CATEGORY:
It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013)
[back]
TOPIC:
It’s Fibonacci’s Bit - Seeding the Universe with 0 and 1 by Antony Ryan
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Antony Ryan wrote on May. 30, 2013 @ 17:21 GMT
Essay AbstractJohn Wheeler suggested that information is fundamental to physics, resulting in the very nature of what we observe. However, any information that passes beyond an event horizon becomes empirically lost. What happens to it? Here, I explore the fundamentals of how information is exchanged in reality, how it changes, and any potential for it to be destroyed. Remarkably the Fibonacci sequence, appearing so often in nature, is revealed from this voyage, bringing with it possible answers to Wheeler’s question.
Author BioAntony Ryan has a BSc in Chemistry from the University of Liverpool. Over the last 6 years he has moved independently into theoretical physics, having developed a fundamental model which addresses the three paradoxes of cosmogony and partly unifies the four forces of nature.
Download Essay PDF File
John C Maguire wrote on Jun. 3, 2013 @ 18:09 GMT
Antony,
Interesting read. Would you mind elaborating a bit on your conclusion. In particular your mention of the Holographic Principle:
"This system also lends itself to a spatially 3-dimensional Universe emerging from 0-dimensionailty, because information exchange is limited to 0, 1, 1, and 2-dimensionailty within a Black Hole, which is hidden from the 3-dimensionality outside. In...
view entire post
Antony,
Interesting read. Would you mind elaborating a bit on your conclusion. In particular your mention of the Holographic Principle:
"This system also lends itself to a spatially 3-dimensional Universe emerging from 0-dimensionailty, because information exchange is limited to 0, 1, 1, and 2-dimensionailty within a Black Hole, which is hidden from the 3-dimensionality outside. In this respect Black Holes are analogies to the holographic principle in reverse"
Thank You.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 19:35 GMT
Many thanks for reading and taking the time to respond John. I'm glad you found it interesting.
Rather than information being stored on a 2-dimensional boundary, as per holographic principle, I draw the analogy that Black Hole event horizons are a 2-dimensional boundary where information becomes changed/hidden from the outside 3-dimensionality.
The Fibonacci sequence gives 3, from 0,...
view entire post
Many thanks for reading and taking the time to respond John. I'm glad you found it interesting.
Rather than information being stored on a 2-dimensional boundary, as per holographic principle, I draw the analogy that Black Hole event horizons are a 2-dimensional boundary where information becomes changed/hidden from the outside 3-dimensionality.
The Fibonacci sequence gives 3, from 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, with 0, 1, 1, 2, being the Black Hole with 3 the spatial dimensionality outside.
Let me know if you'd like me to elaborate.
Best Wishes
Antony
view post as summary
Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 17:05 GMT
Anthony,
The real Universe could not have a base 2 system with 0 and 1 at its foundation because the real Universe is unique.
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 19:27 GMT
Hi Joe,
Thanks for the less personally insulting post to the previous one. Good point to make. Whether the Universe is unique or not, there is nothing to stop it having 0 and 1. Your unique system would surely allow 0 and 1. Both ways would allow higher numbers allowing every point in the Universe to be unique, so there may be some common ground there?
Best Wishes
Antony
Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 15:48 GMT
Anthony,
I deeply regret the first comment and I am glad it was removed. Both of the supposedly whole postulated numbers 0 and 1 are formed by a single line. Computers using Boolean algebra represent the physical values of the 0 and the 1 as being identical to a switch (or an electro-magnetic impulse) having the capability of being off for 0, and on for 1. But there is a huge problem....
view entire post
Anthony,
I deeply regret the first comment and I am glad it was removed. Both of the supposedly whole postulated numbers 0 and 1 are formed by a single line. Computers using Boolean algebra represent the physical values of the 0 and the 1 as being identical to a switch (or an electro-magnetic impulse) having the capability of being off for 0, and on for 1. But there is a huge problem. Although abstract 0 and 1 are perfectly formed and ever unchangeable, real switches or real electromagnetic impulses are not so formed. Physically, a real switch can malfunction. It can remain on when it is indicated to be off, or remain off when it might be perceived to be on.
I think an assigned -1 representing the probability of false positive/negative indications has to be considered for all computations. The insertion of the -1 would of course always have to be uniquely random.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 17:00 GMT
Hello Joe,
Fibonacci indeed has -1 in the sequence (-1, 1, 0, 1, 1). I speculate this to allow for Hawking Radiation to let Black oles lose mass.
Best Wishes
Antony
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 17:01 GMT
hide replies
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 02:03 GMT
Hello Antony
I have read your essay with interest. When Fibonacci discovered his series he had little idea of its amazing and wide applications in other branches of mathematics, in describing some geometrical patterns in nature and as you describe, in theoretical physics.
Your approach makes sense if you posit a granular vacuum in which each granule communicates with adjacent ones. The pattern spreads accumulating new granules step by step in a linear, causal logical and easily pictured way. In the discussion on probability in my
Beautiful Universe Theory I have shown how this leads to explaining quantum probability - not from a vacuum chaos but from exquisite order, such as a binomial distribution in a lattice. This is very similar to Pascal's triangle, hence to Fibonacci.
I am no expert on entropy or black holes, but feel you might be onto an interesting line for further study and development.
With best wishes
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 15:17 GMT
Hello Vladimir,
Thank you for your kind comments. My own geometric theory is similar to Causal Dynamical Triangulation, so what you say about granular adjacent space makes very good sense. I look forward to reading your theory, as the approach you describe sounds favourable to an early ordered Universe.
Best wishes
Antony
Philip Gibbs wrote on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 17:42 GMT
Anthony, it's always good to see an essay that uses a bit of number theory. Number theory is the other thing I sometimes do some work on apart from physics. I was especially chuffed one time when a paper I wrote on number theory was cited by a physicist. The connections run deep and Fibonacci numbers often come up in such links. I think you are very right that they are important to nature.
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 15:25 GMT
Hi Philip,
Thanks for the reading and the comments. The occurrences in nature of Fibonacci are incredible alone. What strikes me as beautiful is the very symmetric asymmetry that the sequence gives naturally when passing downwards past 0.
I'm using n-dimension simplex vertex numbers (a mouthful I know), to represent order. This apples more in my cosmogony theory. However, this would...
view entire post
Hi Philip,
Thanks for the reading and the comments. The occurrences in nature of Fibonacci are incredible alone. What strikes me as beautiful is the very symmetric asymmetry that the sequence gives naturally when passing downwards past 0.
I'm using n-dimension simplex vertex numbers (a mouthful I know), to represent order. This apples more in my cosmogony theory. However, this would then produce an arrow of time.
In the context of this essay contest though, information should naturally become more chaotically scrambled over time - especially when dimensionality changes from 3 to 0 at a Black Hole - akin to the Fibonacci sequence.
Kind regards
Antony
view post as summary
Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 00:50 GMT
It will take me until the weekend to seriously read essays.I did though read the first couple of pages of your paper. I presume that you are proposing an unfolding of spaces of various dimensions according to the Fibonacci sequence.
The icosian or 120-cell has two quaternions with length (1/2)(1 +/- sqrt{5}) where the plus one has length 1.618..., which is the golden mean. In fact these quaternions define something called the golden field in a Galois ring. This is related to the Fibonacci sequence.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 15:34 GMT
Lawrence, thanks for finding the time to read my essay.
What you suggest is another way to look at this. I will find it very helpful to future study on this subject.
I envisaged the sequence crossing from normal space into a Black Hole as purely the change in the way information is processed dimensionally, which always seems unidirectional with time. Perhaps what you have mentioned is the other side of the same coin.
Cheers,
Antony
Kenneth Allen Getch wrote on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 13:48 GMT
I was asked to comment on this essay. I am an informatics and software engineer by education and trade so this is outside of my normal scope of interest. With that said I think it was well written and your theory well stated. I am reminded of the solutions to AIDS protein configurations that were solved by the social gaming platform fold.it. I bring this up as it reinforces the theory that the universe doesn't do things on a whim. The protein uses as little energy as possible to exist and I believe that is a possible law of the universe. Your correlation to possibility of preserving information and mathematical balance only makes sense as why destroy the information? If this universe is trying to go back to zero then it would need a mechanism to do that and that mechanism would be as efficient as possible. Each of your possible "strangely diverse quantum like results" seem to each attempt a balance.
Again, this may be complete rubbish and below what you are used to. I wish you the best of luck.
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 15:17 GMT
Many thanks for taking the time to read and comment on this Kenneth.
I am glad to see that my essay brought to mind other interesting instances where the Universe behaves in this way. I'm delighted that you noticed the symmetrically balanced way information is treated here. The Fibonacci sequence certainly seems to be followed empirically and it is driven by entropy without destroying information.
Again thank you for your thoughtful, kind and well considered comments.
Best wishes,
Antony
Willard Mittelman wrote on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 01:54 GMT
Hi Antony,
Thanks for your comments over at my paper. I agree that our viewpoints are compatible, though each of us does have a somewhat different focus. I also found your paper very interesting and well-written.
I'm intrigued by the relation between your account and Causal Dynamical Triangulations (CDTs), which you mentioned above in the comments. Lately, Ambjorn and his co-workers have been connecting CDTs with Horava-Lifshitz gravity, which interests me because of the existence of a preferred frame in the latter, such a frame being consistent with the kind of large-scale nonlocality that I describe. (Indeed, Niayesh Afshordi has argued that something like his gravitational aether can be viewed as the low-energy limit of Horava-Lifshitz gravity.) This aspect of CDTs may be worth exploring as you develop your ideas further.
At any rate, good luck to you in the contest!
-Willard
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 03:22 GMT
Willard - thank you for your kind post and comments. I know a little about Ambjorn and Loll's work but not Horava-Lifshitz gravity. That's great to hear about. I will study it further and get back to you.
My reference to CDT is from my geometric theory which led me to Fibonacci behaviour around Black Holes.
Luckily it sits well with information's relationship with reality and Black Holes being a potential "enemy" of information - hence the timing of me discovering the relation - March this year, was good.
I wasn't sure whether to include the entropy discussion as that could have been a paper on its own. Although relevant, I hope it wasn't too distracting from the main point around Fibonacci's relationship with Bit and It?
Anyway nice to "meet" you and all the best with the contest.
Antony
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 21:08 GMT
Dear Antony
Very attractive when you compare with the story of "chicken and egg" because I also used to think like that, but I found a different result - more precisely.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 04:31 GMT
Thanks for looking at my essay. I'm glad that your appreciated the chicken and egg conclusion. Perhaps I'd consider Bit and It as two sides of the same coin a stronger position than not deciding which came first.
I've now read your essay and think that you might say that a God was Bit leading to reality?
Anyway best wishes,
Antony
basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 02:01 GMT
Dear Sir,
Many of your views in this essay has been discussed in our essay published on May 31 from a totally different perspective. You are welcome to visit us and comment on it.
In the field of science, the 19th century was one of experimentation, 20th century of excitement and 21st century of observation. Thus, it is no surprise that Wheeler was excited to find something he...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
Many of your views in this essay has been discussed in our essay published on May 31 from a totally different perspective. You are welcome to visit us and comment on it.
In the field of science, the 19th century was one of experimentation, 20th century of excitement and 21st century of observation. Thus, it is no surprise that Wheeler was excited to find something he thought novel and was excited about it. But in hind sight, if we analyze his views minus excitement, we find a totally different story.
First: “everything we observe in the known Universe (the ‘it’) is less fundamental than the information that produces it (the ‘bit’)”. Fundamental has been defined as of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary. Thus, the above statement means that the observable is nothing more than the sum total of ALL information (observation or reporting of the result of measurement) about the observable. Since every measurement measures only one aspect, how can we be sure that we have measured and correctly reported ALL aspects of something? Secondly, observation only reports the state and does not create or influence the state. The state can evolve in time independently. Thus, it is invariant to information or the absence of it. Information is the perception of the observer about the state of the observable in a universally communicable way. Hence the statement: “information that produces it” is not correct.
By definition, the first two numbers in the Fibonacci sequence are 0 and 1, and each subsequent number is the sum of the previous two. But what do 0 and 1represent? Number is a perceived property of substances by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, it is one. If there are similars, it is many. Many can be 2,3,4,….n depending upon the sequence of perception. Zero represents the temporal absence at “here-now” of something that exists elsewhere. Only in this way, we can perceive the absence of something and label its number as zero. Thus, Wheeler’s 0 and 1 represent the absence or presence of something or false and true about a statement. By themselves, they are meaningless. They acquire meaning only after they are associated with some observable. The concept was known as “ahoratra vaada” in ancient India and there is much literature on this subject. Nature functions in cycles and Fibonacci sequence is one such cycle.
As we have pointed out, observation is the reporting of a state of something at a given time. While the object evolves temporally, it the observation made at time t is “frozen” for use at other times when the state has changed further. Thus, information, which is the result of observation, is time invariant. The object, about which such information is obtained, is time variant. Hence the object cannot have information about itself. It is true that “no information from inside the black hole can be received”; but it due to our inability to measure in the first place. Without measurement, we cannot have information. Hence talking about its directionality is meaningless.
The concept of event horizon is based on false assumptions. A pulse of light evolves in time as a sphere and not as a circle. Hawking in his Brief history of Time has tricked everyone by first taking the Surface of Earth as 2-dimensional (which it is not) and then taking the example of a stone thrown into the surface of water. He added time as the third dimension (which it is not) before adding the third spatial direction as the fourth dimension. The circle formed on the surface of the water evolves in time as a bigger and bigger circle and not as a conic section. If you take the three spatial directions together, it will be an increasing sphere and not a time cone.
Direction has meaning only with reference to other objects, whereas dimension can be described without reference to other objects. Dimension of objects is the perception that differentiates the “internal structural space” from the “external relational space”. Since such perception is mediated by electromagnetic interaction, where an electric field and a magnetic field move perpendicular to each other in a direction perpendicular to both, we have three mutually perpendicular directions. The talk of extra dimensions is non-sense. Even after more than a century, no one has any idea about it. When we talk about 1 or 2 dimensions, we really mean cross sections of a three dimensional object. Time does not satisfy this condition to be called a dimension. Yet, since space and time are infinite and co-exist independently as the base on which all transformations take place; we have to use unidirectional time to describe the state at any given moment.
There can be no negative direction for time or cause and effect. Consider an example:
A + B → C + D.
Here a force makes A interact with B to produce C and D. The same force doesn’t act on C and D as they don’t exist at that stage. If we change the direction of the force, B acts on A. Here only the direction of force and not the interval between the states before and after application of force (time) will change and the equation will be:
B + A → C + D and not B + A ← C + D.
Hence it does not affect causality.
Entropy is related to inertia. Elsewhere in these threads, we have discussed about it elaborately.
Let us apply our mind independently to everything that is told to us or are found in text books. Blind acceptance is superstition, which is harming the cause of science.
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 07:31 GMT
Dear, Basudeba,
I can't answer your comments above as we are clearly looking at reality in extremely different ways.
Regards
Antony
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 14:41 GMT
Antony,
Firts of all thank you for reading my essay.
I just read yours. ersonnally I like very much The spirals of nature and Leonard de Pise, (Fibonacci). One of the causes of the beauty of our perceptance of nature is given in this mathematical sequence. Again a sequence....
regarding the loss of information in Black Holes I tend to think like Abhay Ashtekar and Carlo Rovelli in their Loop Quantum Gravity perception. Their latest proposal tells us that in the heart of a black hole there is no singulairity (the same as my perception) but an entry to another dimension that can be the origin of a new universe. Infact they come almost to the same conlusion as I do , onlt my perception goes further because this "entrance" to another dimension (that I call Total Simultaneity) is everywhere . Indeed I do not believe in non dimensional points called "singularities". So when information enters a black hole it is not lost at all it just returns to its origins...
best regards
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 05:35 GMT
Hello Wilhelus,
Thanks for your kind comments. I'm glad you like the sequence approach. One thing it suggests is that the singularity (0) would not be a final point, because the sequence is driven backward via entropy. Also, due to -1, 1, 0, 1, 1 part of the sequence information always conserves information away from the singularity, so effectively information can't fall into it, but are effected become new dimensions.
Thus I think we have very compatible views here. Again I enjoyed your essay and wish you the best of luck in the contest!
Antony
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 05:37 GMT
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 20:26 GMT
Good idea for use Fibonacci on the quantum cosmology.I am try it also on science forum
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72326-did-the-univer
se-unwinded-by-fibonacci-sequence/
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 20:32 GMT
Thank you Yuri,
I will take a look!
All the best,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 00:21 GMT
Yuri - I have left a comment over on your page - best wishes,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:13 GMT
After reading Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta's
essay (Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background), where I noticed the abstract says - "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.
I realised I'd concluded differently in my essay.
I think perhaps reality can be more fundamental than information. At the very least, I would not say that information is likely more fundamental than reality itself, but then that's the beauty of this competition, it encourages shared ideas!
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 22:05 GMT
Thank you very much Antony,
Thank you for remembering my essay.
All the reality, all the information about the matter by our 6 senses ( mind is another sense)are stored as stored as pictures in our mind. This picture we will share with other human beings when we live. What we transfer via the communication to others is INFORMATION, It is never a matter. We may hand ove a physical...
view entire post
Thank you very much Antony,
Thank you for remembering my essay.
All the reality, all the information about the matter by our 6 senses ( mind is another sense)are stored as stored as pictures in our mind. This picture we will share with other human beings when we live. What we transfer via the communication to others is INFORMATION, It is never a matter. We may hand ove a physical object such as a pen to others. That is only matter. That not information. The description about the pen is information.
Hence by just information we can not create matter.....
I also request you to have a look at Dynamic universe model:
- - - Dark enrgy , dark matter are calculation mistakes.
Please see, and discuss on any point, you feel not satisfied. . . .
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/2012/11/fundamen
tal-questions-addressed-by.html
Fundamental questions addressed by Dynamic Universe Model
This Model is new Cosmological model fundamentally and mathematically different from Bigbang, Steady state model etc. I am giving below its Foundational points, Present Day unsolved problems, which can’t be solved by other prominent models, New Satellite Mass reduction technology and publications (Four Books published).
Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model:
-No Isotropy
-No Homogeneity
-No Space-time continuum
-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy
-No singularities
-No collisions between bodies
-No blackholes
-No warm holes
-No Bigbang
-No repulsion between distant Galaxies
-Non-empty Universe
-No imaginary or negative time axis
-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes
-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically
-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition
-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models
-No many mini Bigbangs
-No Missing Mass / Dark matter
-No Dark energy
-No Bigbang generated CMB detected
-No Multi-verses
best
=snp.gupta@gmail.com
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 09:54 GMT
Thanks for reply SNP,
I'll read over your essay again after reading the amendments & extra information.
All the best,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 13:07 GMT
Great points Gupta - I've commented over on your page - Antony
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 01:47 GMT
I've read Eckard Blumschein's essay -
Shannon’s View on Wheeler’s credoI then posted the following - which I have pasted over here:
Shannon's view “We know the past but cannot control it. We control the future but cannot know it” jumped out at me as analogous to my essay's observer/observation approach that revealed a Fibonacci pattern.
In my case it would be: - We know some information but cannot reveal it. We reveal some information but cannot collect more.
I already suggested an arrow of time from this, but your essay has further helped make it relevant given the Shannon analogy.
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 10:16 GMT
Hi Antony,
Thanks for your comment on my blog.
Your paper is very nice and that is no flattery. There may even be something hidden and very fundamental in your description of Fibonacci sequences.
But before I comment further, let me say I am still sceptical about the black hole idea, i.e. that all mass can be compressed to a point of "zero" dimension and the attribute of mass...
view entire post
Hi Antony,
Thanks for your comment on my blog.
