Embedding of strings dimensions in E infinity Next let us show how the dimensional hierarchy of the Heterotic string is imbedded in our E infinity and scale using the golden mean. That way we find [14] Setting k=φ3(1−φ3)=0.18033989 equals zero one finds Note that can be shown to be the non-super symmetric coupling constant of the unification of all fundamental forces. In the super symmetric case we have . 3.3. Isospin and symmetry groups Since the introduction of isospin theory by W. Heisenberg, groups theoretical considerations play a prominent role in high energy particle physics. However, strictly speaking we just became used to group theoretical arguments although they remain as abstract as ever, for instance to say we have 12 massless gauge bosons because [2] and [14] the total dimensions of all the symmetry groups involved in the standard model (SM) is not justified by any intuitive physics, only pure mathematics and experimental verification. The situation in string theory is even more abstract. In string theory we accept that we have 496 massless gauge bosons without experimental evidence because In E infinity theory we compliment groups by sets in a manner of speaking. Seen at a low resolution, our set is a Kleinian modular group but it is the set character which is important in E infinity and as we will see, it leads to exactly verifiable results regarding the mass spectrum [2] and [14]. Note that the ratio between in number of mass less gauge bosons in the standard model (SM) and quantum gravity defines the non-super symmetric coupling constant . Thus in E infinity theory the dimension corresponding to 496 is in fact 496−k2 where k=φ3(1−φ3)=0.18033989 which we can neglect for all practical purposes, but not in principle. In fact, ignoring small numbers can lead as we learnt from chaotic non-linear dynamics to disastrous inaccuracies in certain cases. Nevertheless, 496−k2≃496 is not only a dimension but is much more than that as will be shown shortly. It is related to the expectation of the mass of the K meson. 4. The expectation mesons and the mass of the nucleons 4.1. The π mesons The dimension 496−k2 may be obtained from the dimension 137+k0 by scaling as follows The deep meaning of the above is the following. It was Sidharth [32] who showed using classical mechanics and non-classical Cantorian space–time that the mass of a π meson is given by [2] and [14] Sidharth’s calculation is only approximately true because we do have two π mesons and To obtain the accurate result we postulate the existence of an expectation π meson given by as follows Subsequently we can show that mπ± and mπ0 are just different scaling of another fundamental non-composite particle, say the electron. However before showing that we show that the neutron mass may be obtained as a scaled i.e. in fractal hyperbolic space–time of E infinitely distorted π meson [2] That means the scaling exponent in this particular case is and which is almost exactly equal to the experimental value. As we define an expectation meson which came very close to the expected value found from taking the average mass of mπ± and mπ0 one could define an expectation K meson by scaling 〈mπ〉 using λ=3+φ 4.2. The mass of the neutron and the mass of the proton Now by scaling 〈mK〉 we can find again mN as follows [2] That means scaling this time is where 10=D(10) is the dimension of the core of super string embedded in E infinity and 19−φ6=b−2 which is a Betti number. Consequently one finds To obtain the mass of the proton all what we need is to change k2=(0.18033989)2 to 4k and find which is almost exactly the best know experimental result. Now we calculate the mass of the electron again as a scaling, this time of the proton by writing where and and the scaling is . Now we can determine the mπ± and mπ0 as scaling of the electron and in excellent agreement with the experimental evidence. 5. Linking some scaling exponents to string theory and non-commutative geometry 5.1. Hyper tensor It may be of deep theoretical interest into the structure of the super string theory [10] to note that plays a profound role in a necessary condition for anomaly cancellation, namely that the number of hyper tensor and vector multiples satisfies the following condition [10] This anomaly cancellation is what made Schwarz and Green develop super string by adding super symmetry and gravity to the bosonic string. Seen that way, E infinity theory can give string theory practical predictivity power with considerable accuracy at least as far as the vital mass spectrum is concerned. Now one could, with considerable justification, ask why did we take these particular scaling exponents and whether we could take any arbitrary factors as a scaling. The answer to this and similar questions, is the following. 5.2. Non-commutative geometry and the golden mean We could take any exponent and there are very many of them, but there are restrictions. We have a large set of admissible factors but they must be looked at carefully to be taken from the topology of E infinity space–time. First the golden mean and all its powers multiplications and additions may be taken as valid scaling as long as they come out from Connes dimensional function and its extension to higher dimensions. The two dimensional function for instance is given in non-commutative geometry by [2], [8], [9] and [13] D=a+b(1/φ),a,b∈Z Second, all the transfinite version of the Heterotic super string dimensions and their combinations are valid scaling provided the corresponding vibration can be shown to be stable. Thus we may use 10, 6+k, 6, 16, 16+k, 26+k, 26 and so on. In addition the following dimensions are extremely important and are drawn upon continuously in E infinity theory: The last expression gives the dimension of the SU(5) symmetry group needed for GUT i.e. grand unification of all non-gravitational forces which is due to Glashow and Georgi [10]. 6. Stability considerations, scaling and the quantum 6.1. The Planck length and the Bohr radius Besides the preceding conditions the stability condition must be established [2]. Clearly if we know a particle with a certain mass which we have just calculated using a certain scaling, then this particle really exists, otherwise we will not be sure. The problem is that KAM stability and Arnold diffusion in higher dimensions [2] (more than 4) are almost impossible to solve at present. Thus the more direct and obvious the scaling is, the more confidence we will have that such particles will be sufficiently stable to be observed. An example of a direct scaling is for instance the isomorphic length. As we mentioned this length is directly proportional to 4+φ3 where ϱ is a radius which can be any number. Consequently 4+φ3 and 4 are obvious fundamental scaling exponents in E infinity. To show that this is true we give a simple but striking example of how 4+φ3 and 4 connects the Plank length (which is related to the quantum h by h=(lp)2 cm2 in natural units) with the semi-classical scale par excellence, namely the Bohr radius [2] and [10]. While for the related stony length one finds Thus 4 and 4+φ3 are the scaling of the classical (h=0) to the quantum (h≠0) and visa versa. Other scaling transformation have a direct and obviously appealing physical interpretation and inspire a direct confidence even without experimental verification. An example of this kind is the following coupling equation Thus where is the super symmetric coupling constant of quantum gravity, k=φ3(1−φ3), k0=φ5(1−φ5) and . Clearly is the coupling between the graviton field represented by the string group, namely the Lie expectational group E8⊗E8 and the electromagnetic field as represented by the quasi-dimension . The factor 2 is analogus to of the φ scaling of to give the Heterotic string dimensional hierarchy discussed earlier and may be interpreted indirectly as a kind of Bose condensation of a Cooper particle at the extremely high energy of some (10)19 GeV [10]. 