Of course, it’s not because I am done with Feynman’s Lectures, that I am done with physics. I want to move on to more advanced – or funnier ðŸ™‚ – topics now. Check my new blog. Onwards! ðŸ™‚

# Looking forward…

- Tagged
- general relativity

**Published**

Skip to content
# Looking forward…

##
3 thoughts on “Looking forward…”

### Leave a Reply

Of course, it’s not because I am done with Feynman’s Lectures, that I am done with physics. I want to move on to more advanced – or funnier ðŸ™‚ – topics now. Check my new blog. Onwards! ðŸ™‚

%d bloggers like this:

Hello,

Please forward this all who may be interested….

I am in possession of what I call the ‘Holy Grail’ of particle physics. I can account for all mass ratios of fundamental particles and interactions using a rather simple 3-D geometric model (of what I call a trinity of trinity’s) that manifest into a 9 x 9 ‘map’ of multi-layered’ probabilities. I can determine much other profundity besides what I have listed below in this missive such as connections and rationales for All shades of mass and All fractions of charge along with a Pythagorean determination and rationale for the fine structure constant (pi^2 + 137^2 = fine structure constant^2) etc. To dispel any skepticism of my sincerity of this announcement, I have included some of the mass ratio relationships that my intricate ‘map’ of overlapping probabilities reveals. Again, there is much more profundity besides…

Ratios of known relative masses in GeV’s and those produced from my map:

Higgs/(Z Boson) = (125.09/91.19) corresponds to 81/59 = 1.3728813…(+- 0.08%)

Higgs/(W Boson) = (125.09/80.39) corresponds to 81/52 = 1.5576923077…(+- 0.11%)

(Z Boson)/(W Boson) = (91.19/80.39) corresponds to 59/52 = 1.13461538…(+- 0.02%)

Higgs/(Up Quark) = (125.09/0.0024) corresponds to 81/156×10^-5 = 51923.07692…(+- 0.38%)

Higgs/(Down Quark) = (125.09/0.0048) corresponds to 81/31×10^-4 = 26129.03226……(+- 0.26%)

Higgs/(Charm Quark) = (125.09/1.275) corresponds to 81/83×10^-2 = 97.59036145…(+- 0.53%)

Higgs/(Strange Quark) = (125.09/0.095) corresponds to 81/61×10^-3 = 1327.868852…(+- 0.85%)

Higgs/(Top Quark) = (125.09/172.44 corresponds to 81/112 = 0.723214286…(+- 0.30%)

Higgs/(Bottom Quark) = (125.09/4.18) corresponds to 81/27×10^-1 = 30…(+- 0.25%)

Higgs/(Electron) = (125.09/0.000511) corresponds to 81/33×10^-5 = 245454.54…(+- 0.27%)

Higgs/(Muon) = (125.09/0.10567) corresponds to 81/69×10^-3 = 1173.913043…(+- 0.83%)

Higgs/(Tau) = (125.09/1.7768) corresponds to 81/115 = 70.43478261…(+- 0.05%)

Furthermore, 81 is the common element here:

56 + 25 = 81

55 + 26 = 81

54 + 27 = 81 (2/3 and 1/3 of 81)

53 + 28 = 81

52 + 29 = 81

Note that 81 + 56 = 137 (which is part of the Pythagorean connection)

Please contact me at your earliest convenience. I am in desperate need of someone with knowledge in this field to critique or otherwise examine my findings but it is proving to be an onerous task finding the right people to do so. Let me say that I enjoy reading ‘Reading Feynman’ so thanks for that. I am hoping that you will at least find this interesting enough to initiate further conversation with me…perhaps (I am thinking), the first of many conversations…this is big…bigger than me alone…I believe this could be your (second or third) calling…

Sincerely,

David Mills

High School Mathematics Teacher

Columbia International College

Ontario, Canada

(with roots in New Zealand)

Hey David – I am afraid I can’t help you much with this. My blog – and Feynman’s QED series – basically covers quantum electrodynamics. So that’s electrons and photons – and composite particles such as protons (or hadrons and what have you). So I am not at all into quantum chromodynamics – which studies quarks and their behavior – which is much stranger. But two remarks perhaps. (1) If the numbers that you are using are two-digit (like 81 or 56), and you still have errors that are close to 1%, then… Well… That’s not so convincing. (2) The 137 number is not a Pythagorean connection, is it? The inverse of the fine-structure constant is about 137, but not exactly. We cannot prove it’s a rational or irrational number because we don’t know its exact value – its numerical value comes out of experiments. Having said that, I do believe some geometrical argument should show us this number is somewhat less magical than it appears to be. I’ve tried to work on that (see https://readingfeynman.org/2015/10/05/taking-the-magic-out-of-gods-number-some-additional-reflections/) but I didn’t quite get there… ðŸ™‚

Jean Louis,

Thank you for the response and thoughtful comments. And my apologies for not responding sooner (I overlooked the fact that my gmail account placed your reply in a folder I rarely use).

FYI, the Pythagorean connection with the fine structure constant (fsc) comes from James Gilson’s work where (fsc)^2 = 137^2 + (pi)^2

(or at least an amazingly close correlation to it…unlike anything I have seen…my bias toward the Pythagorean connection is that I see 137 and the utilization of pi (3.14159…) in my ‘map’.

137 (along with 29 (see Gilson) for some yet unknown reason) and 81 (for the Higgs), 59 (for the Z), 52 (for the W’s), 33 (for the electron), 31 (for the down), 156 (for the up) and all the other 2 and sometimes 3 digit numbers that I mentioned can be directly discerned from my ‘map’ and that is partly what I find so compelling…beyond the apparent simplicity of it all it is the fact that those given ratios of numbers are within less than 1% of the respective ratios from the Standard Model which themselves are only as good as 1% error!

I encourage you to look deeper at those ‘remarkably low’ errors and compare for yourself. Couple that with the fact that I can discern all colour charges in the ‘gluon field’ and give a rationale why it, along with the Higgs, Z, W, and electro magnetic fields exist and why they behave the way they do.

All I can add is that I ‘feel’ this is the proverbial (Holy Grail or natures code) but I do not have the vocabulary nor do I know enough physics in order to explain to people exactly what I have found.

Best wishes…and please feel free to wonder some more…

David.