Your paper is very nice and that is no flattery. There may even be something hidden and very fundamental in your description of Fibonacci sequences.
But before I comment further, let me say I am still sceptical about the black hole idea, i.e. that all mass can be compressed to a point of "zero" dimension and the attribute of mass will still remain conserved with a surrounding event horizon.
I suspect that mass is a derived attribute of extension (space) and this is not impossible to be derived from a peculiar Fibonnaci sequence. Another clue that mass is not an absolute attribute is from cosmology. Was all the mass now present in the universe now, there at a beginning or has the universe's mass been increasing with its radius?
Let me leave that for now and comment on parts of your essay devoid of black holes...
You say: I suggest in this essay that the foundations for reality begin with emergence of 0 and 1 dimensionality at a singularity resulting in the Universe we live in and in which information is processed.
I agree perfectly with this, as you can see with the line of thought in my essay.
You say: Despite Wheeler’s 0 and 1 being mainly symbolic, the basic idea of 0 and something as alternative answers to yes/no questions lends to information. Likewise, Fibonacci begins with something and nothing.
Again, I agree. If you see my reference to Julian Barbour's essay in previous year's essay, he argued that 0 and 1, though symbolic must stand for something that is real and has two alternative states, symbolized as 0 and 1.
You say: Fibonacci sequences appear in biological settings, in two
consecutive Fibonacci numbers, such as branching in trees [1], arrangement of leaves on a stem, the fruitlets of a pineapple [2], the flowering of artichoke, an uncurling fern and the arrangement of a pine cone [3]. The Fibonacci numbers are also found in the family tree of honeybees [4. Perhaps it isn’t too much of a leap of faith to include reality’s relationship with information, “It
from Bit”, as another of Fibonacci’s attributes.
Brilliant! Wheeler wished to derive mass from massless things, charge from chargeless things and field without field in his geometrodynamic scheme. The details are not yet worked out, but I suspect that similarly, monads and their ON (1) and OFF (0) may give rise to Fibonacci-like patterns that can cause annihilation of space between like patterns (attraction at a distance) or emergence of space (repulsion).
Best regards,
Akinbo
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 00:35 GMT
Hi Akinbo,
Thank you so much for your kind words and looking at my essay so thoroughly. I'm delighted you left these useful and constructive comments.
I hope too that it provokes interest along the lines of Wheeler with regard to something from nothing, as this is a subject very close to my heart. In fact this essay arose from my geometric theory of everything that also gives rise to...
view entire post
Hi Akinbo,
Thank you so much for your kind words and looking at my essay so thoroughly. I'm delighted you left these useful and constructive comments.
I hope too that it provokes interest along the lines of Wheeler with regard to something from nothing, as this is a subject very close to my heart. In fact this essay arose from my geometric theory of everything that also gives rise to asymmetry from nothing.
So to answer your question, I think the current mass present in the Universe wasn't present at the pre-Big bang singularity, but the potential was.
Then a simple geometric trick allowed asymmetry to occur, which actually conserved nothingness overall.
Hopefully I'll be releasing a paper on this in a few months.
Similarly then, the Black Hole situation would allow mass to be conserved at a zero sized point, because it is conserved by geometry about that point, where (as you point out) it extends to and beyond the event horizon.
Again many thanks for your helpful comments!
Best wishes for the contest,
Antony
view post as summary
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 13:55 GMT
Hi Antony,
I will be looking more at the Fibonnaci attributes. I suspect that complex appearances and attributes can be derived from the simplest of things using this principle.
Concerning, your planned cosmology paper, you may check out if there are any useful ideas on some aspects I have written about. search: Ojo on arXiv.
Best regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 17:48 GMT
Hi Akinbo,
I agree that the most complex aspects of reality must be derived from the most simple foundations. Ultimately, I like to start with complete nothingness.
Thanks for your kind assistance - I look forward to reading your work on arXiv. Perhaps we may one day collaborate...?
Delighted to "meet" you!
Antony
Domenico Oricchio wrote on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 10:41 GMT
Thank you for reading my essay, I see that you appreciate my style: it is a satisfaction.
I read and score quickly the essays, I remain a dozen to read and score (I am busy in this moment).
I reread your article, that it is interesting (like many others this, and the others, year).
I am thinking that the dimension reduction near the singularity of the black hole (photon cannot leave the surface of the black hole: dimension 2) cannot be so abrupt, so that can be possible a continuous reduction of the dimension (with transcendetal number dimension); so that near the singularity must be a fractal photon path (used to measure the dimensionality): I think a foam of spherical curvature (like Swiss cheese), that deflect the photon path: an open-cell foam distant from singularity, and a closed-cell foam near the singularity, with the gravitational energy that produces balls of curvature.
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 00:46 GMT
Hi Domenico,
Thanks for your comments.
The fractal idea sounds plausible. Great to share these thoughts. Exactly - a photon could not leave the Singularity, so it can only observe more photons coming towards it. It can not be observed from anywhere else in the Universe.
I agree that dimension reduction wouldn't be abrupt with regard to observation, but there are these defined locations where a change in observation occurs as we descend (theoretically) into a Black hole, that match the Fibonacci Sequence numbers.
Best Wishes
Antony
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 01:26 GMT
Great discussion over at Kyle miller's page.
His kind comments encouraged more relevant thoughts on my part, which I've copied over to this thread:
I too feel that nature ought to have one singularity, but perhaps as time stops there, then all Black Hole singularities are equivalent to the pre-Big Bang singularity...
Although the possibility that there are no singularities...
view entire post
Great discussion over at Kyle miller's
page.
His kind comments encouraged more relevant thoughts on my part, which I've copied over to this thread:
I too feel that nature ought to have one singularity, but perhaps as time stops there, then all Black Hole singularities are equivalent to the pre-Big Bang singularity...
Although the possibility that there are no singularities works well too. Around the Fibonacci sequence - we can't decay backwards from 1 to 0 without replicating 1. Also 1 appears both "sides" (positive and negative) of the sequence, suggesting that 0-dimensionality might be skipped. This would lead on to Hawking radiation, where information emerges, albeit scrambled.
I do agree that my system would be hard to test. I guess it starts physical in the 3-D and 2-D and extrapolates back to an assumed 0-D (potential/theoretical) singularity, and is abstract in between.
I like that you highlighted the golden ratio relationship to galactic spirals. Perhaps this may be related to Fibonacci starting at the central Black Holes?
view post as summary
Anna Maria Richards wrote on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 19:54 GMT
A thought-provoking take on the subject and an intriguing exploration of Pythagorean link between numbers and nature. In an accessible manner which can be convincing and comprehensible even to a layperson, the author successfully presents in few logical steps an attempt to combine the Fibonacci sequence with the questions of reality and its underpinning - information. What seems to be especially appealing is the intellectual effort to prove the possibility of deriving functions inherent to the fabric of realty from binary choices. In this concise essay the author skillfully manages to interweave the great questions of modern-day science such as the theory that information is fundamental to the physics of the universe, Hawking Radiation, entropy and quantum fluctuations. Fine base for further research that might possibly turn out to be an important jigsaw puzzle piece in tackling the problems of fundamental parameters, black hole information paradox and holographic principle.
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 15:21 GMT
Hello Anna,
Thanks for your wonderful review of my essay. I'm delighted by your comments, particularly that you found it thought provoking and that you describe it "as a jigsaw puzzle piece in tackling the problems of fundamental parameters".
Also relieved that you found it concise. These are the very aims I'd hope to achieve!
Best wishes,
Antony
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 04:17 GMT
Send to all of you
THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT
To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :
1 . THE...
view entire post
Send to all of you
THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT
To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :
1 . THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES
A. What thing is new and the difference in the absolute theory than other theories?
The first is concept of "Absolute" in my absolute theory is defined as: there is only one - do not have any similar - no two things exactly alike.
The most important difference of this theory is to build on the entirely new basis and different platforms compared to the current theory.
B. Why can claim: all things are absolute - have not of relative ?
It can be affirmed that : can not have the two of status or phenomenon is the same exists in the same location in space and at the same moment of time - so thus: everything must be absolute and can not have any of relative . The relative only is a concept to created by our .
C. Why can confirm that the conclusions of the absolute theory is the most specific and detailed - and is unique?
Conclusion of the absolute theory must always be unique and must be able to identify the most specific and detailed for all issues related to a situation or a phenomenon that any - that is the mandatory rules of this theory.
D. How the applicability of the absolute theory in practice is ?
The applicability of the absolute theory is for everything - there is no limit on the issue and there is no restriction on any field - because: This theory is a method to determine for all matters and of course not reserved for each area.
E. How to prove the claims of Absolute Theory?
To demonstrate - in fact - for the above statement,we will together come to a specific experience, I have a small testing - absolutely realistic - to you with title:
2 . A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT :
“Absolute determination to resolve for issues reality”
That is, based on my Absolute theory, I will help you determine by one new way to reasonable settlement and most effective for meet with difficulties of you - when not yet find out to appropriate remedies - for any problems that are actually happening in reality, only need you to clearly notice and specifically about the current status and the phenomena of problems included with requirements and expectations need to be resolved.
I may collect fees - by percentage of benefits that you get - and the commission rate for you, when you promote and recommend to others.
Condition : do not explaining for problems as impractical - no practical benefit - not able to determine in practice.
To avoid affecting the contest you can contact me via email : hoangcao_hai@yahoo.com
Hope will satisfy and bring real benefits for you along with the desire that we will find a common ground to live together in happily.
Hải.Caohoàng
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 10:29 GMT
Hi Hoang cao Hai,
Thanks for this "information".
Antony
Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 20:47 GMT
Anthony,
Thanks for your comments on my essay blog. I was enjoyed reading yours, which was pleasant and interesting, and I suspect less hard work than mine, which is a bit 'dense'.
I can only take issue with one point, though my issue is further from the current mainstream view than yours. You say;
"...at a Black Hole's event horizon, information is not so free in all spatial directions - no pathways lead outwards."
As an astronomer I have the view that theoretical physics seems about 20-100 years behind in many areas, particularly black holes, which are 'active galactic nuclii' (AGN's) and very closely studied if still not completely understood. They are toroidal, and do have a 'pathway out', ('outflows) though on the perpendicular to the body, precessing around the axis. At full blast these are quasar jets.
But far prom being problematic this may add an interesting angle to your model, as all the information in the galaxy is re-ionized and blasted out to mix with fresh ionized matter to form the new galaxy (or possibly at a larger scale; 'universe').
Such a recycling model which predicted the peculiar CMB anisotropies is implied here;
Short AGN paper. It does have some lovely pictures!
Anyway, well done with the essay. Certainly worth a higher score so delighted to assist. Best of luck.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 15:47 GMT
Hello Peter,
Thanks so very much for reading my essay & your kind comments (especially with regard to the score). I'm glad you found it interesting too. Yours was very pleasant to read - not too dense at all.
I like your point raised about Black Holes/quasars. Fibonacci does allow for Hawing Radiation with the sequence -1, 1, 0. I agree that there are interesting implications when combined with the Galactic whole - great point.
The "no pathways lead outwards" I was mostly thinking along the lines of purely information from say a particle, which was falling into the Black Hole, so that once it arrives at the event horizon its information can only fall inwards.
The Fibonacci sequence in this context would suggest that information can skip past the singularity and be ejected as (Hawking) radiation.
Thanks again for your time and making this very valid point!
All the Best
Antony
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 12:52 GMT
Please take a look at another
essay from Hon Jia Koh. He kindly wrote this on his page, which I hope to discuss further here or there:
Thanks Antony. Your essay is a refreshing great read. The use of dimension as pathway for information travel at event horizon is inspiring. A missing part of my essay which I wish to discuss more is about how information, matter and energy translate (travel) and develop (change) over spacetime.
The ability to extend the use of a well-studied area like Fibonacci Sequence to a new horizon is impressive. Mathematics phenomenons have a sublime beauty in manifesting and explaining observable nature that capture the imagination of many great people. Challenging their hidden mysteries and limits could be rewarding and illuminating. From Pythagoras up until before Bernhard Riemann and Einstein, Pythagorean theorem was taken to imply that space was flat as opposed to curved.
Cheers,
Hon Jia
Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 11:42 GMT
Anthony,
Thanks for the link. Beautiful Essay. There is much good work languishing in the lower and middle regions. He's now deservedly a bit higher.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 12:25 GMT
Hi Peter,
It is indeed. This contest is making me dizzy. One minute I'm 9th, then 19th. I dread to think where I'll finish.
Been a great experience reading so many excellent ideas though!
All the best,
Antony
Patrick Tonin wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 16:19 GMT
Hi Antony,
Thank you for your comments on my blog.
I also think that numbers and nature are linked. Your Fibonacci approach is interesting. In my theory, I speculate that the Planck Length has something to do with the golden ratio. I said "speculate" because as soon as you start talking about the golden ratio or the Fibonacci sequence in explaining the Universe, a lot of people,...
view entire post
Hi Antony,
Thank you for your comments on my blog.
I also think that numbers and nature are linked. Your Fibonacci approach is interesting. In my
theory, I speculate that the Planck Length has something to do with the golden ratio. I said "speculate" because as soon as you start talking about the golden ratio or the Fibonacci sequence in explaining the Universe, a lot of people, unfortunately, don't take you seriously.
Good luck with the contest.
Cheers,
Patrick
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 17:56 GMT
Hi Patrick,
My pleasure - I enjoyed your essay. I think that speculation is what this contest is all about as that's the way to answer Foundational questions. I think we've both had a really good go at that! I feels intuitive that Planck and thus other constants of nature should unite in a simple way. Nice to find essays sort of overlap and/or compliment each other.
Thanks for your...
view entire post
Hi Patrick,
My pleasure - I enjoyed your essay. I think that speculation is what this contest is all about as that's the way to answer Foundational questions. I think we've both had a really good go at that! I feels intuitive that Planck and thus other constants of nature should unite in a simple way. Nice to find essays sort of overlap and/or compliment each other.
Thanks for your kind comments and best wishes for the contest,
Cheers,
Antony
view post as summary
David M Reid wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 17:24 GMT
Hi, Antony,
First, thank you for taking the time to read my essay.
Your essay is a fascinating use of the Fibonacci sequence that I had not encountered before. Combining the present use of simplexes in mapping out the information of a black hole with the reduction of dimensions which apparently occurs to an object falling into the black hole in order to avoid the Information Paradox, your further extension of these ideas appear quite natural. Of course, the devil is in the details, and one would want to see if your approach would mesh with the more intricate details of black hole mechanics, but it definitely is worth a try to bring such a concept of dimension conservation into play. The way you interpreted the negative numbers in the sequence was quite elegant. All in all, a thought-provoking essay.
All the best, David
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 18:04 GMT
Hi David,
I am really enjoying reading the other essays. Yours was a pleasure!
Glad you found the Fibonacci approach thought provoking and thanks for your kind comments.
I would like to see if the concept would extend to more intricate details of Black Hole mechanics. This would be a good test of the idea!
Thanks so much for the valuable discussion here!
Best wishes,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 20:04 GMT
A friend sent me the following message:
"Superb rationale and reasoning. One question, what happens to the Higgs field within the event horizon :-) I'll leave you to ponder that one"
Great question - I'll have to think about this one thoroughly. My first instinct would be that it exists as the dimensions do - so information about mass passes out of a Black Hole via the negative sequence.
Great question! Any thoughts on this anyone else?
Georgina Woodward wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 23:36 GMT
Hi Antony,
an interesting interpretation of the essay question. Very different, meant in a good way. The Fibonacci sequence does seem to be a recurrent theme of nature, associated with growth, and popular with many people too. Probably because we find it beautiful. You lost me part way through, though I read on to the end. Black holes and number theory are not favorite topics to contemplate I'm afraid, but I appreciate what you are demonstrating. Its good to see how much interest your essay is getting in this discussion thread. Good luck, Georgina
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 07:27 GMT
Hi Georgina,
Glad you found it interesting and original. Thanks for your comments - I appreciate that you mention the beauty of the sequence as this can be forgotten when simply looking at the numbers, but nature does seem to work this way. Anything I can clarify - I'd be glad to!
Good luck to you too,
Best wishes,
Antony
Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 09:45 GMT
Dear Antony,
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
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:30 GMT
Dear Sreenath,
I like that you've considered the question of us as observers - it was an enjoyable essay to read! Also your conclusion that Bit may come from It is nicely explained.
Well done & best wishes,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 10:21 GMT
Hello Sreenath,
I've a few I still need to read. I'll look at yours asap.
Regards & good luck,
Antony
Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 03:04 GMT
Dear Antony,
You have written a very imaginative article on the application of Fibonacci numbers to black hole information paradox and have come out of it with flying colors. You know that Fibonacci spiral is also called logarithmic (log) spiral and I have identified this spiral with the path described by particles in the QG field which exists inside black holes. In fact, my last two essays in the last two fqxi essay (especially 2012, Questioning the Foundations) contests deal with the problem of QG. If you have time, please, go through it and you may find it relevant as it helps you in your long voyage to find solution to black hole information paradox.
Wish you all the best in the contest.
Sreenath
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 01:59 GMT
Dear Sreenath,
Thank you for your extremely kind comments. It's especially nice to hear that we have common areas of interest and that the sensible answers arise around the same topic. Your previous essays sound very interesting and I shall read them soon!
I'm delighted to have found somebody else who I believe is looking for the answers to foundational questions in the most logical of places.
All the best in the contest,
Antony
Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 06:45 GMT
Dear Antony,
I think it is time to rate our essays and I have decided to rate your essay and I want to know whether you have rated mine. Please, contact me at, bnsreenath@yahoo.co.in
Best wishes,
Sreenath
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 07:41 GMT
Dear Sreenath,
I've rated yours now. I'm probably going to wait until I've read them all before I rate every essay.
All the best with the contest - I really enjoyed your essay.
Antony
hide replies
Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 11:16 GMT
Dear Antony,
I read your essay and found it interesting and imaginative. Perhaps my main concern, a result I am sure of being grounded in conventional physics for far too long, is your early remark :
"Perhaps it isn’t too much of a leap of faith to include reality’s relationship with information, “It
from Bit”, as another of Fibonacci’s attributes.”
Personally, I would say it is an enormous leap of faith, however attractive it may be :-) It would be great if one day we could show that the physical laws of quantum theory and quantum gravity reduce to an aspect of number theory intimately related to the Fibonacci sequence. But right now we are very far from being there, isn’t it?
It would also seem interesting if you could relate the Fibonacci sequence to quantum probabilities and the Born rule, as well as with quantum linear superposition - key principles underlying the qubit and quantum information.
But caveats apart ... it is nice to come across an imaginative idea ...
Best,
Tejinder
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 12:46 GMT
Dear Tejinder,
Thanks for reading my essay and your comment - it is very much appreciated.
I can see that it appears a leap of faith, as I decided to mention in the essay, because I assumed the reader may think so - which is why I'm glad you raise the point.
From my other cosmogony work it is more empirical in nature.
Quantum superposition should be related to the Fibonacci sequence around a Black Hole since spatial dimensions outside allow all theoretically possible states, but according to the sequence (and my extended theory) measurements become limited, reducing to eventually one possible state only at the singularity.
It is very, very logical, but hard to prove though.
In the context of the contest though, I thought information and reality had to be at their mutual most fundamental at a Black Hole/singularity.
I really am grateful for your discussion with me and glad you found it interesting and imaginative too.
Best wishes,
Antony
Member Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 07:07 GMT
Thanks for your response Antony. Yes now I do see your point about the possible connection between quantum superposition and the black hole. It is interesting undoubtedly.
