Hi Juan,
Thank you for readying and analyzing my essay. I have always said That I look forward to any criticism, the more harsh the better, it usually tells me what I have not been clear about.
""the big philosophical and practical question, why something rather than nothing". Not even close!". My system is a possible proof and at worst hints at that *reality is a mathematical structure* ala Tegmark with more supporters every day, although not so understandably huge at this time. I don't know how to make it clearer since it is so simple and much talked about.
"At contrary, it is very fast " In the sense of you argument you are correct, I have used that argument myself before. However, I am taking about the frustration that you see how all the people who are interested in the subject, starting with professionals themselves complaining about the lack of real progress on the foundation questions for the past 70 years or so.
"physics is about asking "why".". Exactly right. I was hoping that people could see that my effort is in that direction and in that direction only. Some agree and some don't.
"Applied physics is totally different from fundamental physics" I think you misunderstood. If you you look at all my essays I have all simulations and results, not much talk about philosophy which I absolutely don't ascribe to the loaded ones. Although I have only used it as a starting argument similar to what Einstein called "tamed" philosophy.
"reality is not based on probability". As hopefully you could see(starting from the previous essays) the system recreates some essential parts of QM by getting the probabilities and energy with the relations between the constants and 1/r law like in QFT as in(Bohr, hydrogen 1s..) directly without the wavefunctions. Since it looks very much like ordinary physics the interpretation part is still subjective. Although it leans toward Bohm like theory.
"What happens with thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, electrodynamics or relativity?" I look at them as extension of, but I don't think this is worth debating.
"There is no reason why the chosen number has to between the other two." Cristinel asked similar question. here is the answer.
The reason that I say ill defined is because the point can go to infinity and hence it becomes uncalculable (the story is just a bit more involved but I wanted to keep it simple). As a matter of fact the first "l" that you see defined in my programs is the reminiscent of the size of the "universe" and it is just there because of the historic development, it is not needed. Because if I throw the numbers to size of it, it will make the particle to particle interaction inconsistent as I change the size of the universe. Meaning, all interaction in this setup lead to FINITE results (only particle to particle interaction). Also, I have tried all kinds of random other than uniform they do not lead to the consistent easy to interpret results that I get with uniform.
"
The reason that I say ill defined is because the point can go to infinity and hence it becomes uncalculable (the story is just a bit more involved but I wanted to keep it simple). As a matter of fact the first "l" that you see defined in my programs is the reminiscent of the size of the "universe" and it is just there because of the historic development, it is not needed. Because if I throw the numbers to size of it, it will make the particle to particle interaction inconsistent as I change the size of the universe. Meaning, all interaction in this setup lead to FINITE results (only particle to particle interaction). Also, I have tried all kinds of random other than uniform they do not lead to the consistent easy to interpret results that I get with uniform.
The reason that I say ill defined is because the point can go to infinity and hence it becomes uncalculable (the story is just a bit more involved but I wanted to keep it simple). As a matter of fact the first "l" that you see defined in my programs is the reminiscent of the size of the "universe" and it is just there because of the historic development, it is not needed. Because if I throw the numbers to size of it, it will make the particle to particle interaction inconsistent as I change the size of the universe. Meaning, all interaction in this setup lead to FINITE results (only particle to particle interaction). Also, I have tried all kinds of random other than uniform they do not lead to the consistent easy to interpret results that I get with uniform.
"There is absolutely no relation between imagining a probability of choosing a numbers between two preselected numbers and QM of photons." This is an illustrative results for basic QM results mentioned in some text books.
The system of time in the model is similar to this paper, which actually has a lot of similarity to mine
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1411/1411.2072.pdf
"Example of numerology" I am not sure about what issue you are talking about. But here is a formula That falls out of the system simulation
1/alpha= 137.0359991
(M_p/M_e) =(3^3/2)*(1/alpha-1) -1/3 =1836.15265
The problem in the formatting is that like usual I would take the FQXI essay contest time to work more on the system and so could not finish on time and I was on a vacation in SriLanka. I had a bout of bronchitis and the PDF trial run out. Such is life. :)
Again I like to thank you. I know it is hard for people to scrutinize my system, since it will take some effort and I have not made even a good presentation. I hope people do not concentrate on the words but test the simulation to see the wide ranging results, including Newton gravity law.
P.S. What happened to your idea, actually I liked it and thought it had some vague connection to mine. Maybe we share at a deeper level with this system
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0608251.pdf