Search FQXi

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

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Edwin Klingman: on 8/7/13 at 20:44pm UTC, wrote Dear Branko, Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay. I have...

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 18:57pm UTC, wrote Dear Branko, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

Michel Planat: on 8/7/13 at 15:49pm UTC, wrote Thank you Branko. Let's keep in touch. Have good holidays. Michel

Branko Zivlak: on 8/7/13 at 7:18am UTC, wrote Hi Michel Thank you, I especially thank you for your comments. Let's be...

Michel Planat: on 8/6/13 at 22:18pm UTC, wrote Dear Branko, I just gave you a high rate for your excellent work. Best...

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 8/5/13 at 22:30pm UTC, wrote Dear Branko, We are at the end of this essay contest. In conclusion, at...

Antony Ryan: on 8/5/13 at 15:31pm UTC, wrote Hi Branko, These three masses arise from my theory: me = 0.510998928...

Branko Zivlak: on 8/5/13 at 8:40am UTC, wrote Dear Daniel, In my article I have some intriguing views and formulas. I...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Zeeya Merali: "Viviana Fafone is a member of the VIRGO collaboration that detects..." in Micro and macro-physics...

Zeeya Merali: "Antonino Cataldo describes the how to synthesize bio-nanotechnologies to..." in Bionanotechnologies and...

Zeeya Merali: "What is the scientific approach? Matteo Martini talks about the..." in The 21st Century News...

Zeeya Merali: "in this introductory lecture, Frederick Van Der Veken discusses physics at..." in Big Machines, High...

Zeeya Merali: "FQXi's Catalina Curceanu discusses how particle physics experiments at the..." in Strangeness in Neutron...

Zeeya Merali: "Leader of the NEXT group, Stefano Bellucci, discusses applications of..." in Nanomaterials for...

Zeeya Merali: "FQXi's Lorenzo Maccone delves into the one of the deepest question in..." in What is Time? by Lorenzo...

Fabio SCIARRINO: "An introductory lecture on how developments in quantum physics over the..." in The Second Quantum...

RECENT ARTICLES

Building Agency in the Biology Lab
Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

Think Quantum to Build Better AI
Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.

Outside the Box
A proposed quantum set-up that could predict your game-playing strategy resurrects Newcomb’s classic quiz show paradox.

The Quantum Agent
Investigating how the quantum measurement process might be related to the emergence of intelligence, agency and free will.

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

FQXi FORUM
June 4, 2020

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Bit, Cycle, Dimensionless, It by Branko L Zivlak [refresh]

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 14:25 GMT
Essay Abstract

Using mathematical constants and physical constants (inverse of the fine-structure constant and the proton/electron mass ratio), postulates and methods, relations among other physical constants are obtained. It is crucial to accept the important role of cyclicity in the Universe. The cyclicity and the bit lead to reality, which is presented by the relations between physical constants. Specifically, the article provides the author’s original relation between the mass of proton, neutron and electron.

Author Bio

Zivlak Branko is a meteorologist with 35 years of experience in applied meteorology, climatology, computer science and ecology, continuously devoted to the accuracy of meteorological data. He represented his country at the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (IPCC) and the “Global Climate Observing System” (GCOS). In the recent years, he became interested in the issues related to the functioning of the Universe.

Angel Garcés Doz wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 19:45 GMT
Very , very interesting your equation (2)

report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 06:17 GMT
Dear Branko,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and essay, What evidences are seen for a cyclic universe . . . .?

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 08:27 GMT
Thank you Angel

Instead of the word "equation" I intentionally use the "relation" because of the way I came up to it. I also think that the determination of the relation between the fundamental physical constants easiest way to realize whole.

Regards

Ziki

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 08:30 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu

I do not believe that you're doing against the mainstream. The mainstream are Boskovic-,Newton, Planck, Einstein ... I believe it's you against the current fashion. I decided that the fashion I do not even to talk. Your question.

What evidences are seen for a cyclic universe. . . .?

I believe you're familiar with Hindu mythology. One evidence is there.

Other mythologies mentioned in my work, but also not mentioned.

The results obtained in the example in Table 1 of my work.

I think this attitude and rational.

Fundamental mathematical constants, if you understand their essence.

Newton's gravitational formula, Kepler's laws, many others confirm cyclicity and easily obtained from the same source as the relation (2) in my work.

I do not need to kill the opposing views of cyclicity. Many have done it better than I could have imagined. Your work is also worthy of attention, so I'll comment when I solve problems with translation.

Regards

Ziki

Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 17:09 GMT
Hi Branko,

I'm very, very interested in your electron, proton and neutron mass relation. I've utilised geometry in the past combined with the Koide formula to relate the three masses to 1/2 to 0.49999994.

Please take a look at my essay in the context of the contest, but if you'd be interested in my mass relation please let me know and I'll provide a link.

Nice essay by the way!

Best wishes,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 22:07 GMT
Hi Antony,

I have no solution for the mass ratio of charged leptons. I can send you a improved version of Koida formula to 3 orders of magnitude. But even then it remains speculative, unexplained and not precise. My relation between the electron proton and neutron fit rationally in hundreds of other relations that are not shown in the essay. Because this relationship has all the significant digits are correct.Or rather: because the base of relation bit, it has all the significant digits are correct.

Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 20:35 GMT
Excellent - I'd like to read that!

report post as inappropriate

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 22:28 GMT
.....Yes I would appreciate if you send me a link to your version of relationships of masses.Best wishes to you Antony.