6.2. Geometry and topology of the vacuum and quantum gravity Maybe we still need to explain the deeper origin of the preceding relation. At least historically the relation goes back to the sigma model. In this model and as is explained for instance by ‘t Hooft, it is the squares of the masses which must be compared [15], a situation which is similar to the Regge trajectories. For the π meson and the K meson, the correct comparison has to use the expectation π and K meson which are defined in E infinity as theoretical intermediate and probably totally unstable particles which need not really exist and the ratio comes indeed near to 14. In fact it is exactly 13.09016995. This value happens to be exactly half of the value of the theoretical super symmetry quantum gravity coupling constant. Thus Now at the beginning of any new theory, the most difficult things is the new concept. Once this is established then mathematics takes over. Let us clear the concept a little more because it is not immediately obvious how we move from a Hausdorff dimension to mass. The chain is not long. We know that entropy is a measure for complexity. Likewise the Hausdorff dimension is a measure for complexity. This is how the work of Schlögel and Beck should be understood because the Hausdorff dimension is related to thermodynamics. Consequently the Hausdorff dimension is related to energy via thermodynamics and since energy is related through special relativity to mass, the connection of Hausdorff dimension to mass becomes clearer. Now the Hausdorff dimension is predominantly a geometrical–topological devise and the afore mentioned connections mean that geometry is indirectly connect to temperature and mass. In essence there is nothing new in all of that, it is general relativity seen from another maybe deeper view point. On a deep level geometry is paramount and decides on everything including energy and thus mass. The preceding simple thoughts were the basis for a relatively recent work in which the author derived the temperature for a drawing by Pablo Picasso [16], [17] and [36]. 6.3. Complexity theory Having said all that, one should not confuse disorder with complexity (see Ref. [37]). In fact hyper-disorder may be regarded as a form or ergodicity and ergodicity is a completely uniform disorder which has a complexity zero, exactly as complete disorder. Innovation in nature takes place somewhere between the two extremes and I was not astonished to find out that the VAK state has a maximum complexity. Consequently the vacuum has a maximum complexity which is the reason why it is so rich giving rise to quantum physics. I was later informed that maximum complexity is connexted approximately to the number 0.273. Prof. Alan MacKay, a leading British crystalographer was particularly intrigued by this because this number appears continuously in the E infinity theory, (i.e. ). So far we have discussed the inter-scaling relationship between π mesons, K mesons, electrons and nucleon, but what about the quarks model for hadrons. Could this model by of any use in E infinity theory? The answer is yes it is and treating the same particles using a combination of the quarks model and scaling gives a deeper understanding of the theory which we do next. In fact some scientists regard the electron as a kind of quark and that was used in our earlier analysis. [33] and [39]. 7. Constructing the neutron and the proton from quarks 7.1. The mass of the quarks First we give here without derivation, the current and constituent masses of the light and heavy quarks which are consistent with E infinity theory. Needless to say, that these masses are in excellent agreement with the majority of the scarce and difficult to obtain data about the mass of the quarks. It takes only one look at these values for anyone to realise that they form a harmonic musical ladder. In fact, particle physics seen through the eyes of E infinity must resemble a cosmic symphony, even for the most hard nosed so-called realist. Here are the values [18]: (a) Current mass [14] and [18] (b) Constituent mass [14] and [18] 7.2. Constructing the nucleon from quarks The point is that we know from the classical quark theory that a nucleon is supposed to be made up from three confined light quarks. For the neutron these are two down quarks and one up and for the proton, two up quarks and one down. That way one finds that [16] and [18] where λN is a scaling given by Thus where n1≃496 is the expectation value for the number of massless gauge bosons in the quantum gravity field while is the expectation value of the number of massless bosons in the standard model. That means which is exactly the value we obtained previously and which agrees completely with the experimental results. Now we look at the proton which is electrically charged and must therefore be made up of two up quarks and one down quark [16] and [17] where λp is the scaling Thus we have in full agreement with the experimental evidence namely mp=938.279 MeV. However we gain from the previous equation a great deal of insight into the relation between mN and mp within E infinity. We notice in the last equation that mp is a projection of mN=939.57427 MeV. The projection is due to a rotation of an angle equal to π divided by (D(10))(D(6)−k)=60 where D(6)=6+k and D(10)=10 as we have known from the φ scaling of corresponding to the dimension of our transfinite version of the Heterotic string theory. One could ask why this rotation? Formally one could answer it is exactly equivalent to the internal rotation of the isospin theory of Heisenberg only more tangible and it gives the right result. However using our hyperbolic distortion picture (see Fig. 1) of the Cantorian E infinity space, we can give the deeper answer that this is the angle at which we look at a neutron and conceive it as a proton as far as the mass is concerned. It is the geometry and topology of space–time all over again. In string theory we know that the mass equations of the “particles” lives in the 6 dimensional part of the 10 dimensional space of the string core embedded in E infinity. This is one of the important results of the theory of super strings [10]. 8. Deriving the mass of the meson from the “vibration” of the light quarks 8.1. The expectation π meson Now we would like to derive the expectation π meson mass (which was never observed experimentally until this point of time, but may be found in the future) using the quarks model. We know that the meson consists of two quarks. For that purpose we take one up and one down quark and find The reassuring thing here is that we find the scaling to be exactly λπ=10. Thus the 〈mπ〉 is ten copies, (to use the terminology of the 10 dimensional super string) of the sum of the two light quarks In such cases it is instructive to see the calculation as going forward and backward from higher to lower dimensionality and visa versa. That means the masses of the quarks which we perceive are the ones measured here in our 3 + 1 dimensional projection of E infinity. However the combination we talk about takes place in this case in the 10 dimensional super string core of E infinity so that the value we measure in our 3 + 1 projection is the 10-fold of the simple sum of the mass of mu and md. 8.2. Nested and fractal vibration So far we have made no direct quantitative reference to the vibrational interpretation of E infinity and that is what we will touch upon now. Consider a simple two degrees of freedom linear vibration consisting of two masses connected by linear elastic springs and