Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

M. Vasilyeva: on 8/7/13 at 7:39am UTC, wrote Patrick vous avez quitte un poste interessant aujourd'hui sur mon blog...

Paul Borrill: on 8/6/13 at 23:38pm UTC, wrote Patrick - bold, brilliant, outstanding. I don’t fully know what to make...

Michel Planat: on 8/6/13 at 14:59pm UTC, wrote Dear Patrick, Thank you for you response on my blog. I really liked your...

Than Tin: on 8/3/13 at 19:15pm UTC, wrote Dear All Let me go one more round with Richard Feynman. In the Character...

Michel Planat: on 8/3/13 at 17:58pm UTC, wrote Dear Patrick, I looked at your essay several times over the period of the...

Anonymous: on 8/2/13 at 19:43pm UTC, wrote Dear Patrick Tonin: I am an old...

Sreenath N: on 8/2/13 at 16:35pm UTC, wrote Dear Patrick, Very imaginative article. Based on the concepts of Bit UB...

Michel Planat: on 8/2/13 at 15:53pm UTC, wrote Cher Patrick, Comme il y a vraisemblablement le même nombre de bits en...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Thomas Ray: "The speed of light isn't a theoretical limit. Neither are the 19 or so..." in Bohemian Reality:...

Anonymous: "The Fact? The only 'fact' of the Big Bang is the math behind the measures,..." in Bohemian Reality:...

Jason Wolfe: "Dear Lorraine, Consciousness in its simplest form will only seek out..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

Jason Wolfe: "Mystical religious beliefs are completely justified. it is the scientific..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Foundational Questions Institute Members, Y’all made your initial..." in Our Place in the...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Eugene Lim and Richard Easther, “Undaunted by the lack of tools to..." in Our Place in the...

agaric backlink: "Obat Liver Paling Ampuh Cara Mengobati Bronkitis Paling Ampuh Cara..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

anil sharma: "Sometimes it is not possible to take care of infant babies especially while..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.


FQXi FORUM
September 26, 2017

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Definitely It from Bit ! by Patrick Tonin [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Patrick Tonin wrote on May. 2, 2013 @ 14:57 GMT
Essay Abstract

I have always wondered how the Universe started and what was its basic underlying structure. I was convinced that it must have started with something very simple so I just imagined what that simple thing could be and bit by bit, it all became clear.

Author Bio

BSc in Electronics and Computing - BA in Business Studies. Former Sales Director in computer networking industry, now owner of self-catering group accommodation with lots of spare time to develop universe theories.

Download Essay PDF File




Leo Vuyk wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:32 GMT
Dear Patrick,

Congratulations with your #D interpetation of the universe.

I myself are in the same rocking boat and looking for ontologic and 3D solutions.

Keep up!

Leo.

report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on May. 12, 2013 @ 15:29 GMT
Hi Leo,

Thank you for your comment.

If you like what I have written then you can find out more about my 3D Universe Theory on this website www.3d-universe-theory.com.

Cheers,

Patrick




Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:53 GMT
Patrick, You proposal to observe the universe from outside raises the paradox that if you can observe the universe then you are part of it. How do you intend to solve this paradox?

report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on May. 4, 2013 @ 14:45 GMT
Hi Anton,

Thank you for your comment.

The « external observer » is an hypothetical observer, he does not really exist in our Universe and he is not part of it. It is not possible to describe the Universe just from an internal observer’s point of view because we would be limited to only what we perceive as our reality, and what we perceive as our reality is not the complete picture. I had to create this “external observer” so I could describe the real underlying structure of the Universe.

Cheers,

Patrick



Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 11:28 GMT
Patrick, but you are working and thinking from within the universe so by your own argumentation you observation and subsequent reasoning to describe a "real underlying structure" cannot be possible, and any attempt to do so is not verifiable, which according to Popper is not scientific.

report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:18 GMT
Anton, I don't really agree with Popper's ideas on what is scientific and what is not.




Joe Fisher wrote on May. 9, 2013 @ 14:28 GMT
Patrick,

As I have carefully explained in my essay BITTERS, the real Universe could not have had a commencement. There is certainly no way that the Universe could ever conform in any way with humanly devised unrealistic abstract information.

