241 Mumbers: The Definitive Data for Fundamental Physics and Cosmology

         Mumbers, Mumbers, Mighty Mumbers            

'Mumbers' is just short for "Membrane Numbers"

Yet, Without Mumbers there’d be No Numbers

No more than there’d be Mumbers Without Numbers

    And there was given to me a reed like a rod; and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and Measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and Measure It Not.      Revelation 11

Did God have a choice in creating the universe?      Albert Einstein’s better "dicey question"

      Are all the (measurable) dimensionless parameters that characterize the physical universe calculable in principle or are some merely determined by historical or quantum mechanical accident and incalculable?            The #1"Millennium Question" of David Gross at 'Strings 2000'

241 Mumbers was conceived by answering this last question, a couple of months after being chosen as the deepest quandary facing physics in the 21st Century. Based upon the seminal work of A. J. Meyer on gravitational cosmology, S. T. Sheeter’s 241-Mumbers: The Definitive Data for Fundamental Physics and Cosmology shares the wealth of break-through discoveries covering every aspect of fundamental physics and cosmology. In the spirit of the preceding quote, our work is accordingly dedicated to fulfilling the legacy of Einstein’s vision; yet first serves as a reminder of how even he was rebuked for years of perceived failed efforts developing "unified field theory."

For the same question was more fully answered in the 1990s by Edward Witten's 11 Dimensional Unification of Kaluza-Klein and Membrane Theory Uniting the various classes of Super-Strings. Dr. Witten was also wisely instrumental in Choosing  Gross's #1 question about dimensionless numerical scaling over his #2 top question of Strings 2000, rephrasing Einstein's above profound wording in more specific terms of Quantum Gravitation. Which A.J. and I had spent ~14 years working on, and  had at least  partially solved, before this millennial quandary was even proposed. Which was then fully accomplished once I had discretely deciphered the pure numerical Planck scaling that Meyer had developed! And shortly, in the Summary* after you read a 4-page Introduction, I'll simply Explain (in common English, backed by a couple of equations) how this is done (sans diagrams and footnotes of the central chapter of the 241 Mumbers text), but can already summarized as follows. For in 1988 I published a definitive geometry book which is naturally based on a finite, so categorically consistent and complete, Eleven Dimensional Projective Geometric system (for which the Pascal Conic on the Cover [shown at the end of our Summary] is its plane section). In essence, this allows a full solution to Einstein and Witten's question by giving New Meaning (beyond standard M-theory) to the Six Dimensions of 6-lines-at-a-point as Strings, that are so highly Compacted they form a 'Heavy Planck Particle' associated with an Atemporal (6 point) Five Dimensional Initial Solid State Clifford Metric. Which then subsequently takes a Discrete Quantum Gravitational Jump to a Lighter Plank Mass, marking the initiation of Universal Mass Creation during the first stages of the Inflation Era (which will be explained in full after one reads particle Table1). 

But there is no way on earth that this could have been accomplished without having been Given this model by A.J. And I only learned in 2013 the real story of how he got a hold of me in the 80's from my buddy Robert Fitzpatrick, who I'd met in Berkeley when he was rooming with one of my best friends. And though I'd forgotten Bob's name, I had by then come to know practically everyone he went to High School with in Del Mar CA. Everyone that is, except A.J.'s Nephew Matt Hartman, who (I haven't yet met but) was with Robert when they visited A.J. for a week in Connecticut. I know it may seem a little off topic, but that Thanksgiving day in '13 was too memorable as Robert also went on to tell me, while I was still recuperating from a liver transplant, that A.J. had sadly died at 73 in 2011. Yet I was at once happily surprised to learn for the first time that he had a very impressive list of inventions, though I certainly knew he also had a long list of VIP physicist friends, a couple of who I met the first and only time I met him face to face at a conference on gravitation and cosmology in Florida in Dec. 2000. So after 15 years of relative personal obscurity here at 241, I still have every reason to believe that sooner or later what he has given us will be universally recognized as a comprehensive new foundation for a truly Unified Explanation of Everything.

And in this regard I have to again stress that it is the very Finitude of This Universe and everything in it that allows it to be categorically consistent And complete, so is the Only Full and Unified Explanation that is Possible, which is thus Not a 'Theory.' For you see Gödel's Theorem applies to an Infinite chain of numbers, a system which can Either be mapped in a categorically consistent fashion, or a complete manner, but concludes it's Impossible to be Both. Anyway, though I use accepted theories such as Kaluza-Klein, Membranes, Super-Symmetry and the extended Higgs mechanism to construct our particle tables and general discussions,  one should immediately keep in mind that nearly all standard 'Theories' have been curiously incapable of a Prediction, let alone giving Precise Equations for the mass of any known particle. Such ironies forcefully illustrate why a (non-metric or) dimensionless scaling of physics based upon the indisputable invariants of Numbers, ratios or pure geometric principles is indispensable - if one is to move beyond incomplete theories and imprecise empirical measurement correlated with theory and data encumbered by rough approximations with a host of independent "free parameters." Yet, as Revelation 11 portends, how many will admit that determination of such a parameter as a quark mass, though clearly not directly measurable by any means employed by the "empirical court of science," not only remains "theoretically calculable in principle" - but is definitely determinable by uniquely precise and discrete equations, as well as being empirically demonstrable under or within, what is more truly a Common "Court of God’s Measure?"