What I had in mind is also the situation where there is no black hole, say in the laboratory - where too we see breakdown of superposition during measurement. Could you think of a way to relate the sequence and superposition, in this context?
My best wishes for your success in the contest,
Tejinder
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 08:36 GMT
Hello Tejinder,
Great question! I think in this case I’d utilise the simplex representation again, because simplexes are what I utilised in the parent theory to this, where I partly unified gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong forces. This also gave entangled spin results of a cosine rather than linear nature based on geometry.
Anyway, the theory would suggest that simplex geometry is at the foundation of particles, such that rather than hidden variables, we have fixed constant geometry, this could explain entanglement too.
In the context of wave function collapse, the particle would be observed as, for example, a 2D geometric entity in 3D space (4d Space-time) with 1D vacant.
Overall this gives the particle 3D of spatial information about its overall characteristics. But when measurement is carried out either the 2D or 1D component is observed only. So again dimensionality plays a part in observation/being observed. In this instance the sequence 1, 2, 3. But for Photons and Neutrinos this ought to extend down to 0, 1, 1. Further, there is the expectation that the negative numbers represent antimatter.
Best wishes for the contest too!
Antony
James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 18:22 GMT
Antony,
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
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:39 GMT
Jim,
Well written, good use of history and you've certainly told the reader a story. Flowed superbly too. The conclusion that we are not divine yet observers was nice.
You've covered a lot of ground in a very clear and concise way.
Great job!
Best wishes,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 18:35 GMT
Hello Jim,
I have both those attributes - yours is near the top of my list in the coming days.
Best wishes,
Antony
James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 20:50 GMT
Antony,
Enjoyed your essay, including your demonstration sequence for mass entering black holes. Does the Chinese study of the ubiquitous presence of the Fibonacci sequence in nature, explaining it in terms of stress engineering, impact your study? It tends to see the sequence as nature's attempt to minimize stress. Thanks for your effort. It's always educational to study views of others, even with my limited knowledge of math.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 02:12 GMT
James,
Thanks - I found this
link which elaborates on the stress engineering concept you mention.
The maths here is relatively simple, which is always a good starting point for a good theory. I think that minimum energy states are important when we're transitioning from 3-dimensional space towards singularity, as they perhaps define certain "boundaries" or borders which are crossed.
Also this ties in nicely with the entropy aspect of the Fibonacci approach.
Thank you for highlighting another part of the ubiquitous nature of the sequence.
I agree with what you say and think you perhaps have hit on a way to perhaps test my theory.
Best wishes,
Antony
Dipak Kumar Bhunia wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 14:21 GMT
Dear Antony,
Thanks and congratulations for your essay. I like to inform you that, apart from the conventional approaches, we may have also a set of new other rules and unknown constants which are remain hiding ourselves in the world of quanta; and that will reveal if we can restart again from the foundations of de Broglie's universal wave-corpuscular relationship as an inverse information sharing process among quanta. Even we can able to condense all the information in digital nature or "It" in merely two sets (you may say it as 0 & 1 as well). Characteristically, even if one likes to voyage after event horizon to a black hole, the information can be remain intact with the help of those constants. Although this process is not not yet applied in non-inertial conditions.
Thank you once again. I also invite you in my essay.
Regards
Dipak
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 22:17 GMT
Hello Dipak,
Thanks for reading my essay and your comments. Interesting that you envisage information surviving the Black Hole process. I shall read you essay over the weekend.
Best wishes,
Antony
M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 13:29 GMT
Antony,
thank you for your kind comments on my essay. I just read your work and found your making Fibonacci sequence going backwards past 0 intriguing. I've never thought of it and only now realized that it continues in the opposite direction with the same values except that every other one is now negative.
In your application of the sequence to black holes you interpret the numbers as dimensions. Couple of years ago I spent some time learning how to visualize 4D and maybe even higher (not a chance lol) and must say that it's hard for me to imagine a negative dimension, even if it is just -1 or -2. I guess I am too attached to the view that +/- mean direction. Thus in my mind the negative numbers in the Fibonacci sequence going backwards appear as mirror reflections. And so I find it fascinating that perhaps also in our view of the picture of reality the real 'its' are intertwined with 'bits' of mere reflections, like in a kaleidoscope, where only some of the pieces of glass are 'real' and the rest are only reflections, but the beauty of the patterns shines in symmetries.
I too love fractals and all things cellular automata to which Fibonacci, in my mind, belongs. It is instructive that Nature conforms its infinite variety to such simple rules. And if so, why not black holes too? I wish I knew more about them to be of use to you. My practical take on them is more in line with Peter's above.
Having read your essay, I am intrigued by possibility that Fibonacci sequence where 'bits' are interchanged with 'its' every other step is how things may be in the world of quantum, and that this may explain some of its mysteries. LOL the idea is so novel to me -- I must sound incoherent.
Thank you again for commenting on my essay and good luck with the competition :)
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 23:57 GMT
Dear Dr Vasilyeva,
Thank you for your comments and I'm glad you found the essay intriguing. Ha - yes the negative dimensionality does sound hard to visualise, as are dimensions generally. However, the -3 represents, as you say, a sort of mirror inverted situation.
The Black hole takes in some matter, represented by 3 (dimensions) in the sequence, then this "decays" backwards to 2 + 1 event horizon and spaghettified structure. Then further "decay" to 0 (singularity) more 1, -1, 2 again and importantly -3.
The -1 I would suggest is Hawking Radiation. Whereby it is produced as the "decay" of the 0 (singularity) to -1, 1, such that the 1 is emitted and the -1 remains inside to cancel other +1 to conserve overall states.
-3 is the neatest part, this conserves spatial dimensionality both inside and outside the Black Hole!
3 in is the same as saying -3 out. Which is similar to what you suggested nature may do. :)
Perhaps this allows information to survive.
Thanks for raising these great points and all the best with the contest too!
Antony
M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 04:45 GMT
Antony,
lol I'm NOT a Dr. but I've seen one on TV.
Re negative dimensions, I decided after posting in your thread that it is indeed a reflection, exactly like in a mirror. The information is there, but no substance.
As far as black holes go, I tend to think that the number of dimensions actually increase in them. This is because I consider space to be sort of made of 'space stuff' and when you start squeezing this stuff it responds by increasing the number of dimensions. Sort of like you crumble a sheet of paper -- well, not exactly of course, but you can squeeze a large sheet into a small ball, this sort of thing. I think the opposite process is unfolding a.k.a. expansion of space. Say, in the beginning, the universe fit into a point with infinite number of dimensions. As it cooled off, it unfolded and expanded into 4D. Sort of like a crumbled sheet of paper. Makes sense no? :)
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 06:00 GMT
Dear Ms. Vasilyeva,
Sorry, I misread you bio. There are lots on TV (and on here) ;)
This does make sense and would reflect what I found with regard to entropy of Black Holes using the Fibonacci sequence. Also, the -1, 1, 0, 1, 1 part of the sequence means that "decay" from 1 would replenish 1-dimensionality within the Black Hole.
Where you consider the opposite - pre-Big Bang singularity expanding into 4D space-time, the sequence can explain why there are 3 spatial dimensions from nothingness.
The 0D singularity conserves dimensionality allowing 3D to exist, by Black Holes continuing to exist in the current Universe, such that -3D exists, curving space-time. Moreover, the 1 and -1D mirror differs, because of the double 1 (-1) parts of the sequence, allowing multiple points in space (particles) to exist.
3-spatial dimensions perhaps are empirically observed in our current Universe because that is the first dimension (and part of the Fibonacci sequence) where balance is maintained both "sides" of the event horizon.
Best wishes,
Antony :)
Angel Garcés Doz wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 15:45 GMT
Very interesting essay. Perhaps this formula is interesting for your researchs
s= spin
Phi = Golden number
(Phi)^3 = factral dimension of space-time
mpk = Planck mass
Gn = Newton constant = 6.67428 x 10^-11
+-e = electric charge
Im(Zeta1(s)=0)= imaginary part of the first zero of riemann zeta function
s= 0.5 +14.134725141734693i; Re(Im) = 14.134725141734693
Regards
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 16:09 GMT
Thank you Angel,
I will keep hold of it. Certainly plenty of terms you'd expect around Black Holes.
Best wishes for the contest & thanks for writing another interesting essay - so many good ones this year!
Antony
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 18:37 GMT
Antony,
I have to say I generally avoid most arguments which take current cosmology as a given, because I find it completely out to lunch. For one thing I see time as an effect of action, the only problem is we try to build our perception of it as a sequence from past to future into the model, rather than the actual cause of the change which turns future potential into past circumstance....
view entire post
Antony,
I have to say I generally avoid most arguments which take current cosmology as a given, because I find it completely out to lunch. For one thing I see time as an effect of action, the only problem is we try to build our perception of it as a sequence from past to future into the model, rather than the actual cause of the change which turns future potential into past circumstance. For example, it is not the earth traveling a fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, but tomorrow becoming yesterday because the earth rotates. Hence caused by the action. This means that spacetime is a correlation of measures of duration and distance, not some physically real "fabric" which can be expanded, bent, bound, etc. It is similar as the giant cosmic gear wheels to explain the efficacy of epicycles.
Duration is not some dimension external to the point of the present, but is the state of the present between the occurrence of events.
Rather than residue from the big bang, cosmic background radiation could well be the solution to Olber's paradox, the light over ever more distant sources redshifted completely off the visible spectrum.
Black holes and gravity are treated as vacuums for everything falling into them, but not only do most gravitational sources about black holes radiate enormous amounts of light and other radiation, but the black holes shoot enormous jets of cosmic rays across the universe and binary stars eventually explode. That seems to me the Hawking radiation.
Since gravity is considered a collapse of space because mass points contract, I suspect the expansion between galaxies is a function of the expansion of radiation, creating a convection cycle of expanding radiation and collapsing mass. It's just we can only observe the light crossing these intergalactic spaces. Light is Einstein's cosmological constant. Universal, but also balancing gravity.
I would also point out there is an inherent contradiction in the theory; 1) Space is what we measure with a ruler. 2) Intergalactic space expands. 3) The result is that it will take ever longer for light to cross the space between galaxies. Based on 1, 3 contradicts 2, since our most basic measure of intergalactic isn't being stretched, since it requires more to measure the stretched distance. This makes it an expansion IN space, as measured by C, not an expansion OF space. This would necessarily make us the center of the universe, unless redshift is a form of optical effect, due to distance, then it would create a similar effect for every point in space.
Given all the major patches to keep it working, from inflation to dark energy, not to mention everything from time traveling wormholes to multiverses springing out of it, it is all bizarre beyond belief.
I do think as part of this cycle, that gravity is not so much a property of mass, as an effect of energy condensing into mass and mass condensing into ever more dense matter. Remember when mass is converted to energy, it creates pressure, so the opposite of this would be a vacuum.
Not trying to start an argument, since it seems quite futile to fight city hall on this, but just offering up my own position.
Regards,
John
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 20:55 GMT
Hi John,
Thanks for your comments. Do these relate to my essay. Forgive me if they do, but I can't see in what context. Perhaps I've read too many essays today, so I'll re-read your remarks another day afresh to see if they are relevant.
Best wishes & many thanks for your time,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 21:09 GMT
Hello John,
I've just had another look at your essay and think this ties in. I'll take a thorough look again at it with your comments. I think I'll then be able to offer an explanation of my essay that will be mutually beneficial.
Best wishes,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 15:08 GMT
Hi John,
You wrote - "Given all the major patches to keep it working, from inflation to dark energy, not to mention everything from time traveling wormholes to multiverses springing out of it, it is all bizarre beyond belief".
It being current cosmology. I agree there are too many patches, and I don't think inflation, dark energy multiverse nor wormholes make any sense.
In fact my model only partly explained with regard to information around black holes,bodes explain things more simply. It partly unifies the four forces of nature and resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony.
My essay doesn't hint at agreeing with any of these classical phenomenon, but does agree with current empirical data.
Best wishes,
Antony
Anonymous wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 21:52 GMT
Antony,
I have read your essay and commend you on what appear to be original ideas about information and black holes. You have read my essay so you probably realize that I focus on nonlinear gravity at the particle level, (where few other researchers spend much time) and I really have no expertise in black holes. Your linking dimensionality to the Fibonacci numbers is unique, as far as I can tell. You seem to have struck a chord with a number of others! I am agnostic on the black hole information problem.
One of the comments above questioned the applicability of the binary base to the real universe. My approach to information is based on a transfer of energy from a source to a detector, where the energy either triggers a threshold (changing or 'informing' the local structure, thereby registering information) or not. This provides the two possibilities represented by 0 and 1 and therefore establishes a binary basis fundamental to a physically real (energy-based) universe.
You have a number of interesting comments on this page. I'm pleased that, per Gupta's essay, you've concluded that, "at the very least, I would not say that information is likely more fundamental than reality itself." I concur.
I also agree that Eckhard Blumschein's essay is excellent and it is good to be consistently aligned with his points.
And you say (per Kyle Miller's page): "I too feel that nature ought to have one singularity [...] although the possibility that there are no singularities works well too." I agree with you here. I've been reading papers recently that claim no black hole singularities. They are somewhat convincing. On the other hand, I'm not bothered by a possible singularity at the 'point' of creation of the universe.
Patrick Tonin, above, says: "I also think that numbers in nature are linked." As I develop in my essay, based on the existence of energy thresholds and local structures, it's easy to create logic circuitry (in silicon or in neurons) that leads to counters and hence, Peano-like, to all integers, and, per Kronecker, to all math. Thus I view numbers as emerging from physical reality, but they are clearly our best language to describe reality and to reveal new features of reality.
Finally, I think the best measure of the quality of your essay is all the thoughtful comments by the other essayists above.
Congratulations,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 01:59 GMT
Antony,
I realize it isn't a clear response to your quite intelligent piece, but I don't come at physics from a mathematical or even particularly scientific perspective, but rather after studying history, politics, culture, etc, I came to the realization how much of it arises from physical principles. So in studying physics, I then came to realize how much cultural and social influences dominate in it and the tendencies toward bubble and herd type thinking. Foolishly thinking there would be interest in such different perspective, I have come to realize that is not so.
I should examine your entry on its own terms, but as I am stuck in my own rut to some extent and am trying to find some connection to my own positions.
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 10:11 GMT
Hi John,
No problem - it is good to look at these questions from different perspectives. I'll try to think about where our ideas cross over.
Regards,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 10:19 GMT
Hello Edwin,
Thank you for your very kind and encouraging comments. Good point that numbers emerging from reality, yet they are our best language to describe it. Again a chicken/egg or even fundamentally equivalent conclusion that is extremely logical.
Great term - black hole information problem agnostic, we all are I guess! I'm glad that we both approach binary with the view of detected/observed or not as a way the Universe works.
Again - thank you very much for the great comments and I wish you all the very best in the contest,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 21:06 GMT
Hello again John,
I've had another look at your essay, I see your point about how historically physics has honed in on a certain perception and I like your description of time.
I approached observation from a very simple position, which happens to then match up to what we have learned from physics. That's what is nice about the Fibonacci sequence, it isn't individual perception, we know that addition works and we see it all across nature. This is biological and chemical as well as physical.
Best wishes,
Antony
hide replies
Steven P Sax wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 03:29 GMT
Antony,
Thank you for a very thought provoking essay; I like intelligent pieces like yours that can relate number theory to physical systems. Quantum theory does this in several contexts, but I haven't seen the Fibonacci sequence utilized in black hole analysis like you showed here - this is very original and interesting. I also liked the earlier post from Angel Doz, and I too am fascinated in the connection between Riemann's zeta function and the Fibonacci sequence, especially in regard to physical phenomena. Seeing that the golden ratio is directly related to the Fibonacci sequence, I was wondering if you've seen its connection in other physical phenomena as well? I'm very curious about the connection between geometry and statistics as relates to physical phenomena, and I discuss this connection briefly in my essay. Finally, your derivation of entropy in particular with the negative dimensionality, to then explain why the universe tends toward wanting information to go into a black hole, is very intriguing. This is a great topic, and I hope you have a chance to see my essay as well.
Thanks again, and best wishes :)
Steve Sax
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 10:36 GMT
Hello Steve,
Thanks for reading my essay. I will read yours as soon as possible too and comment over on your page. I'm glad you found it of interest and thought provoking the way number theory might be applied to physical reality.
In answer to your question, I have seen the sequence connected elsewhere - actually before I applied it to Black Holes for this essay. I developed a theory of everything that also solves the paradoxes of cosmogony and the Fibonacci sequence emerged naturally, so a friend/colleague suggested I enter this contest.
Basically the simplex geometries can represent electric charge and mass of the proton, neutron and electron, as well as explain beta decay and strong force. Also a nascent black hole mechanism emerges, which explains why Neutron stars collapse - without disobeying Pauli exclusion.
I'm so glad you mention entropy, as I feel it does indeed suggest an arrow of time, but further, the way it seems to limit dimensionality to 3 spatial dimensions is pleasing - I wasn't expecting so much "information" from the exercise.
Thanks again and speak to you over on your page,
Antony
Christian Corda wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 13:18 GMT
Dear Antony,
As I promised in my Essay page, I have read your Essay. I find it is intriguing and complementary to my one. In fact, the conclusion is the same for both the Essays: black holes are information preserving. I have been always fascinated by Fibonacci sequence and Golden ratio. Thus, I do not think that the link between Fibonacci and Wheeler is to much speculative. Instead, it has been a stroke of genius constructing a beautiful Essay on such a link. On the other hand, conjectures have been always fundamental in developing science. I enjoyed a lot in reading your work, thus, I am going to give you a high score.
Good luck in the Contest!
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 16:12 GMT
Dear Christian,
Thank you very, very much - these comments have made my day! Including the score, but also the good point about conjectures being fundamental in developing science. Hopefully we will be able to prove a few from this contest, as there is some fine work on here.
I really enjoyed your essay and pleased that we reached the same conclusion. Black Holes surely ought to conserve information. Fibonacci seems to crop up everywhere, so glad you appreciated it in this context. I too will give you a high score.
Best of luck in the contest and pleased to "meet" you :)
Cheers,
Antony
Christian Corda wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 16:58 GMT
Dear Antony,
I am also pleased to "meet" you in this beautiful Essay Contest. I am happy that my comments have made your day.
Yes, I think that the Universe requests that Black Holes must conserve information. Concerning the issue that conjectures are fundamental in developing science, a great aphorism by Einstein claims that "Imagination is more important than knowledge".
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 17:31 GMT
One of my favourite Einstein quotes! :)
Cheers again,
Antony
Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 12:04 GMT
Dear Antony,
I just read your essay. You write well, and the idea that fibonacci numbers might play an even more fundamental role in nature than we thought does not seem so implausible. Also, the notion that instead of going from 3 dimensions to 0 dimensions we must go sequentially to lower dimensions by increments of one dimension is at the core of the framework that I work on....
view entire post
Dear Antony,
I just read your essay. You write well, and the idea that fibonacci numbers might play an even more fundamental role in nature than we thought does not seem so implausible. Also, the notion that instead of going from 3 dimensions to 0 dimensions we must go sequentially to lower dimensions by increments of one dimension is at the core of the framework that I work on.
Unfortunately, I was not able to understand your black hole argument. I failed to see how the Fibonacci sequence is related to the dimensionality of a region inside the black hole, and, as a result, I can unfortunately not comment on that aspect of your paper. Perhaps there is more that could be said about the relation between the two. Assuming the Schwarzschild metric correctly also describes the interior of an event horizon (a big assumption, btw) the transition from the horizon to the singularity is smooth. There are no regions where the dimensionality is reduced. Perhaps you meant to refer to some infinitesimal region outside the singularity that is "too small" to be captured in the metric?