One (1) real Universe can only be eternally occurring in one real here and now while perpetually traveling at one real “speed” of light through one real infinite dimension once. One is the absolute of everything. (1) is the absolute of number. Real is the absolute of being. Eternal is the absolute of duration. Occurring is the absolute of action. Here and now are absolutes of location and time. Perpetual is the absolute of ever. Traveling is the absolute of conveyance method. Light is the absolute of speed. Infinite dimension is the absolute of distance and once is the absolute of history.

report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on May. 11, 2013 @ 13:45 GMT
Joe,

I am not sure I understand your point. What has this got to do with my essay ?

Patrick



Joe Fisher replied on May. 12, 2013 @ 15:26 GMT
Patrick,

You start your essay by guessing that an abstract Universe started from nothing. I merely pointed out that the real Universe is eternal.

report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on May. 12, 2013 @ 15:34 GMT
Hi Joe,

OK, thank you for sharing your point of view.




Philip Gibbs wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 12:52 GMT
Patrick, I can see a lot of work has gone into this essay. The idea of building up in layers from one bit is like the multiple quantisation procedure that I mention in my essay, except that you use classical bits rather than quantum bits.

I the basic unit of time and space is increasing will this at some point affect the structure of matter, or is everything scaling up with it?

report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:17 GMT
Hi Philip,

Thank you for your comments.

This essay is part of a theory I have been working on for more than a year now. As I mention in my abstract, I have started from the simplest thing I could imagine and built everything from there. Then everything started to fit nicely together, the Basic Unit of Time and Space appeared simply by following the simple "coherent world" rule that I mention in my essay, it gave a simple explanation for the emergence of time itself. Then came the 8Pi-1 and that was the major finding, it gave a simple explanation for the emergence of "real" information/existence and explains the 4% of baryonic matter in the Universe. I believe that this simple 8Pi-1 is the foundation of everything, it appears in the proton/electron mass ratio but also in the gravitational constant, the Planck constant, the Boltzman constant, the electron mass etc. and it also gives a simple explanation for the proton radius measurement problem (all explained in my theory www.3d-universe-theory.com).

Now that I have advertised my theory (I wish that someone would comment on it), I will answer your question ;-)

The information describing our surrounding world is contained in a single layer (our "present" layer), this layer is like a 2D image of our world and the image is made by the Coherent Basic Units (CBUs), like pixels. A proton is a disruption in the alternating pattern of CBUs (it is like a single bit of "existence"), so even though a CBU increases in size it won't affect the structure of matter, everything scales up. To the internal observer, a CBU will always remain a "coherent" bit of information (as opposed to the Universal Bit (UB) that is just a simple bit of information). In my theory, I show with a simple equation that a proton is just a scaled up version of the Planck Length !

Cheers,

Patrick




Author Patrick Tonin wrote on May. 19, 2013 @ 18:05 GMT
Quote from James A.Putnam

"Your essay uses planck length and time. Your cubit uses length only. Your layers are traversed one at a time every Planck unit of time. You do mention that your dimension in the radial direction represents space-time. Your layers consist of length only and they are your present one after the other. I assume that your statement that we only need length is based upon your idea that the present only has dimensions of length. There is though the matter of change. All empirical evidence of physics occurs as patterns in changes of velocity. How do you account for change in equations. Calculus equations are equations of change. Physics need extensive use of calculus in order to express its ideas. You may answer this message in your own forum. I will look for it there."

Hi James,

Thank you for your comments. You have nicely summarized the underlying structure of my theory. I will try to explain simply how I represent change. Change is represented by the relative position of the two consecutive CBUs in the "present" layer. If the second CBU is slightly off line, then there is speed. When that position changes from layer to layer, then there is acceleration. That way every movement is expressed in percentage of the speed of light (the speed of light is represented by one CBU ie: if we move by one CBU in one layer, then we move at the speed of light). Also, when the two consecutive CBUs are off line, the resulting "time" CBU will be shorter (time slows down with movement).

I have noticed in your theory that you are talking about a changing speed of light, this is exactly what is happening here also, a CBU increases in size by one UB every Basic Unit of Time.

I agree with you that the unit of mass could just be expressed in units of length and time. In fact, I believe that mass should be L2/T and time should be T=L2, this means that mass becomes dimensionless in formulae, this is why my formulae are so simple. Also, the fact that we (our information) are moving at the speed of light through the information layers gets rid of the concept of fields.