Branko

Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 00:10 GMT
Hi Branko,

I've taken it off viXra as there were some modifications to make, but I'll be able to send you emails with spreadsheets that give the relation.

Best wishes,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 05:54 GMT
Dear Branko

Grading method (compared to my goal ) = 5 criteria with 2 points each : The idea actually,Similar views,Measures consistent,Conclusions detail,Applying diversity.

Only regret is i am not qualified to verify the equations and formulas of you.

report post as inappropriate
Author Branko L Zivlak replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 17:22 GMT
Dear Hoang cao Hai,

Thank you for coment

Branko

Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 15:27 GMT
Respectfully Mr. Zivlak,

Your introduction states: “The objective is to present the implementation of the concept of one unique dynamic Universe having the bit at its core. As I stated in my essay BITTERS, One real unique Universe is eternally occurring, once.

Unfortunately, you do not seem to know what the words one and unique mean. Unique, once is not an abstract concept for an abstract concept can be pluralized and because of this a concept cannot be unique. Unique, once cannot be dynamic for dynamic is a humanly contrived abstract evaluation. Unique, once cannot have a real identifiable core of any description. Unique, once is not “information.” Unique, once is not “cyclicity.” Unique, once is not “dimensionless quantities” and unique, once does not have a “quantum nature.”

You almost got the real Universe right, once.

report post as inappropriate

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 17:09 GMT
Respectfully Mr.Fisher,

English is not my mother tongue, but here I think you're focusing on my descriptions too much, while if you put your focus on my formulas, presuming that you genuinely understood physics, you would find my calculations sufficient and absolutely understand what I wanted to say.

Zivlak

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 05:13 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

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:07 GMT
Branko,

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

Richard N. Shand wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 03:03 GMT
Branko,

Thank you for reviewing my essay, "A Complex Conjugate Bit and It".

Your concept of the Cycle is very original. I agree with you that the parts and whole of the universe are interdependent.

Best wishes,

Richard

report post as inappropriate

Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 02:34 GMT
Hi Branko,

Thank you for your interesting formulas. I noticed what may be a couple of typos as I checked your calculations.

1. In your Equation (2) If we write the equation as:

ln gamma = x/ln(y)

where x and y are complicated expressions, it seems that the result you calculate is actually

x/y

rather than x/ln(y).

2. In your Equation (4) there appears to be a typo in the exponent of 2. Do you mean:

3. I will be looking at the formulas in your table later. Do you have a theory that provides a model for these formulas?

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 12:49 GMT
Dear Hugh,

I noticed an error in the formula (4). Then I said, it's good to be seen

will anyone carefully read the article? You are. And you saw the typo in (2) too.

Equation (2) can be written in different ways. Perhaps the following would be closer to the topic contest as used for the logarithm base 2 (Bit).

gama=2^{[cy/2+p/2+3*log(2pi,2)/2] / [1+137.035999074^2*log(mi,2)]}= 1.00137841920431

Theory (rather Methodology) exists.

The article listed some of the methods and postulates (on nine pages could not be more), which allowed obtaining the relation (2), and hundreds of other relations.

You say (where x and y are complicated expressions). What would you say then for tensor Lie algebra ...in other articles?

My methodology requires only the knowledge of the seven basic mathematical operations. Unfortunately, many scientists skipped seventh operation (guess which one), and use the extensive math, that few dedicated understand. Basically, my methodology is simple. Thus, the formula (2) is simple, especially if you shorten giving physical meaning of individual members. Part, can be seen in my articles on viXra.org.

Regards,

Branko

Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 06:22 GMT
Hi Branko,

I am happy to report that I did not find any typos in the formulas in the table. You wrote:

> You say (where x and y are complicated expressions). What would you say then for tensor Lie algebra ...in other articles?

I would say "very complicated expressions". :)

> Thus, the formula (2) is simple, especially if you shorten giving physical meaning of individual members.

I will take a look at your vixra papers for that.

It seems to me that all of the Planck formulas in the table follow from the definitions of the terms and the scaling factor that you use. BTW, I noticed that the scaling factor you use, i.e.

2^(-cy/4 - p/4) (2pi)^(-3/4) = 1.2512639e-61

can also be written as:

[8 pi^3 2^cy M_n]^(-1/4)

where M_n is the number of protons in the Universe (i.e. mass_universe / mass_proton). Perhaps that will give you additional insight.

I think that you might like Nassim Haramein's paper which includes a geometric derivation of the proton mass and of the gravitational coupling constant.

I wonder if there is a connection between your formulas and the hyperspherical structure that I discuss in my Software Cosmos essay.

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 16:18 GMT
Dear Branko,

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

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

report post as inappropriate
Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 18:12 GMT
Dear Branco,

You have written your essay in a clear and concise manner. You have given primary importance to It (matter) and combined with Bit gives us reality. Similar sort of conclusion is also reached by me in my essay. Your derivation of the mass of elementary particles is something amazing and innovative. Your conclusion “that parts are dependent on the whole (Universe) and are also an integral part of the whole, therefore, the whole is also dependent on the parts!” sums up the theme of the essay. I appreciate you for originality in your approach, especially, in treating the age of the universe in terms of cycles. Boscovich's theory of natural philosophy has not earned the recognition it ought to have earned due to lack of publicity.

Thanks for producing such a readable essay and I would like to rate it above 8 after you read my essay and post your comments on it in my thread. I, hope, you will give importance to this.

All the best in the essay contest,

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 08:39 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

It's nice to see that someone has understood the essence of my essay. Thank you for your careful reading.

You said:

Your conclusion "that parts are dependent on the whole (universe) and are also an integral part of the whole, therefore, the whole is also dependent on the parts!" Sums up the theme of the essay.

