Since the 1980s, I have been developingthe mathematical structure of a physicsmodel 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 themasses of the quarks, leptons, and Higgs scalar, and the forcestrengths of the 4 forces, all being consistent with current (May 2001 ) experimental results as Iunderstand them.
As far as I know, it is theONLY physics model that does all that.
Even though I have put up over adozen related papers on the Los Alamos e-print archive from 1993 to2001, and I have aweb site at http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/that the describes the model in detail, it seems to me that nobodyelse, not even my friend DavidFinkelstein at GeorgiaTech, understands the model as a whole.
My experience with some physics journalrefereeing has been less than pleasant, and I feel that thephysics community regards me as "... the crazyold uncle nobody lets out of theattic ..." even though my work in fact "... standsat 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 thatpresent-day physicists can understand.
It may be, as I tend to think, that it is a new way of looking atthings that cannot be deduced directly from other known physicsmodels, a new way that is so different from the present-dayfashionable superstring models that no present-day fashionablephysicist is willing to undertake the effort necessary to understandit. According to Freeman Dyson, in his 1981 essay UnfashionablePursuits (reprinted in From Eros to Gaia (Penguin 1992, at page171)), "... At any particular moment in the history of science, themost important and fruitful ideas are often lying dormant merelybecause they are unfashionable. Especially in mathematical physics,there is commonly a lag of fifty or ahundred years between the conception of a new idea and its emergenceinto the maintsream of scientific thought. If this is thetime scale of fundamental advance, it follows that anybody doingfundamental work in mathematical physics is almost certain to beunfashionable. ...".
All in all,
now I have feelings somewhat like those described by RichardFeynman about his talk at the 1948 Pocono conference, about whichhe said:
"... My way of looking at things was completelynew, and I could not deduce it from other known mathematicalschemes, but I knew what I had done wasright.
... 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 talkingabout, and it was hopeless to try to explain it further.
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 allthat ... For what is a man, what has he got, if not ... to say thethings he truly feels ... The record shows I... did it my way. ...".
......