According to a 14 July 2006 Fox News article by Bill O'Reilly:

"... we have ... Iran ... developing nuclear weapons and provoking war in the Middle East. ... Iran is behind the terror attacks on Israeli forces. The whole thing is part of World War III ... Iran is protected by China and Russia. ... China wants Iranian oil. ...".

According to a backtoislam web page with map, Iran's dominant religion, Shia Islam (dark green),

is concentrated in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. Russian and Chinese problems with Islamic terrorism are in Sunni regions (light green), so a China-Russia-Iran policy of securing Shia Persian Gulf oil and simultaneously suppressing Sunni dissidents in Russia and China would be consistent with the interests of all three countries as well as the other members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization ( SCO ).

According to a 14 July 2006 WorldNetDaily article:by Jerome R. Corsi:

"... Iran's war to remove Israel from the Middle East has begun. ... This week, that World War has entered a shooting phase. ... Iran has given its surrogate terrorist organizations, Hezbollah and Hamas, operational orders to launch rocket attacks on Israel, in part to create enough chaos that the diversion would take international pressure off Iran. Now that Israel has decided to return fire, the Jewish state has no alternative but to win. ...Iran knows that no serious sanctions will ever emerge from the Security Council, not as long as Russia and China remain permanent Security Council members.

Last year, Russia sold Iran a $1 billion TOR-M1 mobile missile defense system that Iran plans to deploy around their nuclear installations.

China has also concluded a $600 billion oil and natural gas deal with Iran that should make Iran the leading supplier of oil and natural gas to China for decades to come.

Meanwhile, below the radar of public awareness in the U.S., Russia and China have moved to make their Shanghai Compact a mutual defense pact, not just an economic trading agreement. ...

Last month, Iran's Ahmadinejad traveled to Shanghai to join Russia and China in their most recent round of Shanghai Compact discussions. ...

The United States and Israel have no doubt that Iran is proceeding with a nuclear weapons program. The Eros-B satellite Israel has positioned in an orbit that circles over Iran ... observed ... the systematic delivery into Natanz of centrifuge parts that can be assembled underground, advancing Tehran's goal to have 3,000 of the most sophisticated centrifuges in the world operational, enriching weapons-grade uranium right now.

Ahmadinejad believes that the world is at a historic moment when Israel might ... be destroyed ...

will ... the end game in the Middle East ... involve a worldwide nuclear conflict pitting the U.S. against Russia and China....[ ? ]...The only certainty in this unstable scenario is that Israel has decided it is now time to go to war, regardless what anyone in the world thinks, including President Bush. ...".

The timing of this world crisis seems to be consistent with Terrence McKenna's 2007 Timewave Peak:

According to a 14 July 2006 Telegraph article by Edmund Conway:

"... Laurence Kotlikoff ...[in]... research ... for the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, a leading constituent of the US Federal Reserve said that, by some measures, the US is already bankrupt. ... According to his central analysis, "the US government is, indeed, bankrupt, insofar as it will be unable to pay its creditors, who, in this context, are current and future generations to whom it has explicitly or implicitly promised future net payments of various kinds''. ... The total fiscal gap could be ... $65.9 trillion ... because President George W Bush has made major tax cuts in recent years, and because the bill for Medicare ... and Medicaid ... will increase greatly due to demographics. ... One solution is an immediate and permanent doubling of personal and corporate income taxes. Another is an immediate and permanent two-thirds cut in Social Security and Medicare benefits. A third alternative ... would be to immediately and permanently cut all federal discretionary spending by 143pc. ...If investors lose confidence in the US's future, and suspect the country may at some point allow inflation to erode away its debts, they may reduce their holdings of US Treasury bonds. ...".

A happy note is that the USA can be self-sufficient in food, but with nothing (beyond Mickey Mouse) to trade for manufactured goods, it may have to make do with what it now has. In other words, the USA may have to live with 2000-vintage manufactured goods kept in repair by chewing gum and paper clips, much as Cuba has had to live with 1950-vintage automobiles.