To be honest in the same way many conclusions are formulated and can probably be subsumed under the famous Mach Principle.

Treating the age of the universe in terms of cycles:

Actually, I was not begin of it .I received cycles as a result of my calculating. Then the principle of feedback helped to further understanding of the whole.

You said:

Boscovich's theory of natural philosophy has not earned the recognition it ought to have earned due to lack of publicity.

Boscovich was a very well known and respected European man in his time. The problem is that modern science continues to pursue some of the solutions that are full of paradoxes and anomalies. Young scientists would do well if solutions for their research look for in Boskovich natural philosophy. Boskovich saw many more than just atomic orbitals that he anticipated almost two centuries before it was discovered.

Rating is not important. It is important that my relation (2) began to live its life (without typos noted by Mr. Hugh Matlock). I shall read your essay carefully once more.

Regards,

Branko

Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 14:00 GMT
Hello Branko,

I read your deep and original essays with great interest because I saw the title essay is a very important concept «Cyclicity», but also because you are a meteorologist with the vast experience and research. An essay written by a beautiful language and it is easy to read. In your essay deep analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas, images, and conclusions. I totally agree with you: «It is crucial to accept the important role of cyclicity in the Universe. The cyclicity and the bit lead to reality, which is presented by the relations between physical constants. »

Your campaign is very clear to understand and explain the universe:

«Information, Cyclicity, Dimensionless quantities, The quantum nature of the Universe» . You take the weapons for research is not simply Occam's razor, and Occam's razor sharp.

Perfect conclusion: «Of great importance in this article is, I hope the widely-accepted view, that parts are dependent on the whole (Universe) and are also an integral part of the whole, therefore, the whole is also dependent on the parts !The key novelty introduced in this article is the treatment of the life of the Universe as the cycle, and not as the age of the Universe. Therefore, the Cycle of the Universe perceived in that way has the same age at any moment as in any other previous moment. The time is related to the existence of matter (substance) and without it does not make sense.»

My rating of your essay- «happy nine». Please look at my essay and fair vote.

Best regards,

report post as inappropriate

Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 15:31 GMT
Branko,

I found your essay truly original and imaginative. A most noteworthy effort. What caught my eye was your ending equation 'y= 2x'. Although you have a different approach than I do, I found your essay inspiring and most worthy of merit.

I wish you the best of luck in the competition.

Regards,

Manuel

report post as inappropriate

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 19:38 GMT

Thank you for your nice words.

very important concept «Cyclicity»

Actually, I was not begin of it . I received cycles as a result of my calculating. Then the principle of feedback helped to further understanding of the whole. I ask cosmologists: If Universe is not in Cycle where ciclycity cease (at Galaxies, or at Clasters, Filaments)¬? Where?

Perfect conclusion:

To be honest in the same way many conclusions are formulated and can probably be subsumed under the famous Mach Principle.

Becouse I made typo in my relation (2, I write one ln more) please note following.

Equation (2) can be written in different ways. Perhaps the following would be closer to the topic contest as used for the logarithm base 2 (Bit).

gama=2^{[cy/2+p/2+3*log(2pi,2)/2] / [1+137.035999074^2*log(mi,2)]}= 1.00137841920431

Regards,

Branko

M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 00:02 GMT
Branko,

I found your essay very interesting and your introduction of the works of Prof. Cadez, Milankovic and especially Boscovic fascinating. I completely agree with you that parts, as an integral components of the whole, are dependent on the whole just as much as the whole dependent on its parts. Or, put in the terms of information, any individual part acquires meaning only in the context of the whole.

I confess that I did not follow your computations closely but assumed they were right as you presented. Instead I followed your novel ideas of using dimensionless quantities to derive the length of the Cycle of the Universe, and especially that in the context of the Cycle of the Universe, at any given moment, its age is perceived as in any other moment. Does not this imply that the Universe is eternal? And if so, do you think it had a beginning? I.e. was there the first cycle?

You did not elaborate whether the Cycle of the Universe is the only time cycle, but I concur with you that cyclic processes underlie the reality. In my essay The Play of Mind in Emptiness I also speak of loops at the heart of recursive processes from which reality perpetually generated anew. I invite you to please read it and rate it :)

report post as inappropriate

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 04:19 GMT
Dear Manuel,

Thank you for your nice words.

I also found your essay truly original and inovative. The second reason is nice presentation and grafic.

Regards,

Branko

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 04:25 GMT
Vasilyeva,

What can be more symple than dimensionless quantities. If two dimensionless quantities

are constant, their ratio is constant as well. We just need to find the rule of that relationship.

Yes it imply that the Universe is eternal. But phenomena are final. So I define mass = 1, lenght = 1, Time Cycle= 1.

For our dominant materialistic perception of the world, the first cycle is related to the proton. Mathematically, there is a two pi as the first cycle. And that is the beginning.

But there are also as you say. This richness in variety of natures ability to capture various kinds of information out there makes us realize that we know of It only through bits our senses can deliver.

Yes I did not elaborate whether the Cycle of the Universe is the only time cycle. I said that in my Conclusion. That is a grate question ( about that, it is interesting to look in Hindu

mitology).

in some other way you also talk about cycles. I have already realized that your article is interesting, accurate and rated it.

Regards,

Branko

M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 02:09 GMT
Thank you Branko for answering my questions and for having read my essay :)

-Marina

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 14:23 GMT
Hello Branko,

I just read your essay. Very nice and will get a good rating. I saw your table at the end. The question I have for you is whether the Planck length is physically real or a geometric fiction? If you don't mind you can reply at my blog.