Cheers,

Patrick



James Putnam replied on May. 21, 2013 @ 21:38 GMT
Patrick,

Communication may move slowly.

"I believe that mass should be L2/T and time should be T=L2, this means that mass becomes dimensionless in formulae,..."

Are those Ls equal? Is L a variable? Even if it is a variable it seems that no matter what L's value is, mass remains one constant value of unity, meaning the number one. How do you explain your statement?

What are your units for force? Or, what is your explanation of force?

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on May. 22, 2013 @ 08:43 GMT
Hi James,

L is the dimension of Length

T is the dimension of Time

I believe that Length and Time are fundamentally linked (in my theory, a CBU is both a basic unit of time and a basic unit of length, and the Time dimension is linked to the Length dimension). That basic unit of time and length increases with time but an internal observer can't notice it as everything scales up.

So in the same way that you say that mass is the inverse of acceleration, I am saying that Time is the square of Length and mass is the square of Length divided by Time, therefore mass is dimensionless.

Speed is 1/L, Energy is 1/L2, Acceleration is 1/L3, Force is 1/L3, G is 1/L and h is dimensionless.

Patrick




Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 02:13 GMT
Dear Patrick

Definitely It from Bit ! - so, where are bit come from?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:41 GMT
Hi Hoang,

In my theory, the bit is either existence or non-existence. So, it does not come from anywhere, it is just there. There are two opposite worlds, the existence world and the non-existence world. What is defined as existence in one world is defined as non-existence in the other world, and vice versa.

Cheers,

Patrick




Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:36 GMT
Dear Patrick,

I agree that the Universe had to come from complete nothing. I have a similar theory away from the contest. In this contest, my essay also hints at this as a starting point. The 0-dimensional singularity of Black Holes. I hope you have time to look at mine, as we may have aspects in common. Cosmogony is always an excellent starting point for a good theory.

Nicely illustrated and well written.

All the best,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 16:00 GMT
Hi Antony,

Thank you for your comments, I will look at your essay and leave a comment on your blog.

Cheers,

Patrick




Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 12:31 GMT
Hello Patrick,

Thanks for your comments on my blog. I have read your essay. Yes I think I have found a like-mind! To improve things both encouragements and criticism must go hand-in-hand forming bits, 1 ans 0!

So for the likes (1):

- two states: one existence and one non-existence

- UBs are the most basic constituents of the Universe sphere…

- Basic...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 15:58 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

Thank you for your constructive comments. It is great to get some feedback.

I will try to answer your "dislikes" and maybe try to convince you otherwise.

1) I agree, I crammed too much in the essay, in fact I basically cut and pasted the beginning of my 3D Universe Theory as it seemed to fit nicely with the contest subject.

2) First, it is important that you...

view entire post





James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:39 GMT
Patrick,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 22:45 GMT
Dear Patrick

Do you thinking that there are two worlds co-exist ?

It seems unexciting, world formed by material - while the current scientific community is accepted that there are four types of material: 1. material, 2. immaterial, 3. antimatter and 4. dark matter - which means: there are at least four co-existing world, not to mention "the new assumptions" future later.

Say's that for fun - although there will be how many "world" or not , them also only co-exist in a space - should only be considered as one be easy to identify for not confused or mess, are you ok ?

Wish you happy and successful.

report post as inappropriate


adel sadeq wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 03:15 GMT
Hi Patrick,

While I don't agree with everything you say, but some issues I see you are close to my system. But I am mainly contacting you because you know programming and you have plenty of time to explore the origin of reality. It might be interesting to you. I have rated your essay good.

Please if you have the time run The programs which are at my website

http://www.qsa.netne.net

please make sure you unzip the file properly, the code is in JavaScript, the programs are very simple. also see the posts in my thread for some more info.

you can find my essay at this link

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1877

see the amazing formulas in section 6, like this one

alpha/FSC =.007297352568, charge ^2=3, 27=3^3, m_e, m_p are electron and proton mass

M_p/m_e= (27/2)*(1/(alpha) -1) -1/3 = 1836.152654

BTW, our backgrounds are very similar. Thank you

Adel

report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 10:12 GMT
Hi Adel,

My answer is just below. I did not click on the right link !