Also, the connection between entropy and the n-simplexes seems unmotivated to me. Can you think of a real world example of entropy closer to our immediate experience where your model might help understand entropy more deeply? In fact, I would advise you to focus on such situations over the situations pertaining to black holes because if you arrive at an as yet untested physical prediction that differs from standard physics, there is a fighting chance to do an experiment.
You deserve kudos for some original ideas, hopefully you can develop these further and particularly in empirically testable regimes.
All the best,
Armin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 14:08 GMT
Dear Armin,
Thanks for reading my essay and your comments. Glad you find it original and liked the writing style.
It’s interesting that you too find that dimensionality reduces in increments from 3 to 0. The dimensionality of 2 and then 1 inside a Black Hole refers to observation. At the event horizon, say a particle, can no longer release information outwards away from the Black...
view entire post
Dear Armin,
Thanks for reading my essay and your comments. Glad you find it original and liked the writing style.
It’s interesting that you too find that dimensionality reduces in increments from 3 to 0. The dimensionality of 2 and then 1 inside a Black Hole refers to observation. At the event horizon, say a particle, can no longer release information outwards away from the Black Hole. It cannot receive information from below it – deeper into the Black Hole. In other words ONLY at the event horizon 2D boundary can it BOTH receive and reveal information.
Also spaghettification tends pathways towards 1 dimension, so this is an extrapolated idea, but essentially there are two unique “altitudes” one where information can ONLY be released, then deeper where information can only be received.
Then there is 0-dimensionality at the singularity. The negative 1 represents Hawking Radiation, the -3 conserves space, by giving it to the outside – hence the Black Hole grows.
Entropy wise this is related to simplexes, I’ve mentioned this earlier in this thread, but essentially similar to Causal Dynamical Triangulation I’ve formed of Theory of Everything that reconciles the three paradoxes of cosmogony based of asymmetrical geometry arising from nothingness. So I would need a computer powerful enough to run a simulation to test that model. I agree that this is a far more empirically observable way to test the general theory.
I hope this makes these aspects a little clearer.
Again thanks so much for your kind remarks.
Best wishes,
Antony
view post as summary
Angel Garcés Doz wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 22:01 GMT
For everybody, and especially for Steven P Sax and the autor of this great essay respect to the fundamental role of fibonacci numbers and number theory
The neutrality of vacuum due to electric chargue implies the true of Riemann hiphotesis
In other words the meutrality of vacuum for virtual chargued particles is equal to:
Sum(n =1,infinity [mpk/sqr({ +- e}^2/Gn)]
x...
view entire post
For everybody, and especially for Steven P Sax and the autor of this great essay respect to the fundamental role of fibonacci numbers and number theory
The neutrality of vacuum due to electric chargue implies the true of Riemann hiphotesis
In other words the meutrality of vacuum for virtual chargued particles is equal to:
Sum(n =1,infinity [mpk/sqr({ +- e}^2/Gn)]
x n^-s = 0)
s is one zero of Riemann function; s= 0.5 + ti
Real part of de imaginary part of the first zero of Riemann function
14.134725141734693... = Zero1
[Zero1/(Pi x e x Phi)]^-2 + 239 =~ exp( 5 + (In2)^2)
e = base of natural logarithms
Phi = (1+ sqr(5) )/2
Regards
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 20:18 GMT
Hello Angel,
Thanks for the very kind comments! I'm glad that you, Steve and I (as well as others) are finding common ground in the most fundamental of areas of theory.
Best wishes,
Antony
Angel Garcés Doz replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 12:09 GMT
The entropy of a black hole has a direct connection to the Fibonacci sequence, given by the following equation:
[equation]
The entropy of a black hole has a direct connection to the Fibonacci sequence, given by the following equation.Looking at this equation, it follows immediately that: 1) Increasing the spacetime curvature, given by 1 / R ², then entropy increases. That is the...
view entire post
The entropy of a black hole has a direct connection to the Fibonacci sequence, given by the following equation:
The entropy of a black hole has a direct connection to the Fibonacci sequence, given by the following equation.Looking at this equation, it follows immediately that: 1) Increasing the spacetime curvature, given by 1 / R ², then entropy increases. That is the curvature of a surface, involves the strong holographic principle: the information is stored and computed on surfaces. It's no wonder that the Fibonacci sequence, to generate spirals aureas, can describe the behavior of a black hole.A black hole can not contain any singularity, entering the quantization of the gravitational field.The spiral aurea (Fibonnaci) represents exactly one black hole.
The quantization of space-time, ie: there is a length limit, a mass limit, etc., implies that there is no singularity must occur after a certain length, gravitational repulsion, corresponding to the gravitino of spin 3 / 2
So the mass of gravitinos have to be very high, but less than the Planck mass
The imbalance between repulsive gravitational force, within the horizon, and the attractive force, is what generates the Hawking radiation
Regards
view post as summary
attachments:
images.jpeg
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 13:09 GMT
Hello Angel,
Thanks for this. Some great ideas here! I've also found that the sequence wants to skip past singularity state, and the way you explain Hawing Radiation sounds reasonable too.
Best wishes,
Antony
Chris Granger wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 19:29 GMT
Antony,
Awesome; compelling, original, insightful, and wonderfully written.
I'll have a lot more to say on your essay when I get additional bandwidth, but wanted to let you know that I greatly enjoyed it. In my view, certainly one of the most interesting essays I've encountered in this contest so far (and I'll be sure to elaborate on why that is in a future post).
Chris
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 13:13 GMT
Hello Chris,
Thanks for the extremely kind praise. Very much appreciated. I too really enjoyed your essay, which I think deserves to do extremely well in the contest!
Look forward to further discussion when bandwidth permits ;)
Best wishes,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 13:05 GMT
Hon Jia Koh wrote the following in their
essay thread:
Your essay is a refreshing great read. The use of dimension as pathway for information travel at event horizon is inspiring. A missing part of my essay which I wish to discuss more is about how information, matter and energy translate (travel) and develop (change) over spacetime.
The ability to extend the use of a well-studied area like Fibonacci Sequence to a new horizon is impressive. Mathematics phenomenons have a sublime beauty in manifesting and explaining observable nature that capture the imagination of many great people. Challenging their hidden mysteries and limits could be rewarding and illuminating. From Pythagoras up until before Bernhard Riemann and Einstein, Pythagorean theorem was taken to imply that space was flat as opposed to curved.
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 13:17 GMT
Dear Anthony. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate
my essay, The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 14:59 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Yours was one of the first I read. Great work! Looks like you're doing very well in the contest. Well done & thanks for reading my essay too.
Best wishes,
Antony
john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 14:26 GMT
Hi Anthony -
It's very interesting to see the Cosmos expressed in a system based on numbers. You make this approach intriguing even to non-mathematicians. No small accomplishment.
The 'chicken and egg' relation of It and Bit you describe, echoes my own view of their correlation in a greater energy field.
I hope you'll be kind enough to read and rate my essay which accounts for many of the phenomena you describe, but more structurally - or in physical terms, if you will.
All the best,
John
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 14:48 GMT
Hi John,
Thanks for reading and the kind comments. That's the beauty of the Fibonacci sequence, not only does it appear everywhere in nature, but it is also simple.
I'll be reading all remaining essays - about 40 left I think - so I'll make sure yours if next. I will leave a comment over on your thread.
I too have a theory where there is geometric structure going some way to answering many of the I solved problems in physics, so I think I'll enjoy your work.
Best wishes,
Antony
john stephan selye replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 14:23 GMT
Hi Anthony -
Thanks for stopping by my page and reading my essay. Your kind comments were most appreciated.
I only wish we could permit ourselves a more detailed analysis of each other's work - but there are so many works to read, and to rate, in order to make the contest as valid as possible for everyone.
Thanks again, Anthony - and best of luck in the contest!
John
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 10:58 GMT
Agreed - no problem John.
Best wishes to you too!
Antony
Angel Garcés Doz wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 20:39 GMT
The Higgs Vacuum, the Higgs boson, the seven extra dimensions and the fibonacci serie,limited to the five fibonacci numbers divisor of 240, Kissing number in 8d, and the 240 non zero roots of group E8.
mh = Higgs boson ; mVH = value of Higgs vacuum ; me = electron mass
1)
[equation]
2)
[equation]
3)
[equation]
4)...
view entire post
The Higgs Vacuum, the Higgs boson, the seven extra dimensions and the fibonacci serie,limited to the five fibonacci numbers divisor of 240, Kissing number in 8d, and the 240 non zero roots of group E8.
mh = Higgs boson ; mVH = value of Higgs vacuum ; me = electron mass
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
Regards for everybody
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 09:41 GMT
Hello Angel,
This reminds me of some work I carried out around Coxeter and 5-dimensions where the answer was 40 for the kissing number.
Very impressive way to utilise this scheme!
Regards,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 09:43 GMT
Angel,
Does it tell us anything with regard to the Leech Lattice and even higher dimensions than that?
Best wishes,
Antony
Angel Garcés Doz replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 13:06 GMT
Dear Antony: yes are one very clear and exact conections from leech lattice in 24d and the Higgs vacuum value, mVH ( ratio to electron mass. The particle less massive and with electric chargue.And absolutely stable)
24d= DIM(SU(7))/2= DIM(SU(5))=4d!
Fn= Fibonacci numbers
240= lattice 8d
Regards
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 13:48 GMT
Thanks Angel,
Wow! There certainly does seem to be a nice relationship. Even better, because you've predicted the mass of Higg's and if it matches refined data over time, you're onto a winner!
I wish I could handle mathematics as fluently as you. The links you've shown are strong, certainly don't seem coincidence.
I used the Koide formula along with the simplex geometries to relate the mass of the proton, neutron and electron from an expected 1/2 value to a result of 0.49999994.
I like this sort of way numbers relate to the real world!
Nice work!
Antony
Angel Garcés Doz replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 14:29 GMT
Dear Antony I am very interesting in forms of koide formulas, for stong connections to electric chargue, the mass, and the square root of ratios of masses ( implications of existence of imaginary masses non observables)
Do you like let me read yours papers for this question?
I put here my paper for the masses of quarks obtained in koide form and solely with the sin and cos of Cabibbo angle. The formulas are very simple and very accurate
Thanks!!!
Simple Formulas that Generates the Quarks Masses
Authors: A. Garcés Doz
In this paper we present a very simple formulas that generate the quark masses as a very direct functions sine and cosine of the Cabibbo angle. The accuracy of the results are very big in relation to the latest experimental values.
http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0015
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 20:19 GMT
Dear Angel,
I'll take a look, and yes I'll post a link too, as soon as I can.
Best wishes,
Antony
hide replies
Anton Biermans wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 02:43 GMT
Hi Anthony,
If nothing can escape from behind the event horizon of a black hole, no photons nor gravitons so an outside observer cannot interact with what's inside, then to him all positions within the horizon would be physically identical. Though such a thing is possible in a mathematical space where all points are defined to be identical but for their coordinate numbers, this is impossible in a physical space where different points by definition are different physically, so the diameter of the event horizon cannot be non-zero so a black hole doesn't have an event horizon. I'm afraid that there's something wrong with general relativity, that part of it describes the physics of a fictitious universe (see my post at
this thread).
I do, however, agree with your statement that ''It and Bit appear equally fundamental - a sort of ''chicken and egg'' relationship.''
The information as embodied in particle properties (which can be thought of as internalized rules of behavior, the expression of laws of physics) in a self-creating universe must be the product of a trial-and-error evolution. If 'its', particles, particle properties must be as much the cause as the effect of their interactions, of a continuous energy/information exchange, then information only can evolve, become information when molded into material particles and tested in actual particle interactions: only such information survives which enables its embodiments to survive, to manifest themselves as real particles. So you cannot have one without the other indeed.
Best, Anton
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 09:22 GMT
Hi Anton,
Thanks for reading and your comments. I'm not sure event horizons don't exist. Certainly observation horizons are very real, and indirect evidence does indeed point to black hole existence too..
However, this type of relationship ought to apply to particles too, so should become evident from particle collisions as you correctly state.
Also computer simulations using simple parameters from my more comprehensive theory should produce a Universe where Fibonacci sequence is produced and Black Holes occur.
Thanks again for being so kind as to read and comment. I'll take a look at the link you've left.
Nice to "meet" you and best wishes,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT
Also, some matter does escape as Hawking radiation. But nice to see somebody else conclude Bit and It are equally fundamental.
Best wishes,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 09:28 GMT
One quick question. Why can't a black hole have a non zero diameter? A singularity is zero in size, but the black hole as a whole does have size.
Interesting point though.
Don Limuti wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 16:50 GMT
Hi Antony,
I like your essay connecting the Fibonacci sequence with information storage in black holes.
The concept of black holes and their link to singularities seems to be shifting these days. My own viewpoint is that there is no singularity and that the entity that is a black hole can be viewed equivalently as a mass with a radius or as a ball of energy with a wavelength. I do not know if this would be of benefit to your thesis, if you think it may check out:
http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/39_The_Schwarzschild_Ra
dius.html
Thanks for your essay,
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 18:35 GMT
Hi Dom,
Thanks for the kind comments and link. I'll take a look. The singularity can be skipped in this model while still being mathematically allowed. The model suggests information can't be there, but instead remains in flux, whether there is a physical black hole, mass with a radius or just a ball of energy expressed by wavelength. So hopefully the sequence fits well with many other schemes.
Thanks again and best wishes for the contest! Really liked your essay.
Antony
Angel Garcés Doz wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 18:43 GMT
A black hole have not singularity
Singularity = infinite wawe lengths with limit zero= energy infinite
This problem is equal to renormalization metod of quantum
The fusion GR-Quantum will be for quantization of space-time with a minimun length, time and mass
The power evaporation of a black hole and de fibonacci serie
P= (h x c^6)/15360 x Pi x Gn^2 x...
view entire post
A black hole have not singularity
Singularity = infinite wawe lengths with limit zero= energy infinite
This problem is equal to renormalization metod of quantum
The fusion GR-Quantum will be for quantization of space-time with a minimun length, time and mass
The power evaporation of a black hole and de fibonacci serie
P= (h x c^6)/15360 x Pi x Gn^2 x m^2
15360 = 240 ( K(8d) ) x 8^2
Fibonacci divisors of 240
1+1+2+3+5+8=20
Golden number = Phi
233 = 13th fibonacci number
15360 = (Phi)^20 + (Phi)^-20 + 233
{DiM[SO(7)] + cos(13.04 degree)} x 233= 5120
5120 = integer factor time evaporation equation blackhole
13.04= Cabibbo angle ( quarks)
Regards
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 21:06 GMT
Hi Angel,
Indeed this is a problem around singularities and Planck scale. I think that's why 0 dimensionality is a problem for any information including mass to exist at. So skipping over this such as my Fibonacci theory suggests resolved it.
No information sits there but it does exist as a driving force to recycle information back into Hawking Radiation.
Best wishes,
Antony
Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 02:12 GMT
Hello Antony,
Your essay is quite intriguing in so far as it attempts to take number relations which are seen to have an actual correspondence in nature, into the more abstract areas of "conservation of information" and the make up of a black-hole. A challenging exercise which should pay off in a discrete universe. I feel I should not comment further without your permission because the Fibonacci sequence can be easily overlaid on Hierarchical Space-Time without resort to "fewer then three dimensions" or "negative dimensions"; I suspect you see this possibility. I also note some interesting comments posted on your essay. Dr. Klingman's position that "transfer of energy" is fundamental to the nature of information is beyond question, but I would say "exchange of energy" allows us to define the relationship between "observer", "observation" and that which is "observed", but then exchange of energy isn't always apparent. John Merryman's insistence that "time is an effect of action" is also fundamental, but I would say that time is observed, and that makes time an effect driven by the exchange of energy, i.e. an exchange of measurements. These factors may help your thinking with respect to entropy and the second law of thermodynamics as they apply to your conception.
One way or the other, well done!
Regards.
Zoran.
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 10:39 GMT
Hello Zoran,
Thanks for your comments.
Best wishes for the contest,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 16:31 GMT
Hi Zoran,
A singularity surely has fewer than 3-dimensions doesn't it? Also, the 2 and 1 dimensionality I spoke of, was with regard to information process and pathways tending away from 3 towards zero. I found that there are definite separate points where information should only exchange at Fibonacci numbers of dimensions.
The negative dimensionality explains (-1) negative energy, hence particles being ejected via Hawking Radiation.
-3 dimensionality explains what happens to the Universe as the Black Hole grows - it loses some curved space-time or shrinks - it gains some space. I.e. it balances perfectly. Dimensionality is conserved.
Best wishes,
Antony
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 03:53 GMT
I enjoyed your essay Anthony.
It was fun to read and engaging. I think you were a bit imprecise in some of your Physics, or lack a fuller understanding for a more detailed description, but it was a nice job overall. The journey down the Black Hole was great up to a point, but what goes on once the event horizon is crossed could be a little different from what you describe. However; I'm not going to jump in and check. Besides; if I did (and somehow survived!) I could never tell you what I found.
But then again; Fibonacci continues... So maybe my tale would too.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 10:47 GMT
Thanks for your comments Jonathan,
Glad you enjoyed it. I'd opt for my description needing to be more detailed rather than imprecise. Obviously we can't say what happens inside a Black Hole. However, we can extrapolate these types of observation/being observed pathways. Good point though.
I realise the mention of spaghettification past the event horizon isn't always the case - sometimes this happens outside the black hole. The point isn't this effect, but the way all pathways eventually tend towards 1-dimensionality - or at least hinted at by extrapolation as said.
I make this point, because for example, the Big Bang is an extrapolation too. We can never measure, but we have other data which tells us.
If I have indeed been imprecise, please let me know where, so I can either clarify things, or re-assess the theory.
Best wishes,
Antony
sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 14:46 GMT
Dear Antony,
Thanks for posting comments in
I to the bit to the it to the bit to the I.. I have ready your essay and liked the way you have interpreted Fibonacci series application on the "relative" reality.
I would like to convey a simple truth that singularity is not only a relative infinity or zero, but absolute equality of everything. Absolute truth is that there is only singularity everywhere and all the relativity is an illusion. This is the absolute mathematical truth of zero = I = infinity. There is only I or singularity in the universe. I creates (Generates), sustains (Orders) and Destroys (Dismantles) everything. I is GOD.
Love,
Sridattadev.
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 16:23 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,
I have also found that 0 can display infinite characteristics. I agree that zero/singularity such as that we envisage at the start of time, is still mathematically conserved.
Good points and thanks for reading and commenting too.
Best wishes,
Antony
sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 02:59 GMT
Dear Antony,
I was playing with Fibonacci series this evening while sitting in my backyard and came across two other series of numbers. I will put down how I arrived at them.
I wrote the Fibonacci series on a paper up to 12th degree on either side of 0 as follows
-144 89 -55 34 -21 13 -8 5 -3 2 -1 1 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144
I virtually folded the paper in my...
view entire post
Dear Antony,
I was playing with Fibonacci series this evening while sitting in my backyard and came across two other series of numbers. I will put down how I arrived at them.
I wrote the Fibonacci series on a paper up to 12th degree on either side of 0 as follows
-144 89 -55 34 -21 13 -8 5 -3 2 -1 1 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144
I virtually folded the paper in my mind at 0 so that the numbers on either side overlapped and added them to each other where they aligned.
I got a new series
0 2 0 4 0 10 0 26 0 68 0 178 0 466 0 1220 0 3194
ignoring the 0's it read as 0 2 4 10 26 68 178 466 ....