You know if one reads that #1 question carefully, a couple of underlying assumptions seem to remain rather ambiguously unexamined.  The first was what was exactly implied by the term 'dimensionless parameters?'  After setting up a quite discrete universal number in our Introduction we go on to derive the central and most important 'dimensionless parameter' in physics, the fine structure number. The discreteness at once quantizes the number and makes it invariant as a constant, the inverse of which describes the electromagnetic coupling. That question goes on to frame the scientific alternative if this wasn't possible, in which case it would be a 'historical' or quantum mechanical 'accident.' When one first thinks of something as being quantum mechanical, what comes to mind is usually the uncertainty principle - not discreteness. When one thinks of photons as being particles and/or waves, they can be either depending on how one chooses to look at it, though a 'photon' generally can have a discrete energy is a particle. But when you think of an electron or a proton, the first thing that comes to is a particle with a fixed discrete mass. And so you see, that is not a 'dimensionless parameter!' The ratio of the combined mass of the proton and electron to the scale of a Plank mass is a dimensionless discretely defined entity, but those masses are the only two independent measured variables in A.J.'s system, which then allows one to go way beyond answering that  #1 question just in terms of mere 'dimensionless parameters!'

It follows that whether our updated homepage arouses enough curiosity to pursue a full read (of the essential chapters and new overviews (see above and below for details*), or especially if you are new here and/or are just evaluating the implications of what we have to offer, it’s of benefit to contemplate our second Sample Data and Proofs page. For the 3rd sample allows you to calculate the mass of a down quark mass by 241's "Best Proof," after you're here simply given the up quark mass = 3.169816 MeV. {We've given this mass here for 14 years, initially as a come on, though now one can go on to directly study the basic particle Table1 included in our text's Summary section on page three (as suggested above*). Yet as a teacher, learning theorist and largely self-taught curious student of anything meaningful or interesting, I still highly recommend following my original instructions deriving the down mass Yourself from the Sample Data pion differential before you read Sheeter's cheat sheet. Which also should be read for our later discussion of the gluino as it relates to the extended overview*. In either case, I recently discovered a relevant nuance concerning the book value of the up quark mass with regard to what seems to be a majority of readers who are either 'browsing the web' for trivial pursuit, or more specifically, those who skeptically evaluate all "claims" with no intent of 'buying' anything, proven or not. And I don't mean some e-book, but rather hardened skeptics and intellectually vain eggheads who only need to download the latest 'certified information' from the Particle Data Group to occasionally impress their peers or when their pre-programmed pocket calculator's data bank gets outdated. For out of curiosity one day, having returned to cosmological particle physics with a joyful vengeance now that the center-mass energy of the Large Hadron Collider has been boosted enough to penetrate the full super-symmetry barrier, I took another gander at the disaster zone of what pdg calls the 'light quarks,' where I saw something I never noticed before. Which is this statement concerning the evaluation of the data: "Results at 1 GeV have been rescaled by dividing by 1.35." Now, the data group goes on say the same thing about the down and strange masses, though those are totally much too low for this trick to work, but the up is certainly on target. So, dividing 3.169816 by 1.35, we get an up quark value of  2.34801185 MeV,  where pdg's evaluation is 2.3 +.7,-.5. So what do you know, given their scaling factor, they were almost right! Funny thing is, though the only independent metric variables in A.J.'s system is the measured (241 uses the 2000) value of the combined mass of the proton and electron for calculating masses at all differential scales, the two up quarks of the proton is the only particle that  directly is calculated by a fine-structured relation to it, after subtracting out the electron by either of two means, which is itself a rather strong proof. But the point here is that I also obviously derived the correct value from roughly 1 GeV, but surely didn't need some arbitrary scale factor after having solved the Central Problem with a so-called 'constant' that has Still been imprecisely Measured since the above #1 question was Asked!

Anyway, I hope my update on the up quark, and the down derivation via the pion differential, helps generate a bit more attention than it's received so far. After all the pudding pi.e is proof enough that though it might have been tastier when it it was first baked fresh out of the oven, it never gets stale and is just as delicious, if not enhanced even by adding some exotic new fruit, after  a slow defrost from the freezer and a quick pop in the microwave. Likewise, in the 2nd derivation in the Sample Data, the measured mass of the neutral weak Zo boson is perhaps an even more impressive "pudding proof" as a demonstration of the validity of Mumbers' unprecedented and exacting methods, equations and data in regards to the equally precise mass derived from the lower Higgs vacuum expectation value and the much heavier strange (+s) and bottom (-b) flavors of the down quark family, also one of the main decay products of the Z!  But giving their mass values in electron Volts would be fruitless without comprehension of the greater system that determines them. For in physical science, as in business or life, the "proof (in, or) of the pudding is in the eating" - as just a few tastes of the chef's favorite flavors tantalizing your pallet should be fully sufficient to confirm an order for a full bowl. Yum.

Social Bookmarking Add to Onlywire

Home Page    Sample Data    Summary Info    Book Orders    Notable Rants    Winners Club