Patrick




Author Patrick Tonin wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 09:15 GMT
Hi Adel,

Thank you for your comments and your rating.

I definetely agree with your "Reality is nothing but a mathematical structure, literally". Our approaches are different but we seem to come to similar results ie: we can produce fundamental constants with just simple maths.

Good luck with the contest !

Patrick




john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 18:57 GMT
Dear Patrick -

The UB as you present it is an interesting way to consider any given entity.

The universe began from nothing, and I would add that this nothing is energy that had not yet formed itself into a positive-negative entity (a proton and an electron) at this location which was to eventually become a universe.

I describe something similar in my essay - a Pulse, that continually enters and exits a dimensional system such as our Cosmos.

I am interested by the way your system accounts for the observer in the configuration of perceived reality; I do the same, but my approach is less technical and considers the observer as an evolving creature - one who makes decisions at every moment, and over a very long period of time, during which his relation to the physical world - his own biological configuration, if you will - is continuously altered.

I wonder if your system could be adapted to such a Species Cosmos?

Hopefully, you'll look at my essay and let me know. I rated your essay, and wish you the best of luck in the competition.

John

report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 11:36 GMT
Hi John,

Thank you for your comments.

I will look at your essay and comment on your blog.

Patrick




Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 19:03 GMT
Patrick,

Great essay! completely fundamental and original, and also well structured, explained and illustrated.

I completely agree the external observers viewpoint. (I've analogised this in my own work as very similar to the two views of our galaxy -my last two essays, end notes and links refer).

The expanding spheres are analogous to Huygens construction. I like and agree the concept and have also used it, viewed it in a slightly different way, discussed in my essay.

But I was most interested in your explanation that;

"An internal observer on the present layer will always be at the centre of his own virtual 3D world. That world is constantly growing around him. ..., the successive virtual 3D worlds are like Russian dolls, they envelope one another."

This hierarchical 'space within a space within a space' model is something I've explored in my last 3 essays, finding an ontological 'discrete field' model (DFM) which proves to contain high empirical truth value. I test some important implications in my essay which I hope you'll read and comment on. Many of your points have analogies.

I also agree with most of your conclusions but not entirely with some. My own most bold proposition is that the 'Law of the excluded middle' applicable to maths needs modification to account for the uncertainty of nature! Perhaps best to discuss 'hidden likenesses' once you've also read mine.

A very good essay, using very free thinking and making an enjoyable read. Thank you. Certainly worth a better score I think, which I'll apply now. I note you felt you "crammed too much in", you just wait till you read mine!! I hope I did it as well as you, ...but perhaps don't try to 'speed read' it!

Very well done and best of luck in the impending melee

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 11:46 GMT
Hi Peter,

Thank you for your nice comments, I am glad you enjoyed my essay. If you feel like reading more, you can visit my website and download the full theory. I would love to have your comments on it.

I will read your essay and leave a comment on your blog.

Patrick




Giacomo Alessiani wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 01:49 GMT
Mr. Patrick,



Your ideas impressed Me. Really new and fresh elements.



I ask now the permission for future exchanges.

I visited Your site. I do not understand why people should laugh !



My Best Regards.

report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 12:01 GMT
Ciao Giacomo,

Nice comment ! thank you.

Sometimes I feel that people are missing the point of my theory because I don't explain it very well and I don't use the proper scientific language. From the comments I am getting, I can see that some people have taken the time to try to understand it and this is great.

I would love to share my ideas with others more qualified than me, I am sure there is a lot more that can be found from the basic principles of my theory but I am not qualified to do it on my own.

You can contact me when you want for future exchanges, that would be a pleasure.

(patrick@3d-universe-theory.com).

Patrick




Helmut Hansen wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 09:11 GMT
Dear Patrick,

I've read (even studied) your proposal.

I agree with you that the most fundamental level of reality is built up by opposites. By relating to opposites - as far as they are explicitly defined as limiting states - reality makes use of all possibilities that logic in general allows. In this view the logical contradiction created by the (two) opposites are excluded as unreachable physical states.

Though this view looks very similiar to yours there is a fundamental difference: The logical values of 0 and 1 are not related in a logically classical way as being either 0 or 1, they are both valid, at least if they are considered as being limiting cases.