Soon I realized that this can be defined by an equation
Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + sigma (I=2 to n) Sn-i
with the seeds of
S0 = 0
S1 = 2
S2 = 2 * S1 + S0 = 2 * 2 + 0 = 4
S3 = 2 * S2 + S1 + S0 = 2* 4 + 2 + 0 = 10
S4 = 2 * S3 + S2 + S1 + S0 = 2 * 10 + 4 + 2 + 0 = 26
I also found that division of the two successive numbers soon converges on 2.618 which happens to be the square of golden ratio 1.618.
Now I went back to the original Fibonacci series and virtually folded it at 0 in my mind again and this time I subtracted the numbers where they aligned and I got another series as
0 2 0 6 0 16 0 42 0 110 0 288
Ignoring the 0's this read as 0 2 6 16 42 110 288 and I realized that this can be defined as an equation as well
Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2
with S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 as the seeds
S2 = 3 * S1 - S0 = 3 * 2 - 0 = 6
S3 = 3 * S2 - S1 = 3 * 6 - 2 = 16
S4 = 3 * S3 - S2 = 3 * 16 - 6 = 42
S5 = 3 * S4 - S3 = 3 * 42 - 16 = 110
I also found that division of the two successive numbers in this series also soon converges on 2.618 which happens to be the square of golden ratio 1.618.
Finally I did another interesting thing, merged these two series and got another one which read as
First series --->0 2 0 4 0 10 0 26 0 68 0 178 0 466
Second Series ---> 0 2 0 6 0 16 0 42 0 110 0 288 0
Merged series -->0 2 2 4 6 10 16 26 42 68 110 178 288 466
I realized that the merged series is a new Fibonacci type series with a different second seed of 2 instead of 1. Even this series successive number division yields the golden ratio of 1.618 eventually.
Now I asked my self if we can have 2 as a second seed and produce another series which yields the same golden ratio why not 3 and soon found that
0 3 3 6 9 15 24 39 63 102 .... is also a series that also converges on the golden ratio 1.618.
0 4 4 8 12 20 32 52 84 136...... is also a series that also converges on the golden ratio 1.618
So any Fibonacci type series with 0 as the first seed and I ( from 1 to infinity) as the second seed will have the successive numbers ratio in them converging on the golden ratio of 1.618. This again proves the point that I, the singularity, is equally the same everywhere. Mathematics is pointing to the absoluteness of I in Fibonacci too.
Love,
Sridattadev.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 08:18 GMT
Hi Sridattadev,
It is incredible how the sequence yields the golden ratio - yes. You show it well.
Added that no matter how we run with the series it always comes out is important. The fact that we start with 0 and 1 is fine, as it's the purest form, but this ties in nicely with Wheeler's Bit and It information being yes/no or nothing and something, where 1 is just a single option of...
view entire post
Hi Sridattadev,
It is incredible how the sequence yields the golden ratio - yes. You show it well.
Added that no matter how we run with the series it always comes out is important. The fact that we start with 0 and 1 is fine, as it's the purest form, but this ties in nicely with Wheeler's Bit and It information being yes/no or nothing and something, where 1 is just a single option of many - up to infinity as an alternative to 0 (including -ve numbers).
This surely does tell us that Fibonacci and the Golden Ratio are built into nature, and that "I" in your case sits well too.
Cheers,
Antony
view post as summary
sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 15:51 GMT
Dear Antony and All,
I have generalized the findings and calling it iSeries and is the universal series, Fibonacci series is a subset of this universal series.
I give you all a cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers (any real numbers) is the...
view entire post
Dear Antony and All,
I have generalized the findings and calling it iSeries and is the universal series, Fibonacci series is a subset of this universal series.
I give you all a cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers (any real numbers) is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.
iSeries always yields two sub semi series, each of which has 0 as a base seed and 2i as the first seed.
One of the sub series is always defined by the equation
Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i
the second sub series is always defined by the equation
Sn = 3 * Sn-1 -Sn-2
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i
Division of consecutive numbers in each of these subseries always eventually converges on 2.618 which is the Square of 1.618.
Union of these series always yields another series which is just a new iSeries of a 2i first seed and can be defined by the universal equation
Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2*i
Division of consecutive numbers in the merged series always eventually converges on 1.618 which happens to be the golden ratio "Phi".
Fibonacci series is just a subset of the iSeries where the first seed or S1 =1.
Examples
starting iSeries governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2
where i = 0.5, S0 = 0 and S1 = 0.5
-27.5 17 -10.5 6.5 -4 2.5 -1.5 1 -.5 .5 0 .5 .5 1 1.5 2.5 4 6.5 10.5 17 27.5
Sub series governed by Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1
0 1 2 5 13 34 ...
Sub series governed by Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1
0 1 3 8 21 55 ...
Merged series governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2 where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1
0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...... (Fibonacci series is a subset of iSeries)
The above equations hold true for any value of i, again confirming the singularity of i.
Love,
Sridattadev.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Angel Garcés Doz replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 20:06 GMT
"This surely does tell us that Fibonacci and the Golden Ratio are built into nature, and that "I" in your case sits well too."
Dear Antony: surely 2000%
solely two examples:
The Monster Group:
Oder Monster Group
[equation]
sum of squares all primes divisors of O(M_G) ,with power > 1
2^2 + 3^2 + 5^2 + 7^2 + 11^2 + 13^2 = 377 = 14Th Fibonacci...
view entire post
"This surely does tell us that Fibonacci and the Golden Ratio are built into nature, and that "I" in your case sits well too."
Dear Antony: surely 2000%
solely two examples:
The Monster Group:
Oder Monster Group
sum of squares all primes divisors of O(M_G) ,with power > 1
2^2 + 3^2 + 5^2 + 7^2 + 11^2 + 13^2 = 377 = 14Th Fibonacci number = Kissing number (8d)= (240 ) + 137 ( 137 = int(Alpha^-1) )
Sum of all primes divisors of O(M_G) :
2+3+5+7+11+13+17+19+23+29+31+41+47+59+71= 14Th Fibonacci number + 1
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MonsterGroup.html
2) example:
Relative planetary distances average to Phi
The average of the mean orbital distances of each successive planet in relation to the one before it approximates phi:
Planet: Mean distance Relative
in million Mean Distance with Mercury = 1
kilometers for
NASA 1.00000
Mercury 57.91
Venus 108.21 1.86859
Earth 149.60 1.38250
Mars 227.92 1.52353
Ceres 413.79 1.81552
Jupiter 778.57 1.88154
Saturn 1,433.53 1.84123
Uranus 2,872.46 2.00377
Neptune 4,495.06 1.56488
Pluto 5,869.66 1.30580
Total= 16.18736
Average = 1.61874
Phi= 1.61803398...
Degree of variance = (0.00043)
"The shape of the Universe itself is a dodecahedron based on Phi
New findings in 2003 based on the study of data from NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) on cosmic background radiation reveal that the universe is finite and shaped like a dodecahedron, a geometric shape based on pentagons, which are based on phi. The the Universe page for more."
http://www.goldennumber.net/solar-system/
Regards
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 21:47 GMT
Dear All,
As per Antony's suggestion, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.
d-super.pdf' target='new'>The-Fibonacci-code-behind-superstringtheory
Now that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM...
view entire post
Dear All,
As per Antony's suggestion, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.
The-Fibonacci-code-behind-superstringtheoryNow that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM and GR in some way yet to be fully explained and together they could explain the Quantum Gravity. Seems like this duality is a commonality in nature once relativity takes effect or a series is kicked off. I can draw and analogy and say that this dual series with in the "iSeries" is like the double helix of our DNA. The only commonality between the two semi series of any iSeries is at the base seed 0 and first seed 1, which are the like bits in our binary system.
I have put forth the absolute truth in the Theory of everything that universe is an "iSphere" and we humans are capable of perceiving the 4 dimensional 3Sphere aspect of the universe and described it with an equation of S=BM^2.
I have also conveyed the absolute mathematical truth of zero = I = infinity and proved the same using the newly found "iSeries" which is a super set of Fibonacci series.
All this started with a simple question, who am I?
I am drawn out of my self or singularity or i in to existence.
I super positioned my self or I to be me.
I am human and I is GOD.
Love,
Sridattadev.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 21:50 GMT
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 13:42 GMT
Hello Sridattadev,
I've replied over on your thread. Great way to show the relationship applies at all scales. Very Quantum Gravity like, so especially nice that it fits, as I am working it around a Black Hole at the Foundation of the series.
Cheers,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 13:45 GMT
Hello Angel,
More ways to exemplify the series in Nature. Thanks for these! I'll read through thoroughly later - I look forward to it!
Best wishes,
Antony
hide replies
Anonymous wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 22:15 GMT
Hello Antony
Well written, and very readable. I think it would be nice to be able to show how the universe might have an action that produces this sequence as a model of a physical reality. In some ways, a universe that adds aspects of its history to evolve is what we find in our own universe. How this occurs is considered in my
Armchair Universe.
Best wishes
Stephen Anastasi
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 13:54 GMT
Hello Stephen,
Thanks for the kind comments. I'll take another look at your essay in this context. Thanks for answering my question over on your thread.
I do indeed have a way to show how the Universe produces this sequence!
Essentially it is 0 decaying to -1+1 (in the sequence) then asymmetry occurs forming particles of mass.
The action is a quantum fluctuation of nothingness which increases entropy.
The beauty is that we conserve symmetry overall, but create asymmetry too!
My theory away from the essay explains more, but this essay entry hints at many more answers that can arise from this approach.
I'd suggest that instead of thinking of it as an action, it is the Universe doing what comes naturally - increase in entropy- even when we consider nothingness or a zero entropy pre-Big Bang singularity.
Best wishes,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 14:04 GMT
I'm glad you raised this, as it highlights the cosmogony aspect to my work. I'd suggest nothingness fluctuates in precisely this way towards the negative part of the Fibonacci sequence producing the asymmetries that can be explained by simplex geometries.
We can partly unify the four forces of nature and relate the masses of the proton, neutron and electron to 99.999988% against prediction. Furthermore, over the past 4 years as new data has emerged on these masses, the figure has improved more!
Also the theory is potentially testable if a suitable computer simulation can be ran.
Regards,
Antony
sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 12:02 GMT
Dear Antony and All,
Enjoy the absolute truth of the self. Thou art that. Love,
Sridattadev.
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 13:39 GMT
Thanks Sridattev - Antony
Helmut Hansen wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 09:16 GMT
Dear Antony,
you have visited my FQXI-site. Here is my comment to your paper: I agree with you that the Fibonacci number is of fundamental physical importance. My approach to it may help you to understand your approach more deeply.
The foundation of my approach or view is the Fibonacci Spiral: It is built up - as you know - by a series of squares that are including a corresponding series of circular arcs. I could identify the first geometrical element of this series (i.e. the biggest one) as a physical blueprint of space, time and the velocity of light (c = 1).
In my paper "The Hidden Face of c, or The True Meaning of the Kennedy Thorndike Experiment" I've sketched this idea. You can google it easily...
I wish you good luck for your very interesting paper.
Regards
Helmut
P.S. I've rated your paper - of course - high.
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 15:46 GMT
Dear Helmut,
Thank you very much for the kind comments and rating. Glad to see so many people share the view of Fibonacci's fundamental nature in reality. It is fitting that c, as you have found is connected too. This is also very interesting like your paper overall.
Well done and best wishes too,
Antony
sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 13:49 GMT
Dear Antony All,
I am attaching the iSeries that I have envisioned and how it shows the DNA structure in its sequence.
Its interesting to see the singularity is in the base seed of zero and how it is all pervasive all through out the structure. I have been telling that I is that nothing which dwells in everything and this DNA structure seems to prove that notion. Singularity is right with in the duality. Absolute is right with in the relativity. This proves that both of these states are interconnected and are the source of life.
Love,
Sridattadev.
attachments:
1_iDNASeries.bmp
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 15:50 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,
Thanks for the attachment. Good to see you applying your work to nature in every corner of science. This is what the contest wants to encourage. The more areas something so simple, yet elegant applies, the less it can be ignored as simply abstract. Interesting.
Nice work,
Antony
sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 12:49 GMT
Dear Antony and All,
Here is more empirical proof of my findings.
Seems like I found something interesting in the DNA structure related to Fibonacci series as I was seeking it
Please see this video DNA-RNA
2 prime
3 prime
5 prime
2,3,5 are the numbers of Fibonacci series.
DNA is not just limited to life on this planet, its all over the...
view entire post
Dear Antony and All,
Here is more empirical proof of my findings.
Seems like I found something interesting in the DNA structure related to Fibonacci series as I was seeking it
Please see this video
DNA-RNA2 prime
3 prime
5 prime
2,3,5 are the numbers of Fibonacci series.
DNA is not just limited to life on this planet, its all over the universe and other planets can hold larger primes of the sequence in them, why not?
One more important correlation that I found in the iDNASeries image is in the template strand (Fibonacci strand in the image) and the non template strand (zero or base strand in the image) as depicted in this video. You will find this around 3 minutes into the below video.
Fibonacci sequence in DNA I am learning how this iSeries really applies to DNA, besides my intuition or inner knowledge. Its all with in us, we just have to know how to access it.
Human life is like a hide and seek game that I play with the self.
As I said we will find what we seek, all we got to do is keep an open mind and seek with sincerity. I would like to publish this findings in a peer reviewed scientific journal for the greater good of humanity with the help of FQXI.
Love,
Sridattadev.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 20:09 GMT
Hello Sridattadev,
Thanks for sharing. I'll take a look at the video.
All the best for your writing,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 11:42 GMT
Indeed, there seems to be a lot of evidence in nature for your theory.
Antony
hide replies
Than Tin wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 22:32 GMT
Hello Antony
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
Hello Antony
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 relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don’t know why that is – it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn’t look at all like the way you said it before. I don’t know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature.”
I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.
The belief that “Nature is simple” is however being expressed differently in my essay “Analogical Engine” linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .
Specifically though, I said “Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities” and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism … and so on.
Taken two at a time, it can be read as “what quantum is to classical” is similar to (~) “what wave is to particle.” You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.
I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!
Since “Nature is Analogical”, we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.
Good luck,
Than Tin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 23:33 GMT
Dear Than Tin,
Thanks for you comments and exemplifying that the nature of the Universe is often seen, even at the highest professional levels, as simple natural occurrences.
I'll take a look at your paper very soon! Sounds intriguing!
Best wishes,
Antony
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 18:36 GMT
Hi Antony,
Intriguing essay. (And thanks for kindly commenting on my site.)
There are a couple of things I don't understand. Bekenstein and Mayo demonstrated that the black hole is a 1-dimensional information channel, not 2.* The surface -- the event horizon -- is 2-dimensional, because to the observer at a sufficient distance from the horizon, all information on the horizon...
view entire post
Hi Antony,
Intriguing essay. (And thanks for kindly commenting on my site.)
There are a couple of things I don't understand. Bekenstein and Mayo demonstrated that the black hole is a 1-dimensional information channel, not 2.* The surface -- the event horizon -- is 2-dimensional, because to the observer at a sufficient distance from the horizon, all information on the horizon appears flat. That is, by the rules of relativity, a hypothetical "spaceman" falling into a black hole would to the outside observer appear as a flat picture growing dimmer and dimmer over a long period of time.
You seem to be saying that the black hole exchanges information with the observer; however, the physical interaction is 1-way, i.e., gravity at the event horizon returns information as a continuous wave to the outside observer, while the hapless spaceman is broken into discontinuous bits. Whether he can be reassembled into his healthy coherent self is the black hole information paradox. If a black hole is 1-dimensional, and no information is lost, then all those bits are ordered in a specific way when they radiate away from the horizon; they come out in the reverse direction they entered in. This accounts both for classical time reversibility and quantum-mechanical least action -- and it's why I like Christian Corda's model so much. Professor Corda accounts for pure states of quantum evolution, such that the wave image of the observer at a distance matches the quantum state of the object on the other side of the horizon, all spacetime-symmetric.
Another thing beyond my understanding is how to have a negatively-valued vertex. I grasp that you are avoiding the disappearance of information by avoiding the naked singularity; however, negative spacetime would seem to result in a white hole, not a back-reaction. What I mean, is that if the positive dimensionality is continuous, and if one must deal with a naked singlularity at all, what's on the other side of it must either be continuous as well, or one had better supply a precise limit, and a good physical reason for it.
Don't take this as negative criticism -- you get a good score from me for an innovative and stimulating approach.
All best in the competition!
Tom
*[1] Bekenstein, J. & Mayo, A. “Black Holes are One-Dimensional.” General Relativity and Gravitation 33;12, December (2001). (Second-prize winning essay, Gravity Research Foundation, 2001.)
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 14:58 GMT
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your excellent essay and sorry for the delay in my reply!
I'm definitely not talking about naked singularities at all. So I can't comment on those unfortunately.
Also I'm not considering Black Hole not their event horizons relative to an outside observer. Indeed you make the same point of me that physical interaction is one way!
Open space away from...
view entire post
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your excellent essay and sorry for the delay in my reply!
I'm definitely not talking about naked singularities at all. So I can't comment on those unfortunately.
Also I'm not considering Black Hole not their event horizons relative to an outside observer. Indeed you make the same point of me that physical interaction is one way!
Open space away from the Black Hole is easy. I envisage 3-dimensional exchange of information, such that information can be received and revealed fully across 3-dimensions.
At the event horizon (or point when no more information escapes out after the fading stops), from the poor astronauts point of view, information can be released inwards towards the black hole and along the event horizon itself. When no space time pathways point outwards.
The astronaut can not receive information from inside the black hole. This is a point when information can only be BOTH received and revealed across 2-dimensions.
Then pathways tend towards 1-dimension deeper into the black hole.
There ought to be a point, from a thought experiment point of view, where information can only be released, and deeper where it can only be received 1-dimensionally. Then at the singularity there are 0-dimensions.
As mentioned the sequence allows 0 to be skipped over via -1, 1, 0, 1, 1 part via equivalence amongst other reasons.
The negative valued vertex is a quantum effect of the Black Hole that conserves space time between the black hole and the outside Universe. I've elaborated on this in a comment below.
Rather than a white hole emerge from this system, it makes a black hole MORE stable because an arrow of time emerges from the entropy increase, that both conserves numbers and shows a natural asymmetry of space time.
I'll gladly elaborate further if necessary as your questions are excellent and these points, once understood/explained better by me are very compelling and important.
Very best wishes & pleased to "meet" you,
Antony
view post as summary
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 14:17 GMT
Hi Antony,
Sorry it took a while to reply. I have to translate the words into mathematics to understand them.
1. I'm not really sure what you mean by 3-dimensional information. Information is generally perceived to be numeric, i.e., independent of dimensionality. For example, if I communicate the statement 2 + 2 = 4, mathematical convention makes it unnecessary to answer which...
view entire post
Hi Antony,
Sorry it took a while to reply. I have to translate the words into mathematics to understand them.
1. I'm not really sure what you mean by 3-dimensional information. Information is generally perceived to be numeric, i.e., independent of dimensionality. For example, if I communicate the statement 2 + 2 = 4, mathematical convention makes it unnecessary to answer which dimension the numbers live in. If I specify a dimensional context, e.g., I say "The natural numbers live on a 1-dimensional line," then I am mapping the geometry of the line to the continuum of dimensionless natural numbers. When we move up a dimension, to the 2-dimension plane of complex analysis with both real and imaginary lines, we get as a result both 3 and 4 dimensional analysis for free, because the complex plane is what mathematicians call algebraically closed. In other words, it allows 1 to 1 numerical mapping of every dimensionless point to every other point of the plane, sphere and four- dimensional hypersphere. So thinking it through, I guess you mean a bounded 3-dimensional ball of self interacting points? The BH event horizon, though, is still only 2-dimensional -- the surface of a ball -- so there is still the question of how, mechanically, to map your 3-dimensional information to the 2-dimensional surface, which is how the holographic principle (t'Hooft, Susskind) was born.