hanging on the ceiling. Setting the masses and the spring constant equal to unity, we obtain a quadratic secular equation with two frequencies as the solution, namely [14] and [18] These are indeed the golden mean again. If we now imagine an infinite collection of such two degrees of freedom unit cells connected sequentially and in parallel at random, then we need only to introduce a so-called wired hierarchy in the architecture of our neural network like structure and we would have some reasonable mechanical realisation of E infinity space. In fact, such an infinite collection of possibly nested oscillators has already been considered by L. Crnjac [5] and also by S. Wolfram in his recent book “A new kind of science”. I have used in this context the well known Eigen value theorems of Southwell and Dunkerly to show that the expected hierarchy of frequencies of vibration are simple or complex function of the golden mean and may add that many of the results obtained within the theory of N. Wiener and its modern recasting in the theory of spontaneous self-organisation (see Ref. [37]) are of great relevance to E infinity and reproduce partly some of our arguments. This could however take us too far from our present limited objective of an introduction to E infinity and will not be discussed in detail. The important point which we gain from the preceding “N. Wiener” picture is that when we add say two Hausdorff dimensions, for instance we can regard this also as adding two frequencies to find a joint frequency. Similarly we have in the sequential net the second variant of adding two frequencies and that would be Thus This is obviously trivial but things can get quite sophisticated and our approach requires knowledge of advanced modern geometry of the Kähler manifold [10] in particular the so-called K3. To explain this point let us take a concrete example. Very frequently when writing a scaling exponent using the main dimensions of the Heterotic string we would write something like −26+10=−16 and we justify this by saying that the 10 dimensions of D(10)=10 are moving to the right while the 26 dimensions of D(26)=26 are moving to the left. This situation is not as mad as it initially sounds. The point is somewhat similar to what we encounter frequently in the general theory of diffusion where we have a process defined at least mathematically via two diffusion equations, one running forward and the second backward in time. This is a special case of what I have introduced as the complex conjugate time of the quantum world [19] Something similar is used in the theory of Heterotic super strings where we introduce a so-called Minkowski analytical continuation and end with a holomorphic field and anti-holomorphic field. We use then the synonyms for left moving for holomorphic and right moving for anti-holomorphic [10]. 9. Quantization and transfinite discretization 9.1. The work of G. Ord This brings us now to what we should have explained at the beginning but deliberately postponed until this stage. The theory of E infinity would have remained without a strong theoretical foundation if it had not been for the work of the English–Canadian physicist, Garnet Ord [3]. Ord set out to take the mystery from analytical continuation. We should recall that analytical continuation is what converts an ordinary diffusion equation into a Schrödinger equation and a telegraph equation into a Dirac equation. Analytical continuation is thus the short cut quantization. However what really happened is totally inexplicable. It was Ord who showed, using his own (invented) quantum calculus, that analytical continuation is not needed if we work in a fractal-like setting, a fractal space–time if you want. In fact it was Ord who introduced the expression fractal space–time in a formal paper in the eighties. Only recently Ord’s work has gained acceptance in Physic Review Letters and so one is hopeful that his message will be widely understood; it is the transfinite geometry and not quantization which produces the equations of quantum mechanics. Quantization is just a very convenient way to reach the same result fast, but understanding suffers in the process of analytical continuation [3]. 9.2. Complex time and transfiniteness Ord has accepted the limited validity of 0±it as dual equations and that quantum mechanics [19] for instance is governed not only by one Schrödinger equation but by a second conjugate complex Schrödinger equation as pointed out by the author [35]. However he has written that this is not going as far as one should in demystifying analytical continuation and replacing it with a deep geometrical understanding. The further development of E infinity take Ord’s point completely which he acknowledged in several of his recent papers. So, our slogan for E infinity could be ‘Do not quantize and do not merely discretize. You should discretize transfinitely’. This is the right way from M. Kac to P. Dirac. Once this is done, we are in the middle of hyperbolic Cantor sets and E infinity. Now we come naturally to a totally justified question, namely what happens to h. Ord never needed to look into this question thoroughly because he regards his equation as being totally dimensionless and setting C=h=1 are his natural units system. Later on once he arrived at his Schrödinger and Dirac equations, he restores the situation and h appears again. In my E infinity, I do not need to dwell on h directly, but it is built in there for sure. This is because the dimension D(26)=26+k≃26 is at the same time the value at which all differences between all fundamental forces completely disappear and we have then one force, the super force so to speak. This situation takes place at an energy of around 1019 GeV. This energy is in turn related to the Planck length and to the length at which complete unification takes place. The Planck length and the total unification length are connected via this coupling constant, namely On the other hand, h is nothing but the square of the Planck length when measured in centimeters That is where h is hiding in E infinity. In other words, once we have found h experimentally and once we have accepted it as fundamental and final, we should have at once given up the smooth Euclidean space in favour of something more in harmony with such as E infinity space time. Now we may return again back to our main concern, the mass spectrum. We have so far converted some particles into others by means of scaling as far as mass is concerned, but we never really explained where mass came from in the first place. In the standard model for instance which E infinity accepts as a valid approximation, mass is explained using the Higgs mechanism. However no one has ever seen a Higgs experimentally and could not be sure that this Higgs really exists. None the less, this is not an argument against the Higgs because no one has ever seen a quark either, I mean a single quark moving freely in space and none the less, we accept the existence of quarks. If the Higgs particle exists, then one could ask again where did the Higgs particle get its mass from? In addition how could the Higgs field hide away its gravitational attraction which should in principle be detectable even with today’s technology as emphasized continuously by Veltman. 