Thanks,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 15:41 GMT
Hello Akinbo,

Thank you for the kind words about my essay. I did not succeed to access your blog.

If you think of the particle, no particles having dimensions of Planck length.

For me, it is the smallest distance at which two elementary particles can come closer. In this sense it is a very real size. If you study the Rudjer Boskovich, you will see much more. He is at the level of atoms, anticipated many things the two centuries before Planck and Bohr.

If you send me your email I can send you shortened version of his work, as the original is very difficult to read.

Regards,

Branko

Yuri Danoyan replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 22:39 GMT
Branko

This is my attitude to Planck length.

http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0191

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 17:50 GMT
Dear Branko,

Thank you for asking me such a good question on my essay.

Your question is very relevant when we are in the centre of the universe. You remember, the discussions; Earth is at the centre. Sun is not at the centre of universe. Sun is not even at the centre of Milky way.

Our observable universe depends on power of telescopes. The higher the power of new telescopes, the higher will the observable radius.

When we are at the centre of the universe, then we will see the part of the universe go up one side and universe will go down another side. As our observations are limited, we can see only part movements.

Probably we are at off centre of universe. We have to do large scale n-body simulations.

Hence at present with the observed data , it is difficult to say, where exactly the cyclicity cease (at Galaxies, or at Clusters, Filaments). . . .

Thanks to FQXi for providing us such discussion forum.

What do you say?

Best

=snp

report post as inappropriate

Than Tin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 03:47 GMT
Hello Branko

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

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

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

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 07:07 GMT
Hi Yuri,

First of all, thank you for inviting me to participate in this interesting competition.

Of course there are many ways to explain the Planck length. I am to Mr. Okinbo briefly, in one sentence pointed out what I think is most important. I think the Rudjer Boskovich seen that length in item "a" of His power curve (Figure 1) in my work. That's why; to you and others I suggest studying his work. Someone who saw the atomic orbit and Planck length, two centuries before Bohr and Planck saw many more.

I read your article first day and I shall rate it last day.

All the best in the essay contest,

Regards,

Branko

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 07:46 GMT
Dear Anonymous Satyavarapu,

I am convinced that the cyclicity, ceases (nor in clusters, nor in filaments). Even the whole the Universe is cyclical. There is no logical reason to stop cyclicity at any level of the organization of matter. The question of the center of the universe raises the question of shape the universe. Presentation the Universe on National Geographic TV in form of a sphere for me is more ridiculous than fear of Columbus sailors, what happens when they reach the end of the flat earth. There is no privileged center, nor the edge of the Universe.

Regards,

Branko

Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 07:58 GMT
Dear Branco,

Still there is no response from you regarding comments on my essay and I would like to give you maximum possible rating on your innovative essay as I have promised although you care least for rating essays. So, please, rate my essay and inform me in my thread as it is very important for me.

All the best,

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 11:43 GMT
Dear Than Tin,

Something similar to you, I said in my article:

(Of course, this does not mean that I am proposing a new stereotype or that these four postulates are sufficient for explaining the functioning of the Universe. The results can be obtained in different ways.)

If you read my article you will see that Simplicity, expresed with Occams razor, is my main tool in computing my relation (2).

Plancks constant and Planck units I expresed in the table 1. in my article.

So, I expect your comment, on relation (2) and Table 1.

Regards,

Branko

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 10:50 GMT
Hi Hugh,

Thank you for the excellent substantive discussions by taking on the occasion of my article.

Could you please send me your email so I can give you the formulas in the right form?

The form of the formula that you gave is also possible. Value p is, by definition, the logarithm to the base two (mass of the universe / proton mass ). But I avoid using the term the number of protons in the universe, because I think that this is not the same as the ratio of masses of the Universe / proton. Not all masses of the Universe are in the proton.

My approach is very similar to hyperspherical structure that you discuss in Software Cosmos essay. I think I found a simpler approach, but it is essentially the same idea.I did not finde Nassim Haramein's geometric derivation of the proton mass and of the gravitational coupling constant. Thanks to your sugestions I think that relation (2) can be written more simple and acurate as:

$\gamma= 2^{(cy+p+3t)/(2+2a^{2}m)}=1.0013784192$

Where mathematical constant are:

$2\pi=6.2831853, t=log(2\pi,2)=2.6514961295, cy=e^{2\pi}= 535.4916555248$

Physical constants:

$a=1/\alpha=137.035999074, \mu=1836.15267245,m=log(\mu,2)=10.8424703056$

Also:

$p=log(Mu/mp,2)=cy/2-(\mu/a+1)/(\mu/a+2)-1=265.8107668189$

It is most obvious in bits.

Regards Branko

Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 07:44 GMT
Hi Branko,

> Could you please send me your email so I can give you the formulas in the right form?

Yes, I will write you.

> But I avoid using the term the number of protons in the universe, because I think that this is not the same as the ratio of masses of the Universe / proton. Not all masses of the Universe are in the proton.

Yes, of course, my mistake.

> My approach is very similar to hyperspherical structure that you discuss in Software Cosmos essay. I think I found a simpler approach, but it is essentially the same idea.

I would like to discuss this further, perhaps after the contest.

> I did not finde Nassim Haramein's geometric derivation of the proton mass and of the gravitational coupling constant.

Sorry, I will try again: try here.

> Thanks to your sugestions I think that relation (2) can be written more simple and acurate as: ...