2. Maybe the foregoing is what you mean by "The astronaut can not receive information from inside the black hole. This is a point when information can only be BOTH received and revealed across 2-dimensions."?
3. "There ought to be a point, from a thought experiment point of view, where information can only be released, and deeper where it can only be received 1-dimensionally. Then at the singularity there are 0-dimensions." I can't get my mind around this -- relativity and Noether's theorem demand symmetry. That is why Hawking radiation was such a huge breakthrough in foundational terms -- the interaction of the BH with the outside world is no longer one-way, but allows information to escape via quantum uncertainty. The total evaporation of the BH should restore the total information "lost" behind the event horizon. So if any 0-D singularity ever existed, it would be annihilated (extinguished) in finite time. It couldn't be physical, therefore, and we would never know whether it existed or not.
4. "As mentioned the sequence allows 0 to be skipped over via -1, 1, 0, 1, 1 part via equivalence amongst other reasons." This would be more understandable in terms of complex analysis, where the unique point (0,0) allows a potential rotation in the plane with the result 0 + 0i. When one tries this with real analysis on the line R, "skipping over" a number looks too much like the famous cartoon where a theorist gets stuck and then declares, "Here a miracle occurs."
5. "The negative valued vertex is a quantum effect of the Black Hole that conserves space time between the black hole and the outside Universe." You explain that this makes the BH more stable. Before Hawking's result, most thought that this was the case -- everything goes in, nothing comes out. Even Hawking himself thought for years that thermal radiation (Hawking radiation) wouldn't allow the complete restoration of information going into the Black Hole. When one speaks of conservation of fundamental physical quantities -- mass/energy, angular momentum, time, what particle physicists call CPT conservation -- the symmetry has to be measured "backward and forward" to be physical. Time is the last mystery. The black hole you've described does not conserve time -- Hawking radiation does.
I am pleased to meet you, too -- all best in your research, and the contest!
Tom
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 14:26 GMT
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for your comments - there's a lot there.
I'll reply in separate posts I think for clarity.
Best wishes,
Antony.
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 14:36 GMT
1.
I'm not saying information itself IS 3-dimensional RATHER I'm exploring how it behaves in different environments in the Universe.
3-dimensional is with regard to how information is exchanged spatially in 4-dimensional space time.
I don't mean a 3 dimensional of self interacting points. I don't intend to map 3 dimensions onto the 2-D event horizon either. I clearly haven't put this across clearly enough! Apologies.
3-spatial dimension outside of a Black Hole where information can pass towards and away from a point in all pathways across all 3 dimensions.
At the event horizon it is limited to be BOTH received and revealed across 2-dimensions, so this is another unique environment for us to consider in the behaviour of information.
Then inside the Black Hole, we expect pathways to diverge towards 1-dimensionality. There ought to be an "altitude" where information can ONLY be released and another where information can ONLY be received.
Then the singularity - 0 dimensionality.
Your point about the holographic principle is mentioned also in the essay, so there is a likeness to this.
Regards,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 14:38 GMT
2.
Yes a point on the event horizon will be unique in that it is the ONLY place in the Universe where information is BOTH received and revealed 2-dimensionally.
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 15:20 GMT
The other replies I've accidentally placed in your other comment below. Perhaps this was spooky action at a distance, a bug in the system again or just a simple mistake on my part! ;)
Cheers,
Antony
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 17:30 GMT
Hello again Anthony,
Thanks for making time to reply. I can relate your statement ...
"3-spatial dimension outside of a Black Hole where information can pass towards and away from a point in all pathways across all 3 dimensions"
... to a physical definition of "time" that I proposed
a few years back : "n-dimension infinitely orientable metric on random, self-avoiding walk." Since in my construction "time" is identical to "information," I think we might have the same idea of what follows from that construction for n = 4:
You conjecture, "At the event horizon it (information) is limited to be BOTH received and revealed across 2-dimensions, so this is another unique environment for us to consider in the behaviour of information." I concur in this way:
Because time and information are identical, time reversibility demands for the sake of conserving time, energy and information, that time, information and energy are identical -- that they are the same phenomenon -- because at this extreme of gravity, we have a perfect representation of t = 0. That is critical information, and perfectly deterministic, as with t'Hooft's application of the Schrodinger equation to all scales.
Just one more thing -- "a point on the event horizon will be unique in that it is the ONLY place in the Universe where information is BOTH received and revealed 2-dimensionally" -- is essentially the conclusion of my last years' essay: The source of all information is a point at infinity.
All best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 17:42 GMT
Hello Tom,
Thanks for the reply. I'll take a look at your essay from last year. Good that we've found a bit of common ground too.
It's even more encouraging that we draw similar conclusions from different approaches.
Best wishes,
Antony
hide replies
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 19:34 GMT
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for your comments. Not at all - I don't take them as negative and thanks for kind comments.
In fact I can easily answer all these points - which is what is nice about these discussion threads. Albeit I don't have time right now - in work after a 72 hour week, so I'll post another comprehensive reply early next week.
Glad you raised them, as it gives me a chance to clarify.
Best wishes and thanks again for reading!
Antony
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 19:48 GMT
Thomas,
Also as in Christian's essay, both conclude spacetime-symmetry. See Christian's comments above, that the two essays compliment each other with similar conclusions too.
I look forward to elaborating the very relevant points. Also thanks for your terrific essay.
Thanks again - very much appreciated - have a ncie weekend!
Antony
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 14:44 GMT
3.
There is absolutely symmetry around this point! The sequence has -1, 1, 0, 1, 1 which provides this. In fact I explain symmetry between the inside and outside of the BH AND Hawking Radiation's existence as -3, 2, -1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3.
Indeed the arrow of time with regard to entropy comes out of this too. So yes I agree it is not one way. Again it does say this in the essay. Information ought to come out of all Black Holes, it is just it may take longer for larger Black Holes
If anything, I think it is a strength of my essay that it seems to reproduce Hawking! And time! And entropy!
:)
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 14:51 GMT
4.
No miracle in the skipping over 0-dimensionality I assure you. The "decay" mentioned in the essay is 0 -> -1 +1 which is highly symmetrical.
The Fibonacci sequence has -1, 1, 0, 1, 1 so that when we "move" deeper into the Black Hole in the thought experiment, 0 becomes virtually and mathematically.
Please note that there is No difference between 1 in the THREE places it appears in the sequence!
This is very important! This is what I mean by skip over. The 1 becomes conserved. The -1 can make the Black Hole lose mass by Hawking Radiation and the +1 can be emitted.
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 15:05 GMT
5.
I know about CPT conservation. As clarified above, the essay does e plain Hawking radiation very well. Further it explains why smaller black holes wouldn't exist as all Hawking Radiation would escape instantly. Larger Black Holes with 2-dimensional event horizons would conserved the lower dimensional -1, 1, 0, 1, 1 part of the sequence such that these quantum fluctuations, skipping over 0 if you like, or simply 1-dimensional pathways stay predominantly inside the BH. Some do escape, but the larger the BH the slower the rate of escape.
If you are worried about the information the seems to be trapped inside these larger BHs, don't! It wil either escape when the Universe reaches thermal equilibrium or it will trigger a new Big Bang. Similarly to what Sir Roger Penrose says.
Finally I agree that time is a mystery. I'm not saying I've solved it, but the Black Hole I described DOES conserve time! We might have to agree to disagree here!
I'll try to elaborate.
Not only does my theory agree with Hawking Radiation as already mentioned, but in its own right, we can see that time is unidirectional.
This theory shows through entropy that time is a simple plus one relationship limited to 3-dimensions spatially. Time reversal has to change sign, so please at least allow me to state that the entropy dropping by 1 as we move backwards in time is indeed symmetry?
I think that this is a very, very strong point I make, so I'm disappointed it hasn't been fully appreciated here.
Best wishes, again pleased to meet you, and thanks for the questions.
Antony
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 15:18 GMT
Also, symmetry being measured backward and forwards works precisely for the Fibonacci sequence. I'm not taking about mirroring the positive and negative parts of the sequence either side of 0, but when we descend from 3 towards -3 or go from -3 to 3 we still use the basic sum or subtraction of the previous two numbers.
Subtraction and addition are opposites, of course.
-3, 2, -1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3
Best wishes,
Antony
hide replies
Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 16:00 GMT
Dear Antony,
As 0 is recursive with Fibonacci sequence, 0 to 1 is the quantum unit of length for
one-dimensional string-matter continuum and seeds the emergence of other dimensions.
With best wishes,
Jayakar
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 07:33 GMT
Hello Jayakar,
Interesting point. I actually considered the mathematical possibility that the recurrent -1, 1, 0, 1, 1 part of the sequence would result in string type properties within the Black Hole, or in a smaller Black Hole result in Hawking Radiation.
Sounds like we may have some comment ground!
I will certainly read your essay early in the week. Only a few more to finish reading.
Best wishes & thanks for reading my essay,
Antony
eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 17:53 GMT
Dear Antony,
I liked your essay and agree with you that the information is the basis of the reality that we observe.
But in detail, I think the bits are the same that things : they are similar, abstract and physical.
Also, the bits are around us and in us ?
What do you think about ?
I will rate your essay after.
Please visit
My essay.
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 07:27 GMT
Hello Amazigh,
Thanks for your comments. However, I did not really say that information is the basis for reality that we observe. More that information and reality are equally fundamental with the Fibonacci sequence being shown as the way in which information can be exchanged when reality converges with a Black Hole.
However, it does conclude that we get It from Bit AND Bit zzz from It in this sense. Certainly I'd agree that Bits are around and in us or I couldn't type this to you.
I will read your essay early in the week. I've only a few left to read now.
Best wishes,
Antony
Douglas Alexander Singleton wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 08:25 GMT
Hi Anthony,
I just skimmed your essay and will have a more detailed look, but this is a very interesting idea if I understand correctly -- that as one goes toward the central singularity the number of dimensions *reduces*. An earlier poster in your thread had mentioned the idea that as one goes to higher energy scales/shorter distance scales (i.e. as on falls toward the central singularity) the number if dimensions should increase rather than decrease. This is an idea from Kaluza-Klein theory or string theory that at our current energy scale the higher dimensions have curled up but if one went to larger energy scales these extra dimensions would "uncurl" or somehow manifest themselves. If the large extra dimension scenario in its simplest form had been correct we would have seen evidence of the extra dimensions already. Their non-appearance in this run of the LHC pushes the speculation a bit further "down the road".
But in your essay you go the other route -- dimensional reduction (from 3 to 2 to 1 to 0 at the singularity if I understand correctly). There is in fact some recent interesting work exactly in this direction called dimensional reduction. A nice paper on a possible observable/testable outcome of this dimensional reduction in cosmological space-times is the paper "Detecting Vanishing Dimensions Via Primordial Gravitational Wave Astronomy", Jonas R. Mureika and Dejan Stojkovic, Phys.Rev.Lett. 106 (2011) 101101, e-Print: arXiv:1102.3434 [gr-qc]. They use the dimensional reduction scenario which comes from "lattice gravity" (the first few references of the above paper give the original article where dimensional reduction was proposed). Anyway have a look since this appears closed related to the idea in your essay.
Anyway thanks for an intriguing read.
Best,
Doug
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 13:44 GMT
Hi Douglas,
Thanks for reading and your comments. Interesting point about collider results - good news for what I'm saying.
I'll save those links - thanks for those!
You sum it up well. The reduction along the Fibonacci sequence results from how limited information is in its exchange.
If we imagine two particles outside a BH, then they can both receive & reveal...
view entire post
Hi Douglas,
Thanks for reading and your comments. Interesting point about collider results - good news for what I'm saying.
I'll save those links - thanks for those!
You sum it up well. The reduction along the Fibonacci sequence results from how limited information is in its exchange.
If we imagine two particles outside a BH, then they can both receive & reveal information 3-dimensionally.
At the event horizon, they both can only receive information in something like a half sphere direction because they can't receive anything from past the event horizon.
Likewise, they can only release information in the opposite direction.
This means there is a 2-dimensional unique point where information is both released and received.
Then pathways reduce to 1-dimension. The Fib. Sequence has two 1s before 0. This ought to mean there is a point where information can only be released, then further towards the singularity another point where information can only be received.
Then there is the 0-dimensional singularity.
The negative parts I will answer in another in below as another comment asks this.
But as you point of, dimensionality increasing towards a singularity may be getting less experimental backup these days, so my idea may make sense. Also that a singularity by definition is 0-dimensional, then at least we follow downwards from 3 to 0 in this system
Best wishes & thanks for the great comments,
Antony
view post as summary
Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 17:00 GMT
Hello Anthony,
I have read your essay and I see that you suggest some applications of the Fibonacci sequence for fundamental physics. I have some questions, though.
1) On page 2, you derive the array 3,2,1,1,0 representing how dimensionality of information exchange evolves as one descends towards a black hole. You then say that this matches the Fibonacci sequence. In itself, that is...
view entire post
Hello Anthony,
I have read your essay and I see that you suggest some applications of the Fibonacci sequence for fundamental physics. I have some questions, though.
1) On page 2, you derive the array 3,2,1,1,0 representing how dimensionality of information exchange evolves as one descends towards a black hole. You then say that this matches the Fibonacci sequence. In itself, that is true. But now I define a second sequence; it probably already has a name in literature but I will very unethically call it the Cabbolet sequence:
a
0 = 0
a
1 = 1
a
n+2 = a
n+1*a
n + 1
This also yields the beginning 0,1,1,2,3. So the array of dimensionalities that you have derived also matches the Cabbolet sequence. Thus: aren't you using a too small part of the Fibonacci sequence to conclude that it is fundamental, as you do on page 6?
2) In figure 2, the right margin has the numbers -1 and -3. What do these numbers denote? Dimensionality of information exchange? If so, how can that be negative?
3) You have defined a simplex as a set, and as I see it, the corresponding Fibonacci number is then the dimensionality of the object that is represented by the set. Correct me if I'm wrong. However, on page 4 you start to talk about the Fibonacci number -1, so we would be talking about a set with dimensionality -1. No such object exists to my knowledge. Could you explain to me what an object with dimensionality -1 is? Or have I misunderstood something?
I am interested in your comments.
Best regards,
Marcoen
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 14:22 GMT
Hello Marcoen,
These are very good points. Thanks for your comments.
Points 1 and 2 can be answered together.
The fundamental part comes from two places. Te first is that we begin at a singularity or 0 in the sequence. Also that we balance out the sequence conserving numbers, by using the negative part of the sequence.
Indeed the part of the sequence used isn't as small...
view entire post
Hello Marcoen,
These are very good points. Thanks for your comments.
Points 1 and 2 can be answered together.
The fundamental part comes from two places. Te first is that we begin at a singularity or 0 in the sequence. Also that we balance out the sequence conserving numbers, by using the negative part of the sequence.
Indeed the part of the sequence used isn't as small as just 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, but also includes -3, 2, -1, 1, before the 0.
We can extend in both positive and negative directions to fit the conservation, so indeed in some respects we can use the whole sequence. But we are using 9 points of the sequence for a valid reason.
Te negative numbers do denote information exchange, but moving away from the singularity. In other words the potential to move away isn't real, but virtual. But this is using to explain why nothing escapes - usually. Obviously I explained that Hawking Radiation can occur, and that the smaller the Black Hole, the greater the rate of radiation.
The empirical aspect that the Universe is spatially 3-dimensional also is matched, not only by the conservation at -3 to balance the inside and outside of the Black Hole, but also for the reasons in point 3 that you make.
The negative simplex is indeed strange. As soon as we consider the "decay" products of 0 or beyond, we have to consider these negative sets. I'm glad you raised this point, as I too found these strange.
If we imagine them as inverted real geometries, we give them a negative number. We also take the positive and take the mean of the two numbers. So this is zero. Then we increase by plus 1 for entropy going right down the sequence, but have to stop at 2 in the negative part of the sequence because the decay product breaks the +1 rule for the entropy. Shown in red in table 1.
As you say, a negative simple sounds crazy. But then this is what makes the whole idea MORE fundamental. We are dealing with black holes where the quantum world is expected to meet general relativity.
Also pre-Big Bang singularity for instance, we had to create a Universe from nothing. The -1, 1, 0 part of the sequence alone allows for this, but more comprehensively, I have a broader theory where we get geometries from simplexes that partly unify the four forces of nature and resolved the three paradoxes of Cosmogony.
So what I am saying is that these negative dimensionalities and simplex representations are part of the way space-time curves to conserve nothingness overall.
Perhaps they exist as real structures with a Black Hole, but I'd suggest that all particles with mass actually consist of these as well as positive geometry. Further we don't see them for the same reason I suggested an Arrow of Time, because a natural asymmetry arises, which the entropy table hints at.
Sorry if I've not been too clear - rambling is easy around these points, because they are so important.
Please let me know and I can be be more thorough and/or more concise about these excellent questions.
I'll try to also read over your paper again once I've finished the few I haven't looked at yet.
Best wishes,
Antony
view post as summary
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 14:24 GMT
Like the nomenclature for your sequence ;)
Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 20:24 GMT
Hi Antony,
Just playing the devil's advocate: you say that a set with negative dimensionality indeed sounds crazy, but that this is what makes your idea more fundamental. But a mathematician would answer: no, this is what makes your idea wrong, as no such negative dimensionality exists in mathematics.
That is to say: can you give a definition of the dimensionality of a set, such that this can be negative?
Best regards,
Marcoen
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 11:40 GMT
Hi Marcoen,
Thanks for taking the time to discuss, I'm enjoying it, abd it helps clarify the theory.
It is good to play devil's advocate, but I don't consider it wrong, just a new idea, which is what the contest is about.
The negative part comes from the Fibonacci sequence. All positive numbers also have negative square roots, but are generally ignored. Even square root of...
view entire post
Hi Marcoen,
Thanks for taking the time to discuss, I'm enjoying it, abd it helps clarify the theory.
It is good to play devil's advocate, but I don't consider it wrong, just a new idea, which is what the contest is about.
The negative part comes from the Fibonacci sequence. All positive numbers also have negative square roots, but are generally ignored. Even square root of -2 is a mathematical concept.
But what I meant by more fundamental, is that it is a quantum like aspect, in that we consider both the positive AND negative dimensionality.
Also negative in the case of dimensionality here spells out time direction, in that for objects to fall out of a Black Hole, time would have to travel backwards, I.e. a white hole. This should not be confused with normal time s Hawking Radiation.
Another way to look at negative dimensionality is to imagine what happens when we lose positive dimensionality from the Universe to a Black Hole. The BH gains it as some +ve, while the Universe outside loses it as -ve. So we can even simply imagine it as keeping balance of accounts.
But I'd suggest that inside the Black Hole the negative is more real.
Take Hawking Radiation for example, to emit mass, negative virtual mass pops into existence within the BH. Again, like my dimensionality, a "crazy" concept.
Glad you made this point.
Many thanks & best wishes,
Antony
view post as summary
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 14:34 GMT
Another quick point around -1 and -3 dimensionality with regard to information exchange. As we decent into the Black Hole, we lose pathways for exchange, reducing the said dimensionality, such that we need to actually account for these. So the Black Hole remains balanced with the rest of the Universe.
The singularity being 0-dimensional suggests information can't be exchanged at all. However information can pass over this thanks to the 1s surrounding the 0. Negative information exchange hence means that balance or conservation comes from the Black Hole not releasing information as is, but in a time reversed manner. Thus essentially not releasing most information, and when it does as Hawking Radiation, it is in a jumbled form.