A People's Archive interview with Freeman Dyson (number 78) discusses Dyson's work on QED showing the equivalence of the Feynman and Schwinger approaches. Dyson wanted to show Oppenheimer and the Princeton IAS the QED success. Oppenheimer's reaction reminds me of the attitude of the superstring establishment toward alternative models (including mine). Here are some excerpts from interview 78 with Dyson:

"… we met Oppenheimer and I wanted to talk about this in the seminar at the Institute … Oppenheimer wasn't enthusiastic at all. It came as a big shock to me that we'd done this wonderful stuff and I desperately wanted to tell Oppenheimer about it, that was the whole point in coming to Princeton. And Oppenheimer just brushed us off and said, "Well, you know, that's not leading anywhere,' …… This is of course a common situation; that the people who have failed to clean up a subject then don't believe that it can be cleaned up … And then if somebody comes along and says, "Look, it works," they don't believe.

So that was how it was, and so we had a very hard time to get Oppenheimer's attention. …

All the old people … including Max Born and Heisenberg and Schroedinger … had radical proposals which turned out to be totally useless …

Feynman … and … Schwinger .. and … I were conservative in the sense that we … actually made the mathematics work and got the right answers. And that came a surprise to Oppenheimer. It was very hard for him even to listen to it. …

finally Uhlenbeck interceded with Oppenheimer … "Let's listen to Dyson," and so Oppenheimer put on a seminar series for me …".

The "totally useless ... radical proposals" of Born, Heisenberg, and Schroedinger remind me of superstring theory.

Sadly, it seems that today there is no Uhlenbeck who will listen to alternatives that work.

Oppenheimer's arrogant intolerance of physics views differing from his own was further illustrated by his statement ( acting as the then-current Pope of Princeton's IAS ) about David Bohm's interpretation of Quantum Theory:

The source of that quote was Max Dresden (in my opinion impeccably honest) and The Bohm biography Infinite Potential, by F. David Peat (Addison-Wesley 1997),page 133. Here are some relevant excerpts from that book:

"… Max Dresden … read Bohm's papers … errors were difficult to detect … von Neumann's "proof" … did not rule out the sort of theory that Bohm had proposed. … Oppenheimer [said]…"We consider it juvenile deviationism … we don't waste our time …" [by] actually read[ing] the paper …Dresden … present[ed] Bohm's work in a seminar to the Princeton Institute …

The reception he received came as considerable shock to Dresden. Reactions to the theory were based less on scientific grounds than on accusations that Bohm was a fellow traveler, a Trotskyite, and a traitor. It was suggested that Dresden himself was stupid to take Bohm's ideas seriously. … all in all the overall reaction was that the scientific community should "pay no attention to Bohm's work" … Abraham Pais also used the term "juvenile deviationism". Another physicist said that Bohm was "a public nuisance" …".

It seems that the silent treatment plus ad hominem attacks has used by the USA physics community against non-conformists for at least 50 years.

This simplified expository overview is based on July 2006 e-mail discussion with Ark Jadczyk.

0 - I start with the emergence from the void of a binary choice, like Yin-Yang, which naturally gives a real Clifford algebra, so that physics is described by a very large real Clifford algebra (a generalized hyperfinite II1 von Neumann factor).

Then:

1 - due to real Clifford periodicity it is reducible to Cl(8) tensor product factors (in this message I will ignore some technicalities like signature), so Cl(8) describes physics locally.

2 - Cl(8) vector spacetime is octonionic, and Spin(8) bivector is the Lie algebra of the physics gauge group, with a Lagrangian (for this message just looking at spacetime and gauge bosons and ignoring spinor fermions etc)

- integral over 8-dim spacetime of
- Spin(8) gauge term

THIS IS THE FIRST APPEARANCE OF THE IDEA OF THE FORCE STRENGTH BEING MADE UP OF TWO PARTS:

AND

the relevant symmetric space manifold of gauge group local action.

3 - At low (where we are) energies a specific quaternionic submanifold freezes out, splitting the 8-dim spacetime into a 4-dim physical spacetime plus a 4-dim internal symmetry space.

4 - ignoring for this exposition details about the 4-dim internal symmetry space, and ignoring conformal stuff (Higgs etc), the 4-dim spacetime Lagrangian gauge boson term is:

the integral over spacetime as seen by gauge boson acting globally of the gauge force term of the gauge boson acting locally for the gauge bosons of each of the four forces:

- U(1) for electromagnetism
- SU(2) for weak force
- SU(3) for color force
- Spin(5) - compact version of antiDeSitter Spin(2,3) for gravity by the MacDowell-Mansouri mechanism.

Look at the basic Lagrangian of a gauge theory model:

- integral over spacetime of
- gauge boson force term

In the conventional picture, for each gauge force the gauge boson force term contains the force strength, which in Feynman's picture is the probability to emit a gauge boson, in an explicit ( like g |F|^2 ) or an implicit ( incorporated into the |F|^2 ) form.

Either way, the conventional picture is that the force strength g is an ad hoc inclusion.

but

to construct the integral such that the force strength emerges naturally from the geometry of each gauge force.

To do that, for each gauge force:

1 - make the spacetime over which the integral is taken be spacetime AS IT IS SEEN BY THAT GAUGE BOSON, that is, in terms of the symmetric space with GLOBAL symmetry of the gauge boson:

- the U(1) photon sees 4-dim spacetime as T^4 = S1 x S1 X S1 x S1
- the SU(2) weak boson sees 4-dim spacetime as S2 x S2
- the SU(3) weak boson sees 4-dim spacetime as CP2
- the Spin(5) of gravity sees 4-dim spacetime as S4.

2 - make the gauge boson force term have the volume of the Shilov boundary corresponding to the symmetric space with LOCAL symmetry of the gauge boson. The nontrivial Shilov boundaries are:

- for SU(2) Shilov = RP^1xS^2
- for SU(3) Shilov = S^5
- for Spin(5) Shilov = RP^1xS^4

The result is (ignoring technicalities for exposition) the geometric factor for force strength calculation.

Each force is related to a gauge group:

- U(1) for electromagnetism
- SU(2) for weak force
- SU(3) for color force
- Spin(5) - compact version of antiDeSitter Spin(2,3) for gravity by the MacDowell-Mansouri mechanism

GLOBAL:

Each gauge group is the global symmetry of a symmetric space

- S1 for U(1)
- S2 = SU(2)/U(1) = Spin(3)/Spin(2) for SU(2)
- CP2 = SU(3)/SU(2)xU(1) for SU(3)
- S4 = Spin(5)/Spin(4) for Spin(5)

LOCAL:

Each gauge group is the local symmetry of a symmetric space

- U(1) for itself
- SU(2) for Spin(5) / SU(2)xU(1)
- SU(3) for SU(4) / SU(3)xU(1)
- Spin(5) for Spin(7) / Spin(5)xU(1)

The nontrivial local symmetry symmetric spaces correspond to bounded complex domains

- SU(2) for Spin(5) / SU(2)xU(1) corresponds to IV3
- SU(3) for SU(4) / SU(3)xU(1) corresponds to B^6 (ball)
- Spin(5) for Spin(7) / Spin(5)xU(1) corresponds to IV5

The nontrivial bounded complex domains have Shilov boundaries

- SU(2) for Spin(5) / SU(2)xU(1) corresponds to IV3 Shilov = RP^1xS^2
- SU(3) for SU(4) / SU(3)xU(1) corresponds to B^6 (ball) Shilov = S^5
- Spin(5) for Spin(7) / Spin(5)xU(1) corresponds to IV5 Shilov = RP^1xS^4

GLOBAL AND LOCAL TOGETHER:

Very roughly (see my web site and papers for details), think of the force strength as

- the integral over the global symmetry space of
- the physical (ie Shilov Boundary) volume=strength of the force.

That is (again very roughly and intuitively):

the geometric strength of the force is given by the product of

- the volume of a 4-dim thing with global symmetry of the force and
- the volume of the Shilov Boundary for the local symmetry of the force.

When you calculate the product volumes (using some tricky normalization stuff that I am ignoring in this exposition, but which ARE dealt with on my web site etc), you see that roughly:

Volume product for gravity is the largest volume

so since (as Feynman says) force strength = probability to emit a gauge boson means that the highest force strength or probability should be 1

I normalize the gravity Volume product to be 1, and so roughly get:

- Volume product for gravity = 1
- Volume product for color = 2/3
- Volume product for weak = 1/4
- Volume product for electromagnetism = 1/137

There are two further main components of a force strength:

- 1 - for massive gauge bosons, a suppression by a factor of 1 / M^2
- 2 - renormalization running (important for color force).

CONSIDER MASSIVE GAUGE BOSONS:

I consider gravity to be carried by virtual Planck-mass black holes, so that the geometric strength of gravity should be reduced by 1/Mp^2

I consider the weak force to be carried by weak bosons, so that the geometric strength of gravity should be reduced by 1/MW^2

That gives the result:

- gravity strength = G (Newton's G)
- color strength = 2/3
- weak strength = G_F (Fermi's weak force G)
- electromagnetism = 1/137

FINALLY, CONSIDER RENORMALIZATION RUNNING FOR THE COLOR FORCE:

That gives the result:

- gravity strength = G (Newton's G)
- color strength = 1/10 at weak boson mass scale
- weak strength = G_F (Fermi's weak force G)
- electromagnetism = 1/137

The use of compact volumes is itself a calculational device, because it would be more nearly correct, instead of

- the integral over the compact global symmetry space of
- the compact physical (ie Shilov Boundary) volume=strength of the force

to use

- the integral over the hyperbolic spacetime global symmetry space of
- the noncompact invariant measure of the gauge force term.

However, since the strongest (gravitation) geometric force strength is to be normalized to 1, the only thing that matters is RATIOS, and the compact volumes (finite and easy to look up in the book by Hua) have the same ratios as the noncompact invariant measures.

In fact, I should go on to say that continuous spacetime and gauge force geometric objects are themselves also calculational devices, and

that it would be even more nearly correct to do the calculations with respect to a discrete generalized hyperdiamond Feynman checkerboard.

- It is a physics model.
- It is internally consistent.
- It is consistent with experimental results.

In my view, **it flows naturally from the void by introducing a
binary choice (Yin-Yang) which creates the generalized hyperfinite
II1 von Neumann algebra factor made up of 8-dim Clifford algebra
components** (think of a generalization of the Aleph of Borges, or
an infinitely large simplex ).

Other people who have a less Taoist/IFA viewpoint than I are free to say whatever they want to say about each step. Some ( like me ) might say that each step is inevitable, while others might say that each step is a separate "postulate".

WHICHEVER VIEW ANYONE TAKES, THE MODEL IS CLEAR, WELL-DEFINED, CONSISTENT, AND REALISTIC, which is far beyond any other physics model that has yet been presented, so it bothers me that it is so widely ostracized ( possibly one reason being that I refuse to disavow the mystical origins of my intuitions used in constructing the model ).

This simplified expository overview is based on July 2006 e-mail discussion with Ark Jadczyk.

0 - I start with the emergence from the void of a binary choice, like Yin-Yang, which naturally gives a real Clifford algebra, so that physics is described by a very large real Clifford algebra (a generalized hyperfinite II1 von Neumann factor).

Then:

1 - due to real Clifford periodicity it is reducible to Cl(8) tensor product factors (in this message I will ignore some technicalities like signature), so Cl(8) describes physics locally.

2 - Cl(8) vector spacetime is octonionic, and Spin(8) bivector is the Lie algebra of the physics gauge group, with a Lagrangian (for this message just looking at spacetime and spinor fermions and ignoring gauge bosons etc)

- integral over 8-dim spacetime of
- Spin(8) spinor fermion term, in which
- first-generation fermion particles correspond to octonion
basis of Spin(8) +half-spinors
- 1 to e-neutrino
- i to red up quark
- j to green up quark
- k to blue up quark
- E to electron
- I to red down quark
- J to green down quark
- K to blue down quark

- first-generation fermion antiparticles correspond to
octonion basis of Spin(8) -half-spinors
- 1 to e-antineutrino
- i to red up antiquark
- j to green up antiquark
- k to blue up antiquark
- E to positron
- I to red down antiquark
- J to green down antiquark
- K to blue down antiquark

- first-generation fermion particles correspond to octonion
basis of Spin(8) +half-spinors

3 - At low (where we are) energies a specific quaternionic submanifold freezes out, splitting the 8-dim spacetime into a 4-dim physical spacetime plus a 4-dim internal symmetry space and creating second and third generation fermions that live (at least in part) in the 4-dim internal symmetry space and correspond respectively to pairs and triples of octonion basis elements.

4 - ignoring for this exposition details about the 4-dim internal symmetry space, and ignoring conformal stuff (Higgs etc), and considering for now only first generation fermions, the 4-dim spacetime Lagrangian spinor fermion part is:

- integral over spacetime of
- spinor fermion term

Look at the basic Lagrangian spinor fermion part:

- integral over spacetime of
- spinor fermion term

In the conventional picture, the spinor fermion term is of the form m S S* where m is the fermion mass and S and S* represent the given fermion. Although the mass m is derived from the Higgs mechanism, the Higgs coupling constants are, in the conventional picture, ad hoc parameters, so that effectively the mass term is, in the conventional picuture, an ad hoc inclusion.

but

to construct the integral such that the mass m emerges naturally from the geometry of the spinor fermions.

To do that, make the spinor fermion mass term have the volume of the Shilov boundary corresponding to the symmetric space with LOCAL symmetry of the Spin(8) gauge group with respect to which the first generation spinor fermions are seen as +half-spinor and -half-spinor spaces.

Note that due to triality, Spin(8) can act on those 8-dimensional half-spinor spaces similarly to the way it acts on 8-dimensional vector spacetime prior to dimensional reduction.

Then, take the the spinor fermion volume to be the Shilov boundary corresponding to the same symmetric space on which Spin(8) acts as a local gauge group that is used to construct 8-dimensional vector spacetime:

- the symmetric space Spin(10) / Spin(8)xU(1)
- corresponds to a bounded domain of type IV8
- whose Shilov boundary is RP^1 x S^7

Since all the first generation fermions see the spacetime over which the integral is taken in the same way ( unlike what happens for the force strength calculation ), the only geometric volume factor relevant for calculating first generation fermion mass ratios is in the spinor fermion volume term.

**Consider a first-generation massive lepton** (or antilepton,
i.e., electron or positron). For definiteness, consider an electron E
(a similar line of reasoning applies to the positron).

- Gluon interactions do not affect the colorless electron ( E )
- By weak boson interactions or decay, an electron ( E ) can only be taken into itself or a massless ( at tree level ) neutrino.
- As the lightest massive first-generation fermion, the electron cannot decay into a quark.

Since the electron cannot be related to any other massive Dirac fermion,

**Consider a first-generation quark** (or antiquark). For
definiteness, consider a red down quark I (a similar line of
reasoning applies to the others of the first generation).

- By gluon interactions, the red quark ( I ) can be interchanged with the blue and green down quarks ( J and K ).
- By weak boson interactions, it can be taken into the red, blue, and green up quarks ( i, j, and k ).
- Given the up and down quarks, pions can be formed from quark-antiquark pairs, and the pions can decay to produce electrons ( E ) and neutrinos ( 1 ).

Therefore first-generation quarks or antiquarks can by gluons, weak bosons, or decay occupy the entire volume of the Shilov boundary RP1 x S7, which volume is pi^5 / 3, so

**Consider graviton interactions with first-generation
fermions**. Since MacDowell-Mansouri gravitation comes from 10
Spin(5) gauge bosons, 8 of which are charged (carrying color or
electric charge) as shown in the root Spin(5) root vector diagram

* * * o o Spin(5) root vector diagram * * *

in which the 6 root vectors * correspond to color carrying gauge bosons act similarly to the action of the 6 color-charged SU(3) gluons shown in the SU(3) root vector diagram

* * * SU(3) root vector diagram * * *

The 2 charged Spin(5) gravitons denoted by o carry electric charge. However, even though the electron carries electric charge, the electric charge carrying Spin(5) gravitons can only change the electron into a ( tree-level ) massless neutrino, so the Spin(5) gravitons do not enhance the electron volume factor, which remains

Since the quark carries color charge, Spin(5) graviton action on its color charge multiplies its volume V(quark) by 6, giving

The 2 Spin(5) gravitons carrying electric charge only cannot change quarks into leptons, so they do not enhance the quark volume factor, so we have (where md is down quark mass, mu is up quark mass, and me is electron mass)

The proton mass is calculated as the sum of the constituent masses of its constituent quarks

which is close to the experimental value of 938.27 MeV.

In the first generation, each quark corresponds to a single octonion basis element and the up and down quark constituent masses are the same:

First Generation - 8 singletons - mu / md = 1

- Down - corresponds to 1 singleton - constituent mass 312 MeV
- Up - corresponds to 1 singleton - constituent mass 312 MeV

Second and third generation calculations are generally more complicated and will not be dealt with in this simplified overview, except to say that combinatorics indicates that in higher generations the up-type quarks are heavier than the down-type quarks. The third generation case, in which the fermions correspond to triples of octonions, is simple enough to be used here as an illustration of the combinatoric effect:

8^3 = 512 triples

mt / mb = 483 / 21 = 161 / 7 = 23

- down-type (Beauty) - corresponds to 21 triples - constituent mass 5.65 GeV
- up-type (Truth) - corresponds to 483 triples - constituent mass 130 GeV

The use of compact volumes is itself a calculational device, because it would be more nearly correct, instead of

- the integral over spacetime of
- the spinor fermion volume

to use

- the integral over spacetime of
- the noncompact invariant measure of the spinor fermion term

However, since the fermion masses all are derived from and related to the Higgs VEV ( which could be considered to be given ) the only thing that matters is RATIOS, and the compact volumes (finite and easy to look up in the book by Hua) have the same ratios as the noncompact invariant measures.

In fact, I should go on to say that continuous spacetime and gauge force geometric objects are themselves also calculational devices, and

that it would be even more nearly correct to do the calculations with respect to a discrete generalized hyperdiamond Feynman checkerboard.

- It is a physics model.
- It is internally consistent.
- It is consistent with experimental results.

In my view, **it flows naturally from the void by introducing a
binary choice (Yin-Yang) which creates the generalized hyperfinite
II1 von Neumann algebra factor made up of 8-dim Clifford algebra
components** ( think of a generalization of the Aleph of Borges, or
an infiniitely large simplex ).

Other people who have a less Taoist/IFA viewpoint than I are free to say whatever they want to say about each step. Some ( like me ) might say that each step is inevitable, while others might say that each step is a separate "postulate".

WHICHEVER VIEW ANYONE TAKES, THE MODEL IS CLEAR, WELL-DEFINED, CONSISTENT, AND REALISTIC, which is far beyond any other physics model that has yet been presented, so it bothers me that it is so widely ostracized ( possibly one reason being that I refuse to disavow the mystical origins of my intuitions used in constructing the model ).

Tony Smith's Home Page