Data for Fundamental Physics and
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.
Did God have a choice in creating the universe?
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 questions remain unanswered in
modern theories like superstrings, a particulate modeling that’s curiously incapable of a
prediction for any known particle, yet whose strings are at once
essential to answering Einstein's query concerning universal creation.
Such ironies forcefully illustrate why a
(non-metric or) dimensionless scaling of physics based upon the
indisputable 'pure' invariants of numbers, ratios or geometric principles is indispensable - if one is to move beyond incomplete theories
correlated with data encumbered by rough approximations for a
host of relatively independent 'free parameters.' Yet, as Revelation 11 portends,
how many will admit that determination of such a parameter as 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 determinable by, as well as being
demonstrable under or within, what is more truly
Common "Court of God’s Measure?"
It follows that whether you're interested in a book order or
e-subscription, are curious, or just skeptically evaluating such "claims" with
no intent of 'buying' anything, it’s of crucial benefit to
Sample Data and Proofs
(if not also the text's Summary).
For the 3rd
sample allows you to calculate the mass of a down quark by
the "Best Proof" in the 241-system, after you're here simply given the up quark mass = 3.169816 MeV.
Likewise, the 2nd derivation of the measured mass of the neutral weak
Zo boson is perhaps an even more impressive "pudding proof" as
a demonstration of the
of Mumbers' unprecedented and exacting methods, equations and data in regards to
the equally precise mass of the much heavier strange (+s) and
bottom (-b) flavors of the down quark 'family.' But giving their mass values
in electron Volts would be fruitless without comprehension of the greater system
that determines them; which is nearly as senseless as writing and publishing books to
be given away as free fodder or toilet tissue to appease a spoiled herd of nerdy
sheep and/or their handlers. (So one might check out ref.0
for an extended raunchy poem from the old -X-ranch
in Notable Rants, as well as the next rude references1 that serve to
[perhaps help thwart, but
inspire an ensuing option iterated on the
Orders page of a wiser, yet cheaper, e-book subscription.) 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.
Add to Onlywire