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 15:18 GMT
All,
I'll be reading the last few essays which I haven't yet commented on over the next two days. If I happened to have missed yours or missed a reply, please let me know and I'll be glad to discuss further.
Best wishes,
Antony
Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 10:01 GMT
Hi Antony,
Yours was certainly an original approach, and I like the possibility that the Fibonacci sequence is more fundamental than we suppose, but I am not sure I understand everything you describe. You wrote:
> However, any information that passes beyond an event horizon becomes empirically lost.
Essayist Christian Corda claims that it may not be lost. You may want to...
view entire post
Hi Antony,
Yours was certainly an original approach, and I like the possibility that the Fibonacci sequence is more fundamental than we suppose, but I am not sure I understand everything you describe. You wrote:
> However, any information that passes beyond an event horizon becomes empirically lost.
Essayist Christian Corda claims that it may not be lost. You may want to look at his argument.
> The only direction where information can be both received and revealed is 2-dimensionally across this 2-dimensional horizon.
It is not clear to me whether this is possible either. I thought time appears "frozen" at the event horizon to observers falling in.
> The final part -3-dimensions, again conserves dimensionality by giving the Universe outside the Black Hole information, confirming that a bit of 3-dimensional space has fallen in, so the Universe gets -3 back out.
You stated in your abstract that information falling in becomes "empirically lost". What do you mean here by "giving the Universe outside the Black Hole information"? Is the information the fact that a bit has fallen in rather than the value of the bit?
Your concept of "dimensional conservation" is interesting. Do you mean that the dimensions that a particle can send or receive information (summed over all particles) is conserved?
In my
Software Cosmos essay I do not refer to the Fibonacci sequence. But I can see how it could be involved in an architectural layer below the outer physical layer. This layer would be responsible for Life, music, and aesthetics generally. Contrary to the usual assumptions, I think the material could emerge from it rather than the other way around.
Hugh
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 11:25 GMT
Hi Hugh,
Thanks for reading and your comments. Great questions.
I've looked at Christian's essay and he has looked at mine. We agree with regard to information loss, in that I suggest it seems lost, but actually continue to conclude it isn't. It must always be released even if that takes an seemingly infinite amount of time to an outside observer.
At the event horizon, time...
view entire post
Hi Hugh,
Thanks for reading and your comments. Great questions.
I've looked at Christian's essay and he has looked at mine. We agree with regard to information loss, in that I suggest it seems lost, but actually continue to conclude it isn't. It must always be released even if that takes an seemingly infinite amount of time to an outside observer.
At the event horizon, time moves normally to anyone at that same "altitude". Only seems frozen to an outside observer. I'm considering information exchange AT the horizon.
The -3 is the bit that an it has fallen in AND the value of that it. Hence dimensionality is balanced between the inside and outside of the Black Hole.
Dimensional conservation is indeed about the number of dimensions information can be exchanged in the Universe as a whole, yes.
Your Software Cosmos does certainly sound interesting. I've read it and thought I'd commented, but I'll double check. I'm open to both it and bit being more fundamental, as I currently consider both somewhat equally important, but different.
Best wishes & thanks again for you excellent questions,
Antony
view post as summary
James A Putnam wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 18:08 GMT
Hi Antony,
Very nice essay. One does not have to agree with my approach to physics, to receive due credit for clear original thinking. Physics theory requires deep thinking. I enjoyed your novel approach. Good luck in the contest. I have rated your essay.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 19:15 GMT
Hi James,
Many thanks for your kind comments and rating. There have been some wide ranging approaches, but the whole process has been enjoyable.
Best wishes for the contest and the future,
Antony
Ralph Waldo Walker III wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 22:24 GMT
Hi Antony,
I'm glad I read your essay! I think you're on to something significant in recognizing a relationship between black holes and a Fibonacci sequence. I also agree with your conclusion that black holes represent the 'reverse' of the holographic principle. Personally (and I know you didn't ask) I think that black holes are the 'wombs' of baby universes forming from our own.
I think highly of your essay, and rated it so.
Best to you,
Ralph
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 08:00 GMT
Hi Ralph,
Thanks for the kind comments and rating. Likewise I think highly of your essay and rated it so. I'm glad you enjoyed reading my essay.
I've heard many good arguments that Black Holes are like baby Universes. My thoughts on this don't stray too far either. I imagine that all Black Holes keep growing and never evaporate.
I think they lose some mass, but always gain more - i.e. no micro black holes should ever form, because the potential for the to evaporate by Hawking radiation is too high.
Anyway, the larger Black Holes would then continue to grow until the Universe expands to such an extent that there are only Black Holes and empty space in between (save for virtual particles).
Then all points in space-time become equivalent - even the singularities of the Black Holes.
Then there would be a Big Bang - so one infinitely large Universe with finite observable size at any given point.
Great point to make.
Best wishes and thanks again,
Antony
Antoine Acke wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 18:07 GMT
Dear Antony,
The introduction of the Fibonacci sequence in this contex is a bold enterprise. Although I start in
my essay from a very different position, I appreciate your approach.
All the best,
Antoine.
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 20:20 GMT
Dear Antoine,
Thanks for the link over on your page - I too enjoyed Edwin's essay. It is indeed great to see different approaches to fundamental questions.
My approach is certainly bold, but perhaps tame compared to my theory which partly unifies the four forces and resolves the paradoxes of cosmogony :o)
Anyway thanks and best wishes,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 19:23 GMT
Dear Antoine,
Please see message below from Aug. 3, 2013 @ 19:18 GMT.
It is indeed bold, but as you can see from the comments above, it is quite logical. Thanks for the link over on your thread.
Best wishes,
Antony
KoGuan Leo wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 07:11 GMT
Dear Antony,
Brilliant essay! Obviously, we cannot agree on everything but i see some similarity in our ideas.
First, KQID Qbit is (00,1,-1) which is singularity Qbit Multiverse in zeroth dimension at absolute zero temperature that computes and projects Einstein complex coordinates (Pythagoras complex triangles or Fu Xi's gua or Fibonacci numbers!) onto the 2D Minkowski Null...
view entire post
Dear Antony,
Brilliant essay! Obviously, we cannot agree on everything but i see some similarity in our ideas.
First, KQID Qbit is (00,1,-1) which is singularity Qbit Multiverse in zeroth dimension at absolute zero temperature that computes and projects Einstein complex coordinates (Pythagoras complex triangles or Fu Xi's gua or Fibonacci numbers!) onto the 2D Minkowski Null geodesic and then instantaneously into the 3D in Lm, our Multiverse timeline to allows Existence to move around 360 degree and its arrows of time as you described below. As you also agree below, no information is ever deleted. See my essay Child of Qbit in time. I will rate your essay superb and hope you can do the same. Now my ranking is under the water. Hope you can help, if and only if, you think my essay should be ranked higher. KQID is the only theory out there that can calculate the dark energy of our Multiverse ≤10^-153Pm/Pv and the minimum bits as the lower bound ≥ 10^153 bits in our Multiverse. KQID is the only theory that I knows here that proves bit = it, and KQID calculates Sun lights into Sun bits; calculates electron, proton and neutron in terms of bits; set up equivalent principle of bits with energy and matter. Therefore, Wheeler's it from bit and bit from it. Correct me if I am wrong. Furthermore, KQID is the only theory in this universe has the mechanism on how Holographic Principle works. Also answer the mother of all questions, the why, how and what Existence. As you said in my blog the essay contains too much information. Thanks for visiting my blog and invited me to comment on your original and creative piece of work. I am envious of your high ranking and you deserve it and I shall raise it even higher. I hope you can help to raise mine if only you like my essay.
Pythagoras famously summarized: "All things are numbers." KQID rephrase it that all thing are one Qbit: Qbit is all things and all things are Qbit. Thus, Wheeler's it from bit and bit from it because bit = it.
You explained:
"Fibonacci numbers occur in mathematics as the sums of shallow diagonals in Pascal’s triangle, they can be found in different ways in the sequence of binary strings, and are related to the Golden ratio. Every second Fibonacci number is the largest number in a Pythagorean triple.
can be written as a sum of Fibonacci numbers. Fibonacci sequences appear in biological settings, in two consecutive Fibonacci numbers, such as branching in trees [1], arrangement of leaves on a stem, the fruitlets of a pineapple [2], the flowering of artichoke, an uncurling fern and the arrangement of a pine..."
Yes, I agree. "Table 1. “Decay” from VFn to VFn-1 + VFn-2 produces an increase of 1 suggesting an arrow of time."
Yes, similarly, this is KQID First Law: "But the sequence 10, 1 reproduces 1, so that information is never destroyed."
Thanks for your comment in my thread and brilliant and original contribution.
Best wishes,
Leo KoGuan
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 11:40 GMT
Dear KoGuan,
Thanks for the very kind comments. Lots of great points to consider here. It does seem we have common ground. I'll take another look in the context you've set out.
Thanks for the fantastic comments.
Best wishes,
Antony
All,
Please take a look at KoGuan's very interesting and relevant paper- It from Bit or Bit from It?.
view entire post
Dear KoGuan,
Thanks for the very kind comments. Lots of great points to consider here. It does seem we have common ground. I'll take another look in the context you've set out.
Thanks for the fantastic comments.
Best wishes,
Antony
All,
Please take a look at KoGuan's very interesting and relevant paper-
It from Bit or Bit from It?.
view post as summary
Michael Alexeevich Popov wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 13:23 GMT
Dear Antony,
Thank You. Let us imagine a continuation of your n-dimensionality logical game. If rational n-dimensionality ( n = -1,0,1,2,3 and we assume that n is rational number ) is accepted ( i.e. there is a mathematical proof ) we can go further and we may admit a new kind of possible dimensionality, expressed by the square root - 1 and complex numbers ( why not ? Einstein and Hawking use the square root - 1 as an imaginary time / complex time variable u in physics ).Hence, new unexpected physical generalizations are deduced.
Best
Michael
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 13:48 GMT
Dear Michael,
I agree that we can indeed use square roots to explore concepts such as this further. I think these could actually apply in experimental results at colliders. Great idea!
Best wishes,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 14:38 GMT
Michael,
I've found similar personally too.
We can see this as a reflection of the baryon asymmetry of the Universe, though I've derived a more precise geometry that gives this result. Also this gives exact entangled spin results that are non-linear, but cosine related matching those found experimentally.
Also this type of thinking can relate the masses of the proton, electron and neutron to 99.999988% of prediction.
Kind regards,
Antony
Member Olaf Dreyer wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 18:42 GMT
Dear Antony:
I must say that you have lost me. You start from the point that the Fibonacci series begins with zero and one which are the two states of a classical bit. Fine. But what could possibly follow from that? I really do not get what you are saying.
Cheers
Olaf
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 20:03 GMT
Dear Olaf,
Yes 0 and 1 is the start, and in this case the zero applies to the singularity, as being 0-dimensional. Ten 1 apples to 1-dimensional space. That is the fundamental part. We can't be more fundamental than if talking about a singularity and zero dimensions. That's the bottom up part.
Then I looked from the top down from 3-dimensional space and imagined what happens to any...
view entire post
Dear Olaf,
Yes 0 and 1 is the start, and in this case the zero applies to the singularity, as being 0-dimensional. Ten 1 apples to 1-dimensional space. That is the fundamental part. We can't be more fundamental than if talking about a singularity and zero dimensions. That's the bottom up part.
Then I looked from the top down from 3-dimensional space and imagined what happens to any given point in space time. Please not I'm dealing here with spatial dimensions not time.
As it says in the essay itself, I was envisaging what a point in 3D space does. It observes information and releases information too. All across full 3-dimensions. Tis is empirically known.
Then at or the event horizon a point might observe information outwards from the BH but not below it.
Likewise it can't release information outwards.
So there is a 2-dimensional area that information is both received and revealed.
Then once inside the BH there are two distinct pathways - one where information can only be revealed, the other only received and these are both 1-dimensional.
Then the singularity 0-dimensional, where not information can do anything.
So we have 0, 1, 1, 2, 3.
Te rest is in the essay including the negative part of the sequence.
Hope this clears up things?
Best wishes,
Antony
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 20:18 GMT
Dear Olaf,
CORRECTED TYPOS BELOW
Yes 0 and 1 is the start, and in this case the zero applies to the singularity, as being 0-dimensional. Then 1 apples to 1-dimensional space. That is the fundamental part. We can't be more fundamental than if talking about a singularity and zero dimensions. That's the bottom up part.
Then I looked from the top down from 3-dimensional space and imagined what happens to any given point in space time. Please note - I'm dealing here with spatial dimensions not time.
As it says in the essay itself, I then went on to envisage what a point in 3D space does. It observes information and releases information too. All across full 3-dimensions. This is empirically known.
Then at or the event horizon a point might observe information outwards from the BH but not below it.
Likewise it can't release information outwards.
So there is a 2-dimensional area that information is both received and revealed.
Then once inside the BH there are two distinct pathways - one where information can only be revealed, the other only received and these are both 1-dimensional.
Then the singularity 0-dimensional, where not information can do anything.
So we have 0, 1, 1, 2, 3.
Te rest is in the essay including the negative part of the sequence.
Hope this clears up things?
Best wishes,
Antony
report post as inappropriate
William C. McHarris wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 18:43 GMT
Dear Antony,
Congratulations on a clever, novel approach and for an intriguing essay. My one worry is that, although you have a clever mathematical construct, is it really applicable to back holes. There are many more mathematical constructs than physical situations to be explained, and it is not easy to decide which are weeds. On the other hand, it was just such clever playing around with group theory that led to, say, prediction of particle multiplets and an empty hole awaiting the omega-minus particle. The proof of the pudding would be if you were able to make a prediction with this sort of sequencing.
Cheers,
Bill
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 20:12 GMT
Dear Bill,
Thanks for the kind comments. I thought your essay was very good and rated it highly. Nice work!
It ought to indeed be extremely applicable to black holes, as said in the essay, but clarified for Olaf above.
I'm fact this essay theory only came about as an aside for my main area of work, which has partly unified the four forces and resolved the three paradoxes of cosmogony.
It's a geometry based also on simplexes which gives natural asymmetry answering Baryon asymmetry and related the masses of several groups of particles very, very well versus prediction.
For example the electron, proton and neutron to 99.999988% of theory! Further this figure improves with newer results from collider data!
The theory also could be tested in a computer simulation to give dark matter effects and essentially with very few parameters should simulate out Universe.
I hope that helps as it really isn't guess work. Save for I haven't fallen into a Black Hole to check, but it also hints at Hawking radiation, as mentioned in the essay.
We even already expect that pathways verse away from 3-dimensions towards narrower 1-dimensionality.
Please let me know if you'd like to hear more.
Best wishes,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 21:07 GMT
Again typos - was rushing out:
In fact this essay theory only came about as an aside for my main area of work, which has partly unified the four forces and resolved the three paradoxes of cosmogony.
AND
We even already expect that pathways merge away from 3-dimensions towards narrower 1-dimensionality.
Antony
KoGuan Leo replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT
Dear Antony,
Yes, I would like to learn more of your theory. Please give me the link. Again fantastic work! I am happy to enter this contest, I am learning so many wonderful discoveries just from our 3 pounds brain and conversing with these great 3 pounders minds.
Best wishes,
Leo KoGuan
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 07:57 GMT
Dear KoGuan,
I've taken it off viXra as I had some amendments to make, but I could mail something to you. It's quite rough but the basic concept is right.
Thanks for the interest!
Best wishes,
Antony
hide replies
Brian L Ji wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 21:56 GMT
Antony,
I have read and rated your essay with great interests. Linking Fibonacci’s bit with black hole information dynamics is a great idea.
Have you seen this recent paper about Graphene titled "Black Hole in a Pencil", http://news.sciencemag.org/2006/08/black-hole-pencil ? Perhaps some experiments can be proposed.
Brian
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 08:01 GMT
Hello Brian,
Thanks very much for reading and rating. I think I've heard something similar about Graphene so I'll take a look.
The geometry of my theories even fits and the a symmetric tetrahedral type structure suggests a nascent Black Hole mechanism within Neutron Stars!
Thanks & best wishes,
Antony
Michael Alexeevich Popov wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 11:16 GMT
Dear Antony,
Somebody took your 2 comments ( + 1 my answer ) from my blog. Copy of my lost hacked comment you can find in my blog from 3 aug 2013.
Michael
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 19:26 GMT
Dear Michael,
I noticed the ratings and comment info disappeared yesterday and today when it returned the comments were gone! i hope they manage to fix this. See my comment below from Aug. 3, 2013 @ 19:18 GMT
Annoying isn't it! :(
Thanks I'll repost your comments here too!
Best wishes,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 19:27 GMT
Michael's post from his blog:
Dear Antony,
Thank you for high rank. Let me imagine a continuation of your n-dimensionality logical game. If rational n-dimensionality ( n = -1,0,1,2,3 and we assume that n is rational number ) is accepted ( i.e. there is a mathematical proof ) we can go further and we may admit a new kind of possible dimensionality, expressed by the square root -1 and complex numbers ( why not ? Einstein and Hawking use the square root - 1 as an imaginary time / complex time variable u in physics ).Hence, new unexpected physical generalizations are deduced.
( copy of my comment for Antony Ryan by 1 Aug 2013 )
eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 13:23 GMT
Thank you Antony,
Your essay is very pertinent and relevant.
Bits of Wheeler are eDuality that we observe in everything.
I am writing a book about eDuality that explains all things, even our reasoning.
You said :
« By definition, the first two numbers in the Fibonacci sequence are 0 and 1, and each subsequent number is the sum of the previous two....
view entire post
Thank you Antony,
Your essay is very pertinent and relevant.
Bits of Wheeler are eDuality that we observe in everything.
I am writing a book about eDuality that explains all things, even our reasoning.
You said :
« By definition, the first two numbers in the Fibonacci sequence are 0 and 1, and each subsequent number is the sum of the previous two. »
and
« Both the Fibonacci sequence and Wheeler’s foundational question rely upon 0 and 1. »
I analysed Fibonnacci serie before and find the number « two », and eDuality is at the basis of it, sits at the core of this eReality.
You are in the right way, continue to developpe the idea of Fibonacci sequence in relation with eDuality.
Two, couples, pairs, opposites, ... are the bits « 0 » and « 1 » of our eReality.
The two dimensionalities are everywhere.
eDuality provides the basis upon which all the Universe is built.
From the First and Primary Principle (eDuality) we can say significantly : Thing never, absolutely never existed without its opposite.
eReality is a virtuality, and virtuality is our eReality.
For me : John Wheeler's dream is eReality.
« It » from « bit », or « bit » from « It », « It » is a « bit », and « bit » is « It », all have emerged from the same fundamental eReality.
I also rated highly your essay.
Please visit
My essay.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 19:30 GMT
Thank you Amazigh,
I agree that nothing can exist without its true opposite. In fact my theory away from the contest has baryon asymmetry occur for such that there is NO missing antimatter and suggests that the true opposite exists as part of every particle.
Thanks for your comments and your super essay!
Best wishes,
Antony
Note: - message below wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 19:18 GMT
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 19:18 GMT
All,
I've lost a lot of comments and replies on my thread and many other threads I have commented on over the last few days. This has been a lot of work and I feel like it has been a waste of time and energy. Seems to have happened to others - if not all.
I WILL ATTEMPT to revisit all threads to check and re-post something.
Please can this be retrieved?
Best wishes,
Antony
Manuel S Morales wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 05:05 GMT
Hi Antony,
My apology for not leaving a message behind when I reviewed and rated your essay highly on July 2. That was a hurried day for me to say the least. I am glad to see that my support of your essay, among many, helped you out in obtaining your much deserved rating.