Yes, this is very nice. My only suggestion is that we should write tau = 2pi. (See the Tau Manifesto by Michael Hartl.) Then the mathematical constants are simply tau, log_2(tau), and e^tau.

> It is most obvious in bits.

Yes, it suggests we are talking about information here. Thank you for this work, I hope I can understand what it means for the Software Cosmos.

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 02:32 GMT
Hi Branko,

> Could you please send me your email so I can give you the formulas in the right form?

Yes, I will write you.

> But I avoid using the term the number of protons in the universe, because I think that this is not the same as the ratio of masses of the Universe / proton. Not all masses of the Universe are in the proton.

Yes, of course, my mistake.

> My approach is very similar to hyperspherical structure that you discuss in Software Cosmos essay. I think I found a simpler approach, but it is essentially the same idea.

I would like to discuss this further, perhaps after the contest.

> I did not finde Nassim Haramein's geometric derivation of the proton mass and of the gravitational coupling constant.

Sorry, I will try again: try here.

> Thanks to your sugestions I think that relation (2) can be written more simple and acurate as: ...

Yes, this is very nice. My only suggestion is that we should write tau = 2pi. (See the Tau Manifesto by Michael Hartl.) Then the mathematical constants are simply tau, log_2(tau), and e^tau.

> It is most obvious in bits.

Yes, it suggests we are talking about information here. Thank you for this, I hope I can understand what it means for the Software Cosmos.

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT
Branco,

An exceptional essay, not just "well organised and practical" as you wished, but incisive and inspirational. I've also discussed how we're "Overwhelmed by information overload." Of course it helps that we agree on much, though our approaches to those truths couldn't be more different. I derived the dynamic cyclic (and ~fractal) universe (Helical CMB Asymmetry) and feedback before the complexity I discuss this year. There are also analogies in Hindu and Mayan cultures.

In terms of agreement I'm also a massive fan of Boscovich and 'non point' reality, but I learnt more from your essay, including a link with my point/circle correspondence for uncertainty. I've also found the Cartesian system inadequate for modelling evolution of interaction.

Your agreement with Klein last year is also warming as I find an almost infinitely hierarchical and recursive series of equivalent backgrounds for discerning maximum speed (as my last 3 essays).

Your mathematical derivations look quite brilliant. But I'm now no expert. What I am interested in is how you may find we can bridge the gap to decode the 'noise' of higher orders where uncertainty resides. I also commend the McHarris essay on chaos to read.

I agree your work is of great value, but will it be noticed and read? It certainly gets full points from me to get it up the list (though my last two finished 7th and were overlooked!!). I hope yours may anyway help produce a recursive mathematical description consistent with my ontology and closing the gap between current binary maths and nature.

Very well done and best wishes in rising from the information swamp.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 02:37 GMT
Dear Branko,

Yes, Branko : « Of great importance in this article is, I hope the widely-accepted view, that parts are dependent on the whole (Universe) and are also an integral part of the whole, therefore, the whole is also dependent on the parts! »

« whole, parts », two opposites.

Bits and cycles :

· Information

· Cyclicity

· Dimensionless quantities

· The quantum nature of the Universe

You are right. You'll be surprised one day to discover how your views are right.

My theory begins with the first principle : eDuality.

But I do not develop it here. A will publish a book.

One single principle leads the Universe.

Every thing, every object, every phenomenon

is under the influence of this principle.

Nothing can exist if it is not born in the form of opposites.

I simply invite you to discover this in a few words,

but the main part is coming soon.

Thank you, and good luck!

I rated your essay highly accordingly to my appreciation.

report post as inappropriate

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 07:17 GMT
Hello Peter,

Thank you for the kind words.

Honestly I met 2 percent Boskovich achievements until I developed my theory. I found his work to confirm my understanding. In my 61 years I have little time to study the depth of his work (very hard to read). I recommend it to younger people because of it certainly can benefit. It is very interesting that I am, McHarris article (its A = 3.82 is 3.829 for me) and your, repeatedly read and put in later to further study it. Your work, I was trying to understand, but it will be easier for me when I read your previous articles and translate it better. Then I'm going to call you on your email. Is it really, ymail.com, not gmail.com.

In any case, you deserve a high rate.

Regarding your concern, the work will be recognized. I quote Milutin Milankovich. Do not worry; my work is now living its own life. Now Milankovic is most cited in the world by climate change. Little is known that, during his life he was in Europe, the famous civil engineer and popular science writer.

Regards Branko

Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 09:13 GMT
Branko,

Thank you. We are the same age, and wisdom I think. But it must be true that for every Milankovich there may be 1,000 with important work buried under the information overload. It is not 'recognition' I'm worried about, only that the truth does not end up ignored and buried. 'Chance' always plays a hand, so every point now may be the one that makes the difference! Your work should also be noticed not lost.

I'm glad you'd like to stay in touch. The best papers of mine to read are my last two essays here, and my PR quantum optics paper with J Minkowski, on open access at arXiv; Resolution of Kantor...anomalies.

Very best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 09:40 GMT
Dear Amazigh,

I was all the principles and postulates first applied mathematically and then I realized it was already expressed in words. But nobody, it was not able to express with simple mathematical expressions.

Thanks for your, principled comment and rate.

Regards Branko

Patrick Tonin wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 14:49 GMT
Dear Branko,

"Of great importance in this article is, I hope the widely-accepted view, that parts are dependent on the whole (Universe) and are also an integral part of the whole, therefore, the whole is also dependent on the parts!"

Good work, nice formulae and I am not surprised because I agree with you that everything is linked to the age of the Universe. Do you have a proper theory behind these formulae ? If you haven't then you will find that people will just call it numerology or coincidence (unfortunately).