10. Unification and the mass of the electron 10.1. The unification π meson Now all these questions are answered within E infinity theory in a fundamentally different way. In E infinity the particles acquire their mass at the unification of all fundamental forces. To explain this point we would like to calculate here the mass of the electron from the condition of unification. All fundamental forces are unified when all the three fundamental coupling constants intersect with that of gravity [20] at one point in the space where αi. stands for the coupling constants of the weak force, the strong force and the electromagnetic force as well as the dimensionless coupling of gravity while E stands for the corresponding energy. Steven Weinberg gave a highly simplified and lucid account of this subject in the Millennium Edition of Scientific American [21] and one could see from his clearly presented coloured figures that assuming super symmetry the unification coupling constant lies indeed near which is very close to our theoretical result . Now we remember that we calculated a theoretical intermediate particle which we called an expectation π meson and found it equal to MeV. Remember we also obtained D(26)=26.18033 as a scaling of () namely . 10.2. The unification electron and the experimental mass of the electron Thus in analogy with that we would like to introduce formally a hypothetical particle with a mass equal to 26.18 MeV which we will call the unification π meson However we should keep in mind that this point is a point at which there is no difference what so ever between gravity and consequently mass and energy and electromagnetic charge nor nuclear forces. Now we know that the dimensionless electric charge is given by . Consequently we may deduce analogically a unification charge equal to . However this has to be lifted to 10 dimensions as we have seen before so that the correct expression would seem to be The above relation as it stands is unfortunately not right. It would have been right if it would not have been for a remarkable duality known in string theory as the Olive–Montonen duality, where we have to take the reciprocal value when moving from large scale to the ultra small scale and the correct expression is the reciprocal value This value measured as 〈mπ〉 in MeV and is what we call the unification electron mass. To obtain our 3 + 1 electron mass we have to project onto 3 + 1 dimensions and find using D(10) and D(6): The experimentally found value for me is, as is well known, me=0.511 MeV. 11. The experimental fine structure ‘constant’ and the electroweak ‘particles’ 11.1. The Sommerfeld α0 Now some may feel uneasy about the introduction of the string dualities [10] as well as the projection but both manoeuvres are routinely used in string theory and we are basing our self on it. One may find more than adequate and detailed coverage in the concerned monumental literature on the subject of strings, which we basically, globally accept as excellent approximation of what is the case in high energy physics. With E infinity theory however, we need not think of projection as more than special scaling to account for the distortion caused by infinite dimensional hyperbolic and fractal topology of quantum space–time. There is also a vital meaning for the procedure of projection connected to the low energy inverse fine structure constant . We have found to be but the very accurately measured is really so what is the meaning of this slight but important difference. The explanation is as follows. The is a global and is a true constant. By contrast, is a projection in 3 + 1 and may therefore vary slightly with space and time. To obtain the experimental we project it using the “quantized” projection angles (see Fig. 1) in this case θ=π/α0 and one finds [2] and [6] in complete agreement with the experimental value. 11.2. The electroweak theory In fact the cosine of, “quantized” angles plays a very important role in E infinity and may be thought of as a diffraction-like effect such as that found in crystallography. For instance, the Weinberg mixing parameter is identified in E infinity theory with the cosine of the angles of the triangles which make up the original Klein curve χ(3π/7) which forms the major part of E infinity as seen in the hyperbolic Poincare–Beltrami disc (see Fig. 1) With this value at our disposal, we can determine the masses of the W± and Z0 of the electroweak. For this purpose we look at the mW± as a scaled m*t, that is to say the constituent mass of the top quarks where and That way one finds The best experimental value is mW=80.4 GeV. To obtain the Mz we use the same formalism of the Glashow–Salam–Weinberg theory but use cos(3π/7) instead of sin2θw and one finds The best experimental value is 91.18 GeV. Incidentally the coupling constant of the electroweak is also easily found from which agrees with the P-adic expansion of , namely Thus 128 may be interpreted as being at the electroweak scale while 8 is the inverse of the strong coupling . The one left may be related to quantum gravity in the P-adic theory. The relation between P-adic numbers, fractal and E infinity was discussed by many authors. We should also note that 137 is the 33 prime number while 127 is the 31 prime number. We may also note that since the mass of our theoretical π meson is MeV we could interpret 128, 8 and 1 as masses measured in MeV. 12. Continued fraction and stability There is an important point which we did not discuss so far and which is important for our vital quarks model interpretation of E infinity. We have reason to think that in our E infinity theory we must have This is indeed the case as can be verified from This relation is extremely important because all permanent matter is made of m+p and m0N i.e. protons and neutrons. Therefore in any realistic model protons must be the most stable particle. In string terms as well as in E infinity terms, this must be the most stable “string” vibration. Since according to KAM this will entail the most irrational frequency ratio possible, the ratio of mu and md must be the most irrational number possible which is the golden mean, as is well known from number theory [12]. Now we should contemplate the following. The proton is the most stable composite particles we know of and this particle is made of two mu and one md, so we have By contrast, for the unstable neutron we have The question we hope someone can answer precisely one day is the following. Is it possible simply from looking at the continued expansion of the ratio of two elementary or sub-elementary particles or the logarithmic scaling of the ratio to judge the relative stability of the concerned particle from a criterion connected to the continued fractional expansion of these quantities. We have a strong feeling that such criteria may be possible and this would simplify KAM theory and Arnold diffusion calculation beyond our present hopes, something which is, as far as we are aware, completely lacking at present. 13. Present mathematical limitations imposed on a general theory Maybe it is now the place where we should discuss the limitations of our present theory. The customary thing to do in classical physics is either to establish the differential equation using Newtonian physics or what is completely equivalent to find a variational principle for which a Lagrangian is needed. This standard procedure is kept, as far as possible also in the standard model. However, as we can see, inconsistencies force us to give up smooth space–time and it was the French astrophysicist, Nottale [7] who investigated the consequence of giving up differentiability and came to his by now reasonably well known theory of scale relativity and conclusions similar to ours. Nottale of course did not give up continuity but only differentiability and this was difficult enough [7]. However in our case we have to find a way to integrate infinitely many times something which is classically non-integrable in order to find the stationary points corresponding to our Eigen values, i.e. masses and coupling constants, then we have to find the first variation (i.e. we differentiate) of the non-existing Lagrangian and set it equal to zero δ(L(VAK))=0 However if this could be done, we still do not know anything about the stability of this solution unless we require that we take the second variation (if it exists) and insist that δ2(L(VAK))>0 for stability and only then can we find the stable particles which could be observed. It is clear that we would need for this program a mathematics which does not exist yet and the only hope for an exact solution would be a super, super computer, i.e. a quantum computer. E infinity theory may be regarded thus as an attempt to go around all these difficulties as far as possible and extract as much exact information as we can using a flexible strategy of applying almost everything we have in mathematics simultaneously. In particular we do not use only group theoretical consideration but also set theory and number theory as well physical considerations such as the nested vibration model [5], which was probably inspired by the pictures of self-similar universe due to Swedenborg, Charlier and Right (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 4 and Fig. 5). 