By the philosophy of Nicholas Cusa (i.e. the doctrince of coincidence of the opposites) I could identify the Smallest (R = 0) and the Largest (R = oo) as spatial limiting cases of a metaphysical universe. From a logical point of view the Smallest and the Largest are logically contradictions: The Smallest is included in all things, whereas the Largest is included in nothing.

In my 2009-FQXI-paper "Taming of the ONE" I've sketched this view.

As you know by German philosophy, in particular by Immanuel Kant, existence was critized as being not a real predicate. Existence and non-Existence might be highly problematic categories.

I think you are in touch with a specific feature of reality, but you are describing it in a way that does not fit to it.

However, I wish you good luck for your interesting paper.

Helmut

report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 16:31 GMT
Hi Helmut,

Thank you for your comments.

In my theory, there are two opposite "worlds", the existence world and the non-existence world. They both exist from their own point of view, so the O and the 1 are both valid.

Patrick




Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 18:13 GMT
Hello Patrick,

Saw your post on my blog. It seems we are few that want to explore this existence/non-existence topic. I even posted what's below to focus the discussion but a few were offended so I stop. Some said they don't know what 'elicit' means even though Wheeler used the term and another said there can be superposition of existence and non-existence. Even a friend answer that he will not go to work. Anyway here is it...

"If you wake up one morning and dip your hand in your pocket and 'detect' a million dollars, then on your way back from work, you dip your hand again and find that there is nothing there…

1) Have you 'elicited' an information in the latter case?

2) If you did not 'participate' by putting your 'detector' hand in your pocket, can you 'elicit' information?

3) If the information is provided by the presence of the crisp notes ('its') you found in your pocket, can the absence of the notes, being an 'immaterial source' convey information?

Finally, leaving for the moment what the terms mean and whether or not they can be discretely expressed in the way spin information is discretely expressed, e.g. by electrons

4) Can the existence/non-existence of an 'it' be a binary choice, representable by 0 and 1?"

Answers can be in binary form for brevity, i.e. YES = 1, NO = 0, e.g. 0-1-0-1.

Best regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 19:45 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

Have you moved to the dark side of the force ?

Patrick




Anonymous wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 15:37 GMT
Dear Patrick

I am also suspect on variation of mass proton and electron

http://vixra.org/abs/1212.0080

Regards

Yuri

P.S. This contest my issue about different matter

report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 18:01 GMT
Hi Yuri,

I will check your paper and comment on your blog.

Cheers,

Patrick




Yuri Danoyan wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 22:15 GMT
Hi Patrick

This is my opinion about Planck scale

http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0191

Cheers

Yuri

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 20:53 GMT
Your essay was interesting and fun to read, Patrick;

I like your theory, though at this time it is still a toy model rather than a robust scientific theory. The layers of circles construction you describe is reminiscent of the ancient 'flower of life' figure construction, where the circles are half-overlapping (center to edge), and only when you get to the third layer are the outermost circles independent of the central one (touching edge to edge at a point). But I suspect you are treating this construction like the close packing of spheres using the 1-sphere or circle, where they are touching edge to edge. In any case; I also believe the universe is here because it computes. In fact, in imitation of Descartes; I once coined the phrase "It Computes, therefore It Is."

I will be creating a page of links on this website:

www.itcomputes.info

..to work like yours that uses a procedural model to reproduce natural law, and affirms the "It from Bit" concept of Wheeler. I hope we can stay in touch after the contest, so that your ideas can be included.

Best of luck,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 21:00 GMT
Of course;

You might find my essay to be of interest.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 12:43 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

Thank you for your comments. I would be very happy for your site to link to mine.

I will post comments on your essay in your blog.

Cheers,

Patrick




Than Tin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 04:04 GMT
Hi Patrick

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 20:20 GMT
Hi Than Tin,

I can't agree more, nature is simple and it is all about dualities. In fact, I would say that it is all about opposites.

Cheers,

Patrick




Giacomo Alessiani wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 03:30 GMT
Hello Patrick, this should be into my intention an help:

Lagrangian mechanics is a re-formulation of classical mechanics using Hamilton's principle of stationary action.[1] Lagrangian mechanics applies to systems whether or not they conserve energy or momentum, and it provides conditions under which energy and/or momentum are conserved.[2] It was introduced by the Italian-French...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 11:47 GMT
Hi Giacomo,

Thank you for your post.