I have developped a theory that you might find of interest, it could shade some light on your formulae. I also have a lot of formulae and I am sure one could find some correlation with yours.

Let me know what you think.

You can also check out my essay and rate it if you like it.

Good luck with the contest.

Patrick

report post as inappropriate

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 08:53 GMT
Dear Patrick,

Thank you for the kind words.

There are some opinions that the Newtonian gravitational formula is approximate. Nevertheless we use it because it always gives good results. My and the Newton formula have the same source. The source is whole and its relationship with the parts. Thus, the formulas and hundreds of others (some in my table), the principle of feedback confirms each other. So I say that, Newton's gravitational formula is exact, valid for the specified domain length and force. Outside this domain, is interrupted and then apply Coulomb formula. Actually it's the same formula with the break. It can be seen on Boskovichs force curve.

Instead of the word equation or formula, I intentionally use the relation because of the way I came up to it. I also think that the determination of the relation between the fundamental physical constants easiest way to realize whole.

My relationship is not numerological. Part is explained here, part im the essay.

I saw a lot of numerology published in ArXiv. They are very happy to get the result with four significant digits are correct. My article, do not want to publish with 12 significant digit accurate.

Regards

Branko

Hugh Matlock wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 08:52 GMT
Hi Branko,

One more thing... I used your formula to determine the error bounds on gamma, and compared them to the CODATA 2010 error bounds. You can see the errors in parentheses here:

gamma = 1.001378419187(17) should equal

mn/mp = 1.001378419(89) the CODATA value.

Notice first that the calculation for gamma is within the error bounds of the CODATA determination, (which has an uncertainty for mass_n and mass_p of 7.4E-35 kg).

But notice also that the gamma calculation is much more precise than the ratio determined by CODATA.

Errors ratio in gamma = 1.73E-11 (calculated)

Error ratio in mn/mp = 8.85E-8 (CODATA)

In fact, the calculation is 5106 times as precise, so this value of gamma is a prediction for future determinations by CODATA. When I get some time, I will use your formula with older values for the CODATA constants and see how well it would have predicted the current values.

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 09:52 GMT
Dear Hugh,

I'm skeptical, what's going on Schwartzshild radius. All just talk about gravity. As if on that radius, repulsions indifferently waiting, what do attraction? We can talk about after the contest but it takes a very good grasp of Rudjer Boskovich.

I am known about the proposal (tau). Unfortunately I need three alphabets. Tau is used for tau (particle). It would be good to expand the application of tau manifesto.

Regards,

Branko

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 11:13 GMT
Dear Hugh

Thank you very much Hugh.

You are the furthest in understanding of my concept.

To the accuracy of the CODATA is something I expect, someone to do that, using my concept. I would be very happy to do you, with my wholehearted support. There is no reason that most of the values in the table CODATA is not with the same accuracy as the Rydberg constant. I'm not familiar with all the rules and procedures for obtaining CODATA value so that I can accurately understand your results, but I know principle.

It would also help, according to the principle of feedback, my concept to understand Phd. physics, or to begin to stop treating me like a monkey who entered their territory, (one said that my formula is curiosity).

In fact, the calculation is 5106 times as precise (maybe acurate insted precise).

I will be very glad that you review my next work before publication.

Regards,

Branko

Dipak Kumar Bhunia wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 13:36 GMT
Dear Dr. Branko,

In this very last episode of contest and being a very slow reader I have manage to read your essay. Thanks for the context of the essay. What you wrote "Of great importance in this article is, I hope the widely-accepted view, that parts are dependent on the whole (Universe) and are also an integral part of the whole, therefore, the whole is also dependent on the parts!" That is both are inseparable to each others. What I also basically wrote in concluding part of my essay: "Therefore, ‘it’ and ‘bit’ are never separable from each other within the range of the digital observation of nature". So I invite you to have at least a quick look on my essay.

I like to express there a new common definition for both macro and micro levels of particle systems in nature. If few possible why not we think to give the good honors for both the essays?

With regards

Dipak

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1855

report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 13:39 GMT
Dear Branko,

I have read your enjoyable Essay, as I promised in my Essay page. Here are my comments:

2) Your idea on cycles for the Universe as a whole could be connected with some paper of mine concerning an oscillating Universe, see here and here.

3) Your relation (2) is extremely interesting and I agree with you that it cannot be a coincidence. Congrats for this.

5) Thanks for emphasizing the rule of Boscovich's theory in your ideas. It is a correct tribute to a great scientist who should deserve a better attention from the Scientific Community.

4) Do you think that your statement "It from bit via the cycles" could be conciliated with my statement "Information tells physics how to work. Physics tells information how to flow"?

In any case, I find your Essay very intriguing, thus, I will give you an high rate.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate
Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 23:33 GMT
Hi Branko and Christian,

I noticed also that cy makes an appearance in Christian's current essay at equation (16).

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

Michel Planat wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 15:29 GMT
Dear Branko,

I found your derivations quite fascinating.

Myself I did a lot in the past about the measurement of time couple to number theory.

Here are a few pointers

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/math-ph/0510044

http://xxx.la
nl.gov/abs/0812.2170

I see that much has still to be done about cycles.

Congratulations. I intend to give you a high rate.

My essay here is quite different and you may wish to have a look.

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

Michel

report post as inappropriate

john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 16:15 GMT
Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 16:25 GMT
Dear Christian

1) Thank you

2) I have to admit that Langrazian is out of my education (ok, I forget after 40 years).

3) Thanks, in the exponent who wants to watch, can see the values of Planck and the nucleus.

5) In fact, when I finished my concept I saw that Boskovich three centuries ago saw the universe better than other.

4) I think that your statement "Information tells physics how to work. Physics tells information how to flow" is conciliated with my statement "It from bit via the cycles"

Good luck with the contest and thanks for rating

Cheers,

Branko

report post as inappropriate

Hugh Matlock wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 03:30 GMT
Hi Branko,

I used your formula to determine the uncertainty on gamma, and compared them to the CODATA 2010 uncertainty. I show them here in "concise" form with parentheses:

gamma = 1.001378419187(17) should equal

mn/mp = 1.001378419(89) the CODATA value.

Notice first that the calculation for gamma is within the uncertainty of the CODATA determination, which has an uncertainty for mass of the neutron and mass of the proton of 7.4E-35 kg.

But notice also that the gamma calculation is much more precise than the ratio determined by CODATA:

Uncertainty in gamma = 1.734E-11

Uncertainty in mn/mp = 8.85E-8

In fact, the calculation is 5106 times as precise, so this is a prediction for future determinations by CODATA.

But note that for this analysis, we have calculated the uncertainty in the CODATA mn/mp by using their final values for mn and mp. However, within the CODATA system, the ratio of mn/mp is known more accurately than either the mass of the neutron (mn) or the mass of the proton (mp), so perhaps we have been a bit unfair to CODATA.

On the other hand, in calculating the Zivlak gamma (as I call it) we have used the mass of the electron and the mass of the proton as input values separately. Within CODATA again, their ratio is known more accurately than their values. So we might be able to improve the Zivlak calculation as well.

I will take these considerations into account in the next post.

Hugh

report post as inappropriate
Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 03:36 GMT
Hi Branko,

Using NIST website CODATA values for 2010 and previous years, I have been looking at the accuracy of your formula. I wondered, using older experimental values, how well the formula could predict the currently best known value of mn/mp (i.e. from CODATA 2010).

First, here is the data I used:

Year mass_e mass_p mass_n

1969 9.1095580(540)e-31
...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 07:55 GMT
Hi Branko,

Let's try this again, with the tables in LaTeX...

Using NIST website CODATA values for 2010 and previous years, I have been looking at the accuracy of your formula. I wondered, using older experimental values, how well the formula could predict the currently best known value of mn/mp (i.e. from CODATA 2010).

First, here is the data I...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 08:23 GMT
Hi Branko,

Once again...

Using NIST website CODATA values for 2010 and previous years, I have been looking at the accuracy of your formula. I wondered, using older experimental values, how well the formula could predict the currently best known value of mn/mp (i.e. from CODATA 2010).

First, here is the data I used:

[equation]

[equation]

In 1969 and 1973,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 04:50 GMT
Thank you, Hugh. It is indeed a pleasure to talk with you.

Regards,

Branko

George Kirakosyan wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 07:11 GMT
Hi Branko,

So, I definitely welcome your work and I intended to study it further (when we will finish this battle!) Then we can examine the details and change our opinions on more reasonable ground. I have rated your work on good score!

Best wishes,

George

report post as inappropriate

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 10:13 GMT
Hi George,

Thank you for kind words.I saw your opinion and I am redy for colaborations.

After this battle or I will say Forum.

Regards,

Branko

Michel Planat wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 17:37 GMT
Dear Branko,

I have a long standing interest in the physics of time measurements in its connection to arithmetic. You can have a look when you have time

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/math-ph/0510044

http://xxx.lanl.g
ov/abs/quant-ph/0304101

Your present essay is very interesting and your formulas are impressive although they seem to arise from nowhere. I will be interested to understand more in the future. From my experience in the physics of low frequency fluctuations in arbitrary natural systems, I have the feeling that your approach with cycles is different from others that presuppose a stationary universe. On the other hand they are at least two alternative views for deriving constants in this FQXI contest (Patrick Tonin and Angel Doz). I wonder if any bridge can be obtained with their approach.

If you still have time you may have a look at my present essay which is on a different taste.

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

Best wishes,

Michel

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 17:44 GMT
Zivlak,

As a farmer and horseman for my 53 years of life, I have great appreciation for meteorology and the advances it has made in the last forty+ years. I have approached this contest, as well as the habit of trying to comprehend nature, from a naturalistic and non-academic position. I started reading texts on physics out of a very basic desire to make sense of the natural and civil...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 17:50 GMT
Omega=1

than the whole expanding universe/inflationary cosmology idea.

report post as inappropriate

Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 20:37 GMT
Dear Branko,

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 too - if not all.

I WILL ATTEMPT to revisit all threads to check and re-post something. i think your thread was one affected by this.

I can't remember the full extent of what I said, but I have notes to rate you very highly, so will do so now, in case of further bugs. Hope it helps!

Hopefully the posts will be able to be retrieved by FQXi.

Best wishes,

Antony

report post as inappropriate
Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 13:20 GMT
Hi Branko,

antryanet@outlook.com

Best wishes,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Chidi Idika wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 06:06 GMT
Dear Branko,

It is good to know that your kind of argument exists.You say that: "The key novelty introduced in this article is the treatment of the life of the Universe as the cycle, and not as the age of the Universe. Therefore, the Cycle of the Universe perceived in that way has the same age at any moment as in any other previous moment."

Now once we allow that any cycle at all must be defined from a PHASE SPACE of sort then it follows that your thesis suggests my claim that what is known in QM as the wavefunction (if it has to be seen as the fundamental element in physics) has to signify what we know intuitively as the "observer" (and which Einstein called the "reference frame").

I can identify with your insight. Could you find the time to read What a Wavefunction is and let me have your critical comment (and rating!). But note especially how my own thesis may relate to your own.

Do spare me a bit of your time. Am sure to come back here and rate your essay according as I have found it very relevant.

All the best,

Chidi

report post as inappropriate

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 11:09 GMT
Dear Michel,

I looked at your arXiv paper.

Physics will surely one day come to the primes. The problem is that it is easier to get

first than some other mathematical constants. Ramajunan constant is probably among the top ten. I guess. Of course, the easiest is to get to 2pi and e, what I showed. Maybe in ten years we will show that the fine structure constant is a mathematical constant.

When I see a Hilbert space, Minkowski, Cartesian system, I do not read further (the Milankovich ref. 2 in my essay).

If you want, I can send you my new version of the article without the written errors, on your mail. Kindness Hugh Matlock, you can see the another proof that my relations (2) is successful. That is on my essay web page. It is no numerological formula.

Regards,

Branko

Michel Planat replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 12:11 GMT
Dear Branko,

Thank you for your response. Milankovitch did great work on cycles, I can guess he would had liked Ramanujan type signal processing too (my second) reference above).

I agree that a mathematical theory of physical constants will be discovered. This is challenging and I admire you and others to spend time at discovering it.

It is a pity that you aze not interested in the algebraic and geometrical structure of the Hilbert space. My conviction is that we cannot avoid it to achieve further progress in physics but I may be wrong.

My best wishes,

Michel

report post as inappropriate

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 13:34 GMT
Ier Michel

I said in my essay

Of course, this does not mean that I am proposing a new stereotype or that these four postulates are sufficient for explaining the functioning of the Universe. The results can be obtained in different ways. We will see what will be obtained by the consistent application of the above postulates.

So, I am not genius, to know everything. But I think that I am master of simplicity. I chose meteorology. Hilbert space is also one of the paths, so you're not wrong.

Regards,

Branko

Michel Planat wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 14:21 GMT
Dear Branko,

You mentioned Ramanujan's constant: below a copy of a recent message from Mark Thomas to me.

michel.planat@femto-st.fr

Michel

**********************
******

Dear Professor Planat,

You might be interested in this.

I found an amazing relation which may or may not be a coincidence. I found that a product of Ramanujan constant squared and a vector property of the Leech Lattice is extraordinarily close to a physics calculation:

e^(2pi sqrt163) 70^2 is nearly equal to hc/piGm^2 where m is neutron mass

and e^(pi sqrt163) is Ramanujan constant and 70^2 (4900) is related to the construction of the Leech lattice from a 26 dimensional Lorenztian lattice utilising the 26 coordinates of the lightlike vector (null vector). The 4900 is also related to Lucas' problem of perfect square stacking of cannonballs which in turn is related to higher dimensional packing of spheres. A reference for this is OEIS A161771. Robert Munafo does a good general analysis (not an explanation) of this relation on his excellent website 'Notable Properties of Specific Numbers' under entry 3.377 x 10^38

http://mrob.com/pub/math/numbers-18.html#le038_337

Mark Thomas

*************************************

report post as inappropriate
Michel Planat replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 14:32 GMT
also (source Mark Thomas)

report post as inappropriate

Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 20:39 GMT
Dear Branko L Zivlak

I am an old physician and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called “time”.

I am sending you a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 06:40 GMT
Dear Michel,

I think that every relation that gives a result within one sigma CODATA values should be considered. Proposed by (163) is far beyond that.

Regards

Branko

report post as inappropriate

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 08:40 GMT
Dear Daniel,

In my article I have some intriguing views and formulas. I will be happy to clarify some views if you ask. For Hokinng I'm not an expert.

Regards,

Branko

Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 15:31 GMT
Hi Branko,

These three masses arise from my 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

To relate the Electron, Proton and Neutron masses. This is all from my main theory which has now show in my essay what can happen to information when it falls into a Black Hole.

I look forward to your emails after the contest!

Best wishes and kind regards - I'm glad you've risen up the rankings!

Antony

report post as inappropriate

eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 22:30 GMT
Dear Branko,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

report post as inappropriate

Michel Planat wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 22:18 GMT
Dear Branko,

I just gave you a high rate for your excellent work.

Best wishes.

Michel

report post as inappropriate

Author Branko L Zivlak wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:18 GMT
Hi Michel

Thank you,

I especially thank you for your comments. Let's be in touch and best of luck in the continuation of competition. I rate you 8.

Regards Branko

Michel Planat replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 15:49 GMT
Thank you Branko. Let's keep in touch. Have good holidays. Michel

report post as inappropriate

Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 18:57 GMT
Dear Branko,

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.

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

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 20:44 GMT
Dear Branko,

Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay. I have looked at your essay and find some points of agreement. For example, you say "Overwhelmed by information overload, sometimes contradictory, we have to decide in advance which information we would pay attention to." For example, although general relativity applies to almost everything, I am primarily focused on the application of GR to particle physics.

I also agree that the Cycle is a fundamental concept on which to focus, and believe that gravito-magnetism introduced the fundamental cycle into existence when the primordial symmetry broke.

I have also been playing with James Putnam's idea of dimensionless force, and find that this leads to some insights that might otherwise be missed. I certainly agree with you that the fine structure constant is a key dimensionless parameter, but I do not find the proton-electron mass ration to be significant in my theory. I have not had time to study the values in your table.

Thanks again for reading my essay and coming back to it.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate