Since the 1980s, I have been developing the mathematical structure of a physics model that I call

The D4-D5-E6-E7-E8 refers to a chain of Lie algebras that describes the relationships among space-time, particles, forces, and the Worlds of the Many-Worlds with Jordan algebra structure.The term VoDou refers to the 256 Odu of IFA that correspond to the 256-dimensional Clifford algebra Cl(8), which in turn is the mathematical basis of its unified construction.

Without ad hoc input, it produces the masses of the quarks, leptons, and Higgs scalar, and the force strengths of the 4 forces, all being consistent with current ( May 2001 ) experimental results as I understand them.

**As far as I know, it is ****the
ONLY physics model**** that does all that. **

- a Quantum Model of Consciousness with similarities ( and some differences with respect to details ) to the models of Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, and Jack Sarfatti;
- a related Quantum Inflationary Cosmology model of Paula Zizzi;
- some Conformal Physics related to some ideas of Irving Segal; and
- some Compton Vortex models related to some ideas of B. G. Sidharth.

Even though I have put up over a
dozen related papers on the Los Alamos e-print archive from 1993 to
2001, and I have a
web site at http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/
that the describes the model in detail, it seems to me that **nobody
else**, not even my friend David
Finkelstein at Georgia
Tech, **understands the model as a whole. **

My experience with some physics journal refereeing has been less than pleasant, and I feel that the physics community regards me as "... the crazy old uncle nobody lets out of the attic ..." even though my work in fact "... stands at the crossroads of many interesting fields ...".

It may be, as David Finkelstein said recently ( 26 April 2001 ), that I have not done a good job of explaining it in terms that present-day physicists can understand.

It may be, as I tend to think, that it is a new way of looking at
things that cannot be deduced directly from other known physics
models, a new way that is so different from the present-day
fashionable superstring models that **no present-day fashionable
physicist is willing to undertake the effort necessary to understand
it**. According to Freeman Dyson, in his 1981 essay Unfashionable
Pursuits (reprinted in From Eros to Gaia (Penguin 1992, at page
171)), "... At any particular moment in the history of science, the
most important and fruitful ideas are often lying dormant merely
because they are unfashionable. Especially in mathematical physics,
**there is commonly a lag of fifty or ****a
hundred years between the conception of a new idea and its emergence
into the maintsream of scientific thought**. If this is the
time scale of fundamental advance, it follows that anybody doing
fundamental work in mathematical physics is almost certain to be
unfashionable. ...".

All in all,

now I have feelings somewhat like those described by **Richard
Feynman about his talk at the 1948 Pocono conference**, about which
he said:

"... My way of looking at things was completely new, and I could not deduce it from other known mathematical schemes, but I knew what I had done was right.

... For instance,

take the exclusion principle ... it turns out that you don't have to pay much attention to that in the intermediate states in the perturbation theory. I had discovered from empirical rules that if you don't pay attention to it, you get the right answers anyway .... Teller said: "... It is fundamentally wrong that you don't have to take the exclusion principle into account." ...... Dirac asked "Is it unitary?" ... Dirac had proved ... that in quantum mechanics, since you progress only forward in time, you have to have a unitary operator. But there is no unitary way of dealing with a single electron. Dirac could not think of going forwards and backwards ... in time ...

... Bohr ... said: "... one could not talk about the trajectory of an electron in the atom, because it was something not observable." ... Bohr thought that I didn't know the uncertainty principle ...

... it didn't make me angry, it just made me realize that
... [ **they** ] ... **didn't know what I was talking
about, and it was hopeless to try to explain it further**.

- The above quotation is from The Beat of a Different Drum: The Life and Sciece of Richard Feynman, by Jagdish Mehra (Oxford 1994) (pp. 245-248).

Now, after I have passed the age of 60, "... I'll state my case, of which I'm certain ... I find it all so amusing to think I did all that ... For what is a man, what has he got, if not ... to say the things he truly feels ... The record shows I ... did it my way. ...".

- The above quotation and audio file are non-commercial fair use excerpts from CD Disc Two of The Very Best of Frank Sinatra, Reprise Records 1997, purchased by me.

......