Indeed, surface is fundamental and I believe that Energy is the inverse of an area.

E = 1/L2

See my redefinition of dimensions here.

Cheers,

Patrick

PS: I am also French/Italian but unfortunately I haven't got Lagrange's brain !




Christian Corda wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 16:41 GMT
Dear Patrick,

As I told you in my Essay page, I have read your Essay. I find you have lots of interesting ideas, but they must be properly described through rigorous mathematics. Speculations are not sufficient, science if founded on quantitative analyses. In fact, I agree with Jonathan's judgement that your Essay is still a toy model rather than a robust scientific theory. Here are some observations:

1) The idea that at the origin the Universe was an Universal Bit (UB) is intriguing and the duality between the two states which cannot exist without one another looks philosophically similar to the duality wave/particle and to the black hole complementarity.

2) I do not understand how the further UBs are created, i.e, you start from one UB at the origin, where do the others come from?

3) Why do you use the Planck Length and the Planck Time to characterize them?

4) I like your statement that "Existence is a disruption in the standard pattern of alternating black and white CBUs". In fact, it looks a sort of breaking of symmetry.

5) It is intriguing that your formula on the proton/electron mass ratio gives a result in agreement with the official value. The same for the number of UBs on our layer and for the number of UBs per CBU.

In general, your Essay is quite enjoyable, thus, I am going to give you an high score.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 18:57 GMT
Hi Christian,

Thank you for your nice comments. I completely agree with you that my theory is still a toy model but unfortunately I can't do much better than that as I am not a theoretical physicist. I am just an enthousiastic non-specialist with lots of ideas that would love to share them with people like you so a robust scientific theory can be developped.

Here are the answers to your questions:

1)you start from one UB at the origin, where do the others come from?

They don't come from anywhere, they are just there (anything either exist or doesn't exist). They are not even real information, they are just a "potential" bit of information.

2)Why do you use the Planck Length and the Planck Time to characterize them?

Well, it just seemed logical as, by definition, it is the shortest length we can measure and the same for the Planck time.

If you find my formula for the proton/electron mass ratio intriguing, then wait until you see my other formulae! I think that you will like them.(don't dismiss them straight away because of the lack of units, there is an explanation...)

Thank you again for your feedback, I really appreciate it.

Cheers,

Patrick




Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 09:17 GMT
Dear Patrick,

Contests FQXi - is primarily a new radical idea. "The trouble with physics" push ... You have a new radical idea. In your essay deep original ontological analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas, new concepts, new images and conclusions.

Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics":

«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence.»

http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.
htm

In the russian version of a article: «The truth should be drawn and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators.»

Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

Please look also my essay and essay FQXi 2012 related to the ontological justification of "Absolute generating structure"

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1796

http://www.fqxi.or
g/community/forum/topic/1362

Although I have space-time 12 dimensions, we have the spirit of close reserch. Is this the right way - time will tell and others. My mail ideabank@yandex.ru

Best regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 11:56 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for your comments.

To answer your question, yes, I could say that I agree with Alexander Zenkin (thank you for the link).

Why do you use 12 dimensions ? how can you represent that in your mind ? I have taken the other approach, instead of adding extra dimensions, I have taken one off, it is a lot easier to deal with. I hope that you liked some of my ideas, if so, you can read my complete theory here.

Cheers,

Patrick




eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 20:15 GMT
Dear Patrick,

I am impressed with your article. I have not had time to assess the likely validity of your ideas, but what is sure is that your way of thinking strangely resembles mine.

And what is striking, and can be as normal, is that those who are versed in information science are very active in finding a solution, an explanation of the riddle of eUnivers. This shows that we are immersed in the era of information and virtual worlds.

But the words used in your test echo in my head as something significant.

I think our views are not contradictory, they could complete, we are in the same sphere of eUniverse around us.

That's why I give you a high score.

If you have a French version of your essay I will be happy to read it.

Here is my email: amazigh@noxspam.com

Thank you and,

Good luck with the contest.

Please visit My essay.

report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 20:54 GMT
Dear Amazigh,

Thank you for your comments and rating. I have already read and rated your essay and also left a comment on your blog.

Désolé, mais je n'ai pas de version française.

A+

Patrick




Branko L Zivlak wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 11:26 GMT
Dear Patrick,

(Google translate)

I like to see the innovative article, even if I do not agree on everything.