I believe it was your statement, "Hence, it seems decay onward to 5-dimensions isn’t favoured either symmetrically or asymmetrically, giving 3-dimensionality a limit in our reality and in information exchange." that resonated with me the most.
Best wishes and good luck,
Manuel
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 05:35 GMT
Hi Manuel,
Thanks very much and I'm pleased to see you are so near the top! Well deserved too.
That's a good point you raise. The Fibonacci sequence here seems to match an empirically spatial 3-dimensional Universe. Glad you emphasised this, as it is one of many strong physical points to come out of this theory. So many can only see it from an abstract point of view, but there are indeed real and observable hints this is a way (not the only way) reality works.
Also the scheme ought to be testable via computer simulation. With very few extra pieces of data - i.e. my symmetrical symmetry breaking system.
Best wishes for the remainder of the contest - your comments are much appreciated,
Antony
Branko L Zivlak wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 06:19 GMT
Hi Antony,
Our entire communication is on my essay web page. It is not right to send you publicly speculative Koida upgrades. So, send your email.
Regards,
Branko
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 13:17 GMT
Hi Branko,
No problem. antryanet@outlook.com
Best wishes,
Antony
Kai Olaf Henkel wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 13:20 GMT
Dear Anthony,
realy nice article. I agree with you about the digital construction of the universe in "0" and "1" bit, but I see no reason why the dimensions are limited to 3 or better 4 Dimension (including time)in our universe.
Good lick for the contest.
Dear Kai Henkel
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 17:24 GMT
Dear Kai,
Thanks for your comments. There are many good reasons why the universe is limited to 3 spatial dimensions. I acknowledge 4 dimensional space time. This essay deals with geometry hence only the spatial nature NOT time.
That why 4 doesn't appear spatially and hence ties in with the Fibonacci sequence!
The entropy system on my scheme shows why there should be a limit of 3-dimensions, as mentioned in the essay.
Also, my essay utilises the exchange of information - we don't exchange it along more than 3-dimensional geometry.
Also there are many great reasons generally in physics why 3 spatial dimensions ought to be the limit.
Further, our empirical evidence constantly shows us 3-dimensions of space. There is mathematical evidence why 3 spatial or 4 space time dimensions may be a limit around proofs of kissing numbers too.
Best wishes,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 13:48 GMT
All,
A few people have mentioned that they doubt Black Hole's or singularities existence. Please see below either way:
Indeed we can utilise the Fibonacci sequence away from a black Holes too. Further, the essay hints that singularities perhaps may be avoided and are rather a mathematical trick. However, the jury is out on this. I'd say they do exist, but my essay says information ought to bypass the singularity - so who am I to argue!
My main theory away from the esaay revealed the Fiboancci sequence and 3-dimensional space as what we ought to observe in our universe, (with an extra dimension of time). See the section about the arrow of time and entropy.
The main theory partly unified the four forces and resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony, with prediction which relates the masses of the Proton, Neutron and Electron to within 99.999988% of the known values. Further, this has improved over the last few years with EVERY new data that comes from mass measurements! A modified Koide formula was used based on my symmetrical symmetry breaking geometry.
There are other more important points in my essay than the black hole, but the mathematical concept of a singularity is used to show why this is a foundational concept in that it is tackling Quantum Gravity type theory.
Best wishes,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 13:52 GMT
*** BLACK HOLE DEBATE - Please see comment above ***
Some great points and discussion coming out of this contest!
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 15:10 GMT
Some great questions from Thomas Howard Ray when he replied on Aug. 2, 2013
I've replied to these, as they are very important points I wanted to reinforce.
The arrow of time, entropy and Hawking radiation all arise in my essay, in a very clear, concise and simple way.
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 15:36 GMT
All,
Some have suggested that there ought to be prediction in my essay. Well here's some evidence of this.
These three masses arise from my main theory:
me = 0.510998928 MeV/c2, mp = 625.514697333333 MeV/c2, mn = 298.203666130845 MeV/c2
When put into th Koide Formula we get 1/2 , which is predicted rather than 2/3. To 0.49999994
Please note that these are three very different numbers, not two massive very close numbers and one tiny. Try it with the normal masses of the proton, neutron and electron!
The above numbers are adjusted masses based on Pi and simplex geometry. They relate the Electron, Proton and Neutron masses.
This is all from my main theory which has now shown in my essay what can happen to information when it falls into a Black Hole.
Kyle Miller wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 17:55 GMT
I still am having trouble fully understanding your analysis of what happens beyond the event horizon, however, I would like to reiterate that I find your essay and your ideas to be very original and that I pretty much like anything that has to do with the Fibonacci sequence--your essay included.
- Kyle Miller
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 18:29 GMT
Hello again Kyle,
If you imagine converging pathways, then we can see they tend towards spaghettification. They hence tend towards 1-dimensionality. The sequence it seems confirms this, as you rightly suggest that we can't check. Also it then seems to confirm Hawking radiation, and the entropy analysis suggests an arrow of time!
Thanks for the kind words too.
Best wishes,
Antony
Yutaka Shikano wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 21:05 GMT
Hi Antony,
Seemingly, it is interesting. However, I hope that you will construct theories of black hole and Hawking radiation from the Fibonacci-number based algebra. Is it possible?
Best wishes,
Yutaka
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 21:17 GMT
Hi Yutaka,
Most definitely! Algebra forms a large part of the main theory which resulted in this essay. My unification uses matrices to describe electromagnetism. Nice to see you climb the rankings!
Best wishes,
Antony
Margriet Anne O'Regan wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 11:10 GMT
Hi Antony from Margriet O'Regan
I use 'triangulations' in a very different way - see my reply to your & Stephen's 'thread' !! in my essay slot.
A distinction I didn't make clear enough in my essay is as follows :-
My own investigations have led me to conclude that ‘information’ is NOT digits – no kind nor amount of them (including any that can be extracted from...
view entire post
Hi Antony from Margriet O'Regan
I use 'triangulations' in a very different way - see my reply to your & Stephen's 'thread' !! in my essay slot.
A distinction I didn't make clear enough in my essay is as follows :-
My own investigations have led me to conclude that ‘information’ is NOT digits – no kind nor amount of them (including any that can be extracted from quantum phenomena!), nor how algorithmically-well they may be massaged & shunted through any device that uses them.
Unequivocally they – digits – make for wonderful COUNTING & CALCULATING assistants, witness our own now many & various, most excellent, counting, calculating devices BUT according to my investigations real thinking is an entirely different phenomenon from mere counting, calculating & computing.
For which phenomenon – real thinking – real information is required.
My own investigations led me to discover what I have come to believe real information is & as it so transpires it turns out to be an especially innocuous – not to omit almost entirely overlooked & massively understudied – phenomenon, none other than the sum total of geometrical objects otherwise quite really & quite properly present here in our universe. Not digits.
One grade (the secondary one) of geometrical-cum-informational objects lavishly present here in our cosmos, is comprised of all the countless trillions & trillions of left-over bump-marks still remaining on all previously impacted solid objects here in our universe – that is to say, all of the left-over dents, scratches, scars, vibrations & residues (just the shapes of residues – not their content!) (really) existing here in the universe.
Examples of some real geometrical objects of this secondary class in their native state are all of the craters on the Moon. Note that these craters are – in & of themselves – just shapes – just geometrical objects. And the reason they are, also one & at the same time, informational objects too, can be seen by the fact that each ‘tells a story’ – each advertises (literally) some items of information on its back – each relates a tale of not only what created it but when, where & how fast & from what angle the impacting object descended onto the Moon’s surface. Again, each literally carries some information on its back.
(Note : Not a digit in sight !!)
How we actually think – rather than just count, calculate & compute – with these strictly non-digital entities, specifically these geometrical-cum-informational objects, in precisely the way we do, please see my essay.
I did not make the distinction between computing with digits & real thinking with real information, sufficiently strongly in my essay.
This contest is such a wonderful ‘sharing’ – Wow – & open to amateurs like myself – Wow. How great is that !!! Thank you Foundational Questions Institute !!! What a great pleasure it has been to participate. What a joy to read, share & discuss with other entrants !!!
Margriet O’Regan
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 11:26 GMT
Hi Antony,
I found yours to be an interesting essay about numbers, their relationships and properties. You suggest a connection between Fibonacci sequence seed values and Wheeler's 0 and 1; you discuss Fibonacci numbers found in nature (in the structure of plants and bees) suggesting that these numbers and their relationships are a type of information known to nature at some level; and you suggest that Fibonacci numbers are a type of numeric information that relates to the properties of black holes and the reasons for a spatially 3 dimensional universe.
You may recall that in my essay I developed a bit of a case that numbers are things that really exist; they are what I would call hidden information category self-relationships (not that anybody has commented on this assertion either positively or negatively). So I'm interested in asking other people about numbers: I wonder how you see the nature of numbers including Fibonacci numbers i.e. in what sense do you think they exist in relation to physical reality? (I hasten to add that this is not a quiz question that will be marked!!)
I am giving you a good rating. Best of luck in the contest,
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 17:14 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
Thanks very much for your kind comments and rating. I'm also relieved that I won't be marked on the answer to your question as I don't think my nerves can take another contest ;o)
I think you are dead right that hidden information exists. I explain spooky action at a distance as hidden fixed constants, a play against hidden variables.
My geometries explain the cosine non-linear relation between entangled particles in spin Alice/Bob type experiments exactly!
As mentioned to Margriet - I think at least in the case of Fibonacci numbers, that they represent real geometry in the form of simplexes.
From this I get symmetry breaking from complete nothingness, that also conserves the nothingness. In short it solves Baryon Asymmetry.
I think this should apply to all numbers and that they apply to dimensionality and simplexes are the most fundamental geometry in n-dimensions.
Great question!
Best wishes for the contest!
Antony
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 00:08 GMT
Hi Antony,
Congratulations for doing so well in the contest!
Thanks for replying to me about numbers. Are you saying that numbers derive from or even ARE geometry, which in turn comes out of nothing because of symmetry? Does this mean that you have a platonic view?
Cheers,
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 10, 2013 @ 10:58 GMT
Hello Lorraine,
Many thanks. It was touch and go, as there seemed to be plenty of low votes late on. But I expected the rough with the smooth so to speak. There is talk of collusion to group vote, which is a shame. I'm furious that somebody else thought I was part of one such group. I think there is an element of human nature that if you're nice about somebody, they may be inclined to be nice to you, but that's just how some people lead their lives.
Anyway getting back to science ;)
I'm suggesting that numbers correspond to information exchange in different dimensionalities with regard to the Fibonacci sequence in the first instance.
But I then explored the concept further, so that the simplest geometries in n-dimensionality are the simplexes, which of course are self-dual Platonics in their respective n-dimension.
So I proposed that the information content at n-dimensionality in its simplest form is the simplex, going on to use this to represent entropy, where we get the interesting results in the table as we drop downwards along the sequence.
The coming out of nothingness is because the 0-simplex is an infinitesimally small point, which the sequence passes through. However, I have other research which similarly suggests equivalency between 0-simplex and higher simplexes - they all conserve the central point for instance.
So the Fibonacci numbers I'd say are linked to geometry. However, curiously as shown in the table the +1 pattern remains only up to 3 spatial dimensions.
I could go on for hours about my symmetry breaking system that considers 3-dimensions a limit. I'll just summarise here that we condsider the 1 and 2-simplexes in 3-dimensional space and Electromagnetism, Mass, Weak interaction and Residual Strong are all shown. Further, a mass relationship between the Proton, Neutron and Electron to 99.999988% of prediction is obtained.
Great questions!
Cheers,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 17:03 GMT
Dear Margriet,
I agree the contest is fantastic for sharing ideas! I like your explanation. It fits with my essay in that the numbers in the Fibonacci sequence represent geometry, in this case the simplexes, being the simplest form of the n-dimensionality.
Best wishes,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 10:47 GMT
Dear All,
I'd just like to thank you for reading and commenting on my essay! I find it an honour that you have considered my reasoning. I've thoroughly enjoyed reading ALL the other essays!
Best wishes to you all for you future's.
Antony
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 10:49 GMT
I'd just like to sum up my essay with one of my favourite comments above:
"A thought-provoking take on the subject and an intriguing exploration of Pythagorean link between numbers and nature. In an accessible manner which can be convincing and comprehensible even to a layperson, the author successfully presents in few logical steps an attempt to combine the Fibonacci sequence with the questions of reality and its underpinning - information. What seems to be especially appealing is the intellectual effort to prove the possibility of deriving functions inherent to the fabric of realty from binary choices. In this concise essay the author skillfully manages to interweave the great questions of modern-day science such as the theory that information is fundamental to the physics of the universe, Hawking Radiation, entropy and quantum fluctuations. Fine base for further research that might possibly turn out to be an important jigsaw puzzle piece in tackling the problems of fundamental parameters, black hole information paradox and holographic principle".
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 18:28 GMT
Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 18:54 GMT
Dear Antony,
I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.
I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.
You can find the latest version of my essay 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).
May the best essays win!
Kind regards,
Paul Borrill
paul at borrill dot com
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 19:02 GMT
Dear Paul,
There is a link page http://fqxi.org/popups/forum/links.
I've read and commented on yours and the other 180. 182 in total. I can't believe there were so many great essays!
Really enjoyed it.
Best wishes,
Antony
Daryl Janzen wrote on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 11:30 GMT
Dear Antony,
Sorry about my Thumper's dad's response to your essay. In some respects I did like it; but when it comes to black holes I've got so many personal issues that I just couldn't see how to respond without feeling like I was on a psychiatrist's couch. With that said, if you are interested to hear all I have to say on the matter, please feel free to email me at the address on my essay.
All the best,
Daryl
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 22:00 GMT
Dear Daryl,
No problem. I had to Google that term, but i can't find a Thumper's Dad response ;)
I will email you at some point soon, as I'd like to hear different points of view on this. It doesn't just have to apply to Black Holes though!
Best wishes,
Antony
Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 02:00 GMT
Right, obviously that was way too cryptic. Why the heck would you have Bambi on the brain at a time like this.
Thumper: He's kinda wobbly, isn't he?
Thumper's mom: Thumper, what did your father tell you this morning...?
Anyway, I meant to say that it's not even like I couldn't say something nice, but whenever I sat down to say something I inevitably ended up going on to say something like "but I find the whole black hole concept so utterly inconsistent..." and launching into something that I just don't think would have been appropriate to get into here.
With that said, my opinion is obviously very unpopular, and will have no bearing on the judging of your essay in the final round. I wish you the best of luck. And please do keep in touch.
All the best, Daryl
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 09:56 GMT
Hello Daryl or should I say Thumper's pal - ha ha.
Firstly congratulations on making the finals!
I think it is good to examine reality from an objective point of view. So any view should not be considered unpopular. That's what I do in my research, I think why something shouldn't work and only if it overcomes those obstacles do I continue.
Tha essay is about more than just Black Holes, in fact in some respects it suggests that singularities might exist mathematically, but information doesn't remain within Black Holes. Also the essay came about from a broader theory about simplex type geometry resolving Baryon Asymmetry and producing an arrow of time.
Best wishes,
Antony
Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 16:26 GMT
Dear Antony,
Thanks for the reply. I realised that while I mentioned that I could say something nice about your essay, I didn't say what that was. I found your idea both neat and intriguing. I personally think both mathematically and physically, anything beyond a black hole's event horizon is a dead end, because I think the solution simply doesn't exist there--i.e., I don't think r goes from being "space-like" to "time-like", but from being "space-like" to invalid at the coordinate singularity--but as I said, that's not an opinion that anyone else shares, so don't lose any sleep over it.
So, while I could honestly have just posted that I find your idea neat and intriguing, I didn't do that because I thought it would have looked superficial, like I didn't really bother to read through your essay. Since I'd have had a difficult time showing an appreciation for the details of your essay, due to my own personal issues, I just didn't post, because I feared that a brief comment like that would have appeared dishonest, and I like to avoid that.
Finally, I thought I'd add a point that you may like to ponder, since you read and liked my essay: if time objectively passes in the way that I've described, as opposed to not passing at all (in the case of a real block universe), then the usual justification for the collapse scenario is invalid, because it takes reality to be synchronous in general reference frames.
Cheers,
Daryl
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 11, 2013 @ 17:19 GMT
Hello Daryl,
I've just seen your reply - sorry. I'll ponder the question and re-read your essay in that context, then get back to you on your
thread. As I said above, it's a great approach to consider time's role in reality!
Regards,
Antony
hide replies
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 00:16 GMT
Congratulations Antony.
Good luck in the finals!
Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 09:48 GMT
Many thanks Jonathan and congratulations to you too!
Best of luck to you too in the finals! I'm really looking forward to the judges questions!
Kind regards,
Antony
Lorraine Ford wrote on Aug. 12, 2013 @ 00:34 GMT
Hi Antony,
Thanks for getting back to me about numbers. I am still trying to digest your concept of a number i.e. in what sense it really exists, and how physical reality might apprehend particular numbers as opposed to all other numbers that exist. Also how would you characterize the numbers that we obtain from measurement of fundamental reality e.g. mass or momentum or relative position?
Cheers,
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Author Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 19, 2013 @ 15:44 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
Sorry for late reply!
Great way to think about this! In this respect I'd suggest physical reality apprehends numbers as dimensions. So a singularity is zero with regard to spatial dimensionality. 1-dimension could exist as equivalent if we look at simplexes as fundamental geometry.
The two vertices of a line segment are equidistant to their average position - a point - 0-dimensional simplex. So creating 1-dimension from 0-D conserves 0-D point.
We can indeed then do this equivalency for any n-dimension simplex. However, starting at 0 and moving to the next dimension 1 allows us to then follow Fibonacci.
As you rightly say - why this rather than all numbers?
To answer this I'd point to the negative part of the sequence. The -1, 1, 0. Without this we would be saying that 0D can fluctuate to higher dimensions, but always must fluctuate back down to nothingness again.
If 0D however fluctuates of "decays" to -1 +1 we have two 1-dimensionalities. One positive and one negative (whatever that means).
I'd suggest this is the real approach to solving Baryon Asymmetry.
With -1 AND +1 existing, we could of cause have a type of annihilation. BUT a further "decay" of each dimensionality would do this:
-1 -> -3 +2 AND (+1 -> 0 +1 then +1 -> +2 -1)
Giving us -3, 2, AND 2, -1.
We'd have an asymmetry with two distinct spaces. One made of -3+2 dimensionality and another of +2-1 dimensionality.
I.e. one overall -1 the other overall +1. But geometrically unable to annihilate.
Not getting sidetracked from your question, but this highlights why the sequence might be foundational and special.
The other point re- numbers obtained from measurement. I'd say they are cumulative just as we know them.
For example, the geometries arising from my theory are quantised yet real numbers, as angles such as the dihedral angle of the tetrahedron and Pi apply.
Best wishes,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 30, 2013 @ 09:36 GMT
DEAR READER,
I have a prediction based on the essay's simplex geometry. A ratio 0.996822341 ought to be seen somewhere in nature. I'm also working on a test to rediscover this exact figure with regard to Baryons.
This figure has already been used to relate the Electron, Proton and Neutron masses to 99.999988% of expected. It is easily derived from simplex geometry and Pi.
Best wishes,
Antony
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 01:40 GMT
Shame the conversations have stopped. Enjoyable process. If there are any further questions on my essay, please do post and I'll try to get back to you as soon as possible!
Best wishes,
Antony
Hon Jia Koh replied on Dec. 29, 2013 @ 03:13 GMT
Hi Antony,
In case you are interested, just posted an update in my
thread or go
hereCheers,
Hon Jia
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.