When I say “the” hexagonal prism, of course, I mean anti-prism, and I mean the one that embeds in the icosahedron.

]]>I think there are, strictly speaking, just two integral forms of the Lie algebra su(2) = so(3). The classification depends on the classification of the elements of minimal norm under the Killing form. If these do not span the 3-space, then spin is a 2-dimensional concept rather than a 3-dimensional concept – I don’t necessarily rule this out, but I think most physicists would, so let’s not consider this possibility for now. There are only two other cases, geometrically, that is the cube and the hexagonal prism.

Of these, the cube is the “obvious” one to use, but my papers indicate that the hexagonal prism is in fact the one that is supported by experiment. Strange, but true.

]]>But if you simply take the real Lie algebra, as Woit does, or the complex Lie algebra, as most physicists do, then there is no limit to how small the spin can actually be. This physical contradiction can only be avoided by taking an *integer* version of the Lie algebra. The integer versions of so(3) are well known, and this classification implies that elementary particles have spin at most 5/2. Under the additional assumption of isotropy of space, it also tells us that the number of distinct directions of intrinsic spin of an electron or a photon is at most 60. As I have explained many times before, this resolves the measurement problem, and cuts the Gordian knot of tortuous philosophical arguments about interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Why does no-one listen?

]]>Spin implies the entity is functioning in isolation, while cycles implies a connectivity/relationship/feedback loop with the context.

Nodes and networks.

Synchronization as centripetal dynamic pulling in, while harmonization equalizes across the field.

Particles and fields. Organisms and ecosystems. ]]>

Yes, very interesting. They make many of the same points that I make, with much greater authority. If, as they say, the current system would reject Einstein’s best papers, then the system is very badly broken.

]]>https://themarginaliareview.com/why-einstein-wouldnt-be-published-today-a-conversation-with-lorraine-daston-part-two/ ]]>

https://retractionwatch.com/2022/11/18/mathematician-requests-two-retractions-for-subtle-inaccuracies/ ]]>

An interesting point in the comments to that link is the allegation that an editor of a major physics journal vetoed publication of a paper that was critical of his own work. Whether this allegation is true or not in this particular case, I have no doubt that this behaviour happens frequently.

]]>https://retractionwatch.com/2022/11/17/another-majorana-particle-paper-retracted-this-time-from-science/ ]]>