14. The meuon and the mass spectrum Now we may turn our attention once again to the calculation of the mass spectrum and it is time to consider the meuon. Being an electron in every respect except for being 206 times more heavy, the meuon should be regarded within the classical quarks theory as non-composite. Such notions, I mean “non-composite”, are only relative within E infinity theory and depend on the resolution which is used but for all practical purposes, we may regard the meuon as non-composite. The best is then to regard it as scaling (distortion) of a quark and we take it to be the up quark. That way we may write where Consequently On the other hand the meuon is clearly a scaled electron where Consequently Setting for mμ the value found earlier namely mμ=105.6656315 MeV, the electron mass is readily found to be exactly as expected. Now we may need to discuss the scalings λμ. Most of the time these scaling involve the ratio of the largest symmetry group we have, namely that which contains super strings and consequently gravitation, . The second value 24−φ9≃24 could be interpreted in different ways. First it is the dimension of SU(5) of the GUT unification. The φ9 is the transfinite so-called “correction” which reminds us that we are dealing with Cantor limit sets. On the other hand, if we take the 496 to be the number of massless gauge bosons of string theory, then the 24 should be taken to be the number of instantions which is equal to the second Chern class for K3⊗T2 as well as E8⊗E8. That means [10] Multiplication with 10 is taking it to the 10 dimensions of the super string core. I do of course appreciate that the preceding explanation itself needs explanation but this would take us deep into the topology of super strings and string field theory which is definitely not the purpose of the present introduction. 15. Possible experiments A question of great interest for any true physicist is obviously the following: could we have direct experimental verification for E infinity theory? The answer is probably yes but probably also not so direct. In my opinion, if it can be done at all, calculating the Hausdorff dimension of a quantum path may be our best bet [33]. Such an experiment should at the end say that the Hausdorff dimension of a quantum path is larger than the classical topological dimensional one. To find that the average Hausdorff dimension is exactly two would be a definite confirmation for all the postulates of E infinity theory. Although such sophisticated experiments are completely outside my range of expertise, I have given this question some though and think it will involve reconstruction of quasi-phase space using Ruell Takens method as well as deep laser cooling but this is still too vague to write about it here [33]. It seems that H. Kröger [34] in Canada attempted to find the Hausdorff dimension of a quantum path experimentally but so far, no real experiments were ever made. Another possibility is to find a deviation in Newton’s gravity law which could not be explained except with the existence of five and more dimensions for space–time. Such a possibility is being pursued by a team in CERN [31]. Two more predictions of E−∞ could be tested experimentally. First the existence of the expectation π meson 〈mπ〉=137.08 MeV as well as the expectation K meson 〈mK〉=495.9674 MeV. 16. Additional points of interest––the mass of the neutrino We hope the preceding discussion helps to clarify the basic idea behind our approach although we have ignored some important aspects related to sphere packing in higher dimensionality, Leech lattices, quantum calculus and scale relativity as well as loop quantum mechanics and knot theory. Some of these subjects were discussed by the writer and other authors in many previous publications [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] and [29], for instance Saniga [26], consider the relation between E infinity and projective geometry whereas Agop et al. [29] considers super conductivity and E infinity. Discussing all these aspects would take a considerable space and we reserve them for coming occasions but one more remark regarding the neutrino may be essential. Any new theory for particle physics is tacitly expected to say something about the mass of the neutrino. E infinity can do that and predict the mass of the neutrino on the basis of the energy of the microwave background radiation energy [30] to be of the order of 10−4 eV which agrees well with the scarce experimental evidence [30]. We also should draw attention to a recent interesting paper by Koschmieder [22]. A work which is similar in it’s philosophy is that of Sternglass [39]. 17. Intermediate summary of the results Let us summarise the most important formulas found so far for the different masses to reassure ourselves of their simplicity and elegance which excludes any possibility of interpreting these as any thing but true. 18. Symmetry breaking of E8⊗E8, the fundamental mass norm and We could arrive at via unification argument. Such an argument relies heavily upon quantum field theory and strings formulation and readers not familiar with both subjects may just disregard the reasoning of this section and note only the final conclusion. One of the accepted scenarios for moving from E8⊗E8 with its 496 massless bosons to the standard model SU(3) SU(2) U(l) with its initially 12 massless gauge boson is to assume that E8⊗E8 brakes into the smaller exceptional Lee group E6⊗E6 where . Let us recall first the approximate integer value of the fine structure constant, namely . Thus we may write that where 19 may be interpreted as the Bitti number of K3, namely . Our symmetry breaking may thus be written symbolically as Now recall that the mass of the two intermediate “theoretical” particles, namely the expectation meson 〈mπ〉 and the expectation Kaon were given by and so that the following theoretical “decay” is suggested by the preceding symmetry breaking We see that the electromagnetic fine structure constant for a Cooper pair arises naturally from the preceding symmetry breaking and in addition we have Consequently this may be interpreted as but we also know that Consequently the dimension-like value corresponding to 1 MeV. This may be a cumbersome way to state a trivial but deeply surprising and immensely useful fact. In E infinity space every dimension corresponds to 1 MeV in the mass space. 