I mean, the universe does not have a spherical shape. There is no shape at all. Interesting novelty are pictures of you on the sixth and seventh page. But, there should be something that is going in the opposite direction. If we know why the fine structure constant as large as, we would have an answer?

Regards

Branko

report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 06:23 GMT
Dear Patrick,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 16:35 GMT
Dear Patrick,

Very imaginative article. Based on the concepts of Bit UB and CBU you have done something amazing in deriving not only charge, spin and ratio of the masses of elementary particles but also in deriving the cosmological constant. This is a novel way of looking at the universe and also at the quantum world. For this innovative work, I want to give excellent rating.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate


Michel Planat wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 15:53 GMT
Cher Patrick,

Comme il y a vraisemblablement le même nombre de bits en français qu'en anglais, je me permets de commettre l'hérésie de communiquer dans ma langue naturelle, une fois ne sera pas coutume. Je trouve votre idée de définir le bit comme résultant de l'existence ou non tout à fait pertinente. Il y a des qubits sous-jacents à votre étude à mon avis, c'est-à-dire des superpositions du type du fameux chat. Il y a aussi probablement une géométrie des sphères que vous découvrirez quand vous serez allé plus avant dans votre recherche (fibration de Hopf, SU(3) (les quarks) et SO(3) (le groupe des rotations de l'espace). Je trouve particulièrement intéressant que vous arriviez à des constantes pertinentes.

Bien à vous

Michel

compressed bit data:

Fine Patrick, go ahead. Good luck. Michel

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 19:43 GMT
Dear Patrick Tonin:

I am an old physician and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,

But maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called “time”. No one that I know...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Michel Planat wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 17:58 GMT
Dear Patrick,

I looked at your essay several times over the period of the contest.

Several sound ideas are within although you announced that you still did not spend much time on your theory.

I like the idea of the superpostion of existence an non existence prior to the bit realization, I would see the concept of the qubit here.

You arrive at layers with circles and I suspect that, at the end of the day, this can be formulated with Hopf fibrations in a less esoteric way. This seems to be confirmed by the spin of the particles you account for (the standard symmetry SU(3) is not far away).

Congratulations for an intriguing essay.

Mine does not relate on constants at all. Still you may have some interest at reading it.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

Best wishes,

Michel

report post as inappropriate


Than Tin wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 19:15 GMT
Dear All

Let me go one more round with Richard Feynman.

In the Character of Physical Law, he talked about the two-slit experiment like this “I will summarize, then, by saying that electrons arrive in lumps, like particles, but the probability of arrival of these lumps is determined as the intensity of waves would be. It is this sense that the electron behaves sometimes like a particle and sometimes like a wave. It behaves in two different ways at the same time.

Further on, he advises the readers “Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it. ‘But how can it be like that?’ because you will get ‘down the drain’, into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.”

Did he says anything about Wheeler’s “It from Bit” other than what he said above?

Than Tin

report post as inappropriate


Michel Planat wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 14:59 GMT
Dear Patrick,

Thank you for you response on my blog. I really liked your coherent scheme and I am sure you can valorize it by introducing known concepts og geometry.

I started to be interested in this subject. Deriving a mathematical theory of natural constants is worthwhile.

You can see a hint on Zivlak's blog, in particular the link

https://sites.google.com/site/nonanthropicconstants/

(als
o the work of Angel Doz here).

I am also giving you a high mark.

Best regards,

Michel

report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 23:38 GMT
Patrick - bold, brilliant, outstanding. I don’t fully know what to make of it yet (I need to think about it more and visit your web site with the full universe theory). However, I just gave you a good rating, which I believe will help you.

I will need to look up the history of the ratio of the masses of the proton relative to the electron, however, did you know there is also a derivation of this in the paper by Walter Smilga in this contest?

I would be honored for your review of my essay regarding the elimination of a background of time in analyzing entanglement. You can find the latest version of it here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-
V1.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven’t figured out a way to not make it do that).

Kind regards, Paul

report post as inappropriate


M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:39 GMT
Patrick

vous avez quitte un poste interessant aujourd'hui sur mon blog pour quoi j'ai repondu. Je voudrais savoir qui. Mon email est vasilyeva_mv at yahoo.

Merci :)

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.