Hacker News Reader

Comment by Michael_Groom | Hacker News Reader

Read this theory, it contains everything the standard model is incapable of explaining, i.e. mass, distribution of normal matter/antimatter dark matter and dark energy after the big bang, decrease of dark matter, increase of dark energy, what DM and DE actually is, et cetera:

http://norbert-winter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2017-03...

View on HN

This reminds me of the thick manila envelopes I got in the mail at university. "I have discovered a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem that is at most two pages long." Starts off with the wrong definition of a prime number. Ugh!

Your link reminds me of those manila envelopes. Cargo cult science indeed!

Would you mind showing me the "wrong definition of a prime" in this manila envelope?

I seriously do not understand why this question would be downvoted?

It's almost as if your question is being interpreted as either:

1) as defense of the manila envelope (how is a question a defense?)

2) as indicating you are the author of the envelope (that probability would be incredibly low!)

3) as being written by the same author who made some other unliked comment in this topic (since when do we downvote all comments of an author as soon as we dislike one of his comments?)

The downvote means: "I cannot tell whats wrong with the theory b/c I didnt even read it. I don't know what a spinor is, nor am I familiar with the concept of point splitting. I dont even understand why the coupling constant is superfluous b/c I always thought the dimension of a spinor is -3/2 instead of -1/2."

But downvoting in the first place seems reasonable.

Not trying to attack the standard model here but rather showing interest in discussing a new approach.

I can't comment on advanced math, but there are a number of things that I do not associate with real scientific papers:

1. Not prepared with LaTeX. 2. Photo of the author. 3. Obsession with rounded rectangles and ovals. 4. It uses the word "colossal" 83 times and "rupture" 110 times. 5. Didn't see any references to other scientific works.

Well than these are the criteria you choose not giving it a shot, fair enough.

Do you understand any of this? This notation is entirely unfamiliar to me, and the text seems like gibberish (my favourite expression is "The most colossally great global unification"). I'm also a bit skeptical about one person answering so much big open questions all by himself, while there are a lot of very bright scientists working on them without this much success.

I do, we are talking about a non-linear spinor dynamic here, omitting the gamma algebra inherited by Dirac spinors. This algebra is well known and omitted as it would render the text confusing indeed as spinor products are of relatively high order (psi-27 and psi-19).

Are there any references to other scientific papers in that document? I didn't see any.

No references. The fundamental idea is based on the Equation of Matter suggested in 1958 by Werner Heisenberg. Anything else is new. This theory solves the problems, Heisenberg introduced with his equation by eleminating the coupling constant l (dim psi = -1/2 hence not observable instead of -3/2) and adding the point split on the right side of the equation which is a consequence of the differential operator on the left side (dx is equivalent to the point split). The rest naturally follows from this fundamental equation.

From skimming the pdf, I didn't notice any conventional equations such as one would find in a paper by someone like Heisenberg. If there were any, could you point one out?

Edit/post script: I also don't see that the word "algebra" is mentioned in the document at all. By comparison the Wikipedia page on spinors uses the word "algebra" 116 times. That seems odd if this theory is based on a deep understanding of spinors.

Side-Remark, page 17:

http://norbert-winter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2014-05...

This is not the same document as originally linked, and regardless, it doesn't cite a source. What's with that?

The word "colossal" appears a surprisingly large number of times, as I just posted elsewhere in this thread. And "rupture" is used even more. You would think such important words would have some introduction, unless they are standard terms of art.

Well “rupture” in this context simply describes the rupture of the massive short ranged repulsive boson G5 leading to the rupture of the neutrino leading to the reproduction cascade (see p153) leading to the proportions of normal matter/antimatter and dark matter as measured by the planck telescope right after the big bang.

Can you define "rupture" without using the word "rupture" or "simply" in the explanation?

I find the excessive use of "colossal" and "rupture" to be very suggestive of a Freudian slip implying the author is subconsciously aware that his inspiration followed a massive cerebral hemorrhage.

Interesting assumption from skimming the pdf. Happy to hear your true thoughts once you actually read and fully understand it.

It appears to be hermetic, so I don't see anything that can be studied further.

I'm not sure why you are promoting it if you can't explain it yourself.

Here, for comparison, is what appears to me to be a normal scientific paper that mentions spinors:

Supersymmetry, supergravity theories and the dual spinor model F Gliozzi, J Scherk, D Olive - Nuclear Physics B, 1977

http://cds.cern.ch/record/203097/files/CM-P00061869.pdf

Note that it does not end with "THE END" and it does cite other scientific works.

This is fantastic! Standard level as crackpottery goes but visuals are great, he took it to the whole new level, beats all the other html or LaTeX ones. That pdf took a while to format.

The visuals are great indeed. Same is your reading speed. Now improve your level of understanding text as well while being distracted from beautiful visuals.

Mmm... The most basic mathematical entity is a spinor? This can be differentiated? What a nicely behaving universe...

No, the fundamental equation 1.1 and 1.2 is structurally similar to the Equation of Matter suggested in 1958 by Werner Heisenberg, except for two significant differences:

1) 1.1, 1.2 does not contain a dimensionful coupling constant

2) It contains the point-split which Heisenbergs equation is lacking of.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com