19. The Higgs and E infinity We have already mentioned that our approach to the mass problem is quite different from that of the standard model and the Higgs mechanism. However the Higgs picture could be in general interpreted in a way useful for E infinity. The mere fact that if we do not involve self-interaction of the Higgs field in order to give the Higgs particle mass, then we must assume that there is a second Higgs field which gives the particles of the first their mass and so on indefinitely is a statement about fractalness. In this picture and as mentioned by Veltmann, the Higgs would be just a new level of finer description of particle physics. (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 5) 19.1. The fine structure constant revisited General remarks and alternative rationalisation The reader may have long noticed the central role played by the fine structure constant α0 in ε(∞). One could say that the value range second in the line of importance just after the Hausdorff dimension A well meaning critic which I take very seriously for more than many very good reasons besides being one of the best theoretical physicists of the past century, remarked that he expected α0 to come at the end of a general theory as a final conclusion and not at the beginning. This remark hits the nail on the head. Indeed, this is the point. In order to be able to achieve what we set out to do, I had to turn the classical way of attacking the problem on its head. The rationale behind this reversed strategy is found in the topological–geometrical conception of E infinity theory. Once we take the topologicalization program seriously, then α0 follows from its interpretation as a probability. In our case as a geometrical–topological probability. It is this deceptively simple move which made everything fall into place and laid bare the deep harmony underlying the golden mean mass spectrum of high energy particle physics. To explain this let us start ab initio. We have already established that E infinity is a kind of probability space. However E infinity is strictly speaking a “prespace” and therefore we should be very careful in using words like space and probability. All the same, we need to define what we mean with probability. In our particular case we have a formaly infinite dimensional Cantor set with unaccountably infinitely many Cantor points in a “prespace” without a metric because the Lebesgue measure of E infinity is zero. As a consequence of this situation, combinatorial probability can be ruled out because the probability in all events will be In such a case one would usually attempt to define probability geometrically but also in this case we find The only way left is to attempt to define a topological probability using the Hausdorff dimension and the embedding dimension This means In other words, we have, For a Mauldin–William random Cantor set one finds That means that the multiplication and addition theorems may be applied to PTop=dc(0)=φ. For instance P=φ3=φ⊗φ⊗φ is the probability that event with a probability φ takes place three times simultaneously. On the other hand the probability that only one event of three events takes place is given by P=3φ=φ⊗φ⊗φ Applying these elementary ideas to reality we Consider once more the fine structure constant . We interpret as in atomic physics in a quite elementary fashion as a cross-section for the interaction of two electrons. A cross-section is a nuclear engineering conception but is actually a marvellous geometrical concept ideally suited to the entire philosophy and structural concepts of E infinity. Thus α0 would be thought of primarily and in contrast to the classical definition of α0 as a probability. It is the probability for two electrons to interact for instance. It is also a probability for an electron to emit or absorb a photon. Thus it is a measure of the strength of the electromagnetic field interactivity. Now in the strain of positivistic philosophy we could define at will to be We disregard for the moment the slight difference from the experimental value The only thing we need to show is that defining in this way leads to rational and particularly economic way of describing physical phenomena without contradicting well established other theories nor of course contradicting well established experimental facts. However at least as far as the present author is concerned, this positivistic operational philosophy is not entirely satisfactory and we would like to give a deeper explanation as to why we fine tune to be . Now (1/φ)4 could be interpreted as (1/φ)4=(1/φ)(1/φ)(1/φ)(1/φ) Since φ is a probability of finding a Cantorion point in a one dimensional Cantor set, then φ4 is also a probability. It is the probability of finding a Cantor point, a so-called Cantorion in all four topological dimensions simultaneously. That means or a part of is totally an inextricably connected to four dimensional space. However E infinity goes further than that. We have the 10 dimensional core of the super string space D(10)=10 which we have shown to be part of E infinity and embedded in it. Now the probability (1/φ)4 penitrates into the “string space” through the non-massive section, namely the (26+k)−(6+k)=20 dimensions and that on the basis of the addition theorem, so that the total fine structure constant becomes There are numerous ways to convince oneself with the inevitability of setting . However they all have a feel of ad hocness to them. For instance one could see as the intersection of 3+φ3 with 4+φ3=3+φ3+1 living in the union of the D(10)=10. That means 19.2. The E infinity interpretation of the 26 dimensions of super strings One must have noticed by now that the philosophy of D. Finkelstein and his school regarding that a process is more fundamental than space–time and that a particle creates its own space time has at least some indirect application in E infinity theory. In a sense that is the reason why particle masses and dimensions are so much interrelated within this theory. It is here where E infinity theory can give an intuitive rationalisation for the need for some 26 dimensions for space–time. To explain this I may use a lucid and clear presentation of the number of the free parameters. Such a presentation was given to the author on request by A. Goldfain and is a follows: First we have three coupling constant of SU(3), SU(2), U(1). Second, we have the two parameters of the Higgs mass and its vacuum expectation value. Then we have the mixing angle of the instanton contributions. That brings us to six parameters. Next we have (Nq2+1) quark parameters made up of 2Nq quark masses for Nq generations and (Nq−1)2 mixing angles (Cabbibo) and phases. For Nq=3 we have the 10 parameters in addition to the previous 6 making the 16 free parameters. Finally we add another (Nl2+1) lepton parameters giving for generation number Nl=3 another 10 parameters and consequently we end with 26 free parameters. This may be found directly from the formula 2(Nf2+1)+6 when setting Nf=3. The situation is just like in elementary linear algebra where 26 equations are needed to find 26 unknowns. Consequently we need 26 degrees of freedom in our Lagrangian and these 26 degrees of freedom are our quasi-dimension. The attentive reader may have noticed that we made use of b2−=19−φ6≃19 in our mass formula. Now this is a geometrical quantities related to the Betti number of the Kahler manifold K3. However it could also be interpreted as the number of quasi-dimensions when we set in our standard model massless neutrinos and dispose of the leptonic mixing angle. This is again a valid approximation depending on the resolution in keeping with the basic philosophy and concepts of E infinity. Finally in the so-called minimal model we could reach the minimum number of 18 free parameters which is what is commonly quoted in text books. By contrast in string theory one normally reads the sentence that the standard model possesses about 20 free parameters. Thus from our E infinity view point we think that we should think of the 26 dimensions of string theory as being the expectation value of the number of needed free parameters for a consistant theory. This alone should give us yet another strong argument to believe that the neutrinos must have a non-vanishing mass. Finally we should link the hierarchical structure of the mass spectrum with the number of dimensions and the fact that the volume of n dimensional sphere vanished as n goes to infinity. Now, in E infinity theory the exact value is an expectation value namely 26.18033989 rather than just 26. In addition the number of fundamental forces is not just 5 for electric force, magnetic force, weak force, strong force and gravity, but an expectation value 5+φ3=5.236067977. Consequently the total number of free parameters is n=(5+φ3)(26.18033989)=137.082039325 In other words we have gained yet another derivation and interpretation of as dimension and number of free parameter at a higher resolution namely 20. Symmetry breaking and the Higgs field There seems to be some misunderstanding about the role of symmetry breaking in connection with the Higgs field which we would like to explain briefly. If we restrict ourselves to the very elementary case of a skeleronomic and holonomic conservative system described by a potential energy then there are only three types of symmetry breaking bifurcation points. The stable symmetric, the unstable symmetric and the asymmetric or Poincare exchange of stability. Even here we do not have the case of indifferent equilibrium which must therefore be classified as unstable. Thus the massless particles are indifferent to any “potential” and thus unstable. Once the particle “absorbs” a Higgs from the surrounding Higgs field, then it puts on a weight, i.e. it acquires a mass. This mass will in the ball analogy lead to either a stable or an unstable position depending on the shape of the potential. Thus we are not really dealing with a true symmetry breaking bifurcation, neither in the sense of Poincare nor Hopf nor in fact that of Pexito structural stability. We may note on passing that the field associated with E infinity is a fractal field. Thus it is not a classical field like the scalar field of the Higgs nor the Vector field of Electromagnetism. It is also not a tensor field like in general relativity. It is far more complex. 21. Cantor space and Newton’s non-dimensional gravity constant For a projective Borel hierarchy, one comes to the notion of a Cantor space as follows: Definition Let the space AN be viewed as the product of infinitely many copies of A with discrete topology, be completely metrizable and countable. In the case of A=2={0,1} and A=N, we call the space ε=2N a Cantor space. The amazing and amusing fact which follows from the above is the following. Taking heuristically N to be which is the 31 prime number, then one finds ε=(2)127≅(1.7)(10)38 The dimensionless Newton gravity constant is given by The agreement between ε and αG is remarkable and although suggesting and indicative of the deep relation between physics and E infinity theory, we do not want to over estimate its importance nor are we at present in a position to give a rational consistent physical explanation for it. We have of course some intuition for the problem derived for instance from comparing the square of the Planck mass and the proton mass which leads to the same pure number when squared While mpl/mp≃(1.3)(10)19 when measured in GeV gives us the unification scale of quantum gravity. Note also that [(αG)(GeV)2]−1 gives us the right gravitational constant order of magnitude, namely The experimental value is GN=(6.70784)(10)−39 GeV−2. Similar conclusions were reach in a couragious work by the prominent Stanford experimental physicist Noyes [38]. 22. The mass spectrum revisited Having established the mass norm relating quasi-dimensions to MeV units in ε(∞) it is an amazingly simple task to estimate the masses of the some 200 or so known elementary particles. Here we will restrict our attention to only some of the more well known particles and resonances. The following particles are simply multiples of MeV and the results are in excellent agreement with experiments The experimental values are 548.8, 957.5, 9460.3 MeV. Particularly interesting is the mass for the expectation Σ particle. This is given by The experimental value is 11932.8 MeV. The mass of the well known J/ψ can also be found easily as The experimental value is 3096.9 MeV. For we also have a simple formula The experimental value is 1115.63 MeV. Similarly for Δ (1232), ms (770) and mω (783) one finds and The experimental values are 1230, 770 and 782 MeV respectively. A particularly neat expression is found for the tau particle by scaling the proton using Proceeding that way one finds The experimental value is 1777 MeV according to D. Perkins. We could come to a similarly accurate estimation by scaling the expectation π meson, K meson or the constituent mass of the t quark m*t: In conclusion we may give the mass of the Exi minus and Exi plus particles and The experimental values are 1321.32 and 1314.9 MeV. 23. A brief history of ideas leading to the E infinity concept If we focus our attention on hierarchy and self-similarity (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 4 and Fig. 5) rather than on mathematical transfiniteness, then one may be surprised to see an unsuspected long history of ideas which bear a striking resemblance to the geometrical concept of E infinity. The idea of hierarchy and self-similarity in science first started in cosmology before moving to the realm of quantum and particle physics. It is quite possible that a clergyman, T. Right was the first to entertain such ideas (see Fig. 2). Later on the idea reappeared in the work of the Swedish scientist Emanular Swedenborg and then much later and in a more mathematical fashion, in the work of another Swedish astrophysicist, Carl Charlier (see Fig. 3). This Swedish school may have inspired the work of the eminent British scientist Lord Kelvin on the space–time foam and then in turn together with the work of the Swedish school may have reached Zyldovich in the former Soviet Union. My own work was done independently and until very recently without any knowledge of the above starting from non-linear dynamics as applied to turbulence (see Fig. 4). Subsequently I became acquainted with Wheeler space–time foam as well as the work of G. Ord and then L. Nottale, K. Svozil, B. Sidharth and finaly the Swedish School. 24. Conclusions Seen through the eyes of transfinite sets and the golden mean renormalization groups the mass spectrum of high energy particles resembles a non-linear dynamical symphony where everything fits with everything else. We could start virtually any where and drive everything form everything else. Once we manage to familiarise ourselves with the mass norm, everything falls into place. In fact it takes very little effort to be able to memorise the masses of the most important particles and derive the corresponding formulas with remarkable ease. If we take the words of E. Mach seriously, that understanding may be equated with “denk” economy, then one could say that E infinity theory furnishes us with such economy of thoughts and thus understanding of the mass spectrum. Acknowledgements The author is deeply indebted to Prof. Dr. W. Martienssen as well as to Prof. E. Fredkin for stimulating discussions. I am also very grateful for a pleasant visit to the Royal Institut of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden during which the present work was written. Finally I am thankfull to Prof. D. Mumford for permission to use some material from his publication cited in the references. References [1] M.S. El Naschie Superstrings, knots and non-commutative geometry in E-infinity space Int. J. Theoret. Phys., 37 (12) (1998) [2] M.S. El Naschie The VAK of vacuum fluctuation, spontaneous self-organisation and complexity theory interpretation of high energy particle physics and the mass spectrum Chaos, Solitons & Fractals (2003) [3] G.N. Ord, R.B. Mann Entwined paths, difference equations and the Dirac equation Phys. Rev. A, 67 (2003), p. 0121XX3 [4] D.P. Datta The golden mean, scale free extension of real number systems, fuzzy sets and l/f spectrum in physics and biology Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 17 (2003), pp. 781–788 Article | PDF (123 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (17) [5] L. Marek Crnjac On mass spectrum of elementary particles of the standard model using El Naschie’s golden field theory Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 15 (2003), pp. 611–618 Article | PDF (98 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (35) [6] E. Goldfain Derivation of the fine structure constant using fractional dynamics Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 17 (2003), pp. 811–818 Article | PDF (105 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (8) [7] L. Nottale Scale relativity and non-differentiable fractal space–time B. Sidharth, M. Altaisky (Eds.), Frontiers of Fundamental Physics, Kluwer, New York (2001), pp. 65–79 Full Text via CrossRef [8] M.S. El Naschie Nonlinear dynamics and infinite dimensional topology in high energy physics Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 17 (2003), pp. 591–599 Article | PDF (170 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (35) [9] M.S. El Naschie Complex vacuum fluctuation as a chaotic limit set of any Kleinian group transformation and the mass spectrum of high energy particle physics via spontaneous self-organisation Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 17 (2003), pp. 631–638 Article | PDF (100 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (37) [10] J. Polchinski String theory, vol. I and II Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA (1998) [11] A.S. Kechris Classical descriptive set theory Springer, New York (1995) [12] D. Mumford, C. Sevies, D. Wright Indra’s Pearls Cambridge, New York (2002) [13] M.S. El Naschie VAK, vacuum fluctuation and the mass spectrum of high energy particle physics Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 17 (2003), pp. 797–807 Article | PDF (719 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (39) [14] M.S. El Naschie On a class of general theories for high energy particle physics Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 14 (2002), pp. 649–668 Article | PDF (179 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (95) [15] G. ‘t Hooft In search of the ultimate building blocks Cambridge, New York (1997) [16] M.S. El Naschie Modular groups in Cantorian E infinity high energy physics Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 16 (2003), pp. 353–366 Article | PDF (401 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (53) [17] M.S. El Naschie Kleinian groups in E infinity and their connection to particle physics and cosmology Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 16 (2003), pp. 637–649 Article | PDF (769 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (22) [18] M.S. El Naschie On the exact mass spectrum of quarks Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 14 (2002), pp. 369–376 Article | PDF (98 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (42) [19] M.S. El Naschie On conjugate complex time and information in relativistic quantum theory Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 5 (8) (1995), pp. 1551–1555 Article | PDF (321 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (40) [20] M.S. El Naschie Theoretical derivation and experimental confirmation of the topology of transfinite heterotic strings Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 12 (2001), pp. 1167–1174 Article | PDF (113 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (15) [21] S. Weinberg A unified Physics by 2050 Sci. Am. (December) (1999), pp. 36–43 View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (1) [22] Koschmieder EL. The standing wave model of the mesons and baryons. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, in press [23] B.G. Sidharth The nature of quantum space–time and the Cantorian proposal Chaos, Solitons & Fractals (December) (2002), p. 1325 Article | PDF (80 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (11) [24] C. Castro Fractal strings as an alternative justification for El Naschie’s Cantorian space–time and the fine structure constant Chaos, Solitons & Fractals (December) (2002), p. 1341 Article | PDF (126 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (19) [25] C. Castro On p-adic stochastic dynamics, super symmetry and the Riemann conjecture Chaos, Solitons & Fractals (January) (2003), p. 15 Article | PDF (120 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (7) [26] M. Saniga A further note on a formal relationship between the arithmetic of homoloidal nets and the dimensions of transfinite space–time Chaos, Solitons & Fractals (2002), pp. 1571–1573 Article | PDF (48 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (2) [27] I. Gottlieb, G. Ciobann, C.Ch. Buzea El Naschie’s Cantorian space–time, Toda lattices and Cooper–Agop pairs Chaos, Solitons & Fractals (August) (2003), p. 789 Article | PDF (571 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (2) [28] O. Zmeskal, M. Nezadal, M. Buchnicek Fractal Cantorian geometry Hausdorff dimension and the fundamental laws of physics Chaos, Solitons & Fractals (July) (2003), p. 113 Article | PDF (129 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (24) [29] M. Agop, M. Strat, G. Strat, T.P. Nica Cantorian ε(∞) structures in discharge plasma double layers. Theoretical and experimental aspects of basic processes Chaos, Solitons & Fractals (June) (2002), p. 1541 Article | PDF (3221 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (9) [30] El Naschie MS. The mass of the neutrinos via the energy of the cosmic background radiation of the VAK. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, in press [31] S. Abel, J. March-Russell The search for extra dimensions Physics World (November) (2000), p. 39 View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (8) [32] B.G. Sidharth Chaotic Universe Nova, New York (2001) [33] M.S. El Naschie The fractal dimension of space–time––remarks on theoretical derivation and experimental verification Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 9 (7) (1988), pp. 1211–1217 [34] H. Kröger Generalized Aharonor–Bohm effect, homotopy classes and Hausdorff dimension Phys. Lett. A, 226 (1997), pp. 127–134 Article | PDF (898 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (8) [35] M.S. El Naschie A note on quantum mechanics, diffusional interference and informions Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 5 (5) (1995), pp. 881–884 Article | PDF (310 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (55) [36] M.S. El Naschie Determining the temperature of the microwave background radiation from the topology and geometry of space–time Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 14 (2002), pp. 1121–1126 Article | PDF (228 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (22) [37] Strogatz S. Sync. Penguin Books, London, 2003 [38] H.P. Noyes, T. Bastin, J. Amson, C. Kilmister On the physical interpretation and the mathematical structure of combinatorial Hierarchy Int. J. Theoret. Phys., 13 (7) (1979), pp. 445–488 [39] E.J. Sternglass Before the big bang Four Walls Eight Windows, New York (1997) Address: P.O. Box 272, Cobham, Surrey, UK Copyright © 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserve